Manifesto by N. Tolokonnikova from 05/04/201:
"The non-inoculated perspectivist understanding of truth, the notion of
its dependence on the chosen frame of reference as well as on the
language in which this truth is established and formulated lends itself
toward such characteristic perceptions as sexism, ageism, xenophobia,
and the lack of respect for non-classical practices and non-standard
values as well as for the stylistic peculiarities of the lives of
certain groups in society. Those who judge the activists of the
punk-group Pussy Riot (P.R.) assess their activity from the height of a
non-critical understanding of truth whereby they assume that there
exists only one truth and that only they who are bringing judgment to
bear have the right to establish this truth. I call such truth
patriarchal, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, traditionalist, and
fundamentalist. By rejecting all other perspectives and ways of
thinking, those who side with the fundamentalist theory of a single
truth move the ethical, legal, and other social norms, as well as the
permissible limits of deviation from the normative models of behavior
into the ranks of customs and traditions, i.e. things that are
nonpolitical, that do not depend on the results of social discussion.
Thus the ideal pluralistic model for social order, which assumed
constant political competition between different systems of norms, as
well as the constant contention between alternative views of the world,
influencing the decision making process on national and other levels, as
created by the difficult 20th century is hereby repudiated. Instead of
competitive pluralism what we have is the consecutive naturalization of
one of the possible pictures of the world. It is that picture to which
adhere members of past and present law enforcement agencies, which make
up the current political elite of Russia. This elite includes the Holy
Patriarch Kirill.
The representatives of the Orthodox Church of Russia (OCR), as we have
discussed amongst ourselves, within Pussy Riot, even before our arrest,
are by no means stupid. They are not ignorant. But unfortunately they
prefer that most Russians remain ignorant. They enjoy being part of the
elite, not only in the political sense but in the intellectual as well.
The vocalists of P.R. have noted that in Russia there are two types of
groups that are concerned with gender equality. The first one, which is
totally predictable, are the activists of feminist groups, the activists
of the LGBT+K organizations, and the research scientists who work with
gender issues. The second, and this is indeed a paradox, are the
speakers for the ROC. These include Father Vsevolod Chaplin, the
Archpriest Dmitriy Smirnov, and now the Patriarch of Moscow and all of
Russia Kirill.
During a roundtable discussion at the University of the RF Ministry of
Internal Affairs that took place recently, on 28 March, the Patriarch
characterized gender from the position of social constructivism. “Gender
is a social phenomenon, a person can construct his own gender,” thereby
elegantly, in the artful manner of a chekist [KGB agent], reducing
constructivism to the absurd. His Holiness plays on the fact that the
meaning of “person” can be interpreted from the individualist,
personalist as well as systemic, structuralist, and collectivist
positions. The religious philosophy to which the cloth of the speaker
refers to, induces us to interpret the meaning of “person” from a
personalistic position. Social constructivism expresses itself in a
totally different language. And the Patriarch pretends to not understand
this. Undoubtedly to assume that a person can willfully change gender,
as though changing gloves, is ultimate foolishness. The Patriarch is
aiming for an aggressive reaction on the part of Russians toward the
idea of gender equality, slyly not noticing that social constructivism
speaks of persons not in the personalistic sense, but in the Feuerbach,
Marxist sense. A person is s/he who has acquired his/her identity
through the replication of social practices. The practices, including
those of constructing gender, can be changed, but that is not a question
of individual will power, rather that of serious and lengthy political
work that can be compared with the revolutionary goals for the
transformation of the world in the “Theses on Feuerbach” and “The
Manifesto of the Communist Party.”
This is precisely the kind of work that is being done in Europe by those
who are in favor of gender equality. They are honestly engaging in a
political struggle with the right, conservative forces over gender laws.
Whereas the Patriarch is trying to convince Russians that “gender laws”
are not based on “the ethical consensus of society,” but are passed by
force – through “the pressure of television, public opinion, the
internet, twisting of hands, intimidation.” But even here his Holiness
is sly. Television, just like the internet, are the instruments of the
struggle of representatives of different frames of reference and
attitudes, which exist in the context of a healthy political
environment, of which Europe can be proud, whereas Russia – not, neither
among its right or left forces, nor its conservatives or libertarians.
One cannot say that the traditionalists and conservatives in
contemporary Europe have their rights, liberties, or access to media and
participation in government infringed upon. Intimidation and the
twisting of hands are methods that are most often used by the right
political elite. For example Sarkozy, recently, in an attempt to raise
his rating in the presidential race, hectically began to arrest, beat
up, and disembowel suspected extremists. In Russia, the FSB burst into
the apartment of Geydar Dzhemal. To apply the devices learned in the
school of law enforcement is one of the favorite political gestures of
our national leader, for whom the Patriarch actively campaigned.
And the last and most outrageous statement made by His Holiness at the
round table at the University of the Ministry of the Interior: according
to Kirill, the “pressure” of public opinion interferes with ethical
consensus. How can one even compare “ethical consensus in society” with
public opinion? Apparently, in the corridors of the Lubyanka, they teach
that peace is war, freedom is slavery, and consensus is arrived at in
society without the participation of public opinion.
Although the Orthodox Church is concerned with gender issues, it is
doing everything possible to limit the influence of the philosophy and
politics of gender equality on the Russian public. Even this is not a
crime. Let the OCR continue to postulate, to its heart’s content, its
gender and ethics assumptions. But for an ethical consensus in society,
it is not enough to have just one point of view. It is not possible to
speak of consensus while the other side, which supports the idea of
gender equality, is devoid of access to television channels and the
paper media, to representatives in the higher echelons of power, when
they are openly discriminated against by the repeatedly scandalous,
sexist statements made by Premier Putin, and when they are intimidated
by the demonstrative jailing of the feminist activists (P.R.).
I can’t disagree with the Patriarch that it is specifically “out of
ethical consensus that the general legislative system will grow,
including the protection of human rights.” However it is impossible to
speak about the existence of consensus in Russia while the initiators of
the public discussion in which His Holiness is currently actively
taking part in are serving time in SIZO No. 6. Only Jesus consoles us:
“So the last will be first, and the first will be last” (Matthew 20:16).
We want to participate in the discussion that we started. We are ready
to meet, discuss, and argue as equals. We are now locked behind 10 iron
doors. As we are in prison, we cannot give fully adequate replies to the
attacks by representatives of those concepts of sex and gender that we
are opposed to. I don’t mean to accuse anyone, but this manner of
putting your opponent behind bars with the threat of 7 years of minimum
security colony and then, standing next to the cell, speaking about
ethical consensus – doesn’t this just smack of cowardice?"
Nadia Tolokno, SIZO 6, 5 April 2012
Scanned version of hand-written original in Pussy Riot live-journal:
http://pussy-riot.livejournal.com/22967.html
