Term Paper
Mohit Agrawal
AP Literature, p.5
5/9/06
Tenets of Tenacity in Solzhenitsyn’s Ivan Denisovich
The recognizable adage, “The only thing that’s certain is change,” fails by
overlooking several critical certainties. As governments rise and fall in revolutions and
coups; as ideologies evolve from all parts of the political spectrum; and as times and
technology march forward, people have the ability to adapt to their changing environments.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn, awarded the Nobel Prize in literature for his works on the Soviet
Union, has chronicled the interplay between individual and political ideology in his One
Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich. While a government may proclaim to conform to either
capitalism or communism, the true lives of people instead fall on a continuum in between
and are determined by three personal, instead of governmental, characteristics.
There is a clear mixing of both communism and capitalism in Ivan Denisovich
Shukhov’s labor camp. This dual presence permeates not only the labor camp, but all
societies in general. While Solzhenitsyn writes about just one day in Ivan Denisovich
Shukhov’s life in a labor camp in eastern Siberia, Shukhov’s labor camp can be seen as a
microcosm of Soviet society as a whole. Solzhenitsyn carefully crafts the camp with a
diverse set of people, one group representing the privileged and another the downtrodden.
However, the story also chronicles one day in the life of an ordinary Russian. Ivan’s name
is common; he is one of many Soviet farmers; he fought in the war like millions of others.
While the setting, a gulag camp, may seem extraordinary, millions share in Shukhov’s fate.
Moreover, the constant fight for survival is universal. As such, extrapolations made from
observation at the labor camp are applicable to humanity as a whole.
At their most basic levels, societies are not predicated upon political philosophies
but instead on on-the-ground realities. An evaluation of the structure of life at Ivan
Agrawal 2
Denisovich’s labor camp makes it evident that society functions on a continuum between
capitalism and communism, between competition and teamwork. The most prominent
example of capitalism and competition in the novel is the very existence of a capitalist
economy inside the labor camp. This existence suggests that there was a capitalist
economy at work in the Soviet Union as a whole. “In forced-labor camps all prices were
local; it was quite different from anywhere else, because you couldn’t save money and few
had any at all, for it was very hard to come by…. Shukhov did private jobs to get
money…” (139) the narrator explains. This local economy clearly represents Adam
Smith’s ideals of supply and demand: if the supply of money is low, prices must
necessarily be low. This would help establish a new equilibrium. Moreover, the presence
of private work implies the presence of a private, capitalist economy. Even a communist
façade can hide a capitalist belly—the two systems are inseparable.
The novel also discusses several striking examples of teamwork, communism, at
play. The strongest example of communism is the firewood collection scheme instituted at
the camp. Shukhov notes that “millions of rubles had gone up in smoke” (110) as the zeks,
political prisoners, burned available construction materials to generate heat. “A zek
calculated his own way: if everyone brought even a few sticks back with him [from the
construction site to] the barracks would be warmer,” (110). Thus, each person, arranged in
an eighty-rowed column to be escorted back to the camp, has a few pieces of tender picked
up at the construction site. Moreover, “just before entering the zone several ranks in the
column were ordered to throw their stuff down. The escort, however, robbed mercifully—
they had to leave something for…the zeks themselves, who otherwise wouldn’t bring any
with them,” (110). The zeks collect firewood on the condition that the escorts and camp
Agrawal 3
officials take only a certain proportion. Thus, the camp officials and the zeks both share in
the bounty. The firewood collection scheme represents the pinnacle of teamwork in the
camp.
In addition to the above, clear-cut examples of capitalism and communism in this
labor camp, the work squad system implemented at the camp also suggests an active
interplay between the two economic systems. In work squads, a group of twenty-four
inmates work together on a specific construction project. “To outsmart you they thought
up work squads….Everything was so arranged in the camp that the prisoners egged one
another on. It was like this: either you all got a bit extra or you all croaked,” (64). That is
because each prisoner is fed according to how much work his squad has done. The work
squad system successfully merges both teamwork and competition, as the zeks work
together in a squad but compete against the other squads. Moreover, each work squad must
compete to secure bowls, utensils, and a table in the diminutive mess hall. Members of
each squad work together against other squads for these limited resources, resulting in a
competitive environment. Furthermore, each work squad competes in bribing, cajoling,
and persuading camp officials. As the narrator explains, “More depended on the [squad
leader’s] work report than on the work itself. A clever squad leader was one who
concentrated on the work report. That was what kept the men fed,” (65). Shukhov’s
leader, Tiurin, is a master at the system and successfully keeps the 104th from having to
work at the Socialist Way of Life Settlement. Instead, another less-able group is shunted to
the settlement, again emphasizing the competitive nature of the work squads.
The three abovementioned examples all indicate the dual presence of capitalism and
communism in the labor camp, and thus in societies in general. However, all societies are
Agrawal 4
composed of people, and it is those people who must adapt to the dual presence of
capitalism and communism. As the title character, it is fitting that Ivan Denisovich best
represents Solzhenitsyn’s view of a successful individual. Shukhov understands the
dynamic equilibrium between competition and teamwork. He can therefore change his
own behavior to match society’s—he can be selectively competitive or team-oriented. The
first example of his competitive nature is when, as earlier alluded, Shukhov does private
work and builds shoes for richer inmates. Shukhov understands the power of the local free
market and he aims to take advantage of it.
Shukhov also collects items that he thinks may hold value for other inmates. He
understands the utility of knives in the life of a zek; “very handy for shoe repairing or
tailoring!” (121) he remarks. Shukhov therefore is always on the lookout for bits of metal
that could be sharpened into knives. However, several “stool-pigeons,” or snitches, have
been murdered in their bunks recently. Thus, in the twice-daily zek patdowns, those who
are caught smuggling knife-making materials into the camp are subject to severe
punishment. Therefore, Shukhov’s takes risks when he smuggles in scraps of steel. Knives
are also useful because Shukhov can later lend them out for an unwritten promise of
something in return, whether food or favors. As such, Shukhov represents a private
entrepreneur, one who takes risks for expected gain. As the narrator explains, “For that
strip of hacksaw [Shukhov] could get ten days in the cells….But a cobbler’s knife was
money, it was bread,” (121).
Ivan also understands the necessity of teamwork. He is not one to spurn the ties of
families, young and old, and of ethnicity in the labor camp. Though torn from their
Agrawal 5
families, people adapt and form new ties in the camp. The clearest bonding is, of course,
within each work squad. However, other bonds form as well.
Two Estonians, close as brothers, sat on a flat, concrete slab....These
Estonians were equally fair, equally tall, equally leans, and had equally long
noses and big eyes. They hung onto each other so closely that you’d think one
would suffocate unless he breathed the same air as the other. (56)
Like the two Estonians, Shukhov has “adopted” a 16 year-old inmate from his squad as a
son. Gopchik can do much of the harder work, while Shukhov gives him advice and
teaches him skills, like spoon-making. He looks after the teen like the father he could
never be to his two young girls; Gopchik is also like the son Shukhov never had.
Teamwork seems to satisfy a natural human urge to belong, and it is not suffocated in a
labor camp.
The ability to actively partake in a society with characteristics of both capitalism
and communism is necessary to one’s success. The naval captain Buinovsky has been
consigned to 25 years of hard labor because a British naval officer with whom he served
during WWII sent Buinovsky a gift after the war. This was ample evidence that the
Captain was, of course, fraternizing with dangerous democratic radicals. The deep irony is,
however, that Buinovsky is one of the few Soviet people who have solidly internalized the
ideals of the Communist Manifesto. When Buinovsky challenges a guard for inhumanely
stripping prisoners in –17 C to search for contraband, and then also quotes Soviet law that
bans such acts, the Captain is given a ten-day stint in “the cells” with half rations. “Ten
days. Ten days ‘hard’ in the cells—if you sat them out to the end, your health would for
ruined for the rest of your life, T.B. and nothing but hospital for you till you kicked the
Agrawal 6
bucket,” (148) the narrator writes. Moreover, Buinovsky’s belief in the share-all
communist system means that he usually is left with the worst pieces of equipment for
himself, for all the goods one are hogged and hidden by others. Buinovsky fails to
understand that there is a difference between Soviet diction and reality; he fails to adapt to
the dynamic society around him; and this failure may cost the Captain his life.
One will not succeed simply by understanding the duality of capitalism and
communism, however. One must also preserve his individuality while complying with
society. The camp does its best to destroy inmates’ individualities by assigning each an
alphanumeric code. The numbering system dehumanizes the prisoners, stripping away
their personalities. Ivan Denisovich Shukhov is simply S 854. However, the tenacious in
the camp show an ability to buck this treatment and keep their individualities. Shukhov’s
personality manifests itself most at dinnertime. Even in the cold, he removes his cap
because he had been taught to do so as a child. He refuses to eat fish eyes unless they
remain in the fish, again because of his childhood upbringing. If the cold of the labor camp
drives out one’s individuality, there is little left to live life. One must adapt to society but
cannot compromise oneself away.
Sequestering one’s individuality is certainly successful. Tiurin, the 104th squad
leader, has seen his 10-year stretch added on to several times. Imprisoned just for being the
son of a well-to-do farmer, Tiurin represents the best of the tenacious zeks. He too takes
his cap off before eating, and he is quite successful in crafting work reports which reward
the squad. Another quite successful zek, in that he has survived in the camp, is the old
prisoner U 81.
Agrawal 7
[Shukhov]’d been told that this old man had spent years without number in
camps and prisons…. Whenever one ten-year stretch had run out they
shoved another onto him right away. Now Shukhov looked closely at the
man. He held himself straight—the other zeks sat all hunched up…. His
eyes didn’t dart after everything going on in the mess hall…. All life had
drained out of his face but it had been left, not sickly or feeble, but hard and
dark like carved stone…. But he wasn’t going to give in, on no! He [sic]
wasn’t going to put his nine ounces [of bread] on the dirty, bespattered
table—he put it on a well-washed bit of rag. (138).
Solzhenitsyn introduces U 81 with just thirteen pages left in the novel, emphasizing the
thematic importance of the individual and his individuality. One who has the perseverance
to preserve his individuality in a gulag also has the perseverance to survive.
Another zek who perseveres is Alyosha the Baptist. Imprisoned for his religious
beliefs, Alyosha actually feels emboldened in the camp, for he can worship without
persecution. Strength of individuality is also the strength of staying committed to what you
believe. Alyosha believes in his religion, and as his discussion with Shukhov shows late in
the novel, he has found solace in it.
Lastly, the third necessary tenet to survive is having a hard work ethic. Shukhov is
the prime example of this. Early in the day, Shukhov had tried to get a medical absence
because he had awoken with aches and pains. Though denied, Shukhov notes that he
would not have found peace in the infirmary either: “A new doctor had arrived…Stepan
Grigorych, a fussy, loud-voiced fellow who gave neither himself nor his patients any peace.
He invented jobs in and around the infirmary for all the patients who could stand on their
Agrawal 8
feet…Work, he said, was a first-rate medicine for any illness,” (33). Shukhov is hostile to
this new system, one that takes away the last haven of solitude from the zeks. Ironically,
though, by the end of the day Shukhov no longer feels sick at all: “Funny, he’d forgotten all
about the dispensary while he’d been working….now somehow his back wasn’t aching,”
(116-7). Shukhov remarks that being put in “the cells” is not bad because of solitary
confinement, dampness, or lack of food; instead, the inability to work robs one of warming
and time-consuming activity. Out on the Siberian tundra, only work saves the zeks from
death. Their minds leave their troubles behind and focus on the task at hand. Shukhov
even gets so enwrapped in his work that he willfully ignores the end-of-day bell and
continues to work at a feverish pace to finish putting up another row of bricks. A hard
work ethic is necessary, not only for the success of one’s work squad, but also for one’s
own self-satisfaction. If one views work with drudgery and unwillingness, even the
shortest labor camp stretch would be a death sentence.
There are those, of course, who do not have the ability to remain committed in their
beliefs and do not have good work ethics. High among these is Fetiukov, the vulture of the
104th squad. The narrator remarks about the zek’s sad state: “When you thought about it,
you couldn’t help feeling sorry for him. He wouldn’t live to see the end of his stretch. His
attitude was all wrong,” (144). Fetiukov, who was divorced by his wife upon his arrest, has
yet to form any bonds with others. He scrounges for food in the mess hall, though little is
forthcoming. He looks slyly at those who are smoking, hoping for a puff. He drags his feet
at the construction site until castigated by Tiurin: “Fetuikov, on the other hand, grew lazier
and lazier. He’d tilt the barrow as he came up, the lousy bastard, so that the mortar would
slop out of it and then it’d be lighter to carry,” (97) comments the narrator. Fetuikov
Agrawal 9
quickly leaves behind his previous personality, that of a responsible foreman, and instead
becomes a worm. He looks out only for himself and refuses to care for others. Lastly, he
has no work ethic. While Fetuikov believes that what he is doing is best to ensure his own
survival, the narrator makes it clear that his tactics will only result in his own death.
Ivan Denisovich takes a unique look at the Soviet gulag system. Instead of
discussing the system’s brutality by portraying death, abuse, or hardships, Solzhenitsyn
focuses on how Ivan Denisovich and those around him are able to adapt to the new world
in which they unjustly find themselves. People must adapt to true society, not to what
society preaches itself to be. Moreover, successful people must also be able to respect
themselves and must not compromise away their own individuality to a system that can
mercilessly destroy. By no longer taking joy in one’s personal traditions, idiosyncrasies,
and habits, all one can brood about is the hardships of the gulag. Lastly, a person must
work for both his own self-satisfaction and of the work squad. Ivan Denisovich is at its
core a manifesto of man’s strength and adaptability.