Saturday, April 28, 2012

Too Much of a Good Thing

   The movie “Wall Street” appeared in US theaters in 1987 and for many people this film typified their beliefs regarding the economy.  This film follows the career of Bud Fox, a young stockbroker who becomes involved in various business dealings with Gordon Gekko, an unscrupulous businessman who buys companies in order to sell off what is profitable and then allow the company to fail. 
    Fox goes so far as to actually violate several Federal laws in order to assist Gekko and is finally caught by Federal agents and sent to prison, but not before turning against Gekko and gathering enough information to send Gekko to prison as well. 
    One of the most memorable statements made by Gordon Gekko was, “Greed, for lack of a better word, is good.”  It was his belief that greed inspired people to work harder and become more successful.  For many people this attitude exemplified the stock market in the 1980s.  Several well-known investment bankers went to prison during this period of time after destroying the financial lives of countless people simply because they were greedy. 
    The issue of greed is certainly not limited to the United States, nor was it only present in the 1980s.  This same issue was addressed by the famous Russian poet Alexander Sergeyevich Pushkin (1799-1837) in his poem, The Tale of the Fisherman and the Fish. 1 which was written in 1833.  The story is very simple.  Once upon the time lived a poor fisherman. One day he caught a golden fish. The fish talked with him in a human voice and begged him to go free. She promised to fulfill any of his wishes. He was a kind man and simply let her go free.
    After hearing the story, the fisherman's wife shouted at him and sent him back to see the magic fish - she needed a new washboard. The fish granted the wish, and a new trough magically appeared at their hut.
    However, his wife continued to scream and yell at him. She wanted a new house, to be a noble lady, and then wanted to be the Tsarina. Every time she sent her old husband to the shore, the golden fish fulfilled the wishes of the wicked wife.
    The woman now wanted to be Empress of the Land and the Sea, and that the golden fish should be her servant. The fisherman went to the shore, called to the fish, and when she came he explained the last wish of his wife. The gold fish disappeared without a word. The old man then went home and found his old mud hut, his poor wife, and a broken washboard.2
     Based upon this story it would appear that greed, for lack of a better word, is not necessarily good.  Instead of simply being happy with a new washboard, this woman actually went so far as to ask to become Empress of the Land and Sea and lost everything she had already been given. 
     There is nothing wrong with wanting to things to make your life easier, but the need to acquire things simply because you can or in order to make sure that you do not have fewer things than your neighbor is actually foolish.  However, this is very common in the US.  We need to keep buying things in order to compete with our neighbors.  It is not enough to simply have a mobile phone and a computer; we need to have the latest and most updated model of both, otherwise, how can we possibly show our face in public? 
       When it comes to raising children, I cannot imagine that most people who openly promote greed as a virtue; however, this is the lesson they are being taught by virtue of our actions instead of what we say.  Pushkin’s poem may be written in the form of a fairy tale, but the message it true for adults and children alike. 
                                                        End Notes
1) “The Fisherman and the Little Fish” (translated from Russian) http://www.barynya.com/tales/fish.htm  [accessed 4/28/12].
2) “Fisherman and the Fish” http://www.tradestonegallery.com/index.php?content=fairytaleview&fairytaleid=6&fairytale=fifi&length=S (accessed 4/28/12)

Wednesday, April 25, 2012

Another Day Older and Deeper in Debt

   The title of the article comes from the song, “Sixteen Tons”, which tells the story of an American coal miner and was made famous by Tennessee Ernie Ford.  This song was written in 1946 and what was true just after World War II among the American coal miners is true now among many other aspects of society.  As a consumerist society, the United States actually encourages people to go into debt as a way of helping to support our economy.  In fact, it would not be untrue to say that someone could easily qualify as un-American if they do not go into debt. 
   Going into debt is not normally done because of basic necessities, such as food, but because we have been encouraged to believe that we need to keep buying things in order to be happy.  If a person has any doubt about that, simply watch any television station on any evening and more time will be devoted to commercials than to the actual shows. 
    With every passing year it appears that the middle class is getting smaller and smaller.  I would not be surprised if one day the middle class will disappear altogether.  If you visit almost any suburban area you will see one shopping center after another where all the same products are sold.  This is not a new development.  In the 1960s, there was a song entitled “Big Yellow Taxi” which accurately describes this situation. 
    The demise of the middle class is certainly not a new problem.  This issue was addressed by Anton Chekov (1860-1904) in his play The Cherry Orchard.  This is rather unique because there “main character” is actually the orchard instead of any particular person and there is no character that could be considered a villain.  The main person in the play is Madame Ranevskaya who owns the estate where the orchard is located.
   Madame Ranevskaya is part of the old aristocracy in Russia which has now fallen on hard times.  Her financial situation has given her two options. She can sell her estate and allow new houses to be built on the property or allow it to be taken away by the bank.  Even though she would like to maintain her estate, she realizes this is not possible and either way the orchard will disappear.  Her way of dealing with this is to spend seven years in Western Europe so she does not have to face the situation.  She is also dealing with the fact that her marriage had failed and her son had drowned in the pond on the estate.1 
    Another character was Leonid Andreieveitch Gayev, Madame Ranevshaya’s brother. He is more of a comedic character than his sister.  He is addicted to billiards and cannot engage in conversation without talking about it.  His sister has no husband.  One died and the other one continued to manipulate her even after their marriage failed, so she comes to rely upon Leonid.  However, he still considers himself to be a ‘man of leisure’, so he is not really able to help his sister because he has no idea how to deal with this. He is a not a bad person, he is simply clueless about what is happening around him.
     Next we meet Yermolai Alexeievitch Lopakhin, a merchant. Lopakhin is by far the richest character in the play, but comes from the lowest social class. This contrast defines his character: he is enjoying living the high life, but at the same time is uncomfortably conscious of his low beginnings and obsession with business. He is often portrayed as an unpleasant character because of his greedy tendencies and ultimate betrayal of the Gayev family, there is nothing in the play to suggest this. He works strenuously to help the Gayevs, but to no avail. Lopakhin can be understood as representing the new middle class in Russia; one of many threats to the old aristocratic way of doing things.2 It is this new middle class who will receive the benefit of turning the estate into a housing development. 
    Firs is the manservant who has been with the family for generations.  He is almost 90 years old and remembers the days of Russian serfdom.  An aging eccentric, Firs considers the emancipation of the Russian serfs to be a disaster, and talks nostalgically of the old days, when everybody admired their masters and owners, such as Gayev's parents and grandparents. He can be understood as a supporter of the Slavophile movement and appears to be rather lost in this new society.  In Firs, we can see the decline of the old order.
    Ultimately the cherry orchard is sold and the family leaves the house to be torn down. The orchard is chopped down and sold for the firewood. Chekhov does an amazing job of presenting the different emotions and motivating factors of the characters and, in the end, it seems as though he is making the point that society will progress and change will occur regardless of what the individual might desire or try to hold on to. All of his characters have their personal desires and idiosyncrasies, but they cannot change the fact that Russia is undergoing drastic change. All of the characters are being buffeted by the tide of change, but they can control their future by the attitude with which they view the future.3
     What Chekov wrote about Russia in the 19th Century is also true in the United States in the 21st Century.  Family farms in the US are becoming a thing of the past. The land is worth an enormous amount of money as the farmer sinks deeper and deeper into debt.  His land is sold to a real estate developer who will build another shopping  mall (which we certainly do not need), a housing development where every home looks like every other home, or some “McMansions” (enormous homes which are so expensive to maintain that many people find it difficult to furnish them).  Could this really be considered progress?
   This does not have to be the future of modern society, but if things are going to change it is essential that we bring about this change.  We certainly can control our attitude about the future, but this does not mean that we should simply allow things to remain the same if we can do something to change it. 
   The Cherry Orchard was Chekov’s last play.  He is certainly an example of a classic Russian author since this plays speaks to countless generations and can be read numerous times with different insights being gained with each new reading.
                                                           End Notes
1) Matthew Raphael Johnson The Ancient Orthodox Tradition in Russian Literature (PA: Deipara Press, 2010), p. 77
2) “The Cherry Orchard” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cherry_Orchard
3) “Symbolism in The Cherry Orchard: Chekov’s Russia” http://bewhuebner.hubpages.com/hub/symbolism-in-the-cherry-orchard-chekhovs-russia  

Saturday, April 21, 2012

Two Different Worlds

   One of the most popular songs in the United States in 1956 was entitled “Two Different Worlds”. The title of this song can easily describe one of the many themes which took place in The Uncle’s Dream by Fyodor Mikhaylovich Dostoevsky (1821-1881).  Like most, if not all, of Dostoevsky’s novels there are numerous themes working their way through this novel at the same time.
   This novel takes place in a small provincial town called Mordasov which has within it what might be referred to as a mini-salon; similar to those in St. Petersburg.  However, it is much smaller and of less significance.  The main character is a rather shallow woman named Maria Moskalyova.  She is more interested in appearances than substance and would be considered “plastic” in American society.  She is deceitful, a liar, but, unlike many “plastic” people she lacks any sort of power.
    Maria has a very attractive, head strong daughter named Zina. She has a desire to be honorable in her dealings with men, but lacks a suitable female role model and she also considers herself to be too good for the local men.  As a result of this Zina is very confused.  Her father, Afanasy, is not exactly an ideal male role model.1
    Afanasy is a completely ignorant fool who received his position as a result of his connections.  He is completely clueless and dominated by Maria.  Her father is not exactly the ideal role model when his young daughter is looking for a husband.  In fact, he is the type of man that Zina would not be attracted to at all. Is it any wonder why she is confused? 
    Zina is a pursued by many men, but one, in particular, was a rather sympathetic character known as “The Prince”, a man distantly related to the old gentry of Russian society.  This character calls to mind Prince Lev Nikolayevich Myshkin from Dostoevsky’s novel The Idiot.  Prince Myshkin is a beautiful soul that he is often taken for an idiot, and indeed, he considers himself to be stupid. However, while he suffers from mental illness, he is only “simple” in the sense that he cannot grasp evil. He thinks good of everyone he meets and expects that everyone else does too. This simple acceptance of people, and his simple way of living, leads those around him to befriend him and yet to feel themselves smarter and better than him.2
    The Prince has a small fortune and some land, but, like almost all the characters in this novel, he is as clueless about the world as anyone else.  He is a much older man with several health problems.  Even though there is a major age difference between the Prince and Zina, Maria encourages the relationship as a way of assuring her family that they will inherit the Prince’s fortune.  Actually, the primary concern is that she and Zina will inherit this fortune.  There is very little indication that Maria is concerned about her husband at all.
    Another major character is Pavel Morglyakov.  He is very attracted to Zina and Maria decides to use the prince as a way of getting Pavel out of Zina’s life.  The Prince is invited to Zina’s home, given quite a bit to drink, and Zina begins to sing various songs which are meant to inspire feelings of love.  This plan works.  The Prince proposes to Zina and her mother encourages her to go along with this plan.  Zina is not particularly interested in marrying a much older man who is in such poor physical condition, but Maria finally explains to her the morality of this act. 
    Pavel overhears the conversation between Zina and Maria and informs the Prince of this plan. Pavel realizes that Maria is doing this for the purpose of her own personal advancement and is aware that she will be throwing a major ball for all the most important people in the town so that she can announce Zina’s engagement.  Pavel’s plan is to convince the Prince that this entire event was only a dream, which does not take a great deal of effort given the Prince’s state of confusion.
    At this banquet, Maria is waiting for the proper moment to make the announcement; however, the Prince is now convinced that the entire event was a dream.  Maria is mortified and does what she can to maintain her dignity, but the Prince is convinced that it was a dream.  Maria is so frustrated that she calls the Prince “an imbecile” and the entire event is a major humiliation for Maria. A short time later the prince dies.3
    Zina finds out that Vasya, a poet who Zina loves, is dying and she spends every moment at this bedside.  Vasya is a romantic.  He is intelligent, artistic, and more concerned by his work and the arts than about money.  As you imagine, such a relationship between Zina and Vasya would never appeal to Maria.  There is no ability for personal advancement if your daughter marries a penniless poet. 
   What does all this have to do with “two different worlds”?  Well, the reality is that there are two completely different worlds in this novel.  The Prince represents “Old Russia”.  Old Russian culture, life in Russia prior to the influence of western culture, was very appealing to Dostoevsky.  In The Idiot, Prince Myshkin is also representative of Old Russia.  Its values and traditions appeared to be outdated and dying among those who accepted post-Petrine Russian society.  Old Russian culture can be seen in the characters of Alexei and Dmitry Karamazov in The Brothers Karamazov as well as Sonya in Crime and Punishment
    Dostoevsky would definitely have been considered a Slavophile.  Slavophiles believed that the Russians have a special relationship with authority. The people lived as if they are in a "contract" with the civil system - they are community members, they have their own life, you - the power, you have your own life. Konstantin Sergeyevich Aksakov (1817-1860) wrote that the country has a deliberative vote, the force of public opinion, but the right to make the final decision belongs to the monarch. An example of this relationship may be the relationship between the king and the Zemsky Sobor (first Russian parliament in the 16th Century) in Moscow between the state, which allowed Russia to live in a world without the shocks and the revolutionary upheavals like the French Revolution. "Distortion" in Russian history Slavophiles associated with the activities of Peter the Great (1672-1725), who "opened a window to Europe" thus violating the contract, the balance in the life of the country, and knocked her off the path charted by God.4
   The Prince represents simplicity and grace.  He is the only one to refer to the Old Russian religion as he prepares to spend time with Father Michael at a nearby monastery.  In a telling and comic line in this story, the Prince tells a local gathering at Maria’s house that he is going to go abroad to soak in the “new ideas” of western Europe, just after returns from the monastery.   Those two ideas are opposites, and the Prince has no idea that they are, having no concept whatsoever what the “new ideas” are in western Europe, he just knows that the elites speak this way, therefore, he must as well.  It is obvious that he is completely out of place in modern Russia.5 
    In contrast, Maria is presented as a representative of modern Russia culture. She is an opportunistic, self-absorbed, uncaring woman who will even go so far as to use her daughter in order to accomplish her personal goals.  The only thing which is important in modern culture is a manifestation of power which is falsely associated with strength and virtue.  This idea is associated directly with the writings of Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527), particularly his novel The Prince.
Maria is the exact opposite of Old Russia.  She does not believe in its values, but she attempts to make use of these values in order to accomplish her own agenda. Dostoevsky emphasizes this point by situating this novel in a small insignificant town instead of St. Petersburg. She presents herself as an extremely large fish is a very small pond.
    It is highly unlikely that Maria and her friends would have understood the philosophical foundation associated with bringing western culture to Russia or the possibility that such changes might destroy their homeland.  Instead, they were concerned about what benefits they could receive from such changes and if people’s lives were destroyed in the process that would simply be the end result of “progress”.  
    Between the Prince and Maria, there are several characters that represent a bridge between these two different worlds.  Zina, for example, is confused.  Even though she finally goes along with her mother’s plan to deceive the Prince, she does not believe this is right, but is not sure why.  On the one hand, she finds something very appealing about the culture of Old Russia, but she is heavily influenced by her mother. 
    In The Idiot, this character is represented by Nastasya Filippovna.  Prince Myshkin professes his love for Nastasya and she finds something very appealing about him, but the westernized culture of St. Petersburg pulls her in the direction of Parfyon Rogozhin who turns out to be a poor choice for her.  Nastasya felt caught between the culture of Old Russia and the “progress” of modern Russia.  This tension becomes a major source of conflict throughout the rest of this novel.
   The 1956 song I mentioned at the beginning of the article speaks about two people who come from two different worlds, but they have come to believe that their love will overcome this divide.  If these people can come together from two completely different worlds it can be a wonderful experience.  Potentially, this is also true when it comes to two different cultures within one nation.
    One of the major challenges is that there is really no way to blend these two cultures.  Instead of being harmonious, one culture will succeed and one will fail.  Even though students from the former USSR are required to read classic Russian novels as part of their education, there is very little indication that these novels are read by many of them after their formal education is finished or that they have a great appreciation for the culture that these novelists were espousing. 
     As a result of Russia having kept the West at a distance, by her refusal to imitate the intellectual forms of the Western world, Russia was spared many of the problems which faced the West. Her westernizing philosophers and rulers were erroneous, for they were importing the seeds of revolution and class war.  For Russia, the patristic tradition from Greece and the Near East was a holistic way of thinking, taking to itself faith, social life, society, and philosophy into a larger whole animated by the Holy Spirit, rather than becoming a sect dedicated to the teachings of one man or office.  The spirit was internalized, and authority was something shared by the body of believers guided by the hierarchy (though not entirely by them), rather than alien ideas spoken in an alien tongue. The notion of the state and law immediately followed from this, for the state was not a cold and distant monster, but was represented by the “little father” who shared their concern and pain. However, the invasion of western ideas was starting to vitiate this idea. For the Slavophiles, the structure of the basically independent commune was always to be the living answer to the West and the guarantee of the communal and cultural idea of liberty that the West had long forgotten; of course, Aleksey Khomyakov also believed that Russia was heading down that same path if the state continued her centralizing and standardizing tendencies.6
   Based upon my conversations with many friends in the former USSR, life has not changed for the better as a result of introducing Western culture.  Contrary to Orthodox tradition, the culture has become more materialistic and people are becoming more selfish.  It is very sad that my friends have experienced this, but if this is a reality for the vast majority of the people it is not only sad, but dangerous. 
    The younger people seem to show little or no interest in their heritage, but want to become more “American” (the premier representative of Western culture).  One major challenge is that Western and Eastern culture are vastly different.  This is based upon a variety of factors including location and the influence of the Orthodox Church in the East. 
    Instead of being happy with these changes, my sense is that many of these people are confused.  Internally they realize that there is something very unique and special about their culture, but they are having Western ideas thrust upon them.  This confusion leads to a sense of sadness which may not be easy to vocalize. 
    Living on the border between two different worlds can be challenging for anyone.  In order to so properly it is important to have a proper understanding of both worlds so that a proper decision can be made regarding which world a person chooses to live in.  Giving up one’s world (culture) without a profound understanding of it will not only lead to confusion, but a feeling of being lost because they have turned away from one culture while not being fully accepted by the other.  
                                               
                                                                 End Notes

1) Matthew Raphael Johnson The Ancient Orthodox Tradition in Russian Literature (PA: Deipara Press, 2010), p. 152
2)  “A Truly Beautiful Soul” http://www.suite101.com/content/the-idiot-by-fyodor-dostoevsky-a123952 (accessed 4/15/12)
3) Johnson, p. 157.
4) “Westerners and Slavophiles”  http://istorya.ru/referat/referat2/23642.php (accessed 4/21/12)
5) Johnson, p. 158
6) Johnson, p. 223