In archaic authoritarian societies, sexual relations are not regarded as a private matter between two individuals but as an object of public control, where society itself determines their permissible forms and character. Only in relatively recent times in democratic countries have sexual relations come to be understood primarily as a sphere of personal freedom and individual choice. Such an approach is unacceptable to the contemporary Russian authorities, which in their attitude toward sexuality demonstrate not merely conservatism but a drive to revive the most primitive forms of social control. As a result, sexual humiliation becomes one of the instruments used to maintain the system of power and to mobilize society for war.
If one looks at the Russian–Ukrainian war from the outside, a paradoxical picture emerges. A person who, through his behavior and manner of speech, demonstrates a lack of empathy, indifference to human life, and at the same time fear of his own death and loss of power, has found himself at the head of a vast country. His only political talent is the ability to adapt to those above him in the hierarchy. Having come to see himself as a great statesman and conqueror, he has unleashed a war against a neighboring nation.
What is striking, however, is not this, but the fact that, by the will of one person, hundreds of thousands of Russians are sent to kill inhabitants of a neighboring country who have done them no harm. Many go to war voluntarily and are prepared to die pointlessly rather than oppose those who started it. Moreover, a significant part of Russian society has supported the war against a people who were until recently considered fraternal, despite the fact that many Russians still have relatives or friends in Ukraine.
Read also on PostPravda.Info: The Ideological Concept of Russian Culture Amid the War: What Should We Do with It?
The Formation of a Prison-Camp Subculture
What is wrong with Russians? In fact, the problem is not the nation itself, but the social system that maintains hierarchy through various mechanisms, including sexual humiliation. This involves sexual insults, sexualized violence, the threat of such violence, or its symbolic imitation, as well as the reduction of social status by equating a person with a defenseless object of sexual violence.
In authoritarian societies, especially in wartime, the humiliation of women is more widespread, but under the current Kremlin regime, men have become the primary targets of sexual humiliation. However, one might object that this phenomenon exists only within a prison-camp subculture and is therefore marginal. But is that really the case?
One of the key stages in Russia’s history was the 1930s, when collectivization coincided with mass repression. Millions of people from various social strata passed through the system of labor camps. It was there that the prison-camp subculture was formed, gradually permeating the everyday life of urban residents. For many peasants, moving to the city was perceived as an opportunity to escape the collective farm system. Having lost traditional forms of rural life, they encountered in the city the behavioral norms of the prison-camp subculture, without realizing that anything different was possible. Over time, these norms were transmitted to subsequent generations and eventually began to be perceived not as an exception, but as a habitual way of human interaction.
Perversion of Human Dignity
The goal of Russian policy regarding LGBT people is not, in fact, to combat non-traditional sexual orientation. On the contrary, its purpose is to institutionalize sexual violence as one of the instruments of power. This refers to violence that implies symbolic or real homosexual subjugation. This process is accompanied by the perversion of the very concept of human dignity.
As I understand it, human dignity is the preservation of oneself and one’s personality despite external circumstances: whatever happens, a person remains themselves. Only through the perversion of the concept of human dignity does it become possible for people to mass-support the killing of their friends and relatives in a neighboring country at the whim of a single individual.
In contemporary Russian society, general civic norms are being displaced by norms formed within the prison-camp subculture, in which people subjected to sexual humiliation belong to a specially designated untouchable caste. In terms of social stigmatization, this caste is among the most devalued groups known in the history of various societies.
Read also on PostPravda.Info: Party of the Dead against Putin’s Russia
Sexual Humiliation in “Black” and “Red” Zones
In Russia, penal institutions are divided into “black zones,” where order is governed by criminal authorities, and “red zones,” where the administration dominates. In “black zones,” transfer into the caste of the sexually humiliated is carried out by criminals themselves through physical sexual violence. In “red zones,” this is carried out by the institution’s administration, but most often not through physical sexual acts, but through their symbolic substitution.
In the prison-camp subculture, any equal interaction with a sexually humiliated person leads to the loss of one’s own status. For example, using their dishes is considered a sign of belonging to their caste. Exploiting this, the administration of “red zones” sometimes stages provocations: a prisoner is first deprived of normal food and then offered food in dishes previously used by a member of the lowest caste. If the prisoner cannot withstand it or fails to notice the trick, they themselves are transferred into the caste of the sexually humiliated.
In such a subculture, preserving human dignity means avoiding sexual humiliation at any cost. As a result, betrayal, deception, violence, or the humiliation of others are perceived as acceptable or even honorable actions if they allow one to avoid a decline in status.
The Russian authorities could eradicate sexual violence in the “zones” if they issued the relevant directives. However, they regard the hierarchy based on sexual humiliation as an additional tool for governing society. For this reason, they see the LGBT movement as a threat to the established system of symbolic relations of power and subordination. The Russian authorities are not opposed to homosexual relations themselves; they are opposed to treating the passive participants in such relations as human beings. It is precisely for this reason that legislation targeting LGBT people is continually being tightened in Russia.
The Essence of Russian Policy in the Sexual Sphere
The goal of the Russian authorities is to impose on society a distorted conception of human dignity. According to this logic, any actions – no matter how cruel, immoral, or criminal – are considered acceptable if they allow a person to avoid moving downward within the social hierarchy, at the very bottom of which stands the caste of the sexually humiliated.
After all, anyone can end up at the very bottom. In Russia, any businessman or high-ranking official can be arrested and, if he does not demonstrate sufficient obedience, the prison administration may receive the relevant instructions. Fear of such a prospect pushes people to adopt a distorted understanding of human dignity in order to preserve their social status. Any act, even the most dishonorable one, is seen as an expression of dignity if it saves a person from the threat of ending up at the lowest level of the social hierarchy. Within this system of coordinates, if you are sexually humiliated, it is regarded as a loss of human dignity; but if you do the same to another person, it is instead interpreted as confirmation of your dignity.
Propaganda about the defense of traditional values serves as an ideological cover for Russian policy in the sexual sphere. For this purpose, the Kremlin authorities enlist religious leaders who spread a narrative about a godless and demonic West that allegedly destroys traditional moral norms by supporting LGBT rights. In particular, such claims have been repeatedly voiced in the speeches of Patriarch Kirill of the Russian Orthodox Church. However, neither Patriarch Kirill nor other Russian authorities address the issue of sexual violence in prisons, the army, or in the occupied territories.
The Russian authorities use both prison administrations and representatives of the criminal milieu to maintain among prisoners a constant fear of losing social status through sexual humiliation. They have extended this practice to the army as well, applying various forms of sexual humiliation to soldiers who refuse to take part in deadly assaults.
At a certain point, this fear becomes so strong that it outweighs even the fear of death. Then a psychological mechanism is triggered that transforms fear into a perverted sense of dignity, manifested in a willingness to kill pointlessly and to die just as pointlessly. This contributes to the formation of a form of gnostic fatalism, characterized by a sense of the loss of the value of life and the inevitability of death. However horrific such a worldview may be, its alternative – ending up in the caste of the sexually humiliated – is perceived by Russian soldiers as an even more terrifying prospect.
Yet there are also millions of Russians who support the war while enjoying peaceful life in the rear and do not feel any immediate threat of sexual humiliation. They perceive Kremlin policy in the sexual sphere as liberation from their own conscience and as a justification for any immoral actions, believing that everything is permitted to them as long as it does not lead to a loss of social status.
Read also on PostPravda.Info: The Kremlin’s Quasi-Religion. From the series “Religion in the Captivity of the Necro-Imperium”
