Worldview in Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich

by Shawn Hassen

In his novel, One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, Solzhenitsyn presents a gripping commentary and worldview.

Theme: Human Worth and Dignity in the Struggle for Survival

Solzhenitsyn paints a portrait of the animal nature of the Soviet prison camps. The soldiers behave cruelly, but so do the prisoners. The repetition of the notion that the soldiers (in addition to the prisoners) had a hard life at the camp is a powerful statement about survival and how it can harden a person. As the prisoners and the soldiers struggle, respectively, to survive the gulag in Siberia, they all become animalistic and cruel, fighting for their own survival. This novel clearly depicts the rather naturalisteffects that a cruel environment can have on people who must lash back, or outwit and outfox, in order to retain their own identity, worth, and even practical survival.

Theme:  Unjust Punishment

The author presents this single day as representative of all the horrific injustices perpetrated, historically, in prison camps. People were enslaved for years in Siberia for mere infractions of laws or codes–or sometimes for nothing at all. Sentences were extended at the drop of a hat. People were thrown into the cells for breaking rules that changed constantly. Like Stalin and other despots before and after, the government was only interested in the exploitation of human labor with zero thought to dignity or justice.

Theme: Community and Labor (Communism Challenged)

Squad 104 functions as a community. Throughout the novel, squad members seemingly look out for one another and perform favors for one another. But upon closer inspection, it becomes clear that with few exceptions, they are working together primarily for individual benefit and survival. Even Tiurin, who defends his men and rallies to get them extra rations when he can, will reap benefits for himself. The men work together to survive the camp in hopes of less punishment and more food, demonstrating community in its basest, most pragmatic form. Solzhenitsyn mocks communist thought by demonstrating that the prison camps are effective at desensitizing people to the outside world because they have trained men to focus on survival. And only when the men are trying to survive each day, literally, can they lose themselves in the reverie of back-breaking work, working side by side “as equals.” In order for Shukhov to almost happily throw himself into grueling work under extreme, horrific conditions, he basically has to reject the outside world. When he goes to pick up the package for Tsezar, however, we see a crack in this tough exterior. Like a good Communist, he has rejected others outside of his immediate community. He has told his wife not to send him packages because of the impracticality, so he is left nothing but work to live for. Secretly, however, he craves connection with his family, longing and wondering what it would feel like to see his own name on a package from home. With this, Solzhenitsyn makes it clear that people are designed for authentic community on a spiritual level, not just a practical level.

Theme: The Practical vs. The Spiritual

Shukhov is a dynamic character whose pure practicality is interrupted by Alyosha the Baptist. Having dismissed any sort of intellectual thought throughout the novel and having articulated many times how the here and the now is all that matters (spoken like a good materialist Communist in training), Shukhov is moved to silence and introspection after his conversation where Alyosha explains that he should not be praying for material wants but for spiritual needs. Alyosha is found throughout the prison camp hiding and reading his Bible (like the bread that Shukhov hides for his material sustenance), and having a smiling sort of “peace” about himself. After this conversation, Shukhov gives Alyosha a biscuit–a gift for which Shukhov, for the first time, expects nothing in return. Instead of buying or bargaining for himself, he is giving, and he is described as being almost happy when he goes to sleep that night. Here is the clear implication that life cannot just be practical survival. We have spiritual/emotional needs that must be met in order to thrive, not merely survive.  

The Novel’s Correlations/Contrasts to Scripture

In addition to demonstrating the terrible tole that a harsh environment can have on the human psyche, this novel also accurately portrays the survival of the fittest for the cutthroat pragmatism that it is. This is how animals—not humans—are to live. Because God created humans in his own image, we have individual worth and dignity; we also have a spiritual nature. There is a practicality to our daily needs, which God promises to provide. But as spiritual beings, humans require more than the tools of mere survival, just as Solzhenitsyn suggests. Not only were we designed to need spiritual nourishment (not merely material sustenance) from God, Himself, but we were made for everything that communist work camps, both fictional and historical, undermined.  

We were designed to live in community, not reject it. On the one hand, community provides practical benefits; working together makes a team, a town, an organization stronger and more successful. But there is a spiritual aspect to community, as well, just as the author suggests. God calls Christians to give, not just receive. Members of a community give to others, not in order to receive, but to bring blessing. We are called to live for others, not just ourselves. We should encourage and demonstrate compassion, including times when we must mete out punishment and discipline, whether on a civic level or on a personal level within our homes. This novel is a sobering reminder of the need for biblical justice. On a macro level, criminals should be punished fairly, equitably, and with the understanding that all humans have dignity (and therefore are entitled to receive it from other humans). On a micro level, within our homes, we are called to discipline fairly. Biblical discipline instructs and restores. It redeems—it does not destroy.