Heart of a Dog

In these chapters, Sharikov and Philipovich diverge to represent opposing political positions and views of Class Conflict in Domestic Spaces. By Chapter 6, Sharikov has developed something like an adolescent level of maturity. He is capable of reading, forming his own opinions, and challenging the authority of the head of the household, whom he formerly admired, Professor Philipovich. He also displays the more challenging aspects of adolescent development—volatility, impulsiveness, and hypersexuality. Bulgakov deals with this development humorously in the text, as Philipovich responds to Sharikov’s outbursts as a parent of an adolescent might: He calls it a “phase” and then communicates to his partner, Doctor Bormenthal, in a language that Sharikov cannot understand that they will discuss consequences when Sharikov is out of earshot. It is within this rebellious familial context that Sharikov articulates his class consciousness. Having been influenced by the young Communist Shvonder, Sharikov parrots Shvonder’s language, telling Philipovich and Bormenthal they act as if there was never a revolution to transform class relationships, i.e., as if tsarism still existed. For example, he rejects their bourgeois attitudes, as seen in his initial refusal to tuck in his napkin. 

Bulgakov underscores Sharikov’s limited understanding of Communist theory to indicate that his intellectual development is somewhat stunted, satirizing the passion of young Bolsheviks embracing a socialist ideology, but lacking an intellectual and philosophical foundation to support it. On Shvonder’s suggestion, Sharikov reads Engels’s correspondence with Kautsky, a work of Marxist theory, but he does not appear to understand or appreciate their positions, telling Philipovich, “They just write and write all that crap…all about some congress and some Germans…Makes my head reel” (106). He voices a preference for vulgar Marxism, stating that people should “[t]ake everything away from the bosses, then divide it up” (106). Philipovich further confuses him by arguing that true Communism would require Sharikov to compensate Philipovich for the loss of business following the bathroom episode. Philipovich’s position here is reminiscent of arguments used by members of the bourgeoisie that they should be compensated for the state expropriations of their private property for redistribution to the proletariat. The conflict ends with Sharikov’s humorous comment that theater is counter-revolutionary, referencing objections that author and playwright Bulgakov no doubt heard about his own work. Sharikov immediately leaves to go to the circus, reflecting his unsophisticated preferences and evoking the infamous “panem e circenses” element of the Roman Empire, wherein the people were distracted from national problems by bread and circuses.

Bulgakov contextualizes Philipovich’s views on Transforming Bodies to Transform Society within the class conflict taking place in his home and in Soviet society more generally, pointing to The Destructive Consequences of Governmental Corruption. He makes a subtle distinction between Philipovich and Bormenthal, contrasting creating improved individuals with creating an improved society through improved individuals. Philipovich, who has already confessed to being a member of the petty bourgeoisie who hates the proletariat, and laments his failure to transform society through his practice of “rejuvenation,” or the transformation of individuals through surgical intervention. In contrast, Bormenthal’s eugenicist beliefs center on the idea that society as a whole can be transformed through the surgical transformation of its individual citizens. Philipovich chastises Bormenthal for “the deductions [he] made from Sharikov’s case history,” i.e., that Sharikov is violent as a result of the violence and criminality of the organ donor (123). Despite these differences, both men aspire to produce the Soviet ideal of the New Man: strong, intelligent, courageous, and hard-working. Philipovich tells Bormenthal his research has been a waste as it resulted only in “a specimen of so-called humanity so revolting that he makes one’s hair stand on end” (122). Philipovich views Sharikov as a failure because Sharikov is ignorant, cowardly, and lazy.

Bulgakov references 17th-century philosopher Baruch Spinoza in this passage to illuminate Philipovich’s position. Philipovich notes he could “perform the most difficult feat of [his] whole career by transplanting Spinoza’s, or anyone else’s, pituitary and turning a dog into a highly intelligent being. But what in heaven’s name for?” (122). Spinoza argued that man was part of rather than separate from nature and that the mind is of the material body. If one could change the body, one could change the spirit or mind. Because of Spinoza’s focus on materialism, Soviet philosophers and thinkers favored his existentialism and ontologies. Within the context of the novella, Sharikov confirms some, if not all, of Spinoza’s argument. In continuing to act dog-like, Sharikov shows the connection between man and nature. In materially transforming into a man, Sharikov’s being takes on human qualities, including the human tendency toward rebellion, anger, and curiosity. Sharikov’s enduring, albeit human, flaws lead Philipovich to despair of creating a New Man out of the raw material of a dog, symbolic of the limits of transforming the Russian peasant masses through scientific intervention. He argues that his experiment has no “practical value.” He will reconsider this position at the close of the novel when he contemplates returning to his experiments.