"Historically, the Russian people are understood as a mass molded by two forces: the rulers and the intelligentsia." T O D A Y ' S R U S S I A N I N T E L L I G E N T S I A A New Role in the Post-Soviet Political Order Q U I N T I N B A R N E S A V I B R A N T I N T E L L E C T U A L C L A S S IS AN I N T E G R A L C O M P O N E N T IN A N Y H E A L T H Y S O C I - E T Y . T H E I N T E L L I G E N T S I A D E V E L O P E D IN R U S S I A IN T H E N I N E T E E N T H C E N T U R Y A N D A R E H I S T O R I C A L L Y D E F I N E D BY H I G H M O R A L P R I N C I P L E S , J U S T I C E , F R E E D O M , R U L E O F LAW, A N D T H E I R R O L E AS P R O D U C E R S O F T H E P R E D O M I N A N T R U S S I A N D I S C O U R S E . IN T H E P O S T - S O V I E T P O L I T I C A L P A R A D I G M , I N T E L L E C T U A L D E V E L O P M E N T WAS N E E D E D M O R E T H A N E V E R . H O W E V E R , I N S T E A D O F AN E M E R G E N T I N T E L L E C T U A L C L A S S F R E E F R O M G O V E R N M E N T C O N T R O L , T R U E I N T E L L E C T U A L S W E R E U N A B L E T O T R A N S F O R M IN T H E I N T E R I M Y E A R S A N D S U B S E Q U E N T LY R E T R E A T E D F R O M T H E F U N CT I O N S T H E Y H I S - T O R I C A L L Y P E R F O R M E D . T H E I N T E L L I G E N T S I A W E R E C O - O P T E D BY T H E P O S T - S O V I E T R U S S I A N G O V E R N M E N T M U C H AS T H E Y W E R E IN T H E S O V I E T U N I O N . E V E N T H E W O R D H A S L O S T ITS S O C I A L V A L U E T O D A Y AS A D I F F E R E N T C L A S S O F S O C I A L E L I T E S IS I N - C R E A S I N G L Y P R O M O T E D IN M E D I A A N D P O L I T I C A L C I R C L E S . S O M E G R O U P S S T I L L R E - M A I N T R U E T O T H E T R A D I T I O N A L I N T E L L I G E N T S I A , B U T T H E Y A R E T H E F E W W H O K E E P T H I S I M P O R T A N T R U S S I A N S O C I A L C L A S S A L I V E . Henceforth, a poet will be . . . well, just a poet, vying on the book- stalls with Angelique, James Bond and horoscopes. This is a change of history of Russian culture which may prove as profound as the collapse of communism.1 — Simon Franklin, Cambridge Slavonic Studies. August 28, 1991- Artists, literary scholars, academics, critics, and other members of the intelligentsia, like poets, were forced to transform during the emergence of a post-Soviet political order. The problem of understanding who the intellectual has become is one of interpreting cultural forces. Historically, the Russian people are understood as a mass molded by two forces: the rulers and the intelligentsia. While the ruling class changed throughout Russian history, the intelligentsia remained the conscience that spans time to give the mass shape, voice, and direction. Despite its potential after the Soviet collapse, no vibrant social intellec- tual force emerged i n its traditional role to provide the guid- ing discourse. The identity of Russian intelligentsia is com- plex, and to explain its phase shifts and historical importance is difficult. To understand the intelligentsia's absence as a critical agent of social and political production i n Russia today requires understanding the historical iden- tity and importance of the intelligentsia, its particular con- stitution during different eras of Russian history, and a closer look at how the intelligentsia adapted and was forced into a subordinate role i n the post-Soviet environment. In its purest sense, the notion of "intelligentsia" is a Russian invention since employed to help explain similar social groups and cultural phenomena i n other regions. Despite its clear origin, some scholars suggest it has lost any objective meaning. 1 The intelligentsia has been re- sponsible for much of the political, ideological, and cultural transformation in Russia and is traditionally associated with civic opposition, high moral principles, incisive moral criticism, and freedom as a necessity for social justice, human rights, and the rule of law. The roots of the term are traced to the 1800s, especially the 1830s and 1840s when democratic ideas first penetrated the student conscious- ness, but "intelligentsia" was not used widely unti l the 1860s and 1870s when it became associated with the edu- cated classes and the socialist, revolutionary class. The term continued to gather meaning i n the early 1900s as it became associated with a burgeoning class of professionals and intellectuals. One common element is an "otherness" understood both positively and negatively. The intelligentsia understood its role as the engine of "real" Russian progress, but this oth- erness also manifested itself i n a perceived alienation, de- picting the intellectual as out of touch with mainstream so- ciety. V 1 Regardless of the differing perspectives, there is a consistent notion of isolation, especially from the state au- tocracy. The intelligentsia gained special status through passionate personal engagement i n ethical questions that separated the group along different national, social, and ideological lines. v n Intellectuals are often classified as noble, but the Russian nobility, like the intelligentsia, was historically multidi- mensional: rich, poor, rural, urban, and occupying a variety of posts. Thus, the "class" distinction is problematic. Additionally, proximity to authorities, wealth, and social status were not traditionally considered a sign of intelli- gence or talent. v m A generational variable also must be ad- dressed because, as ideological foundations passed from fa- ther to son, the shape of intellectual society shifted accordingly. Historian and philologist Yuri Lotman denies any class identification of the intelligentsia and rather de- fines the group as people who acted from conscience and shame rather than fear and profit . l x The Soviet era drastically changed the traditional concept of Russian intelligentsia, clarifying the identity of this eclectic group. The Soviet intelligentsia became the "broad occupa- tional stratum similar to the bureaucratic, managerial, and technical elite referred to frequently in Western studies of modernizing countries."x These intellectuals, however, were mired i n Soviet ideology, characterized by inclusion rather than otherness, and underscored the cooptation of the intellectuals under the Soviet regime. The more tradi- tional intelligentsia was forced to do intellectual work for the party and the working class. Under Lenin and the party, the prevailing Bolshevik vision of the intellectual was "thin- skinned, detached from life, incapable of taking action and unwill ing to get his hands dirty." The departure from the traditional cultural value of the intellectual is clear. Perhaps the best way to understand the intelligentsia is as a subculture—loosely associated individuals with varied structural roles, ideas, and opportunities, as well as diverse relationships with the state, bureaucracy, and each other. The advantages of the subculture distinction are its empha- sis on disassociation, focus of values outside normal Russian society, and its mutability. A subculture shifts form to align with changing empirical conditions. As noted before, the traditional intelligentsia was not particu- larly identified with authority, power, wealth, or social sta- tus, whereas many of today's intellectuals are public figures who value material goods and the state and break from the traditional intelligentsia mold. implications of the connection with the bureaucracy and, having thus cleared the bad conscience predicament once and for all, i n good conscience assumed the right way of life, prescribed by the communist state. " x m The intellectu- als i n this group were successful within communism's framework, comfortable with it, and produced the domi- nant cultural discourse. The second group is smaller and well-educated, defined by their inability to move up the Soviet social scale. The dis- tinction comes from their emphasis on "actual" intellectual achievement rather than capitulation to communist hierar- chy and the party's monopoly on professional success. They believed the genuine intelligentsia should not be bu- reaucratic and were often considered dissidents. I n their society, this group produced the majority of true intellec- tual discourse and held positions such as lower journalists, talented writers rarely published, lower assistant or associ- ate professors, and some creative artists. This classification is the most troubling; while they differentiated themselves enough to be depicted as the intelligentsia of a group, they often acted as intellectuals from the first category. "The Soviet era drastically changed the traditional concept of Russian intelligentsia, clarifying the identity of this eclectic group." I n his extensive analysis of the Russian intelligentsia, Alexei Elfimov differentiates three intellectual groups. Based on the Soviet era, his classification characterizes the bureaucratization of the intelligentsia and the divisions the inherent contradiction the term "Soviet intelligentsia" im- plied. The first and largest group consists of individuals who held positions of power, management, or control over cultural production and occupied posts i n journals, news- papers, film, TV, radio, or as art producers, department heads, deans, or academics. This group "dismissed moral The final classification is the smallest group: those who be- lieved i n the traditional oppositional and alien role of the in- telligentsia (like the second group), but were responsible for actual dissidence and opposition. Unfortunately, few managed to navigate the Soviet era and survive. Many were sent abroad or to the gulag. Their important role was to consolidate and maintain the identity of the true intellec- tual, even i f only as martyrs. A modern example of this cat- egory of intellectual is journalist Anna Politkovskaya, whose death showed that fear still exists to quash outspo- T O D A Y ' S R U S S I A N I N T E L L I G E N T S I A kenness and underscored the gap between those who serve the state those who serve the public. x l v Despite constructing this classification based on condi- tions of the late Soviet era, Elfimov's demarcation is also useful to analyze mobility and production of different intel- lectual groups after the Soviet collapse. The term "intelli- gentsia" is still widely employed but is now accompanied by the question, "Which type?" Although there is less political violence in today's Russia, the state maintains an important role i n intellectual and cultural production. Using Elfimov's ac- count today, the regime and bu- reaucracy can generally be in- serted i n place of its Soviet counterpart. I n his classifica- tion, comfort and proximity to the communist regime be- comes comfort with current na- tionalistic policy, authoritarian characterization, and material- ism. Capitulation, participation i n the regime, and departure from the traditional intellectual role remain the differentiating criteria. Using this understanding of the Russian intelligentsia to ana- lyze today's political and cul- tural order, the question be- comes: "With glasnost, perestroika, and the fall of the Soviet regime, why did the third class of intellectuals not reinvent themselves as the in- fluential, widely-recognizable intelligentsia, the engine of thought and real progress? I n the mid-nineties, how can the intellectuals possibly be associated with power, corrup- tion, failure of liberal democracy, and deference to the state?" Only through the analysis of the intelligentsia's his- JOURNALIST ANNA POLITKOVSKAYA WAS FOUND SHOT DEAD IN THE ELEVATOR IN HER APARTMENT. torical antecedents can the shift be accurately understood. After 1917, prominent leaders such as Lenin and Bukharin took special interest i n the neutered status of the intelli- gentsia. "The Bolshevik revolution," writes Boris Kagarlitsky, "which the intelligent)? had done so much to prepare, trampled upon the very ideals that had led them to fight against Tsardom i n the preceding decades."xv The dominant perception was that the intelligentsia was bour- geois, aristocratic, and distinct from the socialist intelligentsia that made up the Bolsheviks and the emerging bureaucracy. I n a 1919 letter to writer Aleksei Maksimovich, Lenin wrote: "The intellectual forces of the workers and peasants are grow- ing and getting stronger i n their fight to overthrow the bourgeoisie and their accom- plices, the educated classes, the lackeys of capital, who consider themselves the brains of the na- tions. In fact they are not its brains but its shit." - Lenin considered the Constitutional Democrats the center of con- spiracy against the Bolsheviks and initiated the massive ar- rests of a wide variety of past leaders. x v n Lenin's revolution- ary theory characterized the group as the "proletarians of mental labor," relegated them to slaves of the party and the working classes, and concretized the juxtaposition to the Russian worker through the Constitution which defined the intelligentsia as a "layer," thus stripping the intellectual of legal status as a c i t izen. x v m Lenin and Stalin effectively wiped out the intelligentsia as a ELEM ENTS FALL 09 political force by absorbing previous intellectual arenas to control and force the intelligentsia into poverty. Elfimov characterizes the intellectuals of the early Soviet era as "ser- vants with no rights." X 1 X Starting i n the 1920s, plots of land and special privilege were given to artists, scientists, and other intellectuals who became the "favourite child" of the government. Scientists were especially important and re- ceived special treatment, housing, exemption from party membership requirements, and direct access to the Kremlin. x x Any other concentration of intellectuals i n places like universities, humanitarian institutions, or pub- lishing houses was con- trolled via this system of servile dependence or tightly monitored by nomenklatura. I n this con- dition, a political class de- veloped that generated the mildly critical Soviet intel- lectual discourse, wanting no restrictions, but did not desire to dismember the system (i.e. intellectu- als of type one and two).™ This political philosophy set the conditions for pere- stroika and the intellectual class to emerge after the collapse. LENIN AND HIS FOLLOWERS HAD THEIR OWN VIEW OF pression i n addition to state support while occupying an ambiguous moral middle ground—a split from the tradi- tional intelligentsia's critical moral and political roles. Ironically, the second class of intelligentsia was the group most co-opted by the communist regime. Elfimov notes, "The trap was not just that the intelligentsia was given an unambiguous choice—either to serve the party or go to the gulag—it was rather that even serving the party, it could not be sure that it was doing the right thing and that its position was secure. " x x l v Early i n perestroika, the intelligentsia sup- ported Gorbachev against the party's con- servative elements, but i n later years the intellec- tuals radicalized and began to support Yeltsin when Gorbachev reacted against the intelli- gentsia's increasingly ac- tivist democratic opposi- t i o n . ^ 1 Despite its prior position of non-accept- ance and opposition, the intelligentsia had firmly rooted itself within the cold politics of the regime. The Soviet era's requisite double-role of intellectual sur- vival was alluded to above: "Power worked through lan- guage as the population . . . identified with the regime through 'speaking Bolshevik'. . . . Like the rest of the popu- lation, the intelligentsia engaged i n doublespeak through which they succeeded i n their careers and, during Stalinism, survived."™1 Writers like Voznesensky sup- ported the Soviet discourse by writing pro-communist, pa- triotic poems, earning h i m the Lenin Komsomol prize, but also fulfilled his intellectual responsibility through "dissi- dent" poetry. x x l J 1 The intellectual enjoyed freedom of ex- In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the intelligentsia transformed itself from above by consolidating its efforts during perestroika as well as initiating a metamorphosis from below. Through histor- ical discourse, the intelligentsia became a political force, delegitimizing Stalinism and Lenin's totalitarianism and supporting Western l iberal ism. ' 0 1 It united with Yeltsin and the state. In 1988, the first opposition group was cre- ated—the Democratic Union—which proposed a liberal model of capitalism, self-determination of the republics, and withdrawal of Soviet troops.30™! Through the Congress of People's Deputies, the intelligentsia was able to gain T O D A Y ' S R U S S I A N I N T E L L I G E N T S I A power and civil groups emerged such as the Moskovskii Klub Intelligentsii and Moskovskoe Ob'edmenie Izburatelei. Together with the Democratic Russian Movement, the intellectual force drew followers from the Communist party and nominated Yeltsin for president i n 1991 on the foundation of liberalization and nationalization.™111 During and after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the intel- ligentsia traditionally manifested itself politically as the dis- senting voice of opposition i n accordance with its high moral standards. The intelligentsia's organization of new political and social groups indicated that intelligentsia sub- culture was capable of surviving years of suppression and co-optation. This healthy cultural status, however, waned during the 1990s as the state collapse also revealed a col- lapse of the intelligentsia, which was wholly unprepared for the tasks of building state institutions, assuming manage- rial roles, or coping with the economic downfall. Despite direct political participation, by 1993 rifts within the intelligentsia were widening as awareness grew of Yeltsin's authoritarian, non-democratic tendencies, as well as the "unconstitutional" constitution. x x l x Some intellectu- als joined the conservatives. Theater directors, writers, ed- itors, physicists, young liberal economists, and former dis- sidents like Egor Gaidar, Anatoly Chubais, and Grigory Javlinsky became deputies and assumed prominent posi- tions within the emerging regime. Others like Sergei Kovalev, the Ombudsman of Human Rights, were labeled anti-Russian. Kovalev lost his post for documenting atroc- ities during the first Chechyn War i n 1994—what Marina Peunova calls the "final blow to the intelligentsia's belief it had leverage on the government." The intelligentsia broke apart, and its inter-regime efforts left behind no legacy of consolidated parties, institutions, or freedom but rather a paradigm shift from liberal democracy and dissent to conservatism and compliance.™1 1 On August 28,1991, Franklin prophesied: "One result made stunningly plain over the past week, is the death of the party. Another less visible but i n its way no less traumatic wi l l be the death of THROUGHOUT RUSSIAN HISTORY, LITERATURE WAS TRADITIONALLY CONTROLLED. the Russian intelligentsia." V l i His insight was the col- lapse of the national Russian myth, which ultimately forced the intelligentsia identity crisis of the mid-1990s that re- mains problematic today. I n many ways, the intelligentsia sowed the seeds of its own demise. Part of the intelligentsia, however, was successful i n the inter-regime period and lives on today. I n 1993, Yeltsin thanked the intelligentsia community for its sup- port and important function in forming public opinion and culture that was the basis for Russia's emergence as a polit- ical power. x x x l v Again, one must ask, "Which type?" It be- came clear he was directly thanking members of the cre- ative intelligentsia: type one. This is an important distinction, for many intellectuals were already alienated by the changing political order and had retreated from a pub- lic, participatory role to uphold the traditional philosophy of the Russian intelligentsia. Traditionally, the term "creative intelligentsia" signified the genuine intellectual—spiritually rich, genius, and in- spired—but i n modern Russia it came to describe a new group of non-government intellectuals that did not produce true intellectual discourse, was enamored of its popular E L E M E N T S FALL 09 image, characterized by unhealthy ambition, and unable to differentiate between official and unofficial discourses.5000' Much like the party intellectuals who constructed Soviet re- alism during the early Soviet era and other intelligentsia who fed off public stature and privilege, the creative intelli- gentsia today is nurtured by publicity and materialism characteristic of close proximity to the regime. Far from the traditional view of the intelligentsia as producers and actu- ators of "real" progress, the creative intelligentsia was born out of the "Yel-cynicism" that produced a negative Russian future by rejecting true ethnic Russian government, auton- omy, education, and culture. 1 "The Yeltsinoids' regime turned us into zombie-like TV-viewers," said Sergei Oushakine of the Russian Federation's first president. "By substituting our values and passions with totally foreign de- sires, the regime—just like a circus magician—manipu- lates the individual and collective consciousness of Russia's peoples. It is the method ofhermeneutics that serves as the main tool of this manipulation." The intellectuals who thrived i n the post-Soviet atmosphere were the nationalists and chauvinists that were able to out- match the liberal, democratic intelligentsia in the limited interpretive space characterized by cynicism and hypocrisy. The elite political intellectuals could be found on state councils and boards such as the Foreign Ministry or within the Soviet military leadership and were responsible for the changing strategies, policies, intellectual exchange with the West, and geopolitical discourse that shaped emerging na- tion-state ideology. x x x v i i Despite the important role of this class i n generating the prevailing cultural identity, its posi- tion within the bureaucratic elite eliminates application of the term "intelligentsia" i n its truest sense and questions the character of Russian progress. Instead, members of this group are characterized as "technicians of practical knowledge" (polittekhnologi) or "people of air" (ljudi voz- dukha)—politically apathetic spin-doctors who created the official discourse with a new type of information and rhet- or ic . x x x v i i i The entire spectrum of Russian society, and the intelli- gentsia i n particular, suffered an identity crisis i n the post- Soviet order. The official discourse promoted Russia's power and status more than human rights and individual liberties, and the Soviet-trained, administrative intellectual force looked upon the non-consolidated, non-government intelligentsia as irresponsible, unpatriotic, ignorant of the reformers' plan, opposed to any government, and inca- pable of feeding itself because of its principles. x x x m Conservative figure Mikhail Leont'ev wrote: "The circle of people that I belonged to perceived the events of the begin- ning of the 1990s as a tr iumph of liberalism. I am ashamed of this . . . The Russian Soviet intelligentsia did the same thing i n 1991 that it did i n I9 i7 . " x l The intelligentsia searched its collective soul extensively. I n the 1990s and into the new millennium, intellectuals gathered i n multiple Congresses to discuss their role in the new political order. The 1997 Congress' stated goals were broad. Firstly, it desired to use the intelligentsia's power for the improvement of society, which is consistent with the traditional view of the intellectual as a progressive social servant, and second, the Congress wanted to overcome the traditional gap between the intelligentsia and power. Special attention was given to the moral climate, the spiri- tual remaking of society, and the fate of the Russian society, state, and national idea: The last Congress was i n 2003, and the intelligentsia had not changed significantly. A closer look at modernity, literature, and academia during the regime transition is integral to understanding this sta- sis and the constructive efforts of the intelligentsia to ad- vance the intellectual discourse. The intelligentsia misun- derstood the fall of the Soviet Union much like it misinterpreted the regime transition i n 1917, leaving Russian society i n a crisis of modernity. Elfimov notes basic Russian linguistic challenges of modernity, but even more fundamental is the notion that Russia never encoun- tered modernity i n the same manner that the West experi- enced this important temporal and cultural concept/1 1 [ Social exploration during the regime transition included extensive investigation of new ideas and translation of T O D A Y ' S R U S S I A N I N T E L L I G E N T S I A many texts. Russian anthropologist Serguei Oushakine characterizes this examination as "intellectual indigestion" and notes the fundamental problem of its multi-paradig- mality: non-parallel intellectual strands such as structural- ist and post-structuralist accounts emerged simultaneously and were interpreted as parallel phenomena.v ! 111 What tran- spired was a troubled attempt to account for the universal social condition during the transitional phase that was rooted deeply i n the past. Unlike Soviet Marxism, however, this emerged outside the political context. The crisis of modernity prompted the beginning of genuine dis- course—a search to understand the present and build the future by examining the past. I n literature, the intellectual discourse also required a look to the past and a resurgence of old texts, western and do- mestic, while simultaneously affecting fresh analysis of lit- erature as an intellectual discussion. I n Russian history, lit- erature was traditionally controlled, but i n the Soviet era, the suspicion and control of the independent word en- hanced literature's authority and fueled important political "The intelligentsia as a cultural group and political player suffered greatly in the immediate post-Soviet order, but for each destitute analysis, there exists an effort to reinvent the intelligentsia in its traditional context." discussion through cryptic images, allusions, and metaphors. x l l v Under the controlled, complex organiza- tional structure of writers' unions, publishing houses, and popular newspapers, literature was an incredibly important mode of cultural production. However, during glasnost, non-literary forms of expression were liberated and the for- mer creative monopoly of the small literary elite was bro- ken. 5 ^ A linguistic vacuum emerged i n the inter-regime period. People were looking between the lines for the truth and realizing the authors had nothing real to say.xivi Today, there is a struggle between the state and efforts to reinvent literature. New intellectuals strive to stretch the imagina- tive freedom of the new Russia while the state reacts to bring cultural activity back under its control . x l v n Like literature, academia's influence sagged after the col- lapse. In the Soviet era, an academic post was very secure because it was one of the most bureaucratized and usually meant lifetime job security. , v l ' 1 Academics lost their intel- ligentsia status by shrinking from their traditionally public, creative role into the comfort of the Soviet bureaucracy, but the end of perestroika signaled the end of academic privi- lege. x l l x I n Russia today, the academic is on the same plane as all other public figures and simply cannot compete. Humanities academics are especially marginalized, often seen as Marxist retrogrades, and are ignored i n favor of the modern, creative intelligentsia. Professors also make very little money and lack a healthy labor market. In 1997 an as- sistant professor made roughly thirty dollars per month, three times less than a secretary and fifteen times less than a poorly qualified bus driver. ; Despite the poor condition of the Russian academy, among many there is still the "feeling of responsibility before oneself, one's occupation, the fu- ture of the country and finally before the students who can- not be left without knowledge, even i f one is paid almost nothing." 1 1 The intelligentsia as a cultural group and political player suffered greatly i n the immediate post-Soviet order, but for each destitute analysis, there exists an effort to reinvent the intelligentsia i n its traditional context. The Altai State ELEM ENTS FALL 09 RUSSIAN PRIME M I N ISTER VLADI M I R PUTIN. University Faculty of Sociology and the regional intellectu- als work to stop the "endless movement of symbolization," provide a starting point for dealing with the past, and create a foundation for the future Russian ethos J11 Organized around the "Russian tragedy," the group posits a teleologi- cal organic body—a "primary embodiment" from which one can rediscover the vital force i n the Russian ethos.1"' Although the discourse sometimes turns xenophobic, it is integral to escape the mechanical functionality of the post-communist, neoliberal order. It provides an alterna- tive post-Soviet cosmogony and tries to solve the problem of the state under attack—a vision of a collapsed system of spiritual and moral values signifying the state's lack of true social capital.1 !V This work is very important to overcome the problems of modernity and engenders further discussion and development within academic circles and the broader intellectual community. Similar production is visible i n other regions that also hold critical academic re- sponsibility i n high esteem. In general, academics lack an extensive organizational structure and social and political opportunities. Similar efforts exist i n literature. A group called "Non/Fiction" intends to emphasize serious literature over banal entertainment of Russian literature today. Sincerity exists within the intelligentsia directly connected to the tra- ditional moral high-ground, responsibility, and missionary obligation characteristic of intelligentsia of the i8oos. ; However, this is counterbalanced by the continued degra- dation of literature i n other parts of society. Formerly a fountainhead of intellectual writing, the publication Junost' proclaimed its new goal i n 1999, "to stay away from the questions of ideology, politics, economics, law, national, and religious relations," and i n the same issue, it mocked efforts to publish journals as "a sweet fruit of the bitter Russian roots, the roots of lack of possessions, and there- fore, of idleness. " l v i This is indicative of the modern intellectual retreat from the political discourse and also reflects the unsuccessful ef- forts of the intelligentsia to organize effective opposition. Government interaction remains nuanced. At the turn of the century, the intelligentsia began to cooperate more with the Putin administration while retaining elements of its traditional philosophy. To some intellectuals, Putin was seen as the savior from chaos and anarchy of the Yeltsin years as well as a benefactor of the arts, and he thus gar- nered support from public intellectuals of the first type. ! v i ' The intelligentsia's reaction to Putin's step-down as presi- dent i n May 2008 is indicative of the degree of intellectual politicization. A n open letter was written by representa- tives of the creative intelligentsia pleading Putin to remain i n power which prompted a letter from the opposing camp opining i n favor of his removal. Scholarly reaction charac- terized this moment as a "blip" on the intelligentsia's "car- diogram"—highlighting the general lack of resistance by the part of society meant to provide intellectual T O D A Y ' S R U S S I A N I N T E L L I G E N T S I A opposition. Today, the intelligentsia is largely repre- sented by the Yabloko party, but this impoverished group was only able to garner 1.7% of the vote i n 2007 (zero Duma seats).'"- Despite this failure, Putin and Yabloko head Grigoriy Yavlinskiy met i n March 2008 to signify that the Kremlin—as it transitioned to the Medvedev administra- tion—wants to accept the intelligentsia into the political discourse.1 What remains to be seen is the particular de- velopment of this relationship and i n what fashion the in- tellectuals work with the state to develop Russian culture and healthy discourse. The modern political atmosphere was apparent i n a May, 2008 roundtable discussion on state TV Rossiya channel titled "Intellectual Literature i n Debates on the 2020 Strategy." The guests suggested the intelligentsia actively participate i n the country and society by providing a new ideology to aid Putin's plan for Russia's development. The Chairman of the Free Russia Public Association Union even said that the intellectual not participating i n the coun- try's life was a traitor, terrorist, and worthless/ 1 Whatthese state intellectuals failed to understand is that to ensure the country's healthy development, the intelligentsia must re- main outside such vapid discourse. Only by denying the with-us-or-against-us ultimatum can the intelligentsia stay true to its founding philosophy and reassert itself as the conscience of the Russian people. The fall of communism did not stop the Soviet regime's co- opted intellectual and cultural stranglehold from becoming the new Russian nationalistic machine that similarly blocked intelligentsia's entrance to the political sphere and meaningful dialogue. The chance to reawaken vivacious intellectual culture was lost i n the convoluted post-Soviet political order. The Russian intelligentsia is still hindered by limited access to political and cultural intellectual oppor- tunities, but is also hobbled by internal problems i n aca- demic literary fields. There is a real chance for Russian so- ciety to reinvent itself. The true intellectuals can play an integral role i n the discourse, but the intelligentsia needs time to organize its efforts. "The room for honest speaking is far greater than Russian intellectuals make use of," says Marietta Chudakova, a historian of Russian literature. Yet she recognizes the paralyzing stasis as well: "Nobody has been commanded to lie down—and everyone is already on the ground. " l x i i E N D N O T E S i . Franklin i i . Ibid. i i i . "The hand that feeds them; Russian intellectuals" iv. Brower (638-647, 638) v. Brower (639) vi . Kagarlitsky vi i . Brower (639) v i i i . Matsuk ix. Ibid. x. Brower (645) xi. Matsuk xi i . Elfimov 2000 (226) x i i i . Elfimov 2000 (235) xiv. "Speaking truth to power" xv. Kagarlitsky (56) xvi. "Letter from Lenin to Gorky" xvii. "Attacks on Intelligentsia: Early Attacks" xvii i . Elfimov 2003 (26) xix. Elfimov 2000 (232) xx. "The hand that feeds them; Russian intellectuals" xxi. Ibid. xxii. Peunova xxii i . Elfimov 2000 (231) xxiv. Elfimov 2000 (233) xxv. Peunova xxvi. Ibid. xxvii. "Declaration of the Democratic Union of Russia" xxviii. Peunova xxix. Ibid. xxx. Ibid. xxxi. Ibid. xxxii. "The hand that feeds them; Russian intellectuals" xxxiii. Franklin xxxiv. "Russia; Yeltsin talks to intelligentsia; mentions differences w i t h Rutskoy" xxxv. Peunova xxxvi. Oushakine (181) xxxvii. Holden (164) xxxviii. Peunova xxxix. Matsuk xl. Leont'ev xl i . Aleksandrova xi i i . Elfimov (230) x l i i i . Oushakine (172) xliv. Franklin E L E M E N T S FALL 09 xlv. Ibid. xlvi. Elfimov 2000 (241) xlvii . O'Brien xlvi i i . Elfimov 2000 (239) xlix. Ibid. 1. Elfimov 2000 (242) l i . Elfimov 2000 (250) l i i . Oushakine (182) l i i i . Oushakine (185) liv. Ibid, lv. O'Brien lvi . Novodvorskaia lv i i . Korchagina lv i i i . "The hand that feeds them; Russian intellectuals" lix. Country Profile. Russia lx. "Russian TV examines significance of Putin-Yavlinskiy meet- ing" lx i . Serova lx i i . "The hand that feeds them; Russian intellectuals" R E F E R E N C E S Aleksandrova, Lyudmila. October 14, 1997. "Constituent con- gress of Russia's intelligentsia to be held". TASS. Lexis Nexis Academic. Accessed 24 November 2008. "Attacks on Intelligentsia: Early Attacks." Library of Congress. . Accessed 25 November 2008. Brower, Daniel R. 1967. "The Problem of the Russian Intelligentsia." Slavic Review, 26.4 (December). Country Profile Russia. "Declaration of the Democratic Union o f Russia." 19 December 1993. Accessed 1 December 2008. . Elfimov, Alexei. 2000. "Academics and the Production of an Intellectual Discourse of Modernity i n Russia." Para-sites: A Casebook Against Cynical Reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Elfimov, Alexei. 2003. Russian Intellectual Culture in Transition. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers. Franklin, Simon. "End of the intelligentsia." The Times. 28 August 1991. Accessed 1 December 2008. Lexis Nexis Academic. Holden, Gerard. 1994. Russia after the Cold War: History and the Nation in Post-Soviet Security Politics. Frankfurt: Campus Verlag. Kagarlitsky, Boris. 2002. Russia Under Yeltsin and Putin: Neo- Liberal Autocracy. London: Pluto Press. Kagarlitsky, Boris. 1988. The Thinking Reed: Intellectuals and the Soviet State igiy to Present. London: Verso. Korchagina, Valeria. "Intelligentsia Shifts to Support Putin." The Moscow Times, sec. 1848, 30 November 1999. Accessed 24 November 2008. Lexis Nexis Academic. Leont'ev, Mikhail . Interviu nomera: Mikhail Leont'ev: Putinu trudno preodolet'liberal'nyi totalitarizm. 30 September 2005. Politicheskii klass. "Letter from Lenin to Gorky." 15 September 1919. Library of Congress, . Accessed 25 November 2008. Matsuk, Tatyana. "Intelligentsia and Power." The Moscow Times, sec. 1295, September 17,1997. Accessed 24 November 2008. Lexis Nexis Academic. Novodvorskaia, Valerja. "Shestidesjatniki I pustota." Novaia lunost, 1.34. . Accessed 3 December 2008. O'Brien, Sean. "Review: Commentary: A troika pul l ing i n the wrong direction: Sean O'Brien on old problems facing the intel- ligentsia i n the new Russia." The Guardian, 28 December 2002. Accessed 24 November 2008. Lexis Nexis Academic. Oushakine, Sergei. 2007. "Vitality rediscovered: theorizing post-Soviet ethnicity i n Russian social sciences." Studies Eastern European Thought, 59: pp. 171-193. Peunova, Marina. 2008. "From dissidents to collaborators: the resurgence and demise of the Russian critical intelligentsia since 1985." Studies in East European Thought, 10 May 2008, 11. "Russia; Yeltsin talks to intelligentsia; mentions differences wi th Rutskoy," ITAR-TASS news agency, Moscow from BBC Summary of World Broadcasts, 17 Apri l 1993. "Russian TV examines significance of Putin-Yavlinskiy meeting." BBC Worldwide Monitoring. March 15 2008. Accessed 4 December 2008. Lexis Nexis Academic. Serova, Natalya. "Intelligentsia invited to walk a different path" i n "Russian intellectuals invited to conform or face 'marginal- ization'—website," BBC Worldwide Monitoring. 2 May 2008. Accessed November 24, 2008. Lexis Nexis Academic. "Speaking t ruth to power." The Economist. 9 August 2008. Accessed 24 November 2008. Lexis Nexis Academic. "The hand that feeds them; Russian intellectuals." The Economist. 9 August 2008. Accessed November 24, 2008. Lexis Nexis Academic. T O D A Y ' S R U S S I A N I N T E L L I G E N T S I A http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/archives/atte.html http://www.du.ru/ust.htm http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/archives/atte.html http://magazines.russ.ru/nov/_yun/1999/novodvor.html http://magazines.russ.ru/nov/_yun/1999/novodvor.html