lOOKS
287
the basic idea is very simple and more psychological than social. "It has
been the major thesis of this book," he writes, " that the democratic ideal
arose in Russia, not by direct reflection on the plight of the masses, but
through the introspection of relatively privileged individuals who, out of
frustration, generalized from a sense of their own dignity to the ideal of
the dignity of all men." Nor is this type of explanation used only to
cover the Russian situation. For Professor Malia treats
all
the major
intellectual movements with which he deals- German Idealism, French
Utopian Socialism, and the appropriation and assimilation of both in
Russia-as essentially such "ideologies of compensation," which can
best be understood in the light of the frustrations they express and whose
objective value is approximately nil. It is the psychological dynamism
of this frustration, he argues, which accounts for the maxirnalism, in–
transigence and totally Utopian impracticality of Russian radicalism.
Certainly there is a good deal of truth in this point of view, which
seems primarily to derive from Karl Mannheim; but Professor Malia
applies it with a rigor, a logic and a relentless consistency that narrows
his perspective to a point where it becomes distorting. In the first place,
it leads him to what, in my opinion, is a perfectly false picture of the
kind of human being Herzen really was. Since everything has to spring
from the frustrations of his "ego," poor Herzen is turned into a monster
whose every action is dictated by vanity, self-seeking and a need for
power or "recognition" (whatever that really means) . Professor Malia
never seems to have asked himself why anyone should "generalize" his
own need for dignity into a universal ideal, and then devote his life to
attaining this kind of "generalization." Is there not some essential dif–
ference in human quality between those who "generalize" and those
who do not, and is it permissible to portray the former as if no such
difference exists? Herzen is hardly ever allowed a moment's sincerity,
generosity, sympathy, or even a movement of real spontaneity; and
if
we compare the actual facts of his life and behavior to the standards
of his time and country, this continual denigration after a while becomes
simply grotesque.
Indeed, there is a certain complacent cruelty in Professor Malia's
whole approach that becomes quite irritating, and which derives from his
superior certainty that he has "seen through" all the elaborate ideological
structures of rationalization by which Herzen masked his practical im–
potence and futility. Time and again Professor Malia explains to us how
hopeless and impossible the situation in Russia really was, and attributes
to this fact the preoccupation of the Russian intelligentsia with art,
idealistic philosophy, religion and such extraneous issues as the emanci-
