In Russia, people are repressed for expressing a different opinion . Today, one of the ways to express disagreement there is to remain silent. Why it is important to hear the silence of those who so oppose the regime. By Anna Narinskaya.
A Soviet citizen and an American argue in which country people are freer. "In our country, anyone can shout from the square in front of the White House that Reagan is a fool," said the American. And the Soviet man answered him: "That even here everyone can shout from Red Square that Reagan is a fool!".
This joke is almost as old as I am. Over the years, the wit of the man from the Soviet Union has given rise to different perceptions in me: I once took him for a manifestation of naivety, turning into stupidity; at other times it seemed to me an example of hypocrisy; then as a witty way to put the interlocutor who does not want to understand the context in the right place. And today I definitely already consider it the quintessence of despair.
Punishment for thought "crime"
What kind of protest is generally possible when protests are completely banned? And - to continue this thought - what would be considered a protest in such a situation?
Looking back, I realize that the Soviet hero of the anecdote greatly exaggerated the limits of his freedom. Shouting from Red Square that "Reagan is a fool" it can only be part of an organized event. A solo performance would almost certainly result in a misdemeanor citation, if not something worse, such as forced psychiatric treatment. After all, to single-handedly declare Reagan a "fool" it can be considered not only a malicious insinuation, but also a demonstration of inappropriate freedom of spirit.
Vladimir Putin's Russia represses its citizens with far more passion than the Soviet Union did at the time of the aforementioned anecdote. What scope is left for those who disagree? What can be done when the very opinion, consideration or evaluation - all this is punished, and often not with some protocol, but with prison?
Amidst the endless stream of bad news that inundates us but we don't have time to digest, the sentence that Muscovite Yuri Kokhovets received for answering questions in a street poll has not received enough attention from society.
When asked about his attitude to the war in Ukraine, he replied that he does not support it and that it is not a defensive, but an aggressive war on the part of Russia. For this sincere answer to the question about what is happening in Ukraine, Kokhovets was sentenced to five and a half years in a penal colony - for spreading "fake news" for the Russian army. Thus, once again Orwell's prophecy that there will be punishments for thought crime comes true. The honest answer to the question "What do you think about what is happening?" turns out to be a criminal offense in today's Russia.
"Just keep quiet"
In a situation where honest expression is eradicated by forceful methods, and articulate loyalty to the regime is almost the only guarantee of success (at least in the humanitarian and artistic fields), silence becomes an especially important concept.
I understand very well how this sounds: silence takes on a special meaning. How does it sound for those for whom (as well as for me) the ethical postulate formulated in the 1960s by Aleksandr Galich has become part of our inner world: "How easy it is to become an executioner: it is enough to remain silent&hellip ;"
Although it is Galic, if we listen carefully, who offers the possibility to break free from this rectilinear approach. In the same text that exposes consent, there is a phrase that I often think of lately: "How many times we have been silent in different ways, but not "against", but "for"!"
I am convinced that in today's Russia many people are silent "against". Yes, this silence is not enough, it is practically not enough for anything, but it deserves to be heard.
When silence is "against"
Sometimes this silence can be expressed with a gesture, with some sign. One of the most striking examples of such a sign is the "Pasolini case". In order not to be accused of gay propaganda, the publishers of a book about the life of the Italian publicist and director blackened those places in the book related to his "unconventional" love life. Paragraphs, even entire pages, covered in black lines.
The book about Pasolini is the most famous, but not the only, example of how publishers, while not violating this wild (there is no other word for it) legislation, nevertheless denounce the very existence of censorship. Blackened text indicates that there is something here that you Russian readers are not allowed to read.
Of course, book publishing is one of the rare fields where such a gesture is technically possible (and even there, I think the days on such a front are numbered). No one will notice cut scenes in a film or note that the performer of the main role, who was blacklisted, was replaced (in an already shot film) with another performer, which, thanks to new technologies, is no longer an isolated case in Russian serial production.
Don't speak "for", keep silent "against"!
The Russian system uses all resources to push out the unwanted - topics, facts, people. It is becoming increasingly difficult, even impossible, to resist this and at the same time remain free and with at least some income.
I haven't been to Russia in over a year now, and I don't think I'll be going there again anytime soon. But, like many expats, I never stop thinking about my country. I correspond with friends who have remained in Russia, trying to follow not only the growing repressions, bans and restrictions, but also the still existing (of course) zone of "ordinary life".
It is really dangerous to express an "against" opinion when you are in Russia. But it is still possible not to talk "about". It is still possible to be silent "against". And I think it's important to hear that silence.
Anna Narinskaya is a journalist, documentary filmmaker, exhibition curator and researcher at the Institute of Human Sciences in Vienna