10.1177/0888325403258294 REVIEWLaughter and Forgetting RevisitedEast European Politics and Societies

Laughter and Forgetting Revisited

A Carnival of Revolution: Central Europe 1989by Padraic Kenney. Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press, 2002. pp. 341.

Lan T. Chu

Padraic Kenney’s work, A Carnival of Revolution, demonstrateshow dissent and the revolutions throughout Central Europe dur-ing the 1980s did indeed resemble a carnival. This characteriza-tion is important and is often (and unfortunately) overlooked inthe academic literature. Rather than focusing on the more well-known protagonists of Central European dissent, Kenney intro-duces to the reader a plethora of relatively unknown actors andtechniques that appeared between the spring of 1986 andNovember 1989 in Central Europe. Thus, rather than focusing onSolidarity and Charter 77, groups such as Orange Alternative,Freedom and Peace, and Polish-Czechoslovak Solidarity takecenter stage; in place of Vaclav Havel, Adam Michnik, LechWaÂe ñsa, and Jacek Kurón, countless Central European highschool and college students are given the spotlight. This empha-sis on the relatively “unknown” is what distinguishes Kenney’sbook from other works dealing with the revolutions of CentralEurope.

There is no doubt that most students of Central European poli-tics and even students of the “third wave” of democratization arefamiliar with the “senior opposition,” that is, the intellectuals ofthe 1960s. Kenney’s book, through his discussion of the post-1968 konkretny generation, however, enriches our knowledgeby highlighting the multivariate structure of revolution and thealternative methods for dissent. Unlike the “senior opposition,”the konkretny generation was of a different ilk. What set the twogenerations apart are the issues and the manner in which theyengaged in dissent.

700East European Politics and Societies, Vol. 17, No. 4, pages 700–705. ISSN 0888-3254

© 2003 by the American Council of Learned Societies. All rights reserved.DOI: 10.1177/0888325403258294

Unlike the intellectuals of 1968, who “believed in the power ofa devastating critique” (p. 13), the konkretny generation was pre-occupied less with intellectual or moral statements and morewith concrete or practical action. They focused on activities thatwould result in real and immediate changes that affected theireveryday life. Groups that signified the konkretny included theLion Cubs of Western Ukraine, Slovenia’s People for Peace Cul-ture, the Hungarian Orange Appeal, and Czechoslovakia’s Inde-pendent Peace Association-Initiative for the Demilitarization ofSociety (NMS). All of these groups were able to effect changes innational policies (ranging from military service to the environ-ment) while preserving and upholding the universal category ofhuman rights in their own countries. Systemic change was not theorder of the day. In reference to his goal as a twenty-year-old inCzechoslovakia during the 1980s, Martin Mejstr #ík stated, “Thepoint for me was not to overthrow the regime somehow—defi-nitely not. It was enough for me that people would begin to thinkabout where they live, and so on” (as quoted on pp. 151-52).

As noted by Kenney, the older generation enveloped theircause in truth and ideology critique; their stage was the shopfloor, the church hall, and samizdat. In contrast to Michnik, whothought Gorbachev and his policy of perestroika was the “realthing,” and Havel, who even gave Gorbachev a “shy little wave”(p. 122), the konkretny generation is described by Kenney asindifferent to the political system at large. This indifference sub-sequently transformed fear of the system into laughter. With thisindifference toward the reigning Communist Parties, thekonkretny generation was, according to Kenney, able to resolvethe problem of Havel’s fictional greengrocer: “instead of refusingto ape official ideology, it was more effective to ape it gro-tesquely” (p. 159). Ironically, Kenney’s focus on the absurdbehavior of this generation is a substantive contribution to thecategorized, operationalized literature on democratization.

First, it provides very real and personal accounts, givingdeeper meaning to variables such as “demonstration effects” or“global civil society”. The formation of Polish-Czechoslovak Soli-darity in 1983 by university student Mirek Jasin!ski is a fine exam-ple of civil society in action (pp. 106-9). The movement of litera-

East European Politics and Societies 701

ture, printing equipment for samizdat, and eventually people atthe Poland-Czechoslovakia border were done mainly by Polishstudents. Since printing equipment was a rarity in Czechoslova-kia, students in WrocÂaw, Poland, composed and published aBrno journal for the Czechoslovak opposition. They deliveredthe journal across the border, which led Czech police to think off-set printers were operating in Czechoslovakia (p. 107). Word ofthis movement spread eastward, and soon a Czechoslovak-Soviet border exchange was established. The fluid but tangibleexchange between dissident groups in different countries adds anew dimension to the term “global civil society.” Universal cate-gories such as peace and human rights were important but “eachmovement, regardless of its international ties, ultimately foughtfor freedom at home” (p. 120). This dimension is sometimes dis-regarded, especially in the construction of post-communist soci-eties by international nongovernmental agencies.1

Second, the book places a serious emphasis on the politics ofotherwise nonpolitical (or “antipolitical”) behavior. But ratherthan looking for behavior that generates trust, a variable that isoften discussed alongside civil society, Kenney focuses on thebehavior of the absurd, which he believes is responsible for carv-ing out and sustaining the space for civil society. Chapter 5, titled“How the Smurfs Captured Gargamel, or, a Revolution of Style,”is the heart of Kenney’s book. In this chapter, he provides an in-depth discussion of “surrealist socialism,” which was the projectof the Orange Alternative, a movement based in WrocÂaw, andthe brainchild of art student Waldemar Maria “Major” Frydrych.

The character of Orange Alternative can be understood by itsvery name. According to Frydrych, rather than the symbolic redof the communists or the symbolic yellow of the papal flag, thecolor orange was the symbolic rejection of the former two colors.Orange Alternative began testing the limits of authority in 1981when they would transform blobs of paint, left by police afterthey covered up Solidarity graffiti, into little elves. Rather than theauthorities being at the heels of the dissidents, the appearance of

702 Laughter and Forgetting Revisited

1. To understand the effects of international aid in post-communist Central Europe, see JanineWedel’s Collision and Collusion: The Strange Case of Western Aid to Eastern Europe 1989-1998 (New York: St. Martin’s, 1998).

these little elves, which could only be brought about by the spraypainting done by the police, proved otherwise. In 1982, studentswearing theater costumes and bizarre headgear toured WrocÂaw,singing communist songs, throwing flowers at police, anddemanding freedom for the bears at the zoo. Since the commu-nists legitimized their authority on a “worker’s state,” in 1987 theOrange Alternative gave them one. A thousand students dressed“like workers in old stalinist movies” took to cleaning the streetsand another thousand gave life to the graffiti elves by donningred caps, distributing candy, dancing and singing children’ssongs. This style of taking to the streets occurred on numerousoccasions, but what could the police do? Could one be arrestedfor laughing and, if so, how would this reflect on the authorities?One of Frydrych’s reports states, “The militia are disoriented:whom should they arrest first? The dog with a red ribbon? Thebanners? Or the red comrades running and whistling?” (p. 162).

The seriousness behind the actions of the striking shipyardworkers in Gdansk was a far cry from the actions of the OrangeAlternative, which Kenney described as “guerrilla street theater/performance art ridiculing the communist regime” (p. 157). Nev-ertheless, although the methods or protest used by these twogroups were different, their goal was the same: to create a spacefor freedom. The seemingly puerile acts of street performanceand vandalism, therefore, had a more serious and important mes-sage: they were a sign to participants and bystanders that free-dom was attainable. For Orange Alternative, the street as a placefor freedom was not fully utilized (p. 164).

Kenney’s style is reminiscent of that of Czech literary authorMilan Kundera. Similar to Kundera’s, Kenney’s work provides awindow into the vibrant life behind the Iron Curtain. It was not,necessarily, a dreary world filled merely with long bread linesunderneath the menacing, drab façades of communist architec-ture. Instead, Kenney tells us that there was laughter and thatthere was fun. And much like Kundera’s books, the passion thatgenerates the laughter and fun also gives way to sadness. Consis-tent with the carnival theme, therefore, Kenney contrasts theactivities of groups such as the Orange Alternative with the sad-ness that occurs following the passing of a carnival. After the dis-

East European Politics and Societies 703

sident revolutions that culminated in 1989, it is once again busi-ness (and politics) as usual in Central Europe. The studentscommitted to the task of dissent in 1989 are now adults whomust, professionally, make up for lost time. Today, the youngactivists of the 1980s are left wondering “whether the excitementof the carnival had been worth the price of admission” (p. 305).Kenney immediately contrasts this sadder image by reviewingthe massive changes that occurred and what was eventuallyachieved by the Central European revolutions. This moment ofreflection, interrupted by Kenney, however, deserves moreattention. While the activities and events leading to the eventualcollapse of communism are important, what occurs afterwards isequally so. The consolidation of democracy is not likely to occursuccessfully if civil society and the actors within it are freeze-framed into history. Both civil society and its actors mature, giv-ing way to a new civil society and new actors who will beresponsible with charting the path for the consolidation andeventual deepening of democracy.

In reading A Carnival of Revolution, one may find Kenney’sunderplaying of “senior opposition” tactics to be an unnecessarymeasure. He states,

Neither dissident leaders nor reform communists sought to mobilizesociety (in strikes or demonstrations); the new movements, in con-trast, brought the carnival to town. . . . As we pay attention to the car-nival, we can learn to think about 1989 without resorting to “mira-cles,” “people-power,” and “surprise.” (p. 13)

The usual suspects for Central European dissent, that is, the intel-lectual opposition leaders, the church, and the organized under-ground, are all “usual,” however, for a reason. Without theirstructural support and voice of moral authority in the face of animmoral regime, it would be difficult to formulate a recipe for asuccessful revolution. Furthermore, when reading Kenney’sbook, one can not help but to think that the terms he dismisses,albeit less so for “miracles,” precisely describe 1989. The poten-tial of the human spirit was manifested throughout CentralEurope by none other than young adults who could have easily

704 Laughter and Forgetting Revisited

been overshadowed by the actions of the 1968 generation. IfKenney’s discussion of the konkretny generation is not one of“people-power” and “surprise,” what else could it be? Finally,Kenney’s nostalgic retelling of individual tactics of dissent, attimes, appears too particularized and contextualized. What couldopposition and dissident movements of today learn from thisbook? Unlike Jasin !ki’s 1983 Polish-Czechoslovak Solidarity, a setof coordinated activities that were eventually able to reach theUkraine, the movements of today are more disparate and do nothave the luxury of geographical immanence or a common ideo-logical foe, which would allow them to draw strength and sup-port from one another.

Nevertheless, despite these minor flaws, the book is anexceptional read. For this reader, a sign of an important and well-written book is when the author is able to create a literary roller-coaster ride. This is exactly what Kenney does. Throughout thebook, Kenney is able to invoke from his audience a mixture ofindescribable emotions, which concludes with a sense of sad-ness: sadness for the passing of the carnival, sadness for the car-nival actors who seemingly no longer have a need to perform. Itis here that Kenney succinctly summarizes the entire emotionalroller-coaster ride. After presenting accounts that were derivedfrom an impressive range of more than three hundred interviewsspanning twelve countries, Kenney reminds the reader of all the“impossible” changes that were made possible: the church, theold opposition, people’s mindsets and prejudices, and the verynature of politics (p. 305). For this very reason, “It is likely that thememory and experience of unlimited potential will remain oneof the lasting legacies of the carnival of Central Europe” (p. 306).What is thought to be the flaw of the book may turn out to be itsstrength. The personal accounts of both political and nonpoliticalbehavior basically show us what was and is possible. Just know-ing what is possible is the lasting contribution of this book, and itis a worthwhile and valuable lesson for anyone seeking to carveout a space for freedom.

East European Politics and Societies 705