იდეოლოგიური დისკურსის ფუნქციონირება ტოტალიტარული რეჟიმის ოფიციალურ ტექსტებში (სტალინის 60 წლისთავისადმი მიძღვნილი კრებულის მასალების მიხედვით)

აბსტრაქტი

სტატიიდან აღებული ავტორის ინგლისურენოვანი რეზიუმე:

Key Words: Totalitarianism, the ideological Discourse, Stalin. The present paper, based on the material published in the collection dedicated to Stalin’s jubilee “60 years from the birth of great Stalin” (Collection…1940), analyses the ideological discourse and its function in the official texts of the Totalitarian regime. As a theoretical basis of the paper serves the Discourse Theory by Michel Foucault, rep- resented in his work The Order of Discourse (“L’ordre du discours) (Foucault 1972; Foucault 1974). According to Foucault Discourse is a consistent set of linguistic elements contain- ing power, on the basis of which power systems or dominant political regimes (including totalitarian regimes), on the one hand control the masses and politically raise them and on the other hand neutralize and abolish other, undesirable discourses.

M. Foucault from the very beginning underlines, that the creator and afterwards controlling mechanism of the discourse lies in concrete institutions and systems (Fou- cault 1974: 6), meaning that discourse can be perceived as a powerful mechanism, which prohibit and neutralize those discourses which try to find their way beyond the existing institutions and systems. On the basis of the dominant discourses several procedures are permitted in order to abolish, neutralize, and prohibit anti-discourses – opposing or alter- native discourses. These procedures are: a) prohibition; b) separation/isolation/marginalization c) permanent emphasis of possessing the absolute truth (the will to truth) (Fou- cault 1974: 7-15).

Thus, we get the condition when the infinite opposition of discourses in a politi- cal realm – according to Nietzschean analogy – where a discourse is always against an- other discourse. As the political space is always a reflection of violence and pathological striving towards power, linguistic discourses are effectively used as an instrument and mechanism, based on which “scientifically”, rationally, directly, strictly and strongly are expressed though syntagmatic order derived from the fundamental logo centric narrative, united ideological construction and political and religious preaching, raising, “pastoraliza- tion” (according to Foucault’s analogy) deriving from traditional episteme.

The paper researches which mechanisms are being used for the functioning of dis- course in the articles and reports given in the collection (1940) dedicated to Stalin’s 60th anniversary. The very first pages of the collection, or rather, the headers clearly show the quali- ties and characteristics which can be traced in the so-called “discourse societies” (Foucault 1974: 27), in particular, from the doctrines accumulated and the importance and influence of institutions. From the very beginning it is obvious that the collection is done under the order of a concrete institution and under the principles of linguistic selection, filtration, us- ing the accumulated doctrines within the two sectors of „discourse societies”: On the one hand, Marx-Engels-Lenin Institute and Political Publishing Agency and on the other hand, in the Communist (Bolshevik) Party.

In both cases much attention is paid to the doctrine, which is revealed in the slogan on the first very page of the collection, “Proletarians of all countries unite!” This slogan is of a doctrinal nature, because it attracts the masses under the sole value of the proletariat, and unites them under this value and discourse masses are being ideologically brainwashed and their identity established. Consequently, the dis- course-dogmatic word proletariat for all the authors of the collection becomes dogmatic representation and the Center of Truth. Such center of truth becomes the word – Stalin, which is found in the text of the presidium of the Supreme Committee of the USSR.

Thus, both the authors and publishers of the collection agree that their discourse texts will work in the direction of the two doctrinal statements – proletariat and Stalin in the direction of extension and dissemination. The doctrinal expansion and dissemination in the collection are primarily linked to Stalin’s political figure, Bolshevik-Communist Party, Proletariat, sacralization of Marx- Engels-Lenin, for which the authors use concrete discourse elements that on its own are relied on the tradition of religious harmony and eschatology. Taking into consideration this tradition, the collection also develops the dichotomic division of “believers” (for example, Bolsheviks, Proletariat) and “heretics” (for example, Mensheviks and Bourgeoisie), and also developed are the moral dogmas and “religious” practices through which “repentance of political sins” are possible.

Therefore, all the texts in the collection have the same dis- course mechanisms and elements based by which Stalin’s political figure, the Bolshevik- Communist Party, proletariat, sacralization of Marx-Engels-Lenin, and the political mor- als are highlighted. Namely: a) Hypostasis, or regarding Stalin as a new Messiah and the new Lord, which is expressed by the words Father, Leader; Thus, the form of addressing Stalin in order to deepen the spiritual father-son relationship between the leader and the masses is always “you” (second person singular). For example, “The Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party on your 60th anniversary, greets you with pleasure, the great leader of the party and the soviet people” (Collection ...

1940: 7); b) Discourse of Eternity – Stalin as beyond the spatial and time categories, with him being eternal; c) Mosean Discourse – Stalin as a spiritual leader and teacher, who as a theoreti- cian, creates new true commandments and dogmas for the world proletariat; d) Discourse of a caring father – The father, who like the god of the Old Testament, cares for his “chosen nation” (the proletariat, the workers, the peasants, “Soviet peoples”), always stands besides them during the turbulent historic times, and is always supportive and saves them: “Stalin cares delicately for his comrades and friends for the people. He like Lenin is moved by the deep love for man and is always struggling for their complete liberation, happiness “(Collection ...

1940: 71); e) Proletariat – as a new “religious community”, new “believers”; The Party – as a new “church”, which in this eschatological moment of history shows the proletariat the true way towards communism; g) “Theorists”: Marx, Engels and Lenin as new “prophets”, “apostles” and “evan- gelists” who were not able to write about the “Promised Land” – establishment of Com- munism – vision and entrance of the Communist “Paradise” (“The Greatest Theorists – Marx and Engels – did not see the realization of their ideas in their life” Collection... 1940, 65); h) Revolutionary struggle for proletariat and the underground work of Bolsheviks as new “religious” merit and new mission arising from the “catacombs”; i) Bourgeois-reactionary forces, Mensheviks, Trotskyites, Social-Democrats, etc.

– as new “heretics” and `sectarians” j) separation from them, as an act of purification from sins; k) industrialization, collectivization – as new “religious dogmas”; l) Enabling Communism through socialism, as a new “eschatology”. The first article in the newspaper Pravda, which is the first article in the collection, regards Stalin as a Messiah, the new Father-God image. This sacral hypostasis is coded in discourse denominations – father, leader. Most importantly, this hypothesis is dogmatized, legitimate and institutionalized by the fact that the article is published in the main and first of the many multi-million newspaper of the party (“church”), in the official printing press of the Communist-Bolshevik Party, Pravda, where the “new Church” the Communist- Bolshevik Party spreads across the whole Soviet Union its dogmatic “epistolary”: “Our vast country of 183 million people loudly trumpets the admiration of the greatest hu- man genius of modernity, the leader and thinker, creator and architect of a new life, the father all the workers and those oppressed.

[...] All the world’s workers and peasants are looking up to Stalin, he is their hope, he is their future! Stalin is our happiness!”. Thus, in the official ideological texts of the totalitarian regime, the discourse clear- ly works in the direction of the a prior sacralization of the political leader: namely, the political leader will from the spatial time of history moves towards the archetype image of the father and moreover acquire all the features of the Father-God: he is the basis of existence, God the creator, He is the Teacher, with him and in him is the Truth, he is Al- mighty, the is the listener, and the healer. Consequently, the political leader becomes the object of “prayer”, worship and sacrifice.

Because of this purpose, the totalitarian regime and its subordinated institutions (party) and the state apparatus are principally based on traditional religious paradigm and discourse (and this orientation is a prior) and introduces new religious content – secularized or secularized, which is a fundamental discourse of the ideology of the totalitarian state.

გამოქვეყნებულია ჟურნალში „სჯანი“, ტ. 20/1 (2019), გვ. 68–95. ნაშრომის გახსნა