The best examples of humanity from life. Humanistic traditions of literature of the 19th century in prose of the early 20th

Are you here: Fabrics used

Humanism in the works of Thomas More “Utopia” and Evgeny Zamyatin “We”

Introduction

Today the whole world is going through difficult times. The new political and economic situation could not but affect culture. Her relationship with the authorities has changed dramatically. The common core of cultural life – the centralized management system and a unified cultural policy – has disappeared. Determining the paths of further cultural development became a matter for society itself and a subject of disagreement. The absence of a unifying sociocultural idea and the retreat of society from the ideas of humanism led to a deep crisis in which the culture of all mankind found itself at the beginning of the 21st century.

Humanism (from Lat. humanitas - humanity, Lat. humanus - humane, Lat. homo - man) is a worldview centered on the idea of man as the highest value; arose as a philosophical movement during the Renaissance.

Humanism is traditionally defined as a system of views that recognizes the value of man as an individual, his right to freedom, happiness and development, and declares the principles of equality and humanity to be the norm for relations between people. Among the values of traditional culture, the most important place was occupied by the values of humanism (goodness, justice, non-acquisitiveness, search for truth), which is reflected in the classical literature of any country, including England.

Over the past 15 years, these values have experienced a certain crisis. The ideas of possessiveness and self-sufficiency (cult of money) were opposed to humanism. As an ideal, people were offered a “self-mademan” - a person who made himself and does not need any external support. The ideas of justice and equality - the basis of humanism - have lost their former attractiveness and are now not even included in the program documents of most parties and governments of various countries in the world. Our society gradually began to turn into a nuclear one, when its individual members began to isolate themselves within the confines of their home and their own family.

The relevance of the topic I have chosen is due to a problem that has bothered humanity for thousands of years and worries us now - the problem of philanthropy, tolerance, respect for one's neighbor, the urgent need to discuss this topic.

With my research I would like to show that the problem of humanism, which originated in the Renaissance, which was reflected in the works of both English and Russian writers, remains relevant to this day.

And to begin with, I would like to return to the origins of humanism, considering its appearance in England.

1.1 The emergence of humanism in England. History of the development of humanism in English literature

The emergence of new historical thought dates back to late Middle Ages, when in the most advanced countries of Western Europe the process of decomposition of feudal relations was actively underway and a new capitalist mode of production was emerging. This was a transitional period when centralized states took shape everywhere in the form of absolute monarchies on the scale of entire countries or individual territories, prerequisites for the formation of bourgeois nations arose, and an extreme intensification of social struggle occurred. The bourgeoisie emerging among the urban elite was then a new, progressive layer and acted in its ideological struggle with the ruling class of feudal lords as a representative of all lower strata of society.

New ideas find their most vivid expression in the humanistic worldview, which had a very significant impact on all areas of culture and scientific knowledge of this transition period. The new worldview was fundamentally secular, hostile to the purely theological interpretation of the world that dominated in the Middle Ages. He was characterized by the desire to explain all phenomena in nature and society from the point of view of reason (rationalism), to reject the blind authority of faith, which previously so strongly constrained the development of human thought. Humanists worshiped the human personality, admired it as the highest creation of nature, the bearer of reason, high feelings and virtues; Humanists seemed to contrast the human creator with the blind power of divine providence. The humanistic worldview was characterized by individualism, which at the first stage of its history essentially acted as a weapon of ideological protest against the estate-corporate system of feudal society, which suppressed the human personality, and against church ascetic morality, which served as one of the means of this suppression. At that time, the individualism of the humanistic worldview was still tempered by the active social interests of the majority of its leaders, and was far from the egoism characteristic of later developed forms of the bourgeois worldview.

Finally, the humanistic worldview was characterized by a greedy interest in ancient culture in all its manifestations. Humanists sought to “revive”, that is, to make as a role model, the work of ancient writers, scientists, philosophers, artists, classical Latin, partly forgotten in the Middle Ages. And although already from the 12th century. V medieval culture Interest in the ancient heritage began to awaken; only during the period of the emergence of the humanistic worldview, in the so-called Renaissance, did this trend become dominant.

The rationalism of the humanists was based on idealism, which largely determined their understanding of the world. As representatives of the intelligentsia of that time, the humanists were far from the people, and often openly hostile to them. But despite all that humanistic worldview at the time of its heyday, it had a pronounced progressive character, was a banner of the fight against feudal ideology, and was imbued with humane treatment to people. Based on this new ideological trend in Western Europe The free development of scientific knowledge, previously hampered by the dominance of theological thinking, became possible.

The revival is associated with the process of formation of secular culture and humanistic consciousness. The philosophy of the Renaissance is defined by:

Focus on people;

Belief in his great spiritual and physical potential;

Life-affirming and optimistic character.

In the second half of the 14th century. appeared and then increased more and more over the next two centuries (reaching highest point especially in the 15th century) the tendency to give the study of humanistic literature the most great importance and to regard classical Latin and Greek antiquity as the sole example and model for all that concerns spiritual and cultural activity.

The essence of humanism lies not in the fact that it turned to the past, but in the way in which it is cognized, in the relationship in which it is to this past: it is the attitude to the culture of the past and to the past that clearly determines the essence of humanism. Humanists discover the classics because they separate, without mixing, their own from the Latin. It was humanism that really discovered antiquity, the same Virgil or Aristotle, although they were known in the Middle Ages, because it returned Virgil to his time and his world, and sought to explain Aristotle within the framework of the problems and within the framework of the knowledge of Athens of the 4th century BC. In humanism there is no distinction between the discovery of the ancient world and the discovery of man, because they are all one; discover ancient world as such means to measure oneself against it, and to separate oneself, and to establish a relationship with it. Determine time and memory, and the direction of human creation, and earthly affairs, and responsibility. It is no coincidence that the great humanists were for the most part statesmen, active people, whose free creativity public life was in demand by their time.

The literature of the English Renaissance developed in close connection with the literature of pan-European humanism. England, later than other countries, took the path of developing a humanistic culture. English humanists learned from continental humanists. Particularly significant was the influence of Italian humanism, which dates back in its beginnings to the 14th and 15th centuries. Italian literature, from Petrarch to Tasso, was, in essence, a school for English humanists, an inexhaustible source of advanced political, philosophical and scientific ideas, a rich treasury artistic images, plots and forms, from which all English humanists, from Thomas More to Bacon and Shakespeare, drew their ideas. Acquaintance with Italy, its culture, art and literature was one of the first and main principles of any education in general in Renaissance England. Many Englishmen traveled to Italy to personally come into contact with the life of this advanced country of what was then Europe.

The first center of humanistic culture in England was Oxford University. From here the light of a new science and a new worldview began to spread, which fertilized the entire English culture and gave impetus to the development of humanistic literature. Here, at the university, a group of scientists appeared who fought against the ideology of the Middle Ages. These were people who studied in Italy and learned the basics there new philosophy and science. They were passionate admirers of antiquity. Having studied at the school of humanism in Italy, Oxford scholars did not limit themselves to popularizing the achievements of their Italian brethren. They grew into independent scientists.

English humanists adopted from their Italian teachers an admiration for the philosophy and poetry of the ancient world.

The activities of the first English humanists were primarily scientific and theoretical nature. They were developing general issues religion, philosophy, social life and education. Early English humanism of the early 16th century received its fullest expression in the work of Thomas More.

1.2. The emergence of humanism in Russia. History of the development of humanism in Russian literature.

Already among the first significant Russians poets of the XVIII century - Lomonosov and Derzhavin - one can find nationalism combined with humanism. No longer Holy Rus', but Great Rus' inspires them; national epic, the rapture of the greatness of Russia relates entirely to the empirical existence of Russia, without any historical and philosophical justification.

Derzhavin, the true “singer of Russian glory,” defends human freedom and dignity. In poems written for the birth of Catherine II’s grandson (the future Emperor Alexander I), he exclaims:

“Be the master of your passions,

Be a man on the throne."

This motive of pure humanism is increasingly becoming the crystallizing core of the new ideology.

In spiritual mobilization creative forces In Russia, Russian Freemasonry played an enormous role in the 18th and early XIX centuries. On the one hand, it attracted people who were looking for a counterbalance to the atheistic movements of the 18th century, and in this sense it was an expression of the religious needs of the Russian people of that time. On the other hand, Freemasonry, captivating with its idealism and noble humanistic dreams of serving humanity, was itself a phenomenon of extra-church religiosity, free from any church authority. Capturing significant layers of Russian society, Freemasonry undoubtedly raised creative movements in the soul, was a school of humanism, and at the same time awakened and mental interests.

At the heart of this humanism was a reaction against the one-sided intellectualism of the era. A favorite formula here was the idea that “enlightenment without a moral ideal carries poison in itself.” In Russian humanism associated with Freemasonry, moral motives played a significant role.

All the main features of the future “advanced” intelligentsia were also formed - and in the first place here was the consciousness of duty to serve society, and practical idealism in general. This was the path of ideological life and effective service to the ideal.

2.1. Humanism in the works “Utopia” by Thomas More and “We” by Evgeny Zamyatin.

Thomas More in his work “Utopia” speaks of universal human equality. But is there a place for humanism in this equality?

What is utopia?

“Utopia - (from the Greek u - no and topos - place - i.e. a place that does not exist; according to another version, from eu - good and topos - place, i.e. blessed country), an image of the ideal social order devoid of scientific justification; science fiction genre; designation of all works containing unrealistic plans for social transformation." (“Explanatory Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language” by V. Dahl)

A similar term arose thanks to Thomas More himself.

Simply put, utopia is a fictional picture of an ideal life arrangement.

Thomas More lived at the beginning of modern times (1478-1535), when the wave of humanism and the Renaissance swept across Europe. Most of More's literary and political works are of historical interest to us. Only “Utopia” (published in 1516) has retained its significance for our time - not only as a talented novel, but also as a work of socialist thought that is brilliant in its design.

The book is written in the “traveler's story” genre, popular at that time. Allegedly, a certain navigator Raphael Hythloday visited the unknown island of Utopia, whose social structure amazed him so much that he tells others about it.

Knowing well the social and moral life of his homeland, the English humanist, Thomas More, was imbued with sympathy for the misfortunes of its people. These sentiments of his were reflected in the famous work with a long title in the spirit of that time - “A very useful, as well as entertaining, truly golden book about the best structure of the state and about the new island of Utopia...”. This work instantly gained great popularity in humanistic circles, which did not stop Soviet researchers from calling Mora almost the first communist.

The humanistic worldview of the author of “Utopia” led him to conclusions of great social relevance and significance, especially in the first part of this work. The author’s insight was by no means limited to stating the terrible picture of social disasters, emphasizing at the very end of his work that upon careful observation of the life of not only England, but also “all states,” they represent “nothing but some kind of conspiracy of the rich, under the pretext and under in the name of the state, thinking about their own benefits.”

Already these deep observations suggested to More the main direction of projects and dreams in the second part of Utopia. Numerous researchers of this work have noted not only direct, but also indirect references to the texts and ideas of the Bible (primarily the Gospels), especially ancient and early Christian authors. Of all the works that had the greatest impact on More, Plato's Republic stands out. Many humanists saw in Utopia a long-awaited rival to this greatest creation political thought, a work that had existed by that time for almost two millennia.

In line with humanistic quests that creatively synthesized the ideological heritage of antiquity and the Middle Ages and boldly rationalistically compared political and ethnic theories with the social development of that era, More’s “Utopia” emerged, which reflected and originally comprehended the full depth of socio-political conflicts of the era of the decomposition of feudalism and the primitive accumulation of capital.

After reading More's book, you are very surprised at how much the idea of what is good for a person and what is bad has changed since More's time. To the average resident of the 21st century, More’s book, which laid the foundation for the whole “genre of utopias,” no longer seems at all like a model of an ideal state. Quite the contrary. I would really not want to live in the society described by More. Euthanasia for the sick and decrepit, forced labor service, according to which you must work as a farmer for at least 2 years, and even after that you can be sent to the fields during harvesting. "All men and women have one common occupation - agriculture, from which no one is exempt." But on the other hand, the Utopians work strictly 6 hours a day, and all the dirty, hard and dangerous work is done by slaves. The mention of slavery makes you wonder if this work is so utopian? Are ordinary people equal in it?

Ideas about universal equality are slightly exaggerated. However, slaves in “Utopia” work not for the benefit of the master, but for the entire society as a whole (the same thing, by the way, happened under Stalin, when millions of prisoners worked for free for the benefit of the Motherland). To become a slave, you must commit a serious crime (including treason or lasciviousness). Slaves do hard work until the end of their days physical work, however, in case of diligent work they may even be pardoned.

More's utopia is not even a state in the usual sense of the word, but a human anthill. You will live in standard houses, and after ten years, you will exchange housing with other families by lot. This is not even a house, but rather a hostel in which many families live - small primary units of local government, headed by elected leaders, siphogrants or phylarchs. Naturally, there is a common household, they eat together, all matters are decided together. There are strict restrictions on freedom of movement; in case of repeated unauthorized absence, you will be punished by being made a slave.

Implemented in Utopia and the idea iron curtain: She lives in complete isolation from the outside world.

The attitude towards parasites here is very strict - every citizen either works on the land or must master a certain craft (moreover, a useful craft). Only a select few who have demonstrated special abilities are exempt from physical labor and can become scientists or philosophers. Everyone wears the same, simplest clothes made of coarse cloth, and while doing business, a person takes off his clothes so as not to wear them out, and puts on coarse skins or skins. There are no frills, just the essentials. Everyone shares the food equally, with any surplus given to others, and the best food donated to hospitals. There is no money, but the wealth accumulated by the state is kept in the form of debt obligations in other countries. The same reserves of gold and silver that are in Utopia itself are used to make chamber pots, cesspools, as well as to create shameful chains and hoops that are hung on criminals as punishment. All this, according to More, should destroy the citizens’ desire for money-grubbing.

It seems to me that the island described by More is some kind of concept of collective farms driven to a frenzy.

The reasonableness and practicality of the author’s view is striking. In many ways, to social relations in the society he has invented, he fits in as an engineer who creates the most efficient mechanism. For example, the fact that the Utopians prefer not to fight, but to bribe their opponents. Or, for example, the custom when people choosing a partner for marriage are obliged to view him or her naked.

Any progress in the life of Utopia makes no sense. There are no factors in society that force science and technology to develop or change attitudes towards certain things. Life as it is suits citizens and any deviation is simply not necessary.

Utopian society is limited on all sides. There is practically no freedom in anything. The power of equals over equals is not equality. A state in which there is no power cannot exist - otherwise it is anarchy. Well, once there is power, there can no longer be equality. A person who controls the lives of others is always in

privileged position.

Communism was literally built on the island: from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs. Everyone is obliged to work, engaged in agriculture and crafts. The family is the basic unit of society. Its work is controlled by the state, and what it produces is donated to a common treasury. The family is considered a social workshop, and not necessarily based on blood relationships. If children do not like their parents' craft, they may move to another family. It is not difficult to imagine what kind of unrest this will lead to in practice.

Utopians live a boring and monotonous life. Their whole life is regulated from the very beginning. However, dining is allowed not only in the public canteen, but also in the family. Education is accessible to all and is based on a combination of theory and practical work. That is, children are given a standard set of knowledge, and at the same time they are taught to work.

Social theorists especially praised More for the absence of private property on Utopia. In More's own words, "wherever there is private property"Where everything is measured by money, it is hardly ever possible for the state to be governed justly or happily." And in general, “there is only one way for social well-being - to declare equality in everything.”

The Utopians strongly condemn war. But even here this principle is not fully observed. Naturally, the Utopians fight when they defend their borders. But they are fighting

also in the case “when they feel sorry for some people oppressed

tyranny." In addition, “the Utopians consider the most just

the cause of war is when some people do not use their own land, but own it as if in vain and in vain.” Having studied these reasons for the war, we can conclude that the Utopians must fight constantly until they build communism and “world peace.” Because there will always be a reason. Moreover, “Utopia”, in fact, must be an eternal aggressor, because if rational, non-ideological states wage war when it is beneficial for them, then the Utopians always do so if there are reasons for it. After all, they cannot remain indifferent for ideological reasons.

All these facts, one way or another, suggest the thought: was Utopia a utopia in the full sense of the word? Was it the ideal system to which one would like to strive?

On this note, I would like to turn to E. Zamyatin’s work “We”.

It should be noted that Evgeniy Ivanovich Zamyatin (1884-1937), who was a rebel by nature and worldview, was not a contemporary of Thomas More, but lived during the creation of the USSR. The author is almost unknown to a wide circle Russian readers, since the works he wrote back in the 20s were published only in the late 80s. The writer spent the last years of his life in France, where he died in 1937, but he never considered himself an emigrant - he lived in Paris with a Soviet passport.

E. Zamyatin's creativity is extremely diverse. It is written to them a large number of stories and novels, among which the dystopia “We” occupies a special place. Dystopia is a genre that is also called negative utopia. This is an image of such a possible future, which frightens the writer, makes him worry about the fate of humanity, about the soul of an individual, a future in which the problem of humanism and freedom is acute.

The novel “We” was created shortly after the author returned from England to revolutionary Russia in 1920 (according to some information, work on the text continued in 1921). In 1929, the novel was used for massive criticism of E. Zamyatin, and the author was forced to defend himself, justify himself, and explain himself, since the novel was regarded as his political mistake and “a manifestation of sabotage to the interests of Soviet literature" After another study at the next meeting of the writing community, E. Zamyatin announced his resignation from the All-Russian Union of Writers. The discussion of Zamyatin’s “case” was a signal for a toughening of the party’s policy in the field of literature: the year was 1929 - the year of the Great Turning Point, the onset of Stalinism. It became pointless and impossible for Zamyatin to work as a writer in Russia and, with the permission of the government, he went abroad in 1931.

E. Zamyatin creates the novel “We” in the form diary entries one of the “lucky ones”. The city-state of the future is filled with the bright rays of the gentle sun. Universal equality is repeatedly confirmed by the hero-narrator himself. He deduces mathematical formula, proving to himself and to us, the readers, that “freedom and crime are as inextricably linked as movement and speed...”. He sarcastically sees happiness in restricting freedom.

The narration is a summary of the builder spaceship(in our time he would be called the chief designer). He talks about that period of his life, which he later defines as an illness. Each entry (there are 40 of them in the novel) has its own title, consisting of several sentences. It is interesting to note that usually the first sentences indicate the micro-theme of the chapter, and the last gives access to its idea: “Bell. Mirror sea. I will always burn”, “Yellow. 2D shadow. Incurable soul", "Author's debt. The ice is swelling. The hardest love."

What immediately alarms the reader? - not “I think”, but “we think”. A great scientist, a talented engineer, does not recognize himself as an individual, does not think about what he does not have own name and, like the rest of the inhabitants of the Great State, he bears the “number” - D-503. “No one is “one,” but “one of.” Looking ahead, we can say that in the most bitter moment for him, he will think about his mother: for her, he would not be the Builder of the Integral, number D-503, but would be “a simple human piece - a piece of herself.”

The world of the United State, of course, is something strictly rationalized, geometrically ordered, mathematically verified, with the dominant aesthetics of cubism: rectangular glass boxes of houses where numbered people live (“divine parallelepipeds of transparent dwellings”), straight visible streets, squares (“Square Cuba. Sixty-six powerful concentric circles: stands. And sixty-six rows: quiet lamps of faces..."). People in this geometrized world are an integral part of it, they bear the stamp of this world: “Round, smooth balls of heads floated past - and turned around.” The sterile clean planes of glass make the world of the United State even more lifeless, cold, and unreal. The architecture is strictly functional, devoid of the slightest decoration, “unnecessary things,” and in this one can discern a parody of the aesthetic utopias of the futurists of the early twentieth century, where glass and concrete were glorified as new building materials of the technical future.

Residents of the United State are so devoid of individuality that they differ only by index numbers. All life in the United State is based on mathematical, rational principles: addition, subtraction, division, multiplication. Everyone is a happy arithmetic mean, impersonal, devoid of individuality. The emergence of geniuses is impossible creative inspiration perceived as an unknown type of epilepsy.

This or that number (resident of the United State) does not have any value in the eyes of others and is easily replaceable. Thus, the death of several “gazeless” builders of the “Integral”, who died while testing the ship, the purpose of whose construction was to “integrate” the universe, is indifferently perceived by the numbers.

Individual numbers who have shown a tendency to think independently are subjected to the Great Operation to remove fantasy, which kills the ability to think. A question mark - this evidence of doubt - does not exist in the United State, but, of course, there is an exclamation mark in abundance.

Not only does the state regard any personal manifestation as a crime, but numbers do not feel the need to be a person, a human individuality with their own unique world.

The main character of the novel D-503 tells the story of the “three freedmen”, well known to every schoolchild in the United State. This story is about how three numbers, as an experience, were released from work for a month. However, the unfortunate ones returned to their workplace and spent hours at a time performing those movements that at a certain time of the day were already a need for their body (sawing, planing the air, etc.). On the tenth day, unable to bear it, they held hands and entered the water to the sounds of a march, plunging deeper and deeper until the water stopped their torment. For the numbers, the guiding hand of the Benefactor, complete submission to the control of the guardian spies, became a necessity:

“It’s so nice to feel someone’s watchful eye, lovingly protecting you from the slightest mistake, from the slightest wrong step. This may sound somewhat sentimental, but the same analogy comes to my mind again: the guardian angels that the ancients dreamed of. How much of what they only dreamed of has materialized in our lives...”

On the one hand, the human personality realizes itself as equal to the whole world, and on the other hand, powerful dehumanizing factors appear and intensify, primarily technical civilization, which introduces a mechanistic, hostile principle to man, since the means of influence of technical civilization on man, the means of manipulating his consciousness, become increasingly powerful and global.

One of critical issues that the author is trying to solve is the issue of freedom of choice and freedom in general.

Both Mora and Zamyatin have forced equality. People cannot differ in any way from their own kind.

Modern researchers determine the main difference between dystopia and utopia is that “utopians are looking for ways to create an ideal world that will be based on a synthesis of the postulates of goodness, justice, happiness and prosperity, wealth and harmony. And dystopians strive to understand how the human person will feel in this exemplary atmosphere.”

Not only equality of rights and opportunities is clearly expressed, but also forced material equality. And all this is combined with total control and restriction of freedoms. This control is needed to maintain material equality: people are not allowed to stand out, do more, surpass their peers (thus becoming unequal). But this is everyone’s natural desire.

Not a single social utopia talks about specific people. Everywhere the masses or individual social groups are considered. The individual in these works is nothing. “One is zero, one is nonsense!” The problem with utopian socialists is that they think about the people as a whole, and not about specific people. The result is complete equality, but this is the equality of unhappy people.

exploitation: a person is forced to work all his life, but not for the capitalist and not

on oneself, but on society. Moreover, this social exploitation is even more terrible, since

How can a person have no way out? If you can quit working for a capitalist, then it is impossible to hide from society. Yes, and move somewhere else

forbidden.

It is difficult to name at least one freedom that is respected on Utopia. There is no freedom of movement, no freedom to choose how to live. A person driven into a corner by society without the right to choose is deeply unhappy. He has no hope for change. He feels like a slave locked in a cage. People cannot live in a cage, either material or social. Claustrophobia sets in and they want change. But this is not feasible. The Utopian society is a society of deeply unhappy, depressed people. People with depressed consciousness and lack of willpower.

Therefore, it should be recognized that the model of social development proposed to us by Thomas More seemed ideal only in the 16th and 17th centuries. Subsequently, with increasing attention to the individual, they lost all meaning of implementation, because if we are to build a society of the future, then it should be a society of expressed individualities, a society of strong personalities, and not mediocrity.

Considering the novel “We”, first of all it is necessary to indicate that it is closely connected with Soviet history, history of Soviet literature. Ideas of ordering life were characteristic of all literature of the first years Soviet power. In our computerized, robotic era, when the “average” person becomes an appendage to a machine, capable only of pressing buttons, ceasing to be a creator, a thinker, the novel is becoming more and more relevant.

E. Zamyatin himself noted his novel as a signal of the danger threatening man and humanity from the hypertrophied power of machines and the power of the state - no matter what.

In my opinion, with his novel E. Zamyatin affirms the idea that the right to choose is always inseparable from a person. The refraction of “I” into “we” cannot be natural. If a person succumbs to the influence of an inhumane totalitarian system, then he ceases to be a person. You cannot build the world only by reason, forgetting that man has a soul. The machine world should not exist without peace, a humane world.

The ideological devices of Zamyatin’s Unified State and More’s Utopia are very similar. In More's work, although there are no mechanisms, the rights and freedoms of people are also squeezed by the grip of certainty and predetermination.

Conclusion

In his book, Thomas More tried to find the features that an ideal society should have. Reflections on the best political system took place against the backdrop of cruel morals, inequality and social contradictions Europe 16-17 centuries.

Evgeniy Zamyatin wrote about the prerequisites for which he saw with his own eyes. At the same time, the thoughts of Mora and Zamyatin for the most part are just hypotheses, a subjective vision of the world.

More's ideas were certainly progressive for their time, but they did not take into account one important detail, without which Utopia is a society without a future. Utopian socialists did not take into account the psychology of people. The fact is that any Utopia, making people forcibly equal, denies the possibility of making them happy. After all happy man- this is someone who feels better in something, superior to others in something. He may be richer, smarter, more beautiful, kinder. Utopians deny any possibility for such a person to stand out. He must dress like everyone else, study like everyone else, have exactly as much property as everyone else. But man by nature strives for the best for himself. Utopian socialists proposed punishing any deviation from the norm set by the state, while at the same time trying to change the human mentality. Make him an unambitious, obedient robot, a cog in the system.

Zamyatin’s dystopia, in turn, shows what could happen if this “ideal” of society proposed by the utopians is achieved.

But completely isolate people from outside world impossible. There will always be those who, at least out of the corner of their eye, know the joy of freedom. And it will no longer be possible to drive such people into the framework of totalitarian suppression of individuality. And in the end, it is precisely such people, who have learned the joy of doing what they want, who will bring down the entire system, the entire political system, which is what happened in our country in the early 90s.

What kind of society can rightfully be called ideal, taking into account the achievements of modern sociological thought? Of course, this will be a society of complete equality. But equality in rights and opportunities. And this will be a society of complete freedom. Freedom of thought and speech, action and movement. Modern Western society is closest to the described ideal. It has many disadvantages, but it makes people happy.

If society is truly ideal, how can there not be freedom in it?..

Anthology of world political science thought. In 5 volumes. T.1. – M.: Mysl, 1997.

The World History in 10 volumes, T.4. M.: Institute of Socio-Economic Literature, 1958.

More T. Utopia. M., 1978.

Alekseev M.P. “Slavic sources of Thomas More’s Utopia,” 1955.

Varshavsky A.S. “Ahead of its time. Thomas More. Essay on life and work", 1967.

Volodin A.I. “Utopia and History”, 1976

Zastenker N.E. "Utopian Socialism", 1973

Kautsky K. “Thomas More and His Utopia”, 1924.

Bak D. P., E. A. Shklovsky, A. N., Arkhangelsky. "All the heroes of works of Russian literature." - M.: AST, 1997.-448 p.

Pavlovets M.G. "E.I. Zamyatin. "We".

Pavlovets T.V. "Text analysis. Main content. Works." - M.: Bustard, 2000. - 123 p.

The 19th century is usually called the century of humanism in literature. The directions that literature chose in its development reflected the social sentiments that were inherent in people during this time period.

What characterized the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries?

First of all, this is due to the various historical events that filled this century of revolution in world history. But many writers who began their work in late XIX centuries, revealed themselves only at the beginning of the 20th century, and their works were characterized by the mood of two centuries.

At the turn of the 19th - 20th centuries. Many brilliant, memorable Russian poets and writers arose, and many of them continued the humanistic traditions of the last century, and many tried to transform them in accordance with the reality that belonged to the 20th century.

Revolutions and civil wars completely changed the consciousness of people, and naturally, this significantly influenced Russian culture. But the mentality and spirituality of the people cannot be changed by any cataclysms, therefore morality and humanistic traditions began to be revealed in Russian literature from a different perspective.

Writers were forced to raise the theme of humanism in his works, since the amount of violence that the Russian people experienced was blatantly unfair, it was impossible to be indifferent to it. The humanism of the new century has other ideological and moral aspects that were not and could not be raised by the writers of past centuries.

New aspects of humanism in literature of the 20th century

The civil war, which forced family members to fight against each other, was filled with such cruel and violent motives that the theme of humanism was closely intertwined with the theme of violence. The humanistic traditions of the 19th century are reflections on what is the place of a true person in the whirlpool of life events, what is more important: a person or society?

The tragedy with which nineteenth-century writers (Gogol, Tolstoy, Kuprin) described people’s self-awareness is more internal in nature than external. Humanism declares itself from the inner side of the human world, and the mood of the 20th century is more connected with war and revolution, which changes the thinking of the Russian people in an instant.

The beginning of the 20th century is called the “Silver Age” in Russian literature; this creative wave brought a different artistic view of the world and man, and a certain realization of the aesthetic ideal in reality. Symbolists reveal the more subtle, spiritual nature of man, which stands above political upheavals, the thirst for power or salvation, above the ideals that the literary process of the 19th century presents to us.

The concept of “creativity of life” appears; this theme is explored by many symbolists and futurists, such as Akhmatova, Tsvetaeva, Mayakovsky. Religion begins to play a completely different role in their work, its motives are revealed in a more profound and mystical way, and somewhat different concepts of “male” and “female” principles appear.

Problems of humanism in literature about the Civil War

(A. Fadeev, I. Babel, B. Lavrenev, A. Tolstoy)

Issues of humanism - respect for people - have been of interest to people for a long time, since they directly affected everyone living on earth. These questions were raised especially acutely in extreme situations for humanity, and above all during the civil war, when a grandiose clash of two ideologies posed human life to the brink of death, not to mention such “little things” as the soul, which was generally one step away from complete destruction. In the literature of that time, the problem of identifying priorities, choosing between the lives of several people and the interests of a large group of people was solved ambiguously by different authors, and in the future we will try to consider what conclusions some of them came to.

Among the most striking works about the civil war, perhaps, one should include the cycle of stories by Isaac Babel “Cavalry”. And one of them expressed a seditious thought about the International: “It is eaten with gunpowder and seasoned with the best blood.” This is the story “Gedali”, which is a kind of dialogue about the revolution. Along the way, the conclusion is drawn that the revolution must “shoot” precisely because of its revolutionary nature. After all, good people mixed with evil people, making a revolution and at the same time opposing it. Alexander Fadeev’s story “Destruction” also echoes this idea. Great place This story is occupied by a description of events seen through the eyes of Mechik, an intellectual who accidentally fell into partisan detachment. The soldiers cannot forgive either him or Lyutov, the hero of Babel, for having glasses and their own convictions in their heads, as well as manuscripts and photographs of their beloved girl in a chest and other similar things. Lyutov gained the trust of the soldiers by taking away a goose from a defenseless old woman, and lost it when he was unable to finish off his dying comrade, and Mechik never received trust at all. In the description of these heroes, of course, many differences are found. I. Babel clearly empathizes with Lyutov, if only because his hero is autobiographical, and A. Fadeev, on the contrary, strives in every possible way to denigrate the intelligentsia in the person of Mechik. He describes even his most noble motives in very pathetic words and somehow tearfully, and at the end of the story he puts the hero in such a position that Mechik’s chaotic actions take on the appearance of outright betrayal. And all because Mechik is a humanist, and moral principles the partisans (or rather, their almost complete absence) raise doubts in him; he is not sure of the correctness of the revolutionary ideals.

One of the most serious humanistic questions considered in the literature about the civil war is the problem of what a detachment should do in difficult situation what to do with your seriously wounded soldiers: carry them, taking them with you, putting the entire squad at risk, abandon them, leaving them to a painful death, or finish them off.

In Boris Lavrenev’s story “The Forty-First,” this question, which is raised many times throughout world literature, sometimes resulting in a dispute about the painless killing of hopelessly ill people, is resolved in favor of killing a person completely and irrevocably. Of the twenty-five people in Evsyukov’s detachment, less than half remain alive - the rest fell behind in the desert, and the commissar shot them with his own hands. Was this decision humane in relation to the comrades who lagged behind? It’s impossible to say the exact outcome, because life is full of accidents, and everyone could have died, or everything could have survived. Fadeev solves a similar question in the same way, but with much greater moral torment for the heroes. And the unfortunate intellectual Mechik, having accidentally learned about the fate of the sick Frolov, who was almost a friend to him, about the accepted cruel decision, is trying to prevent this. His humanistic beliefs do not allow him to accept murder in this form. However, this attempt in the description of A. Fadeev looks like a shameful manifestation of cowardice. Babelevsky Lyutov acts in almost the same way in a similar situation. He cannot shoot his dying comrade, although he himself asks him to do so. But his comrade fulfills the request of the wounded man without hesitation and also wants to shoot Lyutov for treason. Another Red Army soldier takes pity on Lyutov and treats him to an apple. In this situation, Lyutov will be more likely to be understood than people who shoot their enemies, then their friends, with equal ease, and then treat the survivors with apples! However, Lyutov soon gets along with such people - in one of the stories, he almost burned down the house where he spent the night, and all so that the hostess would bring him food.

Here another humanistic question arises: do the fighters of the revolution have the right to plunder? Of course, it can also be called requisition or borrowing for the benefit of the proletariat, but this does not change the essence of the matter. Evsyukov’s detachment takes camels from the Kyrgyz, although everyone understands that after this the Kyrgyz are doomed, Levinson’s partisans take a pig from a Korean, although for him it is the only hope of surviving the winter, and Babel’s cavalrymen are carrying carts with looted (or requisitioned) things, and “men with their horses are buried in the forests from our red eagles.” Such actions generally cause controversy. On the one hand, the Red Army soldiers are making a revolution for the good common people, on the other hand, they rob, kill, and rape the same people. Do the people need such a revolution?

Another problem that arises in relationships between people is the question of whether love can take place in war. In this regard, let us recall Boris Lavrenev’s story “The Forty-First” and Alexei Tolstoy’s story “The Viper”. In the first work, the heroine, a former fisherman, Red Army soldier and Bolshevik, falls in love with a captured enemy and, later finding herself in a difficult situation, kills him herself. And what could she do? In “Viper” the matter is a little different. There, a noble girl twice becomes an accidental victim of the revolution and, while in the hospital, falls in love with a random Red Army soldier. The war has so disfigured her soul that killing a person is not difficult for her.

The Civil War put people in such conditions that there can be no talk of any love. There is room only for the rudest and most brutal feelings. And if anyone dares to commit sincere love, then everything will definitely end tragically. The war destroyed all the usual human values and turned everything upside down. In the name of the future happiness of humanity - the humanistic ideal - such terrible crimes were committed that are in no way compatible with the principles of humanism. The question of whether future happiness is worth such a sea of blood has not yet been resolved by humanity, but in general such a theory has many examples of what happens when the choice is made in favor of murder. And if all the brutal instincts of the crowd are released one fine day, then such a quarrel, such a war will certainly be the last in the life of mankind.

1. The concept of humanism.
2. Pushkin as a herald of humanity.
3. Examples of humanistic works.
4. The writer’s works teach you to be human.

...By reading his works, you can perfectly educate the person within you...
V. G. Belinsky

In dictionary literary terms you can find the following definition of the term “humanism”: “humanism, humanity - love for a person, humanity, compassion for a person in trouble, in oppression, the desire to help him.”

Humanism arose as a certain trend of advanced social thought, which raised the struggle for the rights of the human person, against church ideology, the oppression of scholasticism, during the Renaissance in the struggle of the bourgeoisie against feudalism and became one of the main features of advanced bourgeois literature and art.

The work of such Russian writers who reflected the liberation struggle of the people as A. S. Pushkin, M. Yu. Lermontov, I. S. Turgenev, N. V. Gogol, L. N. Tolstoy, A. P. Chekhov is imbued with humanism.

A. S. Pushkin is a humanist writer, but what does this mean in practice? This means that for Pushkin the principle of humanity is of great importance, that is, in his works the writer preaches truly Christian virtues: mercy, understanding, compassion. In each main character one can find traits of humanism, be it Onegin, Grinev or an unnamed Caucasian prisoner. However, for each hero the concept of humanism changes. The content of this term also changes depending on the periods of creativity of the great Russian writer.

At the very beginning of the writer’s creative career, the word “humanism” was often understood as a person’s internal freedom of choice. It is no coincidence that at a time when the poet himself was in southern exile, his work was enriched with a new type of hero, romantic, strong, but not free. Two Caucasian poems - “Prisoner of the Caucasus” and “Gypsies” - are clear confirmation of this. The nameless hero, captured and held captive, however, turns out to be freer than Aleko, choosing life with the nomadic people. The idea of individual freedom occupied the author’s thoughts during this period and received an original, non-standard interpretation. Thus, the defining character trait of Aleko - egoism - becomes a force that completely steals a person’s inner freedom, while the hero of “Prisoner of the Caucasus,” although limited in movement, is internally free. This is precisely what helps him make a fateful but conscious choice. Aleko craves freedom only for himself. Therefore, the love story between him and the gypsy Zemfira, who is completely free spiritually, turns out to be sad - the main character kills his beloved, who has stopped loving him. The poem “Gypsies” shows the tragedy of modern individualism, and in the main character - the character of an extraordinary personality, which was first outlined in “ Caucasian prisoner"and was finally recreated in "Eugene Onegin".

The next period of creativity gives a new interpretation of humanism and new heroes. “Boris Godunov” and “Eugene Onegin,” written between 1823 and 1831, give us new food for thought: what is philanthropy for a poet? This period of creativity is represented by more complex, but at the same time whole characters main characters. Both Boris and Evgeniy - each of them faces a certain moral choice, the acceptance or non-acceptance of which depends entirely on their character. Both individuals are tragic, each of them deserves pity and understanding.

The pinnacle of humanism in Pushkin’s works was the closing period of his work and such works as “Belkin’s Tales”, “Little Tragedies”, “ Captain's daughter" Now humanism and humanity become truly complex concepts and include many different characteristics. This includes the free will and personality of the hero, honor and conscience, the ability to sympathize and empathize and, most importantly, the ability to love. The hero must love not only man, but also the world around him, nature and art, in order to become truly interesting to Pushkin the humanist. These works are also characterized by the punishment of inhumanity, in which one can clearly see author's position. If previously the hero’s tragedy depended on external circumstances, now it is determined by the internal capacity for humanity. Anyone who meaningfully leaves the bright path of philanthropy is doomed to severe punishment. An antihero is a bearer of one of the types of passions. The Baron from “The Stingy Knight” is not just a stingy guy, he is the bearer of the passion for enrichment and power. Salieri longs for fame; he is also oppressed by envy of his friend, who is luckier in talent. Don Guan, hero " Stone Guest", the bearer of sensual passions, and the inhabitants of the city, destroyed by the plague, find themselves in the grip of the passion of intoxication. Each of them gets what he deserves, each of them is punished.

In this regard, the most significant works to reveal the concept of humanism are “Belkin’s Tales” and “The Captain’s Daughter”. “Belkin’s Tales” is a special phenomenon in the writer’s work, consisting of five prose works, united with a single plan: “The Station Agent”, “The Shot”, “The Peasant Young Lady”, “The Blizzard”, “The Undertaker”. Each of the short stories is dedicated to the hardships and suffering that befell one of the main classes - the small landowner, peasant, official or artisan. Each of the stories teaches us compassion, understanding universal human values and their acceptance. Indeed, despite the difference in the perception of happiness by each class, we understand the undertaker’s nightmare, the experiences of the loving daughter of a small landowner, and the recklessness of army officials.

The crowning achievement of Pushkin's humanistic works is The Captain's Daughter. Here we see the author’s already matured, formed thought concerning universal human passions and problems. Through compassion for the main character, the reader, along with him, goes through the path of becoming a strong, strong-willed personality who knows firsthand what honor is. Over and over again, the reader, together with the main character, does moral choice, on which life, honor and freedom depend. Thanks to this, the reader grows with the hero and learns to be human.

V. G. Belinsky said about Pushkin: “...By reading his works, you can excellently educate a person within yourself...”. Indeed, Pushkin’s works are so full of humanism, philanthropy and attention to enduring universal human values: mercy, compassion and love, that from them, as from a textbook, you can learn to make important decisions, take care of honor, love and hate - learn to be human.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

Introduction

2.1 Humanism in the works of Thomas More “Utopia” and Evgeny Zamyatin “We”

Conclusion

Applications

Introduction

Today the whole world is going through difficult times. The new political and economic situation could not but affect culture. Her relationship with the authorities has changed dramatically. The common core of cultural life - the centralized management system and a unified cultural policy - has disappeared. Determining the paths of further cultural development became a matter for society itself and a subject of disagreement. The absence of a unifying sociocultural idea and the retreat of society from the ideas of humanism led to a deep crisis in which the culture of all mankind found itself at the beginning of the 21st century.

Over the past 15 years, these values have experienced a certain crisis. The ideas of possessiveness and self-sufficiency (cult of money) were opposed to humanism. As an ideal, people were offered a “self-made man” - a person who made himself and does not need any external support. The ideas of justice and equality - the basis of humanism - have lost their former attractiveness and are now not even included in the program documents of most parties and governments of various countries in the world. Our society gradually began to turn into a nuclear one, when its individual members began to isolate themselves within the confines of their home and their own family.

The relevance of the topic I have chosen is due to a problem that has bothered humanity for thousands of years and is troubling us now - the problem of humanity, tolerance, respect for one's neighbor, the urgent need to discuss this topic.

And to begin with, I would like to return to the origins of humanism, considering its appearance in England.

1.1 The emergence of humanism in England. History of the development of humanism in English literature

The emergence of new historical thought dates back to the late Middle Ages, when in the most advanced countries of Western Europe the process of disintegration of feudal relations was actively underway and a new capitalist mode of production was emerging. This was a transitional period when centralized states took shape everywhere in the form of absolute monarchies on the scale of entire countries or individual territories, prerequisites for the formation of bourgeois nations arose, and an extreme intensification of social struggle occurred. The bourgeoisie emerging among the urban elite was then a new, progressive layer and acted in its ideological struggle with the ruling class of feudal lords as a representative of all lower strata of society.

Finally, the humanistic worldview was characterized by a greedy interest in ancient culture in all its manifestations. Humanists sought to “revive”, that is, to make as a role model, the work of ancient writers, scientists, philosophers, artists, classical Latin, partly forgotten in the Middle Ages. And although already from the 12th century. In medieval culture, interest in the ancient heritage began to awaken; only during the period of the emergence of the humanistic worldview, in the so-called Renaissance, did this trend become dominant.

The rationalism of the humanists was based on idealism, which largely determined their understanding of the world. As representatives of the intelligentsia of that time, the humanists were far from the people, and often openly hostile to them. But for all that, the humanistic worldview at the time of its heyday had a clearly progressive character, was the banner of the struggle against feudal ideology, and was imbued with a humane attitude towards people. On the basis of this new ideological trend in Western Europe, the free development of scientific knowledge, previously hampered by the dominance of theological thinking, became possible.

The revival is associated with the process of formation of secular culture and humanistic consciousness. The philosophy of the Renaissance is defined by:

Focus on people;

Belief in his great spiritual and physical potential;

Life-affirming and optimistic character.

In the second half of the 14th century. a tendency emerged and then increasingly increased over the next two centuries (reaching its highest point especially in the 15th century) to attach the greatest importance to the study of humanistic literature and to consider classical Latin and Greek antiquity as the only example and model for everything related to spiritual and cultural activity. The essence of humanism lies not in the fact that it turned to the past, but in the way in which it is cognized, in the relationship in which it is to this past: it is the attitude to the culture of the past and to the past that clearly determines the essence of humanism. Humanists discover the classics because they separate, without mixing, their own from the Latin. It was humanism that really discovered antiquity, the same Virgil or Aristotle, although they were known in the Middle Ages, because it returned Virgil to his time and his world, and sought to explain Aristotle within the framework of the problems and within the framework of the knowledge of Athens of the 4th century BC. In humanism there is no distinction between the discovery of the ancient world and the discovery of man, because they are all one; to discover the ancient world as such means to measure oneself against it, and to separate oneself, and to establish a relationship with it. Determine time and memory, and the direction of human creation, and earthly affairs, and responsibility. It is no coincidence that the great humanists were for the most part public, active people, whose free creativity in public life was in demand by their time.

The literature of the English Renaissance developed in close connection with the literature of pan-European humanism. England, later than other countries, took the path of developing a humanistic culture. English humanists learned from continental humanists. Particularly significant was the influence of Italian humanism, which dates back in its beginnings to the 14th and 15th centuries. Italian literature, from Petrarch to Tasso, was, in essence, a school for English humanists, an inexhaustible source of advanced political, philosophical and scientific ideas, a rich treasury of artistic images, plots and forms, from which all English humanists, from Thomas More to Bacon, drew their ideas and Shakespeare. Acquaintance with Italy, its culture, art and literature was one of the first and main principles of any education in general in Renaissance England. Many Englishmen traveled to Italy to personally come into contact with the life of this advanced country of what was then Europe.

The first center of humanistic culture in England was Oxford University. From here the light of a new science and a new worldview began to spread, which fertilized the entire English culture and gave impetus to the development of humanistic literature. Here, at the university, a group of scientists appeared who fought against the ideology of the Middle Ages. These were people who studied in Italy and adopted the foundations of the new philosophy and science there. They were passionate admirers of antiquity. Having studied at the school of humanism in Italy, Oxford scholars did not limit themselves to popularizing the achievements of their Italian brethren. They grew into independent scientists.

English humanists adopted from their Italian teachers an admiration for the philosophy and poetry of the ancient world.

The activities of the first English humanists were predominantly scientific and theoretical in nature. They developed general issues of religion, philosophy, social life and education. Early English humanism of the early 16th century received its fullest expression in the work of Thomas More.

1.2 The emergence of humanism in Russia. History of the development of humanism in Russian literature

Already in the first significant Russian poets of the 18th century - Lomonosov and Derzhavin - one can find nationalism combined with humanism. It is no longer Holy Rus', but Great Rus' that inspires them; the national epic, the rapture of the greatness of Russia relate entirely to the empirical existence of Russia, without any historical and philosophical justification.

Derzhavin, the true “singer of Russian glory,” defends human freedom and dignity. In poems written for the birth of Catherine II’s grandson (the future Emperor Alexander I), he exclaims:

“Be the master of your passions,

Be the man on the throne"

This motive of pure humanism is increasingly becoming the crystallizing core of the new ideology.

Russian Freemasonry of the 18th and early 19th centuries played a huge role in the spiritual mobilization of the creative forces of Russia. On the one hand, it attracted people who were looking for a counterbalance to the atheistic movements of the 18th century, and in this sense it was an expression of the religious needs of the Russian people of that time. On the other hand, Freemasonry, captivating with its idealism and noble humanistic dreams of serving humanity, was itself a phenomenon of extra-church religiosity, free from any church authority. Capturing significant sections of Russian society, Freemasonry undoubtedly raised creative movements in the soul, was a school of humanism, and at the same time awakened intellectual interests.

All the main features of the future “advanced” intelligentsia were also being formed - and in the first place here was the consciousness of duty to serve society, and practical idealism in general. This was the path of ideological life and effective service to the ideal.

2.1. Humanism in the works “Utopia” by Thomas More and “We” by Evgeny Zamyatin

Thomas More in his work “Utopia” speaks of universal human equality. But is there a place for humanism in this equality?

What is utopia?

“Utopia - (from the Greek u - no and topos - place - i.e. a place that does not exist; according to another version, from eu - good and topos - place, i.e. blessed country), an image of an ideal social system, lacking scientific justification; science fiction genre; designation of all works containing unrealistic plans for social transformation." (“Explanatory Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language” by V. Dahl)

A similar term arose thanks to Thomas More himself.

Simply put, utopia is a fictional picture of an ideal life arrangement.

The humanistic worldview of the author of "Utopia" led him to conclusions of great social relevance and significance, especially in the first part of this work. The author's insight was by no means limited to stating the terrible picture of social disasters, emphasizing at the very end of his work that upon careful observation of the life of not only England, but also “all states,” they represent “nothing but some kind of conspiracy of the rich, under the pretext and under in the name of the state, thinking about their own benefits."

Already these deep observations suggested to More the main direction of projects and dreams in the second part of Utopia. Numerous researchers of this work have noted not only direct, but also indirect references to the texts and ideas of the Bible (primarily the Gospels), especially ancient and early Christian authors. Of all the works that had the greatest impact on More, Plato's Republic stands out. Many humanists saw in Utopia a long-awaited rival to this greatest creation of political thought, a work that had existed by that time for almost two millennia.

Ideas about universal equality are slightly exaggerated. However, slaves in “Utopia” work not for the benefit of the master, but for the entire society as a whole (the same thing, by the way, happened under Stalin, when millions of prisoners worked for free for the benefit of the Motherland). To become a slave, you must commit a serious crime (including treason or lasciviousness). Slaves spend the rest of their days doing hard physical work, but if they work diligently they can even be pardoned.

The idea of the Iron Curtain is also implemented in Utopia: she lives in complete isolation from the outside world.

It seems to me that the island described by More is some kind of frenzied concept of collective farms.

The reasonableness and practicality of the author’s view is striking. In many ways, he approaches social relations in the society he invented like an engineer creating the most efficient mechanism. For example, the fact that the Utopians prefer not to fight, but to bribe their opponents. Or, for example, the custom when people choosing a partner for marriage are obliged to view him or her naked.

Social theorists especially praised More for the absence of private property on Utopia. In More's own words, "Wherever there is private property, where everything is measured by money, it is hardly ever possible for a state to be governed justly or happily." And in general, “there is only one way for social well-being - to declare equality in everything.”

The Utopians strongly condemn war. But even here this principle is not fully observed. Naturally, the Utopians fight when they defend their borders. But they also fight “when they feel sorry for some people oppressed by tyranny.” In addition, “the Utopians consider the most just cause of war when some people themselves do not use their land, but own it as if in vain and in vain " Having studied these reasons for the war, we can conclude that the Utopians must fight constantly until they build communism and “world peace.” Because there will always be a reason. Moreover, “Utopia”, in fact, must be an eternal aggressor, because if rational, non-ideological states wage war when it is beneficial for them, then the Utopians always do so if there are reasons for it. After all, they cannot remain indifferent for ideological reasons.

All these facts, one way or another, suggest the thought: was Utopia a utopia in the full sense of the word? Was it the ideal system to which one would like to strive?

On this note, I would like to turn to E. Zamyatin’s work “We”. humanism personality Mor Zamyatin

It should be noted that Evgeniy Ivanovich Zamyatin (1884-1937), who was a rebel by nature and worldview, was not a contemporary of Thomas More, but lived during the creation of the USSR. The author is almost unknown to a wide circle of Russian readers, since the works he wrote back in the 20s were published only in the late 80s. The writer spent the last years of his life in France, where he died in 1937, but he never considered himself an emigrant - he lived in Paris with a Soviet passport.

E. Zamyatin's creativity is extremely diverse. He has written a large number of stories and novels, among which the dystopia “We” occupies a special place. Dystopia is a genre that is also called negative utopia. This is an image of such a possible future, which frightens the writer, makes him worry about the fate of humanity, about the soul of an individual, a future in which the problem of humanism and freedom is acute.

The novel “We” was created shortly after the author returned from England to revolutionary Russia in 1920 (according to some information, work on the text continued in 1921). In 1929, the novel was used for massive criticism of E. Zamyatin, and the author was forced to defend himself, justify himself, and explain himself, since the novel was regarded as his political mistake and “a manifestation of sabotage to the interests of Soviet literature.” After another study at the next meeting of the writing community, E. Zamyatin announced his resignation from the All-Russian Union of Writers. The discussion of Zamyatin’s “case” was a signal for a tightening of the party’s policy in the field of literature: the year was 1929—the year of the Great Turning Point, the onset of Stalinism. It became pointless and impossible for Zamyatin to work as a writer in Russia and, with the permission of the government, he went abroad in 1931.

E. Zamyatin creates the novel “We” in the form of diary entries of one of the “lucky ones”. The city-state of the future is filled with the bright rays of the gentle sun. Universal equality is repeatedly confirmed by the hero-narrator himself. He derives a mathematical formula, proving to himself and to us, the readers, that “freedom and crime are as inextricably linked as movement and speed...”. He sarcastically sees happiness in restricting freedom.

The narration is a summary of the builder of the spaceship (in our time he would be called the chief designer). He talks about that period of his life, which he later defines as an illness. Each entry (there are 40 of them in the novel) has its own title, consisting of several sentences. It is interesting to note that usually the first sentences indicate the micro-theme of the chapter, and the last gives access to its idea: “Bell. Mirror sea. I will always burn”, “Yellow. 2D shadow. Incurable soul", "Author's debt. The ice is swelling. The hardest love."

What immediately alarms the reader? - not “I think”, but “we think”. A great scientist, a talented engineer, does not recognize himself as an individual, does not think about the fact that he does not have his own name and, like the rest of the inhabitants of the Great State, he bears the “number” - D-503. “No one is “one,” but “one of.” Looking ahead, we can say that in his most bitter moment he will think about his mother: for her, he would not be the Builder of the Integral, number D-503, but would be “a simple human piece - a piece of herself.”

Residents of the United State are so devoid of individuality that they differ only by index numbers. All life in the United State is based on mathematical, rational principles: addition, subtraction, division, multiplication. Everyone is a happy arithmetic mean, impersonal, devoid of individuality. The emergence of geniuses is impossible; creative inspiration is perceived as an unknown type of epilepsy.

Not only does the state regard any personal manifestation as a crime, but numbers do not feel the need to be a person, a human individual with their own unique world.

One of the most important issues that the author is trying to solve is the issue of freedom of choice and freedom in general.

Both Mora and Zamyatin have forced equality. People cannot differ in any way from their own kind.

Is happiness possible for people in a utopia? Happiness from what? From victories? Thus they are performed by everyone equally. Everyone is involved in it and, at the same time, no one. From lack of exploitation? So, in a utopia, it is replaced by social exploitation: a person is forced to work all his life, but not for the capitalist or for himself, but for society. Moreover, this social exploitation is even more terrible, since here a person has no way out. If you can quit working for a capitalist, then it is impossible to hide from society. Yes, and moving anywhere is prohibited.

Considering the novel “We”, first of all it is necessary to indicate that it is closely connected with Soviet history, the history of Soviet literature. Ideas of ordering life were characteristic of all literature in the first years of Soviet power. In our computerized, robotic era, when the “average” person becomes an appendage to a machine, capable only of pressing buttons, ceasing to be a creator, a thinker, the novel is becoming more and more relevant.

E. Zamyatin himself noted his novel as a signal of the danger threatening man and humanity from the hypertrophied power of machines and the power of the state - no matter what.

Conclusion

More's ideas were certainly progressive for their time, but they did not take into account one important detail, without which Utopia is a society without a future. Utopian socialists did not take into account the psychology of people. The fact is that any Utopia, making people forcibly equal, denies the possibility of making them happy. After all, a happy person is someone who feels better in something, superior to others in something. He may be richer, smarter, more beautiful, kinder. Utopians deny any possibility for such a person to stand out. He must dress like everyone else, study like everyone else, have exactly as much property as everyone else. But man by nature strives for the best for himself. Utopian socialists proposed punishing any deviation from the norm set by the state, while at the same time trying to change the human mentality. Make him an unambitious, obedient robot, a cog in the system.

Zamyatin’s dystopia, in turn, shows what could happen if this “ideal” of society proposed by the utopians is achieved. But it is impossible to completely isolate people from the outside world. There will always be those who, at least out of the corner of their eye, know the joy of freedom. And it will no longer be possible to drive such people into the framework of totalitarian suppression of individuality. And in the end, it is precisely such people, who have learned the joy of doing what they want, who will bring down the entire system, the entire political system, which is what happened in our country in the early 90s.

List of used literature

1. http://humanism.ru

2. Anthology of world political science thought. In 5 volumes. T.1. - M.: Mysl, 1997.

3. World history in 10 volumes, T.4. M.: Institute of Socio-Economic Literature, 1958.

4. More T. Utopia. M., 1978.

5. Alekseev M.P. "Slavic Sources of Thomas More's Utopia", 1955

6. Varshavsky A.S. “Ahead of its time. Thomas More. Essay on life and work", 1967.

7. Volodin A.I. "Utopia and History", 1976

8. Zastenker N.E. "Utopian Socialism", 1973

9. Kautsky K. “Thomas More and His Utopia”, 1924

10. Bak D.P., E.A. Shklovsky, A.N., Arkhangelsky. "All the heroes of works of Russian literature." - M.: AST, 1997.-448 p.

11. Pavlovets M.G. "E.I. Zamyatin. "We"

12. Pavlovets T.V. "Text analysis. Main content. Works." - M.: Bustard, 2000. - 123 p.

13. http://student.km.ru/

Posted on Allbest.ru

The best examples of humanity from life. Humanistic traditions of literature of the 19th century in prose of the early 20th

What characterized the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries?

New aspects of humanism in literature of the 20th century

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Similar documents