Natalia Tishchenko


In this article three methods of prison interpretation in soviet and Russian literature in 20-21 centuries are analyzed using the basic standings of the theory of discourse analysis (van Dijk, Fairclough, Laclau, Mouffe, Foucault). Changes in perception of prison subculture connected with fundamental changes of culture in a whole are showed on the example of three types of discourses that correspond to three periods in literature. Prison evaluation as a social-legal institute is changing depending on the type of culture. Author's method of carrying out discourse-analysis of literary texts helps to reveal such changing. Literary texts are considered as discursive practices that are directly connected with social practices and express definite models of behavior, living priorities and so on. Conclusion is made that in modern interpretation such terms as prison and prison subculture are a valuable participators of economical strategies that express values and priorities of society of consumption.


Culture Studies; Prison; Literary text; Discourse; Prison Subculture; Struggle of Discourses$ Lagernaja Literature

Full Text:



V. Abramkin, Y.Chigov et al. How to survive in a Soviet prison. To help the prisoner, Kras-noyarsk, 1992 (in Russian).

V. Azhippo, Do Not Let the Vow, Kharkov, 2005 (in Russian).

L. Althusser, Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays, New York, 2001.

A. Applebaum, Gulag: A History of the Soviet Camps, New York, 2003.

I. Augsberg, Reading Law: On Law as a Textual Phenomenon, Law & Literature, Vol. 22, Is. 3, 2010.

P.K. Bock, Culture shock: a reader in modern cultural anthropology, New York, 1970.

P. Bourdieu, Practical Reason: On the Theory of Action, Stanford, 1998.

V. Burr, An Introduction to Social Constructionism, London, 1995.

L. Chouliaraki, N. Fairclough, Discourse in Late Modernity: Rethinking Critical Discourse Analysis. Edinburg, 1999.

T.A. van Dijk, Discourse and Power, New York, 2008.

N. Fairclough, Critical discourse analysis and the marketization of public discourse: die universities, Discourse and Society, No. 4 (2), 1993.

M. Foucault, The Archaeology of Knowledge, Routledge, 1972.

A. Giddens, The Constitution of Society. Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Cambridge, 1984.

A. Gullotta, A New Perspective for Gulag Literature Studies: the Gulag Press, Studi Slavis-tici, No. VIII, 2011.

G. Hazagerov, Party, power and rhetoric, Moscow, 2006 (in Russian).

S. Kvale, Postmodern psychology: a contradiction in terms? in Psychology and Postmo-dernism. London, 1992.

E. Laclau, C. Mouffe, Hegemony and Socialist Strategy. Toward a Radical Democratic Politics. London, 2001.

A. Marchenko, My Testimony, New York, 1969.

A. Margolis, Prison and exile in Imperial Russia: research, archival discoveries, Sankt-Peterburg ,1995 (in Russian).

N. Phillips, C. Hardy, Discourse Analysis: Investigating Processes Of Social Construction, Thousand Oaks, 2002.

L. Razgon, True Stories, Moscow, 2006 (in Russian).

R. Redfield, The Folk Culture of Yucatan. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1941.

S. Richards, The Gulag Archipelago as Literary Documentary, in J. В. Dunlop, R. S. Haugh and M. Nicholson (eds) Solzhenitsyn in Exile: Critical Essays and Documentary Materials Stanford, 1985.

A. Solzhenitsyn, The First Circle, New York, 2009.

A. Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago, London, 2002.

N. Spearing, Don’t Go Changing: On Richard Weisberg’s Critique of Stanley Fish and Ho-locaust Denial, Law & Literature, Vol. 20, Is. 3, 2008.

F. Svetov, Prison, Moscow, 1992(in Russian).

L. Toker, Return from the Archipelago: narratives of Gulag survivors, Indiana University Press 2000.

J. B. Thompson, Shifting Boundaries of Public and Private Life, Theory, Culture & Society, No. 28, 2011.


  • There are currently no refbacks.