Anton Chekhov’s  The Cherry Orchard and social system change

Anton Chekhov’s The Cherry Orchard, his last play, which opened in Moscow in 1904, offers a glimpse into the transition from a society differentiated by inherited social rank to one based on functional differentiation.  It also shows the difficulty of processing social change as information when a system isn’t equipped to do it.

In the play, the family’s estate is about to go up for auction to pay the mortgage, and the businessman Lopakhin advises the family to lease some of their land, including their beloved cherry orchard, so that it can be divided up into summer villas for the new rich. Of course, the widow landowner Liubov Andryeevna won’t consider this option, and she and her ridiculous brother just propose borrowing more money and praying to God for help.  In the end, the estate is sold to the son of a former serf and the cherry orchard is cut down.

In Act 1, Lopakhin says,

Up to just recently there were only gentry and peasants living in the country, but now there are all these summer residents. All the towns, even quite small ones, are surrounded with villas. And probably in the course of the next twenty years or so, these people will multiply tremendously. At present they merely drink tea on the verandah, but they might start cultivating their plots of land, and then your cherry orchard would be gay with life and wealth and luxury. . . .

Gayev, the widow’s brother, cuts him off with

What nonsense!

Before going off to bed, the following exchange takes place:

LOPAKHIN: If you think over this question of the country villas and come to a decision, let me know, and I’ll get you a loan of fifty thousand or more. Think it over seriously.

VARIA [crossly]: Will you ever go away?

LOPAKHIN: I’m going, I’m going. [Goes out.]

GAYEV: What a boor! I beg your pardon. . . Varia’s going to marry him, he’s Varia’s precious fiancée.

In Act 2, the following exchange takes place:

LOPAKHIN: I keep telling you. Every day I tell you the same thing. You must lease the cherry orchard and the land for villas, and you must do it now, as soon as possible. The auction is going to be held almost at once. Please do try to understand! Once you definitely decide to have the villas, you’ll be able to borrow as much money as you like, and then you’ll be out of the wood.

LIUBOV ANDRYEEVNA: Villas and summer visitors! Forgive me, but it’s so vulgar.

GAYEV: I absolutely agree with you.

In terms of social systems theory, when the economy differentiates as a function system, aristocratic privilege is lost.  Moreover, the aristocrats cannot even process as information what is happening around them. They have no way of making sense of it. All they have left is nostalgia (much like the average Trump supporter). Praying to God and complaining about the loose morals and vulgarity of people who work for a living doesn’t do any good.

Gayev states that their rich Countess aunt is unlikely to loan them money because Liubov married a solicitor rather than a nobleman, and he associates this marriage with loose or declining morals. Having a profession is frowned upon and given a moral interpretation. In the following, Varia, who is Liubov’s 24-year-old adopted daughter, turns to divine help, and Gayev talks about morality.

VARIA [weeping]: If only God would help us.

GAYEV: Do stop blubbering! The Countess is very rich, but she doesn’t like us . . . First, because my sister married a solicitor, and not a nobleman. . .  She married a man who wasn’t of noble birth . . . and then you can’t say her behaviour’s been exactly virtuous. She’s a good, kind, lovable person, and I’m very fond of her, but whatever extenuating circumstances you may think of, you must admit that she’s a bit easy-going morally. You can sense it in every movement . . .

The upper class, or those born into wealth, always presents those below them on the social ladder as immoral. They inevitably fall back on moral stereotypes, seeing the “other” as a lawless, often sexually depraved, mass. (Consider Trump‘s description of Mexicans coming into the US as drug dealers, criminals, rapists, etc.). But the main force that is disrupting the life of the family in the Chekhov play is the economy, not changing morals. Changing morals are just a distracting side effect. It’s not just the economy, however. Society in general was becoming more complex. Politics, education, mass media, and science also added complexity to 1904 Russia, but the only response of someone like Gayev is nostalgia and daydreaming. 

The past and future are uncrossable horizons. We can never know precisely what happened in the past or even imprecisely what might happen in the future.


  1. I have checked your site and i have found some duplicate content, that’s why you don’t rank high in google,
    but there is a tool that can help you to create 100% unique content,
    search for; SSundee advices unlimited content for your blog


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.