Читать книгу Alexander Solzhenitsyn: Cold War Icon, Gulag Author, Russian Nationalist? - Elisa Kriza - Страница 9

There are few previous studies of Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s Western reception, and even fewer that are comparative. In addition to the following specific studies of Solzhenitsyn’s reception, in this book I will also refer to articles or book sections that thematize this subject in some way, and discuss their findings.

Birgit Meyer and Robert Conquest have written on this author’s reception in the media in West Germany and in the UK, respectively.[4] John Dunlop has written on Solzhenitsyn’s reception in the US in general, and Edward E. Ericson, on his Western reception.[5] Friedhelm Boll and Stephane Sirot recently published an article on Solzhenitsyn’s reception among French and German intellectuals in the 1970s.[6] Furthermore, Solzhenitsyn has been included in Birgit Meyer and Sonja Hauschild’s respective studies on the reception of Soviet dissidents in Germany—as well as France in Hauschild’s case.[7] The scope, the focus and the approach of all these studies have been very diverse. All of these scholars have been confronted with a gargantuan task, which they could not tackle in all its complexity within the limited frame of an article or book section. Some authors decided to concentrate on one type of reception, or a smaller time frame. A couple of studies of Solzhenitsyn’s reception simply contain an overview of the reception of one work or speech, but lack, of course, more general results.[8] Unfortunately, none of these earlier studies had a framework that allowed for a deeper look into the historical and social context of the reception or into the type of work that was receiving it. At times, this has resulted in generalizations that reflect these restraints and perhaps mirror the political constraints of Cold War scholarship. Three studies by Conquest, Dunlop and Meyer (1985) were all published in the same anthology of articles on Solzhenitsyn, and all share the view that détente and Ostpolitik were central to the author’s appreciation in the West. They also give rise to a false impression that Solzhenitsyn was under siege in East and West due to his controversial views. Edward Ericson shares the sympathy with the Russian dissident that these three authors express in their articles, but this unfortunately affects the way they all write about others’ reception, for example by repeatedly describing criticism as “attacks” or “misrepresentations”. For instance, Conquest writes about some British commentators’ claim that Solzhenitsyn’s tone is authoritarian as follows:

This view of his “authoritarianism” merged into attacks on his supposed hostility to democracy, together with his supposed predilection for Tsardom. This is, of course, a complete misrepresentation of Solzhenitsyn’s position.[9]

Conquest ends his article by comparing Solzhenitsyn with a doctor who has come to warn us that a cholera outbreak is spreading—cholera being his choice of a metaphor for communism—and compelling his readers not to choose denial or wrongful criticism but rather accept Solzhenitsyn’s message.[10] This example underlines the import of examining Solzhenitsyn’s work while discussing his reception, and the need for a new, less polemic approach. The effects of widespread worries and fears in the Cold War are evident in this case, and they are a reminder of the advantages that I enjoy by working in dramatically changed conditions. Today, the political overtone of previous studies becomes apparent and can be re-evaluated. Newer readings and approaches can contribute to the identification of past misjudgements and an assessment of their consequences. However, I do not wish to dismiss the relevance of these previous studies. They made an important contribution to scholarship by raising questions about the role of dissidents in a politically delicate environment. I can build upon their experience and reflect on this topic from a different historical context.