The Union of Soviet Social Media

Izabella Tabarovsky, writing in Tablet, says social media mobs remind her of what her family left behind in the USSR:

Collective demonizations of prominent cultural figures were an integral part of the Soviet culture of denunciation that pervaded every workplace and apartment building. Perhaps the most famous such episode began on Oct. 23, 1958, when the Nobel committee informed Soviet writer Boris Pasternak that he had been selected for the Nobel Prize in literature—and plunged the writer’s life into hell. Ever since Pasternak’s Doctor Zhivago had been first published the previous year (in Italy, since the writer could not publish it at home) the Communist Party and the Soviet literary establishment had their knives out for him. To the establishment, the Nobel Prize added insult to grave injury.

Within days, Pasternak was a target of a massive public vilification campaign. The country’s prestigious Literary Newspaper launched the assault with an article titled “Unanimous Condemnation” and an official statement by the Soviet Writers’ Union—a powerful organization whose primary function was to exercise control over its members, including by giving access to exclusive benefits and basic material necessities unavailable to ordinary citizens. The two articles expressed the union’s sense that in view of Pasternak’s hostility and slander of the Soviet people, socialism, world peace, and all progressive and revolutionary movements, he no longer deserved the proud title of Soviet Writer. The union therefore expelled him from its ranks.


The mobs that perform the unanimous condemnation rituals of today do not follow orders from above. But that does not diminish their power to exert pressure on those under their influence. Those of us who came out of the collectivist Soviet culture understand these dynamics instinctively. You invoked the “didn’t read, but disapprove” mantra not only to protect yourself from suspicions about your reading choices but also to communicate an eagerness to be part of the kollektiv—no matter what destructive action was next on the kollektiv’s agenda. You preemptively surrendered your personal agency in order to be in unison with the group. And this is understandable in a way: Merging with the crowd feels much better than standing alone.

Those who remember the Soviet system understand the danger of letting the practice of collective denunciation run amok. But you don’t have to imagine an American Stalin in the White House to see where first the toleration, then the normalization, and now the legitimization and rewarding of this ugly practice is taking us.

Americans have discovered the way in which fear of collective disapproval breeds self-censorship and silence, which impoverish public life and creative work. The double life one ends up leading—one where there is a growing gap between one’s public and private selves—eventually begins to feel oppressive. For a significant portion of Soviet intelligentsia (artists, doctors, scientists), the burden of leading this double life played an important role in their deciding to emigrate.

Those who join in the hounding face their own hazards. The more loyalty you pledge to a group that expects you to participate in rituals of collective demonization, the more it will ask of you and the more you, too, will feel controlled. How much of your own autonomy as a thinking, feeling person are you willing to sacrifice to the collective? What inner compromises are you willing to make for the sake of being part of the group? Which personal relationships are you willing to give up?

In retrospect, the Justine Sacco incident – when we collectively decided to gang up on one person and destroy her for an ill-considered joke – was a turning point. When I saw that Sacco’s flight information was posted to the Google search page, I realized something had changed.

2 thoughts on “The Union of Soviet Social Media

  1. M says:

    What has primarily changed is that it’s now possible to join a mob and persecute others with more anonymity and less risk of actual consequences than before. However, mobbing vulnerable outsiders in order to be part of the group and feel the power of that is deeply engrained in humans. Most people don’t stop to think that there’s a person like themselves on the receiving end. And since such persecution tends to dehumanize its target, it’s too easy to ignore the fact that this could happen to anyone. It seems to be less about the individual in question than about the power felt in the collective act of hunting someone down. From slut-shaming single mothers who can’t afford a house to chasing down someone who made an unguarded Twitter comment, it’s all part of the same underlying instinct, capable of destroying lives at many levels.

  2. M says:

    Related in terms of damage caused by group shaming, but a different subject altogether in other ways: “Slut! Growing up female with a bad reputation.” Leora Tanenbaum. Harper Collins, 2000. (“The Boy Who Was Raised as a Dog” by Bruce D. Perry and Maia Szalavitz offers some good insights on the tribal and territorial behaviours that explain some things about mob mentality.)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s