Authors

Boris Podoroga¹;  ¹ University of Lille, France

Discussion

The report focuses on the analysis of Varlam Shalamov’s concept of testimony within the philosophy of Valery Podoroga. Drawing on the post-Freudian theories of J.-F. Lyotard and D. de Capra, I attempt to examine Podoroga’s thesis that Shalamov’s testimony is constructed around the image of a traumatized body that opposes a repressive totalitarian machine.

In Podoroga’s perspective, Shalamov creates the testimony of life in a GULAG camp by resorting to two forms of memory. The first one, ‘body-memory’, encompasses the haunting imprints of wounds, concussions, and ailments; while the latter, named ‘memory-recollection’, allows him to reconstruct the events of camp life through the medium of literature. In order to make sense of these two memories, I engage two major concepts from psychoanalytic theory: ‘acting out’ and ‘working through’. ‘Acting out’ represents the modus operandi of trauma, in which an individual relives their traumatic past as if it were their present as manifested in nightmares, pain or neurotic behavior. ‘Working through’, on the other hand, entails a process of confronting and processing the trauma, enabling the individual to distinguish their immediate reality from the traumatic past. In contemporary discourse, the use of terms ‘acting out’ and ‘working through’ takes a step away from classical Freudian psychoanalysis, in which transitioning from one to the other was construed as a path towards healing. I aim to illustrate that the processing of a trauma is driven by a quest for a revitalized sense of purpose, empowering individuals to move beyond the unconscious repetition of their traumatic experiences. However, this new meaning does not necessarily eradicate trauma at its structural core. 

By viewing these two types of memory through the prism of ‘acting out’ and ‘working through’, I seek to elucidate the concept of ‘testimony’ which Podoroga (re)constructs in his reading of Shalamov’s work. Although one cannot entirely evade the ceaseless and detrimental effects of trauma, there is still a chance to reflect upon it through the image of a surviving body inseparable from the ethics of non-compliance towards governing authorities.

In this regard, I argue that:

1) It is impossible to encapsulate such a testimony within a singular, all-encompassing narrative capable of healing the wounds inflicted by the traumatic camp experience.

2) Such a testimony can be captured in the minimalist form of a documentary narrative or fragmented notes, each one hinging on a particular traumatic manifestation of the body (Podoroga’s images of the wheelbarrow-body, animal-body, glove-body, beaten-body, dead-body).

3) The meaning of such a testimonial is predicated on non-cooperation with authorities. Given the impossibility of overt opposition, the narrator adopts a strategy of complete refusal to collaborate voluntarily. By doing so, he se