Final Research Paper - Soviet Nonconformist Movement

Colin Potter

Dr. Stephanie Brown

ENGL 306

Research Project Final Essay

            What is protest? To us in America, the answer seems obvious. People holding signs, walking in the streets, shouting, banding together to make a statement through some form of collective action. For the most part, this is absolutely correct. But all of these actions are protected by our Constitution, and in America, protest often takes a form designed to be visible to larger groups of people. This makes protest easier to define and point out when it occurs. Unfortunately, other governments don’t protect citizens’ freedom of speech, and many are oppressive governments where dissent against the ruling body is met with harsh punishment, and potentially even death. So what does protest look like in these countries where punishment for dissent is so high? When a government represses the humanity of its people to enforce order and maintain totalitarian power, what qualifies as protest? In this situation, the ground rules for protest have to change, and simply the creation distribution of ideas disallowed by the government and dissemination of unauthorized culture, even if underground, becomes a form of protest. Here, I will investigate the Soviet nonconformist movement which attempted to do just that to maintain citizens’ humanity in the face of authoritarian repression during the early 1950s to late 1980s.

            To approach this movement in the context of a protest movement, we first need to acknowledge that underground movements, where dissent for the government and the practice of illegal culture are done behind closed doors, are themselves a form of protest. In his 2005 essay, Hank Johnston argues that not all protests and forms of collective action adhere to the conventional structure and concept of protest usually used to describe protest movements. In particular, Johnston argues that in authoritarian regimes where the punishment for conventional protest is very severe, simply engaging in oppositional speech and expression qualifies as a form of protest. Johnston states that "oppositional speech acts are a less demanding and less risky form of collective action," and these acts provide a way to disseminate inherently oppositional culture (117). To Johnston, it is not public visibility that defines a protest in authoritarian regimes, it is the expression and dissemination of dissent that make a form of collective action a protest under these conditions. To him, it is that a movement contains action designed to promote freedom of expression and that pose ideas to change perceptions about the government. The Soviet nonconformist movement is a perfect example of this kind of movement, and falls neatly into this category as we will see moving forwards. For now, this is a key concept to keep in mind as we look to the movement’s context, practices, and purpose later.

            As is the case with any protest movement, people are at the core. For the nonconformist movement, these people were diverse in terms of culture, ideas, and contributions to the movement. They ranged from people who contributed by actually creating nonconformist works in the Soviet authoritarian regime, to those who just consumed these works. For this essay, I am primarily focused on the former group, the artists, writers, photographers, and journalists who contributed to the movement itself. Understanding this group, often called the intelligentsia (although it includes a broader group of people than the educate elite), is key to understanding the movement itself. In this essay, I will be investigating how this group’s identity both served to create the nonconformist movement, and how the movement itself allowed the intelligentsia to forge their own identity and maintain humanity and culture within the Soviet Union at the time despite intense repression of that culture.

            First, we need to understand the historical context of the nonconformist movement and what the movement actually was. Amid the oppression and, at times, chaos of the Soviet Union after Stalin, the Soviet nonconformist movement emerged and asserted personality, culture, and voiced dissent within this authoritarian regime. This movement is unique in many ways, containing media such as art, literature (through the samizdat), music, and photography. But perhaps one of the most interesting aspects of the nonconformist movement is how the repression and authoritarianism in the USSR acted to simultaneously stamp out dissidents in the movement, yet served to create dissent and the movement itself in the process. Nonconformist dissent began around the 1950’s after Stalin fell and WWII and ended with the fall of the Soviet Union, emphasizing the fact that the movement itself depended on the existence of the forces trying to oppress it (Sabbatini 337). In this section, I intend to analyze the historical events and policies leading up to and during the Soviet nonconformist movement, exploring the conditions underlying its beginnings and its evolution from the ‘50s to the early ‘80s.

            The Soviet Union was established in December of 1922, following a series of Russian military conquests and quelled rebellions, when multiple Soviet governments approved the creation of the USSR (Pipes 299). Only a few years after the establishment of the USSR, Vladimir Lenin died before he could make many of the theories he was known for into well-established policy. His death left a hole which Josef Stalin quickly filled. Stalin’s policies are important for the culture and policy in the Soviet Union from the time he took power until after WWII when he died in 1953. However, the terror, Stalin’s cult of personality, and the atrocities for which he is known were not necessarily responsible for the nonconformist movement itself, which began in the 1950’s post-Stalin. It was the contrast between Stalin’s authoritarianism and the policies of his successors, Nikita Khrushchev (who led from 1953-1964) and Leonid Brezhnev (from 1964-1982), that are really important for beginning and continuing nonconformist dissent in the USSR (Wyszomirski 48-49).

            Compared to the Stalin-era policy of the USSR, the Khrushchev period was, according to Barghoorn, was a period of “relative leniency,” (132). It’s not that Khrushchev was a saint, lifting the force of oppression from Soviet peoples and imposing lenient policy, but it was more lenient than under Stalin. Policy implementation by officials under Khrushchev showed a drastic change from Stalin’s policies, and this change is often referred to as de-Stalinization (Wyszomirski 48). Khrushchev’s de-Stalinaization campaign led to release of slave labor victims, to legal reforms, the reduction of the use of terror, and even to the loosening of boundaries to expression and conduct (Barghoorn 132). This is not to say there was no repression. Between persecution of various peoples and the regulation of photography and other forms of media, there was plenty of systematic repression under Khrushchev, often under the guise of unification, enforcing policies that led to the suppression of local cultures and the forced teaching and adoption of a true “Soviet” culture as nations were supposed to be merged into one Soviet Union (Neumaier 55; Fowkes 72).But compared to what Stalin had implemented, Khrushchev’s policies seem almost progressive. It was within this environment that intelligentsia, people in the USSR who are educated and intellectual and who often are the thinkers behind many kinds of cultural expression, felt more confident expressing dissent, both underground, unsanctioned dissent and overt, public dissent (Barghoorn 136). The literary journal, Novy Mir, went so far as to begin publishing small critiques of Soviet government, which then evolved into bolder and more challenging dissent of the USSR. Referred to as “permitted dissent,” this is an example of the relative leniency of Khrushchev when compared to Stalin and even Khrushchev’s successors. This period fairly quickly led to the rise of the nonconformist literature, photography, and art (Sabbatini 337; Neumaier 47; Graffy 114), and shows how oppression serves to generate the expression of dissent, providing that such dissent isn’t too severely punished.

            Following the overthrow of Khrushchev from power in 1964, Leonid Brezhnev became the leader of the Soviet Union. In many ways, this marked an end to the de-Stalinization of the Khrushchev period and the beginning of a much more authoritarian state (Barghoorn 138). While Khrushchev allowed the expression of dissent in those he considered loyal to the USSR, Brezhnev attempted to stamp out dissent, arresting protestors and especially targeting those suspected of being a part of nonconformist art and literature, and even going so far as to re-implement selective terror against dissenters, particularly artists (Wyszomirski 58). In an attempt to down-play this oppression, officials under Brezhnev often convicted dissenters of ordinary, non-political crimes, effectively reducing the visibility of dissent and preventing others from joining movements such as the nonconformist movement (Fowkes 75). Above-ground movements that may have at least been tolerated under Krushchev, such as the Ukranian dissident movement, were driven underground by targeted repression during Brezhnev era. Brezhnev also took a very active approach to equalization across the Soviet Union, a policy that often meant Russification at the expense of the local cultures in different areas of the USSR (Fowkes 75). All of this created an environment where any culture that was not Soviet was repressed, and public dissent was severely punished and made seemingly no impact on the state of the Soviet Union under Brezhnev. Brezhnev’s policies were able to stave off the fall of the Soviet Union for a little while, but less than a decade after Brezhnev, the USSR collapsed. For the nonconformist movement, Brezhnev’s policy drove more culture underground and people were able to use an established movement to retain culture in spite of increased oppression, increasing the diversity within the movement.

            The Soviet nonconformist movement was, at its core, a response to the repression of Stalin, Khrushchev, and Brezhnev, that became a complex cultural phenomena that impacted the lives of citizens and Soviet policy itself (Komaromi 598). It was a movement of intelligentsia throughout the USSR whose goal was to reinstate and maintain unofficial culture, speech, and expression in a society intolerant of it and trying to stamp it out. As I move forward with the exploration of this movement, I will primarily be focusing on how the identities of these intelligentsia and nonconformist members are related to the content and execution of nonconformist practices, and how this in turn affected the culture of the Soviet Union itself. Because of the unconventional nature of this protest (i.e. it is underground, not centrally organized, and its purpose of defiance rather than to push for change), it doesn’t fit cleanly into the stages of protest defined by Griffin (11). The stage of the nonconformist movement I will be investigating here is when the nonconformist movement existed to oppose the censorship and repression of the Soviet Union by providing a medium and an audience for dissident speech. This most closely relates to Griffin’s moment of inception, because over this long period where the many actors and works contributed to define the movement and the identities of those involved.

            An understanding of this historical context is imperative as we begin to look at the question, how was the nonconformist movement practiced and talked about? The Soviet nonconformist movement was, in essence, a movement of rhetoric, from visual to musical to written and spoken. Rhetoric that was, at once, defined by the intelligentsia and consumers of nonconformist works, and by the Soviet State itself. The USSR dictated, through the policies of its leaders and officials, what would and would not be considered acceptable language, thus defining what rhetoric would be itself nonconformist and therefore need to be a part of the movement to be distributed or spoken. This intimate relationship between the policies of leaders like Khrushchev and Brezhnev, as I’ve previously examined, and the nonconformist movement is at the core of the rhetorical context of this particular movement.

            One of things to consider when looking at the effect of the Khrushchev and Brezhnev period on the rhetoric of the nonconformist movement is the concept of “official” rhetoric. I’ve used this previously, but it is important to define it moving forwards. “Official” rhetoric is specifically government sanctioned rhetoric. It includes literature, news, art, photographs, music, propaganda, and any other physical way of disseminating information or meaning (Hoptman 37-52). Anything published legally in the Soviet Union was official and had to be government sanctioned rhetoric. Anything that is not approved by the ruling government in the Soviet Union during this time is therefore considered “unofficial,” and it is this label that defines works of the nonconformist movement. This would include anything from critiques to support of the government as long as it was illegally published or disseminated. Nonconformist literature, art, music, and photographs, all key aspects of the Soviet nonconformist message and identity, would be considered “unofficial.” This is an important distinction to make moving forward as we analyze how Soviet policies affected the nonconformist movement, and vice versa.

            Under Khrushchev, citizens in the USSR experienced a time of relative leniency, sometimes referred to as the “Thaw” (Barghoorn 132; Sandle 139). This led to a corresponding increase in the acceptability of unofficial language in Soviet Society. Publications like Novy Mir were not government sanctioned, yet they were still tolerated, if only barely, under Khruschev, and so were unofficial because they weren’t controlled by the regime. This kind of “permitted dissent” is an example of a tolerance of unofficial language under Khrushchev, which emboldened intelligentsia to begin publishing underground literary works in the beginning of the Soviet samizdat, or self-publishing, nonconformist movement in the Leningrad underground in the 1950’s (Dolinin 166). Khrushchev brought intelligentsia throughout the Soviet Union outside the ruling party to determine laws and policy, allowing them to discuss controversial topics in relative security (Sandle 141). This allowed intelligentsia, because of Khrushchev’s policies, to breathe life back into previously dead intellectual conversation after Stalin and begin to approach unofficial topics again. Khrushchev’s policies that attempted to merge all the nationalities of the Soviet Union into one Soviet culture resulted in the restriction of cultural autonomy (Fowkes 75). This resulted in much of accepted culture in non-Russian provinces in the USSR being labeled as unofficial culture, and this unofficial culture contrasted with the official mandated Soviet culture.

Yet, there was still the issue of how to disseminate this underground culture and nonconformist work. Writers solved this by self-publishing works in the samizdat, often writing books and poems by hand once or twice and distributing these works among trusted individuals (Komaromi 599). Artists converted apartments into temporary galleries to display art to groups of people and visitors, and an Estonian couple was able to maintain their culture in this way despite USSR repression (Troncale 32; Kurg 45). Music was played at unofficial venues where patrons could experience unofficial music in secret (Schmelz 181). All of these methods created safe spaces, locations or mediums within which freedom of speech and expression could be practiced in relative safety underground. In this way, the policy of the USSR in the Khrushchev period played an important role in the beginning of the Soviet nonconformist movement, in defining its rhetoric as anything outside the scope of official rhetoric and permitted dissent, in the revival of Soviet intelligentsia and ideological diversity, and in the mediums of dissemination of nonconformist rhetoric.

            Brezhnev likewise played a key role in the evolution of nonconformist rhetoric, and again it was through his policies that this rhetorical evolution occurred. His no-tolerance policy towards all forms of dissent, particularly nonconformist dissent, quickly changed what would be considered official and unofficial rhetoric (Barghoorn 138). Official rhetoric was narrowed to include only works that expressed positive, sanctioned views of the USSR government, meaning that even small amounts of dissent, like those that were tolerated under Khrushchev, became labeled as unofficial. Dissent was no longer permitted under Brezhnev, possibly due to his insecurity, but the result of this was that, with the nonconformist movement already established and more unofficial rhetoric than under Khrushchev, the nonconformist movement continued to produce dissident works and activity (Barghoorn 160; Sandle 150). Brezhnev’s policy on the intense Russification of some countries in the USSR, even if others were spared, created a similar situation as Khrushchev’s merging policies (Fowkes 75). With many cultures forced to go underground, citizens in Eastern Europe especially began to participate in the nonconformist movement as a way to maintain their own culture in the face of Brezhnev’s repression.

            Recognizing that Soviet policy has an effect on official and unofficial rhetoric and on the nonconformist movement itself is important, particularly when looking at the distribution of ideologies within the nonconformist movement. Acts of a nonconformist nature, particularly under Brezhnev, ranged from overt and at times public dissent to simply passive disobedience (Sandle 144). While dissent was punished, severely under Brezhnev and comparatively leniently under Khrushchev, and passive obedience was tolerated by both regimes, it is the area in between that is particularly of interest. It’s the underground nonconformist movement, not overt dissent yet unregulated, unofficial thinking and culture that permeated and spread over much of Soviet society at the time (Komaromi 614). Under Brezhnev, attitudes towards intelligentsia gradually began to become more negative, especially for artists of the time (Fowkes 144). The approach of many intelligentsia of the nonconformist movement was to express little dissent in public, but then express dissent in havens, either like one’s I’ve previously discussed or through closed lectures and salons in the privacy of institutions, maintaining an exchange and expression of ideas without being outspoken dissent (Fowkes 153). The result of all this is that, while intellectual life and Soviet society appeared to be homogenous, conformist, unified under repression, even grey on the surface, beneath that surface in the privacy of safe spaces Soviet society was heterogeneous, creative, expressive, highly intellectual, colorful, and diverse.

            As I continue to investigate the nonconformist movement, I will begin investigating the effects of nonconformist identity. While the nonconformist movement includes anyone who created or even consumed nonconformist art, literature, music, or photography, as I move on I will not be focusing on this broad of an identity. Specifically, it is the intelligentsia, those at the forefront of the movement who I discussed in the beginning of this essay that I am going to investigate. As a reminder, the intelligentsia, as I am using it here, were the artists, writers, and unofficial journalists of the nonconformist movement, the intellectuals of the movement. They worked to create, think, consume, and speak independently of the official Soviet culture and the government, so it is this identity that is of particular importance to me as I analyze the nonconformist movement. These people often wrote about and drew each other, portraying and reacting to ideas of other nonconformist intelligentsia as a way to debate and depict culture (Komaroni 601; Graffy 114). Intelligentsia at the time rejected the official, socialist doctrine and official aesthetics under both Khrushchev and Brezhnev (Dolinin 170). They considered themselves part of a world stage and a global culture, and so rejected the repression imposed by the Soviet Union through the nonconformist movement. It is the intelligentsia that contributed to and developed the nonconformist movement as it spread across the Soviet Union, and the body of unofficial literature, art, and photography produced in the movement was produced by intelligentsia writers and artists. This identity assumed the most risk by partaking in the Soviet nonconformist movement, and they are especially important moving forward with examining how they directed the nonconformist movement and influenced Soviet culture from the 1950’s to the early 1980’s.

            Thus far, we’ve seen that Khrushchev and Brezhnev both had huge impacts on the Soviet nonconformist movement indirectly through how Soviet culture was impacted by their policy. However, these policies created only the context within which nonconformist works were created. Underneath the homogenized culture on the surface of the Soviet Union, the intelligentsia – the artists, writers, photographers, and thinkers –were able to breathe life back into the culture and humanity that had been stamped out by the leaders of the Soviet Union. They contributed art, literature and ideas through the underground nonconformist movement, and were able to touch the lives of many Soviet Citizens. They created spaces to debate, to explore ideas, to revitalize culture, and to maintain individuality within a repressive Soviet regime, a dangerous undertaking but one which allowed these individuals to resist Soviet repression and retain their humanity and their unique culture and values.

            The creation of safe spaces was imperative to the distribution and the expression of movement artifacts and ideas. Without safe spaces, the nonconformist movement wouldn’t exist as a movement at all, so their existence determined effectiveness of artifacts within the movement in maintaining culture and humanity in the face of oppression, which was the overall goal of the movement itself. These safe spaces served as a public sphere within the nonconformist movement, not visible outside of the Soviet underground, where thoughts, ideas, and works could be passed from one person to another as a way to resist the cultural repression of Soviet policy. This is the smaller context within which nonconformist works operated. Safe spaces provided the speakers and creators of artifacts with an audience receptive to ideas and unofficial works, and a space within which to speak dissent.

            Safe spaces relate intimately to the various identities who were a part of the nonconformist movement in ways that are important as I begin to look at specific artifacts of the movement itself. Often times, safe spaces were apartments or private locations were nonconformist works could be presented and consumed away from the prying eyes of the KGB and other Soviet officials. Because of this, each individual space provided a slightly different context in which works were disseminated, in a different region of the Soviet Union, where different cultural values were being repressed. The apartment of two Estonian artists, for example, had an interior decorated to reflect the aestheticism and different art that interested the owners of the apartment (Kurg 45). When this was used as a safe space for intellectuals and artists to gather, the location in Estonia and the interests of the apartment owners affected the context within which works were shown and discussed. Apartment showings in Leningrad and Russia in general also focused on the interests and style of those who lived there, and were likewise affected by the cultural interests of Russia itself (Troncale 29). The result of this is that the specific contexts in which works were disseminated in the Soviet Union varied both over safe space location and over time, and these contexts relate intimately with the identities of nonconformist artists, writers, and thinkers. Not only did this movement and these safe spaces allow individuals to express and preserve their specific identity in an oppressive society, the movement also became a part of these people’s identities. Nonconformist intelligentsia were able to find humanity and forge their identity by contributing to the unofficial works and culture of the nonconformist movement, and safe spaces were key ways in which this was able to occur. They set the context within which unofficial works were displayed and consumed and became intimately related to the identities of nonconformist intelligentsia.

            Knowing how these safe spaces impacted the environment, context, and identities of nonconformist intelligentsia, more specific contributors to the nonconformist movement can be investigated fully. Enter Alexander Zinoviev, a prolific writer and thinker in the Soviet nonconformist movement whose works were published as a part of the samizdat (Graffy 113). Zinoviev’s writing was prolific and thought provoking, but what makes him an especially interesting nonconformist intellectual was his work with art, which ends up being a fairly good representation of much of the art in the nonconformist movement (Hoptman 32). In the 1960s and 1970s, the Soviet Union had appropriated art and transformed it to be used as propaganda, whether concealed or overt (Graffy 114). Official art at this time was often times in the form of state-approved cartoons, wall posters, color photographs and newspapers. Zinoviev was one of many intellectuals in the nonconformist movement to appropriate the style and themes of official art and use it to make political and social commentary on the Soviet Union, finding a way of expressing dissent of the government through underground unofficial art. The image I’ve selected (shown below and sourced from Alexander Zinoviev as Writer and Thinker ) is one such cartoon drawn by Zinoviev to accompany one of his literary works, however I am primarily interested in the drawing itself rather than the accompanying literature. It depicts a soldier and a tank, representing the Soviet Union and its armies, facing the West. The soldier is clearly baffled and confused as he gazes upon the sea of technological and economic development of the West, specifically the United States. Using the cartoon style of Soviet propaganda and official art, Zinoviev portrays the inability of the Soviet Union to keep up with the West, and the sense that the USSR was being left behind as the world forged ahead. Zinoviev appropriates the artistic style of the Soviet Union to convey a message that would have been considered treasonous under Brezhnev’s leadership, while simultaneously imparting a sense of levity and humor with the audience. This would have been something well-received in the context of safe spaces for both its wit and its insight.

            Zinoviev’s cartoon here is a rather unique artifact, as its purpose isn’t to persuade or to inspire the movement. It is designed to express an opinion, a commentary on the state of the Soviet Union at the time it was drawn that would accompany presumably a longer literary work. Connected with the purpose of the nonconformist movement, this cartoon takes on the additional purpose of expressing dissent in the oppressive Soviet regime. This artifact mainly appeals to kairos to accomplish this task, utilizing the state of the Soviet Union at the time of its creation to convey a message in the nonconformist movement. This appeal isn’t designed to be persuasive, rather it is designed to be satirical and relevant in providing social commentary. The appeal to ethos is not evident in the cartoon itself, but becomes evident when the artifact is considered as an accompaniment of a larger set of literary works from a respected samizdat writer such as Zinoviev. His work was highly influential in the nonconformist movement, and this cartoon invokes the same appeal to ethos that his literary works did. This cartoon’s appeal to pathos is much more nuanced and it provides a lens with which to look at the intelligentsia identity in the nonconformist movement. On an emotional level, the response to this cartoon is one of levity, or at the very least it was designed to be at the time. The cartoon presents a meaningful social commentary with a humorous, satirial spin that appropriates the style of Soviet official art. This appeal to pathos in a humorous manner indicates that Zinoviev’s audience, other nonconformist intelligentsia, would have responded well to such humor and levity, and the prevalence of this appeal in Zinoviev’s art corroborates this notion. It begs the question, what about the identity of the intelligentsia made this appeal effective? It brings up the interesting topic of levity and even of foolishness in the nonconformist movement among intelligentsia, something that makes this appeal to pathos effective in providing an insightful social commentary in the Soviet nonconformist movement.

            The nonconformist movement wasn’t simply a place for intelligentsia to gather and discuss freely philosophy, politics, and art. Zinoviev’s cartoon shows another aspect of the nonconformist movement I have yet to discuss, but which is a huge part of the lives of nonconformist intelligentsia. I have already discussed the notion that the main purpose of the nonconformist movement was to preserve, maintain, and express culture and humanity that was being repressed by the Soviet government. This makes sense when the nonconformist movement is juxtaposed with the historical developments of the time and the nature of safe spaces, but I haven’t discussed how this is shown in the behavior and identities of nonconformist intelligentsia. This is where the notion of foolishness, of levity comes in as revealed by an analysis of Zinoviev’s art. It makes sense that maintaining one’s humanity is not simply a matter of expression of dissent, or of philosophical debate, but something that requires something more that defies the oppressive and negative aesthetics often exuded by the USSR. For the intelligentsia of the Leningrad nonconformist underground, one of the first instances of the nonconformist movement, this something became what is referred to as “holy foolishness” (Sabbatini 337). Intelligentsia in Leningrad showed, “provocative, subversive, and drunken,” behavior, portraying the peculiarities of literary performance and behavior. They emphasized a disregard for social rules, approaching topics and behaviors from the outside as a way to enjoy levity through this foolishness. Unconventional meeting places, those aforementioned safe spaces, also show a value placed on breaking social norms as a pursuit of levity and intellectual exploration. It allowed for intelligentsia to maintain humanity in spite of repression, and pursue existential, philosophical, and political topics in the nonconformist movement while accomplishing the goal of maintaining culture and humanity in the face of repression through this foolishness. This set of cultural values was something that came to define nonconformist intelligentsia, but unlike how identities of apartment owners affected the context and content of the nonconformist movement, this “holy foolishness” is an example of how the movement itself and its values came to define the identity of nonconformist intelligentsia. Nonconformist intelligentsia writers, artists, photographers, musicians, and thinkers all played a role in shaping the nonconformist movement through their existing values and their contributions, but through this, they also came to be defined by the collective unofficial culture that was created. This identity is intimately tied to the nonconformist movement.

            In 1991, the Soviet Union collapsed and the authoritarian regime responsible for the existence of the nonconformist movement fell (Suny 9). It is not as though the new Russian government was perfect, but easing and removal of repressive policies led to the end of the movement when there was no reason to be underground for fear of repression. However, the effects of the nonconformist movement and its diversity of ideas and works had a far-reaching effect on Russian culture for years to come, and the values developed by those in the movement and the movement’s ability to maintain citizens’ humanity are a big part of this effect (Komaromi 601). Notably, people in the former Soviet Union didn’t need to redevelop their humanity, rediscover their identity, or create diverse ideas after the fall because the nonconformist movement provided a way to do all of that during the Soviet Union. The movement itself accepted different ideas and cultures and thus allowed citizens to resist the repression of the Soviet government without being arrested or executed. Taking into account all aspects of this movement, it becomes clear that it falls squarely into Hank Johnson’s definition of a protest movement in an authoritarian regime that I presented at the beginning of this essay. This means that we can evaluate this movement as a protest, and not as another type of movement.

            The nonconformist movement was clearly effective in its goals. Although it was a decentralized movement without one or two leaders, it didn’t need this to accomplish the goal the intelligentsia set out to accomplish through its creation. The movement provided a safe space, created a public sphere where all ideas and art forms were welcome. It provided a way to explore and dissent without fear of retribution, and allowed those in the movement to contribute their identity as well as forge it in the movement. In this way, the nonconformist movement, although illegal by Soviet policy, was absolutely an effective protest. The movement created a community of individuals who, despite their location, position (for the most part), and culture were able to exercise freedom, even if the movement was underground and the safe spaces were secret. Most importantly, the movement eventually came to represent the humanity of Soviet citizens, perpetuating and fueling their identity, during one of the most repressive regimes in the developed world.

Bibliography:

Barghoorn, Frederick C. “Regime—Dissenter Relations after Khrushchev: Some Observations.” Pluralism in the Soviet Union, edited by Susan Gross Solomon, Palgrave Macmillan UK, 1983, pp. 131-168.

Dolinin, Vyacheslav È., Severyukhin, Dmitry Ya. “Samizdat: The Literary Self-Publishing Movement in Leningrad 1950s – 1980s.” Enthymema, vol. 12, 2015, pp. 166-173.

Fowkes, Ben. “The National Question in the Soviet Union under Leonid Brezhnev: Policy and Response.” Brezhnev Reconsidered, edited by Edwin Bacon and Mark Sandle, Palgrave MacMillan, 2002, pp. 68-89.

Graffy, Julian. “Zinoviev’s Art and its Context.” Alexander Zinoviev as Writer and Thinker, edited by Philip Hanson and Michael Kirkwood, Palgrave Macmillan UK, 1988, pp. 113-117.

Griffin, Leland. “The Rhetoric of Historical Movements.” Readings on the Rhetoric of Social Protest, edited by Chlares E. Morris III and Stephen H. Brown. Strata Publishing Company, 2006, pp. 10-14.

Harrison, Mark. “Economic Growth and Slowdown.” Brezhnev Reconsidered, edited by Edwin Bacon and Mark Sandle, Palgrave MacMillan, 2002, pp. 38-67.

Hoptman, Laura J., Pospiszyl, Tomáš. Primary Documents: A Sourcebook for Eastern and Central European Art since the 1950s. The Museum of Modern Art, 2002.

Johnston, Hank. “Talking the Walk: Speech Acts and Resistance in Authoritarian Regimes.” Repression and Mobilization, edited by Christian Davenport, Hank Johnston, and Carol McClurg Mueller, University of Minnesota Press, 2005, pp. 108-137.

Komaromi, Ann. “The Material Existence of Soviet Samizdat.” Slavic Review, vol. 63, no. 3, 2004, pp. 597-618.

Kotkin, Stephen. Armageddon Averted: The Soviet Collapse 1970-2000. Oxford University Press, 2008.

Kurg, Andres. “Empty White Space: Home as a Total Work of Art during the Late-Soviet Period.” Interiors: Design/Architecture/Culture, vol. 2, no. 1, 2011, pp. 45-68.

Neumaier, Diane, general editor. Beyond memory: Soviet nonconformist photography and photo-related works of art. Rutgers University Press, 2004.

Pipes, Richard. The Formation of the Soviet Union: Communism and Nationalism 1917-1923. Harvard University Press, 1997.

Sabbatini, Marco. “The Pathos of Holy Foolishness in the Leningrad Underground.” Holy Foolishness in Russia: New Perspectives. Edited by Priscilla Hunt and Svitlana Kobets, Bloomington: Slavica Publishers, 2011, pp. 337-352.

Sandle, Mark. “A Triumph of Ideological Hairdressing? Intellectual Life in the Brezhnev Era Reconsidered.” Brezhnev Reconsidered, edited by Edwin Bacon and Mark Sandle, Palgrave Macmillan, 2002, pp. 135-164.

Schmelz, Peter J. “Andrey Volkonsky and the Beginnings of Unofficial Music.” Such Freedom, If Only Musical: Unofficial Soviet Music During the Thaw. Oxford University Press, 2009, pp. 67-130.

Schmelz, Peter J. “Unofficial Venues, Performers, and Audiences.” Such Freedom, If Only Musical: Unofficial Soviet Music During the Thaw. Oxford University Press, 2009, pp. 179-215.

Suny, Ronald Grigor. The Revenge of the Past: Nationalism, Revolution, and the Collapse of the Soviet Union. Stanford University Press, 1993.

Troncale, Joseph C. “The Space of Freedom.” The Space of Freedom: Apartment Exhibitions in Leningrad, 1964-1986. Richmond, Virginia: Joel and Lila Harnet Museum of Art, University of Richmond Museums, 2006, pp. 27-39.

Wyszomirski, Margaret J., Oleszczuk, Thomas A., Smith, Theresa C. “Cultural Dissent and Defection: The Case of Soviet Nonconformist Artists.” Journal of Arts Management and Law, vol. 18, no.1, 1988, pp. 44-62.