Page 158 - Vinkler, Jonatan, Ana Beguš and Marcello Potocco. Eds. 2019. Ideology in the 20th Century: Studies of literary and social discourses and practices. Koper: University of Primorska Press
P. 158
Ideology in the 20th Century: studies of literary and social discourses and practices
of Europeanization—in order to acquire a strong position with regard to
European culture” (Tsipuria 2010, 11). These ideas were intractable for
Soviet ideologists. With the help of the aggressive efforts of the authori-
ties, a “new Soviet canon emerged to replace the universal one” (Ratiani
2015, 161). The Soviet literary canon soon replaced the national one, and
Georgian literature was distanced from Western European literary space.
During the Second World War, the generalized Soviet mental cor-
relate of Homo sovieticus was finally formed: the ‘Great Patriotic War’
served as a prop of the dictatorship. The concept ‘I’ had long since been re-
placed by the concept ‘We,’ which was the most significant achievement
of the policy of equality and collectivism declared in the Soviet Union.
During the war, the speech of Soviet journalism proved to be the most
successful functional and stylistic implementation of Soviet discourse.
158 Social and political journalism proceeding from its genre specificity ful-
ly fit the process of the ideology; however, in a discourse of this type two
different layers can be distinguished:
a) The official press as a manifestation of the position of Soviet ide-
ologues; this included the leading newspapers (Pravda, Izvestia,
Komunisti, etc.) as well as journals in which popular and schol-
arly articles were controlled, and radio reports (one need only re-
call the well-known timbre and dramatic texts of Yuri Levitan, a
Soviet radio announcer during the Second World War);2 and
b) Artistically refined patriotic texts of authoritative writers
expressing sincere support for the overall ethnic problem.
In contrast to these two layers, epistolary texts (i.e., writers’ person-
al records and private correspondence) were one of the rare examples in
which the split was felt between the official stance and the real situation.
Owing to the experience of general physical threat, from 1941 to 1945 an-
ti-Soviet discourse, which was well shaped in the 1930s, was present only
in the underground, and it also acquired a relatively fragmentary char-
acter. Even a desire to single out the identities of Soviet peoples was re-
garded as treason: the wartime film directors were forced to introduce a
multiethnic gallery of characters into their films, which further intensi-
fied the pathos of universal consolidation and harmonious coexistence,
much more significant than national self-determination. Invocations of
the common social threat and consolidation further refuted the necessity
2 Yuri Levitan was the primary Soviet radio announcer during and after the Second
World War. He announced all major international events from the 1940s to the
1960s.
of Europeanization—in order to acquire a strong position with regard to
European culture” (Tsipuria 2010, 11). These ideas were intractable for
Soviet ideologists. With the help of the aggressive efforts of the authori-
ties, a “new Soviet canon emerged to replace the universal one” (Ratiani
2015, 161). The Soviet literary canon soon replaced the national one, and
Georgian literature was distanced from Western European literary space.
During the Second World War, the generalized Soviet mental cor-
relate of Homo sovieticus was finally formed: the ‘Great Patriotic War’
served as a prop of the dictatorship. The concept ‘I’ had long since been re-
placed by the concept ‘We,’ which was the most significant achievement
of the policy of equality and collectivism declared in the Soviet Union.
During the war, the speech of Soviet journalism proved to be the most
successful functional and stylistic implementation of Soviet discourse.
158 Social and political journalism proceeding from its genre specificity ful-
ly fit the process of the ideology; however, in a discourse of this type two
different layers can be distinguished:
a) The official press as a manifestation of the position of Soviet ide-
ologues; this included the leading newspapers (Pravda, Izvestia,
Komunisti, etc.) as well as journals in which popular and schol-
arly articles were controlled, and radio reports (one need only re-
call the well-known timbre and dramatic texts of Yuri Levitan, a
Soviet radio announcer during the Second World War);2 and
b) Artistically refined patriotic texts of authoritative writers
expressing sincere support for the overall ethnic problem.
In contrast to these two layers, epistolary texts (i.e., writers’ person-
al records and private correspondence) were one of the rare examples in
which the split was felt between the official stance and the real situation.
Owing to the experience of general physical threat, from 1941 to 1945 an-
ti-Soviet discourse, which was well shaped in the 1930s, was present only
in the underground, and it also acquired a relatively fragmentary char-
acter. Even a desire to single out the identities of Soviet peoples was re-
garded as treason: the wartime film directors were forced to introduce a
multiethnic gallery of characters into their films, which further intensi-
fied the pathos of universal consolidation and harmonious coexistence,
much more significant than national self-determination. Invocations of
the common social threat and consolidation further refuted the necessity
2 Yuri Levitan was the primary Soviet radio announcer during and after the Second
World War. He announced all major international events from the 1940s to the
1960s.
