[Note for bibliographic reference: Melberg, Hans O. (1997), The value of fictional
literature for the social sciences - A case study of Gogol's Dead Souls, http://www.oocities.org/hmelberg/papers/970707.htm]
The value of fictional literature for the social sciences
A case study of Gogol's Dead Souls
by Hans O. Melberg
Nikolaj Gogol
Døde Sjeler ("Dead Souls") ("Mjortvyje dushji")
Translated by Erik Krag
Oslo, Gyldendal Pocket, 1994 (Original Russian: 1842)
252 pages, ISBN: 82-05-18665-0
Introduction
Fiction should primarily be read for its own sake and pleasure. Nevertheless, a social
scientist may use fictional literature in at least three ways: to illustrate, to prove,
and to discover. The first - to illustrate - is simply to use literature as a heuristic
device; a way of improving our explanations. Since this use of literature is relatively
uncontroversial, I shall not discuss it further. The second use of literature - as
evidence to prove an argument - is more contested. For instance, is it good social science
to use literary quotes to prove that the Russians have a certain cultural trait (being
honest, religious etc.)? Finally, literature can be used as a source of inspiration - to
discover new mechanism that the author consciously or sub-consciously has described in his
work. In the following I shall use an examination of Gogol's Dead Souls to explore
the last two uses of literature: to prove and to discover.
Before I start, I must admit that I am no expert in the world of literature. Thus, the
following should not be read as a review of the literary qualities of the book, although I
cannot avoid making some comments in that direction. The main focus, however, is on how
the book could be read if we as dry social scientist wanted to "steal" ideas and
quotations from the logically and empirically less constrained authors of fictional works.
lastly, I must add that the quotations are highly imperfect translations. I read the
Norwegian translation of Dead Souls, thus the quotations have been translated
twice: first from Russian to Norwegian, and then from Norwegian to English. Even if I had
been able to translate perfectly from Norwegian to English (which I am not) the quotations
would still loose some of their flavour in each step. I apologise for this imperfection,
but hope that the meaning is still conveyed without too many problems.
The book
The plot of the book can be summarized quite easily. Pavel Ivanovitsj Tsjitsjikov - the
leading character - enters city N.N. in order to buy serfs that have died, but who are
still in the official registry (which is only updated every ten years). This plot gives
Gogol the chance to paint greatly exaggerated and very entertaining of various Russian
arch-types. As he tries to buy dead souls Tsjitsjikov meets Manilov (polite, good tempered
but rather uninterested in the daily work on the estate), Korobotsjika (suspicious,
slightly stupid, but quite thrifty), Nozdrjov (a notorious liar), Sobakjevskitsj (solid
but bad-tempered), and Pljusjkin (extremely tight-fisted). In addition to the detailed
portrait of these personalities, Gogol uses the plot to explore the driving forces of a
small Russian town - corruption, scandals, and the eternal competition for social status.
In my amateurish literary opinion, I found the story to be highly entertaining. The
plot generates suspense since the reader is made curious about why Tsjitsjikov wants to
buy the dead souls - what is the use of owning dead serfs? The answer comes towards the
very end of the book. It turns out that serfs can be pawned for 200 rubles as long as they
are registered, dead or alive doesn't matter. Tsjitsjikov's plan is thus simple: To become
rich by pawing dead souls that he buys cheaply. In this way, Gogol might be interpreted as
saying something about a typical Russian attitude: To become rich by using as little
effort as possible - and certainly not by hard work.
A good plot itself does not make an interesting book unless it is matched by good
execution - or style as we may call it. Gogol's style is marked by exaggeration, humour
and meta-speculation. As an example of exaggeration we may cite Gogol description of how
the village-elite almost start to believe that Tsjitsjkov is Napoleon in disguise who is
trying to abduct the daughter of the governor, buying dead souls in order to divert their
attention. Less grand, but still humorous, is the description of how our hero is woken up
when he inhales a flee that landed on his skin while he was asleep. As for the
meta-speculative style, I am less convinced that this device makes for good reading. To
interrupt your story by inserting your own thoughts seldom make for good reading, although
I have to admit that in this book it seemed to fit (unlike several other books I have
read). Finally, as far as I can judge the language is very good; the choice of words is
usually fresh and striking.
Gogol and the Russian culture
Academic authors writing about culture frequently quote famous fictional authors to
convince the reader that a culture is characterized by a certain trait. For an author
searching for evidence to this effect, Gogol can certainly be recommended. He frequently
makes more or less plausible claims about the distinctness of the Russian national
character compared to the other nations. Here are some minor examples:
Starting in the second chapter Gogol writes that "despite his Russian nature"
he wants to be "systematic like a German" and describe his characters in depth
(p. 13, see also p. 243, and especially p. 135). Two pages later, Gogol makes another
generalization about the Russian national character, when he writes that "nothing
attracts a Russian more than being in touch with people who are even just one step above
him on the social ladder ..." (p. 15). In the same way Gogol continues: The Russians
are especially "quick to take action" (p. 36); They are "far ahead" of
their neighbours in the art of treating people differently according to status
(flexibility of language) (p. 44); They bear no grudges after a fight - being able to meet
as friends as if nothing had happened afterwards (p. 67); They are surprisingly adaptable
(p. 154); And the Russians are very inventive in times of trouble (p. 235). In short,
Gogol frequently points to traits which he claims are particular to the Russians.
Sometimes, the claims about Russian distinctiveness are not very convincing. Consider,
for example, the following three examples: "no Russian wants to admit to being
wrong" (p. 86); "The Russians are very wise - afterwards" (p. 207); And,
"the laws of hospitality are unviolable in our country" (p. 118). These seems to
be universal human or national characteristics. Few people - Russian, French or German -
wants to admit mistakes; Most people find it easier to be wiser after an event than
before; And, hospitality seems be a norm in most countries. With these arguments I do not
want to claim that Gogol is wrong. He is writing a piece of fiction, not a treatise on
Russian cultural traits. Moreover, he is not drawing an explicit comparison (saying that
Russians are reluctant to admit mistakes does not necessarily imply that they are more so
than other peoples). I simply want to point out that these casual statements cannot be
used as proofs for a Russian national character.
A more serious, and less casual claim, is the following:
"We, the Russians, do not manage to hold representative meetings. If not one
strong hand takes command, then all our meetings ... will inescapably descent into the
most hopeless confusion. The reason for this is difficult to tell, but it undoubtedly lies
to the nation." (p. 200)
This is an often-repeated claim (see for example my Review of Hingley's The Russian
Mind (text) and my article Russians about Russians (text)), but I remain sceptical about the argument that a strong man
suits the Russian culture more than democracy. I have earlier pointed to some reasons for
my scepticism, however the persistence of the claim calls for an explanation.
I believe an explanation for the popularity of the claim can be found in two circular
arguments. First, Russia has often been ruled by a strong man, so a strong man must be the
form of government that best fits the Russian culture. Not only is this inference invalid
(a country can be ruled by a strong man for reasons other than culture), it is also partly
self-fulfilling. If you (wrongly) believe that Russia needs a strong man to lead it, then
you might be willing to support such a strong man in power - thus enabling strong men to
continue to rule. Second, as soon as some people have argued in favour of the strong man
thesis, other authors start quoting them to give their arguments credibility. Soon it is
repeated in many works, and the very frequency of the statement makes us believe it. For
example, reading Dead Souls I sometimes caught myself thinking "This is
exactly what Hingley wrote about the Russian culture. Maybe there is something to this
..." For example, like Gogol also Hingley writes about the great hospitality of the
Russian nation and the Russian love of scandals and scenes (see p. 87 in Gogol). However,
my initial joy of having found a parallel - a "connection" - was checked by a
growing doubt. Hingley's statements were not independent of Gogol. Somewhat caricatured
and simplified the process was as follows: Hingley read Gogol and wrote about the Russian
culture. I read Hingley and was relatively unconvinced. I then read Gogol and became more
convinced. However, this is like buying a second copy of a newspaper to confirm a fact you
read in the first copy (Wittgenstein, Elster) - it is wrong and useless, but it is
nevertheless quite widespread.
What are the general conclusions on the use of fictional quotations based on these few
observations on Gogol's Dead Souls. In my opinion, the value of using quotations
from famous authors to prove a cultural trait, is very limited. It is too easy to search
for exactly the quotations that fits your argument; to ignore fictional evidence to the
opposite; and to be convinced by an evidence which is really a repetition of a previous
evidence. This being said, I must also admit that there are different and more reliable
ways of using fiction to prove cultural traits. For example, F. Ganeslen has analyzed
about 1000 conflicts as described by authors in China, Japan, USA and Russia. His analysis
shows how the Russian culture is less individualists than the American culture (since the
individual opposing the majority wins less in Russian fictional conflicts than American
fiction). He also gives evidence which shows that the fictional conflicts correspond to
reality (for more on this see Culture and decision making). Thus,
I am not opposed to the use of literature to prove points in the social sciences, only the
use of a few well-selected quotations.
Using fiction as a source of inspiration
In the social sciences we are searching for mechanisms that can be used to explain facts
and events. An example of a mechanism, is cognitive dissonance reduction. This mechanism
can be used to explain why people working in dangerous industries might wear too little
protective equipment (they underestimate the danger in order to reconcile their belief in
their own rationality with the kind of work they are doing). Although a mechanism is not a
social law, it is a causal pattern which can be found in more than one instance. Hence, we
may use literature to search for possible mechanisms, although we usually have to see
whether the pattern is generalizable (find more real-life examples) before the suggestion
can be called a mechanism. (For more on mechanisms, see the first chapter in Jon Elster's Political
Psychology.)
In Gogol's Dead Souls I found examples of several types of well known mechanism.
For example, the problem of adverse selection is clearly implied when the village discuss
the wisdom of buying serfs. One person then argues, "no land-owner sells good and
able people." (p. 155). This immediately sent my thought back to Akerlof's article
about adverse selection, for example when the market for good second-hand cars breaks down
for exactly the same reasons as the market for good serfs: adverse selection and
informational asymmetry. (Note this is not an analogy, the causal mechanism is the same).
A somewhat more detailed mechanism, is similar to that of Grouch Marx - he who did not
want to be a member of any club that would accept him as a member. For example,
Korobotsjika is reluctant to sell her dead serfs, precisely because Tsjitsjikov so eagerly
wants to buy them. In other words, eagerness to buy leads to reluctance to sell because
the person fears that he is being cheated (assuming a world of uncertainty). The very
desire to buy demonstrate that the good has some value for the buyer, and since this value
is unknown to the seller, he might prefer not to sell (see, especially 101).
A third interesting mechanism is suggested by Gogol in one of his interrupting
meta-speculations, this time about how weak academic beliefs and assumptions mistakenly
turns into strong convictions over time - just like initial gossip hardens into almost
truths as more and more people repeat it. "The learned gentlemen are very careful to
begin with ... starting with a careful question." (p. 189) As he proceeds, "he
cites many of the old authors, and as soon as he finds a suggestion, or what looks like a
suggestion, ... his courage increases considerably ... Now he thinks he understands
everything, it is all obvious and clear" (p. 190). The mechanism seems to be that
starting with a few facts and initial uncertainty, people tend to search for meaning until
they have invented a pattern of their own which seems to explain the facts. This is then
taken to be the truth, ignoring that the process of searching for meaning is highly
unreliable in a world of so many factors and uncertainty: The explanation one person finds
is only one of many possible explanations of the fact.
For example, to make sense of Gogol's act of buying dead souls (which they do not even
know what is), the villagers "invent" the theory that it must be an attempt to
distract their attention from his real purpose which, they infer from almost no evidence,
is to abduct the daughter of the governor. I found this description of how mistaken
beliefs and collective stupidity arise very suggestive, and I think the pattern is
generalizible. Indeed, even in this very article I mentioned how easy it was to
(mistakenly) become more convinced about a matter when the same piece of evidence was
repeated over and over again.
I have so far tried to discuss mechanism that could explain the failure of potentially
profitable trade (adverse selection), and how weak beliefs are transformed into apparent
truths (inventing additional facts which makes the belief look more convincing and repeat
the story). A fourth mechanism I learned about, maybe the most interesting one, originated
from the following comment by N. Kantor:
[NOTE: The following discussion is an excerpt from my article Russians about
Russians)
"Through the entire novel Gogol illustrates two opposed principles: on the one
hand, a kopeck as a symbol of work and transformation, and on the other, "a hundred
thousand roubles" received without effort and, therefore serving no useful purpose
either to the recipient or the state." (p. 107 (in Kantor's article), boldface
added).
This argument is unconventional, and rich on interesting implications. It is
unconventional in the sense that it is not compatible with traditional economic theories
(Permanent Income Hypothesis, Life-cycle hypothesis). First, in these theories the source
of your income does not affect which goods you want to buy with your income. Second, the
speed of how you acquire your income is not a large determinant of the speed by which you
spend your money. An example might clarify the issues. First, Gogol would argue that if
you received $100 000 from a lottery, you would spend the money on different goods than if
you made $100 000 by hard work. Second, receiving $100 000 suddenly affects you
consumption-pattern differently than receiving $10 000 in ten yearly instalments. (In fact
the relationship between income and consumption is a bit more complex: We have two
variables: the time profile of you income and its source. Using these variables we want to
explain the time profile of consumption and the boundle of goods consumed. Now, the source
of income may affect both the time profile of consumption and the consumption boundle. In
the same way a change in the time profile of income may affect both the boundle consumed
and the speed by which you spend your money.)
The implications of the argument above are striking. A system of government - in this
case one which is relatively open to rent-seeking - encourages an activity (rent-seeking).
Income from this activity, Gogol argues, is not spent the same way as income from hard
work. Instead of investing the income in entrepreneurial activities, it is spent mainly on
luxury and even more rent-seeking activities. Thus, we have an evil circle: rent seeking
creates ever more rent-seeking and wasteful consumption. This is interesting for at least
two reasons. First, the circle may be used to explain why some countries fail to produce
economic growth. Second, it suggests a cure: To create a system of government which
minimizes the possibilities for rent-seeking activities (by, for example,
non-discretionary rules and constitutional provisions).
Altogether Gogol presents a very interesting chain: Sudden income create impatient
consumers and impatient people are not good entrepreneurs. Rent-seeking may produce quick
incomes, but they also create a type of personality which engage in luxury consumption and
more rent-seeking. Together this suggests (but in no way proves) how a society may be
locked in a sub-optimal equilibrium. One may also add that whether one blames the system
or the culture depends on how far back one wants to go in the causal chain (remember
Gogol's famous question: Who is to blame? We ourselves or the government? (p. 196)). The
culture of impatience and rent-seeking is created by the system, thus the immediate cause
is culture, but the ultimate cause is the system.
After this detailed discussion of some mechanism implicit in Gogol's novel, one might
speculate about the use of literature in general. Does literature occupy a special place
among the various sources that may inspire people to find mechanisms. For instance, in a
previous article (Culture - An explanatory variable or an interpretive approach?) I argued
that fruitfulness was not a good criteria on which to judge theories since it was
inherently subjective. For some taking a bath could be a useful way of getting new ideas,
new suggestion for generalizable mechanisms. While this is true, I think my argument was a
bit extreme. Literature deals with the same topic as the social sciences - human
interaction and psychology. It is impossible to write a book and avoid suggesting some
mechanism. The same cannot be said for taking a shower. Moreover, literature has a role
which historical examples cannot fulfil - to describe what might have been (or what might
become). For example, Orwell's 1984 can be seen as a literary prophecy - an attempt to
describe how existing tendencies and mechanisms had the potential to create a horrible
society.
Conclusion
I started by arguing that fictional literature could be used in three different ways in
the social sciences: to illustrate, to prove and to discover. What unifies these three is
that literature gives us examples (of preference formation, belief formation,
social interaction and its consequences). It is these examples which can be used to
illustrate, prove and discover. However, the special nature of literature - it is, after
all, fiction constrained only be the author's imagination - means that it is difficult to
use literature as proofs. I think, however, that literature has quite a large role as a
source of inspiration, but only in conjunction with a search for real life examples of the
hypothetical mechanisms described in fiction. In any case, these uses of literature is -
and certainly should be for the author if he wants to create good literature - a side
effect of the main use of fiction: to give us pleasure by telling a good story.
[Note for bibliographic reference: Melberg, Hans O. (1997), The value of fictional
literature for the social sciences - A case study of Gogol's Dead Souls, http://www.oocities.org/hmelberg/papers/970707.htm]