Academic journal article Canadian Slavonic Papers

Nikolai Gogol''s Self-Fashioning in the 1830s: The Postcolonial Perspective

Academic journal article Canadian Slavonic Papers

Nikolai Gogol''s Self-Fashioning in the 1830s: The Postcolonial Perspective

Article excerpt

(ProQuest: ... denotes non-USASCII text omitted.)

(ProQuest: ... denotes Greek characters omitted (or Cyrillic characters omitted.))

The early years of Gogol''s career were marked by the negotiation of his cultural identity within Russian cultural and social space. This negotiation required continual changing and adjustment of Gogof's cultural performances and resulted in his representation by imperial society as the Other. Not only did Gogol''s marginal social status and his Ukrainian ethnicity create a social hierarchy responsible for fashioning him as the hybrid who is always "an outsider within" imperial culture, but Gogol' immersed himself in the colonial mimicry, trying to reverse the colonial gaze that imagined him as a "sly" Ukrainian. The theoretical framework of this study is informed by Steven Greenblatt's concept of self-fashioning1 and Homi Bhabha's theoretization of mimicry,2 which can be effectively applied to Gogol''s complex self-fashioning during and immediately after the publication of his Ukrainian tales-Vechera na khutore bliz Dikan'ki [Evenings on a Farm near Dikan'ka] (1831-1832). Both concepts can elucidate how GogoF's hybrid identity was fashioned as the Other both by its submission to the social power and knowledge of the empire and by his self-conscious strategy of mimicking this power. Throughout this process, Gogol' arose as the mimic man who "passed" as a Russian society man through the adoption of the language, cultural behaviour and dress of imperial culture. However, the very act of mimicking split him as the Other when he consumed and inscribed Russianness upon and within himself. Being a weak copy of the original, the mimic man "becomes transformed into an uncertainty which fixes the colonial subject as a "partial presence."3 Gogol' appropriated the performative identity strategies of mimicry to gain inclusion into the diverse imperial and national spaces of Russia. His hybrid identity was fashioned as the colonial/ethnic Other through discourses and practices of transgression and imposture. Gogol' was quite unique in this hybridization; although many nonRussian migrants participated in a variety of boundary crossings, many of them refashioned themselves, trying to eradicate their ethnic and social difference by adopting imperial disguises.4

In contemporary Gogol' studies, the writer's negotiation of his national identity in the 1830s has been usually discussed within the framework of colonial theory, as one that proceeded along the lines of the powerful tradition of kotliarevshchyna.5 Many scholars have emphasized that Gogol' not only continued this tradition by presenting Ukraine in compliance with the imperial paradigm, but also internalized the colonial stereotype of a "sly" Ukrainian by playing the fool through the mask of a simple-hearted Ukrainian narrator Rudy Pan'ko.6 It has become a commonplace to consider Gogol' sly and dodgy by nature7 and to think of the mask of Pan'ko as the marketing strategy used by the writer to capitalize on a fashionable literary tradition of the time.8 Thus, George Luckyj applied Pletnev's characterization of Ukrainians as sly careerists (prolaza) to Gogol', arguing that the writer sought "to cash in on the Ukrainian vogue" as most of the other Ukrainian writers of the period. 9 Similarly, Bojanowska has asserted that Gogol' "fully embraced" the classic Russian stereotype of Ukrainians as "sly malorossy" by "hiding subversive actions or meanings behind a mask of naïve obtuseness."10 Myroslav Shkandrij also has characterized GogoF's oeuvre as one existing harmoniously in the imperial culture, while at the same time emphasizing the unexpected result that Vechera had produced. According to the scholar, GogoF's tales not only pleased Russian elites but also presented a "resistant Ukrainian identity" as a case of "imperial indigestion."11 Although both Shkandrij and Bojanowska stress that GogoF's malorossiistvo revealed resistant cultural behaviour that provoked the hierarchical imperial structures, their analysis has remained confined by the colonial theory, resulting in the view of Gogol' as the "sly maloross. …

Author Advanced search

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.