Relationships of Censorship

The Girardian Interpretation in the context of Tolstaya’s Intelligentsia:

To what extent can the Russian intelligentsia be understood in relation to the girardian interpretation of struggles for power. Firstly, the Girardian interpretation depicts two contesting forces in direct opposition, who both desire the same object. Applied to censorship this delineates the contestation between on the one side, that censor and the state and conversely the opposition and intellectual society - where both sides desire power over society.

Considering Russia previous to 1917, three groups are identifiable, the state, the intelligentsia and the people, where the state and the ‘people’ under the guidance of the Bolsheviks are in competition for power. Thereby, the intelligentsia can be placed in the third category, it can be seen as the power over society.

To elaborate, consider Tolstaya’s understanding of the intelligentsia as a spirit,

“The intelligentsia was characterized by ideas of universal human brotherhood, selflessness to the point of asceticism, active compassion to the disenfranchised, a Christian sense of service combined with an almost obligatory atheism.” (Tolstaya, 316).

This moral positioning is a means to power over society; consequently the Bolsheviks guiding principles had to encompass this in order to gain legitimacy. Lenin’s ideology can be seen as embracing this moral standing, driven by desire for equality and workers liberation. 

In this case the intelligentsia, is the target of competing factions.  In capturing this spirit - or convincing the mass of the population that either side followed this moral stance - they could effectively exert power over society.

Through the development of the Soviet Union we can see the convergence of these two poles, as the bolsheviks become the state they effectively take on it features, the use of oppression being principle. Consequently the intelligentsia becomes censored as an entity, it is socially rejected: this is because as “imitative desire for the object transforms into violence, collapsing distinctions between the two rivals, both agree to sacrifice the object” (Robbe) thereby the intelligentsia is sacrificed, thus becoming the scapegoat. 

Epitomising the role of the scapegoat Tolstaya writes “The intelligentsia thought that perestroika was designed for its benefit alone; but as it turned out, the intelligentsia was needed by no-one  — not by the government, […] nor by the people, who acquired more and more fascist features” (327). Essentially the communist party becomes the state and censor, while the people become disillusioned, and the intelligentsia rejected.

Robbe, Ksenia. ‘Resisting Censorship” Leiden University, The Hague,February 2015. Workgroup Presentation

Tolstaya, Tatyana. “The Perils of Utopia: The Russian Intelligentsia under Communism and Perestroyka.” Development and Change 27 (1996): 315-329.