Thaw" in spiritual life. Development of science and education. “Thaw” and the spiritual life of society

The “warm wind of change” that blew from the rostrum of the 20th Congress of the CPSU in February 1956 dramatically changed the lives of Soviet people. Exact characteristics The writer Ilya Grigorievich Erenburg gave the Khrushchev era a name, calling it the “thaw.” His novel with the symbolic title “The Thaw” posed a whole series of questions: what should be said about the past, what is the mission of the intelligentsia, what should be its relationship with the party.

In the second half of the 1950s. society was overwhelmed by a feeling of delight from sudden freedom, the people themselves did not fully understand this new thing and, undoubtedly, sincere feeling. It was the lack of agreement that gave it a special charm. This feeling dominated in one of the characteristic films of those years - “I Walk Through Moscow”... (Nikita Mikhalkov in the title role, this is one of his first roles). And the song from the film became a hymn to vague delight: “Everything in the world happens well, but you don’t immediately understand what’s going on...”.

The “Thaw” affected, first of all, literature. New magazines appeared: “Youth”, “Young Guard”, “Moscow”, “Our Contemporary”. The magazine “ New world", headed by A.T. Tvardovsky. It was here that the story of A.I. was published. Solzhenitsyn "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich." Solzhenitsyn became one of the “dissidents,” as they were later called (dissidents). His writings presented a true picture of the labor, suffering and heroism of the Soviet people.

The rehabilitation of writers S. Yesenin, M. Bulgakov, A. Akhmatova, M. Zoshchenko, O. Mandelstam, B. Pilnyak and others began. Soviet people began to read more and think more. It was then that the statement appeared that the USSR was the most reading country in the world. A mass passion for poetry became a lifestyle; performances by poets took place in stadiums and huge halls. Perhaps, after the “Silver Age” of Russian poetry, interest in it did not rise as high as in the “Khrushchev decade”. For example, E. Yevtushenko, according to contemporaries, performed 250 times a year. The second idol of the reading public was A. Voznesensky.

The “Iron Curtain” to the West began to open. Works began to be published in magazines foreign writers E. Hemingway, E.-M. Remarque, T. Dreiser, J. London and others (E. Zola, V. Hugo, O. de Balzac, S. Zweig).

Remarque and Hemingway influenced not only the minds, but also the lifestyle of certain groups of the population, especially young people, who tried to copy Western fashion and behavior. Lines from the song: “... He wore tight trousers, read Hemingway...”. This is the image of a dude: a young man in tight trousers, long-toed boots, bent in a strange pretentious pose, imitating Western rock and roll, twist, neck, etc.

The process of the “thaw”, the liberalization of literature, was not unambiguous, and this was characteristic of the entire life of society during Khrushchev’s time. Such writers as B. Pasternak (for the novel “Doctor Zhivago”), V.D. remained banned. Dudintsev (“Not by Bread Alone”), D. Granin, A. Voznesensky, I. Erenburg, V.P. Nekrasov. The attacks on writers were associated not so much with criticism of their works, but with changes in the political situation, i.e. with the curtailment of political and social freedoms. At the end of the 1950s. The decline of the “thaw” began in all spheres of society. Among the intelligentsia, voices against N.S.’s policies were becoming increasingly louder. Khrushchev.

Boris Pasternak worked for many years on a novel about the revolution and civil war. Poems from this novel were published back in 1947. But he was unable to publish the novel itself, because the censors saw in it a departure from “socialist realism.” The manuscript of Doctor Zhivago went abroad and was published in Italy. In 1958, Pasternak was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature for this novel, which was not published in the USSR. This caused unequivocal condemnation from Khrushchev and the party. A campaign of flagellation against Pasternak began. He was expelled from the Writers' Union. Almost all writers were forced to join this campaign, subjecting Pasternak to insults. The defamation of Pasternak reflected the party's attempts to maintain complete control over society, not allowing any dissent. Pasternak himself wrote a poem during these days that became famous years later:

What did I dare to mess up?

Am I a dirty trickster and a villain?

I made the whole world cry over the beauty of my land.

Society of the Khrushchev period changed noticeably. People began to visit more often; they “missed communication, missed the opportunity to talk loudly about everything that was bothering them.” After 10 days of fear, when conversations even in a narrow and seemingly confidential circle could and did end in camps and executions, the opportunity arose to talk and communicate. A new phenomenon has become heated debates in the workplace after the end of the working day, in small cafes. “... Cafes have become like aquariums - with glass walls for everyone to see. And instead of solid... [titles], the country was strewn with frivolous “Smiles”, “Minutes”, “Veterki”. In the “glasses” they talked about politics and art, sports and matters of the heart. Communication also took organized forms in palaces and cultural centers, the number of which increased. Oral journals, debates, discussions of literary works, films and performances - these forms of communication have become noticeably livelier compared to previous years, and the statements of the participants were distinguished by a certain degree of freedom. “Associations of interests” began to emerge - clubs of philatelists, scuba divers, book lovers, florists, lovers of songs, jazz music, etc.

The most unusual for Soviet times were international friendship clubs, also the brainchild of the Thaw. In 1957, the VI World Festival of Youth and Students was held in Moscow. It led to the establishment of friendly contacts between the youth of the USSR and other countries. Since 1958, they began to celebrate the Day of Soviet Youth.

A characteristic touch " Khrushchev's thaw"was the development of satire. The audience enthusiastically received the performances of clowns Oleg Popov, Tarapunka and Shtepsel, Arkady Raikin, M.V. Mironova and A.S. Menakera, P.V. Rudakov and V.P. Nechaeva. The country excitedly repeated Raikin’s words “I’m already laughing!” and “It’s done!”

Television was part of people's lives. Televisions were a rarity; they were watched together with friends, acquaintances, neighbors, and lively discussed programs. The game KVN, which appeared in 1961, gained incredible popularity. This game itself in the 1960s. has become a general epidemic. KVN was played by everyone and everywhere: schoolchildren of junior and senior classes, students of technical schools and students, workers and office workers; in schools and red corners of dormitories, in student clubs and palaces of culture, in rest homes and sanatoriums.

In the art of cinema, the policy of filming only undisputed masterpieces was removed. In 1951, the stagnation in cinema became especially noticeable - only 6 full-length feature films were shot during the year. Subsequently, new talented actors began to appear on the screens. Viewers were introduced to such outstanding works as “Quiet Don”, “The Cranes Are Flying”, “The House Where I Live”, “The Idiot”, etc. In 1958, film studios released 102 films. film (“Carnival Night” with I.I. Ilyinsky and L.M. Gurchenko, “Amphibian Man” with A. Vertinskaya, “Hussar Ballad” with Yu.V. Yakovlev and L.I. Golubkina, “Dog Barbos and the Extraordinary cross" and "Moonshiners" by L.I. Gaidai). A high tradition of intellectual cinema was established, which was picked up in the 1960s and 1970s. Many masters of domestic cinema have received wide international recognition (G. Chukhrai, M. Kalatazov, S. Bondarchuk, A. Tarkovsky, N. Mikhalkov, etc.).

Cinemas began to show Polish, Italian (Federico Fellini), French, German, Indian, Hungarian, and Egyptian films. For the Soviet people it was a breath of new, fresh Western life.

The general approach to the cultural environment was contradictory: it was distinguished by the previous desire to put it in the service of the administrative-command ideology. Khrushchev himself sought to attract wide circles of the intelligentsia to his side, but considered them as “automatic machine gunners of the party,” as he directly said in one of his speeches (i.e., the intelligentsia had to work for the needs of the party). Already since the late 1950s. The control of the party apparatus over the activities of the artistic intelligentsia began to increase. At meetings with its representatives, Khrushchev mentored writers and artists in a fatherly manner, telling them how to work. Although he himself had little understanding of cultural issues, he had average tastes. All this gave rise to distrust of the party's policy in the field of culture.

Opposition sentiments intensified, primarily among the intelligentsia. Representatives of the opposition considered it necessary to carry out a more decisive de-Stalinization than was envisaged by the authorities. The party could not help but react to public performance oppositionists: “soft repressions” were applied to them (exclusion from the party, dismissal from work, deprivation of capital registration, etc.).

The Khrushchev Thaw period is the conventional name for a period in history that lasted from the mid-1950s to the mid-1960s. A feature of the period was a partial retreat from the totalitarian policies of the Stalin era. The Khrushchev Thaw is the first attempt to understand the consequences of the Stalinist regime, which revealed the features of the socio-political policy of the Stalin era. The main event of this period is considered to be the 20th Congress of the CPSU, which criticized and condemned Stalin’s personality cult and criticized the implementation of repressive policies. February 1956 marked the beginning of a new era, which aimed to change social and political life, change the domestic and foreign policies of the state.

Events of the Khrushchev Thaw

The period of the Khrushchev Thaw is characterized by the following events:

• The process of rehabilitation of victims of repression began, the innocently convicted population was granted amnesty, and relatives of “enemies of the people” became innocent.
• The republics of the USSR received more political and legal rights.
• The year 1957 was marked by the return of Chechens and Balkars to their lands, from which they were evicted during Stalin's time due to accusations of treason. But such a decision did not apply to the Volga Germans and Crimean Tatars.
• Also, 1957 is famous for the International Festival of Youth and Students, which in turn speaks of the “opening of the Iron Curtain” and the easing of censorship.
• The result of these processes is the emergence of new public organizations. Trade union bodies are undergoing reorganization: the staff of the top level of the trade union system has been reduced, and the rights of primary organizations have been expanded.
• Passports were issued to people living in villages and collective farms.
• Rapid development of light industry and agriculture.
• Active construction of cities.
• Improving the standard of living of the population.

One of the main achievements of the policy of 1953 - 1964. there was the implementation of social reforms, which included solving the issue of pensions, increasing incomes of the population, solving the housing problem, and introducing a five-day week. The Khrushchev Thaw was a difficult time in history. Soviet state. In such a short time (10 years), many transformations and innovations have been carried out. The most important achievement was the exposure of the crimes of the Stalinist system, the population discovered the consequences of totalitarianism.

Results

So, the policy of the Khrushchev Thaw was superficial and did not affect the foundations of the totalitarian system. The dominant one-party system was preserved using the ideas of Marxism-Leninism. Nikita Sergeevich Khrushchev did not intend to carry out complete de-Stalinization, because it meant admitting his own crimes. And since it was not possible to completely renounce Stalin’s time, Khrushchev’s transformations did not take root for long. In 1964, a conspiracy against Khrushchev matured, and from this period a new era in history began Soviet Union.

The period of some weakening of strict ideological control over the sphere of culture and changes in domestic and foreign policy that began after the death of Stalin entered into national history called "thaw". The concept of "thaw" is widely used as a metaphor to describe the nature of changes in the spiritual climate Soviet society after March 1953. In the fall of this year, the magazine “New World” published an article by critic V. Pomerantsev “On Sincerity in Literature,” which spoke of the need to put man at the center of attention in literature, “to raise the true theme of life, to introduce conflicts into novels.” that occupy people in everyday life." In 1954, as if in response to these thoughts, the magazine published a story by I.G. Ehrenburg’s “Thaw”, which gave its name to a whole period in the political and cultural life of the country.

Khrushchev's report at the 20th Congress of the CPSU made a stunning impression on the whole country. He marked the boundary in the spiritual life of Soviet society for the period “before” and “after” the 20th Congress, divided people into supporters and opponents of the consistent exposure of the cult of personality, into “renovationists” and “conservatives”. The criticism formulated by Khrushchev was perceived by many as a signal to rethink the previous stage of national history.

After the 20th Congress, direct ideological pressure on the cultural sphere from the party leadership began to weaken. The “thaw” period covered about ten years, but the processes mentioned above occurred with varying degrees of intensity and were marked by numerous retreats from the liberalization of the regime (the first occurred in the autumn of the same 1956, when Soviet troops suppressed the uprising in Hungary). A harbinger of change was the return from camps and exile of thousands of repressed people who had lived to see this day. Mention of Stalin's name has almost disappeared from the press, numerous images of him from public places, and his works published in huge editions from bookstores and libraries. The renaming of cities, collective farms, factories, and streets began. However, the exposure of the cult of personality raised the problem of responsibility of the new leadership of the country, which was the direct successor of the previous regime, for the deaths of people and for abuses of power. The question of how to live with the burden of responsibility for the past and how to change life, not to allow a repetition of the tragedy of mass repression, enormous deprivation and strict dictatorship over all spheres of people's lives, has become the focus of attention of the thinking part of society. A.T. Tvardovsky, in his confessional poem “about time and about himself,” “By the Right of Memory,” published in the Soviet Union only during the years of perestroika, on behalf of the generation, shared these painful thoughts:

Children became fathers long ago, But we were all responsible for the universal father, And the trial lasts for decades, And there is no end in sight. The literary platform in the USSR largely replaced free political debate, and in the absence of freedom of speech, literary works found themselves at the center of public discussions. During the “thaw” years, a large and interested readership formed in the country, declaring its right to independent assessments and to choose likes and dislikes. The publication of the novel by V.D. in the pages of the magazine “New World” caused a wide response. Dudintsev “Not by Bread Alone” (1956) - books with a living, not stilted hero, a bearer of progressive views, a fighter against conservatism and inertia. In 1960-1965 I.G. Ehrenburg publishes in Novy Mir, with interruptions and large cuts made by censorship, a book of memoirs, People, Years, Life. She returned the names of figures from the era of the “Russian avant-garde” and the world of Western culture of the 1920s, which had been consigned to official oblivion. A big event was the publication in 1962 on the pages of the same magazine of the story “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich,” where A.I. Solzhenitsyn, based on his own camp experience, reflected on the victims of Stalin’s repressions.

The appearance of the first work of fiction about camp life in the open press was a political decision. The top 150 leadership that authorized the publication (the story was published by order of Khrushchev) recognized not only the very fact of repression, but also the need for attention to this tragic page of Soviet life, which had not yet become history. Two subsequent works by Solzhenitsyn (“Matrenin Dvor” and “An Incident at Krechetovka Station”, 1963) secured the magazine, which was headed by Tvardovsky, a reputation as a center of attraction for supporters of democratic endeavors. The magazine “October” found itself in the camp of critics of the “thaw” literature (since 1961), which became the mouthpiece of conservative political views. Supporters of an appeal to national origins and traditional values ​​were grouped around the magazines “Znamya” and “Young Guard”. Such

searches noted the work of the writer V.A. Soloukhin (“Vladimir Country Roads”, 1957) and the artist I.S. Glazunov, who at that time became a famous illustrator of Russian classics. Disputes around the problems of literature, theater and cinema were a mirror of the prevailing mood in society. The confrontation between cultural figures grouped around the magazines indirectly reflected the struggle of opinions in the country’s leadership regarding the ways of its further development.

“Thaw” prose and drama paid increasing attention to the inner world and private life of a person. At the turn of the 1960s. On the pages of “thick” magazines, which had a multi-million readership, works by young writers about their young contemporaries began to appear. At the same time, there is a clear division into “village” (V.I. Belov, V.G. Rasputin, F.A. Abramov, early V.M. Shukshin) and “urban” (Yu.V. Trifonov, V.V. Lipatov) prose. Another important theme of art was reflections on a person’s perception of the world in war, on the cost of victory. The authors of such works were people who went through the war and reinterpreted this experience from the perspective of people who were in the thick of events (that’s why this literature is often called “lieutenant’s prose”). Yu.V. writes about the war. Bondarev, K.D. Vorobiev, V.V. Bykov, B.L. Vasiliev, G.Ya. Baklanov. K.M. Simonov creates the trilogy “The Living and the Dead” (1959-1971).

The best films of the first years of the “Thaw” also show the “human face” of war (“The Cranes Are Flying” based on the play “Forever Living” by V.S. Rozov, directed by M.K. Kalatozov, “Ballad of a Soldier”, directed by G.N. Chukhrai, “The Fate of a Man” based on the story by M.A. Sholokhov, directed by S.F. Bondarchuk).

However, the attention of the authorities to the literary and artistic process as a mirror of public sentiment did not weaken. Censorship carefully searched for and destroyed any manifestations of dissent. During these years V.S. Grossman, the author of “Stalingrad Sketches” and the novel “For a Just Cause,” is working on the epic “Life and Fate” - about the fate, sacrifices and tragedy of a people plunged into war. In 1960, the manuscript was rejected by the editors of the Znamya magazine and confiscated from the author by state security agencies; According to the two copies preserved in the lists, the novel was published in the USSR only during the years of perestroika. Summing up the battle on the Volga, the author speaks of “the fragility and fragility of human existence” and the “value human personality", which "was outlined in all its power." The philosophy and artistic means of Grossman’s dilogy (the novel “Life and Fate” was preceded by the novel “For a Just Cause,” published in 1952) are close to Tolstoy’s “War and Peace.” According to Grossman, battles are won by generals, but wars are won only by the people.

“The Battle of Stalingrad determined the outcome of the war, but the silent dispute between the victorious people and the victorious state continued. The fate of a person, his freedom depended on this dispute,” wrote the author of the novel.

At the end of the 1950s. literary samizdat arose. This was the name of the editions of uncensored works of translated foreign and domestic authors. Through samizdat, a small part of the reading public had the opportunity to get acquainted with works of both famous and young authors that were not accepted for official publication. Poems by M.I. were distributed in samizdat copies. Tsvetaeva, A.A. Akhmatova, N.S. Gumilyov, young modern poets.

Another source of acquaintance with uncensored creativity was “tamizdat” - works of domestic authors published abroad, which then returned through a roundabout route to their homeland to their readers. This is exactly what happened with the novel by B.L. Pasternak's "Doctor Zhivago", which since 1958 has been distributed in samizdat lists to a narrow circle of interested readers. In the USSR, the novel was being prepared for publication in Novy Mir, but the book was banned as

“imbued with the spirit of rejection of the socialist revolution.” At the center of the novel, which Pasternak considered his life's work, is the fate of the intelligentsia in the whirlwind of events of revolutions and Civil War. The writer, in his words, wanted to “give a historical image of Russia over the last forty-five years,” to express his views “on art, on the Gospel, on human life in history and on much more.”

After the award of B.L. Pasternak was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1958 “for outstanding services in modern lyric poetry and in the traditional field of great Russian prose,” a campaign to persecute the writer was launched in the USSR. At the same time, Khrushchev, as he later admitted, did not read the novel itself, just as the vast majority of indignant “readers” did not read it, since the book was inaccessible to a wide audience. A flood of letters poured into the authorities and the press condemning the writer and calling for him to be deprived of Soviet citizenship; Active participation Many writers also took part in this campaign. Pasternak was expelled from the USSR Writers' Union.

The writer categorically rejected the authorities’ demands to leave the country, but was forced to refuse the award. The destruction of the novel, organized by conservative forces in the top party leadership, was supposed to clearly indicate the boundaries of “permissible” creativity. 153 “Doctor Zhivago” gained worldwide fame, and the “Pasternak case” and the new tightening of censorship marked the “beginning of the end” for expectations of political liberalization and became evidence of the fragility and reversibility of the changes that seemed to have emerged after the 20th Congress in the relations between the authorities and the creative intelligentsia.

During these years, it became a practice to hold meetings between party and state leaders and representatives of the intelligentsia. Essentially, in public policy Little has changed in the management of culture, and Khrushchev at one of these meetings did not fail to note that in matters of art he was a “Stalinist.” “Moral support for the construction of communism” was considered as the main task of artistic creativity. A circle of writers and artists close to the authorities was identified; they occupied leading positions in creative unions. Means of direct pressure on cultural figures were also used. During the anniversary exhibition of the Moscow organization of the Union of Artists in December 1962, Khrushchev made harsh attacks on young painters and sculptors who worked outside the “understandable” realistic canons. After the Caribbean crisis, the top party leadership considered it necessary to once again emphasize the impossibility of peaceful coexistence of socialist and bourgeois ideology and point out the role that was assigned to culture in educating the “builder of communism” after the adoption of the new CPSU program.

A campaign of criticism of “ideologically alien influences” and “individualistic tyranny” was launched in the press.

Particular importance was attached to these measures also because new artistic trends penetrated into the Soviet Union from the West, and along with them, ideas that were opposed to the official ideology, including political ones. The authorities simply had to take control of this process. In 1955, the first issue of the journal “Foreign Literature” was published, publishing the works of “progressive” foreign authors. In 1956

154 an exhibition of paintings by P. Picasso took place in Moscow and Leningrad - for the first time in the USSR paintings by one of the most famous artists of the 20th century were shown. In 1957, the VI World Festival of Youth and Students was held in Moscow. The first acquaintance of Soviet youth with the youth culture of the West and foreign fashion took place. Within the framework of the festival, exhibitions of contemporary Western art, practically unknown in the USSR, were organized. In 1958, the first international competition them. P.I. Tchaikovsky. The victory of the young American pianist Van Cliburn became one of the landmark events of the Thaw.

In the Soviet Union itself, unofficial art was born. Groups of artists appeared who tried to move away from the rigid canons of socialist realism. One of these groups worked in the creative studio of E.M. Belutin’s “New Reality”, and it was the artists of this studio who came under fire from Khrushchev’s criticism at the exhibition of the Moscow Union of Artists (along with representatives of the “left wing” of this organization and the sculptor E. Neizvestny).

Another group united artists and poets who gathered in an apartment in the Moscow suburb of Lianozovo. Representatives of “unofficial art” worked in Tarusa, a town located more than 100 km from the capital, where some representatives of the creative intelligentsia returning from exile settled. Harsh criticism for the notorious “formalism” and “lack of ideas”, which unfolded in the press after the scandal at the exhibition in Manege in 1962, drove these artists “underground” - into apartments (hence the phenomenon of “apartment exhibitions” and the name “other art” - underground from the English Underground - dungeon).

Although the audience of samizdat and “other art” was mainly a limited circle of representatives of creative professions (humanitarian, scientific and technical intelligentsia, a small part of students), the influence of these “swallows of the thaw” on the spiritual climate of Soviet society cannot be underestimated. An alternative to official censored art emerged and began to grow stronger, and the individual’s right to free creative exploration was asserted. The reaction of the authorities mainly boiled down to harsh criticism and to the “excommunication” of those who came under criticism from the audience of readers, viewers and listeners. But there were serious exceptions to this rule: in 1964, a trial took place against the poet I.A. Brodsky, accused of “parasitism”, as a result of which he was sent into exile.

Most socially active representatives of creative youth were far from open opposition to the existing government. The belief remained widespread that the logic of the historical development of the Soviet Union required an unconditional rejection of Stalinist methods of political leadership and a return to the ideals of the revolution, to the consistent implementation of the principles of socialism (although, of course, there was no unanimity among supporters of such views, and many considered Stalin to be Lenin's direct political heir). Representatives of the new generation who shared such sentiments are usually called the sixties. The term first appeared in the title of an article by S. Rassadin about young writers, their heroes and readers, published in the magazine Yunost in December 1960. The people of the sixties were united by a heightened sense of responsibility for the fate of the country and a conviction in the possibility of updating the Soviet political system. These sentiments are reflected in the painting of the so-called harsh style - in the works of young artists about the working life of their contemporaries, which are distinguished by a restrained color scheme, close-ups, monumental images (V.E. Popkov, N.I. Andronov, T.T. Salakhov, etc.), in theatrical productions young groups “Sovremennik” and “Taganka” and especially in poetry.

Entered into adult life The first post-war generation considered itself a generation of pioneers, conquerors of unknown heights. Poetry with a major sound and vivid metaphors turned out to be the “co-author of the era,” and the young poets themselves (E.A. Evtushenko, A.A. Voznesensky, R.I. Rozhdestvensky, B.A. Akhmadulina) were the same age as their first readers. They energetically and assertively addressed their contemporaries and contemporary topics. The poems seemed meant to be read aloud. They were read aloud - in student classrooms, in libraries, in stadiums. Poetry evenings at the Polytechnic Museum in Moscow collected full halls, and 14 thousand people came to poetry readings at the Luzhniki stadium in 1962.

The keen interest of the youth audience in the poetic word determined the spiritual atmosphere at the turn of the 1960s. The heyday of “singing poetry” - author's songwriting - has begun. The trusting intonations of the singer-songwriters reflected the desire of the new generation for communication, openness, and sincerity. Audience B.Sh. Okudzhava, Yu.I. Vizbora, Yu.Ch. Kima, A.A. Galich were young “physicists” and “lyricists” who fiercely argued about the problems of scientific and technological progress and humanistic values ​​that worried everyone. From the point of view of official culture, the original song did not exist. Song evenings took place, as a rule, in apartments, in nature, in friendly companies of like-minded people. Such communication became a characteristic feature of the sixties.

Free communication spilled out beyond the confines of a cramped city apartment. The road became an eloquent symbol of the era. It seemed that the whole country was in motion. We went to virgin lands, to construction sites of the seven-year plan, on expeditions and geological exploration parties. The work of those who discover the unknown and conquer heights - virgin land workers, geologists, pilots, cosmonauts, builders - was perceived as a feat that has a place in peaceful life.

We went and just traveled, went on long and short hikes, preferring hard-to-reach places - taiga, tundra or mountains. The road was perceived as a space of freedom of spirit, freedom of communication, freedom of choice, not constrained, to paraphrase a popular song of those years, by everyday worries and everyday vanity.

But in the dispute between the “physicists” and the “lyricists,” victory, it seemed, remained with those who represented scientific and technological progress. The years of the “thaw” were marked by breakthroughs in domestic science and outstanding achievements of design thought.

It is no coincidence that science fiction became one of the most popular literary genres during this period. The profession of a scientist was shrouded in the romance of heroic achievements for the benefit of the country and humanity. Selfless service to science, talent and youth responded to the spirit of the times, the image of which was captured in the film about young physicists “Nine Days of One Year” (dir. M.M. Romm, 1961). The heroes of D.A. became an example of life’s burning. Granina. His novel Walking into a Storm (1962), about young physicists researching atmospheric electricity, was very popular. Cybernetics was “rehabilitated”. Soviet scientists (L.D. Landau, P.A. Cherenkov, I.M. Frank and I.E. Tamm, N.G. Basov and A.M. Prokhorov) received three Nobel Prizes in physics, which indicated recognition the contribution of Soviet science to the world at the most advanced frontiers of research.

New scientific centers appeared - Novosibirsk Academgorodok, Dubna, where the Institute of Nuclear Research worked, Protvino, Obninsk and Troitsk (physics), Zelenograd (computer technology), Pushchino and Obolensk ( biological sciences). Thousands of young engineers and designers lived and worked in science cities. Scientific and social life was in full swing here. Exhibitions were held, concerts of original songs were staged that were not released on general public studio performances.

Overcoming Stalinism in literature and art.

The first post-Stalin decade was marked by serious changes in the spiritual life of society. The famous Soviet writer I. Ehrenburg called this period the “thaw” that came after the long and harsh Stalinist “winter”. And at the same time, it was not “spring” with its full-flowing and free “spill” of thoughts and feelings, but rather a “thaw”, which could again be followed by a “light frost”.

Representatives of literature were the first to respond to the changes that began in society. Even before the XX Congress CPSU works appeared that marked the birth of a new direction in Soviet literature - renovationism. One of the first such works was V. Pomerantsev’s article “On Sincerity in Literature,” published in 1953 in Novy Mir, where he raised the question that “writing honestly means not thinking about the facial expressions of tall and short readers.” " The question of the vital necessity of the existence of various literary schools and movements was also raised here.

New World published articles written in a new key by V. Ovechkin, F. Abramov, M. Lifshits, as well as the widely known works of I. Ehrenburg (“The Thaw”), V. Panova (“Seasons”), F. Panferova (“Volga-Mother River”) and others. In them, the authors moved away from varnishing real life of people. For the first time, the question was raised about the destructiveness of the atmosphere that had developed in the country for the intelligentsia. However, the authorities recognized the publication of these works as “harmful” and removed A. Tvardovsky from the management of the magazine.

Life itself raised the question of the need to change the leadership style of the Writers' Union and its relations with the CPSU Central Committee. A. Fadeev’s attempts to achieve this led to his disgrace and then his death. In his suicide letter, he noted that art was “ruined by the self-confident and ignorant leadership of the party,” and writers, even the most recognized ones, were reduced to the status of boys, destroyed, “ideologically scolded and called it partisanship.” V. Dudintsev (“Not by Bread Alone”), D. Granin (“Seekers”), E. Dorosh (“Village Diary”) spoke about this in their works.

The inability to act by repressive methods forced the party leadership to look for new methods of influencing the intelligentsia. Since 1957, meetings between the leadership of the Central Committee and literary and artistic figures have become regular. The personal tastes of N. S. Khrushchev, who made numerous speeches at these meetings, acquired the character of official assessments. Such unceremonious intervention did not find support not only among the majority of the participants in these meetings and among the intelligentsia in general, but also among the broadest sections of the population.

After the 20th Congress of the CPSU, ideological pressure was somewhat weakened in the field of musical art, painting, and cinematography. Responsibility for the “excesses” of previous years was assigned to Stalin, Beria, Zhdanov, Molotov, Malenkov and others.

In May 1958, the Central Committee of the CPSU issued a resolution “On correcting errors in the evaluation of the operas “Great Friendship”, “Bogdan Khmelnitsky” and “From the Heart”, which recognized the previous assessments of D. Shostakovich, S. Prokofiev, A. as unsubstantiated and unfair. Khachaturyan, V. Shebalin, G. Popov, N. Myaskovsky and others.
At the same time, in response to calls among the intelligentsia to repeal other decisions of the 40s. on ideological issues it was stated that they “played a huge role in the development of artistic creativity along the path of socialist realism” and in their “main content they retain relevant significance.” This indicated that the policy of the “thaw” in spiritual life had well-defined boundaries. Speaking about them at one of the meetings with writers, Khrushchev said that what had been achieved in last years“does not mean at all that now, after the condemnation of the cult of personality, the time has come for gravity... The Party has pursued and will consistently and firmly pursue... the Leninist course, irreconcilably opposing any ideological vacillations.”

One of the striking examples of the permissible limits of the “thaw” in spiritual life was the “Pasternak case.” The publication in the West of his novel Doctor Zhivago, banned by the authorities, and the awarding of the Nobel Prize to him put the writer literally outside the law. In October 1958, he was expelled from the Writers' Union and forced to refuse the Nobel Prize to avoid deportation from the country.

A real shock for many people was the publication of A. I. Solzhenitsyn’s works “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich”, “Matrenin’s Dvor”, full height posed the problem of overcoming the Stalinist legacy in Everyday life Soviet people. In an effort to prevent the massive nature of anti-Stalinist publications, which affected not only Stalinism, but also the entire totalitarian system, Khrushchev in his speeches drew the writer’s attention to the fact that “this is very dangerous topic and difficult material” and must be dealt with “with a sense of proportion.” Official “limiters” also operated in other spheres of culture. Not only writers and poets (A. Voznesensky, D. Granin, V. Dudintsev, E. Evtushenko, S. Kirsanov) were regularly subjected to sharp criticism for “ideological dubiousness”, “underestimation of the leading role of the party”, “formalism”, etc. , K. Paustovsky, etc.), but also sculptors, artists, directors (E. Neizvestny, R. Falk, M. Khutsiev), philosophers, historians.
Nevertheless, during these years, many literary works appeared (“The Fate of a Man” by M. Sholokhov, “Silence” by Yu. Bondarev), films (“The Cranes Are Flying” by M. Kalatozov, “ Clear sky"G. Chukhrai), paintings that received national recognition precisely because of their life-affirming power and optimism, based on the new course of the Soviet leadership.

Development of science.

Party directives stimulated the development of domestic science. In 1956, the International Research Center in Dubna (Joint Institute for Nuclear Research) was created. In 1957, the Siberian Branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences was formed with a wide network of institutes and laboratories. Other scientific centers were also created. Only in the system of the USSR Academy of Sciences for 1956 - 1958. 48 new research institutes were organized. Their geography has also expanded (Urals, Kola Peninsula, Karelia, Yakutia). By 1959, there were about 3,200 scientific institutions in the country. The number of scientific workers in the country was approaching 300 thousand. biggest achievements domestic science of this time can be attributed to the creation of the most powerful synchrophasotron in the world (1957); launching of the world's first nuclear icebreaker "Lenin"; first launch into space artificial satellite Earth (October 4, 1957); sending animals into space (November 1957); satellite flights to the Moon; first manned space flight (April 12, 1961); launch of the world's first jet passenger airliner Tu-104; creation of high-speed passenger hydrofoil ships (“Raketa”), etc. Work in the field of genetics was resumed. As before, priority is scientific developments was given over to the interests of the military-industrial complex. Not only the country's largest scientists (S. Korolev, M. Keldysh, A. Tupolev, V. Chelomey, A. Sakharov, I. Kurchatov, etc.), but also Soviet intelligence worked for his needs. Even space program was only an “addendum” to the program for creating means of delivering nuclear weapons.

Thus, the scientific and technological achievements of the “Khrushchev era” laid the foundation for achieving military-strategic parity with USA.

Development of education.

Formed in the 30s. the educational system needed updating. It had to correspond to the prospects for the development of science and technology, new technologies, and changes in the social and humanitarian sphere.

However, this was in conflict with the official policy of continuing extensive economic development, which required hundreds of thousands of new workers every year to employ thousands of enterprises being built throughout the country.

Education reform was largely conceived to solve this problem.

In December 1958, a law was adopted on its new structure, according to which, instead of a seven-year school, a compulsory eight-year polytechnic school was created. Young people received secondary education by graduating from either a school for working (rural) youth without leaving work, or technical schools that operated on the basis of an eight-year school, or an average three-year labor school. secondary school with industrial training.

For those wishing to continue their education at a university, mandatory work experience was introduced.

Thus, the severity of the influx problem work force production was temporarily discontinued. However, for business managers this created new problems with staff turnover and low level labor and technological discipline among young workers.

Document

From N. S. Khrushchev’s speeches to literary and artistic figures

In matters of artistic creativity, the Central Committee of the Party will seek from everyone... unswerving adherence to the party line.

This does not mean at all that now, after the condemnation of the cult of personality, the time has come for things to take their course, that the reins of government have been weakened, that the social ship is sailing at the will of the waves and everyone can be willful and behave as they please. No. The party has carried out and will continue to carry out and firmly carry out the Leninist course it developed, uncompromisingly opposing any ideological vacillation.

Some representatives of art judge reality only by the smells of latrines, depict people in a deliberately ugly form, paint their pictures with gloomy colors, which alone are capable of plunging people into a state of despondency, melancholy and hopelessness, paint reality in accordance with their biased, perverted, subjectivist ideas about her, according to far-fetched or thin schemes... We saw the sickening concoction of Ernst Neizvestny and were indignant at the fact that this man, obviously not devoid of inclinations, graduated from a Soviet higher educational institution, pays the people with such black ingratitude. It’s good that we don’t have many such artists... You’ve seen some other works by abstract artists. We condemn and will condemn such monstrosities openly, with all irreconcilability. In literature and art, the Party supports only those works that inspire the people and unite their forces.

Questions and tasks:

1. What did the “thaw” policy mean in the spiritual sphere?

3. What processes in social life arose under the influence of the “thaw”?

4. What tasks were the education reform of 1958 supposed to solve?

5. What do you see as the contradictory nature of the “thaw” in the spiritual sphere?

Expanding vocabulary:

Technological discipline - exact, unconditional adherence to production technology.

History of Russia, XX - early XXI centuries: Textbook. for 9th grade. general education institutions / A. A. Danilov, L. G. Kosulina, A. V. Pyzhikov. - 10th ed. - M.: Education, 2003

History planning, textbooks and books online, history courses and tasks for grade 9 download

What is a “thaw”, as Ilya Ehrenburg began to call that period in the life of the country and literature, the beginning of which was the death of a tyrant, the mass release of innocent people from captivity, cautious criticism of the cult of personality, and the end was embodied in the October resolution (1964). ) Plenum of the CPSU Central Committee, in the verdict in the case of writers Sinyavsky and Daniel, in the decision to send troops of the Warsaw Pact countries to Czechoslovakia. What was it? The historical, general social and general cultural significance of the thaw lies, first of all, in the fact that it destroyed the myth that had been implanted for decades about the spiritual monolithicity, about the ideological and ideological homogeneity of Soviet society and Soviet literature, when it seemed that there was a single overwhelming majority. The first cracks appeared along the monolith - and so deep that later, in the days and years of stagnation, they could only be covered up, masked, declared either insignificant or non-existent, but not eliminated. It turned out that writers and artists differ from each other not only in “creative manners” and “level of skill,” but also in their civic positions, political beliefs and aesthetic views.

And it was finally discovered that the literary struggle is only a reflection and expression of the processes rapidly taking place in society. After the Thaw literature, many things became morally impossible for a self-respecting writer, for example, the romanticization of violence and hatred, attempts to construct an “ideal” hero, or the desire to “artistically” illustrate the thesis that the life of Soviet society knows a conflict only between the good and the excellent. After the literature thaw, much became possible, sometimes even morally obligatory, and no later frosts were able to distract both real writers and real readers either from attention to the so-called “little” person, or from a critical perception of reality, or from looking at culture as something that opposes power and social routine. The activity of Alexander Tvardovsky as editor-in-chief of the magazine “New World” was significant in its spiritual impact on society, giving the reader many new names and posing many new problems. Many works by Anna Akhmatova, Mikhail Zoshchenko, Sergei Yesenin, Marina Tsvetaeva and others have returned to readers. The revitalization of the spiritual life of society was facilitated by the emergence of new creative unions.

The Union of Writers of the RSFSR, the Union of Artists of the RSFSR, and the Union of Cinematograph Workers of the USSR were formed. A new drama theater “Sovremennik” was opened in the capital. In the literature of the 50s, interest in man and his spiritual values ​​increased (D.A. Granin “I’m Going into a Thunderstorm”, Yu.P. German “My Dear Man”, etc.). The popularity of young poets - Yevtushenko, Okudzhava, Voznesensky - grew. Dudintsev’s novel “Not by Bread Alone” received a wide response from the public, where the topic of illegal repression was first raised. However, this work received a negative assessment from the country's leaders. In the early 60s, exposure of the “ideological vacillations” of literary and artistic figures intensified. Khutsiev’s film “Ilyich’s Outpost” received a disapproving assessment. At the end of 1962, Khrushchev visited an exhibition of works by young artists in the Moscow Manege. In the work of some avant-garde artists, he saw a violation of the “laws of beauty” or simply “daub.” The head of state considered his personal opinion in matters of art to be unconditional and the only correct one. At a later meeting with cultural figures, he harshly criticized the works of many talented artists, sculptors, and poets.

Even before the 20th Congress of the CPSU, journalistic and literary works appeared that marked the birth of a new direction in Soviet literature - renovationism. One of the first such works was V. Pomerantsev’s article “On Sincerity in Literature,” published in 1953 in Novy Mir, where he first raised the question that “to write honestly means not to think about the expression of high-ranking faces and not high readers." The question of the vital necessity of the existence of various literary schools and movements was also raised here. New World published articles written in a new key by V. Ovechkin, F. Abramov, M. Lifshits, as well as works by I. Ehrenburg (“Thaw”), V. Panova (“Seasons”), F. Panferova (“Mother Volga River”), etc. In them, the authors moved away from the traditional varnishing of the real life of people in a socialist society. For the first time in many years, the question was raised here about the destructiveness of the atmosphere that had developed in the country for the intelligentsia. However, the authorities recognized the publication of these works as “harmful” and removed A. Tvardovsky from the management of the magazine.

During the ongoing rehabilitation of the victims of political repression, books by M. Koltsov, I. Babel, A. Vesely, I. Kataev and others were returned to the reader. Life itself raised the question of the need to change the style of the leadership of the Writers' Union and its relations with the CPSU Central Committee. A. Fadeev’s attempt to achieve this through the withdrawal of ideological functions from the Ministry of Culture led to his disgrace and then his death. In his suicide letter, he noted that art in the USSR was “ruined by the self-confident and ignorant leadership of the party,” and writers, even the most recognized ones, were reduced to the status of boys, destroyed, “ideologically scolded and called it partisanship.”

I don’t see the opportunity to live any longer, since the art to which I gave my life was ruined by the self-confident and ignorant leadership of the party, and now can no longer be corrected. The best cadres of literature - in numbers not even dreamed of by the royal satraps - were physically exterminated or died thanks to the criminal connivance of those in power; the best people literature died at a premature age; everything else that was more or less capable of creating true values ​​died before reaching 40-50 years of age. Literature is the holy of holies - given over to be torn to pieces by bureaucrats and the most backward elements of the people... V. Dudintsev (“Not by Bread Alone”), D. Granin (“Seekers”), E. Dorosh spoke about this in their works (“Village Diary”). The inability to act by repressive methods forced the party leadership to look for new methods of influencing the intelligentsia. Since 1957, meetings between the leadership of the Central Committee and literary and artistic figures have become regular. The personal tastes of N. S. Khrushchev, who made numerous speeches at these meetings, acquired the character of official assessments. Such unceremonious intervention did not find support not only among the majority of the participants in these meetings and the intelligentsia in general, but also among the broadest sections of the population.

In a letter addressed to Khrushchev, L. Semenova from Vladimir wrote: “You should not have spoken at this meeting. After all, you are not an expert in the field of art... But the worst thing is that the assessment you expressed is accepted as mandatory due to your social position. But in art, decreeing even absolutely correct provisions is harmful.” At these meetings it was openly said that, from the point of view of the authorities, only those cultural workers who find an inexhaustible source in the “party policy, in its ideology” are good. creative inspiration" After the 20th Congress of the CPSU, ideological pressure was somewhat weakened in the field of musical art, painting, and cinematography. Responsibility for the “excesses” of previous years was assigned to Stalin, Beria, Zhdanov, Molotov, Malenkov and others. In May 1958, the CPSU Central Committee issued a resolution “On correcting errors in the evaluation of the operas “The Great Friendship”, “Bogdan Khmelnitsky” and “From with all my heart,” in which the previous assessments of D. Shostakovich, S. Prokofiev, A. Khachaturian, V. Shebalin, G. Popov, N. Myaskovsky and others were recognized as unsubstantiated and unfair. Thus, the Stalinist the stigma of representatives of the “anti-people formalist trend”. At the same time, in response to calls among the intelligentsia to repeal other decisions of the 40s. on ideological issues it was stated that they “played a huge role in the development of artistic creativity along the path of socialist realism” and in their “main content they retain relevant significance.” This indicated that, despite the appearance of new works in which the sprouts of free thought appeared, in general the policy of the “thaw” in spiritual life had well-defined boundaries. Speaking about them at one of his last meetings with writers, Khrushchev said that what had been achieved in recent years “does not mean at all that now, after the condemnation of the cult of personality, the time has come for gravity... The Party has carried out and will consistently and firmly carry out... Lenin’s course, uncompromisingly opposing any ideological vacillations.”

One of the striking examples of the permissible limits of the “thaw” in spiritual life was the “Pasternak case.” The publication in the West of his novel Doctor Zhivago, banned by the authorities, and the awarding of the Nobel Prize to him put the writer literally outside the law. In October 1958, he was expelled from the Writers' Union and forced to refuse the Nobel Prize to avoid deportation from the country. This is what M. N. Yakovleva, a contemporary of those events, a representative of the intelligentsia, translator, and children's writer, writes about the persecution of Boris Pasternak after he was awarded the Nobel Prize for the novel “Doctor Zhivago.” “...Now one incident has clearly shown me - as well as everyone who reads newspapers - what a single person can come to in our time. I mean the case of the poet Pasternak, which was written about in all the newspapers and talked on the radio more than once at the end of October and beginning of November. ...He had hardly appeared in literature for 15 years; but in the 20s everyone knew him, and he was one of the most popular poets. He always had a tendency towards loneliness, towards proud solitude; He always considered himself above the “crowd” and retreated more and more into his shell. Apparently, he completely broke away from our reality, lost touch with the era and with the people, and this is how it all ended. I wrote a novel that was unacceptable for our Soviet magazines; sold it abroad; got it for it Nobel Prize/and it is clear to everyone that the prize was awarded to him mainly for the ideological orientation of his novel/. A whole epic began; enthusiasm, immoderate, from journalists in capitalist countries; indignation and curses / perhaps also immoderate and not fair in everything / on our part; as a result, he was expelled from the Writers' Union, covered in mud from head to toe, called Judas the traitor, and even proposed to expel him from the Soviet Union; he wrote a letter to Khrushchev in which he asked not to apply this measure to him. Now, they say, he is sick after such a shake-up.

Meanwhile, I am sure, as far as I know Pasternak, that he is not such a scoundrel, and not a counter-revolutionary, and not an enemy of his homeland; but he lost touch with her and, as a result, allowed himself to be tactless: he sold abroad a novel that was rejected in the Union. I think he’s having a really hard time right now.” This suggests that not everyone had an unambiguous view of what was happening. An interesting fact is that the author of this entry was herself repressed and subsequently rehabilitated. It is also important to note that the letter is addressed to a military man (censorship is possible). It is difficult to say whether the author supports the actions of the Government, or is simply afraid to write too much... But it can definitely be noted that she does not adhere to any side when analyzing the situation. And even from analysis we can say that many understood that actions Soviet leadership at least inadequate. And the author’s softness towards the Authority can be explained by low awareness (if not fear). Official “limiters” also operated in other spheres of culture. Not only writers and poets (A. Voznesensky, D. Granin, V. Dudintsev, E. Evtushenko, S. Kirsanov, K. . Paustovsky, etc.), but also sculptors, artists, directors (E. Neizvestny, R. Falk, M. Khutsiev), philosophers, historians. All this had a restraining influence on the development of domestic literature and art, showed the limits and true meaning of the “thaw” in spiritual life, created a nervous atmosphere among creative workers, and gave rise to distrust in the party’s policy in the field of culture. Architecture also developed in complex ways. Several high-rise buildings were built in Moscow, including the Moscow State University them. M.V. Lomonosov. In those years, metro stations were also considered as a means of aesthetic education of people.

At the end of the 50s, with the transition to standard construction, “excesses” and elements of the palace style disappeared from architecture. In the fall of 1962, Khrushchev spoke in favor of revising Zhdanov’s resolutions on culture and at least partially abolishing censorship. A real shock for millions of people was the publication of A. I. Solzhenitsyn’s works “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich” and “Matrenin’s Yard”, which fully posed the problems of overcoming the Stalinist legacy in the everyday life of Soviet people. In an effort to prevent the massive nature of anti-Stalinist publications, which affected not only Stalinism, but also the entire totalitarian system, Khrushchev specifically in his speeches drew the attention of writers to the fact that “this is a very dangerous topic and difficult material” and it is necessary to deal with it, “respecting the feeling measures". Khrushchev wanted to achieve the rehabilitation of prominent party figures who were repressed in 1936-1938: Bukharin, Zinoviev, Kamenev and others. However, he failed to achieve everything, since at the end of 1962 the orthodox ideologists went on the offensive, and Khrushchev was forced to go on the defensive. His retreat was marked by a number of high-profile episodes: from the first clash with a group of abstract artists to a series of meetings between party leaders and cultural representatives. Then for the second time he was forced to publicly renounce most of his criticism of Stalin. This was his defeat. The defeat was completed by the Plenum of the Central Committee in June 1963, which was entirely devoted to problems of ideology. It was stated that there was no peaceful coexistence of ideologies, there is no and there cannot be. From that moment on, books that could not be published in the open press began to circulate from hand to hand in typewritten versions. Thus was born “samizdat” - the first sign of a phenomenon that would later become known as dissidence. From then on, pluralism of opinions was doomed to disappear.