Authors

Elisa Kriza¹;  ¹ Bamberg University, Germany

Discussion

The term homo sovieticus – or the Soviet person - was coined by Russian philosopher and dissident writer Alexander Zinoviev (1922-2006) in his eponymous novel. This paper explores the political dimensions of the satirical novel Homo Sovieticus (1982) as criticism of authoritarianism and Soviet military expansionism, and it also examines the complexity of the author’s ideological development. Zinoviev’s portrayal of the rhetoric of Soviet imperialism seems uncannily familiar after the Russian invasions of Ukraine in the 21st century.
In his novel, Zinoviev unmercifully exposes the absurdity of Soviet exceptionalism - the belief that the USSR was superior and unique - and the discrepancy between “homo sovieticus” as an ideal and the reality of Soviet squalor and widespread moral decrepitude. The book portrays the Soviet people as a cohesive group of individuals who are unprincipled, unscrupulous, and subservient to their government. They are represented as scoundrels convinced of their superiority vis à vis the West, which they hate and covet. The Soviet Union is an imperialist, militaristic leviathan, ready to engulf Western Europe and the Global South. Zinoviev’s emphasis on the people’s responsibility in Soviet oppression and imperialism is particularly valuable in the context of a society that tended to whitewash its own guilt in a culture of exculpation that places all blame on others. 
Zinoviev’s book reveals a key tension between the image (also self-image) of the allegedly inert Russian people, whose unchanging nature results from their history, but this history is full of major disruptions. On a meta-level, disruptions such as Stalin’s death, life in exile, and perestroika deeply altered the author’s own views. Zinoviev lived in exile from 1978 until 1999, and from the mid-1980s, he turned towards Russian nationalism. 
This paper explores how Zinoviev’s Homo Sovieticus can help us fathom the continuities and breaks in the recent history of Russian imperialism, and on a meta-level, the paper investigates how the book’s ambiguity – its frequent use of the alter ego as a “devil’s advocate” promoting a pro-Soviet view – relates to the author’s later turn towards Russian nationalism. Keeping in mind the peril of essentialist interpretations based on national stereotypes (in this case of Russians), this paper aims to reexamine Zinoviev’s condemnation of his people’s participation in Soviet crimes including imperialism and reveal its relevance for the present day.