Inside the Rainbow Discussion
source: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/fdaa6fc4-2523-11e3-9dcc-00144feab7de.html#slide14
source: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/fdaa6fc4-2523-11e3-9dcc-00144feab7de.html#slide14
This article discusses the tools of the Russian Revolution and in particular, "how to mould and inspire human beings fit for this wonderful new world" that was to be the new Mother Russia. It is described as a great experiment undertaken by the Russian artists of the time, to build new, proletarian-favouring citizens of the future, targeting children by using literature.
I find it interesting that the writer of this article finds
it incredible that at this time, scholars still found time to discuss children's
literature, due to great famine. Firstly, during this time throughout the
world, children were of utmost importance to the rebuild of a state, as can be
seen in Hitler's Germany also, where children were to be the future soldiers
and mothers that the state would so desperately need. In a sense, Russia's
attitude was similar to Germany's in this regard. Secondly, and related to the
former point, intellectuals who were trying to rebuild the economy would not only
look towards the current economical needs of the state, but would also
determine future tools to maintain the economy and one of those tools, were the
children. Through literature, you could manipulate the minds of the children
and therefore the future of the state.
Two points particularly stood out to me that I would like to
discuss, as I believe the remainder of the articles contents were reasonably
obvious but nevertheless intriguing to read. As Lev Kormchy described in the 1918
so-called Pravda publication, which incidentally means 'truth', children's literature
was the forgotten weapon that the enemy was using against them and they should
seize and use also. Yanovskaya in 1925 wrote that traditional fairy-tales that
we have grown up with prevented understanding of historical materialism and
were a tool used by the bourgeoisie to exploit children "so children who
[were] hungry and cold [could] escape into the world of fantasy and feel
imaginary happiness." I do not wholly agree with this point of view- I
believe she has underestimated the power of a 'happy child.' There are ways of
creating happy fairy-tales for children that could represent the proletariats as
good and the bourgeoisie as bad, with the 'happy ending' being one that
favoured and endorsed communism. It seems at first glance, to me at least, that
Yanovskaya is saying that a happy child engrossed in happy fairy-tales is an
exploited child, when she could be 'exploiting' the children in the same way,
but with her twist on it. Their insistence on realistic substance being
incorporated into new Russian literature is, to me, a more straightforward and
clear way of introducing themes to a children's novel which has occurred for centuries.
This to me is ironic, as some Russian scholars
could derive outrageous meanings of anti-proletarian thought from a novel about a boy who did not want to
wash according to this article.
While it seemed that the children were being used as puppets
to secure the state that the leaders at the time believed appropriate, there
were some positives that arose. Literacy of citizens was deemed very important
and as a result the literacy rate increased significantly. It highlighted the
effects of the revolution and prompted stability to remedy these issues.
Undoubtedly, it reflected an almost world-wide culture of using children to
promote the ideologies of the state. If one were to think back to the
fairy-tales that we grew up with, you could derive morals and meanings behind
them that reflected the political ideology of the time. Russia is not alone in
this.
All in all I found this to be a very interesting piece and I
do not think that it is all that different to today. Whether or not it is literature,
I know I for one was influenced by my education and the 'side' that it tended
to take, particularly when discussing history. As a result, I grew up believing
that some people were 'evil' and we were always good, which of course is not a
balanced view of history. While the material was not all that new to me, it
offered a deepened perspective on the propaganda of the Russian revolution and
reminded me of the power that must, and is, placed on the youth of the state,
to secure the future of tomorrow.
It doesn't strike me as particularly surprising that Soviet Russia would place so much interest in childrens literature - folk tales have always been one of the oldest and earliest forms of political representation in Europe, and ways in which to convey didactic ideology to broad sectors of an impoverished society would be key for a nation seeking to rebuild itself. Children's stories have political power more insidious than plain indoctrination: especially where literacy levels are lower, children's stories reach adults also. The apparent propogandist nature of some works mentioned aside, to reach children in this way conveys a message about the reach and power of the state to all citizens ( as evidenced by the anecdote about a man arrested for reciting a humorous poem about Stalin). States that are politically unstable have all the more reason to focus their attention on vehicles for ideology.
ReplyDeleteI think it is interesting that you note that during this period that literacy/education levels of both children and adults rose. Obviously the benefits of educating children meant that there is more opportunity to influence the youth and promote your regime. However, surely educating adults would only weaken your dictatorship. As people become more aware they also may begin to question what is going on. Being able to read allows room for questioning as people can read anything – not just propaganda. I can see the strengths in stories but struggle to see benefits in education for an autocratic regime, it only makes you more accountable to the people.
ReplyDeleteI found this article incredibly interesting, thanks for posting it!
ReplyDeleteThe indoctrinating power of literature, especially upon children, is often overlooked. It is also not confined by ideology, and in this respect I sympathise with the goals of post-revolution Russia - under the early years of Lenin. Inadvertently, or perhaps intentionally, pre-revolution literature reinforces the old power structures of the society which had just been dismantled. This occurs in the repeated narrative of wealth, religion, class (monarchies) determining happiness in children's literature. There are obviously exceptions, but one can appreciate the need for a literary space free from these power structures. Why can't a chimney sweep have happiness too?
Evidently there was a suppression of artistic pursuit in some respects. However literature was freed, just like Russian society, of the power structures that had previously suffocated it.
*Disclaimer* - I'm only referring to the early years under Lenin, when Anatoly Lunacharsky was head of the Soviet People’s Commissariat for Enlightenment. He seemed to promote creativity and literary development, and I think the article commends him.
i think its very interesting they tried to educate and increase the literacy rates of the youth instead of primarily attempting in indoctrinate the values of the regime into their youth. Literacy sort of opens the door to wider education and therefore increases the chances of people educating themselves about their state and perhaps comparing it to another regime and seeing the weaknesses of what they have. In short the more educated the people the more 'aware' they are likely to be about political matters and one could hypothesis that this would have the effect of undermining how the regime and leadership is viewed.
ReplyDeleteIf we look at regimes like Nazi Germany and the Hitler Youth groups, the policies in regard to children were more consumed with indoctrinating and reinforcing the most extreme views and support for Nazi ideology and breeding hatred of hte groups the state wanted to subjugate. Such actions would seem more in line with upholding a non-democratic regime that literacy and the reading of fairy tales and such from which the messages are more about life lessons and morality rather than political values and ideologies.
Thus what the Russians did in this time seems to defy logic about regime stabilization... but was it really counterproductive?
Wow that's an interesting article.
ReplyDeleteI'm not that surprised that they thought to use this medium for implanting their revolutionary ideals in children since propaganda was used heavily at this time, and really this is a form of propaganda that although is less obvious, it can still have a strong influence. Children's minds are easier to mold than adults as they question so much more and are still trying to make sense of the world, and so it makes sense to target those most vulnerable to it.
I do however think that this method works better as supporting an established regime rather than as part of a revolutionary change. Particularly because children may be influenced by these ideas even at a subconscious level, but they will still pay very close attention to what their parents views. So if they grow up in an anti-revolution family, no fairy-tail will convince them to ignore all their parents influence and change their minds. As well as this, who is to say that they will grow up and continue to believe in the revolutionary ideas introduced in these stories. Either they take on board the ideas that they were exposed to as a child and support the regime (if it is still standing), or they grow up and realize that fairy-tails are all they are when faced with the facts.
On another note, I think its important to note that this tactic of indoctrinating children through books, or today movies and tv shows, is still in use. One example being the Disney film Anastasia. Once my favorite story and movie, I watched again last year and (particularly after studying the Russian revolution) realised how full of propaganda it is! for example in an opening song, the people sing that "since the [Bolshevik] revolution our lives have been so grey," while Rasputin is portrayed as the central villain with supernatural powers.