to revolt or not to revolt to assert one's freedom

In the late 70’s Soviet Regimen the Mit’ki movement emerged. Conformed by an alien and alienated bunch of freaks, the group’s creative goal was not to consciously threaten the government, but to dismantle their linkage with any sort of power struggle Soviet society might undergo. A. Yurchack argues that, in contrast to traditional critical intellectuals, the position of a-politization the Mit’ki movement adopted was not only political, but it was also a very powerful weapon against the regimen (723). If that is the case can we state the choice of consciously not acting is the most significant act of rebellion an individual might adopt?

Traditionally, critical intellectuals embark on a creative process that departs from the existing structures, and seeks to deconstruct the fallacies of such regimen. By resisting the regimen from inside, opposition and elite develop a symbiotic relation where the existence of one group renders the existence of the other possible. On the one hand, by actively resisting state forces, one contributes to the construction of the identity of such regimen by reinforcing the ideals one seeks to contest. On the other hand, one’s identity is constructed through the opposition to the existent structures. The projection of an outside reality surpassing the constraints of the regimen is just partially achieved, since the cultural objects produced, lay on the foundations of the already existing structures.

In contrast, by taking a non-existing position within the regimen, the Mit’ki movement succeeded in projecting and performing an alien reality. Such distance towards the regimen challenge the Soviet foundations. By placing both their cultural products and themselves in a non-engaged position, they succeeded in producing a new subjectivity outside the existing discourse. Censors could not object cultural products that do not convey any sort of inflammatory claim. Yet, such a-political position threatens the foundations of Soviet Reality, as it underlies the naïve but conscious choice to remain outside state control. The Mit’ki youngsters were able to surpass the private-public Soviet control by the very simple act of not- rebelling, and actively doing nothing for or against Soviet reality.

In lieu of becoming involved in a struggle of hegemonic forces, the Mit’kis asserted their personal freedom by alienating themselves from the existing structures. By consciously becoming outsiders, they retain the freedom a totalitarian regimen sought to obliterate.

Yurchak, Alexey. “Suspending the Political: Late Soviet Artistic Experiments on the Margins of the State.” Poetics Today 29: 4 (Winter 2008), 713-733.