In The Heart of the Dog, Mikhail Bulgakov uses satire to make a commentary the Communist Party. Bulgakov uses the storyline of a dog undergoing surgery to become a “new soviet man” to criticize the Communist party’s practice of eugenics, which they believed would allow for the betterment of the Soviet people in future generations. After the operation, the dog, Sharik, exhibits immoral behavior such as sexually harassing women and causing a pipe to flood the household. Preobrazhensky blames this behavior on the transplant operation and the use organs of an “unfit person”, an alcoholic criminal. The fantastical situation and the Preobrazhensky’s rationale, blaming the behavior on the status of the organ donor rather than the absurd nature of the experiment, expose the hypocrisy in the Soviet eugenics ideology. Ultimately the Preobrazhensky himself denounces eugenics, faced with the failure of his experiment. Preobrazhensky in the story symbolizes the bourgeoisie and has disdain for the proletariat, represented in Sharik, so Preobrazhensky’s denunciation of eugenics is significant as he admits that a peasant could give birth to a genius. Preobrazhensky also exhibits significant denial as he spends most of the time in his apartment, symbolically sheltered from the social and political change of the outside world, where he can live out his own experiments. This contrast of Preobrazhensky’s world versus the outside world shows the absurdity of both. Ultimately, Sharik exposes the experimental nature of the Communist Revolution as an unnatural process that is societally irresponsible, premature, and uninformed. Bulgakov’s use of satirical elements provides an acute critique on the political climate and society of Soviet Russia.
4 thoughts on “Social Critique in The Heart of the Dog”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I’m glad that you focused on the portrayal of Preobrazhensky — while overshadowed by Sharikov as the character on the cover, the deconstruction of Preobrazhensky’s beliefs as parallels to the prevailing Soviet ideology of the 1920s and as remnants of a bourgeois position is crucial to the work’s satire. Your point about the work’s acknowledgement of the “socially irresponsible, premature, and uninformed” nature of the Communist Revolution is also poses a vital narrative question: is the abortion of the experiment prior to the epilogue of the work a prediction that the communist experiment would soon terminate under the influence of the NEP or lack of Lenin’s leadership? Or does the epilogue sequence perhaps anticipate some sort of reinvention of the revolution?
I wonder if the transplant is completely left to blame for Sharik’s immoral tendencies. Sharik had hints of his immoral tendencies as a dog when he constantly referenced the smells of women’s panties and his tendency to ruin the household, i.e the owl and such. I think Sharik’s surgery just gives him a higher mode to express his immoral actions. I feel like the idea of elevating the poor and vulgar was a theme of the text also seen through the scene with Sharik’s collar. Hence I think this is a critique of raising “unfit” people into positions of power seen in the Bolshevik’s Communist system.
I like your point about Preobrazhensky’s surrounding Sharik’s tendencies. Although it is perhaps easier for Preobrazhensky to blame to “unfit” organ donor, it seems to be apparent to the reader that the experiment in itself was the absurdity. The failure of Sharik to become a successful member of society only highlights the hypocrisy of eugenics. I feel like Sharik’s immoral tendencies add on to the critiques of the Soviet “experiment” with the government, highlighting the inaccuracies and hypocrisies that plagued the nation.
This is yet another incredibly rich discussion! Excellent job, all of you, of bringing in your contextual and historical knowledge to do a deeply nuanced reading of the text. Zach’s question about whether the reversal of the experiment before the book’s end is meant to be read as a suggestion that the Soviet experiment would be short-lived too raises a fascinating possibility!