Private vs universal in the diaries of the 19th century Russian intelligentsia (A. I. Herzen and N. A. Dobrolyubov)

Abstract

The current research investigates the inter-relation between the categories of private and universal in Russian intelligentsia culture based on the diaries of A. I. Herzen and N. A. Dobrolyubov. The semantic pair “private — universal” is one of the keys in the social code of Modernity culture and in the definition of personality concept. Personality discourse performing the functions of translation and sedimentation of an individual cultural model arises in the Russian culture among the intelligentsia and reflects the specifics of its social position associated with social criticism. The sphere of private, intimate life becomes a subject of socio-philosophical conceptualisation and revolutionary design. The diaries of intelligentsia demonstrate how the personality model was established in a specific configuration of the intimate and the social spheres.

The diary written by A. I. Herzen is an example of how addressing the social predicates and the historical perspective may become a means of resolving the collisions of private family life. The language of socio-historical universals enables Herzen to bridge the gap between thought and feeling that emerges in the process of representing the twists and turns of private life. N. A. Dobrolyubov’s diary demonstrates how the inability of literary emotional discourse to represent the psycho-physiological phenomenon of sexuality is solved in addressing the social predicates and social criticism. Internal conflict is transformed into a social contradiction.

The transformation of the intimate into the social takes place by reference to social phenomena and universal categories, the identity game between “I” and “we”, the inclusion of personal destiny in a historical perspective. The representation of private through universal in diaries is carried out on the edge between conscious and unconscious processes. On this borderline, the sphere of intimate sensuality attains ideological content, while ideology attains the expressive resources of an individual. The discourse of personality is the habitus of intelligentsia, a social group existing beyond the approved institutions. Marginality makes it possible for the intelligentsia to address the total categories of History, People, and global interests. A “short circuit” between the individual and the universal is a form of negating the existing social order, asserting the self-transcendence, and a mandate to transform socio-cultural forms.