Denialism Helps Russians Cope and Kremlin Avoid Responsibility, Scholars Say

Paul Goble

            Staunton, June 5 -- Denialism, “the rejection of reality which contradicts personal convictions,” has existed in all times and places; but according to participants in a discussion organized by Memorial in Moscow, the situation in Russia today provides especially favorable conditions for its flourishing.

            Not only does it allow people to escape from their fears about the future by rewriting the past, scholars from various disciplines say, but it helps the state avoid responsibility for its actions and provides a powerful justification for the use of terror to achieve the government’s purposes.

            Anna Semenets, a Rosbalt journalist, summarizes the arguments nine Russian scholars advanced concerning denialism in Russia today, its sources and its consequences both for the population and for relations between the population and the Russian powers that be (rosbalt.ru/moscow/2020/06/07/1847617.html).

            Anthropologist Anna Kirzyuk says that her research has found that descendants of special settlers insist that their ancestors were innocent but blame not the state which acted against them but against envious and greedy neighbors or the incompetence of local officials. Unfortunately, this is not just ignorance as even educated people engage in such denial.

            For example, one Muscovite with whom she has spoken says that his grandfather was sent to the camps only because he showed interest in a Bolshoi actress that an NKVD officer was also interested in. In short, the grandfather was sent to the GULAG to get a competitor out of the way.

            And Kirzyuk recounts the case of a descendant of a man who was de-kulakized and died in Solovki. The grandson in fact said that collectivization was “carried out by idiots” but that collective farms were “a very good thing.”

            Anthropologist Aleksandra Arkhipova reports analogous cases. She says her interview subjects blame local officials and insist that their ancestors were loyal and hard-working Soviet citizens who were later recognized by the state for their services. “It is curious, but the state as an actor typically is completely absent in these stories.”

            Criminologist Yakov Gilinsky says that “in the USSR, denial was part of the state ideology. Why this is happening now is much more interesting.” Life is complicated, but people don’t want to act to change things. Consequently, they rewrite the Soviet past as a form of protest against the present.

            Consequently, Gilinsky continues, “the worse the situation in the country becomes, the stronger will be love for Stalin.”

            Philologist Gasan Guseynov says that denialism is stronger and more widespread than the search for historical truth based on facts.  At the same time, he insists that “people fear repression,” especially those with experience in Soviet times. And so they deny what happened so that they can avoid having to address directly their fears about the future.

            Only the appearance of a new generation without any direct memories of the Soviet system may be able to overcome this pattern.

            Historian Aleksandr Daniel says that denialism of history is like denialism of anything else because it has its roots in “mass ignorance.” As such, “this is a symptom of the new Middle Ages and the rise of new Dark Ages. In the past, the deniers would have been dismissed as mad; now, they publish brochures and spread their ideas online.

            Historian Nikita Petrov says that a characteristic aspect of those who engage in denial is that they do not think in material terms – they don’t benefit financially from their position – and they do not feel compelled to offer any rational explanation for what has happened. Their denial lies within the realm of faith.

            Psychologist Marina Arutyunyan says that “denial is a most important mechanism of psychologist defense used by the psyche when it cannot find any other way out.” It thus promotes ignorance rather than being the product of it. Historical denial most often occurs because people do not want to identify with executioners.

            Historian Irina Flige says that what Russia faces now is “the hybridization of memory” because that “corresponds to government policy” and allows people to accept the state’s claim that “’terror existed, there were victims but on the other hand we built … on the other hand, we created … and on the other hand, we won.’”

            And historian Irina Shcherbakova says that denialism reflects the fact that Russians now find themselves “in a situation in which the past plays an unbelievably important role … We are in an Orwellian space, but Orwell’s hero rewrote the past in secret. Here this is happening completely openly and publicly. This lands us in the situation of Macbeth’s witches.”

            In this brave new world, “there is nothing: there is no science, there is no good and evil, and there are no historical facts. This is going to hit the next generation very hard. If science and knowledge are denied, this will lead to serious moral shifts,” with untold consequences for the country and the world as a whole.