Most historians are agreed that the great social schism between the educated and the 'dark folk' in Russian history sprang from the wound inflicted on Russian society by Peter the Great. In his reforming zeal Peter sent selected young men into the Western world, and when they had acquired the languages of the West and the various new arts and skills which sprang from the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century, brought them back to become the leaders of that new social order which, with ruthless and violent haste, he imposed upon his feudal land. In this way he created a small class of new men, half Russian, half foreign--educated abroad, even if they were Russian by birth; these, in due course, became a small managerial and bureaucratic oligarchy, set above the people, no longer sharing in their still-medieval culture; cut off from them irrevocably. The government of this large and unruly nation became constantly more difficult, as social and economic conditions in Russia increasingly diverged from the progressing West. With the widening of the gulf, greater and greater repression had to be exercised by the ruling elite. The small group of governors thus grew more and more estranged from the people they were set to govern.In many ways it makes me think of the Liberal elite you find in the Democratic party, not to speak of the Liberal Elite you find here in the South. Doctors and Lawyers, and managerial class types who go off to fancy schools and learn more empirically based, ideologically driven approaches to thinking and living.
There is a major disconnect between educated and poorly educated people in the south--errr in this country at large; which you don't see in Europe. Working class intellectuals are few and far between now. I used to read stories about working class intellectuals and communities in the north during the industrialization and immigration waves in the early 1900's. You don't see that now.
You can see the impact of this in voters who vote against their economic interest. People who rage against evolution and global warming because they are theories--yet stare at you blankly when you point out that gravity is a theory, that the sun coming up is a theory.
There is an educational disconnect and it breeds contempt from both sides towards the other side.
Further into the essay I come across something that speaks to the fact that one should really never try to avoid BAD, because it usually creates WORSE...
[there was] an unwillingness of the government to let its subjects travel to France, which was thought of, particularly to let its subjects travel to France, which was thought of, particularly after 1830, as a chronically revolutionary country, liable to perpetual upheavals, blood-letting, violence and chaos. By contrast, Germany lay peaceful under the heel of a very respectable despotism. Consequently, young Russians were encouraged to go to German universities, where they would obtain a sound training in civic principles that would, so it was supposed, make them still more faithful servants of the Russian autocracy.
The result was the exact opposite. Crypto-Francophile sentiment in Germany itself was at this time so violent, and enlightened Germans themselves believed in ideas--in this case those of the French Enlightenment--much more intensely and fanatically than the French themselves, that the young Russian Anacharsies who dutifully went to Germany were infected by dangerous ideas far more violently there than they could ever have been had they gone to Paris in the easy-going early years of Louis-Philippe. The government of Nicholas I could hardly have foreseen the chasm into which it was destined to fall.
Can't help but think of many restrictions on speech, and behaviors such as drugs, abortion, and prostitution which have only made things worse rather than better...
--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com
5 comments:
as a member of what would be called the "intelligentsia" (if we used that term in this country), I see these things all the time. Even though I am a member of the working class also, I struggle with these sorts of arguments. "We know what is good for you, even if you don't!" In many ways, that is the struggle of leadership...to take people where they should go for the good of all.
The struggle of Populism centers around that. If we assume that the voice of the people is infallible (that pesky Vox Populi thing again), then the challenge of leadership is to convince the people about the "good path" versus the "bad path". This is exacerbated by the natural antipathy between the classes.
The fact that we have been there before doesn't make it any easier to deal with.
Keep the faith
I agree with the previous commentor -it's a struggle for leaders to take people where they need to go for the common good of all. No matter if it's Russian literature, German writings, or American history, you can find evidence of this struggle in all of the most profound documents and reference sources known to man. My question is, "How often do such leaders emerge - the ones that desire a common good for all?" Then, again, "Are human beings the most selfless creatures, desiring the common good? Or, are humans the most selfish, desiring mostly material things to satisfy what's tangible to them?" Generally, great leaders (dictators or liberators) are great manipulators - they are timely predators with a mission to capture. Like so many animals in the wild, they use their senses to track their targets and capture them at just the right time. Timing and leadership go hand-in-hand!
great points emma,
But a follow up... when I think of great leaders I think of MLK Jr. and Gandhi. I hesitate to call them manipulators and predators. Maybe its just my idealism wanting to think the best of such magnificent human beings who despite the odds stayed active, committed, and peaceful---and who succeeded in accomplishing many of their goals.
To yardman's points... is it does it really boil down to a natural antipathy between the classes?
In fact in both comments there is the theme that leadership is contrary to equity within an organization or governing body... what if all were leaders? Is that possible? Likely no... but all can contribute can't they.
So everyone one should have a say. But their say should be in the mechanisms of setting large goals, and choosing who amoungst them will lead?
Which goes back to Emma's comments which seem pretty accurate about great manipulators...
I guess I'd just prefer to think of them as instigators with the ability to articulate vision and provide guidance through the challenges that always come up in human relations.
Hmmm... I dunno
The issue is not determining the good for all. The issue is in the implementation of what is perceived to be good. If the masses do not agree as to that which is the good, then their perception will need to be swayed.
Gandhi and MLK would not have achieved if not for the manipulation of mass perception.
Leaders are only as effective as they themselves are perceived. After all, no person can truly be forced to act against their will. People need to be convinced to support a leader by an appeal to ego, prosperity, liberty, or the threat of losing all three by force.
Perception is reality. Our perception is manipulated by politics. This is why Obama is a stronger candidate than McCain, regardless of your political persuasion. He has a greater control of mass perception.
Jim, there is nothing negative about being a manipulator. In fact, MLK was a brilliant manipulator. Rosa Parks was a planned event. MLK made certain the reporters knew in advance of his marches. He wanted the world to witness men and women savagely attacked by dogs, hosed by cops, etc. It takes a manipulation of perception to make change in society.
Post a Comment