Personally, I was not a fan of Kundera’s essay. He certainly raises a few good points, and his prose is wonderful, but I largely consider his stance to be a toxic one that chronically plagues hoards of people within the region he speaks of. In fact, I think that his view, especially if taken at face value, ends up holding Slavic (or Central, or whatever you prefer referring to it as) Europe back from potential prosperity. I’ll just say that my major question with regard to Kundera’s essay is if he understood the implications of his thoughts and moreover, if he was completely clear on the potential pitfalls that his preaching could’ve created? I feel like maybe Kundera chose to ignore some other historical events to better his argument. Furthermore, I wonder what events led to Kundera having this view on Central Europe?
First, let me provide an analogy of what I feel Kundera's essay advocates for Central Europe's global behavior: A new kid comes to school (any Central European Kundera mentions). There, he finds two popular groups (Western Europe and Russia). The new kid decides to join the Western group. When he tugs at their sleeves and asks if he can be their friend, the group tells him to give them a moment to discuss. The kids who make up Western Europe decide that they don’t like the clothes the new kid is wearing, have no idea what he might be like and just generally consider him to be inferior. Nonetheless, they decide to tell the new kid that he can indeed be their friend. They then proceed to list out the things that their new friend must do for them. These include: get them coffee each morning before class, start to dress differently, use their slang, and offer up their house to them anytime they want to throw a party. The new kid is so desperate to join them that he agrees and is essentially willfully enslaved by the popular kids.
This is what I think Kundera fails to recognize. Slavic people (and I know that Kundera rejects the blanketing of all Slavs as having the same complexes and mentalities, but he’s not reading this, so who cares?) generally have an inferiority complex when it comes to Westerners. Despite all of their achievements, they choose to view themselves under the narrative that the West has given them (i.e. some pagan primitives from nowhere who are good for nothing except cheap exploitation). Slavs are obviously much more than this (Tesla gave us AC, some of the best writers in the world have come from here, and so on), but they seem to lean increasingly towards fulfilling the narrative they are labelled with. This is unfortunate.
Slavs seem to consider the only things that they can offer to be the things that those in the West desire, but this is flawed. Slavs can offer much more than just what the West wants. They offer a completely different take on life and a radically different sense of humour, amongst other things. Though these things are sometimes not particularly valued by the West, they are intrinsically valuable. Arguably, they’re more valuable than the values that Westernization promotes.
Rambling aside, Kundera seems to miss the fact that there is little difference in the enslavement of Central Europe by the Russians and the enslavement presented by the Western powers. The only difference, I would say, is that the Russians are more honest and efficient. They swoop into a country and say “now you’re ours and this is what you must do”. The Westerns, though, do this as well, just in a clandestine way (i.e. by offering incentives and marketing better).
I’ll try to keep this as brief as I possibly can, but at this point, I’m sure no one is reading this, so maybe I won’t.
First, I’ll mention a few things I agree with that Kundera says, and then I’ll bring up and refute a number of Kundera’s other points:
Agreement: When Kundera says “…[Central Europe] never been entirely integrated into the consciousness of Europe.” I agree with him. For a number of reasons, Central Europe has remained a part of the Earth that no one seems to care for or want to have genuine, non-exploitative relations with. Likewise, Kundera’s entire little tangent about the Jews in Central Europe being integral is easy to acknowledge and agree with.
“The people of Central Europe are not conquerors. They cannot be separated from European history; they cannot exist outside it; but they represent the wrong side of this history; they are its victims and outsiders.” Is another quote I agree with Kundera on wholly. Historically, Central Europeans have never been imperialists, rather chronic victims of it, amongst other things.
Finally, Kundera’s final phrase is a good reflection of how I feel about the entirety of the essay. Some of it is clever, the rest is ill-informed. “Central Europe, therefore, should fight not only against its big oppressive neighbour but also against the subtle, relentless pressure of time, which is leaving the era of culture in its wake.” Yes, Central Europe should fight against everyone trying to occupy it. But, it really shouldn’t fight this culture-disintegration. That is an inevitable and ever-changing aspect of the world and all societies and it needs to be embraced as effectively as possible.
Now for the refutation:
Firstly, he says that “…Russia is not part of our consciousness; it's foreign to us; we're not responsible for it. It weighs on us, but it's not our heritage…” (pp. 5). Wrong, Milan, wrong indeed. I don’t know if it’s just the fact that Kundera fails to realize the essence of Central Europe and what makes it so important, or if he just accidentally omits this because it doesn’t work with his argument. The fact is that Central and Slavic Europe is largely so special because of the hodge-podge of cultures that have left their marks on it. Yes, this includes the West that occupied, as well as the Ottomans, as well as the Romans and, unfortunately for Kundera, the Russians, as well. Like it or not, they nonetheless are a part of the collective consciousness and heritage of the region. I think it would be very hard to argue otherwise.
Secondly, also on page 5, Kundera says “… the deep meaning of [the Central European's] resistance is the struggle to preserve their identity or, to put it another way, to preserve their Westernness.” Really? You’d think that nations that collectively fought so hard to not be satellite states of various empires would want to preserve something bigger than Westernness. You’d think they’d want to preserve their own integrity. When the Hungarians tried overthrowing in 1956, I doubt they did it because they felt Western or any other way, I really think they did it because they just wanted to be free and govern themselves. Likewise, when Princip shot Ferdinand, I highly doubt he did it because he wanted revert to some “better” oppressor, like the Turks (not that they were better), he probably just wanted some freedom and sovereignty for his own special nation.
Thirdly, I think that it is very well a sin in the “Being-a-Slav” handbook to suggest that the dissolution of Austria-Hungary was a bad thing in the long run. Perhaps Kundera would have enjoyed living on his knees and being subject to infringements on him, on his own turf, in his own ancestral land. We differ there, because I would not have. I would rather have sovereignty and the ability to do as I -and my fellow countryman- please, instead of bowing my head obediently to some big bully just so that he protects me from another big bully.
Fourthly, I would argue that a “Slavic Spirit” does indeed exist. It may not be as rigid and general as Polish Josef Conrad implies it to be on page 6, but there certainly are commonalities shared amongst Slavs.
Fifthly, I disagree with Kundera when he says “I think I know only that culture has bowed out.” (pp. 11). No, culture never bows out. It takes different forms, this is true, but it never just disappears. Culture is far too complex for this. I imagine that when Kundera was writing this, he was a bit conceited and snobbish (the adjective I sought to use was from the Serbian “pokondiren”, but there is not an adequate match in English, so I chose those two). He probably considered the only “true” culture to be plays and serious books and classical music. This is really not true. So much culture exists beyond this box, and media is just one example (which Kundera seems to be unimpressed with on page 13 when speaking with his French, TV-watching friends).
Speaking of which, there is proof from Kundera himself on the treatment of Western Europe to the Central states! The Central-European-er goes up to the Westerners and says “You won’t believe it! Culture just got wiped out where I live and I’m telling you this because I know how much you will sympathize, unlike those savage Russians, and how much you value culture!” The Westerner replies back “Wow, you are so passé! Lame!”
That is the real tragedy of Slavic, Central Europe.
