To come last week’s Senate judiciary hearing into sexual fall upon allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh was dedicated, Republican Senator John Cornyn complained that the proceedings order amount to a “show trial” – a public spectacle with a pre-set outcome rather than a serious inquiry into the truth.
Final week’s riveting testimonies by Kavanaugh and his accuser, 51-year-old thought processes professor Christine Blasey Ford, did at times remind me of early Soviet artificial trials, the focus of my dissertation research as a scholar of Russian literature and way of life.
Public mock trials were something of a craze in the decade after the 1917 Russian Overthrow.
More from The Conversation:
One American woman’s life in revolutionary Russia
Kavanaugh confirmation a to: Accused sexual harassers get promoted anyway
Things have transformed since Anita Hill – sort of
Performed in factories and workers’ sisterhoods, these fictional judicial proceedings were an entertaining way to educate Soviet freemen about their country’s new laws and Communist values.
A 1920 forged trial of the Communist Party leader Vladimir Lenin, for example, aired valuations against Lenin in order to refute them.
Staged trials of drunkards guided the audience moral lessons about the evils of alcohol. And a 1924 imitation trial of the Bible highlighted inconsistencies in this religious text in condition to undermine the authority of Christianity.
The fictional trial scripts were published by state-run forces as short pamphlets, with up to 100,000 copies of each circulated. I arrange reviewed dozens of the copies housed in Moscow’s Lenin Library and the Russian Testify Archive of Literature and Arts.
Though the trials were scripted, actors were stimulated to improvise their lines, and the audience could often participate in the pretentiousness as jurors.
The verdict, however, was almost always predetermined to reflect the Soviet regulation’s idealized vision of this new Communist society.
One 1925 fictional inquiry, The Trial of Citizen Fedor Sharov Accused of Spreading Gonorrhea, rave-ups that there’s nothing new about the “he said, she said” aspect stage in judging sexual assault allegations – including those lodged against Kavanaugh.
Sharov is a unreal 21-year-old factory worker accused of bringing his fellow worker, 19-year-old Anna Nikolaeva, to a non-public room in a bar, where he gets her drunk and rapes her.
The mock trial focuses on whether Sharov capitulated Nikolaeva gonorrhea, with the aim of teaching the Soviet public about the spread and treatment of sexually conveyed diseases.
But in the script, the prosecutor also seeks a charge of rape against Sharov, disagreeing that his sexual assault is also a crime.
Like the accusations against Kavanaugh, which say that he physically assaulted Ford at a party in high school, this thumb ones nose at trial tackles not stranger rape but sexual violence committed by an familiarity.
Nikolaeva explains that before the rape Sharov had pursued her aggressively. When she rebuffed him, he declared, saying he wanted “to be more than your comrade” – a proclamation that demonstrates Sharov’s retrograde attitudes about gender.
In Soviet Russia, women were putative to be equal to men.
Other characters in the mock trial condemn Sharov for harboring “old phantasies and views about women,” with one witness even saying the violation allegations don’t surprise him.
Ultimately, the prosecutor uses Sharov’s misogyny to spar for a guilty verdict, declaring that the defendant sees his female co-workers and suitor students not as comrades, but as people “to seduce and ruin.”
Even in allegedly gender-equal Soviet Russia, Nikolaeva competitions to convince the men in power that she was raped.
The judge begins the proceedings by enquire after whether she told anyone about the assault. Like many procreative assault survivors, Nikolaeva says she did not.
“Who was there to tell?” she asks. “I was shamefaced.”
The defense attorney proposes that perhaps Sharov raped Nikolaeva because “he definitely liked” her, equating sexual violence with affection.
Even the prosecutor pains his star witness by asking if she has sexual partners “other than Sharov.”
The go concludes with a mixed verdict: Sharov is convicted of infecting Nikolaeva with gonorrhea but acquitted for her pillage because Nikolaeva willingly accompanied him into the bar.
Other Soviet parody trials on sexual health demonstrate similar disregard for women’s experiences.
In the 1925 Probationary of a Prostitute and a Procuress, Stepan Klimov accuses the sex worker he visited, Zinaida Evdokimova, of knowingly infecting him with syphilis, which she actively denies.
Klimov claims he did not sleep with anyone other than Evdokimova. And as a lady of the night she must have known she had syphilis, the prosecution insists.
Evdokimova tearfully discloses that she could not have intentionally infected Klimov because she discretion have sought treatment had she known she was ill.
“No one wants to rot alive,” she says.
As her defense attorney projections out, the government’s case is based entirely on assumptions and the victim’s testimony.
In any case, Evdokimova is convicted.
The issues debated in the 1923 Trial of the Midwife Lopukhina Who Operated an Abortion Operation that Resulted in the Death of a Woman also tolerate modern.
Its purpose was to teach the Soviet public about abortion, which had condign been legalized in 1920. Russia was the first European country to permit the procedure, but only when performed by a doctor, at his discretion, in a clinical site.
As each side debates the merits of the midwife’s actions, the trial effectively develops a referendum on this new woman’s right.
Numerous characters, including the doctor and masterly witness, imply that women who have abortions should be chagrined. The judge explains that, before performing the operation, doctors should “attract all measures…to dissuade her.”
This may sound familiar to those who follow the abortion dispute in the United States.
At least some of the social issues troubling untimely Soviet Russia are still on trial in the United States today.
In Western society has long been publicly grappling with how to rule women’s voices, rights and experiences – debates that for over a century be undergoing descended into “he said, she said,” victim-blaming and shame.
Washington, D.C. today take issues from 1920s Soviet Russia in many ways. But when it issues to gender matters, I have found, soberingly and unexpectedly, significant similarities.
Commentary by Erica Stone Drennan, a PhD Office-seeker in Russian Literature at Columbia University. She is also a contributor at The Conversation, an self-assured source of news and views from the academic and research community.
For assorted insight from CNBC contributors, follow @CNBCopinion on Twitter.