Opinion Boycotts, calls to cancel Russian artists and literary figures are counterproductive and unwise

Fyodor Dostoevsky was arrested and exiled by an imperial Russian government, “Russian Salad” was invented by a Belgian and, at the height of the Cold War, Andrei Tarkovsky became one of the most celebrated filmmakers at both the Cannes and Venice film festivals. During the current conflict in Ukraine — and the ensuing outrage in many quarters against Vladimir Putin’s expansionism — an Italian university has suspended a course on Dostoevsky, a cafe in Kerala has taken Russian Salad off its menu and there have been boycotts and bans on Russian dancers, singers, artists and filmmakers across Europe. While the cultural assault on Russian artists may come from a place of solidarity with the people of Ukraine who are suffering, it is, in practice, unwise and counterproductive.

If there is one lesson from the protracted conflicts of the 20th century, it is this: Artists can bridge divides and keep the doors open when governments cannot. In the subcontinent, after all, Indian films and Pakistani artists have continued to thrive across the border. Not even the most ardent anti-Putin activist would claim that all Russians support the invasion of Ukraine, or that the protests against the war in the country are not a welcome sign of dissent. But perhaps the reason for the bellicose calls for eschewing all things Russian has less to do with Russia and more to do with the nature of moral posturing in the internet age.

Advertisement

The move to topple Dostoevsky from Europe’s literary canon, or to “cancel” Russian Salad is reminiscent of the sort of comical virtue signalling often seen on social media. On the internet, anonymous posts and loud groups are the tools used to intimidate and excoriate people that users find disagreeable, or even others associated with them. In the real world, however, matters are more complex. Dostoevsky is not Putin’s creation, a ballet dancer is not a bomber.