A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovitch - Essay Example

A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovitch This essay explores the underlying themes inherent in Solzhenitsyn’s book d “A day in the life of Ivan Denisovitch” and the insight it provides about Soviet society during the period immediately succeeding the IInd World War. The book demonstrates the tight and oppressive controls exerted by Stalin in his bid to portray Communism as the process of being molded in the image of himself, the great leader. In the atmosphere of Stalin-mania that existed in Russian society during this period, nothing less than fanatical and absolute devotion to Stalin served as adequate measures to prevent being jailed and/or subjected to oppression. Introduction: The Communist era in Soviet Russia immediately after the Second World War was dominated by Stalin. Emerging from a positive of relative obscurity within the Communist administration, Stalin shaped himself into a forceful, dominating and controlling leader. He was obsessed with power and presented himself as an omniscient, omnipotent figure that all Russian communists were to model themselves on. Stalin was also in need of large numbers of young men to carry out the work required in the new industrialized age, to shape Russia into a world power. In the process of achieving his two fold objective, i.e, that of seizing absolute control of Russia and shaping the country into an industrial power house, Stalin dispatched many young men to prison on the pretext that they were political enemies. The atmosphere in Soviet society was characterized by a greater negative emphasis placed on potential and actual political dissidents as oppose dot common criminals. Anyone who was not prepared to acknowledge and accept Stalin dictates and mandates, without the right to express any kind of dissent or disagreement, were automatically subject to oppression. New Prison camps were devised specially for these so called political prisoners, where they were subjected to so much oppression that their chances of survival were slim. Solzhenitsyn’s book titled “A day in the life of Ivan Denisovitch” clearly demonstrates this underlying atmosphere of oppression, injustice and Stalinist arbitrariness that existed during this part of Russian history, as detailed further below. Analysis: The underlying theme of the book is the oppression of the Stalinist regime, however the books seeks to depict this by describing one day in the life of an inmate who is confined within a labor camp, rather than by focusing on the more graphic and horrific elements of oppression. In an interview given to the BBC, Solzhenitsyn describes how the idea for the book came to him one day while he was confined within such a camp, lugging a hand barrow full of concrete with another man’s help. “….I asked myself how one might portray the totality of our camp existence. In essence, it should suffice to give a thorough description of a single day, providing minute detail and focusing on the most ordinary kind of worker; that would reflect our entire experience. It wouldn’t even be necessary to give examples of any particular horrors. It shouldn’t be an extraordinary day at all, but rather a completely unremarkable one, the kind of day that will add up to years.” 1 Hence, the objective in writing a book of this kind was to highlight the constant cruelty and indignity that the inmates had to ensure on a daily basis. The author has sought to draw the attention of readers to the suffering of these inmates, but not by using a mode of presentation that is dramatic and attention grabbing. While the book is akin to a statement of protest against the Soviet authorities to the dehumanizing treatment they subjected inmates to in the camps, this statement is made in a matter of fact way, by subtly drawing attention to the countless indignities heaped upon them during the course of just one single day. The book is a discussion of Soviet oppression in the Stalinist era. The book was written during the phase of opposition to the Soviet regime, during the years 1928 to 1948. According to Simirenko and Kern-Simirenko this was a period in Soviet history characterized by dissent. They describe the dissenter from this period as “a martyr who feels that only his cause and suffering are to be attended to, since he is sacrificing himself for the rest of humanity in the fight against evil at its very source.”2 The characteristic feature of the dissenter is that he relies upon others to ultimately overthrow the regime while he himself accepts the oppression with silent but fierce resistance. The day to day struggle to survive and the battle of the individual to execute this feat in Stalinist Russia is the main theme of Solzhenitsyn’s book. The attitude of the prisoners at the camp where Solzhenitsyn’s protagonist Sukhov is sent, is also characteristic of such passive resistance, where their silent suffering and attempts to cope with the harsh treatment and indignities heaped upon them is detailed. Most of the inmates at the camp learn very quickly that to struggle and resist is futile, because it only gets them punished and forced to ensure sub zero conditions and bitter, freezing winds where death is almost a certainty. The book also describes the cruelty and spite of the prison officials towards the prisoners3. They are forced to live and work in very harsh conditions, and provided with inadequate suplies of bed and clothing; the cloth provided had to be used or it was withdrawn and the mittens provided were so thin that they could be ripped apart easily. During the phase of opposition, as set out by Simirenko and Kern-Simirenko4, the individual Soviet citizen who was being subjected to the cruelty and oppression of the Soviet authorities did not break out in open protest. Rather they endured in near silence, awaiting the intervention of others to redeem them but in the meanwhile, doing their best to ensure the indignities heaped upon with as much fortitude as possible. The sole objective of the individual in the camp becomes survival; the conditions at the camp are so harsh that merely surviving to the end of a day is something to be triumphant about. As Salisbury points out, in a critical review of Solzhenitsyn’s book, everyone at the camp cheats and steals, but there are rules that must be observed in the concentration camp game if survival is to be ensured5. If a person at the camp attempts to resist the rules, then he is subjected to the punishment of the fierce cold by being thrown into the guardhouse at sub zero temperatures for 110 days, just like the Naval captain was, which led straight to his death. The entire book describes all the travail of just a single day, at the end of it, the protagonist Shukov of Solzhenitsyn’s book is content, because he has managed to survive without falling sick, being placed in the punishment cells or being forced to go out to work in freezing winds at a temperature of twenty below zero. The author describes it as follows: “A day without a dark cloud. Almost a happy day. There were three thousand six hundred and fifty-three days like that in his stretch.... "Three thousand six hundred and fifty-three days. "The three extra days were for leap years."6 In this simple, quiet manner, the author emphasizes the horrors lurking within each day of the life of the inmates, a powerful statement against and indictment of the terrible suffering and oppression underlying the Stalinist regime. In an age where there is an increasing level of attention being directed towards the preservation of individual human rights, the book is especially potent because it highlights how easily these human rights were trampled upon during the Stalinist regime. Soviet society in those days was characterized by two major factors (a) Stalin’s obsession for total control which caused him to weed out and trample upon anyone who was not unquestioningly loyal to him and (b) the need for convict labor in order to ensure rapid industrialization7. Stalin demonstrated a callous disregard for human life and did not hesitate to send thousands of young men to concentration camps to extract forced labor out of them. One of the notable aspects about Solzhenitsyn’s book detailing one day in the prison camp is the vast numbers of people who had been pushed into it without having committed any real offence that merited their being there. For instance, the protagonist Shukhov is a simple peasant who can hardly be termed a “spy” in order to justify his being thrown into the prison camp. Shukov had escaped from the Germans when they had taken him prisoner in 1943 during the IInd World War. He escaped from them and returned to the Soviet lines. If Shukov had chosen to not reveal that he had been captured by the Germans, he could have been the recipient of a medal. But because he was honest and confessed to having been in the hands of the Germans, he was convicted as a “spy” and as a punishment, was sent to the camp, rather than being shot for having failed to confess. Despite the fact that he is innocent; he is accused of being a spy for the Germans. This was a characteristic element of Soviet society at that time – the result of Stalin’s obsession with perfect control. In order to consolidate his hold on power, Stalin was fanatical about surrounding himself only with individuals of whose loyalty he was very sure. All those who expressed any kind of resistance or opposition to Stalin’s ideas, or even those individuals who did not profess a slavish devotion to Stalin were thrown into prison or concentration camps. This also functioned as a means to extract labor forcibly from these individuals, thereby furthering Stalin’s goals of rapid industrialization8. Any kind of dissident viewpoint to Stalin’s represented a threat to the Stalinist regime. So much so that even individuals who were innocent of any real crime were nevertheless sentenced to gruel and dehumanizing labor conditions in the prison and concentration camps in order to weed them out and/or bring them in line with Stalinist ideology. While prison and concentration camps had always existed under the Soviet system, the camp where the protagonist Shukov is sent represents a special kind of forced labor camp that was set up by Stalin in 1948, to segregate the political prisons from the supposedly less dangerous common criminals9. Another character in the same camp as Shukov is Buinovsky, a naval captain. Despite his high and influential standing in society, this individual was thrown into prison. His so called “crime” was that a British admiral sent him a Christmas present. While at the camp, Buinovsky tries to defend himself and some other prisoners during the process of early morning frisking,10 but this only causes him to be sent to solitary confinement for ten days in below zero, freezing temperatures which results in his death. Another man is in the prison, merely because he is a Baptist by faith, while yet another is guilty of having provided a pail of milk to Ukrainian outlaws, as a result of which he is thrown into the prison camp. Yet another inmate named Senka Klevshin was also accused of being a spy merely because he had been in contact with foreigners. He was a Jew freed from a concentration camp by Americans and spent two days with them, this had pushed him into the spy category despite the flimsy nature of the allegation. This only serves to illustrate the perceptions that prevailed in society during this period, wherein political dissidence was viewed with greater disfavor than other kinds of criminal actions. These were only some of the numerous young men in Soviet society who were thrown into prison on the flimsiest of pretexts, because they were viewed as potential political opponents to Stalin’s regime. Because they were viewed as more dangerous than common criminals, they were treated more harshly; for example, they were allowed to write only two letters per year11 and they were not provided an iota of remuneration for any of the hard work that they were forced to do, unlike workers in other kinds of camps12. Another important aspect that emerges with clarity in the novel is the discontent and anger that many people in Soviet society felt against Stalin and the cult of personality that permeated Soviet politics and culture at that time.13 The cult of personality culture was symbolized by the high level of power and prestige that was attributed to Stalin; he was viewed as infallible and almost God-like, so that people were forced to obey him and accede to his wishes and rules. Soviet culture and society during this period immediately following the Second World War, i.e., the time frame within which Solzhenitsyn’s book was written, was steeped in this cult of personality, wherein the Communist Party was to be rebuilt in the image of Stalin who was the Great Leader14. This was also the reason behind the forcible expulsion of numerous young men who were perceived to be dissidents into the special prison camps that had been set up for political prisoners who were viewed as a danger and threat to Stalin’s total control and perception as a deity. Once prisoners had been dispelled to these prison camps, the underlying assumption was that they would never get out of them alive, because they were subjected to such cruel and inhumane conditions. The authoritative oppression exercised in the camps was so severe that there was little possibility of anyone actually surviving and coming out of them. Camp commanders managed all the events in the camp by keeping the inmates always busy with some work to do, so that they were never left with time to discuss any really important issues15 (Solzhenitsyn, 1963: 36-38) or to spend enough time together in communication to be able to devise any kind of effective revolt. The dehumanizing process was further extended by allotting numbers to individual prisoners, which became their identification rather than their own names; Shukov’s identifying number was Щ-854. Prisoners were assigned a grade and camp etiquette demanded that they remained obedient, so the attitude they demonstrated was important and constituted an important aspect ensuring their survival16. All of these repressive measures were exercised on individuals whose so called crimes were insubstantial and a product of the obsessive need for control that characterized the Stalinist regime. The atmosphere of all pervasive oppression at the camps is further underscored by the assumption conveyed in the book that no one will ever escape or live long enough to complete their term and go out alive, because the battle for survival is so acute. Perhaps for this reason, anti-Stalin comments made within the prison are tolerated to a greater extent than they would have been at other camps. In these Special Camps, the inmates were automatically categoried as class enemies, hence there was less of an attempt by camp administration officials to take punitive action against anti-Stalin comments made in the camps, despite the existence of spies among the inmates, notably the man named Panteleyev who are deputed to report such anti-Stalin comments to the Security officers17. The book expresses the discontent and anger that many of the inmates feel against Stalin, who is referred to derogatively as “Old Whiskers” or “Old Man Whiskers”18. There are several caustic references to “Old Man Whiskers” and his oppressive levels of control because he doesn’t trust anyone, not even his own brother. The latent anger and fear that many people in Russian society felt against Stalin during this period is also reflected in the views of the prisoners and the attitudes they have where Stalin is concerned. While those in Russian society who were free would have hesitated to express any comments that could even remotely be construed to be anti-Stalin because of the fear of the ensuing punishment, members of the Camp are freer with this expression of their anger. There is a separate locus of control that has developed within the camp in Solzhenitsyn’s book, wherein some collaborators with the security forces were murdered, as a result inmates of the camp are freer about expressing their anger and hostility against Stalin19. Inmates at the camp are therefore more outspoken. The zeks do not hesitate to argue loudly and disrespectfully about Stalin and one of the inmates named Tyurin speaks openly about the horrors of the injustices heaped upon him and family by the Stalinist regime20. During the course of his description of the events of one day at this special prison camp, Solzhenitsyn eloquently highlights the atmosphere of injustice and dictatorship of Stalin that prevailed during this period. The young Gopchik who was guilty of serving milk to Ukrainians is served with the same twenty five sentence as other more serious offenders. Numerous Estonians and Latvians have been jailed for no other reason other than that they are Estonians or Latvians. The allegation of being a spy is a common one among the prisoners at the camp, but the spurious nature of the charge is so evident that being imprisoned on a false charge of being a spy is commonplace. The only real spy in the camp is the object of curiosity. Solzhenitsyn’s novel highlights this injustice in a quiet way, without undue dramatics, as pointed out earlier. He accomplishes this through the viewing of the narrative through the eyes of the protagonist Sukhov, who, like the others at the camp, is so intent on the battle for survival that he is grateful and happy when he has managed to get through one entire day still alive. By focusing on his contentment at being alive, the horrors of the camp are more forcefully etched in the mind of the reader, because survival itself is such a difficult battle given the odds at the camp. Conclusions: The subject of Solzhenitsyn’s book is the prisoners at one of the special camps that were meant specifically for political prisoners. At the outset, the book establishes the unfairness and arbitrary sentences that were handed out during this period of Soviet history, by pointing out that most of the inmates, including the protagonist Sukhov, had been imprisoned on the allegation of being spies, whereas they were actually not. Secondly, the descriptions of the hardships that the prisoners were subjected to highlights the lack of justice and basic human rights availability to these individuals. Survival itself was a battle, and it was understood that most of the individuals within the prison would not escape alive, because they would either die of weakness, cold or sickness, or alternatively die from some kind of punishment that dispelled them into the freezing cold for some minor act that was perceived to be insubordination. The relief of the protagonist at having got through one day alive and the prospect of going through three hundred and sixty five more such harrowing days underscores as nothing else could, the oppressiveness that characterized Stalin’s regime. The contextual atmosphere of the book suggests that the atmosphere within Russian society during this time was one of unquestioning obedience to Stalin, a society where free speech and expression were restricted and the only observances permitted were those that lauded Stalin. It also demonstrates that Stalin was a dominating and obsessively controlling leader who elevated himself to god-like status among his people and wanted to shape his country in a new image wherein everyone would have to model themselves in the image of Stalin. The book also supports the argument that Stalin sent many young men to prison purely in order to extract forced labor in fuelling his country’s industrial development. Within an atmosphere of highly depleted resources after the Second World War, forcibly pushing men into prison ensured a steady source of readily available labor for no payment at all, where the only reward for the prisoners was being able to survive one more day. The book therefore highlights the inhuman Stalinist administration and the atmosphere of mistrust and oppression that was prevalent during the post war era in Russia. The book is also enormously significant because it openly expresses what most individuals could not during the Stalinist era. The inmates at the prison in Solzhenitsyn’s book are already considered to be enemies, hence their utterances are not as strictly monitored as those of inmates of other camps. But the derogatory terms used by the prisoners when referring to Stalin, as well as the open descriptions of horrors endured during the Stalin regime by other prisoners, eloquently demonstrates how obsessively controlling and oppressive a leader Stalin was. It sheds light on the repressive regime that most Russians had to live under where basic human rights such as freedom of speech and expression were themselves restricted. Since Russian writing largely paralleled real life, unlike the fiction of Western writers, the book provides an eye opening account of the oppression that ordinary Russians were subjected to during the rule of Stalin, the leader who had such a callous disregard for human life and such an obsession with elevating himself to God like status……………….3550 words. Bibliography: * “Case study: Stalin’s purges”, http://www.gendercide.org/case_stalin.html; * Klimoff, Alexis, 1997. “One day in the life of Ivan Denisovitch: A critical companion”, Northwestern University Press * Salisbury, Harrison E, 1963. “One day in the life of Ivan Denisovitch”, The New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/03/01/home/solz-ivan.html; * Simirenko, Alex and Kern-Simirenko, C.A., 1982. “Professionalization of Soviet Society”, NJ: Transaction Books * Solzhenitsyn, Alexander, 1963. “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich”, Harmondsworth: Penguin. Read More