საბჭოთა პროპაგანდისტული მოდელის რამდენიმე ასპექტი (გაზეთი “კომუნისტის” 1936-1937 წწ. საგაზეთო ენა)
Abstract
The article deals with the Soviet totalitarian language, several characteristic aspects of the communist newspeak.
The research is based on the material of the newspaper “Communist”, published in 1936-1937, the main body of the Georgian Soviet ideological press. So far as is known, this newspaper was intended to deliver “main messages” to the Georgian public and aimed to form or “correct” an ideological line. This is the period during which the Soviet state carries out its greatest terror. The language of the newspaper is one of the key links among the many tools for manipulating consciousness, so the ruling party has operated to give the masses the desired shade of this terror.
The language of the Georgian press was not an independent phenomenon. It is nourished by the ideology of the Union, which, above all, flows from the pages of the newspaper “Pravda”. It faithfully reflects the main trends of the Kremlin propaganda body, in terms of the newspaper’s grid or content. Therefore, we think of considering the Georgian Soviet language in the context of the common Soviet language policy. The lexical or semantic changes that the Russian language undergoes, dig into the body of the Georgian language.
Soviet totalitarian language, as a weapon of violence, was formed on the basis of ideological propaganda. We can say that the concept of Soviet ideological propaganda is based on two main axes: 1. Subordination and 2. faith.Ideological categories are formed on these two concepts, which are indoctrinated in the masses. The dictatorship of the proletariat successfully uses the subordinate structure of autocracy absolutism and similar doctrines of religious belief to strengthen its own positions, although the main message of the ruling party is the abolition of feudal subordination and religious beliefs. The structure remains the same, the characters change – Царь-батюшка is replaced by a great leader, also called “beloved father”, “parent”, religious authorities are replaced by party officials. The words, the opinions, the worldview of the leaders rise to the rank of dogma.
The political language of the Union, which is distinguished by the above-mentioned characteristics, becomes the main determinant of the language of Georgian newspapers. The material we have studied shows that the linguistic body of the Georgian press accurately reflects the directives of the propaganda machine of the central government.
The binary opposition – “we” and “they”, where “we” has extremely positive content and “they” – extremely negative, is already visible. The Bolshevik dictatorship is distinguished by evaluative categorization, it forms from the beginning a general line, which widens and covers all spheres of life, from close political confrontation (Mensheviks – Bolsheviks) to the correction of actions and style of thinking of the Soviet people.
The language of propaganda had to play a major role in conveying to the masses a Bolshevik- brushed reality. Consequently, the language of the newspaper is part of a strictly defined current which requires precise formulations, strictly defined evaluation criteria, formulating a multitude of slogans and consequently losing their natural expressive function.
A new Soviet vocabulary is produced – superstition, shock worker, stakhanovite
The “sovietization” of lexical units takes place – Competition (Social Competition), Line (General Line). Inseparable ideological pairs are formed: the working class, the Red Army, shock work, the workers. (The working people).
The semantic field of lexical units is ideologically narrowed – Homeland (always considered a socialist homeland), patriotism (Soviet patriotism).
The intervention of such an abundance of ideologemes in the body of language and the frequency of their functioning leads to the compaction of the natural and plain field of language. It appears to be a set of political formulas and stereotypes.
The main focus was on the structural analysis of ideological epithets. In this regard a study of the 1936 and 1937 issues of the newspaper “Communist” showed the following image. The vast majority of epithets present linguistic concepts aimed at establishing a bipolar reality. Almost every person, organization, or event is viewed in the binary context of “positive-negative”, “good-evil”. People / actions / events are divided into “delight/love – hate/disgust” objects. It is extremely rare to refer to a person, action or event without an epithet or ideological marker. However, the extreme valuation forms are mainly used, the usual phenomenon is the use of premium quality, which forms a dichotomy stretched to the maximum, where on one side there is an exaggerated positive and on the other side there is an extreme negative. The timeline is divided into “dark past – prosperous present”, or “bright future – dark past”.
Political reality shows the opposing camps – ”Socialism is land, bread, happiness and wealth. Capitalism is Kabbalah, famine, war and death .
The assessment of current events is divided into two main narratives: “Construction – Spread of harmful elements” – “For the happiness and prosperity of our homeland, the party indiscriminately destroys spy nests, kills nasty pests who violate the happiness and life of the people of the USSR”.
The distribution of time and space in the ideological framework is actively used – “only with us – nowhere”, “today – never”.
We also rarely find relatively soft forms: “active – passive” (communist, Komsomol) and “responsible – irresponsible”.
The central figure of propaganda is Stalin, the great leader of the people, and not Lenin. He is “the great symbol of the victories of socialism, the creation of a prosperous and happy life”. He is considered to be the source of light that illuminates and determines all “good” events. The Secretary General of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union is never mentioned without epithets.
Distinct epithets must be distinguished, which themselves represent ideologues with a strongly defined semantic opposition, which carries a political directive.
Particularly noteworthy are the epithets, which themselves represent ideologemes with a strongly defined semantic opposition which carries a political directive. “Bolshevik”, “Communist”, “Revolutionary”, “Proletarian”, “Soviet”, “Socialist”, “Stakhanovist”, “Chekist”.
As having a positive context, it opposes negatively charged lexemes: “Menshevik”, “White Guardist”, “Nationalistic”, “Imperialistic”.
It is easy to notice that in all categories of epithets the adjectives produced with superior quality, or the vocabulary expressing the extreme situation predominate. This further stretches the thread of the opposing pairs. The vast majority of epithets with positive connotations suit the communist idea and the builders of the state. Negative – obviously the enemies of this state and this ideology.
All that is good, is the best, is great, is the most valuable and the happiest, is distinguished by an ideological mark. The category of “good and evil” is ideologically divided, so one pole is occupied by the advanced Bolsheviks, the other by the anti-Bolsheviks and not by the non-Bolsheviks, this niche is empty.
Everyone and everything that is not involved in the great reconstruction of communism is condemned, is the object of hatred. Automatically – “anti” and therefore “connected to someone”.
Opposition pairs are formed: Mighty / Victorious – Miserable Lovely – Disgusting
Native – Foreign
Successful – Unsuccessful
Happy – Unhappy
It should be noted that in the positive context, the most productive epithets are “powerful” and
“sublime”, “Great” . This indicates that the main emphasis is on the strength and all-encompassing magnitude, overall extent of Bolshevik rule. Despite their delivery in a positive context, this fact clearly contains signs of directive that is dictated by others and, therefore, psychological pressure.
In general, the frequency of use of the epithets “positive” and “superior” is higher than that of the “negative”. Although the positive field vocabulary is rare, it is primitively linear and not diversified, while the negative field vocabulary is characterized by lexical diversity and emotional charge.
The whole image is painted like this: Life under the conditions of great reconstruction is wonderful, all workers are happy, only small foreign elements pose a threat that must be neutralized immediately.
On the other side of the great all-encompassing Soviet Union, there are only “foreign elements”, “counter-revolutionary elements”. “Sordid, insignificant group” comes out against “Great”, and “foreigner” – against “native”.The indoctrination of this mood in the masses takes place precisely through the mass intervention of ideological linguistic categories. This offensive intervention in public consciousness creates a virtual reality acceptable to the government – a reality filled with conflicting notions, which makes it easy for the government to gain mass support for unrestricted operation.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, as we have already mentioned, most of the epithets presented were expelled from the linguistic body – Party ideologemes have naturally disappeared, most of the artistic epithets have been worn and have lapsed; have fallen into disuse, however, in our view, the basic semantic formula – primitive, heavily polarized dichotomy – is still firmly entrenched in public consciousness.
