6/6/2014
Interview with Alexei Yurchak
ARTMARGINS PRINT
ARTMargins Home
Home
5 Interviews
Blog
Support AMO
Archive
About AMO
Interview with Alexei Yurchak
New In ARTMargins Print
Interview with Alexei Yurchak
Interviews
Written by Andres Kurg (Tallinn)
Thursday, 05 June 2014 00:00
ARTMargins Print has
released its new issue, 3.1.
(February 2014)!
Articles: Ros Gray
(London) considers two art
works made in recent
years in Angola: the
exhibition Lion & Ox, which
featured art works by
António Ole and Art
Orienté objet, and the
installation Icarus 13 by
Kiluanji Kia Henda ("A
Lingering Lusotopia:
Thinking the Planetary
from Angola"). María
Amalia García writes
about past disputes
between Argentina and
Brazil over hegemony in
the region and proposes a
new approach to Brazilian
cultural intervention in
Paraguay ("Hegemonies
and Models of Cultural
Modernization in South
America: The Paraguay
Brazil Case"). Focusing on
Artur Barrio, Jacques
Coursil, and Damián
Ortega, Fernanda Negrete
discusses the plastic arts'
nondialectical engagement
with materiality ("Chaos
monde and the Aesthetics
of Depth in Artur Barrio,
Jacques Coursil, and
Damián Ortega").
In the Document
section, we present a
stenogram of an artists'
meeting that took place in
1951 in Kishinev (as the
capital of today's Republic
of Moldova was called in
those days). The text
discloses some of the
major issues and
challenges faced by the
members of this artist
organization during the
late Stalinist era.
(Introduction: Octavian
Esanu)
Artist Project: Azin
Feizabadi, "Chronicles from
Majnun until Layla."
Review Article: Huw
Hallam, "Confronting
Globalization." This article
Alexei Yurchak is Associate Professor in the Department of
Anthropology and core faculty member in the Department of
Performance Studies at the University of California, Berkeley. In
2006, Yurchak published a groundbreaking study of the lateSoviet
period, Everything Was Forever, Until It Was No More: The Last
Soviet Generation (Princeton University Press), which earned him
widespread recognition. Analyzing a variety of major shifts in
political representation and meaning after the middle 1950s, and
ensuing changes in late Soviet everyday practices—from Soviet
ideological language to the fascination with Western rock music, the
spread of popular jokes and anecdotes, among others—the book
refutes a widespread take on this period as being structured by
binary oppositions, such as public versus private; the people versus
the state; the official versus the unofficial sphere, or the Soviet
versus the antiSoviet. Drawing on this extensive ethnographic
study of the lateSoviet period, Yurchak expands in this interview on
why the notions of the "dissident" or "nonconformist" artist are inadequate for characterizing informal
artistic groups in the lateSoviet period.
Andres Kurg: In your book, Everything Was Forever, Until it Was No More, (2006) you redefined the
whole problematic of binary oppositions that are conventionally used in the writings on lateSoviet history
such as official culture vs. unofficial culture, "us" (the people) vs. "them" (the state, the system), or
"first economy vs. second economy." You discuss two different languages: the stagnant and repetitive
"authoritative discourse" of the partystate, and the experimental and inventive language of other
registers of discourse. However, instead of keeping these two languages apart form each other, which is
done in most accounts of Soviet cultural history, you brought them together: in your account they are
directly linked and even depend on each other. Could you say a few words about how you arrived at this
subject and how you developed your approach?
Alexei Yurchak: The way I first thought about late socialism as a topic of research was partly shaped by
my experience living and studying in the US. I came to the US from the Soviet Union in 1990 to attend
graduate school at Duke University, to study cultural anthropology. I sent my application to Duke from
Leningrad (St. Petersburg) in 1989, and a few months later I learned that I had been admitted. At that
time, the US media, Americans, and even academia in the US had a very vague understanding of life in
the Soviet Union. Much of that knowledge was shaped by Cold War stereotypes. To a large extent this is
still the case. At the same time, postSoviet Russian accounts of the Soviet past were also becoming
increasingly problematic to me; that past is either rejected altogether, or reinterpreted in terms of a
cartoonish heroic struggle with an evil regime. My interest in revisiting the last several decades of Soviet
history was formed against the background of these ideologically shaped accounts coming from both the
US and Russia. I wanted to respond to them.
My other formative experience came from an earlier period, the 1980s, when, living in Leningrad, I was
working as a scientist and was involved in the socalled "informal" art scene. I was especially close to the
"informal" rock band AVIA, and to "informal" theaters Litsedei and Derevo. In 1987 I left my scientific
career and became AVIA's fulltime manager. This may explain to some extent why I turned to language
as a prism through which to look at the lateSoviet period. In AVIA we experimented with the "official"
party discourse that everyone constantly encountered in slogans, speeches, and newspaper articles.
Another important experience came during Perestroika in the late 1980s. At that time, the Komsomol
http://www.artmargins.com/index.php/5-interviews/736-interview-with-alexei-yurchak-
1/10
6/6/2014
Interview with Alexei Yurchak
reviews Pamela M. Lee's
Forgetting the Art World
(2012) and TJ Demos's
Return to the Postcolony
(2013).
Click here for more
information at the MIT
Press ARTMargins site.
read more
Letters
Letter to the editor
regarding Professor
Caroline A. Jones's article
"Anthropophagy in São
Paulo's Cold War",
published in ARTMargins,
2:1 and the author's
response.
(Communist Youth League) became the first ideological state organization to be authorized to provide
"informal" Soviet rock bands and theaters, as well as the first "informal" businesses, with a state
institutional affiliation that allowed them to perform as "professional" enterprises and to make money off
these performances in the Soviet Union and abroad. These activities were made possible because of a
peculiar dual identity that local Komsomol Committees had at the time. On paper it looked like these
committees organized the concerts and tours of informal bands, while in practice we were organizing
everything ourselves. The only thing they did was produce official documents and write official reports
that characterized our activities to the state as "Komsomol youth work." This formal linguistic
representation (or rather, misrepresentation) of our activities by an ideological state institution allowed
informal rock groups and theaters in the late 1980s, for the first time in Soviet history, to become
"professional" groups and theaters—i.e. to make a living off their musical and theatrical activities, play
official concerts, go on tours, sell tickets, records and Tshirts, and so on. This formal representation
freed us from almost any control from the state; what we, in fact, performed and how much we earned
became largely invisible to the state during those years. Between 1987 and 1991, AVIA was one of many
informal bands that used that system. We performed in many Western European countries, played at
festivals, released a record in the UK (AVIA, Hannibal Records, 1990) and several others in the Soviet
Union (until then it had been impossible for informal bands to release or sell records).
read more
Search ARTMargins
Search....
Go
Newsletter Signup
Email Address:
Subscribe
Rock group AVIA, Concertperformance in the 1980s. Image courtesy Alexei Yurchak.
Paradoxically, an ideological state institution freed us from the very state that it represented. That
experience reflected a particular relationship between the form of ideological discourse and the meanings
that were able to develop under the auspices of this form. While this ambivalent relationship to
ideological form existed in all periods of Soviet history, it was during Perestroika that it expanded and
became explicitly used and abused by the Komsomol and the party, becoming one of the engines of the
Soviet system's internal transformation.(1)
There was another important experience in my work with AVIA. It was more than a band: it was also a
theater, with twenty performers on stage, and with amazing artists and actors affiliated with it, all
working towards recreating a remarkable Soviet spectacle on stage, with elements of Soviet parades,
meetings, human pyramids, ideological symbols, avantgarde poetry—all wrapped into a mixture of
punk, ska, and military march music. This was done ironically, but with a straight face and in a style that
invoked not only enthusiasm but also insanity. For example, one of our tours was called Navstrechu
1000letiyu velikogo oktyabrya! (Let's Meet the 1000 Year Anniversary of the Great October Revolution!),
which was an overblown version of a common party slogan that called on everyone to work "Towards the
70th anniversary of the Great October", or Lenin's "100th anniversary." One thousand years replaced one
hundred years to stress that the group was even more enthusiastic, overly enthusiastic, in its use of the
official party rhetoric, than the party functionaries themselves. This was instantly hilarious to the
audience, but it also seemed strange to many viewers, since most other informal rock bands tried to be
either apolitical or, by the end of Perestroika, overtly critical of Soviet slogans. But AVIA performed under
a huge Sovietlooking banner, on which slogans were not ridiculed, but "overcelebrated." The point was
to remain pure to the ideological form—to march, sing and perform enthusiastically, like stereotypical
"good Soviets," but also to do this in a manner that was somewhat overthetop. This subverted the
meaning of everything without explicitly describing the act of subversion.
Many informal musicians and artists in the Soviet Union felt that if an artist performed a direct, explicit
http://www.artmargins.com/index.php/5-interviews/736-interview-with-alexei-yurchak-
2/10
6/6/2014
Interview with Alexei Yurchak
attack on Soviet ideology his/her art was uninteresting, banal, or in bad taste. Of course, expressing
direct support for the Soviet party rhetoric was even worse. It was important to maintain a subtle
balance—to be ironic but not explicitly so, to be critical but not negative. AVIA always tried not only to
be ironic towards the rigid ideological symbols and rhetoric, showing their absurdity, but also to preserve
some warmth and respect towards the original revolutionary, utopian, avantgarde ideals from which
these ideological symbols had emerged. Later we learned that a similar position was practiced by the
Slovenian rock group Laibach, the art group Irwin, and by other members of the Neue Slowenische Kunst
(NSK) movement. We saw their videos for the first time around 1988.(2) In Laibach's performances,
"totalitarian" images and symbols were also treated in an ambivalent manner. However, Laibach's style
was serious, somber, and even spooky, while AVIA's was insanely enthusiastic and fun.
Rock group Laibach, Concert in the 1980s. Image courtesy Alexei Yurchak.
The experience of working with AVIA in those years made the distinction between the ambivalence of
ideological symbols visible in two ways: in the way the band experimented with this ambivalence, and in
the way the Komsomol, by "sponsoring" rock bands, manipulated it. Later in the book I distinguish
between the literal sense of ideological symbols and the meaning of their ritualized form, calling these
"constative meaning" and "performative meaning." These terms are derived from John Austin's theory of
the performative, although originally I didn't think in terms of that theory because I didn't know it at the
time.
It was a little later that I encountered references to Laibach and NSK in my studies of language and
ideology. Around 1991–1992, I came across Slavoj Žižek's book The Sublime Object of Ideology(3) and
his remarkable essay "Why Are Laibach and NSK not Fascists"(4) and instantly knew that this is a kind of
perspective on state socialism that I wanted to draw upon. Žižek had been very close to NSK and
Laibach, wrote some texts for them and about them, and has been influenced by their work. At the same
time, I intuitively felt that I could not completely agree with Žižek's provocative tendency to over
generalize, his anecdotal evidence, and even his ironic style of writing. His texts were evocative and
influential for me, but I also wanted to make a step backwards or sideways from them, by trying to
investigate real socialism in a more empirically grounded and ethnographically rich way. I wanted to do
"fieldwork" within the sociocultural context of Soviet socialism as an anthropologist, which also meant
doing historical anthropology, since socialism had already ended.
AK: Another important point you make in your book is that there was a big difference between texts
written inside the Soviet Union during the Soviet period (1970s and early 1980s) and texts written about
it retrospectively. You argue that in memoirs of Soviet life written after the fall of the Soviet Union,
authors tend to remember themselves as more critical of the Soviet system and more detached from it
than they had actually been at the time. This can be demonstrated by comparing their postSoviet
memoirs with their Soviettime texts. This concerns not only officially published Soviet texts, but also the
unedited or uncensored texts of samizdat, and even private diaries. In other words, you argue that many
postSoviet accounts of Soviet life are tainted by a critical ideology that emerged after Soviet history
ended. Did your recognition of this tendency grow out of your own life experience during the lateSoviet
period?
AY: Yes, to some extent this recognition grew out of my own experience of the 1970s and 1980s. But I
should also stress that much of that realization was shaped by the fieldwork research of late socialism
http://www.artmargins.com/index.php/5-interviews/736-interview-with-alexei-yurchak-
3/10
6/6/2014
Interview with Alexei Yurchak
that I conducted in the 1990s. Until my research, I had not been aware of the hidden paradoxes and
mechanisms of the Soviet political system, of the multiple cultural ideologies of different social groups
and institutions, and of the many types of social relations, attitudes and lifestyles that developed in the
lateSoviet period.
I came of age and started independent life in the early 1980s. During Soviet times many younger
people, members of my generation, including "informal" artists, distanced themselves from political
issues, which meant distancing oneself not only from active participation in the state, but also from
dissident circles. However, by the end of Perestroika, and especially in the 1990s, it became quite
common to claim that one had always been in active opposition to the "regime." Perestroika brought with
it a new dominant form of cultural ideology and a new kind of discourse, which provided a way of
conceptualizing the Soviet past and talking about it in terms that were different from how it was
experienced and talked about before. As a result of this shift of ideology and discourse, one's assessment
of reality and one's own role within it changed. People's memories of themselves became profoundly
reshaped by this change. Many of them now remembered themselves as having been more explicitly
"oppositional" in the political sense than they actually had been. Their previous quiet alienation from the
state now was often rearticulated as an active opposition. This does not necessarily mean that people
consciously manipulated their recollections of the past because it had become advantageous to do so,
although such calculated reasoning also existed. Rather, it means that the powerful sociocultural rupture
of people's symbolic world that Perestroika produced made it difficult to revisit one's personal life
experience before the change, during the years when that change had been still unimaginable. It became
hard to suspend one's presentday understandings and instead to reencounter one's previous self as it
had existed before the rupture. The location from which people were able to "access" their own histories
had radically shifted.
Of course, not everyone claimed that their identity during the Soviet times should be characterized in
oppositional terms. Some people explicitly refused making such a claim in the terms offered by the
suppressionresistance paradigm. This refusal seemed especially common when Soviet individuals
encountered "Western" Cold War stereotypes about the Soviet subject that tended to trivialize that
subject and his/her life. The counterreaction that such stereotypical accounts produced helped many
Soviet people to preserve their memories of the past. Incidentally, the experience of the socalled "Soviet
nostalgia" and "Soviet patriotism" of the last decade in Russia have also partly developed as a counter
reaction to persistent Cold War images of the Soviet past, and increasingly also of Russia's present.
When the famous "unofficial" Soviet artist Ilya Kabakov arrived in the US in the early 1990s, he was
interviewed by an American art historian who started his interview by asking the artist to describe his life
as a dissident Soviet artist. To this Kabakov replied with visible irritation: "I was not a dissident. I did not
fight with anything or anybody. The word does not apply to me."(5) Clearly, Kabakov was not a fan of the
Soviet system. However, his answer showed his refusal of the simplistic binary descriptions of Soviet life
and the Soviet subject. Such reactions confirmed my personal experience that the terms "dissident
artists" or "nonconformist artists" (another term that became popular in postSoviet descriptions of the
Soviet past) did not accurately capture the existence of a large number of informal artistic groups during
the Soviet years.(6)
In the late 1980s, I also knew other members of the St. Petersburg informal artistic scene: the
Necrorealist circle of filmmakers (Evgeny Yufit, Vladimir Kustov, Kostya Mitenev), artist and cultural
ideologist Timur Novikov, and the remarkable musician, composer, philosopher, and provocateur Sergei
Kurekhin(7) After the fall of the Soviet Union, I talked to Yufit and Kustov about how they started their
artistic work. They began already in the 1970s, when they were still in the eighth or ninth grade of
elementary school. At first they simply organized occasional pranks in public places in Leningrad, not
thinking of these practices as "art." Rather, they saw themselves as people who conducted "experiments"
in front of other Soviet people. They wanted to provoke the unsuspecting Soviet public, to see how they
would react to strange events and characters. These experiments were provocative and had some
subversive overtones, but the group members avoided conceptualizing them in explicit political terms.(8)
This does not mean that the Necrorealists were
apolitical: their early films contained some critical
references to Socialist Realism and one cannot
help feeling that they were deeply ironic. But their
messages were indirect and hard to interpret.
They were political, but in a different sense that
did not fit the binary of oppression/resistance.
The effect of these actions and later films was not
to provide an articulate critique of the Soviet
system, but rather to carve out an alternative
space within that system in which one could be
neither in favor not in opposition to it, leading a
different life altogether. The fact that the
Necrorealists created strange creatures who were
not quite human (they were either crippled and
http://www.artmargins.com/index.php/5-interviews/736-interview-with-alexei-yurchak-
Necrorealists art group (Yevgeni Yufit, Vladimir Kustov, Kostya Mitenev
and others), Imitation fight on a construction site in Leningrad (St.
4/10
6/6/2014
Interview with Alexei Yurchak
Petersburg), early 1980s. Image courtesy Alexei Yurchak.
insane, or a hybrid of a human and a corpse, or a
human and a tree) was their way of referring to
that alternative space of life that existed within the Soviet reality but did not follow its official binary
logic. Creating such spaces amounted to creating an alternative form of freedom that cannot be
described simply as "freedom from" (Isaah Berlin's "negative freedom" – e.g. freedom from the state,
from political oppression) or "freedom to" (Berlin's "positive freedom" – e.g. freedom to do things within
the state, within its laws). This was another kind of freedom, the freedom of being inside and outside the
system at the same time, the freedom of vnenakhodimost' (inside/outsideness), as I like to call it in
Russian.(9) This freedom emerged when one abided by the laws of the state in form but used that form
to create new unexpected meanings, relations, subjectivities that the state neither anticipated nor
controlled.
Interacting with these and other artists in the late
Soviet 1980s and again in the postSoviet 1990s
made one see how important it was to study the
actual interaction of "official" and "unofficial"
elements in Soviet life in all their complexity, to
study them ethnographically, empirically, which
included studying the complex mythologies about
them that had been created in different periods
and places.
There was another important influence on my
thinking about these problems. In the mid1990s,
when I was studying in the doctoral program in
Anthropology at Duke University, I became
involved in intense discussions among graduate
students about the meaning and forms of
"politics." It was an interesting time at Duke:
Fredric Jameson and Stanley Fish were teaching on
language, ideology and postmodernism in the
Comparative Literature department; Michael Hardt
gave his lectures on politics and imperialism,
which later became part of his and Negri's Empire;
Žižek frequently visited with talks on everything
imaginable. The questions of politics, revolution,
socialism, capitalism were all actively debated. The
Yevgeni Yufit in 1980s. Image courtesy Alexei Yurchak.
fall of the Soviet Union was still a recent event,
and the "postcommunist condition" of the world
was still felt acutely in the American humanities and social sciences.
AK: There was a shift in the discourse of the young urban generations in many parts of the world in the
late 1960s and early 1970s, when certain attitudes and values changed. Yet the dominant regime in the
Soviet Union did not notice that change, which resulted in a miscommunication between them and the
young people.
AY: I think you are right. This was an international
phenomenon, which in the Soviet case manifested
itself in a peculiar way. Among young people, it
often took the form of actively refusing to identify
with anything "political" because the meaning of
the term "politics" was dominated by the discourse
of the partystate, and implied either the position
of the Communist Party or the position of
antisovetchik, being an antiSoviet person, a
dissident. The serious rejection of the conservative
official definitions manifested itself in the West in
the student movement, in protests against the
Sergei Kurekhin in 1980s. Image courtesy Alexei Yurchak.
Vietnam war, and so on. In the Soviet case, it took
the form of experiments with alternative forms of
freedom that refused to be defined in the terms set by the state—including the idea of being opposed to
the state—and that claimed instead that the political as such was irrelevant and uninteresting.
AK: You argue in your book that this apolitical position was different from withdrawal, or apathy...
AY: Exactly. It was not a form of apathy, withdrawal, or apolitical cynicism because it involved not just
ignorance, but an active and constantly maintained act of distancing. When someone finds it important
http://www.artmargins.com/index.php/5-interviews/736-interview-with-alexei-yurchak-
5/10
6/6/2014
Interview with Alexei Yurchak
to insist that he or she is not interested in any engagement with the political life of the state, as either
its supporter or its dissenter, and instead actively tries to carve out a nonpolitical existence — this
should warn you that their form of existence may be not simply "apoliticial" or apathetical, but instead
may have an alternative political significance. Actively disengaging from what the state recognizes as
"political" is not the same as being ignorant of political choices or ethical positions altogether. Such
existence in fact allowed many young Soviets to lead a form of social life that undermined many
foundations of the partycentered system without openly confronting it. I argue that active attempts by
these people to distance themselves from anything that was officially recognized as "political" should be
seen as an important political reaction in its own right. They created an alternative form of "politics",
even when they refused to call their position by this tainted word (a word whose meaning was defined in
the terms set by the state). We may call this alternative form of politics "apolitical politics." In my work I
also call it the politics of vne and the politics of vnenakhodimost' (of being "inside/outside"), in analogy
with the alternative form of freedom that I mentioned earlier. This political position was neither prostate
nor antistate; rather, it amounted to actively reinterpreting reality in completely new, nonbinary terms.
In the Soviet Union, this alternative politics was a phenomenon of the 1970s and it spread into all
spheres of Soviet life.
In the artistic sphere, this alternative politics enabled the experimental art about which we spoke earlier.
For example, many younger Soviet artists, groups of friends and individuals actively organized their
existence around this phenomenon of "apolitical politics," this politics of vnenakhomimost', pursuing
interests that neither coincided with nor opposed the official values of the Soviet system. Most actually
participated in the official state institutions, events, rituals, and elections. They also utilized many of the
services offered by the system: subsidized education, housing, vacations, professional training. At the
same time, many of the practices and lifestyles of these young people were at odds with the system's
ideological messages. Their lifestyle contributed to the reproduction of the Soviet system, but it also
undermined that system's meanings without directly countering them. So, although it was not organized
as an articulated political movement, it nevertheless had important political effects and contributed, for
example, to creating the conditions for the unexpected collapse of the Soviet Union. I suspect we may
find this kind of politics in other parts of the world and historical periods as well; it is likely to exist in all
contexts that precede the unexpected collapse of a dominant political and social system.
AK: But then you go a step further by arguing that there existed a continuity of values between the
repetitive authoritative discourse of the partystate and these other alternative practices that deviated
from it. You suggest that certain socialist values and aspirations that originated in the early revolutionary
period were still being reproduced in the lateSoviet period, even among alternative groups. What were
these values and how did they manifest themselves during the late socialist period, especially among
informal circles?
AY: Let's take the group AVIA: they were always excited by early 20thcentury avantgarde art, the
irrational poetry of the futurists (Kruchenykh and Khlebnikov), the art of Malevich, the literature of the
"Oberiu" circle, or the absurdist stories of Kharms. They were interested in these artists and movements
not simply for their irrational or absurd stylistics, but also for their genuine enthusiasm for revolutionary
change and their desire to invent a new world by using these experimental stylistics. What makes the
avantgarde and early postrevolutionary art probably the most important Russian art in the 20th
century is this genuine and sincere spirit of experimentation, the desire to engage, and to change. It was
this spirit that made earlier avantgarde art so curious and even endearing to many artists of the 1970s
and '80s. With AVIA, you see this link with the avantgarde and with postrevolutionary experiments
quite clearly. These early experiments influenced AVIA's stage sets, music, texts, even their offstage
lifestyles. You see this also with the NSK collective in Slovenia who always refer to Malevich as a direct
influence. Many ethical values and commitments of those earlier revolutionary artists cannot be reduced
to the stagnant value system of the later partystate. While the Soviet bureaucratic system in its late
period employed many ideological slogans of revolutionary times, that system had already lost the
original ethos of experimentation, sincerity and genuine commitment to the future that existed during
the early period. However, that ethos survived in various forms in mundane Soviet life even during late
socialism in spite of the stagnant bureaucratic party system. One place where it survived was informal
Soviet art.
Another cultural feature of these informal artistic circles was their disdain for the financial side of life.
Money as a tool for calculating the meaning of actions and ideas was largely absent from that scene. This
was another clearly "socialist" feature of the informal art scene. This does not mean that these groups
and circles consciously agreed with the anticapitalist rhetoric of the communist partystate; it rather
means that they developed under conditions that were free from market pressures, i.e., the very
conditions created by the Soviet state. These conditions quite literally enabled very particular nonliberal
and noncapitalist kinds of social relations, cultural ideology, and forms of creativity. In general the kind
of alternative social spaces that existed in the lateSoviet period, including informal artistic groups, were
more compatible with the philosophical foundations of socialism than with liberalism; they became
possible because one could practice there a particular, detached relationship with the economic sphere, in
a situation where one did not have to face it too explicitly.
However, when market reforms began in the 1990s, including the neoliberal ideology of individual
http://www.artmargins.com/index.php/5-interviews/736-interview-with-alexei-yurchak-
6/10
6/6/2014
Interview with Alexei Yurchak
freedom and of worth that can be calculated economically, not only the Soviet state but also the
"informal" socialist world started to disintegrate rapidly and violently. The arrival of the postSoviet
market quickly affected everything, from prices and forms of property to social relationships, one's
experience of time, and so on. The valuation of life itself changed. Many friendships were destroyed and
many social values overturned. This was when a new perception emerged: that the previous interests and
activities of the Soviet people had been inefficient, pointless, badly organized, naïve, and ethically
problematic. Many people commented that they were losing their friends, their free time, and their sense
of meaning. A big revelation of the 1990s was that during the Soviet period many socialist values had
been important to alternative and informal circles in spite of the Soviet state, even if they did not realize
that fact until after the collapse of that state.
AK: You describe this phenomenon not only in the context of select artistic circles, but as a wider social
tendency that had repercussions everywhere, including in the context of the Komsomol. What role did
official Soviet education play in this? How much of these ideals came from the school system?
AY: Socialism, like most modern political systems, was based on a paradoxical mix of control and
liberation. On the one hand, according to the cultural ideology that dominated Soviet education, a good
person was supposed to be inquisitive, openminded, independent in his or her thinking, engaged in
disputes, keen on experimentation. Ideally that person wrote poetry, kept a diary, was interested in the
theater, literature, science, etc. He/she was also supposed to openly criticize conservative bureaucrats (a
"bureaucrat" was a bad word in the Soviet Union). On the other hand, the party and its active members
and leaders were seen as the ultimate bureaucrats, and ubiquitous bureaucratic party control was the
other side of Soviet cultural ideology. So, a good Soviet citizen was supposed to be two things at once:
liberated, enlightened, and independent, and, at the same time, keen on attending endless tedious
meetings and participate in ideological rituals where he/she repeated ideological phraseology and
supported ideological decisions that had been closely controlled by the party apparatus and that had little
to do with independent spirit and experimentation.
This paradox was there from the very beginning; it was written into the very logic of Bolshevik
revolutionary practice, as well as avantgarde experimentation. But by the 1970s, this paradox reached
its peak. Now a person could desire to be a liberated and educated individual, and think of these traits as
normal and even normally Soviet, but without having to invest this desire with any real affinity for the
Communist Party. Similarly, one could feel real alienation from party and Komsomol rituals and language
as they pervaded one's life, but without necessarily casting such alienation in terms of political
opposition.
Another curious aspect of this paradox was that many people might feel alienated not necessarily from
"the system" as a whole, but only from some of its more bureaucratic or mechanistic parts, while feeling
affinity for other elements, from its cultural ideology to its ethical claims about social responsibility,
education, and work. In other words, "the system" was usually experienced not as one whole body
divided into official and unofficial parts, or into the people and the state, but in terms of multiple internal
contradictions, divisions, and caesura. During my research for the book it was a revelation to find a
number of materials such as, for example, the letters written in the 1970s by a young man from Yakutsk
to his friend in Leningrad. I write about these letters in Chapter 6 of my book. They show a guy who was
very active in the Komsomol throughout his youth, at first in school and later at the university. He was
genuinely interested in the philosophical foundations of Communism, more so than most of his peers at
the time. He read Marx and Lenin and discussed their writings with his friend in the letters. More
importantly, he argued that many party and Komsomol bosses did not understand communism correctly;
he was quite critical of party bureaucrats, from the position of someone who was interested in
communism despite these bureaucrats. He was not an uneducated, uncouth guy either; on the contrary,
he was a talented mathematician who had won many math Olympiads. In addition he was also a great
lover of Western rock music and collected many "black market" recordings of Western bands: King
Crimson, Yes, David Bowie, Pink Floyd. In his letters he tries to analyze their music in a sophisticated
way, with the same passion with which he discusses communism and mathematics.
One may say that this young man and his friend were not typical Soviets; their case demonstrates that
these different interests, values and commitments could coexist in one person. This young man's
passions for Western rock and for the philosophy of communism, as well as his critique of the party
bureaucrats were all real. He never experienced them as incompatible; in fact, he actively argued that
the best examples of Western rock were directly linked with the communist dream. This and other
examples show that positing communist values and "informal" cultural forms as a priori incompatible
with each other, as located on two different sides of a binary divide, can be a gross oversimplification.
When I was writing my dissertation at Duke, I had an argument with a young political scientist from
Bulgaria who argued that it was impossible to love Led Zeppelin and be a young communist at the same
time. I asked him whether this statement was based on any thorough research or just his personal
feeling. And of course, he did not do any research apart from reading a few postcommunist memoirs
and interviewing a couple of his friends from the younger, postcommunist generation. While his position
was shared by many people during socialism, it certainly did not represent the only possible way in which
these different cultural artifacts and ideologies could relate to each other. The Yakutsk example
demonstrates that it is necessary to draw not only on memoirs and interviews from the present, but also
http://www.artmargins.com/index.php/5-interviews/736-interview-with-alexei-yurchak-
7/10
6/6/2014
Interview with Alexei Yurchak
on the materials from the past, such as letters and diaries.
AK: Your current research is looking at Lenin and the body of Lenin. This seems to represent again a new
moment in the research done on the Soviet Union and its iconic figures. While the postSoviet discourse
in the 1990s had a very ironic take on Lenin and his body lying in the Mausoleum, using it as material for
numerous jokes, you return to Lenin in a serious way. I do not mean this in the officialbureaucratic
sense, as if you abstain from criticaltheoretical reflection, but in the sense that you do not ridicule this
material.
AY: I am less interested in discussing Lenin's "real" ideas than in analyzing how a certain "Leninsymbol"
was constructed and functioned in Soviet history. I focus on several key moments in that history, the way
I see them. The first one starts with the early 1920s, when Lenin fell seriously ill and was relatively
isolated from political life, and it continues until several years after he died in 1924. It was in the early
1920s that a certain "artificial Lenin" was first aggressively constructed by choosing, editing, misquoting,
censoring, and inventing some of Lenin's texts and ideas, by disconnecting his real statements from their
original context, by creating and imposing normative stories and normative visual representations of
Lenin. The construction of this artificial "Lenin," of course, did not end with the 1920s – it continued
throughout Soviet history, differently in different periods. But some of its formative parameters were set
in the 1920s.
One trait of the constructed "Lenin" that remained the same until the Soviet collapse was that this
artificial figure occupied an external position in relation to the Soviet political system, functioning as its
"anchor." This means that on the level of Soviet ideological discourse, "Lenin" could not be questioned,
and that this figure had to be constantly invoked and referred to as a means for legitimating any political
statement or act. This "constructed Lenin" became the embodiment of the external Truth of the Soviet
symbolic system – the kind of "truth" that in any political system has to be treated as a priori beyond
doubt, in order for that system to exist at all. That Truth cannot be questioned or proven by means of
the system's political discourse because it functions as a condition for the very existence of that
discourse, not the other way around.
In this new book I also focus on the last years of Soviet history, from the late 1980s to 1991. At that
time the Soviet leadership claimed that democratic reforms of socialism required that we go back to the
"authentic" Lenin. It was claimed that Lenin had been distorted during previous periods of Soviet history
by Stalin, Brezhnev and others, and that if we managed to return to the original undistorted version of
Lenin then true democratic socialism would be finally possible. That claim actually was produced many
times in the previous Soviet periods too—during the Thaw of the late 1950s, and a few other times. But
during Perestroika this claim developed further. A new understanding now emerged: that Lenin had been
distorted not just in some problematic periods of Soviet history, but during all of Soviet history from
beginning to end – that Soviet history was one long distortion of the original Lenin's thought. This new
development in the Perestroika argument meant that the original undistorted Lenin, to whom the
country was supposed to return, was in fact unknown and first needed to be discovered. During the final
years of Perestroika the party reformers argued that we must find that "unknown Lenin," rediscover the
person whom we had never known, let his hidden voice speak to us for the first time. But this also meant
that the political discourse of the party was now shot through with a peculiar paradox: on the one hand,
that discourse was making the usual claim that we must return to the true undistorted Lenin; on the
other hand, it was also saying that this Lenin was unknown. In this paradoxical situation the legitimacy of
the party and the Soviet system—a legitimacy that had been based on constant references to "Lenin"—
could no longer be sustained. The Soviet Union imploded; this happened first and foremost on the
symbolic level, and this symbolic crisis was of course soon reflected in the political, economic and other
crises.(10)
What is particularly interesting to me is how the ongoing construction and reconstruction of the figure of
the artificial "Lenin" was directly linked to the practice of preserving, improving, and changing the body
lying in the Mausoleum. That body cannot be understood as simply a symbol created for public
propaganda, the way it is usually understood.(11) It is located outside the field of politics and
propaganda, outside of political discourse and representation, in a location that is external to the Soviet
symbolic system. It functions as a material form of that system's external anchor, of its foundational,
unquestionable, and indescribable Truth.
I want to write a history of that body and a history of the scientific experiments and procedures to which
it has been subjected over the years. I have done a lot of research in this unique area, much of which has
not been studied and remains unrepresented in open archives and publications. Part of my research has
been ethnographic and was conducted in close contact with the scientists involved in this project. I
cannot say more at this point. However, my main interest in this project is not just historical. I want to
figure out how to make sense of this body in relation to the figure of the external, artificial "Lenin" that I
described earlier. The scientific and political project of maintaining Lenin's body has been extremely
complex. It has included many extravagant procedures and techniques to which that body is being
subjected, such as frequent reembalmings, constant testing, handling, fixing and reconstructing. It has
also included the ongoing development of a unique experimental science.
This project is remarkable because it provides us with a glimpse of the symbolic structure of a political
http://www.artmargins.com/index.php/5-interviews/736-interview-with-alexei-yurchak-
8/10
6/6/2014
Interview with Alexei Yurchak
system that cannot be studied purely discursively since its external anchor has also an irreducible
material core, a kind of metaphysical materiality. The body in the Mausoleum is then also a complex and
constantly emerging material form, with peculiar chemical, physical, biological, mechanical
characteristics. And this is not simply an isolated form, but an extension of the many scientific
experiments, labs, manipulations, discoveries, and remarkable breakthroughs in "regular medicine" to
which this research has inadvertently led.
AK: What is fascinating about all these processes around the bodyembalming and reembalming,
preserving its mechanical characteristics, its flexibilities, etc. is the truly experimental nature of the
whole procedure. It is never known in advance what is going to happen to it eventually. The project
doesn't have a clear predefined goal. I'm thinking here of the argument about socialism in your previous
book, where you also related the emergence of the internal tension within late socialism to the spirit of
experimentation, to the constant quest for the new.
AY: You are absolutely right. It is important, for example, that the party leadership and the scientists
did not know in the beginning, in 1924, what would happen to Lenin's body. Originally, for the first
several weeks there was no clear intention to preserve that body forever, or even for a considerable
period of time. Thinking about that body in terms of eternity, in terms of "forever" emerged gradually.
That idea was not formulated as an original goal; and when it was formulated, the body had already
changed quite substantially, and it meant something quite different form the original corpse of the
leader.
It is also important that the scientific procedures to which that body is subjected have been changing
and evolving over the years. This affected the criteria according to which the body has been maintained.
The procedures, criteria, and scientific knowledge concerning different tissues, materials and parameters
have been evolving, and the body as a material form has been evolving with them. Some of the body's
parameters have been steadily improving over the years, because the science around it has been
developing and becoming more sophisticated.(12)
Despite all the developments and changes of this project, the scientists at the lab have always used one
reference point in all their multiple measurements, the moment of Lenin's death. That moment
constituted not just the end of a person but also the beginning of a new system. This had repercussions
for the material form of that body. It was not preserved once and for all; rather it had become a form
that has been continuously unfolding and changing in order to remain "the same." Its properties are
dynamic and regularly develop further, its materials are replaced and renewed, there is a futureoriented
momentum in all of this. What is being preserved here is not just Lenin but a temporal unfolding that
started at the moment of his death, a kind of ongoing time that cannot stop on its own.
AK: Thank you.
Tallinn, DecemberFebruary 2013/14
Andres Kurg is an architectural historian and researcher at the
Institute of Art History, Estonian Academy of Arts, in Tallinn. His
research concerns the architecture and design of the Soviet Union in
the late 1960s and 1970s in relation to technological transformations
and changes in everyday life as well as in its intersections with
alternative art practices. He has published articles in The Journal of
Architecture, ARTMargins, Home Cultures, and A Prior Magazine and
contributed to exhibition catalogues and books on postSocialist
urban transformations and spatial conflicts. He has coedited and
authored Environment, Projects, Concepts. Architects of the Tallinn
School 1972–1985 (Estonian Museum of Architecture, 2008); and
cocurated Our Metamorphic Futures. Design, Technical Aesthetics and Experimental
Architecture in the Soviet Union 19601980 at the Vilnius National Gallery of Art (20112012).
NOTES
1. Not surprisingly, many former Komsomol and Party officials emerged as the "winners" during the early years of the post
Soviet market reforms. The special position of these ideological institutions in the late 1980s allowed for the first private
http://www.artmargins.com/index.php/5-interviews/736-interview-with-alexei-yurchak-
9/10
6/6/2014
Interview with Alexei Yurchak
companies to accumulate considerable capital, with this practice remaining largely invisible to other state institutions and the
public (examples of this process include such former Komsomol leaders and future oligarchs as Mikhail Khodorkovsky). See a
discussion of this development of business under the auspices of the Komsomol in A. Yurchak, "Entrepreneurial
Governmentality in PostSocialist Russia: A Cultural Investigation of Business Practices," in The New Entrepreneurs of Europe
and Asia. Bonell, Victoria and Thomas Gold, eds. (Armonk, N.Y.: M. E. Sharpe, 2001). [back]
2. For a more detailed comparison of Laibach and AVIA see Alexei Yurchak. "Mimetic Critique of Ideology. Laibach and AVIA."
Chto Delat' # 19. Available at: http://chtodelat.org/b8newspapers/1251/mimeticcritiqueofideologylaibachandavia/ [back]
3. London, Verso, 1991. [back]
4. M'ARS, N. 3/4, 1993, pp. 34. [back]
5. Renee Baigell and Matthew Baigell, eds. 1995. Soviet Dissident Artists: Interviews after Perestroika (New Brunswick: Rutgers
University Press, 1995), p. 142. See a more detailed discussion of this point in: Alexei Yurchak, "PostPostSoviet Sincerity:
Young Pioneers, Cosmonauts and other Soviet Heroes Born Today," in Thomas Lahusen and Peter Solomon, eds., What is
Soviet Now? (LIT Verlag, 2009). [back]
6. See a discussion of the postSoviet term "nonconformists" in: Alexei Yurchak, "Politika vnenakhodimosti: ukhod ot binarnogo
razdleneiia sovetskoi kul'tury na ofitsial'nuiu i neofitsial'nuiu." Mify i teorii v iskusstve Rossii 1970 – 2012 godov. Arttsentr
"Pushkinskaia 10." Musei nonkonformistskogo iskusstva. SPb, 2013. [back]
7. On the aesthetic and political experiments of Kurekhin see: Alexei Yurchak. "A Parasite from Outer Space: How Sergei
Kurekhin Proved that Lenin was a Mushroom," Slavic Review, vol. 70, n. 1, 2011. On some cultural work of Timur Novikov and
his circle see Alexei Yurchak, "Gagarin and the Ravekids: Transforming Power, Identity and Aesthetics in the PostSoviet Night
Life," in Consuming Russia: Popular Culture, Sex, and Society Since Gorbachev, in: Adele Barker, ed. (Duke University Press,
1999). [back]
8. See analysis of the early beginnings of Necrorealism in Alexei Yurchak, "Necroutopia: The Politics of Indistinction and the Art
of the NonSoviet," Current Anthropology, vol. 49, n. 2, 2008. [back]
9. For a detailed discussion see the Russian version of Yurchak's book, Eto bylo navsegda, poka etogo ne stalo. NLO Books, M.,
2014. [back]
10. For a discussion of this argument see: Alexei Yurchak. «Esli by Lenin byl zhiv, on by znal chto delat'. Golaia zhizn' vozhdia»,
Novoe Literaturnoe Obozrenie, N 83, 2007. An online version is available here:
http://magazines.russ.ru/nlo/2007/83/ur13.html [back]
11. See, for example, Nina Tumarkin. Lenin Lives! Lenin Cult in Soviet Russia (Harvard University Press, 1983). [back]
12. See a discussion of this analysis in: Alexei Yurchak. «Netlennost' formy: Leninism i material'nost' mavzoleinogo tela»,
Neprekosnovennyi zapas, N. 3, 2013. An online version is available here: http://www.nlobooks.ru/node/3732 [back]
terms of use | privacy policy | ISSN 19414102
©19992013 ARTMargins. All rights reserved.
site by PIELAB MEDIA
http://www.artmargins.com/index.php/5-interviews/736-interview-with-alexei-yurchak-
10/10