The concept of freedom is something that means different things to different types of people. To some it means freedom of expression, whereas to others it means freedom to do what one pleases, and those are only two of several different views of the meaning of freedom. How freedom is defined largely depends on the environment in which one is raised and influenced upon; if one lives in a suppressed government, for instance, their view of freedom is going to be largely different from one who lives in a country in which it is self-ruled. Despite the fact that freedom to some means one is free to do whatever he or she pleases, this is not the case as freedom always has limitations and drawbacks; there is never a true “free” nature. The ways in which Russians viewed freedom in the Caucasus as a place where it is truly free with no rules is actively depicted in Russian literature that shows portrayals of the Caucasus, and this view of freedom was nothing but ignorant, which resulted from the condescending views of the Russian people in this time period. These views are shown in the literary works of Russian writers Alexander Griboedov, Alexander Pushkin, and Mikhail Lermontov.
In Alexander Gridoedov’s poem, There, Where Flows the Alazan’, he uses imagery to make the Caucasus appear as a place similar to the Garden of Eden, in which it is a beautiful, genuine place that is connected with nature all around. As he describes the landscape of the Caucasus, one gets the sense of an uncivilized place, a place that is wild and free. In his poem, Griboedov is essentially comparing the Caucasus to Russia and the way in which Russia condescendingly views the Caucasus can be seen. Griboedov describes the Caucasus as a place “[w]here the ...
... middle of paper ...
...tov reflect the overall view of Russian society toward the Caucasus, while Griboedov shows the view from a different sense. The false conception that the Caucasus is free simply because it is not as advanced as Russian society can be reflected and seen in all the works of literature because they are intertwined. The portrayals of the Caucasus in this way misconstrue the question of freedom. All forms of freedom have limitations and drawbacks and the thought that it cannot is simply incorrect. Freedom is the ability to express oneself freely and for one to live as they please, but without the ability to harm or encroach on the freedom of other people. The Russian view of this has resulted from the society in which Russians are raised with rules and constraints, so when they view the Caucasus they see it as a place with no rules, which is simply not the case.
In describing the setting, the general locale is the prison in the coldest part of Russia- Siberia, geographically but socially depicting the social circumstances in the prison, but draws analogies to the general social, political and economic circumstances of Russia during the Stalinist era (form 1917 revolution up to 1955). The symbolic significance of the novel and the film (genres) reflects experiences, values and attitudes of the Russian society. The genres reflect the origins of the Russian social disorders and massive counts of political misgivings which watered down real communism in Russia. We are constantly reminded of the social and cultural heritage and originality of Russian ethnic groups through those different levels of meanings
Freedom: the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint. While a Webster dictionary provides a sound definition to this most coveted of words, it is by no means universal. While one person may define freedom as their accessibility to a clean source of fresh drinking water, another may define freedom as a having a stable wi-fi connection. In the context of the world during the second world war, there were at least three men, James Yates, Tadeusz Borowski, and Adolf Hitler, who each had their own understanding of the word, “freedom-” Yates, that of solidarity, Borowski, that of freedom’s nonexistence, and Hitler, that of racial superiority.
Solzhenitsyn believed that it was nearly impossible to have truly free thoughts under the prison camp conditions described in One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, or in any situation where there is an authoritarian ruler. In a pris...
Dostoyevsky's writing in this book is such that the characters and setting around the main subject, Raskolnikov, are used with powerful consequences. The setting is both symbolic and has a power that affects all whom reside there, most notably Raskolnikov. An effective Structure is also used to show changes to the plot's direction and Raskolnikov's character. To add to this, the author's word choice and imagery are often extremely descriptive, and enhance the impact at every stage of Raskolnikov's changing fortunes and character. All of these features aid in the portrayal of Raskolnikov's downfall and subsequent rise.
The Slavophile and westernizer conflict is an inherent cultural question that Russians must answer about their country. Russian thinkers have long been fragmented between the Westernizer and the Slavophile viewpoint. Both disagreed about the true nature of the country as well as its relation with the West. It is a problem that has plagued Russia for centuries, and continues to do so to this day. Adopting the mindset of recognizing this conflict is essential to better understanding Russian history as well as the motives and thought processes of Russian leaders today.
Yuri Trifonov chronicled the life of a Soviet conformist named Vadim Aleksandrovich Glebov in his novel, “The House on the Embankment.” Vadim Glebov leads a life in support of the Soviet Union’s tyranny and oppression of human rights in order to gain the high social status and power he envied beginning in childhood. The novel is a narrative that revolves around Glebov’s education and success, and it depicts what life was like as a Soviet citizen between the 1930’s and 1970’s. Through Glebov’s revealed repressed memories, we see the ultimate example of conformity.
Solzhenitsyn does express the evils of his own nation clearly, which becomes eerie when looking through the same lens upon which we see our own nation slipping into. He makes remarks about the soviet government controlling everything. Elections are folly; the...
...eved this state of mind through the geography, history and traditions of the nation. Russia, although having geography, history and traditional values standing against it, has made a significant effort to preserve strong features of democracy through recent decades. Bibliography Grudzinska-Gross, Irena. The Scar of Revolution: Custine, Tocqueville, and the Romantic Imagination. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991. Gustafson, Thane, and Daniel Yergin. Russia 2010. New York: Random, 1993. Heywood, Andrew. Political Ideas and Concepts. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1994. McDaniel, Tim. The Agony of the Russian Idea. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996. Melvin, Neil. Russians Beyond Russians. London: Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1995. Rzhevsky, Nicholas. Cambridge Companion to Modern Russian Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
In his 17th century pem, “To Althea from Prison”, Richard Lovelace tells us that “stone walls do not a prison make, nor iron bars a cage.” Thus Lovelace introduces and makes the reader familiar with the paradoxical nature of freedom. This paradox is raised again when comparing two legitimate visions of the modern world: Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World and Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich. One day in the life of Ivan Denisovich vividly describes and allows the reader to live through life in a prison, where an individuals rights are stripped away, and Brave New World introduces the reader to a fantasy world filled with sex, drugs, and a total lack of inhibition and self-reserve. Although apparently unrelated, both novels together describe what could be considered a modern hell. In Solzhenitsyn’s novel Shukov is stripped of his rights and his free will, while Huxley’s characters are stripped of independence of thought and brainwashed into mindless decadence. A comparison of the worlds created by Solzhenitsy and Huxley prompts us to redefine imprisonment of freedom, yet the brain that is enslaved in Huxley’s novel is truly less free than the body enchained in Solzhenitsyn gulag.
In the late 1930’s while the United States was going through The Great Depression the Soviet Union was going through its own turbulent times. This would be known as the Moscow Show Trials, which took place under the Soviet leader Joseph Stalin. The book Darkness at Noon by Arthur Koestler takes place during this time period. The main character Nicholas Rubashov has been imprisoned even though he always has been loyal to the goals of the party (Koestler). This showed a shift that was happening in the country and an attempt by Stalin to eliminate any possible opposition even if they were heroes in the revolution. In the text two different concepts come to light vivisection morality where the party comes before the individual and anti-vivisection morality where the individual is sacred. Rubashov in the beginning does not embrace individualism however throughout the novel he begins to adopt individualism that he refers to as grammatical fiction. Vivisection morality is never a justifiable political system. Suppressing the rights of human beings is not only inhumane but also counter productive in creating an effective and wealthy society.
The topic of freedom can be seen throughout the short story “The Censors” by Luisa Valenzuela. In the short story “The Censors”, it says, “...thinking that something might happen to Mariana because of his letters. Of all people, Mariana, who must who must finally feel safe there where she always dreamed she’d live.” This evidence shows freedom because based on the quotes, it shows how the letters might harm an individual. This means that if someone sends a rebellious letter to the government, the person who receives or sends the letter will be executed if caught. Another evidence that was stated in the book is, “Juan knows there won’t be a problem with the letter’s contents, that it’s irreproachable,
In reality, what is freedom? When can I person actually declare freedom? These questions are brought to mind after engaging in the novel, The Known World. Many characters in the novel are said to be “free” , but they do not seem to be in reality free. Yes, they may be free from some binds, such as slavery, but in most cases, those who claim to be “free” are the ones who are indeed, the most suppressed.
The general perspective of the Soviet Union was that the country was a dictatorship, specifically, an oppressive, brutal, top-down autocracy that guided all aspects of life of its people. From grocery stores having set quantities of goods, only purchasable by ration card, to strict, set times of work and off-duty hours, to censored press, The Soviet Union was indeed a dictatorial state. However, the people of the Soviet Union did not simply fall into line with the established rules of society- They had diaries, they wrote down their opinions about the government or their job, they wrote detailed memoirs of their life within the USSR. The people of the Soviet Union had some freedom, and it was even codified in the Constitution of 1936. Yet, scholars and most people in general still widely accept the notion that the Soviet Union was a totalitarian dictatorship. The question then arises: Why did the Soviet people have freedom, otherwise known as sociological ‘agency,’ to denounce others or write down their views about society, if the country was perhaps one of the most totalitarian and dictatorial countries to exist in human history? By analyzing Totalitarianism as scholars perceive it, as well as the Soviet system, along with examples from the people of the USSR, one will be able to realize that totalitarianism set the rules for society within the Soviet Union and provided its people with a distribution of power, which was used by those that understood the system and could act within the framework of the system.
Freedom is one of the most central and certainly most emotive issues in political philosophy. It has been discussed since the times of ancient Greece, and is still as controversial and divisive a topic as ever. This question deals with two separate questions concerning freedom: Firstly, why we consider freedom necessary, and secondly, what exactly is meant by freedom. Clearly, the answer to the second part will greatly affect the answer to the first, but it shall be seen that it is a very challenging task to arrive at a definition of freedom. It is possible, however, to make this job easier by not strictly defining freedom, and using an examination into the desirability of freedom to help form this definition. This will be done below.
... story but it also reflects Russian society. This, however, isn’t why many Russians still continue to hold this piece of literature as central to their culture. Although, it tells of their heritage and society, it is the simple genius of the structure of the novel of –14-line stanza form-and his lyrics, which are complex and meticulous but are written with such ease that they appear effortless, simple, and natural.