Nogaidīšanas stratēģija kā pretestības izpausme Latvijas Padomju rakstnieku savienībā vēlīnā staļinisma un destaļinizācijas periodā

Under the conditions of the Soviet totalitarian regime, creative self-expression and individual freedom were severely restricted. In order to exert control and ideological supervision over the creative process, writers were compelled to join the Union of Soviet Writers of Latvia, where the Board of the Union of Soviet Writers of Latvia supervised the implementation of the Communist Party’s directives and principles. Opposing the ideological framework within the creative process was nearly impossible, yet some members of the Writers’ Union adopted strategies that may be interpreted as acts of resistance. The article aims to present a case study of everyday resistance practices within the Union of Soviet Writers of Latvia during the late Stalinism and de-Stalinisation period, focusing on the poet Valdis Grēviņš’ (1895–1968) case. The article is based on the documents of the Union of Soviet Writers of Latvia and its local organisation of the Communist Party that are available at the Latvian State Archives of the National Archives of Latvia. The study applies the field theory of the sociologist Pierre Bourdieu (1930–2002) and its key concepts. Although literary autonomy in the Union of Soviet Writers of Latvia was rather conditional during the period under examination, nevertheless, despite political and ideological restrictions, some practices of resistance can be observed, and some expressions of resistance can be found in the Union, which manifested as a “wait-and-see” strategy and are exemplified through the case of Grēviņš, which is thoroughly analysed in the article. Through his creative endeavours, Grēviņš attempted to counter the official discourse of the Party by delaying the composition of works that endorsed communist ideology. At the same time, in an effort to maintain his position within the Writers’ Union, he engaged in translation work. His patient “wait-and-see” strategy demonstrates elements of both autonomy and resistance, while according to Bourdieu’s field theory, it also aims to acquire economic and symbolic capital.