538
PARTISAN REVrEW
self-interest, so there is going to be disintegration in the fabric of human
interplay. Into that fabric of interplay, obviously, fits the fate of litera–
ture. And the role of intellectuals is going to be, as I say, marginal.
That's all I have to say. Actually, I can qualify it and add that, especially
in the country of my origin, Russia, there is no a large, substantial middle
class, a bourgeoisie, which is the prerequisite for a democracy. The entire
society has undergone the process of
11lI1lpell-ization.
The same applies to
the writers. Obviously, the
lilli/pen
context is terribly rich as a breeding
ground for all sorts of nationalists, populists, or indeed fascist philosophies
or concepts of social organization. And if the writer is to play any social
role at all, he is to say "Blast you!" to all of this.
Qllestion:
In 1992, we've heard mention of replacing the term "Soviet
Union." Are you all still comfortable using that term?
Joseph Brodsky:
I don't think there's anything wrong with using the
old term, in the absence of a better one. For the moment, I myself
would call the Soviet Union "the Ruble Zone." But why should we be
so picky? I don't see anything wrong with continuing to say "Soviet
Union."
Qllestioll:
Mr. Bellow, you outline two utopias that had been at least
partially actualized in the West, but there is a totalitarian utopia in
which intellectuals invariably appear to be in power in the beginning and
in which they are later marginalized. In the Western societies, there is the
perfect example of intellectuals who are not oppressed but nevertheless
remain irrelevant. If the entropy of the world is· going in this direction,
as it appears to be, then I would like to turn your question around and
ask you how intellectuals in this community now can remain both hon–
est and relevant.
Saul Bellow:
Well, that's a very interesting question. I think we should
distinguish between writers and intellectuals. It's an important distinction
which deserves to be made, and we should all think very seriously about
this. In modern times, we have in a way been in the hands of intel–
lectuals, not necessarily writers. They have formed the major projects of
modern times. Intellectuals like Marx, Rousseau, Lenin, and so on down
the line, presented us with transformations which we had to live with
and which not only dominated our lives but formed our minds, so to
speak, so that it required a considerable private individual effort to cast
off this framework imposed upon us. I suppose this is unavoidable and in
the nature of things in the modern world, since we have entered into a
