Tag Archives: nature

Nature in Collusion with “The Enemy”

While reading the portion of Alexievich’s book for class, I found myself returning to the question we discussed when reading Shalamov’s short stories: which side is nature on? Is it colluding with the “enemy” or whoever is bringing the most pain to a large group of people? Or is it siding with the victim? In “A Child’s Drawings,” Shalamov accuses nature, “Nature in the north is not impersonal or indifferent; it is in conspiracy with those who sent us here” (Shalamov, 136). In this work, Shalamov reveals the cruelties of this northern environment and of the Soviet government in subjecting even an innocent child to these horrors to the point where this cruel corner of the world was all he knew: “The child saw nothing, remembered nothing but the yellow houses, barbed wire, guard towers, German shepherds, guards with submachine guns, and a blue, blue sky” (Shalmov, 138).

Alexievich presents a variety of different views, many of which also express a sense of betrayal towards nature and humanity in the aftermath of the disaster. Simple acts of sustenance were suddenly dangerous: “We’d always lived off our potatoes, and then suddenly—we’re not allowed to!…They advised us to work in our gardens in masks and rubber gloves” (Alexievich, 26). In this case, it seemed that nature and the government were colluding to deprive citizens of their food, nourishment, and homes. One person recalls, “The order of things was shaken. A woman would milk her cow, and next to her there’d be a soldier to make sure that when she was done milking, she poured the mild out on the ground…The farmers were raising their precious potatoes, harvesting them very quietly, but in fact they had to be buried” (Alexievich, 37). Now the soldiers are enforcing the new order, despite the fact that it is the radiation in the ground and animals that would harm these people. Although they are only trying to help, and keep the populace healthy to a degree, it nonetheless appears that nature and the soldiers are conspiring to spread hunger and attack the populace. The situations in the two authors’ works originate under very different conditions, as Shalamov describes an purposefully derived method of imprisonment and Chernobyl was an accident; yet the parallels indicate a distrust of the government and the truly confused and disastrous times for a large swathe of the Russian population.

The Fires that Forged Socialism

Nature, to the burgeoning Soviet Union, is a means to a righteous end. The documentary “Magnitogorsk: Forging the New Man” shows the idea that, when combined with the hard work of men, natural resources can be used to change the world. This is summed up early in the documentary when the narrator says that “In 1932, the Soviet Union was characterized by two things: idealism and action. The goal: victory for mankind. This idea is shown throughout the film, specifically in the words the subjects of the film and the narrator choose to use, such as using metaphor to combine industry with nationalism: “Workers brigades are building furnaces for our glorious nation” or how Magnitorosk is frequently defined through its “magnificence” and “strength”.

Viktor Kalmykov, the prolific worker profiled early in the film, is described as a “new man forged by socialism.” The use of the word ‘forged’ is significant because it ties his work manipulating elements of nature to the idea of birthing a new world. An idea central to the Soviet ethos and one creates a complex precedent for how humans are supposed to interact with nature. These terms are not implying a symbiotic relationship, instead they are saying that humans can use nature to make a better world for everyone. While this involves man’s dominion over nature, it is still an idea distinct from a more Cartesian capitalist ethos, where nature is meant to be manipulated for personal gain. No, in Magnitorosk the humans manipulating nature almost seem to mirror nature itself, acting not as individuals thinking primarily of themselves, but rather as parts of a larger process, all working together to keep the Soviet world progressing.

This is complimented by Zabolosky’s perspective in I do not look for harmony in nature, as this poem shows a perspective of nature as something that is not profound on its own, it is described as something that is “puny’ and “weary”, This characterization neatly fits into the narrative of Mangitogorsk, that the grandness of nature is not inherent to the natural world, but rather is created by how humans choose to manipulate it.

Is nature reality or anti-reality?

In Valentin Rasputin’s short essay on Lake Baikal, he describes human’s relationship with nature and how that relationship affects their reality. There is of course a great chasm between modern society and the natural world, but as much as humans have attempted to distance themselves from the natural world, there is still a force pulling them to their most natural state. Rasputin writes about this intense urge to reject aspects of human society: “Oh the spirit of Baikal! This is something special, something living, something that makes you believe in the old legends and ponder with mystical apprehension the extent to which people in some places feel free to do anything they please.”

The theme of being able to do anything that one pleases is explored through the text: “Baikal, it would seem, ought to overwhelm a person with its grandeur and its dimensions—everything in it is big, everything is large-scale, enigmatic, and free—yet on the contrary, it is uplifting.” In this quote, Rasputin argues that nature allows humans to be free and live lives closer to how they were meant to be. This begs the question of whether humans are realest when they are freest. Is the most accurate reality for a human to live in a reality in which they are governed only by their own wants and desires? I think that Rasputin is arguing that freedom brings us closer to our natural state, and thus brings us into a true reality,

Towards the end of the text, Rasputin quotes Tolstoy: “How, in the midst of nature’s charms, can feelings of malice and vengeance or the passion to destroy others like himself possibly remain entrenched in man? It seems that all evil in a person’s heart should vanish when it comes into contact with nature, this spontaneous expression of beauty and goodness.” This quote illustrates perhaps the most important part of Rasputin’s thesis, the description of humans falling from goodness and moving towards the corruption of society. Ever since Adam and Eve were expelled from the garden, human’s have lost the sense of innocence omnipresent in the natural world. They have needlessly complicated a world that has literally evolved over millions of years to work well and rationally, and be filled with spontaneous perfection.