The Power of Words to reach the hearts and minds of people

The late Russian writer Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn showed how a writer can stand 'like a second government'

“For a country to have a great writer … is like having a second government.

Whether the late Russian writer Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn thought of himself as such when he made this observation in his book The First Circle, written in the early 1960s, I can’t say. But he certainly became that, standing like a lighthouse amid the sea of oppression that was hallmark of the former Soviet Union. An alternative vision. A moral compass. A mirror of what should be rather than what was.

While he did not mysteriously fall out of a window as has been the fate of several modern-day critics of Russia, or more precisely the country’s supreme leader Vladimir Putin, there was apparently an attempt to silence him with poison—another favored method of dealing with prominent opponents of the current regime.

Although never shy of using lethal methods to deal with dissidents, the Soviet approach more often was to put such problems in a gulag—a prison camp located somewhere in the vast regions of Siberia. It seems, there were number of them scattered across this large expanse of the Asian continent.

Solzhenitsyn was already familiar with that approach, having spent a decade in a camp and then internal exile for writing derogatory comments about Stalin and the Soviet system in private letters to a friend. He had done so while serving as a soldier in East Prussia, part of the Soviet army’s invasion of Nazi Germany. The authorities, discovering his transgression, arrested him in 1945 and put him in their penal system.

The experience would later inform his first novel One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich which was published in 1962 during a brief thaw under Khrushchev—the country’s then leader who had permitted this account of Stalinist repressions to be published. But thaw did not last long. Khrushchev was removed from power two years later and Solzhenitsyn was back to being an enemy of the state.

But the genie was out of the bottle. Although he needed to hide the manuscripts and works-in progress with friends, his work found its way to the West where subsequent novels were published, and he gained further fame. In 1970 he was awarded the Nobel Prize of Literature "for the ethical force with which he has pursued the indispensable traditions of Russian literature."

It was a subsequent non-fiction book, though, one he’d been working on for many years, that became his tour de force—The Gulag Archipelago which “raised global awareness of political repression in the Soviet Union” and how authorities used this system of prison camps which dated back to Lenin to both remove opponents and punish them. A means of suppression and terror.

This work was published in 1973 and, having outraged the Kremlin powers, Solzhenitsyn was stripped of his citizenship and exiled the following year. A campaign to discredit him both within the country and in the West was also launched. He ended up spending a few years in Vermont and then, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, his citizenship was restored and he subsequently returned to his homeland where he lived until his death in 2008 at age 89. During this stretch of time, Russia seemed to be on a path of democratic self-governance. That path, as we know, veered off into a more familiar direction —one with its roots in Czarist Russia and resembling the autocratic Communist Party rule.

* * *

I’ve thought of Solzhenitsyn’s line about a great writer being like a second government, off and on, during recent years. More so of late. I’ve thought of how a man or woman of gifted ability, powerful vision, moral clarity, and possessing a fierce courage can serve as a counterweight to an oppressive government. Yet this is true not only of writers, but also spiritual leaders and political dissidents. There are, of course, numerous past examples—like Solzhenitsyn or our own Martin Luther King. While not facing a hostile leadership, Charles Dickens fit the description with his chronicle of the less fortunate, suffering poverty and lack of opportunity, in England. As powerful voices go, it’s hard to top Mary Lou Angelou. Mahatma Ghandi and Nelson Madela as freedom fighters and John Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath are other examples of those who have had a profound impact.

For me, the line speaks of the power of words—written, spoken, or accompanied by visual images—to reach the hearts and minds of people. But it’s a double-edged sword. A tool (or weapon, in some cases) that can uplift or degrade. Both a moral instrument and conversely an immoral one—although such distinctions can, in subjective terms, be in the eye of the beholder.

As we are aware from the many examples of history or even in our current times, this power can be harnessed in the cause of political propaganda and divisive rhetoric or used to lull the masses into complacency with frivolous entertainment. Yet, as we also know, it can be enlisted as a bulwark against such misinformation or mental complacency, but more importantly to inspire, transform, and guide us towards such aspirations as compassion, empathy, tolerance, and the democratic practices of free expression, finding common ground and agreeable compromise, and self-governance.

However, a second government, when standing against an oppressive or even just a would-be restrictive regime, should be more than a reaction to what exists—the words comprised mainly of criticism and complaint with nothing offered as an alternative other than platitudes. It needs to stand instead as an alternative vision, coupling both the lessons of history and an explanation of what can and should be. An appeal to our better angels rather than to the darker instincts.

The latter, I should add, is not a call for finding or creating some Utopia. Rather it’s simply letting us be what we want to be; of having or continuing to have a social and political system of fair treatment, the redress of unjust wrongs committed, the rights of livelihood, a healthy environment, the First Amendment freedoms, loving who we wish, and being able to fully participate in our electoral process without undue obstacles; and of upholding the ideal of equal protection under the law with a framework of laws that respects the individual regardless of their station in life or status, and striving to perfect that goal.

* * *

I’m not a great writer, certainly not in the vein of a person who creates fiction or non-fiction that moves the hearts and minds of the reader. Nor, for that matter, even a minor one who has some measure of influence and impact.

Rather I’m a journalist who reports on the news, does profiles and features, and offers opinion and analysis. I have a lot of company in this pursuit. In my case, the efforts have been confined to a small pond in mid-Michigan where we publish a weekly newspaper. While I’ll confess to having ambitions to reach a wider audience, circumstances and the limitations of talent have kept me dog paddling in these modest waters.

But I’m also part of a continuum, meaning what I do in publishing a community newspaper is linked to a long history of many others doing the same, with the first efforts dating back to colonial America and 18^th century Great Britain. It was newspapers, along with pamphlets and books as well as articulate speakers, that championed the cause of political freedom and social justice—in many cases at personal risk.

It was editors and commentators who helped lead the way to independence from Great Britian, pushed for the end of slavery, reported on unsafe working conditions in factories, exposed governmental corruption, took on the robber barons of the late 1800s and their use of trusts and monopolies to stifle a fair and free market, championed the need to monitor food processing and the manufacture of drugs on behalf of public safety, spotlighted the Civil Rights Movement, alerted the citizenry to the need for environmental protection including clean air and water, and has given a platform for differing sides on issues and policies to state their case which furthers the cause of freedom and democracy.

Yet, and this is a very important qualification, newspapers and other media have served as lapdogs for the rich and powerful, incited the lynch mobs, parroted the propaganda and misinformation handed to them in a press release, and been critics of any and everything that smacks of being different from the preferred status quo.

As in so many of life’s situations, the kind of journalist you wish to be and the kind of newspaper you seek to put out is a choice of intent and purpose. It reflects what matters to you… what kind of society you wish to see for yourself, your family, and others… and the moral vision that guides and informs you. In making the choice, there will be the pitfalls of self-righteousness, cynicism, anger, despair, and all manner other personal vanities and shortcomings to deal with while making our journey.

Given the situation and the cause that’s embraced, risks of public disapproval or even condemnation might be inherent or expected. But while such a possibility can give one pause, there is the example of journalists and others—past and present—who have made their choice… who have not blinked when given the hard stare or shirked from the task at hand.

Reporting the news as accurately as possible, commenting in a responsible and honest manner, standing up for the public’s right-to-know, and not backing off or watering down the articles or commentary when opposed by powerful interests continues to be, in my view, the proper choice for journalists. In doing so, toes will get stepped on by those who do not like such approach, but let the chips fall where they may.

While few of us journalists, if any—whether plying our craft in small ponds or larger seas—will obtain the stature of a ‘great writer’, we can perhaps serve as a lighthouse, an alternative vision, a moral compass, and a mirror of what should… doing so by what we report and comment on, and how we do so.

Steve Horton is a mid-Michigan journalist and editor-publisher of the ‘Fowlerville News & Views’— a weekly newspaper.