Kaminskij_231509

8/20/2019 Kaminskij_231509

1/15

Die Welt der Slaven LVIII, 2013, 261-275.

N A K E D S O U L O N N A K E D S O I L

Economics and the Ethnogenesis of “D!an”

Since Andrej Platonov’s “D!an” [1935, first published in 1964] was firstreviewed, many scholars have rightly paid attention to the mythopoetic

components of the novella. Vladimir Turbin, in particular, derived thecomposition of “D!an” from the medieval genre of mystery play ("#$%&' 1965). Later intertextual research has focused on the impact of Biblical(Bodin 1991), Gnostic (Ingdahl 2000), Zoroastrian ((#')#$*+,--&-./$0,' 2000) and Sufi (Ismailov 2001) allegories incorporated in thestory. Some recent interpretations of “D!an” analyse the artistic tech-niques, self-referentiality and gender semantics of Platonov’s novella(Hutchings 2002; Livers 2004). Much research has highlighted the crucialanalogy between the protagonist, Nazar 1agataev, and the mythic Pro-metheus that culminates in the impressive scene when 1agataev uses hisbody to lure vultures in the desert. He thus provides sustenance for his

people, the D!an – a multiethnic, nomadic-like tribe starving whilesearching for a place to settle down. That the fractal personality of 1aga-taev incorporates patriarchal Moses, ascetic Jesus, romantic Prometheusand Stalin himself has been observed in detail in the works cited above.

Here it is my purpose to examine 1agataev’s embodiment as Hermes,by using the figurative language of Greek mythology but then switchingfrom a mythological reading of “D!an” to an (ethno-) sociological explo-ration of the D!an as a people. Even if such perspectives turn out to beclosely related, this approach allows us to illuminate the economic andorganizational activities of 1agataev – the house-builder and founder of anation.

1. From Prometheus to Hermes

As the messenger of the Olympic gods, Hermes is also traditionally theguide to the underworld and the patron of boundaries and those whocross them. These include shepherds, travellers, thieves, liars, and – in abroader sense – all outcasts (such as the D!an people). He also serves asthe guardian of weights and measures, invention, and commerce in gen-eral. These few classical functions of Hermes already evoke some keyscenes from “D!an”, such as the opening of the novella where 1agataev isintroduced as a graduate of the Moscow Institute of Economics. In this

sense, 1agataev stands under the aegis of Hermes, for his mission is to

Zuerst ersch. in:

Die Welt der Slaven ; 58 (2013), 2. - S. 261-275

Konstanzer Online-Publikations-System (KOPS)URL: http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bsz:352-231509

http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bsz:352-231509http://www.slavistik.uni-muenchen.de/forschung/publikation/welt_der_slaven/index.html

8/20/2019 Kaminskij_231509

2/15

262 Konstantin Kaminskij

convey the cultural and economic achievements of the Soviet state to itsouter margins. It is also an allusion to Hermes when 1agataev leads thesouls of the ‘dead’ through hell. Platonov himself explains that the word‘d!an’ means ‘a soul in search of happiness’ in Turkic languages. Themembers of D!an are consequently uncertain if they are alive or dead. Asclaimed by Nur-Mohammed, 1agataev’s administrative predecessor, ad-versary and double:

2/$3+45 6*7)'4 5*$*'&38 )&+4/, , 96/:8 )&+45 '/3, /:38 '/ #0/$.&/,6*)&+,;,:38=, & 6,)/ :+*-/?* ?*$= *'& #)/ '/ 9',;3, *'& %*78./ '/ 0#>,;3:=, *'& *30#>&7&:8 (@7,3*'*+ 2010, 156).

This atmosphere of death is intensified by the constant motif of blind-ness: the D!an people are (nearly) blind like the souls of the dead inGreek mythology. (Numerous scholars have already noted that ‘Nazar’,by contrast, designates ‘vision’ in the Turkic languages.) Where the plottakes place is described in the novella according to a Persian/Zoroastrianlegend, as “hell for the entire earth” (Platonov 2007, 31). Like Hermes,1agataev is a psychopomp, and he recovers of lambs neglected in thedesert in order to feed his people1. Following those remaining lambs likea compass, 1agataev and the D!an cross the desert and finally locate a

place to live, where 1agataev organizes a settlement with (apparently)unexpected help from the Soviet administration. Surfacing in the desertlike a deus ex machina , this humanitarian aid of food and everyday sup-plies recalls the Roman name of Hermes – Mercurius, derived from theLatin word merx (‘merchandise’).

Certainly, a detailed survey could uncover more references of 1agataevto Hermes, but those listed should suffice for the moment. In addition tothe Promethean motifs of self-sacrifice, there are as many others of divinebeneficence exemplified by 1agataev. This ‘hermeneutic’ reading is sup-ported by the fact that none of the anti-tyrannical, rebellious componentsassociated with the Prometheus myth are present in the character of1agataev. Instead, 1agataev acts under the orders of the Soviet adminis-tration, as a messenger of the bureaucratic gods. He is therefore related notonly to Hermes but even more to the head of the Soviet ‘pantheon’: Stalinhimself.

As Platonov scholars have already postulated, 1agataev can be read asan allegorical embodiment of Stalin ((#')#$*+,--&./$0,' 2000, 684;Hutchings 2002, 66). And in both Platonov’s notebooks of 1933-1935 andthe first handwritten version of “D!an”, we actually find some strongindications for such a reading:

1 ‘Lamb-bearer’ is a primary epithet of Hermes (Hermes Kriophoros).

8/20/2019 Kaminskij_231509

3/15

Naked Soul on Naked Soil 263

A:3&', + 3*0, >3* + BBBC :*96,/3:= :/08=, $*6'=, *6&' 6/3:D&E 0&74E 6+*$, & B3,7&' – *3/F &7& :3,$.&E %$,3 +:/5, B3,7&' – $*6&3/78 :+/)/-?* =:'*?* >/7*+/>/:3+,, 6$#?*E G$&$*64, 6$#?*?* :/$6F, (@7,3*'*+ 2000, 157).H,?,3,/+ 6,+'* #)/ )&7 >#+:3+*0 & +**%$,)/'&/0 B3,7&',, :',>,7, *' 7;%&7 /?* '/>,=''* & G*-6/3:D& 9, 3*, >3* *' :3,7 /:38 G&/?*, +:/ )/ 0,38 6*7?* $*+'=7, D,04.*+4/ :3/%7& + ',D7*''45 :3/',5, :*%$,7, +:/ %47&'D& : 9/07&, +4>&:3&7, D*-

2 Hermes is incidentally also the eponym of Michel Serres’ comprehensive project on

communication theory that regards communication as ‘voyage’, ‘translation’, and ‘ex-

change’ under the sign of Hermes, god of paths and crossroads, messengers and mer-chants (Serres 1982, xxxviii).

8/20/2019 Kaminskij_231509

4/15


3/7 &9'#3$&, *G$,+&7, & :+/$'#7, F&'*+D# & 6/7,7, +:/ L3* : ?7#%*D*E 33*-'&%#68.@*G$*:&7, *', $*%D*, %/9 ',6/)64 & %/9 ),6'*:3&, 7&.8 67= 3*?*,>3*%4 # '// :3,7* %*78./ +/&7,:8, G*:$/6:3+*0 '&5, )&-3/E:D,= 9,'=3*:38, – 3*?6, +$/0= )&9'& G$*5*6&3 7#>./. N,9,$ G$,-+&78'* G*'=7 0,38 & *36,7 /E G7,3* +:/ /

8/20/2019 Kaminskij_231509

5/15


economy’ (Smirnov 2006, 134) 3. After launching a new settlement for theD!an people, 1agataev visits the new socialist market in Xiva where allthree economic models are fused:

& 6,7// :&6/7& :3,$&D& ', 9/07/ – *'& G*7*)&7& G$*3&+ :/%= :3,$&'-'4/ G=3,D& & '/&9+/:3'4/ 0*'/34, )/7/9'4/ G#?*+&F4, )/:3='4/ %7=-5&, D$;>D&, :3,$4/ ?+*96& & )/7/9D&, :*76,3:D&/ D*D,$64, G#:34/ >/$/-G,5&, :#./'4/ =& &9 6$/+'&5, G*?$/%/''45 6+*$F*+, – & L3& :3,$&D& *)&6,7&, D*?6, G*=+=3:= G*D#G,3/7& & G$&-*%$/3#3 # '&5 3*+,$4 67= :+*/E '#)64. (/'/:-

'*D*0. @$*6,+ >3*-'&%#68, )/'3*%4 G*6,$&38 /?* :+*/0# $/%/'D# ', &?$#.D#, , :3,$&D&, +4$#>&+ 6/'8?&, G*D#G,7& :/%/ >#$/D&, +*6# 67= G&38= &7& 3,%,D. "*$?*+7= .7, 3*) ', 3*), %/9 G$&%47& & %/9 #%43D,; )&9'8, +* +:=D*0 :7#>,/, G$*5*-6&7,, 9,%4+,7,:8 +* 0'*?*7;6:3+/ & $,9+7/>/'&& %,9,$,, & :3,$&D& %47& 6*+*78'4 (@7,3*'*+ 2010, 216).

This passage reveals the subversion of money markets and their transfor-mation into an entertainment market. It thus marks a shift from the eco-nomics of abstract signs and symbolically-generated media to an un-mediated social communication, characterized by a redistribution of plea-

sure. In Platonov’s 1935 notebook we read:I,9,$ L3* '/ 3*78D* 3*$?*+7=, L3* & *%/7*+/D G$&5*6&3 ', %,9,$ &9 :+*/?* *6&'*>/:3+, & 3$/3:= :$/6& 7;6/E G*6 :*7'F/0 [...] "#3 )/, ', %,9,$/, ',>&',/3:= & 7;%*+8 (@7,3*'*+ 2000, 163).

Visiting the renewed Xiva bazaar, 1agataev meets Xanom – the third girlin the story. The three wives in 1agataev’s would-be seraglio are: thefatherless Ksenja from Moscow, the motherless Ajdym from the D!antribe and the homeless Xanom from the Xiva market. These young wom-en are all integrated within 1agataev’s sophisticated gender economicsand priced according to the economic models listed above. 1agataev buyspresents for Ksenja, spending three hundred rubles (plus another fourhundred rubles for living expenses). Here 1agataev redistributes the al-lowance allocated to him by the administration. For Ajdym’s subsistence,he gives his mother forty rubles and some symbolic gifts, in this case ex-changing his goods for tribal kinship. To pay for Xanom’s board andlodging in the ! aixana (tavern) he sells his padded jacket, in that way

3 In a broader sense, the three economic models of D!an refer to Socialist Realism as

a mechanism that produces social reality by substituting economics with aesthetics, asdescribed in Evgenij Dobrenko’s “Political Economy of Socialist Realism” (T*%$/'D*

2007, 28). It, by the way, opens with an interpretation of Andrej Platonov’s “The In-nermost Man” (B*D$*+/''4E >/7*+/D) [1927].

8/20/2019 Kaminskij_231509

6/15


becoming involved in the barter trade of the Xiva market. 1agataev’s in-vestment politics reach back to a specifically Eastern system of gendervalues which Platonov (in his notebook) elaborated on during his 1934journey to Turkmenistan:

M>

8/20/2019 Kaminskij_231509

7/15


.#; =0# – G#:38 3#6, 7*),3:= +:/, D*0# '/ '$,+&3:= ', :+/3/! (@7,3*-'*+ 2010, 152).

After this, Ajdym assigns her role to the homeless Xanom, who not onlyfinds a new homeland in D!an but also becomes the new matriarch ofD!an, her new homeland. 1agataev returns to Moscow intending to mar-ry Ksenja, his adoptive daughter, who thereby becomes a new mother tothe (previous motherless) Ajdym. This compensatory redistribution ofkinship is linked to the novella’s main theme: house building and house-keeping, i.e. economy [‘Haushalt’] in the literal sense. As Clark and sev-

eral other scholars have proposed, the sphere of the state polis regulatedby abstract-formal institutionalized relations in mature Stalinist culture isprojected onto the sphere of the house oikos, in which natural biologicalkinship predominates (2#$,.*+ 2007, 47). To this end, the official rhet-oric of state economy is transferred onto the artistic narratives of domesticeconomy, consistent with the tradition of “Domostroj” (‘Domestic Or-der’): a Russian set of household rules from the sixteenth century4. Thepublishing and reception history of “Domostroj” in Stalinist culture hasyet to be written; nonetheless, some strong references point to this text asa central model of Soviet economics and family policy, as well as a legiti-mation of power. In one of his interviews, Vladimir Sorokin claimed that,

while Russian men were mentally broken by Stalinist rule, the self-imageof Russian women could be saved thanks to the traditional gender rolesupheld by the “Domostroj” (B*$*D&' 2010).

In this context, it is interesting to examine Tamara Kondrat’eva’s sur-vey on the relationship between “Domostroj” and Stalinist culture as hav-ing a common basis in the ‘feeding function’ ("#$%&'()'*"+, -.("/0,) ofpower (R*'6$,38/+, 2006, 57). According to Kondrat’eva, the ‘feedingsystem’ (*0*1'%+ "#$%&'(02 ) – a specific, ritualized form of power com-munication in Russian autocracy where the patriarch (Tsar, clergyman orsimply a homeowner) represents ‘the feeder’ ("#$%0&'/) – was re-actual–ized in the Soviet social praxis of food ration cards and exclusive redis-tribution points for the Soviet nomenclatura. Such an approach explainsthe figure of 1agataev, who constantly feeds his women and furnishes hispeople with food. The ethical system of “Domostroj” not only establishesa code of behaviour for daily life but also a social hierarchy. The father-homeowner has absolute power in his household, legitimated by the ab-solute power of his landlord and that of the autocrat – whose power is

4 It is not clear whether “Domostroj” was perceived as instructive didactic work with-

out literary pretensions or as an artistic text by contemporary readers. However the anal-yses of “Domostroj” have shown that it is a carefully organized piece of writing, with a

strong tendency to lapse into verse by using typically literary devices as alliteration, ana-phora, meter, and rhyme (Karlinsky 1965, 502).

8/20/2019 Kaminskij_231509

8/15


ultimately legitimated by the Church and God. Every man along thisscale assigns the spiritual responsibility for his oikos to his superior. Thewoman, for her part, is responsible for the oikos as functioning organism.She is thus the economist of the ‘house-body’, whereas the husband is theeconomist of the ‘house-soul’. This also includes the sphere of social hy-giene – since a clean and healthy social body entails a clean and healthysocial ‘soul’. In official Soviet rhetoric and its propaganda-mediated massconsciousness, this social order was portrayed by the perpetuated meta-phor of the ‘family as the primary cell of society’ (Clark 2001, 115). Thistopos has its roots in the “Domostroj” tradition, on the one hand, and inFerdinand Tönnies’ early modern sociology, on the other:

Living in families is the usual basis of the Community way of life. This keepson developing in villages and towns. The village Community and the towncan themselves be regarded as large families, the various clans and kinshipnetworks forming the basic organisms of the common body; the guilds, cor-porations and offices are the tissues and organs of the town. Original bloodrelationships and inherited fortunes remain an essential or very importantcondition for sharing fully in the communal property and privileges (Tönnies2001, 253f.).

Even though it seems unlikely that Platonov could have taken notice of

“Community and Civil Society” [1887], Robert Hodel (influenced bycontemporary Kafka research) notes the possibility of reading Platonovthrough the key-texts of European sociology such as Tönnies and MaxWeber, a prevalent feature of the Zeitgeist of Russian philosophy (Hodel2009, 86)5. Such an approach is even more persuasive if one bears inmind that the ontological monism claimed for “Domostroj” (O+/$&'F/+ 2000, 173) might also describe the method of “ Community and Civil So-ciety”. There, the sociological argumentation is intrinsically linked to basicoperations of human cognition (preferences, habits, language and mem-ories). And in the end, Tönnies develops the concept of an ethical culturebased on family values. In significant contrast to “Domostroj”, where the

world order is determined by God’s will, in “Community and Civil So-ciety” a secularized concept of human willpower is held to be the core

5 Perhaps we can identify this ghost as the embodiment of Friedrich Engels’ in-

fluential treatise “The Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State”, firstpublished in 1884, and as having been instructive for both Tönnies and Platonov. Withrespect to ‘primitive Communism’, Engels claimed that “Communistic housekeeping,however, means the supremacy of women in the house; just as the exclusive recognitionof the female parent, owing to the impossibility of recognizing the male parent with

certainty, means that the women – the mothers – are held in high respect” (Engels2010).

8/20/2019 Kaminskij_231509

9/15


foundation for social behaviour6. The will is thought of as a sort of cul-tural force that is conveyed from the center to the periphery:

If we then picture a model of development in which a centre or core radiatesspokes in different directions, that centre itself signifies the unity of thewhole. The whole is held together by force of will, and such will must beparticularly powerful in the centre. But along the spokes points for new cen-ters will develop; and the more they require energy to maintain themselvesand to expand into their periphery, the more they will draw away from theiroriginal core. The latter will necessary grow weaker and less able to extendits influence in other directions unless it can continue to draw on its original

resources (Tönnies 2001, 38).1agataev, who brings the message of the will to live to D!an, is himselfthe medium for transmitting this force. Becoming nostalgic for Moscowand the civilization in the desert, he regains an awareness that “Moscow’shere too!” (Platonov 2007, 45). What 1agataev supposes has moved fromMoscow to the D!an people is “at least a little of a sense that all nationsexcept themselves were richly endowed with: the sense of egoism andself-defence“ (Platonov 2007, 112). But D!an’s often highlighted lack ofwillpower turns out to be an authentic self-defence and survival strategy,as confessed by Suf’jan, the bearer of D!an’s spiritual culture and col-lective memory:

– Q :745,7, – $,+'*6#.'* :D,9,7 B#U8=', – 04 9',/0 – %*?,34/ #0/$7& +:/. N* 34 :7#.,E 0/'=, – B#U8=' G*?7,6&7 :3,$4E 0*:D*+:D&E %,.0,D H,?,3,/+,, – 3+*E ',$*6 %*&3:= )&38, *' *3+4D & '/ +/$&3. M' G$&3+*-$=/3:= 0/$3+40, &',>/ :>,:37&+4/ & :&78'4/ G$&6#3 /?* 0#>&38 *G=38.M' *:3,+&7 :/%/ :,0*/ 0,7*/, '/ '#)'*/ '&D*0#, >3*%4 '&D3* '/ :3,7 ,7>'40, D*?6, #+&6&3 /?* (@7,3*'*+ 2010, 200).

D!an’s paradoxical politics of mimicry, of appearing dead in order to sur-vive, is the last step on its journey from a community to a society. Fol-lowing that, the members of D!an come together at night to sing theirfinal song. In the morning, they disperse and return to Soviet civilization

with a strong sense of society, while at the same time having lost theircultural identity. Suf’jan’s confession is performed as a ritual devotion toSoviet power. Stroking the conqueror’s ‘Moscow’ shoe, D!an, representedby Suf’jan – the oldest in the community – accepts and honours the sov-ereignty of Soviet Russia and its cultural leadership, represented by 1aga-taev7 .

6 The ‘will’ is one of the central concepts in European nineteenth-century philosophy

and culture, underlying (among others) the projects of Arthur Schopenhauer and Frie-drich Nietzsche. It is closely related to literature of naturalism and realism that shapemodernist, artistic self-awareness (Stöckmann 2009).

7

Compare Nariman Skakov’s reading of “D!an” as (post-)colonial novel (BD,D*+ 2011).

8/20/2019 Kaminskij_231509

10/15


But this is not the end of the story; it is merely the end of D!an’shistory.

The subjugation ritual performed by Suf’jan and 1agataev encapsulatesa Gordian knot, which might also be described as a relationship between‘bare life’ and ‘sovereign power’. In fact, the D!an’s philosophy of sur-viving through dying evokes the concept of ‘bare life’ outlined in GiorgioAgamben’s “Homo Sacer” [1995]. Starting out on his desert mission, 1aga-taev forfeits his political life, becoming more and more involved in the‘bare life’ (by literally shedding his clothing) of the D!an – who in turnfunction as the gens sacer , which can be systematically killed (see theprogram realized by Nur-Mohammed) but not sacrificed. 1agataev’s self-sacrifice for D!an can therefore be read as Agamben’s figure of devotus:

What unites the surviving devotee, homo sacer , and the sovereign in onesingle paradigm is that in each case we found ourselves confronted with abare life that has been separated from its context and that, so to speak sur-viving its death, is for this very reason incompatible with the human world(Agamben 1998, 100).

1agataev is part of bare life not just as a member of D!an and ‘survivingdevotee’ but also on the deepest level as a sovereign standing above hu–man society and law.

The ban is the force of simultaneous attraction and repulsion that ties to-gether the two poles of the sovereign exception: bare life and power, homosacer and the sovereign. Because of this alone can the ban signify both theinsignia of sovereignty […] and expulsion from the community (Agamben1998, 110f.).

In Agamben’s view, moreover, the banishment of sacred life is the basicsystemic operation, which makes every localization and territorializationpossible and which regulates the norms and values of human societies.

At first glance, 1agataev’s function is to incorporate the D!an com-munity in Soviet society. Yet after completing his mission – after beingbanned, sacrificed, resurrected and sanctified – he returns to Moscowwhere he meets Ksenja again. The reunion is marked by the disastrousscene of a failed feast.

R:/'= #:,6&7, ?*:3/E, :'=7, :D,3/$38 : 9,D#:*D & :/E>,: )/ :3,7, #?*+,-$&+,38 &5 :S/:38 // G&&3/78'*?* ),7D*?* :346,. OE640 %/9 '// #:3$*&7, G*$=6*D & 6,)/ :7&7, :* :3*7, +&'* *%$,3'* + %#347D#,3,D >3* :*5$,'&7,:8 >/3+/$38 G$/)'/?* D*7&>/:3+,. R:/'= +/$'#7,:8 : 3/0'40& D$#?,0& G*6 ?7,9,0& & G$*:&7, +:/ )/ :D#.,38, >3* *', D#-

G&7, & ',:3$=G,7,; %*78./ *', '&>/?* '/ 9',7,, >3* ?*+*$&38. M', '/

8/20/2019 Kaminskij_231509

11/15


0*?7, *%S=:'&38, G*>/0# /E :*+/:3'* &'*?6, %438 )&+*E […] (@7,3*'*+ 2010, 234).

What is hard for Ksenja to explain is that living in the society meanslosing the sense of community and communication. Eating together is,according to Tönnies, essential for the sensus communis (2001, 40). Shameand the risk of ridicule nonetheless indicate the “Limits of Community”[1924], as mapped out by Helmuth Plessner in the context of his philo-sophical anthropology8. In Plessner’s thinking, shame is the psychic de-fense mechanism that perpetuates the limits of the individual self. Kse-

nja’s shame also implies an expression of the increased ‘improbability ofcommunication’ in modern societies (Luhmann 1981) – in addition to heranxiety of communicating her ‘soul’ to others.

This is what happens with regard to that intrinsically inscrutable ridiculous-ness of all uninhibited expression of emotion, indeed, of all pronouncementsof psychological being in general. The visible rage, the visible mourning, thevisible resistance of the will – all too obvious signs of the content of soul inthought and action – betray always too much and betray, therefore, the entiresoul (Plessner 1999, 118f.).

This realization comprises the narrative’s (happy?) ending. Ksenja’shysterical outburst divulges her naked, unprotected soul to 1agataev, and

it is this breakthrough that makes the formation of the community possible and communication probable , independent of any symbolically-generatedmedia and social conventions. The next day Ksenja, 1agataev and Ajdymeat together in a dining hall, and by evening they form one contentedfamilial community.

Perhaps this is the fulfilment of 1agataev’s true mission. It aims not tosocialize the D!an community but to bring communication to the societyin Moscow – or even to recover the lost paradise to Soviet civilizationfrom its outer margins, i.e. from their utopian dream of primitive com-munism. This reading also implies a subversive transcription of the Sta-linist patriarchal narrative, a transformation of the acculturation processfrom the centripetal power of Moscow to the centrifugal power of amulticultural periphery9. For, one might say, “D!an is here too!”

4. From D!an to Birobid!an

In Tönnies’ developmental scheme of social will, quoted above, cen-tralized willpower is highly entropic and (only) diminishes when it ex-

8 For a reading of Platonov through the lenses of philosophical anthropology, cf.

V$&?*$8/+, 2009.9 In his “Discourse in the Novel” (B7*+* + $*0,'/) [1934-1935], Mikhail Bakhtin

derived the historical origins of the novel and related prose-forms from such decentraliz-ing, centrifugal forces of language (Bakhtin 1981, 273).

8/20/2019 Kaminskij_231509

12/15


pands to the periphery (Tönnies 2001, 38). Similarly, in the first hand-written version of “D!an”, 1agataev imagines Stalin sacrificing the powerof his soul to the Soviet family of nations.

B3,7&'# /,/3 6#.# &7& 0&7#; )&9'8. X ',$*6, '&>/?* '/ %47*, D$*0/ 6#.& & 0&7*E )&9'&, D*3*$#; /0# 6,7& )/'&3, +:/ /?* &0#/?* /0# '/ G$&',67/)&3. N* & )&9'8 %47, '/ /?*, /0# *', 3*78D* D,9,7,:8.– "/%/ 0,38 ?*+*$&7,, >3* 3,D*/ 6),'?– V*+*$&7,. I/?7/F4 & :&$*34 *3*+:;6# & :3,$4/ &9'/0*?.&/ $,%4,D*3*$45 G$*?',7& (@7,3*'*+ 2010, 130f.).

Here is clear that the D!an do not even own their bodies. Rather, theseare calculated as entities in Stalin’s ‘biopolitics’, a concept introduced byMichel Foucault to explain twentieth-century totalitarian regimes. ‘Bio-politics’ is instructive for Agamben’s homo sacer project, according towhich “the banishment of sacred life is more internal than every interi-ority and more external than every extraneousness” (Agamben 1998, 111).But what can be more external than ‘extraneousness’? The answer is ‘in-ternalization’, an idea Foucault had already delineated in his early works,to designate a social mechanism for creating a common sense in Euro-pean societies (Foucault 1967).

In this respect, 1agataev’s endeavour could be described as internal-

ising the excluded, i.e. the banished outcasts. The effect of this order is to

8/20/2019 Kaminskij_231509

13/15


transfer the bare life of the internalized into Soviet society as a whole, soas to make society one big labour camp as described in Aleksandr Sol-!enicyn’s sizable ‘experiment in literary investigation’, “The GULAGArchipelago” [1958-1968]. The settlement of D!an as founded by 1agata-ev is not to be taken literally as a Stalinist labour camp or even a Naziconcentration camp (as in Agamben) but as something in between. At theoutset, the party secretary in Tashkent portrays D!an as “the nationincluding Turkmen, Karakalpaks, a few Uzbeks, Kazakhs, Persians,Kurds, Baluchis, and people who had forgotten who they were” (Platonov2007, 23).

Yet this nomadic, rootless, multiethnic conglomerate lacks some ‘usualsuspects’ such as Jews and Gypsies. This seems quite odd if consideringthat these ethnic groups were, by the mid-thirties, in the focus of publicinterest in Soviet Russia. At the time, Stalin’s nationality policy changedfrom incorporating Jewish and Gypsy cultures into Moscow’s culturallandscape, institutionalized by theatres, schools and administrative re-presentatives, to ‘externalizing’ these groups from society by ‘internaliz-ing’ them in collective farms according to the politics of ‘rooting’ ("#$'(0-3+/0,)10. The Jewish Autonomous Region (J.A.R), established in 1934 bythe Soviet government in a remote, sparsely populated region of the Far

East with Birobid!an as its administrative center, was only the tip of theiceberg. In what was called the Jewish “to the soil” movement (Dekel-Chen 2007, 69), Jewish collective farms founded in Belorussia and theCrimean region as of the early twenties became models for voluntarycollective farms that cultivated the land, setting up a basic infrastructurefor Soviet agricultural development11. In a specific sense, the “back to thesoil” movement epitomized the internalized exclusivity of the Jewishcommunity in the political body of the Soviet Union – much in the man-ner illustrated by Agamben (who hints at an identical role for Gypsies):

As the people that refuses to be integrated into the national political body (itis assumed that every assimilation is actually only simulated), the Jews are therepresentatives par excellence and almost the living symbol of the people andof the bare life that modernity necessarily creates within itself, but whosepresence it can no longer tolerate in any way (Agamben 1998, 179).

From this standpoint, “D!an” can be read as alluding to Birobid!an. In abroader sense, it can be interpreted as a parable dedicated to the power ofbare life, that power to survive in the biopolitical economy of the modern

10 For the mercurian role of Jews in European and Russian Modern Age, compare

Yuri Slezkine’s concept of “service nomades” (Slezkine 2004). For Jewish culture in theSoviet Union and the founding of Birobidzhan, see: Ro’i 1991; Weinberg 1998. For thehistory of Gypsies after the Russian revolution: Lemon 2000; O’Keeffe 2010.

11

In this context, the movie “Jews on Earth” (Z+$/& ', 9/07/) made in 1927 byAbram Room, Vladimir Majakovskij and Viktor [klovskij is relevant as a document.

8/20/2019 Kaminskij_231509

14/15


totalitarian state. Andrej Platonov’s acutely humanistic message to con-temporary (and future) readers is finding mental sustenance, if not ahome, amidst the desert of an oppressive regime – even if it entails ajourney through hell.

Works Cited

Agamben, G. 1998. Homo Sacer: Sovereign power and bare life . Stanford.Bakhtin, M. 1981. The dialogic imagination. Four essays. Austin.Bodin, P.-A. 1991. The promised land – desired and lost: An analysis of Andrej Pla-

tonov’s short story “D!an”. Scando-Slavica 37, 5-25.Clark, K. 2000. The Soviet novel: History as ritual. 3

rd ed. Bloomington.

Dekel-Chen, J. 2007. Jewish agricultural settlement in the interwar period: A balance. In:Gitelman, Z. Revolution, repression and revival: the Soviet Jewish experience . Lanham, 69-90.

Engels, F. 2010. The origins of the family, private property, and the state: In the light ofthe researches of Lewis H. Morgan. Marx/Engels Internet Archive http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/ch02c.htm (30.07.2012).

Foucault, M. 1967. Madness and civilization. A history of insanity in the age of reason . Lon-don.

Groys, B. 2006. Das kommunistische Postskriptum. Frankfurt a.M.Herzfeld, M. 1997. Cultural intimacy: Social poetics in the nation-state . New York.Hodel, R. 2009. M%*%

8/20/2019 Kaminskij_231509

15/15


O+/$&'F/+, B. 2000. V*$&9*'3 :/08&: M '/D*3*$45 D*':3,'3,5 3$,6&F&*''*?* $#:-:D*?* :*9','&=. 5#672 80$ 2, 170-175.

V$&?*$8/+,, N. 2009. T/E:3+&/ + #:7*+&=5 *3:$*>D&: @7,3*'*+, V/7/', I,3,E. In:Günther, H., A.A. Hansen-Löve. Diesseits und jenseits der Utopien. Andrej Platonov –ein Autor zwischen allen Stühlen. München, 371-392.

T*%$/'D*, Z. 2007. 9#&01:"#(#%0, *#/$'+&03%+. 2*:D+,.(#')#$*+,--&./$0,', M. 2000. R#783#$'4/ 3$,6&F&& + G*+/:3& „T),'“. – In:R*$'&/'D*, N. (ed.) „;1$+(+ -0*#-#6“ 0#B$+-00. 2*:D+,.— 2010. T),'. – ;)+*1&06+, 8#*"6+: C)'$"0 0 $+**"+37 1930-D B#=#6. 2*:D+,, 111-

234.BD,D*+, N. 2011. @$*:3$,':3+, „T),',“ O'6$/= @7,3*'*+,. 5#6#' &01'$+1.$(#'

#>#3$'(0' 107, 211-231. B0&$'*+, A. 2002. R,G&3,7, &7& *% &:3*$&>/:D&5 6/E:3+&=5. Wiener Slawistischer Al-

manach 49, 355-373.B*$*D&', K. 2010. E F#**00 . @0*+1'&, =6+ @.10: @0*+1G 0&0 >#,1*,. http://srkn.ru/i

nterview/vladimir-sorokin-v-rossii-u-pisatelya-dva-puti-pisat-ili-boyatsya.html(30.07.2012)

"#$%&', K. 1965. 2&:3/$&= O'6$/= @7,3*'*+,. 8#=+, H6+$=0, 7, 293-307.

Konstanz Konstantin Kaminskij([email protected])

Documents

Kaminskij_231509