The anticulture phenomenon in Soviet culture

PEET LEPIK

The objectives and problems of the article In this article, Soviet culture is analyzed on the basis of antithetical selfdescription. The semiotic aspect of the analysis of anticulture proceeds from the original model of semiosis in culture, formulated by Jurii Lotman and Boris Uspenskii, and Lotman's autocommunication theory. The anticulture phenomenon is examined on the basis of the topological (spatial complementarity, symmetrical reduction, mirror projection, and enantiomorphic symmetry) and the autocommunication theoretical schema of culture. The universal role in the system culture-anticulture of antithesis as a secondary syntagmatical and semantic code becomes apparent. If `Soviet culture' is treated from the aspect of its self-reection, then it must be stated that the concept `culture', in orthodox historical materialism, has always been a civic studies category of a secondary if not tertiary importance. Such a practice was initiated in the works of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. The former does not mention `culture' as being part of the main categories of historical materialism (Marx 1980 [1859]); the latter replaces the concept `culture' by the category of `civilization' (Engels 1934 [1883]: 160166, 173, 174). Vladimir Lenin derives the concept `culture' from class antagonism, referring to `the culture of the oppressors and the oppressed' as being `in the one culture' (Lenin 1948 [1913]: 8, 9). Such an approach reduces Marxist `spiritual culture' to an ideological synonym. And even further: ideology, in orthodox Marxism, changes to a gender concept of culture. Regarding the characteristics of Soviet ideology, it can be said with great probability that as rules producing text they primarily generate texts constructed on antithesis either directly, or indirectly. The antithetical traits of `ideology' as twentieth century's `radical intellectual depravity' were touched upon by Edward Shils in the 1960s. He compared Italian fascism, German national socialism, Russian bolshevism, French and Italian communism, and other radical political movements. Shils noted
Semiotica 1381/4 (2002), 179203 00371998/02/0138 0179 # Walter de Gruyter

180 P. Lepik that from an ideological viewpoint politics must be checked by a collection of convictions which were all-encompassing and denying all other considerations. Ideology is totalistic, because it attempts to govern, in its spirit of prescription, the entire social and cultural life; ideology is doctrinaire, because it declares itself to have command of the complete political truth, with no exceptions; ideology is alienative, since it distrusts, attacks, and subverts weak institutions; ideology is dualistic and sets as opposites the angel-like `our' against the satanist `them': he who is not with me is automatically `against me' (Shils 1958: 450 480). Antithesis is also stated by Paul Ricoeur, noting that ideology is a polemic concept: the term `ideology' has always referred to the other, `wrong' ideology (Ricoeur 1986: 2). Ricoeur also claims that all `contemporary cultures' not only are becoming secularized but they are also becoming confrontational `on the level of basic ideals'. He says that `integration without confrontation is pre-ideological' (Ricoeur 1986: 259).1 Cliord Geertz draws attention to the method used by the `advocates' of ideology (he is referring to the intermediary role of ideologues) to polarize claims (Geertz 1973: 205). There are more than enough examples from Soviet culture. In discussing education, Lenin categorically declares: `Each word expressed by it [pre-socialist education establishment] was falsied in the interests of the bourgeoisie' (Lenin 1950b (1920): 265, my emphasis). And elsewhere: `We _ have now seen in practice that in a period of social revolution, proletarian unity can only be implemented by the extreme revolutionary party of Marxism, this can be done only through a merciless struggle against all other parties' (Lenin 1950a [1920]: 488, my emphasis). Interpreting the subordination of ideology and culture in Marxism would lead to the conclusion that the structure of Soviet culture must t into the antithetic model of ideology. Or is this subordinate relationship the reverse? The antithesis phenomenon in culture therefore requires further examination. In its most general form, `antithesis' (if we proceed from Webster) means the rhetorical contrast of ideas by means of parallel arrangements of words, clauses, or sentences; opposition contrast; the second of opposing constituents of an antithesis; the direct opposite; contrary; the second stage of a dialectic process. Observing the occurrence of antithesis in culture it becomes apparent that setting opposites, contrasts, and oppositions appear in all spheres of the self-description of a culture and a person. Based on results of biosemiotic research it is even indicated that the identication of `self ' in relation to `other' is the most ancient and also the rst (semiotic) opposition in living organisms in general (Sebeok 1989; Bickerton 1990).

The anticulture phenomenon 181 There are substantial publications on antithesis. The diering manifestations of antitheses have provided sucient interest for linguists and literature scholars: (binary) oppositions, zero-feature, etc. (Bally 1932, Ivanov 1973, Jakobson 1985b [1975], Saussure 1959 [1916]); for philosophers, cultural anthropologists, and semioticians: dual cultural models, antibehavior, anticulture (Abramian 1981; Jakobson 1971 [1967], vi-Strauss 1967 [1958], Lotman and Uspenskii 1994 [1977], No Le th 1994a, Piatigorskii 1992, Uspenskii 1994 [1985]); for folklore scholars: the polar placement of persons and events (`Setzung') and symmetry (Abramian 1983, Meletinskii 1976, Olrik 1909); for analytical and social psychologists, psychoanalysts, and sociologists: mirror stage of ontogenesis, universal dualism of spiritual experiences, `us' `them', negative identity (Jung 1994 [1930], Lacan 1977 [1937], Porshnev 1979 [1966], Russell 1979); for biosemioticians and cyberneticians: invader, asymmetry of brain hemispheres, semiotic and non-semiotic identication mechanisms of the `foreigner' (Erikson 1966, Ivanov 1978, Jacob 1974). This writer, however, has not succeeded in nding more extensive theoretical treatment of the antithetic structure of ideology. Therefore, we come to the following tasks: 1) to describe in more detail the formal structure based on the ideological and/or cultural antithesis; 2) to discover, on the level of the observed structure, the mutual (functional) associations between ideology and culture; 3) to implement the sketched theoretical diagram in the interpretation of Soviet culture. In the following, the Soviet ideology and culture is interpreted using the culture theory developed by the Tartu-Moscow semiotics school. In the framework of this theory, it is particularly interesting to examine more deeply a culture semiotic model which permits the placement of the results of the current analysis of ideology into a much wider context. Semiosis forms the culture type As is known, the Tartu-Moscow school semioticians dene culture as a semiotic system occurring between a person and the world, which functions for the processing and arrangement of information stored by a person (Lotman and Uspenskii 1984: X). This system is observed as both an abstract model of reality (or as a world picture or culture language) as well as its realization in sign structures (Lotman 1969: 463). Lotman and Uspenskii claim that in culture semiotics it is not possible to limit oneself to the functional analysis of culture as a sign system. Citing Foucault's similar approach (Foucault 1994 [1966]) they place importance in culture on the relation of culture to the sign and to

182 P. Lepik signication (semiosis), as a basic factor forming culture type. In their opinion, it is important to observe how in culture the relationship between the level of expression and the level of content of a sign is interpreted. On the basis of this relationship they dierentiate between two culture types. For one of these, the symbol is suitable for the illustration of the type of relationship of the content and the expression, but for the other, it is a ritual (Lotman and Uspenskii 1971: 151, 152). In the rst, conventional, arbitrary relations dominate between content and expression, as with symbols generally. Naming something in a culture (giving a name), as the manner of expressing content, is not at all primary the expressed content is important. In the second culture type Soviet culture, as my example the relationship between manner of expression and content for a sign is generally seen as the only option. The form of expression is indivisible from the content as in a ritual, it dictates denite limits on the content and vice versa (Lotman and Uspenskii 1971: 151, 152). Soviet culture, in our opinion, could belong to just this culture type. Somewhere (probably in the `Gulag'), Solzhenitsyn has written of a locomotive driver who was executed on the spot because he had wrapped his sandwich in a newspaper which was decorated by a picture of Stalin. The Soviet culture type is centered on (`correct') naming. Incorrect designation is the same as `foreign' content. Here we need to remember the re-naming of streets, squares, institutions, etc. in the Soviet Union in accordance with the political situation. At the end of the 1930s, all Soviet citizens named Trotskii very quickly changed their names (generally it was sucient to add an `i': Troitskii). Jaan Undusk writes of Stalin's years in power: `It was often the case that people were not in love with communism, which they had not yet started to believe in, but rather with the word ``communism'', which everyone had acquired, it was on everyone's lips and between their teeth:
Kaks helget nime rahva armastuses on liitund u hes sonas: kommunism. [Two shining names (i.e., Lenin, Stalin) in the love of the people have united in one word: communism.] [Aleksei Surkov: To the Leader of the Peoples, translated by Paul Viiding] (Undusk 1994: 1881).

Compare this with Stalin's oath on the occasion of the death of Lenin: `There is nothing higher than the name of the member of this party, whose founder and leader is comrade Lenin' (Stalin 1947 [1924]: 46). Culture as a whole can be interpreted either as a mechanism which creates a collection of texts or as texts as a realization of culture (Lotman and Uspenskii 1994 [1977]: 245). In determining culture type

The anticulture phenomenon 183 the taking into account of the self-assessment of culture in this issue, as indicated by Lotman and Uspenskii, is very important. In the rst case, the model is a textbook as a collection of rules generating text. Such a culture is aware of itself as a system of rules creating texts: one can only speak of precedent, if there is a rule which describes it. (European classicism can be seen as an example.) In the second case, the textbook as chrestomathy or a catechism is the model texts, citations, collection of questions-answers (Lotman and Uspenskii 1971: 152, 153). Such a culture is aware of itself as a culture of norms a collection of `correct' texts; here the rules are reected as the sum of precedents. Being oriented to expression (nomination), Soviet culture is aware of itself as the Correct Text. The content of culture, looking from the viewpoint of the self-reection of culture, has been served up (pre-determined); for comprehending the text one has to learn the corresponding relationship between content and expression. The path to comprehend culture is similar to the philological analysis of texts (Lotman and Uspenskii 1971: 152). It could be added that Western political scientists and the Soviet intelligentsia (who were able to decipher precedents) could unerringly interpret the near future of the state on the basis of signs, which had a denite meaning as words do in a dictionary. For example, the order of listing of CPSU Politburo members in an article or the way they were lined up at the Lenin mausoleum during parades unambiguously expressed changes which had occurred (were in the process of occurring) in national politics. Soviet culture ritualized behavior. The dominance of text as a precedent and its authoritative expression over the content of the text and the rules which generate content is also illustrated quite well by the citation convention which developed in the USSR. In the case of `the classics of Marxism-Leninism' (i.e., Marx, Engels, Lenin and [up to 1953] Stalin) as opposed to all other authors there was no requirement to tie a citation to specic research (article), in which the classic expressed the cited thought. It was sucient to refer only to the volume and page of the (collected) work. The year of publication for the volume was also not mentioned. In the case of Marx and Engels, no dierentiation was made between them: it was always a case of `Works' by K. Marx and F. Engels. The reader had to be completely satised by the graphical fact of a citation to an authoritative text. Antithesis as a dominant characteristic of semiosis The clash of the two dierent culture types as sketched here with another (`foreign') culture demonstrates an interesting dierence. The culture

184 P. Lepik which is aware of itself as a collection of rules, and is a culture oriented primarily towards content, sees the other culture as a non-culture. But a culture oriented towards normative texts and expression treats foreign culture as anticulture (Lotman and Uspenskii 1971: 154, 155).
Firstly, a few remarks on terms. The concepts and spelling of non-culture (or non-text) and nonculture (or nontext) must be kept separate. The latter pair of terms refers to `nature', which eo ipso is not culture [text]. (Lotman 1970b: 7)2

The Tartu-Moscow school semioticians have termed as non-culture the `sphere' which functionally is a culture but which does not (currently) fulll its rules (Lotman 1970b: 7). It `does not seem to exist' and falls outside (is forgotten) or is excluded from (due to the low[er] level of authority) the limits of a specic culture. Non-culture is subjectively made equivalent to chaos, entropy (in the system organizednonorganized ). From the viewpoint of a scientic meta-language, this is of course another culture (or another culture type). For a person outside the culture, the non-culture is also simply a dierent sort of culture. Culture does indeed function on the background of non-culture and has a complicated relationship with it, through the processes of forgetting/ remembering and de-semiotization/semiotization. (Lotman 1970b: 8; Lotman 1970a: 78, 79; Lotman and Piatigorskii 1968: 8488)3 Anticulture and non-culture are separated from culture by a border, which has a direct association with the orientation of culture towards either expression (or text) or content (or rules). The border in the system cultureanticulture is inexible, `insuperable'. The border between culture and non-culture, however, is hazy, gradated, smoothly transitional (Lotman and Uspenskii 1971: 154, 157). If one uses the concepts from formal logic, then it should be permissible to speak in general terms of anticulture as contradictory opposition (apposition occurs in a form expressing mutual exclusion in a yes/no or and/or type), non-culture, however, is represented by contradictory opposition (the elements expressed are the extreme type concept of one and the same gender concept, for example distantclose).4
In the opposition pair culturenon-culture, culture is aware of itself as a productive source, which in a normal distribution process forms culture from the non-culture sphere. It could be claimed, becoming historically more specic, that the culture type characteristic of the western European scientic era, is mostly able to be interpreted by proceeding precisely from a semiotic model oriented to content and rules. (Lotman and Uspenskii 1971: 154, 157)

A most unusual situation develops, however, in the system cultureanticulture. The semantics of this can be expressed through the opposition

The anticulture phenomenon 185 pair correctincorrect, `which may approach (even coincide) the antithesis truefalse'. Here the culture is not only dierentiating itself from `chaos', `nonorganized', or `entropy', but is apposite to a `sphere preceded by a negative sign'. A `culture with a negative sign' is perceived as a `special kind of mirror reection' of culture `where the connections remain, but become the opposite' (Lotman and Uspenskii 1971: 154, 155). Culture separates itself from anticulture with a denite border and closes in on itself. If the spread of culture to non-culture areas occurs (as already indicated) as the expansion of knowledge to areas of nonknowledge, then the transfer of knowledge to the anticulture sphere is from the viewpoint of culture only possible as `victory over lies' (Lotman and Uspenskii 1971: 157). In Theses on the Semiotic Study of Culture it is formulated as follows: `A dierence must be made between culture non-text and anti-text: a statement which is not preserved, and a statement which is destroyed' (Ivanov et al. 1998a [1973]: 4.0.0). Unfortunately, the remarkable theoretical discussions on the formal characteristics of anticulture by J. Lotman and B. Uspenskii are restricted to the summary description cited above. In other publications, these authors concentrate on the documentation of anticulture manifestations on the basis of material on older Russian culture. (Lotman and Uspenskii 1975: 168254; Lotman and Uspenskii 1993 [1976]; Lotman and Uspenskii 1994 [1977]; Uspenskii 1994 [1985], etc.). The conception by J. Lotman and B. Uspenskii of antithesis in culture denitely provides a justication for concluding that Soviet (or totalitarian) ideology is not the unique domination sphere of antithesis and that anticulture has a wider manifestation space than Soviet culture. But even more important is the fact that antithesis is seen as an attribute of the reection of culture and self-reection, within the framework of a certain denite semiosis type. Such an approach permits, in my opinion, postulation of a question on the treatment of antithesis as a mechanism of culture as intellect, which produces certain types of texts. Antithesis should be able to be interpreted as an invariant operational `schema' of culture as `intellectually operating entity' (one of many schemata), if proceeding from I. Kant's (1902 [1790]: 221223) conceptual and theoretical tradition.5 Characteristics of an antithetic schema Our task, within the framework of the present article, is to describe antithesis as the characteristics of an intellectual mechanism, and their appearance in the self-reection of Soviet culture. We will restrict

186 P. Lepik ourselves to observation of the topological and (auto)communicative characteristics of antithesis as an intellectual schema, based on the theoretical paradigm of the Tartu-Moscow semiotics school.6 Typology of the culture space: Spatial complementarity Every linguistic statement describes a space-time process (Ivanov 1978: 130). The speaking subject (or certain culture system) is observable in a time-space coordinate structure.7 Here `there is a dierence between the space structures of the worldview and the meta-language which describes it. In the rst case, the space characteristics are given to the object being described, in the second, to the language being described'. In the words of J. Lotman, a clear homeomorphism still dominates between the space characteristics of object- and meta-languages, because `one of the universal peculiarities of human culture, possibly connected with the anthropological features of human consciousness, is the fact that the worldview inevitably acquires features of spatial characteristics' (Lotman 1969: 463). Therefore, a space can be dened as collection of possible interpreted characteristics (Ivanov 1978: 41). A certain `matching up of the space with the viewpoint of the bearer of the text' provides the culture model with an orientation (Lotman 1969: 465). The orientation of the culture subject (or subjective orientation) is understandably dependent on estimation. J. Lotman dierentiates between the inner, limited, and external, open space, of a culture world picture, and the applicable orientation from the inside out or from the outside in (Lotman 1969: 465477). Such a classication principle may be justied in the case of the self-descriptions of various world pictures, including in the system culturenon-culture (see Figure 1). Compare also Ivanov et al. (1998a [1973]: 1.1.2 and 1.2.0). However, it should not be applicable for the system cultureanticulture (see Figure 2). A culture surrounded by non-culture is a space with hazy borders: it develops smoothly into a so-called borderless amorphous environment (where, besides, the elements of nonculture and non-culture functionally become the same). In the system cultureanticulture the anticulture elements are in one to one topological accordance with culture elements, because, as is known from logic, the members of binary oppositions are in a conditional relationship. This means that the existence of one member of some opposition notes the actualization of its opposite in (culture) consciousness, although this opposite may be formally unspecied.8 Since the repertoire forming culture is in the self-description of the system culture-anticulture dually arranged and regulated by strict borders,

The anticulture phenomenon 187

Figure 1. CultureNon-Culture

then the anticulture (or `outside' the culture) space is not seen as an open space.9 Here we have two closed culture areas, which (ideally!) are separated by an uncrossable (impenetrable) border. The border blocks this is repeatedly emphasized such activity by `them' directed at `us' which could deform `us'. But still indeed paradoxically the self-reection of the Soviet system was at the same time inseparable from anticulture. Determining the basic values of culture on the level of self-reection could not occur without being aware of (or making explicit) the anticulture elements of course if one did not risk varying from the language of the system. Therefore, culture and anticulture form a complementary pair, regarding functioning they are in their own way Siamese twins. Anyone doubting this should read any ocial self-description on the rst and last page in a Soviet culture publication (the exception of course conrms the rule). Topology of the culture space: Symmetrical reduction There is another important topological line symmetry closely associated with the closed binary structure of the system cultureanticulture.10

188 P. Lepik

Figure 2. Culture Anticulture

The places mutually reserved by opposition pairs on the dual eld change the system, on a topological plane, to bilaterally symmetrical and semantically anti-symmetric. The language of this system does not recognize a non-culture, which is neutral and ruins the symmetry. Non-culture is reduced to either culture or anticulture.11 Such a blackwhite reduction in Soviet culture presumed self-conscious `being on guard', regarding both `us' and `them'. Foreign cultural gures were classied as (potential) enemies or `friends' (ours); in the USSR all letters from foreigners were checked as a rule; all foreigners visiting `us' were restricted in where they could go, etc. Within the culture, those young people who did not belong to communist youth organizations were called `nonorganized youth' (Soviet functionaries' slang!) and they had (great) diculty in being admitted to higher education institutions, and in getting certain jobs. These same ocial understandings were used to assess people who did not attend parades or go to vote: `If you're not for us, you're

The anticulture phenomenon 189 against us'. Those against (real and fabricated) were marked as `(bourgeois) nationalists', `opportunists', `revisionists', `liquidators', `traitors', etc. And these were in essence treated as a part of `them' the anticulture: `It cannot be an accident that the Trotskists, Bukharinists and nationalist saboteurs, in ghting against Lenin, against the Party, reached the same point as the Menshevik and social revolutionary parties they became agents of fascist spy organizations, became spies, saboteurs, murderers, wreckers, traitors of the fatherland' (Lu hikursus 1951 [1938]: 326). In addition, the polarizing elements of anticulture, on both sides, are subject to yet another symmetrical reduction principle: all anticulture elements become synonymous with each other and so do culture elements. Two translatively symmetrical sequences (which understandably are mutually semantically anti-symmetrical) are created. The opposite pairs forming this sequence are in a certain context semantically interchangeable: `each opposite pair can be treated as the translation of the basic opposition benecialnon-benecial' (Ivanov 1978: 96). V. Ivanov associates this semiosis-mechanism with the mythology of `elementary' societies.12 But the recently analyzed understandings of J. Lotman and B. Uspenskii regarding signs in culture types oriented to rituals allow the interpretation of V. Ivanov's conclusion in a much wider context. For example, in the consciousness of Russian Old Believers, `paganism', `heresy', `Catholicism', and even everything `new' was reduced to a semantically symmetrical ornament, with the secondary axiological common term `Satanism' (Lotman and Uspenskii 1994 [1977]: 232). In an analogous way, Peter the Great was called the Anti-Christ because he adopted the title of emperor; but for the Old Believers, `emperor', `Rome', and `Anti-Christ' formed a semantically leveled ornament, where `satanic' (sinning) became the content value dominant (Lotman and Uspenskii 1993 [1976]: 203). In the self-descriptions of the Soviet system antithesis: lawfully progressive (good)lawfully reactionary (bad) begins to replace (suocate) opposition terms. In the selfconsciousness of Soviet culture denite assessment cliches are created on the level of the noted main opposition (and its secondary opposite pairs ourishingdeterioration, luxuriancelanguishing, etc.) (cf. Iakimovich 1998: 342, 343), which results in the primary semantics of culture reality being reduced or becoming secondary, e.g., `It is time to end the decaying view [of capitalists] that there is no need to interfere in production' (Stalin 1935 [1931]: 446). The issue of whether there is a need or not, that is not oered the reader as the primary issue: the primary issue is to put and `end' to the `decay' (capitalism)!.

190 P. Lepik Topology of the culture space: Mirror projection The appearance of antithetic semiosis in the topology of culture space would not be complete without looking at the reexive or mirror projection. As we know, S. Freud formulated projection as the transfer of the individual's sub-conscious aggression to the outside world, i.e., to the other people(s) (Freud 1938 [1906]: 854856). A mirror projection, in our opinion, is a `me' (`us') described by dening a negative (often also reected as aggressive) `other' (`others') as an antithesis i.e., via the `others'. H. Smith, in his famous book The Russians, refers to the fact that after an aviation accident in the Soviet Union, there always followed a month of reports in the ocial press about air accidents in America, West Germany, Taiwan, and wherever but somewhere else. The same logic applies to health epidemics, price increases, crime, harvests, setbacks, water shortage, jailing of political prisoners (Smith 1976: 368). This example is particularly interesting because a projection precedes the mirror projection. Firstly, `our' problems are transferred to `them' and then a mirror projection antithesis is created: for `their' `drought' we have the 0-feature `no drought'. A mirror projection cannot possibly be conned only to being a tool of ideological propaganda, as initially may be assumed (although it is that as well!). There is reason to believe that mirror projection has in the self-regulation of culture a universal role. It is also apparent that the mirror projection begins to dominate just in such dual semantically antisymmetrical culture systems. These claims are supported on the one hand by B. Porshnev's research results, which indicate that historically the them-concept was created much earlier than the subjective our-concept (Porshnev 1979 [1966]: 81). This is supported by E. Cassirer's claim that pointing at one's body occurred before the use of pronouns (cf. Ivanov 1978: 137). On the other hand as opposed to many cultures mirror projection has been continually characteristic of particularly Russian culture. It could even be said that it comprises the formative axis of Russian culture. `New' has never as a rule been seen in Russia as the continuation of the `old' or as an innovation, not dependent on the `old', but still and always as the negation of the `old', as its radical abandonment (ottalkivanie), even as the justication of its destruction or as its destruction (see Lotman and Uspenskii 1994 [1977]; Lotman and Uspenskii 1993 [1976]; Uspenskii 1994 [1985]). Sacramental antibehavior refers back to pagan rituals: it was presumed that in the world beyond the grave, all connections are opposite right is left, truth is the opposite, if there it is night, then here it is day, etc. (Uspenskii 1994 [1985]: 321).

The anticulture phenomenon 191 In another context and with less strict limitations, the same phenomenon is observed by T. Gross (1996: 17231735). He describes the positive reinforcement of `me' as occurring due to the depiction of the `other' (foreigner) as negative, and in the role of this `other' can be the individual, culture, and also `an even wider formation'. T. Gross mentions as examples the apposition of barbarians to Romans, and setting opposite America or communist regimes to Western Europe. The `other' is dened merely by placing it outside one's own system. Gross, however, does not dierentiate between the `not-me' and the `anti-me' as the `other'. I should stress that, in Soviet culture, the `anti-me' as the `other' (together with the mirror projection procedure) is explicitly represented in the infamous `self-criticism' ritual, which is `one of the most dynamic forces in the development of society, in the special form of uncovering dissension. _ Party members are obligated to implement this and to apply for the removal of the deciencies' (ENE 1972, 4: 189) i.e., bringing about the antithesis of one's own negative side! Examples of the described antithetic schema variation can be found without diculty in Soviet ideological self-descriptions. The hackneyed display of capitalist countries' social situation via unemployment, nonfree medical services, `rampant' prostitution, or the exploitation of workers, was of course directed primarily (and implicitly) to the antithesis born from a mirror projection. In the USSR we of course did not have unemployment or prostitution, and free medical services were of course guaranteed _ In regard to exploitation or other matters, then the semantics of both this and other analogous signs ends up in the realm of translative symmetry and reducing primary semantics. Meanings are determined by the basic opposition regressiveprogressive (see previous section). Reexive projection was extensively used in art. As a classical example, V. Maiakovskii's `Verses about the Soviet passport' deserve quoting. The situation imagined by the poet occurs on the border of the US. The Soviet passport, described as the `duplicate' of the `priceless ship ballast' for the Soviet person, is described through the attitude of the ocial in a mirror projection manner. The attitude is expressed cumulatively on the level of four antitheses, of which the last has even the form of a mythologized hyperbole: Beret kak bombu,

beret

kak britvu

kak ezha,

oboiudoostruiu,

192 P. Lepik beret, zmeiu kak gremutshuiu,

v 20 zhal

dvuhmetrovorostuiu. (Takes itas if it were a bomb, Takes it As if it is Takes it a dual blade,

As if it were a hedgehog,

With 20 fangs, A snake Twenty meters long.) And then, right at the end, the `our'-side of the antithesis is exhibited together with the content of the `duplicate': Tchitaite, zaviduite,

As if it were a rattlesnake

ia

Sovetskogo Soiuza (Read, Be envious

grazhdanin

I am

of the Soviet Union) (Maiakovskii 1956: 242).

a citizen

Topology of the culture space: Enantiomorphic symmetry Mirror projection, as we have seen, indicates the index aspect of the semiosis of the negative `other' and the positive `me' (`us'). Using the concept of the mirror, however, is simultaneously associated with the iconic similarity relationship of antithesis.13 This interplay between the similarity and dierence relationship has been called the equivalence paradox (A A and A|A) (J. Levin 1988: 9), which is indeed the content of enantiomorphic symmetry. In such a paradox the fact emerges that anticulture is not nonculture or non-culture; it is also not culture,

The anticulture phenomenon 193 yet as became apparent in the discussion earlier regarding the complementarity of the cultureanticulture system it is still also, as anticulture, simultaneously culture! In other words, it could also be stated: every armation has a concealed negation (cf. Ivanov 1978: 42). Expressing this statement in topological terms it could be claimed that if we describe two objects, which are mutually mirror symmetric, then from within each of the objects, if placed on top of each other, they coincide. However, if we look in a mirror (in other words, describe both objects from the position of one object), then if the objects are placed on top of each other, the right side of one object becomes the left side of the other object, and vice versa. This `understanding and observation paradox' has been thoroughly described by Kant (1905 [1783]: 3841). The reversal of right/left in enantiomorphic symmetry implies also the reversal of other base positions aecting the physical and ethical world (Levin 1988: 11). The psychoanalyst J. Lacan has even claimed that already in the so-called mirror stage (between the fth and eighteenth month of life), the child recognizes its body in a mirror as being inverted and opposite to itself, an external (foreign) `other' (Lacan 1977 [1937]: 1 4). Mirror symmetry is explicitly apparent in, for example, the Christ Anti-Christ pair or in the medieval carnival antithesis. In Russia, the old pagan culture became the unavoidable prerequisite of culture as such. According to this schema, such a `new culture', which always saw itself as the negation and complete destruction of the `old' actually became a powerful impetus for preserving the `old', covering the inherited texts and preserved behavioral forms, but turning these functions upside down, mirror symmetrically (Lotman and Uspenskii 1994 [1977]: 226). The same can be seen in Soviet culture, for example in turning upside down the semantics of the red corners (krasnyi ugol) (in the `old' culture icon corner, in the `new' an intimate room decorated with the picture of the Party leader and meant for carrying out ideological events). The symbolic substitution of religious passages of the cross on Red Square with demonstrations by the workers is also mirror symmetrical, as well as the symbolic replacement of the nobility with `the conscience, wisdom and honor of the working class' the communist party. The pair of opposites formed by the czar's autocracy and `democratic centralism' is of course also enantiomorphically symmetrical. And so enantiomorphic symmetry rises to organize the culture on supra-segmental levels of texts (cf. No th 1994b: 101). Attention, however, has been directed towards the disappearance of asymmetrical culture systems, these becoming transformed into symmetrical ones, and vice versa i.e., towards the internal dynamics of culture systems. Generally, a person (on the basis of studies by

194 P. Lepik A. Abramian) tries to avoid mirror symmetry to the benet of symmetry (Abramian 1981: 77, 85, 86). The model for this tendency is the handshake right hand with right hand! If we bring an example from Soviet culture, then we notice a strange but constant regularity in the political sympathies of Soviet dictators. Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, etc. for some reason generally managed to get on remarkably well with (from a Soviet viewpoint) right-wing leaders: in the US with the Republicans, in the UK with the Conservatives, and in Germany with the Christian Democrats. But with left-wing and `weak' leaders there were continual conicts. Autocommunication of culture: Antithetic self-reection A viewpoint causing mirror symmetry has two important features: an individual looking into a mirror is relating to himself; and he sees that of himself which, without looking in the mirror, he does not see. During self-observation (self-admiration or self-hatred), the `me' is transformed into the `other' for oneself. This feature of a mirror is expressed of course in enantiomorphic symmetry. In Renaissance period art, the female gure denoting pride was often supplied with a mirror, in which Satan was reected (Hall 1997: 169, 170). The allegory for triviality could be a naked woman, who looks into a mirror whilst combing her hair, in the presence of the gure of Death (1997: 545). Initially, it may seem that autocommunication in the worldview of an individual has an facultative meaning. But proceeding from the presumption of the analogy with the individual and collective intellect, J. Lotman brushes this understanding aside with a simple argument. If, instead of the concept `individual' we use the concepts of the addresser and the addressee, it could be claimed that in describing the communication, within the borders of some national culture, for example, the area covered by the concept of addresser is just about the same as covered by the addressee. But if we observe human culture, then `remaining within the limits of the experience which is at least historically real' the concepts of addresser and addressee coincide, and communication must be interpreted, within the limits of human culture, as autocommunication (Lotman 1970d: 15). In the system cultureanticulture, autocommunication is central, the function forming the structure. This claim is supported by the domination of the complementarity of self-reection, mirror projection, and mirror symmetry in the system cultureanticulture discussed earlier. As regards content, autocommunication is a paradoxical phenomenon (Lotman 1973b: 228): the subject passes on a message to someone who

The anticulture phenomenon 195 already knows it anyway. Therefore, there is no mnemonic purpose in the message transfer. This means that autocommunication must have another important role, regarding culture. In claiming that a person uses words in order to organize his individuality,14 J. Lotman emphasizes that in transferring a message to oneself, the `me' itself is transformed: `the ``me'' reorganizes its individuality' (1973b: 228). Here it should be added that also a collective individual could feel the need to look itself in the face, in order to become aware of what it is, for itself and for others. In Soviet culture, such autocommunication became a genre of its own, in the form of party programs, report speeches, slogan issues created for the May and October celebrations, etc. The gems of this genre are understandably the canonic short course of history of the CPSU (Lu hikursus 1951 [1938]) and the `Stalinist' constitution (Konstitutsiia 1937). Readers who are familiar with these understand that in this genre a clear enantiomorphic symmetry dominates. But in contrast to the classical us-them model, here the plus and minus sides have reversed. Phenomena which exclude, conceal, or condemn, subconsciously or consciously, the `me' (`us') become the enantiomorphic projection of oneself, which we indeed recognize in all the possible publications in the cultureanticulture type systems, such as their all possible commandments and Mao-type slogans. In the self-reection of Russian culture, where observing oneself has always been of primary importance, and the most fundamental, regarding the observation of the outside world (Lotman 1994: 407), anticulture is indeed mostly sought from within culture. Russian culture does not see itself as an evolutionary process but as a duel between the `old' and the `new'. Together with Marxist world revolution theory, an `outside' antithetic area was born, alongside the internal enemy, as a `capitalist system', but Soviet Russian culture's autocommunication contaminated and leveled out both of them in imagining a common enemy (in the spirit of Figure 2): Za vse za voinu, za posle, za ranshe, so vsemi s ihnimi, i so svoimi my rasschitayemsya v Krasnom revanshe _

196 P. Lepik (For everything For the war, For that which came after, For that which was before, With all them (enemies) With theirs, And with ours We will settle the scores in a Red revenge _) (Maiakovskii 1956: 78) Autocommunication: Antithesis as a secondary code Culture, as is claimed by J. Lotman, has a tendency, in the typological plane, to be either a communicative or an autocommunicative system (Lotman 1973b: 242, 243). In the system cultureanticulture, as became clear above, autocommunication is the fashionable method of information exchange. Autocommunication encourages the transformation of texts into meta-texts. In the internal speech system `words and pictures become indices' (Lotman 1970c: 165). This important observation was developed by J. Lotman into the autocommunication secondary code idea, which in summary is as follows (see Lotman 1973b: 232240). Text, which in autocommunication does not provide us with new information, but transforms to a self-picture of `me', restricted to simply translating the existing information into a new system of meaning, circulating in a functional way as a code, not as a message.15 For example, if a reader of Anna Karenina cries out (or thinks): `Anna that's me',16 then this makes the text of Tolstoi's novel a model for the re-consideration of the life of the reader. The meme system is dierent from the meyou system due to word reduction: the words become the signs of the words, the signs become indices. Tolstoi's text thus acquires a new (i.e., additional) role this becomes the index and code of `my' worldview. `Reading' an initial notication in the key of another code creates a situation where the elements of the initial text are interpreted as belonging to a further, syntagmatic construction which has been entered from the `outside'. J. Lotman limits himself in dierentiating the alternate code, by noting repeated, ornamental, rhythmic constructions: it is these which begin to govern the associations of the addressee. Asemantic texts which have thoroughly organized syntagmatically become the initiators of our associations the more emphatic the

The anticulture phenomenon 197 syntagmatics, the more associative it is! The reader understands such a text only if he knows it in advance. Of course, information exchange oriented to autocommunication cannot avoid cliches. On the contrary: autocommunication has inclined to change texts into syntagmatic cliches. I would add that such a system is familiar to everyone due to fairytales. On the level of natural language the fairytale of course has semantics; as a culture phenomenon the fairytale, however, is pure syntagmatics i.e., a secondary code. A fairytale does not contain any new information for anyone everything is known in advance. This was understood superbly by A. Olrik, who at the beginning of the century claimed to be researching the `biology' of fairytales (Olrik 1909: 1). As can be concluded from the analysis of translative reduction, complementarity, projection, and mirror projection, antithesis acquires in the structure of enantiomorphic autocommunication a secondary semantic and syntagmatic role. And it reorganizes the primary semantics of the message which is reected. In a mirror projection text, the primary content of a message retreats in the face of the logic of antithesis. Antithesis, dominant in the system cultureanticulture, starts to produce, as a semantic and syntagmatic superstructure, a certain type of text. Therefore, antithesis is not merely a rhetorical trick, the emotional reaction of an individual, a logical operation or a manifestation of subconscious aggression. Antithesis is a constructive element of culture, J. Lotman would say: porozhdaiushchii mekhanizm. The autocommunication model of culture contains both the self-reection as well as the base algorithms to comprehend the mirror reection. Antithesis also belongs with these universal algorithms, retreating in some and rising to dominate in other culture systems, including Soviet culture. An approach which examines in depth the autocommunication of culture and the dierent forms of symmetry oers an intriguing aspect in the future treatment of antithesis in (meta)rhetoric. The analogy with the many manifestations of culture enantiomorphics and the asymmetric functionality of the brain hemispheres is potentially very interesting in this relationship. But this is the topic of a new article.

Notes
1. Ricoeur's problematic claim, which he used in his Chicago lectures in 1976, at that time could have seemed somewhat more acceptable. 2. The spelling of the terms `nonculture' and `non-culture' has been incorrect even in basic texts dealing with these issues, due to editorial mistakes. For example, in the English

198 P. Lepik
translation of Theses on the Semiotic Study of Culture, section 4.0.0.a `non-text' (`ne-tekst') has been translated as `nontext' (`we should distinguish the nontext from the ``antitext'' of a given culture'), and this mistake has occurred in numerous reprints and translations (Lotman et al. 1975 [1973]; Ivanov et al. 1998a [1973]; Ivanov et al. 1998b [1973]); the basis for the Tartu publication was the text published in the collected works: Structure of Texts and Semiotics of Culture. There is also inconsistency in the spelling of the term anticulture, but the graphic image here (with a hyphen or without) does not denote content dierences. In Theses of Russian Culture Semiotics, compiled by Lotman a year before his death, he wrote the sentence: `The concept of ``nonculture'' (nekulturnost') and ``outside culture'' (vnekulturnost') should be permanently removed from scientic vocabulary and replaced with ``other culture'' (inokulturnost')' (Lotman 1994: 416). These terms, however, have been used here by Lotman is a completely dierent axiological context, i.e., to encourage the valuing of Russian culture policy and the modern paradigm of cultural self-awareness, in the context of world culture integration. Emphasizing this aspect does not annul, in my opinion, the heuristic meaning and implementation potential in culture theory of the concepts of `non-culture' and `nonculture'. In interpreting antithesis as an element of culture code, the comment by L. Wittgenstein saying that although contradictory truth is impossible, contradiction is still not pointless in a symbolic (i.e., semiotic) plane, should be kept in mind (Wittgenstein 1996 [1921]: 9295). The main positions on the important aspects of culture as intellect are reected in J. Lotman's works (1973a; 1977: 9, 13, 1618; 1990: 402, 403, 407, 408). It is also important that Lotman postulates on the basis of the four main characteristics (semiotic heterogenity, memory, self-propagation of meanings, and existence of a selection block) of an individual, of text and culture as intellectual objects as their analogy of structure and functioning principles. The author of this article is interested here in typological special characteristics, which means that the real variance of the phenomena under analysis has been knowingly set aside. These localization problems of the coordinates have been examined on the linguistic lexical and form level by R. Jakobson in his shifter theory (1972 [1971]), R. Thom on the basis of a topological model for natural language (1975), and J. Lotman in his theory on subject and event (1970d: 280289). This important characteristic of binary oppositions has been repeatedly referred to in the analysis of linguistic systems by R. Jakobson (1985a [1976]: 70; 1985b [1975]: 144). Semioticians describe the basic analogy of such systems with dual phonological codes. Every phonological dierential feature (or element of a mythological or other system) is equal and opposite to another dierential feature (symbol) or a certain series of features (symbols) in the paradigm (or syntagma) under observation (Ivanov 1978: 96). W. No th dierentiates between four types of symmetry in language: reexive or mirror symmetry, translative or ornamental, radial, and anti-symmetry. Mirror symmetry may be bilateral (cf. the mirroring of letters A/A or O/O) or enantiomorphic (cf. mirroring of letters b/d or p/q). According to W. No th, anti-symmetry is enantiomorphic mirror symmetry. A bilateral or translative symmetry pair or row can be made anti-symmetric by some (e.g., semantic) additional feature (No th 1994b: 98). As a parallel example, reference could be made to the sixteenth century old-Russian grammar, where all `Orthodox' languages were referred to as the one language (Lotman and Uspenskii 1971: 156).

3.

4.

5.

6. 7.

8. 9.

10.

11.

The anticulture phenomenon 199

12. Within the context of this conclusion, it is important to denote that also on the level of an intellectual procedure, we still have a semiosis which is mythologized (produces identity). The phenomenon occurs as is noted by A. Olrik in the form of stage duality and of twins in the `epic laws' of fairytales (Olrik 1909: 57). 13. The universality of the mirror mechanism in culture, space, and on the molecular level is emphasized by J. Lotman (1984: 20, 21). In the Tartu-Moscow semiotics school the mirror is termed `a semiotic machine for describing a foreign structure' (Redkollegiia 1988: 5). 14. A person's behavior is dependent on how he names himself. A person for example could announce: `I am not yet a scoundrel' (Lotman 1967). 15. A code is `a presentation of information in such a form which is suitable for the transmission of the message on a certain information channel' (Ivanov 1978: 130). . 16. It is said that G. Flaubert commented on Madame Bovary: `Emma that's me'. Tolstoi himself is said to have identied himself with Natasha from War and Peace.

References
Abramian, Levon A. (1981). Tipy simmetrii i chelovecheskoe obshchestvo (Symmetry types and human society). In Semiotika i problemy kommunikatsii, S. R. Vartazarian (ed.), 7788. Erevan: Izdatel'stvo AN Armianskoi SSR. (1983). Pervobytnyi prazdnik i mifologiia (Ancient Festive Days and Mythology). Erevan: Izdatel'stvo AN Armianskoi SSR. Bally, Charles (1932). Linguistique generale et linguistique franc aise. Paris: Ernest Leroux. Bickerton, Derek (1990). Language and Species. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. ENE (19681978). Eesti noukogude entsuklopeedia (Estonian Soviet Encyclopaedia), vols 19. Tallinn: Valgus. Engels, Friedrich (1934 [1883]). Der Ursprung der Familie des Privateigentums und des Staats: Im Anschluss an Lewis H. Morgans Forschungen. Moskau: Verlagsgenossenschaft Ausla ndischer Arbeiter in der UdSSR. Erikson, Erik H. (1966). Ontogeny of ritualization: Ritualization of behavior in animals and man. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, series B (251), 337349. Foucault, Michel (1994 [1966]). Le mots et les choses: Une archeologie des sciences humaines. Paris: Gallimard. Freud, Sigmund (1938 [1906]). Totem and taboo. In The Basic Writings of Sigmund Freud, A. A. Bril (trans. and ed.), 807930. New York: The Modern Library. Geertz, Cliord (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. New York: Basic Books. Gross, Toomas (1996). Moistmisest ja teisest antropoloogias (About understanding and the other in anthropology). Akadeemia 8, 17171737. Hall, James (1997). Slovar' siuzhetov i simvolov v iskusstve (Dictionary of Subjects and Symbols in Art), trans. by Aleksandr Maikapar. Moscow: Kron-Press. Iakimovich, Aleksandr K. (1998). Kul'tura 20 veka (20th century culture). In Kul'turologiia. XX vek (=Entsiklopediia 1), S. A. Levit (ed.), 339346. Sankt-Peterburg: Universitetskaia kniga Alteiia. Ivanov, Viacheslav (1973). On binary relations in linguistic and other semiotic systems. In Logic, Language and Probability, R. J. Bogdan and I. Niiniluoto (eds.), 196200. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.

200 P. Lepik
(1978). Chet i nechet. Asimmetriia mozga i znakovykh sistem (Even and Odd. Asymmetry of the Brain and Sign Systems). Moscow: Sovetskoe radio. Ivanov, Viacheslav V.; Lotman, Jurii M.; Piatigorskii, Aleksandr M.; Toporov, Vladimir N.; and Uspenskii, Boris A. (1998a [1973]). Theses on the Semiotic Study of Culture (=Tartu Semiotics Library 1). Tartu: Tartu University Press. (1998b [1973]). Kultuurisemiootika teesid (Theses on the Semiotic Study of Culture likooli Kirjastus. (=Tartu semiootika raamatukogu I). Tartu: Tartu U le linguistique en biologie. Critique 322, 197205. Jacob, Franc ois (1974). Le mode Jakobson, Roman (1971 [1967]). Da i net v mimike (Yes and no in facial expression). In Selected Writings, II: World and Language, R. Jakobson (ed.), 360 365. The Hague: Mouton. (1972 [1971]). Shiftery, glagol'nye kategorii i russkii glagol (Shifters, categories of verbs and the Russian verb). In Printsipy tipologicheskogo analiza iazykov razlichnogo stroia, B. A. Uspenskii (ed.), 95113. Moscow: Nauka. (1985a [1976]). Zvuk i znachenie (Sound and meaning). In Izbrannye raboty, V. A. Zvegintsev (ed.), 3091. Moscow: Progress. (1985b [1975]). The grammatical buildup of child language. In Selected Writings VIII: Contributions to Comparative Mythology. Studies in Linguistics and Philology 19721982, Stephen Rudy (ed.), 141147. Berlin: Mouton Publishers. Jung, Carl G. (1994 [1930]). Problemy dushi nashego vremeni (Spiritual Problems of Our Age), trans. by A. M. Bokovikov. Moscow: Univers. Kant, Immanuel (1902 [1790]). Immanuel Kant's Kritik der Urtheilskraft (=Philosophische Bibliothek 39). Leipzig: Verlag der Du rr'schen Buchhandlung. (1905 [1783]). Immanuel Kant's Prolegomena zu einer jeden kunftigen Metaphysik, die als Wissenschaft wird auftreten konnen (=Philosophische Bibliothek 40). Leipzig: Verlag der Du rr'schen Buchhandlung. Konstitusiia (Constitution) (1937). Konstitutsiia (Osnovnoi zakon) Soiuza Sovetskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik (Constitution of the USSR). Moscow: TsIk SSSR. Lacan, Jacques (1977 [1937]). The mirror stage as formative of the function of the I as crits, Alan Sheridan (trans.), 17. New York: revealed in psychoanalytic experience. In E W. W. Norton. Lenin, Vladimir I. (1948b [1913]). Kriticheskie zametki po natsional'nomu voprosu (Critical notes on nationalities issues). In Sochineniia 20, 134. Moscow: Institut Marksa-Engel'sa pri TSK VKP(b). (1950a [1920]). VIII Vserossiiskii s''ezd sovetov (8. All-Russian Soviet congress) 2229 dekabria 1920. In Sochineniia 31, 431500. Moscow: Institut Marksa-Engel'sa pri TSK VKP(b). (1950b [1920]). Zadachi soiuzov molodezhi (Tasks for the youth associations) (Rech' na III Vserossiiskom s''ezde Rossiiskogo kommunisticheskogo soiuza molodezhi 2 oktiabria 1920 g.). In Sochineniia 31, 258275. Moscow: Institut Marksa-Engel'sa pri TSK VKP(b). Levin, Jurii I. (1988). Zerkalo kak potentsial'nyi semioticheskii ob''ekt (The mirror as a potential semiotic object). In Trudy po znakovym sistemam XXII (=Acta et Commentationes Unicversitatis Tartuensis 831), Jurii M. Lotman (ed.), 6 24. Tartu: TGU. vi-Strauss, Claude (1967 [1958]). Structural Anthropology, trans. by Claire Jacobson Le and Brooke Grundfest Schoepf. New York: Anchor Books. Lotman, Jurii M. (1967). Semiotika lichnosti i obshchestva (Semiotics of the individual and society) [Manuscript of an unpublished lecture in possession of Peet Lepik.] (1969). O metaiazyke tipologicheskikh opisanii kul'tury (On the metalanguage of a typological description of culture). In Trudy po znakovym sistemam, IV (=Acta et

The anticulture phenomenon 201

Commentationes Universitatis Tartuensis 236), Jurii M. Lotman (ed.), 460 477. Tartu: TGU. (1970a). K probleme tipologii tekstov (Problem of typology of texts). In Materialy k kursu teorii literatury, 1: Stat'i po tipologii kul'tury, Mikhail L. Gasparov (ed.), 7885. Tartu: TGU. (1970b). Kul'tura i iazyk (Culture and language). In Materialy k kursu teoriii literatury, 1: Stat'i po tipologii kul'tury, Mikhail L. Gasparov (ed.), 611. Tartu: TGU. (1970c). O dvukh modeliakh kommunikatsii i ikh sootnoshenii v obshchei sisteme kul'tury (On two models of communication and their relationship in the common system of culture). In Tezisy dokladov IV letnei shkoly po vtorichnym modeliruiushchim sistemam 1724 avgusta 1970 g., Jurii M. Lotman (ed.), 163165. Tartu: TGU. (1970d). Struktura khudozhestvennoga teksta (The Structure of Artistic Text). Moscow: Iskusstro. (1973a). Znakovyi mekhanizm kul'tury (Sign mechanism of culture). In Sbornik statei po vtorichnym modeliruiushchim sistemam, Jurii M. Lotman (ed.), 195199. Tartu: TGU. (1973b). O dvukh modeliakh kommunikatsii v sisteme kul'tury (On the two models of communication in the system of culture). In Sbornik nauchnykh statei v chest' Mikhaila Mikhailovicha Bakhtina (k 75-letiiu so dnia rozhdenia): Trudy po znakovym sistemam VI (=Acta et Commentationes Unicversitatis Tartuensis 308), Jurii M. Lotman (ed.), 227 243. Tartu: TGU. (1977). Kul'tura kak kollektivnyi intellekt i problemy iskusstvennogo razuma (Culture as Collective Intellect and Problems of Articial Intelligence). Moscow: Akademiia nauk SSSR. (1984). O semiosfere (On the semiosphere). In Struktura dialoga kak printsip raboty semioticheskogo mekhanizma: Trudy po znakovym sistemam XVII (=Acta et Commentationes Unicversitatis Tartuensis 641), Jurii M. Lotman (ed.), 523. Tartu: TGU. (1990). Aju-tekst-kultuur-tehisintellekt (Brain-text-culture-articial intelligence). In Kultuurisemiootika: Tekst-kirjandus-kultuur, 394 410. Tallinn: Olion. (1994). Tezisy k semiotike russkoi kul'tury (Theses on the semiotics of russian culture) (Programma izucheniia russkoi kul'tury). In Ju.M. Lotman i Tartusko-moskovskaia semioticheskaia shkola, A. D. Koshelev (ed.), 407 416. Moscow: Gnozis. Lotman, Jurii M. and Piatigorskii, Aleksandr M. (1968). Tekst i funktsiia (Text and function). In III letniaia shkola po vtorichnym modeliruiushchim sistemam: Tezisy, Kiaeriku 1020 maia 1968, Jurii M. Lotman (ed.), 7488. Tartu: TGU. Lotman, Jurii M. and Uspenskii, Boris A. (1971). O semioticheskom mekhanizme kul'tury (On the semiotic mechanism of culture). In Trudy po znakovym sistemam, V: Pamiati Vladimira Iakovlevicha Proppa (=Acta et Commentationes Unicversitatis Tartuensis 284), Jurii M. Lotman (ed.), 144 166. Tartu: TGU. (1975). Spory o iazyke v nachale XIX v. kak fakt russkoi kul'tury (Disputes about language at the beginning of the 19th century as a fact of Russian culture) (`Puteshestvie v tsarstvie tenei, ili sud'bina rossiiskogo iazyka' neizvestnoe sochinenie Semena Bobrova): Publikatsiia, vstupitel'naia stat'ia i kommentarii. In Trudy po russkoi i slavianskoi lologii, XXIV. Lieraturovedenie (=Acta et Commentationes Unicversitatis Tartuensis 358), Boris M. Gasparov (ed.), 168322. Tartu: TGU. (1984). Author's Introduction. In Jurii M. Lotman and B. A. Uspenskii. The Semiotics of Russian Culture, Ann Shukman (ed.), IV. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. (1993 [1976]). Otzvuki kontseptsii `Moskva tretii Rim'v ideologii Petra Pervogo (Echoes of the notion `Moscow as the Third Rome' in Peter the Great's ideology) (K probleme srednevekovoi traditsii v kul'ture barokko). In Jurii M. Lotman, Izbrannye stat'i v trekh tomakh, III: Stat'i po istorii russkoi literatury. Teoriia i semiotika drugikh

202 P. Lepik
iskusstv. Mekhanizmy kultury. Melkie zametki, Nelli Abashina (ed.), 201212. Tallinn: Aleksandra. (1994 [1977]). Rol' dual'nykh modelei v dinamike russkoi kul'tury (Importance of dual models in the dynamics of Russian culture). In B. A. Uspenskii, Izbrannye trudy, I: Semiotika istorii, Semiotika kultury, A. D. Koshelev (ed.), 219253. Moscow: Gnozis. Lotman, Jurii M.; Uspenskii, Boris A.; Ivanov, Viacheslav V.; Toporov, Vladimir N.; and Piatigorskii, Aleksandr M. (1975 [1973]). Theses on the Semiotic Study of Culture. Lisse: The Peter de Ridder Press. leliidulise kommunistliku (bolshevike) partei ajalugu: Luhikursus. Lu hikursus (1951 [1938]). U (History of the All-Union Communist (Bolshevik) Party: Short Course) Tallinn: Eesti Riiklik Kirjastus. Maiakovskii, Vladimir (1956). Izbrannye proizvedeniia (Selected Works), ed. by V. Duvakin. Moscow: Izdatel'stvo detskoi literatury. konomie. Erstes Heft. In O konomische Marx, Karl (1980 [1859]). Zur Kritik der politischen O Manuskripte und Schriften 18581861. Text, Gu nter Heyden und Anatoli Jegorov (Red.), 95245. Berlin: Dietz Verlag. Meletinski, Eleazar (1976). Poetika mifa (Poetics of Myth). Moscow: Nauka. No th, Winfried (1994a). Opposition at the roots of semiosis. In Origins of Semiosis: Sign Evolution in Nature and Culture, W. No th (ed.), 37 60. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. (1994b). Symmetry in oral and written language. In Writing vs. Speaking: Language, Text, , F. Danesh and E. Havlova (eds.), 9110. Discourse, Communication, S. Chmejrkova Tu bingen: Narr. Olrik, Axel (1909). Epische Gesetze der Volksdichtung. Zeitschrift fur Deutsches Alternum 51, 112. Piatigorskii, Aleksandr (1992). `Drugoi' i `svoe' kak poniatiia literaturnoi losoi (The `other' and `own' as concepts of literary philosophy). In Sbornik statei k 70-letiiu prof. Jurii M. Lotmana, Ann Mal'ts (ed.), 39. Tartu: TGU. Porshnev, Boris F. (1979 [1966]). Sotsial'naia psikhologiia i istoriia (Social Psychology and History). Moscow: Nauka. Redkollegiia (Editorial board) (1988). K semiotike zerkala i zerkal'nosti (About semiotics of mirror and reection). In Zerkalo. Semiotika zerkal'nosti: Trudy po znakovym sistemam XXII (=Acta et Commentationes Unicversitatis Tartuensis 831), Zara G. Mints (ed.), 6 24. Tartu: TGU. Ricoeur, Paul (1986). Lectures on Ideology and Utopia, ed. by George H. Taylor. New York: Columbia University Press. Russell, James A. (1979). Aective space is bipolar. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37 (3), 345356. Saussure, Ferdinand de (1959 [1916]). Course in General Linguistics, trans. by Roy Harris. La Salle, II: Open Court. Sebeok, Thomas A. (1989). The notion `semiotic self ' revisted. In Semiotics 1988, T. Prewitt, J. Deely and K. Haworth (eds.), 189193. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Shils, Edward (1958). Ideology and civility: On the politics of the intellectual. The Sewanee Review 66, 450 480. Smith, Henrik (1976). The Russians. New York: Ballantine Books. Stalin, Iossif V. (1935 [1931]). O zadachakh khoziaistvennikov (Tasks of the economic people): Rech' na pervoi Vsesoiuznoi konferentsii rabotnikov sotsialisticheskoi promyshlennosti 4 fevralia 1931 g. In Voprosy leninizma, 439 447. Moscow: Partizdat TsK VKP (b).

The anticulture phenomenon 203

(1947 [1924]). Po povodu smerti Lenina (On the occasion of death of Lenin): Rech' na II Vsesoiuznom s''ezde Sovetov 26 ianvaria 1924 g. In Sochineniia 6, 46 51. Moscow: Gos. izdatel'stvo politicheskoi literatury. (1975). Topologiia i lingvistika (Topology and linguistics), trans. by Thom, Rene Iu I. Manin. Uspekhi matematicheskikh nauk 30 (1), 199 221. Undusk, Jaan (1994). Stalinismi mu rgid (The mystical and magical stilised ja maagilised ma signs of Stalinism): Juhan Smuuli `Poeem Stalinile' oma retoorilises u mbruses (Juhan Smuul's `Poem to Stalin' in its rhetorical context). Akadeemia 9, 1863 1889. Uspenskii, Boris A. (1994 [1985]). Anti-povedenie v kul'ture Drevnei Rusi (Anti-behavior in ancient Russian culture). In Izbrannye trudy, I: Semiotika istorii. Semiotika kultury, A. D. Koshelev (ed.), 320 332. Moscow: Gnozis. Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1996 [1921]). Tractatus logico-philosophicus. Tallinn: Ilmamaa. Peet Lepik (b. 1935) is Chair of Culture Theory and Assistant Professor at Tallinn Pedagogical University, Estonia npl@hot.eeo. His principal research interests include the legacy of Lotman and the Tartu-Moscow semiotic school and the semiosic structure of intellectual schemes in culture.