Kremlin vs. Pussy Riot: Politics is back to Russia
You might remember such a story from history books: once upon the time there was a philosopher Giordano Bruno. He was arguing that the Earth is round and that it is revolving around the Sun. At that time, the Church and the general public found such statements quite offensive. Exactly for this reason the philosopher was sentenced to death by burning. But 300 years after, it turned out that he had been right, and everyone else had been wrong. But that was a bit too late.
The trial of Pussy Riot resembles such medieval courts in many ways. Prosecution keeps claiming that "christians’ feelings were offended" and conservative public explicitly demands a harsh sentence for the girls. While this trial turned participants of the feminist band into world-renown stars, this might not save them from prison. Multiple scholars and pop stars, such as Madonna, Yoko Ono, Red Hot Chilly Perrers, Slavoj Zizek as well as many Russian leading intellectuals and public figures, express solidarity with the band. But, even among their supporters, many would say that such form of protest in a major temple of Russia is a ""bit too much", as legendary Soviet and Russian rock musician Yuri Shevtchuk has put it. The Pussy Riot themselves once mentioned that the choice of a place for their protest had been an "ethical mistake".
So what about the ethical side of it? And what about the Russian LGBTQI movement? Should it support the actions of Pussy Riot? The issue at stake is to understand what really happened in the Jesus the Savior Temple on February 21, 2012.
Such kind of demonstrations are not something new. LGBTQI and feminist activists in many countries were standing side by side in many similar protests, opposing the Church which tried to use its moral authority to spread oppressive ideology. Therefore, Pussy Riot were just the first who brought this form of protest to Russia, possibly inspired by 1989 events in New York or 1998 demo in the UK. Pussy Riot are also among very few intellectuals in contemporary Russia who in their own specific ways try to spread the ideas of the third wave of feminism.
In many aspects, situation in Russia, as well as in Ukraine and Belarus, is reminiscent of Western Europe and the United States several decades ago. But the challenges in Russia are way more serious. Here, it is not only the Church, but the state and the society in general, who are acting in oppressive way. Russian Orthodox Church, major religious institution in the country, is proactively involved in politics through endorsing Putin’s everlasting tenure or calling upon its followers to refrain from participation in public protests against the election fraud. Meantime, the state and the ruling elites are supportive of the Church, both verbally and financially. This support leads to further spread of conservative ideology in Russian society which is far away from being the most open and free society.
Sociologists talk about patriarchic renaissance following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of official ideology of equality. Political scientists call it simply an authoritarian syndrome. Since 1991, in certain aspects Russian society not only did not move forward, but rather suffered major backlashes. Some of them are the return to pre-1917 ideas of traditionalism, patriarchy, and the spirit of masculinity (in fact, worshipping of rude physical strength). Such traditionalist masculine societies are saturated by specific unspoken ideas of what it means to be a man and a woman.
Man, in order to count as a man, has to adhere to the image of a brutal and strong muzhik, who has to engage into permanent competition with other males in order to prove himself his own worthiness. (Does it remind you of one top-ranking Russian politician who likes to publicly demonstrate his naked top?)
Women, on the contrary, have to act passively and not embark on "male" activities such as politics or business. (Not surprisingly, even those Russian women who actually have their own business or participate in politics are either depicted as not being proper women or merely as just being bitchy.)
Consequently, as Judith Butler suggested, those who do not conform to such strictly prescribed gender roles are causing deep existential anxiety in those who do actually conform. This anxiety might be so intense that some gender conformists prefer to physically eliminate the source of it (feminists or LGBTQI) rather than cope with the reasons for it.
Some might claim that this is just the way it is and we need to reconcile with it. But it is worth mentioning that according to many studies the cult of physical strength, gender polarization and general aggressiveness of the public in Russia today reach the level unseen in most parts of the world.
In view of this, LGBTQI movement and feminists have common enemies. These are primitive patriarchate and male chauvinism. LGBTQI together with feminists are challenging the prescribed gender roles, reminding the society how dangerous it is to maintain the status quo under justification of preserving the traditions.
Switching now to the ethical aspect of the Pussy Riot actions, it is particularly strange to hear criticism from the Russian Orthodox Church. This institution not only discredited itself, supporting the highly corrupted elites, but is often accused of machinations, not compatible with the high ethical role it tries to assume. In other words, the situation within the Church is abnormal. And fighting abnormal circumstances through conventional, normal methods would be at least inefficient. Let us imagine that Pussy Riot would deliver a speech on TV show about the symbiosis of the Church and the state. Nobody would even listen to them! General public got so much used to the dealings of the Church that it became part of everyday reality. People got used to it and are not shocked by it. At such moments, someone has to slap the society into its face to wake it up.
Extraordinary circumstances demand extraordinary measures. When oppressors are tough and offensive, it would be immoral to demand critics to remain soft and "civilized". Slavoj Zizek, commenting on the Pussy Riot affair, said that there are two types of cynicism: the bitter, desperate cynicism of the oppressed and the arrogant, dismissive cynicism of the oppressors. Cynicism of Pussy Root is of the former type.
In fact, their actions might have been offensive to some people. But if you put feminists, LGBTQI and the opposition on one scale and the Church and the state on the other, then we must recognize that the former ones have to endure much more offense on everyday basis, while the later ones have monopolized truth and power. Therefore, the Pussy Riot actions can not be viewed as an offense. Offense can happen between two equal subjects.
An Iraqi stone, thrown at the US tank, is not an offense. In a situation, when you are taking a side of the oppressed, your actions constitute an act of resistance. Morally justified act. That is why, Russian LGBTQI movement should show unconditional solidarity with the courageous actions of Pussy Riot.
The trial of Pussy Riot resembles such medieval courts in many ways. Prosecution keeps claiming that "christians’ feelings were offended" and conservative public explicitly demands a harsh sentence for the girls. While this trial turned participants of the feminist band into world-renown stars, this might not save them from prison. Multiple scholars and pop stars, such as Madonna, Yoko Ono, Red Hot Chilly Perrers, Slavoj Zizek as well as many Russian leading intellectuals and public figures, express solidarity with the band. But, even among their supporters, many would say that such form of protest in a major temple of Russia is a ""bit too much", as legendary Soviet and Russian rock musician Yuri Shevtchuk has put it. The Pussy Riot themselves once mentioned that the choice of a place for their protest had been an "ethical mistake".
So what about the ethical side of it? And what about the Russian LGBTQI movement? Should it support the actions of Pussy Riot? The issue at stake is to understand what really happened in the Jesus the Savior Temple on February 21, 2012.
Such kind of demonstrations are not something new. LGBTQI and feminist activists in many countries were standing side by side in many similar protests, opposing the Church which tried to use its moral authority to spread oppressive ideology. Therefore, Pussy Riot were just the first who brought this form of protest to Russia, possibly inspired by 1989 events in New York or 1998 demo in the UK. Pussy Riot are also among very few intellectuals in contemporary Russia who in their own specific ways try to spread the ideas of the third wave of feminism.
In many aspects, situation in Russia, as well as in Ukraine and Belarus, is reminiscent of Western Europe and the United States several decades ago. But the challenges in Russia are way more serious. Here, it is not only the Church, but the state and the society in general, who are acting in oppressive way. Russian Orthodox Church, major religious institution in the country, is proactively involved in politics through endorsing Putin’s everlasting tenure or calling upon its followers to refrain from participation in public protests against the election fraud. Meantime, the state and the ruling elites are supportive of the Church, both verbally and financially. This support leads to further spread of conservative ideology in Russian society which is far away from being the most open and free society.
Sociologists talk about patriarchic renaissance following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of official ideology of equality. Political scientists call it simply an authoritarian syndrome. Since 1991, in certain aspects Russian society not only did not move forward, but rather suffered major backlashes. Some of them are the return to pre-1917 ideas of traditionalism, patriarchy, and the spirit of masculinity (in fact, worshipping of rude physical strength). Such traditionalist masculine societies are saturated by specific unspoken ideas of what it means to be a man and a woman.
Man, in order to count as a man, has to adhere to the image of a brutal and strong muzhik, who has to engage into permanent competition with other males in order to prove himself his own worthiness. (Does it remind you of one top-ranking Russian politician who likes to publicly demonstrate his naked top?)
Women, on the contrary, have to act passively and not embark on "male" activities such as politics or business. (Not surprisingly, even those Russian women who actually have their own business or participate in politics are either depicted as not being proper women or merely as just being bitchy.)
Consequently, as Judith Butler suggested, those who do not conform to such strictly prescribed gender roles are causing deep existential anxiety in those who do actually conform. This anxiety might be so intense that some gender conformists prefer to physically eliminate the source of it (feminists or LGBTQI) rather than cope with the reasons for it.
Some might claim that this is just the way it is and we need to reconcile with it. But it is worth mentioning that according to many studies the cult of physical strength, gender polarization and general aggressiveness of the public in Russia today reach the level unseen in most parts of the world.
In view of this, LGBTQI movement and feminists have common enemies. These are primitive patriarchate and male chauvinism. LGBTQI together with feminists are challenging the prescribed gender roles, reminding the society how dangerous it is to maintain the status quo under justification of preserving the traditions.
Switching now to the ethical aspect of the Pussy Riot actions, it is particularly strange to hear criticism from the Russian Orthodox Church. This institution not only discredited itself, supporting the highly corrupted elites, but is often accused of machinations, not compatible with the high ethical role it tries to assume. In other words, the situation within the Church is abnormal. And fighting abnormal circumstances through conventional, normal methods would be at least inefficient. Let us imagine that Pussy Riot would deliver a speech on TV show about the symbiosis of the Church and the state. Nobody would even listen to them! General public got so much used to the dealings of the Church that it became part of everyday reality. People got used to it and are not shocked by it. At such moments, someone has to slap the society into its face to wake it up.
Extraordinary circumstances demand extraordinary measures. When oppressors are tough and offensive, it would be immoral to demand critics to remain soft and "civilized". Slavoj Zizek, commenting on the Pussy Riot affair, said that there are two types of cynicism: the bitter, desperate cynicism of the oppressed and the arrogant, dismissive cynicism of the oppressors. Cynicism of Pussy Root is of the former type.
In fact, their actions might have been offensive to some people. But if you put feminists, LGBTQI and the opposition on one scale and the Church and the state on the other, then we must recognize that the former ones have to endure much more offense on everyday basis, while the later ones have monopolized truth and power. Therefore, the Pussy Riot actions can not be viewed as an offense. Offense can happen between two equal subjects.
An Iraqi stone, thrown at the US tank, is not an offense. In a situation, when you are taking a side of the oppressed, your actions constitute an act of resistance. Morally justified act. That is why, Russian LGBTQI movement should show unconditional solidarity with the courageous actions of Pussy Riot.
