288
JOSEPH FRANK
pation of women, when the "real" problem was to obtain some
ele~
mentary civil rights for the vast majority of the people. But after show–
ing us that such evasions were "inevitable," Professor Malia cannot re–
sist characterizing them scornfully and ironically and continually be–
laboring Herzen for his incapacity to face up and "recognize reality."
A good example occurs in the chapter on Herzen's exile, when he took
refuge in religion, Masonic mysticism and a highly exalted correspond–
ence with his future wife as a means of avoiding total despair. "His love
went to the metaphysical lengths it did," Professor Malia comments,
"because of what was grafted onto it by the frustrations of exile. Hence
the association of Natalie with the idea of Providence, God, the angels,
heaven, and all other conceivable occult powers necessary to save him
from despair in the face of adversity. Perhaps the most preposterous
aspect of the whole affair is the solicitude attributed to Providence for
the welfare of the inestimable Alexander." Such a sarcastic tone, by no
means uncommon in the book, is entirely out of place in this context;
and Professor Malia might remember that it is unseemly even for a
"social psychologist" to kick a man when he is down.
Perhaps the most unfortunate consequence of Malia's theoretical
approach, however, stems from the view of "reality" that it implicitly
assumes. Art, speculative philosophy, religion, the problems of personal
life-all these are "sublimated politics" from his angle of vision, blind
alleys into which the Russian intelligentsia wandered out of practical
helplessness. "Reality" thus becomes equated with pragmatic politics on
the Anglo-American model; and whether intentionally or not, Professor
Malia leaves the impression that every other intellectual and cultural
activity or preoccupation is an "escape." But all the while he is pitilessly
harrying Herzen for such "escapes from reality," one cannot help think–
ing that it was precisely these escapes which make Herzen so unique
and attractive a figure in the gloomy gallery of Russian revolutionary
fanatics.
The radicals of the 'sixties would also look on "reality" exclusively
in political terms, exactly like Malia though of course with a different
kind of politics in mind; and, with a more self-conscious logic, they
excluded as "useless" every non-political inclination and requirement of
the human spirit. Herzen was the only great radical who refused to
accept this politicization of man, which has had such unhappy con–
sequences for Russian culture as a whole. Just as in the case of Marx,
whose education in the era of romantic idealism left him with a residue
of respect for great
art
that he never lost (though he could never manage
either to make it consistent with his historical materialism), so Herzen's
