Naming the Century
Mikhail Epstein
My century, my beast, who will manage
To look into your pupils…?
“The Century” (1923)
- Do not forget me, execute me,
But give me a name, give me a name!
“Like a small body with a small wing…” (1923)
Osip Mandelstam
1.
As
we near the end of our century it is time to give it a name, if only to mark
the extent of its habitability [obzhitost’] (and obsolescence [izzhitost’]!). After all, it shouldn’t be ranked forever under the number XX…
although such a revenge would be appropriate for a century that turned millions
of its sons into camp dust, into rows of numbers and into nameless ranks. But
concerning the deceased – for the century is, whether well or not so well,
already breathing heavily on its deathbed. To give the century a name means to
crown it properly, politely take leave of it, and prepare the deceased for
meeting with its descendents’ memory, with its future judges and researchers.
What
kind of name befits our century? Is it possible to combine in a single word its
sorrow and delight, its damnation and nobility? The set epithets: “atomic”,
“nuclear”, “space”, “computer”, “revolutionary”, “century of the masses”,
“century of sports”, “century of electronics”, “century of genetics”, “century
of cybernetics”, “century of speed”, “century of technology”, “century of the
techno-scientific revolution”, “century of the world wars”, “century of
Auschwitz and Hiroshima” – wind up being iffy not only because many of them
have turned into newspaper clichés, but also because they characterize
only part of the achievement or failure of our century. Is there anything that
unites the splitting of the atom and the subjugation of the cosmos, the pathetique
of social revolutions and the tragedy of death in the camps?
If
the shortcoming of some of these definitions is partiality, then for others it
is excessiveness. Thus the definition “century of revolutions” or the
“revolutionary century” appears completely felicitous if we bear in mind the
“upheavals” of the 20s in almost every field: the techno-scientific, social,
national, anti-colonial, sexual revolutions… But if we remember that the great
revolutions – in America and France – had already flared up by the end of the
18th century and were complemented – and partly anticipated – by the
Kantian revolution in philosophy, which in its turn was inspired by the
Copernican revolution in science of the 16th century, then the sign
of “revolutionariness” is not specific enough for the 20th century.
Plus, it was pretty much only the first half of the 20th century
that was revolutionary, the second can rather be defined as a reaction against
these revolutions, with the postmodern evil-eye of contradictions, the
elimination of the “high and low” hierarchy, without which the model of
“upheaval” cannot act…
Recently
British lexicographers (the publishers of the Collins dictionaries) attempted
to pick out for every year of the 20th century one key word that
would define its “malice”, that would sound like a slogan or nickname. They
wound up with a motley and rather sad picture – in the lexicon of the century
dark shades predominate. Naturally, a specifically British character
superimposes its mark: for them 1905 is Sinn Fein, but for Russians it is
“Bloody Sunday.” Here are a few strokes in the century’s portrait – through the
eyes of the British:
1905 – Sinn Fein (Irish nationalist
organization)
1911
– air raids (first baptism of fire for aviation in the Italian-Turkish War)
1917
– Cheka
1933
– Gestapo
1936
– Mickey Mouse
1940
– jeep
1941
– radar
1944
– the ballistic missile
1949
– Big Brother
1953
– rock-‘n-roll
1965
– the mini-skirt
1972
– Watergate
1983
– AIDS
1991
– ethnic cleansing
From
these yearly tree rings the mighty trunk of the century takes shape, imprinting
all of the strength of historical winds in this cross-section… And
never-the-less a complete picture of the 20th century can hardly be
put together from such pointillist, literary strokes. What is necessary for
this is a repetitive, semiotic analysis of all these words and their
interrelating meanings – and what would an artificial intelligence produce as
the result of their compilation? Perhaps a synthetic definition of the century
would look something like “Mickey-Cheka” or “Rock-‘n-Gestapo.”
If
we do not synthesize these yearly definitions, but try to find a singular,
unique word, which more than any other answers to the character of this
century, I would propose “The Century of Power.” It is difficult to pick out a
word in Russian that means the same thing, it can signify: strength, ability,
authority, sway, might, political force, nation, energy, electricity. What I
find particularly attractive in this word, and why I am nominating it for the
great designation of “title of the century” (or even “nickname of the
century”), is the combination of political and technical aspects of power: authority and energy. In English such different expressions as “superpower” and “power
plant” share this same word. The 20th is a century of superpowers
and power plants: the energy of political authority, which attempts to seize the entire world in its
fist (German, Russian, American) – and the authority of technical energy, which splits the nucleus of the atom and sends
out rockets to the edge of the solar system. The 20th century is the
technology of authority and the
authority of technology, which,
incidentally, was precisely imprinted in Lenin’s formula: “communism = Soviet
authority + electrification of the whole country…”
Authority
+ energy is not just the formula of defunct communism, but of the entire 20th
century, which, as surprising as it may be, has made it to a happy end and died
“of old age.” The forces of society, directed at overcoming nature… And the forces
of nature, directed at overcoming society. The 20th century is a potential-patent [potentno-patentnyi] century, which adds the inventor’s patent to the
potential of the aggressor. The century of Iosif Stalin and Niels Bohr is the
“Stalobohrian century.” Volition,
which can be measured in volts…
And the political elite’s love for electricity, authority’s refueling [podzapravka] with the power of the atom…
The
20th century is not just the century of energies, but also the
century of masses, which with unprecedented breadth found their way into the
muzzle of history, becoming cannon fodder, the fruit of implements and ordnance
[orushchaya i orudiinaya],
filling stadium tribunes and death camps, the Luzhniki and the Gulags…
According to Einstein’s formula linking mass and energy, the disintegration of
classes and the new synthesis of the masses is the most powerful source of the
energies extracted by authority from nature and society.
If
we try to come up with a more Russian one-word definition of the 20th
century, then “authority,” “energy,” “sway,” “nation” become POWER-LEVELS [moshchnosti], i.e. subdivisions of a single category: POWER [moshch’]. And so the most succinct definition of our
century comes from Velimir Khlebnikov:
And
here steps M into the domain of the strong word “Can.”
Listen,
listen to the cannews of power![1]
No
vot Èm shagaet v oblast’ sil’nogo slova “Mogu”.
Slushaite,
slushaite mogovest moshchi!
The
century of power and power-levels. Not just “cannews [mogovest] ” but also cancentury [mogovek], which falls under the command-incantantion
“power! empower! plentify! [mogi! mogei! mozhestvui!] ”:
Powerhouse,
I am powerful!
Powerling,
I have the power! Empower, I am powerful!
Empower,
my ego…
Step
lively, powerer! Arms! Arms!...
Powercine,
poweresque, powerdine,
Powery,
empowercine, powering![2]
Mogun, ya mogeyu!
Moglets, ya mogu! Mogei, ya mogeyu!
Mogei, moyo ya…
Shagai, mogach! Ruki! Ruki!...
Mogarnye, mozheskie, mogunnye,
Mogesnye,
mozhnye, mogivye!
The
“powery,” “empowercine,” “powering” century. Incidentally, the names of both
these definers – Vladimir Lenin
and Velimir Khlebnikov[3]
– are also applicable to the definition of our century. Khlebnikov himself
chose a name consonant with the “strong word Can.” We could confer on the 20th
century the vivid title of the “velimir century” or “vladimir century” which
sounds not a jot worse then the “wolfhound[4]
century” coined by Mandel’shtam – and is in essence synonymous with it. What
for the priests of this century was “velimir” or “vladimir,” was “wolfhound”
for its sacrifices.
2
And
so, velimiring (commanding the
world) and vladimiring (ruling the world), the 20th
century will most likely enter into history with the footnote “M”: MIGHT [MOSHCH’], MAY [MOGU]. And by this footnote it will be easy to differentiate it from the E
century – the 18th and the R century – the 19th. Let us investigate
the logic of this transition.
The
century of Enlightenment established the rule of reason, cast off the
aristocratic privileges and religious superstitions of the previous centuries.
True, the 18th century never could keep back the final superstition
– rationalism, the naïve cult of reason itself. The 19th
century corrected this mistake and made reason subject to reality and placed
reason in its service. Reality, and correspondingly realism, are the key words
of the R century – the 19th.
Belinskii, in a letter shortly before his death, vows that he is ready to lay
down his soul for the concept of realism, that for him there is nothing more
sacred than reality [deistvitol’nost’] as it is – and to hell with ideals! Poetry, novels, aesthetics –
all these became “realistic” in the 19th century, not to mention the
triumphal foundation of REALITÄT or REALDOM [REALITET] – the progress of Science. Darwinism, determinism,
environment, organism, physiology, photography, realism, naturalism, positivism
(which is nihilism) – it would appear that all paths away from reality are cut
off, there is no longer any return to the old mystical swamp of “ideals”…
It
is hard to understand how, from such a sober worship of IS, there could emerge
such a furious CAN, which covers the eyes with blood. But CAN steadily grew
past IS – and these most scientific calculations suddenly lead to the belief
that KNOWLEDGE of the real gives AUTHORITY over it. From Darwinism to
social-Darwinism, from the theory of natural selection to the simple notion
that since only the strong survive, it’s better if I am strong – just one small
step, one turn in the convolutions of the brain. An all-powerful master race or
a muscular class of peasants shall inherit the Earth.
As
enlightenment reason, having ascended to the concept of reality, stepped beyond
itself and cast off rationalism, so the new culture of reality quickly grew
past itself and cast off realism in favor of a more economical and energetic
form of might, of a volitional
structuring of reality instead of a slavish submission to it. At the end of his
conscious life, Nietzsche tormented himself with the fact that he was just a
wretched philologist, when he needed to be a biologist, a super-Darwin, so he
could produce a new master race, create the organism of the superman… But this
superbiology turned, in essence, into this same philology – a dream of the
word-incantation, of an ideology that will create a new, strong world. Ideology
is philology imbued with will and authority. Mysticism returned – but as an
unprecedented activism, as the mysticism of the self-deification of man. The
good news [blagovest] has been
replaced by the cannews [mogovest].
3
So
in the womb of Reality there arose the beast that would devour it –
Authority-Energy. Let us cast our glance forward. Is the fetus of the next
century not already ripening in the womb of the one that is ending – and how
will we christen it at the moment of birth? For the century, as well as the
millennium, has a quick labor, whose day has already been scheduled in our
current calendar.
There
is some good news: the 21st century promises to be virtual – the V
century. Having increased its
power to unprecedented levels, the 20th century exceeded the bounds
of a world that would need such power. Do we need to increase thermonuclear
energy if it is already enough to blow up the entire planet many times over? To
control the globe, its natural and human recourses, is profitable and
respectable, but a bit too small for an overactive imagination, for an
unquenchable appetite for power, for transglobalism, the will to subjugate new worlds. Is it not
insulting to crawl around a small planet, forgotten on the edge of the
universe, in a god-forsaken corner of a remote galaxy? - while, according to
the newest scientific data, all around the furthers reaches of the universe are
expanding, the entrance to which – be it through a black hole, through the
electron, the computer screen, or – more accurately and more likely, through a
chink in our own Ego. It is a shame to put off what is most interesting and
most harmful for the world in pursuit of yet another piece of oil-rich desert
or diamond-strewn tundra.
There
is no doubt that in the 21st century our techno-scientific and
socio-political capacities will grow – but at the same time they will serve not
so much for subjugation as for a “break through” of reality, a penetration into
other dimensions and worlds. For in the 20th century scientific
investigation of reality did not come to an end, but just the opposite, it
increased many times over by comparison with the 19th – but you
could never say that in the 20th century realism, respect for
reality as such, triumphs. Investigation of reality continued – but it began
serving a different, authoritarian goal. So in the 21st century the
growth of these capacities will continue, but they will also serve a different
goal – not an authoritarian regime, but the assimilation of other dimensions of
time and space.
Authority,
reaching the boundaries of the world, needs something else, a multiplication of
worlds themselves. What is more, both quantum and computer mechanics, each
after their own fashion, speaks of parallel worlds. Viable. Valid. Virtual.
[Vozmozhnye. Veroyatnostnye. Virtual’nye.] So starts the V century. Out of power is born a new form of its own
self-affirmation: active Possibility, the Possibilization, or Potentiation of existence. Possibility[5] [Voz-mozh-nost’], as the word itself suggests, is the sublimation
of power, its ascent to dizzying heights, its departure beyond the boundaries
of the reality given to us in our sensations (instead of a depressing and, as
we are already convinced, a self-destructive mastery by it). CAN, overcoming
itself, turns into a weak, but endlessly magnetic MAYBE. POSSIBILITIES [MOZHNOSTI] come to take the place of POWERS [MOSHCHNOSTI]. The Cannews of Power is drowned out by the Possnews
of Possibilities [Mozhevest
Vozmozhnostei].
Power
is the supreme level of existence’s potential [potentnost’], but beyond the border of potential arises a new
quality: potentiality [potentsial’nost’]. Potential is the lowest form of potentiality. Why be master of one world, if you can be the creator
of many worlds? Power is only a drop in the ocean of possibilities, a timid, primitive form of being possible [mozhestvovaniya], a strong possibility in the servitude of an
even stronger reality. Potential is bounded by what I can do; potentiality is the breakthrough to a new
dimension: what I can be. The
aspiration to power occurs from an existential deficit, a shortage of reality.
If there is only one reality, then in it only one can reign over others, be
powerful at the expense of others. But where realities multiply the categories
of authority are scattered: out of all possible worlds, everyone creates for
himself one of his “very own.” V
is the sign of endless interweaving of various realities...
The
New Century is intertwined in the seams of V,
Spinning
into infinity,
Where
only Possibility reigns.
Most
likely, the 21st will be a century of virtuality, not only in the
field of electro-computer technology, but also in the sense of multiplying the
alternate means of existence, virtual theories, practices and associations.
Virtual cities, universities, stores, parliaments, governments, elections...
I
would like to propose a signatory gesture for the 21st century by
which pilgrims of the virtual worlds could recognize each other in realia, “off-line,” once landing in the space of a room,
street, meeting, party. How should they express the fact that they belong to
other worlds, that they are initiated into the mystery of the Net? I would
propose a sign similar to the letter V, the sign of victory, but in addition to
the two raised fingers, the index and the middle, I would add the ring finger.
These three separated fingers form the letter W – the sign of the World Wide
Web. W is like two V’s, combining two signs of victory. I should explain that W is a double V not only
visually, but historically. Originally the letter V and the letter U were
variations of one sign (which is why they are so similar in form and stand next
to each other in the Latin alphabet and the European ones derived from it).
Double-U is a double “V,” and in a certain sense the Net is a double victory,
not just a victory within reality, which politicians, soldiers, financial
experts and other successful people obtain... It is a victory over reality
itself, a departure to the
virtual dimension. Victory + virtuality = 2 V = W. Putting up three fingers, we
greet virtualists [virtualy], dual victors...
It hardly falls to our imagination now
to look further into the V century. But if the 21st century is
really to become the century of increased dimensions, of an extensive fan of
possibilities which quickly produce from each other informational copies,
electronic doubles, multiplied worlds, a century of clo(w)ns”[6]
and psychic simulations ---
Then
a definition of the 22nd century arises where everyone will be
presented with the possibility of a separate world: the A century. The century of alienation, aloofness,
aloneness [otchuzhdenie, otreshennost’, odinochestvo].
* * *
I
propose that my readers choose – or propose – worthy names for the the century
which is ending and next century: a name-verdict and name-prediction. The title
of the 20th century should be formed from one word (or combination
of words) with a corresponding nomination-motivation.
Here
is the list of names for the 20th century which, to me, pass
themselves off as the best contenders [samye konkurentosposobnye]:
Century
of Power
Century
of authority-energy
The
potential-patent century
Century
of Might
Century
of power-levels
Century
of revolutions
Century
of technologies
Century
of speeds
Century
of masses
Century
of dehumanization
Century
of globalization
Century
of expanses
Century
of media
The
Space century
The
Nuclear century
The
Electro-century (electric + electronic)
Century
of volition-voltage
Vladimir-century
Velimir-century
Apocalypse-century
The
list of proposed name-predictions for the 21st century is much
shorter:
The
Virtual century
Century
of other dimensions
Century
of alternatives
Century
of potentialities
Century
of psychoreality
The
Imaginarium-century
The
Clo(w)n-century
September, 1999
Transl.
Thomas Dolack
[1] “Zangezi,”
plane 9, in the collection Velimir Khlebnikov. Tvoreniya [Velimir Khlebnikov. Works]. Moscow: Sovetskii
pisatel’, 1986, p. 483.
[2] Ibid., plane 10, p. 484.
[3] [translator’s note] Vlad-i-mir comes from roots
meaning “power” or “rule” and “world” and Vel-i-mir from roots meaning “great”
or “command” and “world”.
[4] [translator’s note] Literally “wolf-crusher”.
[5] [translator’s note] The Russian word voz-mozh-nost’ (literally, up-might-ness) contains the roots for
“up” and “might” or “power.”
[6] This term needs some explanation. It would appear
that there is nothing in common in either the etymology or the meaning of the
words “clown” and “clone.” But really, are clones not basically a doubling, an
imitation, a mimicking of some sort of prototype? And really, are biological
clones which fully imitate there prototype not in some sense a metaphysical
mockery, parodies of the unrepeatable features of a given face. Nature is thrown
into the circus ring where under the din of applause it begins to make faces
and imitate itself. . Thus “clo(w)ning” is the process of cloning as a clowning
of nature.