?Letters from Russia. Russia in 1839' (Marquis de Custine). A postmodernist analysis

• Author: Ungurean, S.
• Position: Faculty of Sociology and Communication, Transilvania University of Brasov
• Pages: 49-54

Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Braşov

Series VII: Social Sciences • Law • Vol. 4 (53) No. 2 - 2011

‘LETTERS FROM RUSSIA. RUSSIA IN 1839’

(MARQUIS DE CUSTINE).

A POSTMODERNIST ANALYSIS

Ştefan UNGUREAN1

Abstract: How does a despotic state function? Which is the relationship

between the sovereignty's power and the individual? How do the individual's

desires integrate in a des potic society's social body? What is the role of

violence within the state or the civil society? To what extent does a social fac t

become a cultural fact? Are all of these facts connected to the tzarist empire's

XIX century expansion? These are the questions upon which the current

analysis was based.

Key words: authority, despotic power, violence, social field, desire.

1 Faculty of Sociology and Communication, Transilvania University of Braşov.

1. Justification

Did any member of t he scientific or

literary world know this Custine before his

‘Letters’, which are considered to be ‘the

most intelligent book on Russia ever to

have been written by a foreigner’ (Pierre

Nora), were edi ted by the ‘Hu manitas’

publishing house? [1]. This is the origin of

the present undertaking's novelty, in the

meaning Foucault gives it: ‘novelty lies not

in what is being said, but in the event of its

reoccurrence‘ [2].

What would be essentially the major

significance of Custine's ‘Letters’? We

could assert that Custine's relevance

consists in bringing the role of government

in the Russian social organization and the

relationship between government and

individual into prominence.

2. Analysis schemes

Custine's work hypothesis: ‘I ask myself

whether it is the nation's character which

gave birth to autocracy, or whether it is the

autocracy which gave birth t o the Russian

character’, and Custine arrives at the

conclusion: ‘it seems to me the influence is

mutual: the Russian government could not

have evolved in a place other than Ru ssia,

and the Russians couldn't have become

what they are under a different form of

government’ [1]. Despotism and the desire

for despotic government are on the same

level. What is the origin of this desire?

‘Why are there people who endure

exploitation, meekness, and slavery for

centuries and arriving at a point where they

desire them not only for others, but also for

themselves?’ [3], Deleuze and Guattari ask

themselves. We are facing a ‘coextension

between the social field and desire’

(Deleuze-Guattari). How does this