INTELLECTUALS' NOTES FROM T H E UNDERGROUND
709
Communi st situ ati o n . Pluralism and to lerance o f politi cal, cultural, o r
aestheti c di ssidence, of sec tari ani sm o r hereti cism , are no t ve ry viable
concepts to use in assessing di ss idence as a social movement o r ca tegory.
They represent some o ther soc ial mechanism o r phenomenon .
T he abrupt and unexpected dea th o f Andrei Sakharov cano ni zed him
as a symbo l o f th e hi ghest mo ral autho rity, especially in my country,
Russia. H e became th e ITleaSUre o f the mora l po tential of th e entire
di ss ident and lega l ri ghts movement. Sakharov, w ho always stood fo r
freedom , democ racy , human ri ghts, disarmament , wh o tri ed to establish a
new world o rder, dreamed of a new constituti o n , a Pax Sovieti ca. After
confro nting Mikh ail Go rbac hev, at th e time th e man in powe r ,
Sakh arov d emo nstrated th e po liti ca l di gnity of th e entire di ssident
movement. T hi s movement ended abruptly, unexpectedly fo r some of us.
Alth ough the oppositi o nal, po liti cal, and ideological impulse could no t
be exhausted , it lost its cl ea r direc ti o n . What was left w as some in–
tellectu al drama, some intellectual pu zzle , a peculi ar fl ow o f publi ca–
ti ons, and rath er few rea l sugges ti o ns fo r inte ll ec tu al so luti ons.
For th e moment ,
I
am putting as id e th e existenti al dimensi o n of
dissidence of w hi ch Eda has spoken .
I
t is we ll known that th e diss ident movement, from the 1950s on ,
attrac ted parti cipants from all levels o f soc iety, from the o ffi cial cultural
and po liti ca l es tablishment as well as from ali enated , marginali zed , and
sectari an li te rary types. Parti cularly after Bo ri s Yeltsin banned th e Com–
muni st Party, many dissidents became involved in the offi cial government
structure. T hi s conversion of di ss idents into burea ucra ts and politi cians
was problemati c in view of th e mo ral and politi cal dil emmas that con–
fro nted each diss ident personall y. Does it mean that di ssidents, in St. Pe–
tersburg, in Russia, in Europe, are th e victo rs o r that th ey are the lose rs
in the current politi cal situati on? At fi rst glance, it seems that the maj o r–
ity of di ss idents are out of th e game, o ut o f politi cs, alth ough some still
have spec tac ul ar politi cal ca reers. Yet ove rall , the mechanisms o f soc ial
and po liti cal change ac t destru ctively o n intellectu als, on activi sts wh o
once mo re are testing their capabilities, their independence.
In
this situ ati o n , it is no t impo rtant wheth er a di ssident chooses to
escape the to talitari an o rder by internal o r external emi grati on.
It
does
not matter w heth er he continu es to have soc ial pretensions, w hether he
attains hi gh intern ati o nal o r nati o nal presti ge, rej ec ts oppo rtuniti es fo r
recogniti o n o r closes himself into hi s own crea ti ve labo ratory.
It
does
not matter wh eth er he is mo re modern , mo re European , mo re o r less
libera l - th at is, market- o ri ented - o r w heth er he defends mo rals and
law, human indi vidu ality and mino riti es, o r is premodern , a traditi onalist,
a fund amentalist , o r a nati o nalist.
I
do not think it is impo rtant w hether
or no t social and politi cal di ssidence is associated w ith aesth eti c escape o r
