Abolishing Ambiguity: Soviet Censorship Practices in the 1930s

Abstract

Aft er reading Andrei Platonov's 1929 story Usomnivshiisia Makar, Joseph Stalin reportedly reacted by calling it "an ambiguous work" (dvusmyslennoe proizvedenie). Leopold Averbakh later wrote about Platonov's story: "There is ambiguity (dvusmyslennost') in it. ... But our era does not tolerate any ambiguity." 1 Both reactions point to an obsession with reducing signs to a single meaning, an undercurrent of Soviet culture in the 1930s. 2 Censorship practices offer a rare glimpse at how the Soviet regime attempted to achieve "onemeaningness" (odnoznachnost'). While it is true that throughout the Soviet era censorship was primarily concerned with excising what was deemed heretical, during the 1930s, with outright heresy effectively effaced from public discourse, the abolition of ambiguity became an important secondary mode. Much of the available literature on European and especially Russian censorship has defined censorship as the repression of the inherently and essentially free word. 3 The binary pairing of censorship and cultural production has generated further binaries of writers vs. censors and is ultimately embedded in a dichotomy of state vs. society. While the state/ society dichotomy has been questioned in other areas of historical research, the binary I wish to thank

Sovietinės Cenzūros Istoriografija: Pagrindinės Tyrimų Kryptys Ir Cenzūros Sampratos

“…Tad sovietinė cenzūra ir visa kultūros kontrolės sistema "nebėra blogis, ateinantis iš svetimšalių ir okupantų, kuriems reikia priešintis, bet kur kas labiau komplikuotas vidinių pasirinkimų kontūras." 37 Analizuodamas cenzūros poveikį teatrui E. Klivis pasitelkia Slavojaus Žižeko "vidinės transgresijos" (inherent transgression) sąvoką 38 ir akcentuoja, kad cen zūros pasek mės nėra vienareikšmės. Autorius pažymi: "sužinoję, kad meno kū rinys buvo cenzūruotas <...> imame fantazuoti, kas tai galėjo būti, ir neretai šios fantazijos būna pavojingesnės (sunkiau nuspėjamos ir sukontroliuojamos) nei pats pirminis meno kūrinio variantas."…”

Cinema during the First Two Decades of the Soviet Union: How Censorship of the Arts Inhibits the Dissemination of Information

“…However, during the course of the 1920s as the debate over film "intelligible to the millions" developed, the "Party line" of what material was acceptable was in transition and the "tolerance that was extended to various groups in the 1920s was giving way to the cultural straightjacket of the 1930s" (Taylor, 1998, p. 43). The goal of censorship during the 1930s was to remove ambiguity in meaning; to achieve "one-meaningness" (odnoznachnost") (Plamper, 2001). While film during the "Golden Age" was heavily involved in promoting the Soviet doctrine, it still managed to be an expressive art form.…”

The Nude in Soviet Socialist Realism: Eugenics and Images of the New Person in the 1920s-1940s

“…Nevertheless, the incident exemplifies the potential difficulties that might arise from the public installation of a nude sculpture. 53 A curious situation seemed to prevail, in which works based on or containing nudes-such as Aleksandr Matveev's October, 1927 and Young Girl, 1937-might occasionally be shown in exhibitions as plaster models, passing thence into the possession of the state without being cast or installed in a public space. Matveev's plaster model for the monumental sculpture October, 1927, for example, was awarded a prize by the Council of People's Commissars, SovNarKom, at the .8), suffered a similar fate.…”