Expert explains Solzhenitsyn, Russia
A Q&A with Daniel J. Mahoney; "I think it is best to think not just of the Cold War but more deeply about the specific evil of the 20th Century"
Maxine D'Amico
Issue date: 9/18/08 Section: Guide to Hillsdale
Daniel J. Mahoney talked about two of his passions - the Cold War and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, the Russian writer, philosopher and historian who spent his life exposing the gulags and Soviet Union. Mahoney is a political science professor at Assumption University.
During this fall's CCA, he lectured on the life of Solzhenitsyn, who died Aug. 3.
The Collegian caught him for a short conversation:
Q: How did you first hear about Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn?
Daniel Mahoney: When I was a young man, Aleksandr Solzhenit-syn and Andrei Sakharov, the two great anti-Communist "dissidents" of the age, were household names. I first read Solzhenitsyn when I was 12 or 13.
If I remember correctly, I wrote my first paper on Solzhenitsyn in eighth grade, and I have always had a serious interest in his life and thought.
Solzhenitsyn has been an intellectual presence in my life for decades now.
Q: How has studying Solzhenitsyn changed your life?
DM: I would say Solzhenitsyn is not just a chronicler of the evils of ideology - or of the age of ideology - but someone whose writings illuminate the human condition, the never-ending drama of good and evil in the human soul. His writings illuminate the multiple ways in which the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. Solzhenitsyn reminds us that the most important things have to do with the human spirit.
Solzhenitsyn not only taught me much about what I know about the evils of totalitarianism but also how to think about the problem in a much deeper way.
Q: Has Russia's invading Georgia made it more important for Americans to study the Cold War?
DM: I really resist the idea that this conflict entails the return of the Cold War. The dispute over South Ossetia is largely a regional conflict, and there is enough blame to go around. I think the study of the Cold War is essential for understanding the 20th Century.
We are too quick to dismiss the past, but we can't understand the distinctiveness of our current situation if we don¹t make a serious effort to understand the past.
We are too quick to relegate even the recent past to the category of ancient history!
Q: How should the Cold War shape the worldview of Americans who have not lived during the Cold War?
DM: I think it is best to think not just of the Cold War but more deeply about the specific evil of the 20th Century ideological despotism or totalitarianism. At the root of the Cold War was an ideological conflict which we have already largely forgotten: to come to terms with the Cold War is to come to terms with the evil that is totalitarianism.
Totalitarianism serves as a reminder that in an age of technology, in an age of "progress," new and terrible evils can arise.
During this fall's CCA, he lectured on the life of Solzhenitsyn, who died Aug. 3.
The Collegian caught him for a short conversation:
Q: How did you first hear about Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn?
Daniel Mahoney: When I was a young man, Aleksandr Solzhenit-syn and Andrei Sakharov, the two great anti-Communist "dissidents" of the age, were household names. I first read Solzhenitsyn when I was 12 or 13.
If I remember correctly, I wrote my first paper on Solzhenitsyn in eighth grade, and I have always had a serious interest in his life and thought.
Solzhenitsyn has been an intellectual presence in my life for decades now.
Q: How has studying Solzhenitsyn changed your life?
DM: I would say Solzhenitsyn is not just a chronicler of the evils of ideology - or of the age of ideology - but someone whose writings illuminate the human condition, the never-ending drama of good and evil in the human soul. His writings illuminate the multiple ways in which the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. Solzhenitsyn reminds us that the most important things have to do with the human spirit.
Solzhenitsyn not only taught me much about what I know about the evils of totalitarianism but also how to think about the problem in a much deeper way.
Q: Has Russia's invading Georgia made it more important for Americans to study the Cold War?
DM: I really resist the idea that this conflict entails the return of the Cold War. The dispute over South Ossetia is largely a regional conflict, and there is enough blame to go around. I think the study of the Cold War is essential for understanding the 20th Century.
We are too quick to dismiss the past, but we can't understand the distinctiveness of our current situation if we don¹t make a serious effort to understand the past.
We are too quick to relegate even the recent past to the category of ancient history!
Q: How should the Cold War shape the worldview of Americans who have not lived during the Cold War?
DM: I think it is best to think not just of the Cold War but more deeply about the specific evil of the 20th Century ideological despotism or totalitarianism. At the root of the Cold War was an ideological conflict which we have already largely forgotten: to come to terms with the Cold War is to come to terms with the evil that is totalitarianism.
Totalitarianism serves as a reminder that in an age of technology, in an age of "progress," new and terrible evils can arise.
Be the first to comment on this story