580
PARTISAN REVLEW
valid - whether applied to the new republics or elsewhere. If you fol–
lowed the real events, and not those invented by theoreticians, you
would be aware that right now, at this stage of separation and disinte–
gration, there is no democracy in any of the new republics. No demo–
cratic processes are taking place there. I grant that there have been some
actions that might lead to democratic regimes, but the problem in these
republics now is that they are compelled
to
keep pushing forward to a
single, obsessive issue. And that issue right now is nationalism. Nation–
alism contradicts democracy, because is it nationalism, the idea of "our
nation," fueling the belief that foreigners should be marginalized and ex–
iled; that if foreigners behave well, they might be tolerated. That is my
point.
Qllestioll:
I listened to Madame Tolstaya with a great deal of interest,
because she says she has difficulty identifying herself. It's like the Russian
quest for identity in the nineteenth century, of which Aleksandr Herzen
wrote that we were like Janus, with one heart but two heads turned east
and west. The problem in the Russian quest for identity, and perhaps the
problem the Russians ought to face, is that since the moment the Rus–
sians or the Muscovites liberated themselves from the Tartars in 1462, the
state expanded at the rate of fifty square miles a day for four hundred
years.
In
the process, they took all of that mud you entertained us with
by picturing it being fought for by Finnish tribes; yet that mud did be–
long to others originally. The point I wish to make is that ultimately
you offer a choice between imperialism and nationalism. This is an over–
simplification, because one can conceive of nationalism as a mosaic of
various nations, in which every nation is a precious stone, which does
not exclude democracy. To choose imperialism is to go back to
Kipling's "white man's burden."
Tatyana Tolstaya:
Your point is absolutely clear. First of all, as I said,
this is not a conference of intellectuals but of emotionals. So your point
of view is as emotional as mine. And not being a Russian imperialist and
not feeling the problem of Russian self-identification, you cannot put
yourself in my shoes;
YOll
won't put yourself in my shoes - that is the
point. I am trying to explain the way
r~ussians
feel. You expressed your
views and how you feel, and if you invite other people, they will say
how they feel. As I said, I understand perfectly well how the emotions of
everyone can be hurt differently. I tried to express to the audience the
way my emotions are hurt. So there is no contradiction between us, and
there is nothing to discuss; emotions are not really debatable.
Another thing is that this is a writers' conference, so I do appreciate
your metaphor of a multiplicity of nations shining like stones in one
