Sovietshunoslar

The Impact of Socialist Realism on Uzbek Literary Criticism
17The creative method of Soviet literature – a literature which praised utopian ideas – was born, put artificially into application, and collapsed, all during the twentieth century. In this sense, this creative method named socialist realism could be considered as an ephemeral occurrence. To put it simply, the method explained creative literature in strict connection with such principles as materialism, classism, and Party spirit, and considered literature as an inseparable part of Party work, or rather as a ‘screw’ of ideological propaganda. Uzbek intellectuals were obliged to recognise the resolutions and directions of the Party as a programme and had to apply them to their creative literary work. Resolutions adopted at the Plenum of the Central Committee of the cpsu from June 1983 continuously exercised influence throughout the 1980s. In these resolutions special attention was paid to the creation of a ‘positive’ hero who embodies the times, i.e. the formation of a communist who both carried ‘progressive’ ideas of the period and ‘raised a problem.’
18Obviously, the results of those efforts were seen not only in all genres and types of literature but also in works of cinema and fine arts. More important for us, literary criticism also could not avoid referencing the resolutions. For example, in his article Adabiyot g‘ojaviy kurashda [Literature in Ideological Struggle] Qayumov not only embraced the doctrine, but also expanded upon its bounds, exhorting talented youth to adhere to its principles.
Young writers and poets should pay special attention to the life of progressive contemporaries; they should dedicate their literary work to the depiction of heroism in labour and struggle of their generation and think seriously about ways to leave their mark on history.
(Qayumov, 1985, p. 11)

• 
  4 It is worth mentioning that the viewpoints of Qayumov and Turdiev coincide in their disagreement wi (...)
  

19He acknowledged that “literature is a field of ideological struggle” and that “Uzbek literature also is not excluded from this law” (idem). In reality, in that period Uzbek literature had already begun to reach a totally new shore, but the literary critic had continued in his conservatism, which arose from Party resolutions and directions rather than the literary process. The scholar, adhering to socialist realism, gave his opinions on the books, articles and speeches of Allworth, Montgomery, Bennigsen, Matushevskiy, Fierman, Prosik, Hayit, Barrett, and Kuchar. Amongst them were such books as: Muslim National Communism in the Soviet Union by Bennigsen and Wimbush, Uzbek Literary Politics by Allworth and the articles “Turkic Past and Soviet Future” by Matushevskiy, “Uzbek feelings of ethnicity: A Study of Attitudes Expressed in Recent Uzbek Literature” by Fierman and a speech “Friendship Theme in Contemporary Turkestan Poetry,” delivered by Çağatay Kuchar at the Fourth International Turkic Congress of September 1982, in Istanbul. For example, Qayumov, an advocate of a “single multinational state” fiercely argued the opinion expressed by Matushevskiy that “irrespective of social regime, nationalism is typical for all countries of the world” (ibid., p. 16). Further, Matushevskiy observed of the early Soviet period “A praising and justification of the national past which was compulsorily forgotten within past decades by means of irony and allegories in modern literature of the Turkic nations” (idem). Acknowledging that in Eastern literature allegory was a traditional method, Qayumov disagreed with his foreign opponent because, as he contended, Uzbek literature, in order to be ideologically acceptable, had to be “national in form and socialist in content” and could not be “national in content” alone.4
20In his article «Hozirgi adabiy jarayon va burjua sovetshunoslari» [Contemporary Literary Process and Bourgeois Sovietologists], academician Qoshjanov positively assessed the activities of foreign literature critics, philologists and journalists such as Alo Raun, Nicolas Poppe, Ilsa Sirtautas, Bourbon Buchori and others (ibid., pp. 35-45). But while giving his opinion on Daniel Matushevskiy’s “Turkic Past and the Soviet Future,” he followed Qayumov’s view such as “Uzbek Literature should be national in the form, socialistic in the meaning” expressed in the article «Qat’iy javob», which was initially published in Literaturnaâ gazeta (May 18, 1982) and republished in Adabiyot va san’at (May 27, 1983). Undoubtedly, Matushevskiy was wrong when he supposed that “the nation only recomprehends its past.” Considering that nationalism had facilitated the establishment of independent national republics, one can see that some of Qayumov’s opinions related to nationalism expressed in literature had an unscientific character as those viewpoints appeared under the impact of the doctrine of socialist realism.
21Qayumov’s monograph O‘zbek adabiyoti va uning chet ellik «tanqidchilari» [Uzbek Literature and Its Overseas ‘Critics’] contained his response to some of the analyses of Edward Allworth, David Montgomery, Gedrik Smith, and Harold Bettersby. Qayumov accused Allworth that in his book Uzbek Literary Politics he observed Uzbek literature as a whole and noticed the presence of a spirit of nationalism in it. But the scholar did not prove his opinion with concrete findings (Qayumov, 1981, pp. 55-63.). In his monograph, Qayumov once again closely followed socialist realism in his criticism of Montgomery’s research on Hamid Olimjon, whose lyrics were written in 1937-1938 and published in Canada in 1975, as an attempt to falsify the poet’s works:
The lyrical poetry of Hamid Olimjon in this period was very impressionable and had an intimate character, because in it he described his strong love for his wife, family and nature which he portrayed as something that harboured him from evil. In some places one can see such nocturnal philosophizing which shows that some opinions and topics aimed to the general public did not come to Olimjon easily.
(Ibid. p. 59)

• 
  5 The following speeches of David Montgomery, which were made at three conferences on Central Asia, s (...)
  

22But unfortunately Qayumov did not wish to delimit Olimjon’s verses on happiness and cheerfulness. He saw the social as a leitmotif of Olimjon’s poetry and tendentiously assessed the observations of David Montgomery on his lyrics.5 Of course, the opinion of the Uzbek scholar on the possibility of a social tone combined with intimacy is well grounded. But it is clear that he was troubled by the idea that Olimjon’s poetry might be devalued if it was found to not conform to Soviet ideology. While accusing the American scholar of distortion of the content and essence of the Uzbek poet’s literary heritage, he made special note that the poet was always in a “correct Party position.” It was impossible for Qayumov to act differently in the Soviet period where politically oriented lyric was supported in all possible ways, while the intimate lyric was treated with contempt. For this reason he felt an obligation to strongly tie the intimate feelings in Olimjon’s lyric to social tones. He could not plainly state that a human heart may be purified by love, and that love may morally raise a person, and that a poet who looked at the universe from that eminence could see the world more broadly than others. The popularity and appreciation of the intimate lyrics of Hamid Olimjon in the present time, and the eternity of love shows that very personal internal feelings received their beautiful expressions in these verses. So, on this point the observation of David Montgomery was very well-grounded.
23Academician Baxtiyor A. Nazarov, who worked in a period where the struggle between the two systems – socialism and capitalism – had risen to its culmination, in his contribution «Mafkuraviy kurash va o‘zbek tanqidchiligi» [Ideological Struggle and Uzbek Criticism] also had to approach the problem of literary critiques in light of Party ideology (Nazarov, 1985, pp. 85-113). He was guided by practical programmes and the directions of the Communist Party, especially by the resolutions of the June 1984 Plenum of the Central Committee of the cpsu, which mainly discussed ideological and public political issues. Amongst the theoretical-methodological sources on which the scholar relied were such monographs as Al’bert Belâev’s Ideologičeskaâ bor’ba i literatura [Ideological Struggle and Literature] (1977), Aleksandr Dimšis’ Nišeta sovetologii i revizionizma [The Poverty of Sovietology and Revisionism] (1975), Avner Zis’ Konfrontacii v èstetike [Confrontations in Aesthetics] (1980), Vladimir Boršukov’s Pravda i lož o sovetskoj literature [Truth and Falsehood about Soviet Literature] (1972), and Pole bitvy idej: sovetskaâ literatura za rubežom [The Battlefield of Ideas: Russian Literature Abroad] (1988). In these works, the analyses and interpretations were guided by Marxist-Leninist methodology, and directives were given to scholars of national republics. Thus, Nazarov’s argument that it was important to discover “ideological enemies” in literature, particularly in literary criticism, was no doubt a result of Party leaders’ influence.
24Nazarov spoke critically of literary policy in the United States, which had black listed such works as Mark Twain’s The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, and Tom Sawyer, for school libraries and refused to republish The Ballades of Robin Hood and Other Outlaws. Professor C. Harris, from the University of Illinois, officially stated that he regretted entering more than 500 books on the black list during the Reagan administration (quoted in Nazarov, 1985, p. 88). However, the historical situation made literary criticism a work of political importance. Given his awareness of the American literary situation, Nazarov considered – not without reason – as great counter-ideological achievements such fundamental works as the following 1970s monographs of Uzbek scholars: H. Inoyatov’s Sovet O‘rta Osiyosi va Qozog‘iston tarixini buzib ko‘rsuvchilarga javob [A Response to Those Who Distort the History of Soviet Central Asia and Kazakhstan] (1962), and Lenincha milliy siyosat harakatda [Leninist Nationalities Policy in Action] (1973); G. Hidoyatov’s Bo‘xtonga qarshi haqiqat [Truth Against Slander] (1964), and Lenincha milliy programma va hozirgi mafkuravij kurash [The Leninist National Programme and the Modern Ideological Struggle] (1972), R. Aminov’s Sovet hukumatining agrar siyosati va uni buzib ko‘rsatuvchilarni tanqid [A Critique of Those Who Distort the Agrarian Policy of the Soviet Government] (1972) and a collective work which was prepared by social sciences experts, Sovet tuzumining ulug‘vorligi va uni buzib ko‘rsatuvchilarning ojizligi [The Greatness of the Soviet Regime and the Insignificance of Those Who Misrepresent It] (1975). Nazarov gave to social sciences experts of the Uzbek ssr the task of “creating collective works every two or three years which could promptly reveal the viewpoints of foreign scholars” (ibid., p. 87) because he was not satisfied with the conclusions of previous such collections. In other words he called scholars not to fall behind Western Sovietologists in the ideological struggle.
25Nazarov began his career as a politically engaged critic in the 1950s, drawing on Oybek’s article «Yomon mo‘ridan yomon tutun chiqadi» [A Bad Chimney Emits bad Smoke] which was written as a response to the Polish writer Josef Gen and his comparative-typological method (Oybek, 1958). Nazarov proposed the principle of writing critiques in a comparative-typological style, not by ungrounded statements. He examined such books as Nurmuhammedov’s Adabiyot va g‘oyaviy kurash [Literature and the Ideological Struggle] (1976), and Adabiyot va mafkura [Literature and Ideology] (1977), Qayumov’s Meridianlardagi uchrashuvlar [Meetings in the Meridians] (1976) and Turdiev’s article «Tuhmatning umri qisqa» [The Life of Slander is Short] which appeared in Uzbek critiques and literary works as an improvement in the ‘experiment’ of Uzbek literary criticism. A small aphorism “Yolg‘on-qo‘rquvdan chiqib keladi” [A Fib Comes From Fear] from Oybek’s article «Yolg‘onchi to‘ti» [The Liar Parrot] grabbed the attention of Nazarov because he attributed the ‘libel’ of Sovietologists to those who feared the achievements of the Soviet regime. Oybek’s witticism was in response to the following viewpoints of B. Hayit: “Even before the October Revolution, real independent Uzbek literature didn’t exist. Instead, there was ‘Chagatay Turkic literature’- [literature in] the common language for all Turkic nations in the Central Asian region” (quoted in Oybek, 1958).
26By giving examples of literature which began with Aḥmad ibn Maḥmūd Yugnakī and continued to be developed by Khorazmī, Durbek, Ata’ī, Luṭfī, Nawā’ī, Babur, Mashrab, Muqīmī and Furqat, Oybek showed that this was not common to Turkic literature but was concretely Uzbek literature. Following Oybek, Nazarov also attacked this view of B. Hayit: “Modern Uzbek literature is not a real national literature, but a ‘literature’ which was created under a ‘definite political direction’” (quoted in Nazarov, 1985, p. 89). Nazarov, through his writings, quickly grew into the role of an ideological policeman. This can be observed by the difference between his research conducted in the 1970s and his articles and research of the 1950s-1960s. Early in his career, one of Nazarov’s principal influences and a work he kept returning to was Nurmuhammedov’s Adabiy meros va mafkuraviy kurash [Literary Heritage and the Ideological Struggle]. This monograph highlighted three common research questions in the Uzbek literary scholarship of Western critics, namely Sovietologists: first, the place of religion in the development of Uzbek literature; second, the place of a common Turkic heritage and a common Turkic territory in the development of Uzbek literature; and third, the distinctiveness of the Soviet literary canon from classical Uzbek literature. In order to demonstrate the frequency with which these questions were addressed the scholar drew from countless works of American scholarship, including Allworth’s books Uzbek Literary Politics (1964), Central Asian Publishing and The Rise of Nationalism (1965), and his articles in the collections Central Asia, A Century of Russian Rule (1967), and National issues in Soviet Central Asia (1973), as well as the articles “The Newest Literature of Central Asia” (1959) and “The Newest Literature in Central Asia and Kazakhstan” (1962), which were published in Central Asian Review. It also included the work of Columbia University expert Anna Prosik, Study of National Issues and Heritage in Central Asia. While Nurmuhammedov was correct to point out the reductivism to these three categories of American scholarship in its examinations, he too committed his own reductivist sins. His attachment to the doctrine of socialist realism forced him to cheapen literature: throughout his monograph he categorised Uzbek literature as either ‘progressive’ or ‘regressive.’
27Nazarov adopted Nurmuhammedov’s three principles and his reductivist readings without question. He drew an inflammatory argument from Imtiyoz Khan’s analysis of Nurmuhammedov’s works in his article, “Muslims of Central Asia.” In the article Imtiyoz Khan contentiously claimed that “in order to weaken the influence of Farsi on Central Asian Turkic languages the works of Nawā’ī are repeatedly published” (quoted in Nazarov, 1985). Nurmuhammedov rejected Imtiyoz Khan’s opinion as unfounded thought emphasizing on Nawā’ī’s works created in Turkish language and called Sovietologist’s such a motion as “an attempt to build a ship from a pistachio shell” (idem). Nazarov also supported Nurmuhammedov’s thought against Imtiyoz Khan, and observed that his views were morally close to other Uzbek ideologies such as those found in E. Fozilov and M. Makhmudova’s article «O‘zbekistonda lenincha lisoniy siyosat tantanasi va burjua fal’sifikatorlarini tanqid» [The Triumph of Leninist Language Policy in Uzbekistan and Critique of Bourgeois Falsifiers] (1975). Nazarov cited the similarities between Nurmuhammedov’s views and those of the Western scholars Prosik, Matushevskiy, Kuchar, and Wheeler as well as those of ‘West-leaning’ Uzbek scholars that used Gen’s comparative-typological method, namely H.T. Tursunov and I. Ibrohimova.
28Nazarov came down particularly hard on Nurmuhammedov’s odd choice to quote an American scholar, Violet Conolly in disproving Hayit’s untrue point that “the young Uzbek generation is forced to study Uzbek national classics in Russian” (idem). The Uzbek policeman observed that Nurmuhammedov’s method was to beat an opponent with the weapon of his own ‘associates.’ It is obvious that the critic Baxtiyor Nazarov, because he considered himself among the “frontier guards of ideology” like Belâev, Ozerov, Nurmuhammedov, Xidoyatov, Qayumov, Turdiev, and others, always tried to vigilantly adhere to the flow of Soviet politics while assessing the works of Western researchers. Because of that status, he paid little attention to literary analysis itself and more attention to the political antecedents that made every opinion possible and the hidden ideological meanings behind each analysis.
29Naim Karimov, a Foreignologist of the 1980s, pointed out some of the same politically directed literary criticism in the United States, but, like Nazarov, he adhered to socialist realism in making his criticisms. In his monograph Hozirgi adabiy jarayon burjua olimlari talqinida [Modern Literary Process as Explained by Bourgeois Scholars] (1981), he correctly identified that the struggle in the literary work had become a struggle between the ideologies of East and West (Karimov, 1981, pp. 67-85). The scholar, who relied on the materials of the June 1983 Plenum of the Central Committee of the cpsu, came to the conclusion that the methods of struggle of Western scholars were influenced by us politics and international relations. Citing John F. Kennedy’s Strategy of Peace (1960), in which he writes, “We should sow seeds of freedom in each hole of the iron curtain and carefully look after them” (quoted in Karimov, 1981, p. 67), Karimov accused American research centres dedicated to Central Asia of serving ideological goals. He worried that the increase of interest in Uzbek language in the us and other countries could cause an increase in the number of Sovietologists and concomitant Sovietologised readings of Uzbek literature. According to Karimov’s observations, Western scholars specialised mainly in the history of literature. They were aware of the history of Uzbek literature before wwii (1936-1937). In the reserves of American and European libraries there are samples of Uzbek soviet literature, which were published only in the pre-war period. Besides, he noted that the preparation of a new generation of specialists who could directly use the Uzbek language had started in the 1960s. Karimov maintained that because of the influences at work, American students of literature could never have a full understanding of Uzbek literary processes. Such conclusions are well-founded. However, Karimov mistakenly denied the correct objections of Western scholars that Uzbek literature produced its best works in the 1920s, and after 1929, it became totally socialised. He also unfoundedly denied German scholar Jürgen Rule’s critical opinions on the method of socialist realism, the correct acknowledgments of Peter Iokostru that Soviet literature developed by avoiding the creative method, and Thomas Whitney’s acknowledgment that there was an increase of attention to the problems of the individual in literature (ibid., p. 72). At the same time he correctly criticises such scholars as Allworth, Garold, Bettersby, Bens, and Müller Udeys for their superficial conclusions, which were made without supporting evidence.

• 
  6 These materials were the following: The Greatness of the Soviet Regime and the Blindness of their F (...)
  

30Tanovar Sharipova was another Uzbek scholar, prominent just before the fall of the Soviet Union. In her contribution «O‘zbek adabiyotining xalqaro aloqalari to‘g‘risida» [On the International Relations of Uzbek Literature], national literature was observed as a “component part” of soviet literary criticism (Sharipova, 1981, pp. 113-120). She understood literature as an ideological weapon. This scholar, who saw only the ideological struggle between the two regimes in every piece, examined various radio stations (Voice of America, Liberty, Free Europe) and special centres stationed in Western countries as facilities which distorted Soviet culture, art, and literature. She condemned organisations and area studies centres in the United States, Germany, Great-Britain and other countries which study Turkic languages and literature, including universities of Washington (Seattle), Colombia Bloomington, Harvard and Los Angeles, as institutions which conduct propaganda against communism. She named the scholars of these institutions Sovietologists who falsified the literary process in our country, spreading slander and libel. Sharipova celebrated the unmasking of bourgeois Sovietologists in Soviet monographs, manuals, and conference materials which were published in Uzbekistan as literary-political and ideological achievements.6
31As a methodological basis, Sharipova relied on the Resolution of the Central Committee of the cpsu “on the further improvement of ideological and political-educational works,” and on the articles of Yusupov, Nurmuhammedov, and Qayumov. In such documents, ‘heralds of capitalism’ were smeared. With no doubt, Sharipova’s opinions are not totally groundless. M. Sarkisyans who saw in the novel O‘tkan kunlar [Bygone Days] only the love theme and “classical depiction of an unrealised tragic love,” explained the novel as a book which called women to emancipation. The assessment of Sharipova that “this kind of explanation decreases the social essence of the book” is justified. Also correct is her argument criticizing Montgomery’s research, in which she contends: “He [Montgomery] takes information about Hamid Olimjon’s life and work from Soviet media, but turns it around and inside out, twisting it against the Soviets in any way possible” (Sharipova, 1985, pp. 113-120).
32Sharipova truly demonstrated that scholarship could overcome politics if real efforts were made to increase literary communication. When Sharipova stated the translation of literature she revealed her real scientific potential, because then she had the opportunity to talk openly about socialist writers and poets, representatives of culture and art who worked in the Democratic Republic of Germany, France, Italy, Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and Czechoslovakia:
Uzbek literature and scientific thought entered Germany many centuries ago in the original and in translation. German readers became aware of Uzbek literature even in the sixteenth century. ‘Alī Shīr Nawā’ī’s poem Sab‘a-yi sayyār was published in German in 1583 in Basel. In the nineteenth century such examples of Uzbek literature as Oghiznāma, Muḥabbatnāma, Shajara-yi turk, Baburnāma, Qutadugu bilik entered Germany. Later those books were published under the translations of H. Vámbéry, Brockelman, F. Hommel. Tanovar Sharipova proudly wrote about writers and scholars who assisted in the acquaintance of German readers with works of Uzbek writers, such as Sigrid Kleinmichel, Alfred Kurella, Ilse Laude-Cirtautas, E. Brummer and H. Huppert.
(Ibid., p. 116)
33When she recalled the friendly relations between the literatures of Uzbekistan and France she brought up facts such as:
Uzbek literature became first known in France in the seventeenth century. In 1697 in Paris, the French orientalist Bartholemy d’Herbelot published the book La Bibliothèque orientale. In this book information about ‘Alī Shīr Nawā’ī and samples from his works were given. At the end of the nineteenth century French scholar A. Pavet de Courteille translated the Baburnāma into French.
(Ibid., p. 118)
34It is worth mentioning that in the past fifty years in France works of Ayni, Oybek, G‘ulom, Zulfiya and other Uzbek writers were published, and progressive French writers Louis Aragon, André Burmser and J.P. Sartre wrote scholarly articles about their works. It is worth noting the publication in London of the famous Turkic epic poem Korogli, published in several editions (including the English translation by Alexander Chodzko), and Kitabi Dede Korkut [Dede Korkut’s Book], also in several editions (including a first English translation in 1972 by Faruk Sumer, Ahmet E. Uysal and Warren S. Walker), as well as the preservation of the only copy of the poem Gul va Navruz by Lufi. Some works of ‘Alī Shīr Nawā’ī, and manuscripts of other Uzbek writers who lived in the fifteenth century can be found at the British Library in London. That information also includes such bibliographic publications in Italy of Alessio Bombaci’s History of Turkish Literature and Ettore Rossi’s Turkish Literature. A university textbook collection was published in Czechoslovakia called History of Literatures of Asia and Africa, of which the third volume was titled Asian Literature of the ussr. This volume described the history of the literature of Uzbekistan and analysed the works of several Uzbek writers. Acknowledging the publication in Uzbekistan of the works of foreign writers in thousands of copies, Tanovar Sharipova felt proud that Uzbek readers were reaching the works of Schiller, Heyne, Dumas, Stendhal, Maupassant, Byron, Shakespeare, and others in their native language. The widening of literary relations is really worthy of pride. But the above-mentioned examples show that overcoming the pressure of cold war politics was not an easy task.