Marina Yardaeva Famous awakening, already not sleeping What is the danger of a simple cult of people from director Bogomolov 06/04/2023, 07:57

Director Bogomolov excited the public with a new program article. If he scolded Europe last time: They say, everything has been simplified in it, and people in particular are scolding the “intellectual intellectuals” who are now stuck in “diet griefs”. The grief and its degrees are touching, to be honest I don’t want to. But the text is interesting for others.

It is interesting that an article written by an artist suddenly turns into a hymn to the “ordinary man.” The issue is not new to our country. Moreover, our artists follow this raking with enviable regularity. It’s just incredible. Well, when an officer or a lawmaker is overwhelmed by simplicity and other intensities, these gentlemen are the easiest way to score points. But when a person who imagines himself enlightened starts singing about dark people over and over again, that’s nonsense. And now, in the 21st century, after everything Russia went through in the 20th century, it seems like sheer trolling.

Bogomolov mixed everything up in his article. The intelligentsia and the elite are his thing. Doctors and teachers are different, but they are equated with gopniks, who for some reason interrupt each other in drunken fights and whom Bogomolov sincerely sympathizes with. On the other hand, the aristocrats of the past, ruined by the Bolsheviks, for some reason oppose the Russian emigrants of 1917-1922, whom the author describes only as defeatist, stupid little men who do not fit into the new reality. And the director surprisingly mocks the nostalgia for the past in the language of Soviet editorials. “The train of history went on different tracks. It cannot be reverted to its original path. <...> Roll up your sleeves – work, live and believe.

We need to stop belittling our country and our people and hear the hum of history and the voice of the people” – isn’t this definitely a 1930s production novel? Or are these excerpts from populist stories of the 1870s? They also liked to scold the intelligentsia and idolize the “ordinary man” for his mere existence.

No, it is generally understandable to follow a glorious tradition. I want some continuity. But, thank God, there are enough examples of genuinely thoughtful criticism of the educated class and analysis of the gap between it and the public. If you look from the height of our century, you can certainly find more convincing examples. In my opinion, the most striking example of this is “Milestones”. After reading Bogomolov’s article, by the way, this is the first thing that immediately comes to mind. But alas, not in honor of the director.

For example, Berdyaev also blames the intelligentsia, but, unlike Bogomolov, warns them against flirting with ignorant masses and calls such behavior “populist obscenity”. The philosopher resents the simplification of science, art, and philosophy for revolutionary needs. And the Russian intelligentsia takes him from Gershenzon, and he writes about his isolation from the public. But he accuses the educated class not of contempt for the common man, but of the very unwillingness to approach people in distress. Bulgakov recalls that, unlike Bogomolov, who laughed at the excessively misrepresentation of his environment, the educated class always naturally took great responsibility for what was going on in the country. Struve complains that the Russian intelligentsia only brings to the people the idea of ​​social hatred and the right to revenge, instead of the ideas of development and development. And now Bogomolov, at the instigation of the crowd, goes to the people with the same. Not to think that this crowd would knock it down after all. For all his incomprehensible performances and extravagant antics like wedding rides in the hearse.

If in the 2021 manifesto Bogomolov stands in the fire of “Shvonders from the BLM”, then now he himself fiercely raises the flag of this BLM and declares “The opinion of a simple person is important”. And the fastening goes precisely to simplicity. And intellectuals already understand this because they encroach on this simplicity, believing that people need to be educated, enlightened, “raised from the bottom of slave ignorance.” For some reason, it seems to the director that society’s desire to improve in general is associated with contempt for the masses, and thus demonizes the idea of ​​enlightenment. To be an educated person.

I do not know what Bogomolov saw around him, what kind of observations so distorted his worldview, but from a very thick public, for example, from the non-formal education system with which I was somehow related, the new philosophy of the director seems very frightening. Especially considering the fact that he is already marching victoriously among the masses. Without the efforts of cultural figures, but only thanks to bureaucratic populist slogans. The fact that “a simple person’s opinion counts” I hear in different ways from every second loser who is not interested in anything, and from their parents – the yellow bag and cashier in Pyaterochka. I keep hearing from them that there is no need to complicate anything, that nobody needs this damn literature, and that math is useless in life, that art is cheating, that education is not important. Education is not important, but the opinion of the ignorant is important, yes. Incredible satisfaction! And who raised him like that?

I understand that in light of recent trends, I could be accused of contempt for the notorious ordinary person. But no, this is not it. I sympathize with people who live hard and earn their living, I always say that every worker has the right to a decent life, which is not only sufficient for bad food, bad clothes and a communal apartment, but also for rest, health and education. Especially education. But I do not understand militant ignorance, and I certainly do not justify it.

I will say more Every supposedly simple person must first work on himself and his life towards at least some complexity if he is to make his voice heard. And that’s when his opinion really matters. If a person chooses inertia, ignorance, rudeness, then he can only hope for a certain minimum of goods and natural rights and freedoms necessary for life. And even then, in that abstract ideal world that, God willing, someone would bring him closer. Someone who understands the world in all its cause-and-effect relationships and knows that evolution is inevitable and that ideas about a better life are only a matter of time, not fairy tales – one who does not believe, but knows for certain – requires will. The will to create, not to destroy.

The author expresses his personal opinion, which may not coincide with the editors’ position.