How The Perks Of A Corrupt Childhood

The Perks of Corrupted Childhood
When people hear about childhood in totalitarian society they first think about the Nazi regime in Germany and its political and educational influence on the youth. They frequently forget about the former USSR, which brought up several generations of the counties’ citizens under the same political structure. And despite the censorship, such writers as Joseph Brodsky, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, and Varlam Shalamov in their works shed the light on what was happening beyond the iron curtain, including what were the role and the place of children in that society. Although both the characters of the stories and the writers themselves experienced their childhoods very differently, they come up with similar ideas about
communism. The main intention of the system was not to train the youth to think independently, but rather, to turn them into mindless instruments of the regime, while the communist upbringing made fear a constant part of their existence. However, the self-destructive nature of the regime would lead to the triumph of the human values.
If you are born in the totalitarian state, which holds total authority over society and seeks to control all aspects of public and private lives wherever possible, you lack opportunities to choose and act according to your personal preferences. For instance, studying at school with a standard educational structure based upon the ideology was obligatory for all young population of the USSR. Joseph Brodsky’s childhood that ideology was supported by “[Lenin’s] omnipresent images which plagued almost every textbook, every class wall, postage stamps, money.” As Brodsky states in his book, for him school was useless in comparison with the real life lessons granted by their environment. May be that was the reason why Brodsky tried to oppose the system by dropping out of school, however, again he lacked in choices that is why started working in the factory (11). It was an inevitable consequence of that time, when there were only two options: firstly, to study or to work, secondly, to study and work after graduation. Even though, Brodsky again followed the pattern, “he [was] immensely grateful to it for what appears to have been [his] first free act” as it shaped him into whom he wanted to be as a person (13). Unfortunately, “instinctive act[s]” or “walkout[s]” is not appreciated by the totalitarian society (13). The governing power would prefer “silent and obedient” citizens rather than individuals which are able defend their views (Solzhenitsyn, 245). This ability was not taught at schools. Moreover, as the hierarchy at educational institutions reflected the totalitarian system of state, teachers suppressed students implying on them behavioral relationship of master and slaves (Brodsky, 9). So that, the model of behavior, which was approved by the teachers as well as the government, created mindless labor supply resources for the country. That was the destiny prescribed by the regime for the majority from their births.
Solzhenitsyn, on the contrary in his work “The Gulag Archipelago” presents the overview on existence of so-called minorities mostly composed of the orphans and waifs accused in the criminal acts.
Most of those accusations may appear laughable for the modern society, however, at that time children paid a very high price for the adults’ ridiculous decisions. And as a result of Joseph Stalin’s politics the “wide gate” for children into the Archipelago was a subsequence of the massive execution of that time (Solzhenitsyn, 245). The thing which both Solzhenitsyn and I could not understand is how adults with their own children of the same age, especially those adults which participated in “stamping the arrest warrants” allowed something like this to happen (243). Their attitude represents the very basis upon which the totalitarian state existed, that is fear. The repressions, the fear of being repressed were the instruments of ruling which supported the balanced functioning of the state. And as those children entered the camps at the very young age, they could not understand that their childhood was corrupted and used by the regime: firstly, as an illustrative example for others; secondly, as a defenseless and free labor supply. However, living in the camps cannot pass without leaving any marks. As those kids were learning to perceive the world at that age, the experience and knowledge they received from the first days in the camps shaped their views and characters. They were
among the worst representatives of the human society which became their role models. Consequently, the majority grew up as beasts by nature, as they lived according to their animal instincts and knew nothing except the camp reality which replaced their past lives (244). I am not sure whether the totalitarian system of ruling benefited from it or not. As Solzhenitsyn states, “The simplest reply to the overpowering injustices was to create injustices oneself! This was the easiest conclusion, and it would now become the rule of life of the kids for a long time to come (or even forever)” (245). It follows that totalitarian system failed itself and instead of correcting placed these children into environment where the germs of bad were sowed or developed. The regime corrupted not only kids’ external but also internal world.
Varlam Shalamov’s tale “A Child’s Drawings” is the perfect example of child’s view on the distorted reality.
The influence of the regime on the children was not important for anyone. This indifference is also argued in Solzhenitsyn’s work as he discusses the attitude towards under age accused kids. At that time everyone was so busy with their own issues, so that when the character of the story in the combat for his own survival found those pictures he was disillusioned by what reality he as well as the others are living. Shalamov addresses it as the result of the collective action rather than the regime. The way totalitarian society unconsciously enforces onto children the reality of that time is so shocking for the character at the beginning, it makes him forget about his own problems. As the character recollects his memories, he draws a parallel between his and the child’s of that totalitarian society perceptions on the world (Shalamov, 137). What was considered immoral and inhumane for the adults of that time represented common norms and ordinary life for that society’s kids. Supposedly, they could not understand the atrocities posed by the regime to the full content. Yet, it represented the part of their life. I feel that Brodsky would argue this point of view as he overturns in his own autobiographical work “Less Than One” Karl Marx’s dictum that “existence conditions
consciousness”. But despite the negative intention of the totalitarian society in upbringing the young generation into the silent and obeying tools of the regimen, there is a thing on which all three writers would have agreed. That the self-destructiveness of the totalitarian society would lead to its fall and the contemporary condition of existence of camps, repressions, the ubiquitous fear, would not last forever. All of three writers, even though understanding the atrocities of the camps from their personal experience, believed in the ineradicability of absolute human values which sooner or later would return to their country. That is the reason why Brodsky found positive influences of the regime on the upbringing of his generation, while recollecting with sentiment the memory about going along the path to the school with the childish curiosity. Similarly, Shalamov never charges the system but the individuals directly or indirectly involved. And Solzhenitsyn with no regrets declares, “Bless you, prison, for having been in my life!”(Solzhenitsyn, 267)