Manuela Marin, “Aspects of the
‘Creative Resistance’ in Communist Romania, (Remembrance in time, Transilvania
University Press of Brasov 2012), pp. 86-92.
The
problem in studying the masses within extreme right and extreme left regimes
came to the attention of foreign historians after the Second World War, when
the totalitarian model was formulated. Challenging this model’s assumptions
regarding the nature of the relations between the masses and the political
regimes and using the methods of social history in the context of the
historical evolution of the Soviet Union in the interwar period, the
revisionist school brought into discussion besides the topics concerning the
social basis of Stalinism, the conflict between the center-periphery and the
administrative weakness of the Soviet Union, as well as that of the resistance.
Thus, the active forms of resistance came into the attention of the
representatives of this school and especially those of the passive resistance
of the population against the Soviet regime, analyzed in the context of the
actions of different social classes (peasants, workers). If for active
resistance, its forms are clearly defined (eg, demonstrations, protest
meetings, strikes, petitions) and it places its subjects in open, direct opposition
to authority, in the case of the passive resistance things are not always as
clear. Obviously influenced by the works of James C. Scott, historians who have
addressed this topic have made a distinction from two different perspectives:
the first includes passive resistance as part of the behavior of subordinate
classes / groups, while the second makes it clear that passive forms of
opposition are characteristic to the category of ordinary people (related to
this aspect,
some
authors even make a clear distinction between dissent, the specific form of
intellectuals’ opposition and the passive resistance that characterizes the way
in which the simple individual relates to the authoritarian political regime).
Consequently, passive resistance refers to those forms
of everyday resistance in the sense of the term provided by James C. Scott.
They allow individuals to pursue their own interests in their current activity,
manipulating, reinterpreting and adapting the official game’s rules, without
providing justifiable grounds for a confrontation or direct intervention of the
authority against which these acts of passive resistance are directed.
Among these forms of passive opposition, James C.
Scott has included delays in initiatingactions (foot-dragging), negligence,
sabotage, theft, concealment, false compliance, feigned ignorance, rumors,
gossip, songs, jokes, gestures, etc. All these are part of what he called
hidden transcripts. They represent those speeches, gestures, informal practices
employed
by subordinate groups that contradict, modify or reinterpret similar practices
initiated in the public space and which characterize all their relations with
those who they are subject to. In Scott's opinion, that specific interaction in
the public space of the subordinated groups with those who behold the power and
which contradicts their position expressed through hidden transcripts is called
public transcripts. Because these two types of transcripts are the result of a
process of domination, their content reflects the dynamic and constant struggle
between those who are dominated and the dominating ones especially since the
latter affect the transcriptions and condition the similar manifestations of
those who are subordinated. However, the hidden transcripts, through their
complexity (including those mentioned above as gestures, mimicry, hidden
behavior, speech acts etc.) allow the subordinate groups to create a subculture
that gives meaning to their passive forms of resistance regarding the official
political line and at the same time to customize the ideate content of the
social space as an expression of the indirect unofficial opposition towards the
official transcript specific to the formal
exercise
of power relations.3
Trying to define resistance as part of the complex
response that the society gave to the Stalinist regime, Lynne Viola stressed
that there one cannot talk of only one resistance, but rather of resistances or
acts of resistance, different in size and content having multiple meanings.
This is due to the fact that the acts of resistance are influenced and at the
same
time
illustrate the complexity of the society in which they emerged, with all the
internal political and social divisions, along with all the conflictive forces
acting within it.4
Sheila Fitzpatrick uses the term sedition (in Russian
kramola) to describe various forms of everyday resistance in the Soviet Union
from 1960 to 1970 years. However, the author notes that these forms of daily
opposition of the Soviet citizens were their only real political acts, while
the model of popular democracy of the Soviet Union assured them only a
simulated participation in the political decision making process.5
In his monograph dedicated to the Soviet Magnitogorsk
city, examining how socialism was not just built but also lived, Stephen Kotkin
introduced the expression of creative resistance to characterize how people in
that city in the middle of construction responded to official policies and to
the manner in which they were implemented. This type of
resistance
is defined by those "little tactics of habit”, such as behavior, language,
attitude employed by individuals to avoid or undermine the meaning of written
and unwritten rules of appropriate behavior officially established. In other
words, the creative resistance was an imaginative original reinterpretation of
the official rules so that they served the interests of individuals, but at the
same time they had to maintain the appearance of scrupulous compliance of
official regulations.6
Applying the above mentioned to the subject of our
study, we will analyze the resistance in communist Romania as part of everyday
existence of subordinate groups which developed a series of specific acts of
resistance. These acts through their diversity and complexity gave birth to a
form of subculture specific to groups, reflected by the emergence and
development of hidden transcripts.
Also,
the manner in which official transcripts (in our case, the official political
and propagandistic discourse of Romanian Communist Party) influenced creatively
the hidden content of these will be another focus of our analysis. Applying the
above mentioned to the subject of our study, we will analyze the resistance in
communist Romania as part of everyday existence of subordinate groups which developed
a series of specific acts of resistance. These acts through their diversity and
complexity gave birth to a form of subculture specific to groups, reflected by
the emergence and development of hidden transcripts. Also, the manner in which
official transcripts (in our case, the official political and propagandistic
discourse of Romanian Communist Party) influenced creatively the hidden content
of these will be another focus of our analysis.
As I said before, the everyday acts of creative
resistance were the result of the manner in which some people reacted to
official policies and how their application had influenced the everyday
existence. However, our analysis will not be a thematic one that identifies
those decisions or official policies that have generated opposition from the
population, but will concentrate on identifying and portraying its specific
forms in the context of communist Romania.
The first form of such a resistance was the one of
political discussions. In this context, we should note that due to the
centralized control of Romanian Communist Party (hereafter abbreviated as RCP)
on the Romanian society, almost any topic of conversation acquired a political
significance. One such topic was concerning the difficulties arising in the
food supply of the population during the 1980s. The expression of the
dissatisfaction of the population regarding the food shortages "in various
places and circumstances starting from the queues for food … to the work place
or even in organized meetings" was an action which implied a political
stake as it denied the successful economic policies and made less credible the
paternalist argument put forward by Romanian propaganda as a primary aim of the
party-state’s activity. Thus, in an informative note was quoted a citizen’s
testimony stating that "it got worse than during the war, we give all to
to capitalists and still staying at queues in the cold", while another
said that "it would be better if the state thought about the necessary
supplies instead of throwing people at
the
parade".7 In other cases, public remarks aimed at the significance of
domestic political events. Thus, in a dialogue captured in another memo of the
Securitate in Arad, a worker said that he does not even know when will be the
Eleventh Congress of the Communist Party "because for months they only
deal with Congress, the radio, at television and in the newspapers are filled
with Congress news; it irritates you that much propaganda for nothing, that
workers cannot expect anything good, but must keep quiet".8
Another citizen denied the democratic character of the
socialist system and denounced the measures taken in this respect by the
Romanian communist regime to maintain the appearance of a democratic
participation of citizens in the political life: "it’s in vain to make
expenses for election propaganda, because even if no Romanian would vote, those
proposed
will still be elected, and those who do not vote for the Communists, will be
under surveillance and should expect who knows what from the police
force".9
A second identified form of resistance is the
subversive use of language. In this case, we will consider firstly what the
Securitate identified as "documents containing hostile message".
Thus, in the context of elections of deputies for people's councils, in a
voting precinct
was
found a note "with a mentioning that denigrated the RCP", while in
another ballot box, "on one bulletin was written the objection regarding
the lack of opposition in elections".10
Also, the members of Securitate have recorded that on
the cover of the Cinema magazine in January 1989, two young men wrote on the
faces of the Romanian presidential couple "ox and cow" as an
expression of personal dissatisfaction with the political and economic
situation in Romania.11
The proliferation of hate speech was also an example
of subversive use of language. According to the documents prepared by
Securitate, the target of such negative comments was the "superior leaders
of the party and state". However, given the fact that Ceausescu was
identified by the official propaganda discourse as the only party and state
leader, we can actually say that his person was the principal target of
expressions classified as "disparaging" or "libelous".
Usually, this type of comments was influenced by the negative effects of the
economic measures initiated by the Romanian communist regime led by Nicolae
Ceausescu. For example, a retired man from the city Sebes was recorded in the
Security documents because he "made biased statements regardin the socioeconomic
situation in our country and brought insults to the senior party and state
leaders".12
In the category of documents with “hateful
content" belong some letters written by various individuals to different
bodies of the central party or state or, where appropriate to foreign radio
stations, identified by Securitate as having a hostile attitude towards the
communist regime in Bucharest. In one of his volumes of memoirs, Paul
Niculescu-Mizil showed that during the leadership of Nicolae Ceausescu there
was a system for studying and solving various letters sent by citizens.13
Presented by official propaganda as a concrete and eloquent manifestation of
the socialist democratic regime, this system of examination and resolution of
"proposals, complaints and requests of the working people" was found
in all local and central levels of party and government administration, of mass
organizations and not in the least as part of the activity of the Romanian
media.
Within this system, the citizens were encouraged to
contact the authorities with proposals of general interest, with allegations of
deficiencies or irregularities in the activity of economic entities, with
applications to solve personal problems, to denounce abuses by local officials
and last but not least to express their views on current issues of domestic and
foreign policy. This latter type of correspondence between citizens and
authorities is relevant to the topic of this paper for three reasons. Firstly,
these letters constitute an argument proving the existence and expression of
personal views of various people on various topics through official channels.
Secondly, a minority of those who addressed local authorities expressed views
that questioned the performance of the
Romanian communist regime and that of its leader.
Thirdly, the letters were the most often used form of dissemination of
documents containing ‘hateful content’ as shown by data from the internal
documents of the central bodies of Securitate.14
Since the documents issued by the Securitate about
this type of letters were mostly informative reports, they gives only general
details regarding the motivation of their classification as documents of
"hostile nature". Thus, a person sent in 1977 to the central bodies
of the party and state and to some private individuals seven letters "in
which they slander the party’s and state’s policy on the rights and freedoms of
the citizens".15
A professor of Romanian language and literature from
Cluj sent two anonymous letters to “Flacăra” magazine and a letter to the
Central Committee of the RCP during the 1983- 1984s "whose content brought
serious slander to the socialist system in Romania, while at the same time it
derided some aspects of the economic and socio-political situation, using both
offensive and indecent language".16 In some cases, the letters’
signatories complete their "slander" and "hateful comments"
with threats of acts of violence. Due to personal grievances, a worker from
Sibiu sent a letter threatening with "acts of violence against the state
leadership", while a priest in Cluj found it necessary to turn his threats
towards the Romanian national broadcasting institution and to the editorial
committees of Făclia and Scânteia newspapers.17
Letters of the Romanian citizens addressed to foreign
radio stations (Radio Free Europe, Voice of America, BBC, Deutsche Welle)
entered from the Securitate’s point of view in the category of documents with
“hateful content” for two main reasons. Firstly, the activity of these radio
stations was considered to be hostile to the communist regime in Bucharest,
because their programs were "systematically denigrating the Party and the
Romanian state policy, the achievements in the construction of socialism
...", aiming at "undermining the state’s authority and the
moral-political unity of the people ... incitement to disorder and
protest".18
Secondly, by their subject (by asking help for
immigration, describing the difficult political and economic situation, the
limitation and violation of rights and freedoms), these letters gave a touch of
truthfulness and an
argumentative
basis for the criticism aimed by this media radio stations to the Romanian
Communist regime.
Starting from the above, including both types of
letters among the creative resistance means of the population to the communist
regime is justified for several reasons. Firstly, the simple man used a tool
officially sanctioned, that of the system of studying and solving letters in
order to articulate and express the different views on the official political
line. Secondly, the formulation of different opinions based on information from
external
sources is in itself an act of resistance because it involves linking and
comparing the information content of that officially distributed with that
received through alternative channels of information. In this context, the
awareness of the common people of the existence of a discrepancy between the
official version and the one formed from personal experience and the
information received from outside stand behind the articulation of their
perspective on the current situation. Thirdly, the option to send a letter to a
foreign radio station to make public a wish or a personal opinion contrary to
the official political line represents also an act of resistance because it
highlighted the individual’s refusal of resignation to the omnipotence of the
communist regime.
Humor was another form of people's resistance against
the Romanian communist regime. Luisa Passerini's explanations on the causes of
success of humor during the fascist regime apply also to the Romanian case. To
avoid conflict with state authorities, the individual had to have a certain
degree of self-control in his daily behavior. In this context, jokes and
laughter have become the most conveniently means for ordinary people to relieve
the psychological pressure caused by the required compliant external display of
official conduct.19
The most popular form of humor in the communist era
was the political joke. Political jokes were mostly about Nicolae Ceausescu,
designated as "uncle Nicu", about his wife "LenuŃa" or
about both of them. They invoked, as appropriate, ubiquitous figures in the
daily life of ordinary people (such as policeman, the Securitate, the one in
charge with
propaganda,
the party activist), they ridiculed party events (congresses, conferences,
elections, working visits of Ceausescu) or represented a way of making fun of
trouble as in the case of the unfortunate effects of the measures initiated by
the Romanian communist regime (food crisis, energy crisis, the systematization
of rural areas policy, etc.).
The subversive potential of political jokes was
confirmed also by the fact that the county bodies of the Securitate were
concerned with identifying those people who popularized the "libelous and
defamatory content jokes about some high personality of the state
leadership" within the narrow bounds of family and friends.20
Two important elements recommended the inclusion of
political jokes among the population's creative resistance to the communist
regime. Firstly, under the guise of extreme irony and sometimes black humor,
political jokes stressed even more the discrepancy between the reality presented
by official propaganda and the real situation of ordinary people, doing this in
a form accessible to a diverse and large numbers of
audiences.
Secondly, in the lack of alternative means of information, jokes offered a
critical analysis of key internal developments. Thus, these forms of humor not
only indirectly challenged the official policies and their alleged positive
results, but they also contributed to the development of alternative views of
daily reality different from those promoted through the official channels.
To illustrate the above, we will analyze two such
jokes. This is about the sale of stamps with the figure of Ceausescu, that were
supposed to have been sold our very quickly. Therefore, the representatives of
the counties would have come to Bucharest to ask for more. Only one county
representative came back with the stamps complaining that they do not stick on
the envelopes. Eager to prove the contrary, a post office worker explains that
if you spit its back, the stamp sticks perfectly. The county representative
slaps his forehead, having the following revelation: "Damn it! Here's why
the stamp did not stick properly! They were spitting on the face".21
Selling stamps with the figure of Ceausescu and the
haste with which they would have sold out refers to his personality cult and
the fact that the local party's leaders political survival depended on the
dedication with which not only would they perform their task of promoting and
supporting the party, but also of promoting the adulation of the supreme head
of the RCP phenomenon. The figure of the party activist poorly equipped
intellectually is even more hilarious as it is not only the subject of a
collective farce staged by his subordinates, but he/she is also unable to
recognize an act of protesting. Another political joke, which has different
variants, has its main character Nicolae Ceausescu or his wife. The RCP leader
is shown angry that he cannot find a particular pair of shoes, while Elena
Ceausescu boasts with pride during an external visit with a unique pair. The
reason is that those shoes would be Ceausescu's BA thesis.22
Obviously,the joke alludes to the basic job of the
RCP's leader, as a shoemaker, detail often omitted from his official biography.
This is because being a shoemaker was not an appropriate job for a Communist
leader because of its non-proletarian character. At the same time, this
biographical omission was able to neutralize possible questions related to
intellectual preparation of Nicolae Ceausescu, which was validated on a
groundless basis by the titles and national and international academic awards
that he had received throughout the period of his leadership. The existence of
these jokes on the modest professional beginnings of the Romanian communist
leader demonstrate the existence of popular counter image of Nicolae Ceausescu
that questioned the main assertions of the Communist propaganda on his
background before getting to the supreme function in the party.
Another example of popular resistance to the Romanian communist
regime was the creation of conspiratorial/subversive groups. Although most of
the examples selected by the Securitate in its documents identified in the
composition of these groups adolescents, yet there were cases in which adults
were involved. From the data reports of the local Securitate’s bodies resulted
that the tendency of most of these groups was to adopt a symbolic and a
fascist-inspired organization (in fact Nazi).
Thus, a group of 14 teenagers from Drobeta Turnu
Severin used the Nazi salute amongst them, wrote on the board, on the textbooks
expressions and fascist signs manufacturing at the metal workshop of the
school
a number of such signs.23 A similar environment suggestively named
"Swastika" was annihilated by the intervention of local Securitate’s
authorities in Bihor County. Influenced by Sven Hassel novels, three members of
the group, students in 12th grade in a school from Oradea, engaged in
discussions praising the actions of the commando forces of the Gestapo during
the Second War and inserted into their personal belongings and vocabulary
specific Nazi symbols and words.24 The Securitate’s investigations revealed
that some hostile letters containing Romanian communist regime were signed on
behalf of illegal organizations or groups. Continuing the example described
above, the
person
who sent in 1977 seven letters denouncing violations rights and freedoms in
Romania signed on behalf of an organization called "Făclia Moldovei".
25
The inclusion of these groups/organizations in the
category of creative resistance elements is justified for several reasons. The
first aims to organize these groups even outside the legal framework controlled
by RCP. The second reason concerns the organizational characteristics of the
groups. The fact that a part of the communist youth identified in the of
Fascist model a more attractive manner for organizing their spare time than
that proposed by the Communist Youth Union (hereafter abbrevited as CYL) was an
evidence of the failure of the political education for this category of the
population. This is because Fascism continued to be identified by the official
propaganda as the ideological and historical enemy of communism in Romania.
However, the existence of a specific hierarchical internal structure and of
some specific elements of group identification undermined the standardization
efforts promoted through the CYU organizations to create potential sources of
obtaining the loyalty of its members outside the control of the RCP. And last
but not least, the coagulation of entourages was able to intensify and
diversify behaviors that questioned the official policy direction, such as
listening and commenting on news from foreign radio stations or the illegal
collective attempts to cross the border. In a political context other than that
of the former Soviet bloc, the formation of such groups/organizations should
have been classified as a manifestation of every citizen’s rights to meet or as
a simple manifestation of adolescent rebelliousness, which tends to identify
and also to distinguish itself in the manner of spectacular and adventurous
formulas from the conformity of the adult world around them. However, for the
reasons mentioned above, for the communist authorities and bodies of the
Security the establishment of these groups represented in their differential
and opposing potential, a minor threat, yet not insignificant in in the context
of multiplying against the monopole power of the RCP. A final element of
creative resistance identified by us aims the means used by ordinary people in
relation with local authorities. Obviously, our attention will focus only on
those types of interactions after which the individual would creatively
instrumentalize the set of official regulations to achieve its purpose. For
example, a group of inhabitants of a commune in Alba refused to vote had they
not been provided with the much-needed has tanks. Most of the time, those who
were identified as authors of "hostile documents" invoked in their
defense the argument that they had been influenced by "the news heard on
foreign radio stations" or that the material hardships or personal
grievances had pushed them to such reckless acts.
Also, drunkenness had always been a handy argument to
explain the rapid and convenient personal actions against the Romanian
communist regime.26 Our article focused on identifying and illustrating with
data from documents issued by the Securitate’s bodies the main types of the
population’s creative resistance acts against the Romanian communist regime. In
this regard, we have identified in political discussions, documents containing
“hateful content”, humor, the creation of conspiratorial groups and last but
not least, the instrumentation for personal interest of the interaction with
officials the particular expressions of resistance of the simple man to the
omnipotence and omnipresence of the State-party. The examples above give a
partial and
nuanced
image of the individual’s relations with the communist regime from Bucharest.
In this type of relationship, the individual is found
capable to formulate opinions contrary to RCP’s version of reality, to use the
official sanctioned or unsanctioned channels in order to make them known and
last but not least to adopt a course of conduct designed to question the
organizational and educational structure of the communist regime.
