Solzhenitsyn's book was published in 1962; at a time when Khrushchev, then premier of the Soviet Union, was dynamically seeking to condemn the practices of his predecessor. While based on Solzhenitsyn's own experiences, One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich chronicles the effects of the Stalinist system upon the individual worker’s day and how these effects are set to rob the prisoner of any meaning in life and in due course negate his humanity.
The Endurance of Humanity in Solzhenitsyn's One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich
Solzhenitsyn's One Day in the life of Ivan Denisovich is a demonstration of how, in a restricted environment in which every move and word is proscribed and monitored, a prisoner can assert his free will and thus maintain his humanity. In portraying the bits and pieces of a prisoner's life in a forced labor camp, a life the author himself endured during an eight-year sentence under Stalin's rule, Solzhenitsyn undertakes to demonstrate the camp's effects on a prisoner's humanity. Solzhenitsyn's book was published in 1962; at a time when Khrushchev, then premier of the Soviet Union, was dynamically seeking to condemn the practices of his predecessor. While based on Solzhenitsyn's own experiences, One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich chronicles the effects of the Stalinist system upon the individual worker's day and how these effects are set to rob the prisoner of any meaning in life and in due course negate his humanity.
In spite of the harsh conditions of the labor camp, Shukhov, Solzhenitsyn's protagonist, lived to tell the tale of how at least his own humanity survived one single day. Although the camp's system seeks to obliterate any expressions or attempts towards moral and ethical actions, Shukhov and few of his fellow prisoners maintain their dignity through unnoticed acts and rituals. These liberating acts can be as simple as removing one's hat at a meal or abstaining from eating others' leftover bowls. Shukhov must exert a great effort to preserve self-respect throughout the day and still he has to endure any consequences. “Next, he removed his cap from his shaven head, however cold it was, he wouldn't let himself eat with his cap on, and stirred up his skills, quickly checking what had found its way into his bowl” (One Day 13). The incident shows Shukhov's struggle for stateliness despite the degradation of camp life. Shukhov has no control over what goes into his meal and not so much more over his own life too. Although the hall is cold, removing his cap is one reminding gesture of a gone civilized life and so he does it to assert his humanity (Porter 775).
Shukhov's day begins with certain frets which are frequently very common to the life he has been leading for the last eight yeas. He feels ill and he worries about the work reassignment. Worse, the Thin Tarter, who has come on duty instead of a more lenient guard, threatens to send Shukhov to solitary confinement but then relents and agrees to send him to wash the warders' office. A while later, Shukhov is not troubled about losing his share of the food because the moral code of survival dictates that his fellow-friends will keep his share of breakfast for him until he arrives. It is also noticeable that as he tries against hope to persuade Thin Tartar to change the punishment inflicted on him simply for not getting up a bit earlier as usual, Shukhov does not plead in a humiliating manner but only protests to ensure his identity and in order to play right the game of survival.
In the mess hall, Shukhov remembers Kuzyomin, an old prisoner and his first gang boss in another camp in 1943, who gave him the first tip of how to maintain his humanity and sustain a healthy life as well by following “The Law of the Jungle” (One Day 124). Kuzyomin had told Shukhov and other newcomers that those who lick out of someone's leftover bowl, depend on the infirmary to save them or become squealers do not survive in these camps. Having remembered that, Shukhov pushed his way through the crowds of men eating their oatmeal and stew. He found that Fetyukov, although later Ivan considers Fetyukov's general behavior debasing in the long-term struggle for survival, has saved his meal for him. Very few minutes were allotted to the prisoners to have their frugal meals. The prisoners, however, take a great delight in living these minutes for themselves and Shukhov takes his time eating his cold stew of black cabbage and bony fish.
Solzhenitsyn demonstrates the ways in which the long, harsh internment in the labor camp emptied the prisoners of any sense of their existence as humans. They know very well that they were humans when they were free. Solzhenitsyn emphasizes this deprivation by the technique of understatement. Shukhov, for instance, does a superficial job of mopping the floor and mumbles that, “If you're working for human beings, then do a real job of it, but if you work for dopes, then you just go through the motions.” At the same time when one of the guards sneers at Shukhov about mopping the floor, saying, “Didn't you ever watch your wife scrub the floor, pig?” Shukhov's response was both sarcastic and emotionless, he says, “I was taken from my wife in forty-one, citizen chief. I've forgotten what she was like” (One Day 135-6). This negating response is an indirect reminder of the life that the prisoner has lost. Since the novel takes place in January of 1951, Shukhov has not seen his wife since 1941; the uncompassionate response is indicative of a lost side in Ivan's humanity which he strives to keep.
Solzhenitsyn continues his skillful practice of understatement. The destructive powers of the camp system are not shown through the guards' treatment of the inmates with contempt as if they were sub-humans. Significantly the external abuses are not the most demonstrative of the harsh survival of one's humanity inside the camp. Solzhenitsyn demonstrates the moral code of survival either through either faith or gestures that is through internalized responses against the hopelessness of the camp. This simple act of removing his hat before eating retains in him a sense of the man he used to be. It is not an act of indignation as much as a recognition of the decorum of his old in which he retains some respect for himself as a man and ultimately as a human being.
Shukhov's attitude of maintaining self-respect is not a way of defiance as much as an exercise of self-control. It is not exclusively directed towards the guards as much as an expression and an assertion of Shukhov's own identity. When Shukhov and Fetyukov are both tantalized by the cigarette of a fellow inmate named Tsezar. At the time when Fetyukov begs for “one little drag,” Shukhov just asks Tsezar for one puff to which Tsezar responds by offering him the rest of his cigarette but at least he did not debase himself by staring greedily at the cigarette as Fetyukov did.
In the face of the spirit-destroying atmosphere of the camp, those small arbitrary actions such as the hat habit, the effortless mopping and the puff incident which Shukhov chooses to do become mostly cherished moments of standing up to the test of life and endowed with great significance only because they are done inside the camp. Thus, it is extremely important to Shukhov not to “lower himself like Fetyukov, he would never look at a man's mouth” (One Day 42). Had he done do, it would have been similar to licking another man's leftover bowl, which is one of the grave errors proscribed by Kuzyomin which would lead to one's degradation on the scale of his humanity.
The dehumanizing treatment of the frisking incident, in which prisoners take off extra underclothing in the freezing cold, is even worse than the animal terminology which is often applied to the prisoners. It demonstrates the pointless system and rules of the camp. Following the same line of argument, Solzhenitsyn again uses understatement to show the inhumanity of the camp's forced and rigid system. By calling his protagonist Shukhov rather than Ivan, Solzhenitsyn is emphasizing on the significance of names in human relationships. The difference between Shukhov and Ivan Denisovich is that between official and cordial talk. The family name Shukhov signifies regularity and documentary files whereas the first name Ivan by contrast calls to mind friendly talk in which people closely know and care for each other. In his struggle against maintaining his humanity, Shukhov is trying to live as being known officially as the government statistic “Shcha-854” or “Shukhov,” but keeps in touch with his inner being known intimately and affectionately as “Ivan Denisovich” (Porter 774).
Solzhenitsyn's choice of his protagonist is very apt and serviceable to his narration. Unlike the protagonists of other prison novels, Shukhov is a simple peasant with moderate education. He is good at enduring physical hardships because he is almost used to it as part of his rustic and army life before his incarceration. He is not the sort of intellectual man who is behind bars for the dangerous, anti state thoughts he entertains. He is the common man who does not reflect on the philosophical and moral significance of camp life. Shukhov, however, is special in his refusal to make survival his one and only goal. To him, cheer survival without having his dignity intact is hollow. The loss of his humanity will turn everything else into a subsidiary matter. To ensure this kind of compromise he has to rely on his resourcefulness and follow the dictates of a certain code of behavior whether at work or over his meals.
Solzhenitsyn continues to use understatement to show the harsh inhuman situation in the camp. One of the major issues which the Soviet government has stolen from these prisoners is Time. Instead of complaining over the lost time, Solzhenitsyn stresses that to regain their human sense of life; the prisoners seek, through several acts, to steal time back. Shukhov does it through his attachment to work. He gives value to his time by achieving some worth in his exhausting labor in doing “his wall” (One Day 112). In other words, rather than employ emotionally overstated language, Solzhenitsyn uses a utilitarian character involved in factual incidents to demonstrate the severe impact of camp life on the prisoners (Mahoney 181).
Another incident of understatement is Shukhov's dealings with food; whether or not he should eat his half bread ration or trying to work harder to ensure extra food. He remembers how inconsiderately he once filled his stomach with food back in his village. Prison life has taught him that food is to be treated with respect. Moreover, Shukhov neither recalls nor shows any longing for his wife and children. On the contrary, he chooses to accept his present situation and not swim against the current. Shukhov “had less and less cause to remember Temgenovo and his home there. Life in the camp wore him out from reveille to bedtime, with not a second for idle reflections” (One Day 124). In this sort of passive submissive, Solzhenitsyn shows the negative emotional effect of the camp on Shukhov.
Conclusion
Solzhenitsyn's effective use of understatement culminates in Shukhov's reaction to the end of his day. Despite the fact that the camp reduced him to a mere document not to mention the inflected hardships, Shukhov thanks God for his having had such a “good day” as he prepares to sleep. He is glad over his several “successes” during the day. (One Day 142). He feels this sort of contention because for Shukhov and his fellow prisoners, loss of humanity has become so commonplace that it stopped to outwardly upset them. The concept of morality in the labor camp is almost restricted solely to self-respect; self- preservation corresponds with maintaining a code of honor to ensure both spiritual and physical survival.
Works Cited
Mahoney, Daniel J. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn: The Ascent from Ideology. New York: Rowman &Littlefield, 2001.
Porter, Robert. “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich.” In Reference Guide to Russian Literature. Eds. Nicole Christian and Neil Cornwell. London: Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers, 1998.
Solzhenitsyn, Aleksandr. One Day in the life of Ivan Denisovich. New York: Penguin Press, 1970.
Frequently asked questions
What is the main theme of the analysis of Solzhenitsyn's *One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich*?
The analysis focuses on how Ivan Denisovich, a prisoner in a Soviet labor camp, manages to maintain his humanity despite the harsh and dehumanizing conditions of the camp. It examines how he asserts his free will and preserves his dignity through small acts and rituals.
What is the significance of the setting of the novel in the Soviet Union under Stalin?
The novel was published during a time when Khrushchev was condemning Stalin's practices. It chronicles the effects of the Stalinist system on the individual worker's day and how these effects rob the prisoner of meaning in life and negate his humanity.
How does Shukhov maintain his humanity in the camp?
Shukhov maintains his humanity through unnoticed acts and rituals, such as removing his hat before eating, abstaining from eating others' leftovers, and exerting effort to preserve self-respect. These small acts are assertions of his identity and dignity in the face of degradation.
What is "The Law of the Jungle" as mentioned in the analysis?
"The Law of the Jungle" refers to a set of rules for survival in the camp, taught to Shukhov by Kuzyomin. It emphasizes that those who debase themselves by licking others' bowls, depending on the infirmary, or becoming squealers do not survive.
How does Solzhenitsyn use understatement in the novel?
Solzhenitsyn uses understatement to highlight the dehumanizing effects of the camp. For example, Shukhov's superficial mopping and emotionless response about forgetting his wife underscore the loss and degradation experienced by the prisoners. The absence of overstated emotional language reinforces the severity of the prisoners' situation.
What is the significance of Shukhov's name versus Ivan Denisovich?
The analysis argues that the name "Shukhov" represents the official, documentary aspect of his identity as a prisoner, while "Ivan Denisovich" signifies the intimate, personal aspect of his being. Shukhov struggles to maintain this inner connection to his humanity while being treated as a statistic by the government.
How is Shukhov different from other prison novel protagonists?
Unlike intellectual protagonists, Shukhov is a simple peasant accustomed to physical hardship. He is not imprisoned for anti-state thoughts, but he refuses to make survival his only goal. He insists on maintaining his dignity and relying on his resourcefulness and code of behavior.
How do prisoners "steal time back" in the camp?
The analysis says prisoners seek to regain their human sense of life by "stealing time back." Shukhov does this through his attachment to work and finding value in achieving something worthwhile with his labor in doing “his wall.”
What is the significance of Shukhov's "good day" at the end of the novel?
Despite the hardships and dehumanization of the camp, Shukhov considers it a "good day" because he has managed to survive and maintain some sense of self-respect. This reaction highlights how commonplace the loss of humanity has become and how self-preservation and a code of honor are crucial for spiritual and physical survival.
What are some key themes discussed in the analysis?
Key themes include the endurance of humanity, the dehumanizing effects of the prison system, the importance of self-respect, and the struggle for survival in extreme conditions. The analysis also considers the role of faith and small acts of defiance in maintaining dignity.
- Quote paper
- Assistant Professor Khalid M. Easa (Author), 2022, The Endurance of Humanity in Solzhenitsyn’s "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich", Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/1170297
