Laszlo Alexandru

 

“RESISTANCE THROUGH CULTURE” – FIVE PARADOXES

“Assolver non si può chi non si pente,

né pentere e volere insieme puossi

per la contradizion che nol consente”

(Dante)

 

(“He who repents not cannot be absolved,

Nor can one both repent and will at once,

Because of the contradiction which consents not”).

english version by Axel H. Lenn

1) The syntagm “resistance through culture” did not exist per se in communism. One could verify, page by page, the cultural press or the books published in those days. I doubt one shall find this concept enunciated, explained or analyzed prior to the end of the 1980’s. As a matter of fact, we are dealing with a syntagm created post festum, following the 1989 anticommunist rebellion, meant to publicly justify the passiveness of the autochthonous intelligenzia, their indulging in dictatorship, their small manoeuvres of individual arrangement and prudent survival. Mr. Jourdain spoke in prose for decades without knowing anything of it. The cultural society opposed despotism, for decades, without knowing it or speaking of it to anyone else.

 

2) “Resistance through culture” accredits the hypothesis that Romania’s greatest writers were not actual accomplices in installing and maintaining the communist dictatorship. In other words, they were busy writing books and thus, avoiding all political constraints, they merely saved their soul. However, if we browse briefly Virgil Ierunca’s The Shame Anthology, astonishment sets in. Many of the most prominent authors outdid themselves in praising communism and the lisping tyrant.

“For a writer, there’s no greater honour than being allowed to speak here, in socialist Romania, to his son, to his brothers, to his countrymen (…). Because here we have a history of our own, this country advances as a socialist fatherland, just as man is elevated to an entity of truth, a sovereign of liberty” (Ioan Alexandru); “In this context, I’d like to remind you the appeal to artists addressed by the general secretary of the party, two years ago, in his speech at the Central Committee Plenum in November. (…) Is this not the very meaning of cultural initiation, of entering the spiritual realm? (Nicolae Balotă); “But comrade  Nicolae Ceaușescu’s speeches should be quoted word by word since they are writings of historical relevance, elaborated in a style so clear, sober, balanced and efficient. The style of a great author, meritoriously translated in so many languages all over the world” (George Bălăiţă); “12 years ago comrade Nicolae Ceaușescu took over the lead of the communist party and of the state, but these years, so generous in events, enriched us with an enormous experience, they revealed our real dimensions, our true character and strength” (Augustin Buzura); “I praised the mountains and the sea / - embrace theirs over shores anew - / and now I sing my verse with glee / thus praising brightful  Party, you!” (Radu Cârneci); “With the spirited strength of his word, with his omnipresence in all work fields, giving example of restless activity and mobilizing the entire nation in a grandiose creative impetus, Nicolae Ceaușescu, the general secretary of the party, the comrade, is one of the greatest peoples’ animators of all times” (Șerban Cioculescu); “As a historian, I have a feeling of gratitude towards the encouraging appreciation expressed by the highest political forum of our people and written in its programmatic documents, as well as in the Report of its general secretary, comrade Nicolae Ceaușescu” (acad. Emil Condurachi); “Small country, subjected to countless misfortunes specifically encountered at travelling, geographic and historical crossing points, Romania used her President’s character, intelligence and temperament to establish herself as one of the strongest personalities in the nations’ citadel, an image of unique expressiveness…” (Radu Cosașu); “History knew golden ages with exceptional prosperity. Pericles’ Century, Louis XIV’s Epoch, the Elizabethan age etc. But all these periods of magnificent and august splendor were doubled by sheer misery and atrocious misfortunes, generated by an iniquitous social order. For the first time in history, Romania’s Renaissance, identifiable with       Ceaușescu himself, reveals itself as an age of excellence governed by social justice, individual liberty, human dignity. Because of this, material prosperity and spiritual fulfillment is [sic! - L.A.] direct consequences of humanity, quality and invincible truth (Radu Enescu); “Educational factors – including the Union of Communist Youth school and organization which have the most important responsibilities – should do their best to accentuate the political side in young personalities, thus allowing them to become fully aware of our society’s major goal: building a superior stage of socialism and gradually implementing communism in Romania” (Constantin C. Giurescu); “Hence an entire nation’s pride which, 33 years after Liberation, is fully capable of handling its destiny. Hence the unanimous love for the man leading the Party and the State, who signifies the creative genius of nowadays achievements and of future planning as well. Hence the thought and the voice that express our vibrant joy of grand celebration: Ceaușescu-Romania!” (George Ivașcu); “Literature should express less rhetorically, but more profoundly and more meaningfully, the dramatic struggle our nation carries in order to fulfill an incomparable social ideal: communism” (Cezar Ivănescu); “The cultural revolution made by our party opened wide the way to peasantry culture. Facing a public more avidly interested in good books, writers will have to keep in mind comrade Ceaușescu’s words, announcing a numerical increase of cities in our country, as well as the social progress towards erasing the essential differences between villages and cities, thus leading to a larger number of readers” (Marin Preda); “Never did our country enjoy such a prestige, such a force of values and such nobleness of fully expanding ideas as we are witnessing today. (…) The Romanian Communist Party is extending its antennas towards future Romania…” (Mircea Horia Simionescu); “We are celebrating the 60^th birthday of our beloved president,  Nicolae Ceaușescu, and 45 years of activity of this man (…), the hardest working of all workers, the most peasant of all peasants…”(Nichita Stănescu);  “Our country is a socialist state. Our state policy reflects the vocation and the virtues of a nation that, having known social and national oppression for so long, chose once and for all time the safest and righteous way, which makes impossible, hence forth, the return to the past state of grave and injurious overlooking of its historical vocation and inborn virtues” (Constantin Ţoiu).   

From the above cited excerpts, which can be completed with many other similar quotations, one can clearly see that flattering the Romanian Communist Party and its General Secretary has nothing in common with resisting the Romanian Communist Party and its General Secretary. As Dante clearly explains, “nor can one both repent and will at once, / because of the contradiction which consents not”.

 

3) So far, no one has put up a list of the writers who practiced “resistance through culture”. However, based on some of the above given examples, one can easily list many writers who publicly groveled before dictatorship: Ioan Alexandru, Nicolae Balotă, George Bălăiţă, Augustin Buzura, Radu Cârneci, Șerban Cioculescu, Emil Condurachi, Radu Cosașu, Radu Enescu, Constantin C. Giurescu, George Ivașcu, Cezar Ivănescu, Marin Preda, Mircea Horia Simionescu, Nichita Stănescu, Constantin Ţoiu and many others. All these writers cannot be placed both in bed and under the bed – in other words, they cannot be eulogizers of the Party and its Secretary General and resistant consciences at the same time.

 

4) As the Secret Services’ archives are gradually emerging, many prestigious authors are uncovered for denouncing colleagues to the direct benefit of the communist dictatorship. As a consequence, one cannot include in the “resistance through culture” list such authors as, for example, Constantin Noica, the philosopher who travelled abroad and made lobby for Ceauşescu and who, upon return from his voyages in western countries, advised the secret services how to annihilate the Romanian Exile’s anticommunist efforts. One cannot consider Adrian Marino, who used his encyclopedic prestige to serve external propagandistic interests of the totalitarian regime. One cannot consider Mircea Iorgulescu, talking allusively-subversively about The Great Gabbling and, at the same time, under secret codenames “Dorin” and “Mirel”, denouncing fellow writers Bujor Nedelcovici and Dorin Tudoran. One cannot include Nicolae Balotă (codename “Someşan”). Or Alexandru Paleologu. Or Ştefan Aug. Doinaş. Under no circumstance Sorin Antohi.

 

5) Another category of individuals claiming a role in cultural resistance are the ideologists responsible for consolidating communism. Academician Dan Berindei is launching a direct question and vigorously answers himself: “Was resistance through culture real or not? Most certainly it was, without it this nation’s culture would have perished”. Ok, we got that. But how did it manifest itself? Well, to set an example, Adrian Păunescu generated ample echoes with The Erroneous Grammar. Later there were “Sergiu Nicolaescu’s historical movies, which unveiled for hundreds of thousand Romanians realities hidden for almost two decades”. Another example offered by Dan Berindei is himself, “53 years ago, in a journal called Studii [Studies] I published an article stating that radical liberals – headed by C.A. Rosetti and I.C. Brătianu – favored socager freeing and allotment, which was true but completely opposed to the historical line imposed by Mihai Roller”. Following his extraordinary audacity, Dan Berindei was “severely criticized by magazines Scînteia [Sparkle] and Lupta de clasă [Class Struggle] and even in an editorial in the journal where my article had been published”.

During communism, academician Dan Berindei did have a turbulent performance. With one hand he resisted through culture sending socagers in the first line of attack. With the opposite hand he wrote numerous informative notes for the secret services under codename “Băleanu” and even went as far as denouncing his own son who had escaped to the West. Nowadays, he rediscovers and promotes, on his account, other two great anticommunist resistant figures, Adrian Păunescu (the artisan behind the deferential Ceausistic shows, held on stadia) and Sergiu Nicolaescu (creator of the communist nationalistic mythology, on the big screen).

If “resistance through culture” can regroup, under the same generously large mantle, the forgers of Ceauşescu’s personality cult, the zealous denunciators for the secret services and the commuting agents of influence for the communist regime, one could conclude that, at the end of the day, this concept has already become so lax it has the virtues of a laxative.

(July 2011)