Εξέγερση και μελαγχολία

by Michael Löwy, Robert Sayre, Δέσποινα Καββαδία (Translator)

Τι είναι ο ρομαντισμός; Αίνιγμα που παραμένει άλυτο, ο ρομαντισμός σαν γεγονός, φαινομενικά δείχνει να μην υπόκειται σε ανάλυση, όχι μόνο διότι η οργιαστική πολλαπλότητά του αντιστέκεται στις προσπάθειες για αναγωγή του ο’ έναν κοινό παρονομαστή, αλλά επίσης, και κυρίως, εξαιτίας του αφάνταστα αντιφατικού του χαρακτήρα, της φύσης του ως coincidentia oppositorum: ταυτόχρονα (ή άλλοτε) επαναστατικός και αντεπαναστατικός, ατομικιστικός και κοινοτιστικός, κοσμοπολίτικος και εθνικιστικός, ρεαλιστικός και φανταστικός, οπισθοδρομικός και ουτοπικός, εξεγερσιακός και μελαγχολικός, δημοκρατικός και αριστοκρατικός, ακτιβιστικός και θεωρησιακός, δημοκρατικός και μοναρχικός, κόκκινος και λευκός, μυστικιστικός και αισθησιακός.,..

Δεν πρόκειται λοιπόν για εύρεση “λύσεων” σε κάποια “προβλήματα”, αλλά να αποβλέψουμε σε μια συνολική εναλλακτική πρόταση στην υπάρχουσα κατάσταση πραγμάτων, ένα νέο πολιτισμό, ένα τρόπο ζωής άλλο, που δεν θα είναι η αφηρημένη άρνηση της νεωτερικότητας, αλλά η “ανύψωση” της (Aufhebung), η καθορισμένη άρνησή της, η διατήρηση των καλύτερων κατακτήσεων της, και η υπέρβασή της προς μια ανώτερη μορφή πολιτισμού… Αυτό δεν σημαίνει επιστροφή στο παρελθόν, αλλά μια παράκαμψη μέσω του παρελθόντος, προς ένα νέο μέλλον, παράκαμψη που επιτρέπει στο ανθρώπινο πνεύμα να συνειδητοποιήσει όλο τον πολιτιστικό πλούτο, όλη την κοινωνική ζωτικότητα που θυσιάστηκαν από την ιστορική πρόοδο που μπήκε σε κίνηση από την βιομηχανική επανάσταση…

Αυτή η ουτοπία έχει ισχυρές ρίζες στο παρόν και το παρελθόν: στο παρόν, γιατί στηρίζεται σ’ όλες τις δυνατότητες και αντιφάσεις της νεωτερικότητας για να οδηγήσει στην έκρηξη του συστήματος και στο παρελθόν, γιατί βρίσκει στις προνεωτερικές κοινωνίες συγκεκριμένα παραδείγματα και απτές αποδείξεις ενός τρόπου ζωής ποιοτικά διαφορετικού και διακριτού από τον βιομηχανικό καπιταλιστικό πολιτισμό (και από μερικές απόψεις ανώτερο του). Χωρίς νοσταλγία του παρελθόντος δεν μπορεί να υπάρξει αυθεντικό όνειρο για το μέλλον. Υπ’ αυτή την έννοια, η ουτοπία ή θα είναι ρομαντική ή δεν θα υπάρχει.

Genres: Philosophy, Romanticism, History, Nonfiction, Politics, Literature, Cultural Studies

422 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1992

About the author

French-Brazilian Marxist sociologist and philosopher. He is presently the emerited research director in social sciences at the CNRS (French National Center of Scientific Research) and lectures at the Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales (EHESS; Paris, France). Author of books on Karl Marx, Che Guevara, Liberation Theology, György Lukács, Walter Benjamin and Franz Kafka, he received the Silver Medal of the CNRS in 1994.

Reviews

[AK · Rating 4 out of 5]

Michael Lowy and Robert Sayre aren't afraid to take the widest possible (political) view of Romanticism in this expansive and insightful book. Rather than construct a definition of Romanticism that seeks to eliminate the inherent contradictions of the term, which they describe as "simultaneously (or alternately) revolutionary and counterrevolutionary, realist and fantastic, retrograde and utopian, rebellious and melancholic, democratic and aristocratic, activist and contemplative, republican and monarchist, red and white, mystical and sensual," the authors define Romanticism as a fundamentally anti-capitalist worldview expressed across broad political, aesthetic and culture spectrums.

This is the first survey book on Romanticism I've read, but from what I gather, this book's insistence on the revolutionary potential of Romanticism is its most novel contribution. Certainly some fascist ideology found inspiration in (some) Romantic works, but on the whole, many 20th century literature scholars have been too quick too dismiss Romanticism as a reactionary aesthetic that led directly to fascism, something that this work vigorously disputes. Its not hard to gauge the authors' political standpoint (they are leftist as all get out), and the best parts of the book consider the variety of revolutionary Romantic thought. The chapter on Marxism and Romanticism is particularly useful, especially for its succinct summation of the long, complicated career of Gyorgy Lukacs and all the times he changed his mind about stuff, mainly whether Romanticism was irredeemably fascist and bad or not.

For all its expansiveness, there are glaring gaps. A good third of the book is devoted the to the final two chapters, "Visages of Romanticism in the Twentieth Century" and "The FIre Is Still Burning: From Surrealism to the Present Day and Beyond." (For example, the latter is a 40 page chapter, compared to the 10 page chapter that precedes it on 19th century Romanticism.) But while this book's focus on the more recent/contemporary iterations of Romanticism make it stand out from other surveys, it doesn't do much to challenge notions of Romanticism that are focused entirely on the experiences of the white Euro-American male. The chapter on 20th century Romanticism attempts to explore what a feminist Romantic critique of modernity might be, but it does so exclusively through a 20 page close reading of the oeuvre of East German novelist Christa Wolf, and if you don't know her work (I don't) its difficult to pull any kind of theoretical framework out of it.

It also seems a little strange to write an entire book about Romanticism as resistance to modernity, devoting much of the book to 20th century iterations of modernity, and then give absolutely no consideration to race, ethnicity, anti-imperialism, or anti-colonialism. As a student of Japanese history, Romanticism seems an especially fitting framework for thinking through some of the varied and seemingly contradictory responses to modernity that emerged both in Japan and in reaction to Japan's own imperial and colonial project. Lowy and Sayres are both Europeanists and I wouldn't expect them to provide a thorough overview of Romanticism and the non-West, but a hint of a consideration would've been useful.

Ultimately, this book functions are a rigorous defense of utopias and utopian thinking as a crucial component of the (radical) anti-capitalist critique. Utopias, and a nostalgic consideration for a past outside of capitalism expand our imagination of what might be possible.

[Benjamin Fasching-Gray · Rating 4 out of 5]

The final two chapters are the heart of this book: a look at threads of romanticism in the intellectual life of the twentieth century. There is a bit of the excitement I felt when reading some of Löwy's other works that show real, direct connections between thinkers I admire and makes it seem like all these books are part of a wonderful conversation. I think the bit I liked best in this Romanticism book was the part about Christa Wolf, an author I haven't read yet.

[Liu · Rating 4 out of 5]

Michael Löwy and Robert Sayre engage in the much needed work of saving Romanticism from its conventional interpretation as an isolated subjectivism or proto-fascism and reassert its imminently revolutionary dimension. The authors characterize Romanticism as a Weltanschauung (world-view) that “represents a critique of modernity, that is, of modern capitalist civilization, in the name of values and ideals drawn from the past (the precapitalist, premodern past).” What distinguishes Romanticism other critiques of capitalism is that it always draws from an ideal vision of the past. This view of the past serves as the content with which every Romantic work constructs a utopian vision, i.e. imagining a world and society beyond the alienation and barbarism of industrial capitalist society.

Löwy and Sayre’s highlighting of this aspect of Romanticism is crucial given the dearth of Marxist scholarship in this period. The Romantics are far too often characterized as tender souls who assert the value of the individual and the importance of internal life. However, as Löwy and Sayre demonstrate, the Romantics were often political radicals who posited new forms of community that could replace capitalism. This reinterpretation is Löwy and Sayre’s most important contribution and more scholars need to follow them in this recharacterization (i.e. politicization) of the Romantics.

On a last note, the authors’ project is magnificent in its breadth, but not necessarily in its depth. The sheer number of texts cited is absolutely astounding and it’s truly incredible that academics who are sociologists by trade could have read this much literary fiction. However, their goal here is not close analysis of any of these texts, but rather to offer a brief summary of each to support and nuance their own characterization of Romanticism. Readers looking for deep analysis should turn elsewhere, but those looking for a general roadmap to anticapitalist Romanticism will find no better resource.

[maryna · Rating 5 out of 5]

belíssimo livro, linguagem simples e muito bem fundamentada! ótimo para compreender toda a totalidade do movimento romântico e suas nuances também… poesia, liberdade e amor, como seria? “Sem nostalgia do passado, não pode existir sonho de futuro autêntico. Nesse sentido, a utopia será romântica ou não será.”

[Rob Bauer · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is an extended review of this complex and at times difficult book.

The authors of this book, Lowy and Sayre, are a pair of Frenchmen who have taken up the question of defining Romanticism and describing its ideological manifestations. These two academics venture into the arcane world of Romantic thought, tracing it from the late eighteenth century to the present. In the process, the duo believe they have pinpointed the essence of the Romantics that has eluded all other scholars to this point, namely, that it is essentially anti-capitalist in its outlook. After making this identification, Sayre and Lowy attempt to demonstrate why others fall short where they succeed and continue on to trace the development of anti-capitalist thought through the writing of various intellectuals who fit their theoretical paradigm.

Throughout their work, Lowy and Sayre raise many important questions for our consideration. Most of the questions, however, are not concerned with their analysis of the individuals whose ideas they describe. Rather, the major issues are with their overall approach to the question. First, throughout the book the authors equate the terms capitalism and modernity, using them more or less interchangeably. Much depends on whether the reader accepts this premise. Equally important, in terms of framing the entire debate, is the question of whether opposition to modernity (or capitalism) really is the defining characteristic of a Romantic. A critic can justly argue that this terminology is broad enough that almost any form of protest against the modern world can thereby earn the label of Romantic. Finally, Sayre and Lowy must attempt to deal with the quandary laid out by Isaiah Berlin that students of Romanticism must choose between seeing it as an attitude prominent over a given span of years or a state of mind traceable throughout history. They choose the later, in contradiction to many authors in the field. Indeed, their contention that they have found the answer to the riddle of what constitutes Romanticism, whereas previous generations have failed, raises the red flag of academic arrogance immediately. Though Lowy and Sayre offer an 87-page justification for their position, spending roughly 35% of the book refuting the ideas of others, they bid goodbye to the interest of all but the most dedicated readers in the process.

If the reader accepts their premises for the moment, however, and examines what Lowy and Sayre write about classifying various types of Romanticism, they will find eleven different categories, from restitutionists to fascists to libertarians to Marxists. Obviously splitters, rather than lumpers, the authors are clearly not interested in the premise, favored by scientists, that a simple thesis is preferable to a complex one. They require twelve pages just to explain what their thesis includes and what it leaves out. By so blatantly rejecting any semblance of simplicity in favor of eleven variations of Romanticism, they sacrifice a great deal in terms of narrative clarity and a consistent storyline.

Unfortunately, even with eleven different categories to work with, the work still suffers from glaring omissions. For example, the writers limit their narrative to three primary countries: Britain, France, and Germany. Occasionally, the Russians make an appearance, but most Romantics there go unnoticed, as do the handful of Americans of the Romantic persuasion. If Romanticism even existed anywhere else, the reader would not know it after reading this volume. If the authors want to argue that Romanticism is in opposition to modernity, they would do well to remember these three are not the only modern nations worth considering. A related issue concerns the breadth of coverage offered. Lowy and Sayre believe that traditional accounts vastly overemphasize the artistic and musical aspects of the Romantics, at the expense of their political and economic worldview. Unfortunately, in turning the tables, they commit the same sin of omission, making virtually no mention of Romantic artists or musicians. For the authors, everything flows from the political and economic thinking and writing of the handful of academics they lionize. While this is essentially a requirement to make their thesis operable, to simply leave out the composers and painters who other writers in the field see as exemplars of the Romantic worldview leaves a gaping hole in the analysis.

While on the topic of building an argument based on the writings of a handful of academics, it is worth considering the merits of this approach. While Lowy and Sayre offer an erudite analysis of the thinking and evolution of such writers as John Ruskin, Christa Wolf, or Ernst Bloch, the reader ends each section wondering why these individuals matter, outside of their ideas. The answer is rarely forthcoming from the authors. Are these authors mentioned part of an actual movement that plays a role in art, economics, or politics, or simply examples of a critique of modernity scattered throughout the past 200 years? While the former may be true, the reader ends with a strong impression that it is the latter. The subjects of analysis in the book may be important in their own right for their critique of capitalist society, but who among them can claim an influence extending outside a small handful of students and academics? The book would be of greater service if it focused on this question, rather than exhaustively detailing the minute twists and turns in the career of an intellectual known today only to a small handful of specialists. Instead, the reader finds equivocal statements such as “Henry Lefebvre…may have had a fairly direct impact.” (224)

There are a few logical errors to the reasoning found in Romanticism Against the Tide of Modernity as well. On page 19 the authors claim that Soviet communism was but an ephemeral break with bourgeois civilization. If this is true, how can they later claim (187) Christa Wolf is specifically important for living and writing in a “non-capitalist” country? Finally, in the concluding chapter, Sayre and Lowy offer up some statements that are at best questionable, at worst simply wrong. Their discussion of Romanticism at the heart of cultural mass production (226) demonstrates how they occasionally stretch their definition of Romanticism to the point of absurdity. The products of the culture industry draw on the Romantic characteristics of “dreams, fantasies, and phantasms to create an emotional charge.” True enough, but the culture industry is also a significant part of what drives the modern capitalist society Romanticism is supposed to oppose. Worse yet, the book’s foray into critiquing modern pop culture films like Star Wars falls flat on its face. There are no primitive indigenous people close to nature that play important roles in the original trilogy. There are the ewoks, but their motivation is the invasion of their home planet, not fear of the modern world. As for The Godfather, the “warm” family ties that appear so Romantic have cooled considerably by the end of the second film. Throughout this final chapter, Lowy and Sayre attempt to defend Romanticism and plead for a fuller consideration of what it offers intellectually. This is certainly within their rights as authors but does markedly contrast with the rest of their writing.

In fairness to the book, it does offer a coherent theme in its critique for those of an intellectual bent who have interest in a critique of capitalist society. Chapter three offers a Marxist perspective through the writings of Rosa Luxemburg, Gyorgy Lukacs, and Marx himself. The discussion of John Ruskin can serve as a model for the others. Ruskin was a bridge between the Romantics of the early nineteenth century and the middle of that century whose influence would extend into the twentieth century as well through William Morris. His violent opposition to modernity created a personal disdain for all but the most pure-hearted Romantics such as Thomas Carlyle. Like many other figures described by Lowy and Sayre, religion played a central role in Ruskin’s philosophy. What kind of role depended on his current status of belief or unbelief. One of Ruskin’s main contributions, in the eyes of the authors, was to shift the debate from art criticism to social criticism. Part of this critique is that humankind lives in a state of fallen grace from an ideal, organic way of life, centered in the Middle Ages, that lacked the need for accumulation and commodification. His vehicles for criticizing modernity were his examinations of modern science, the domination of life by money (mammonism), and industrialism. At times, the discrepancy between the alienation of modern life and this idealized past is so great that Ruskin sees a binary choice between life and death.

The book’s final issue is that it is not easy to read. If you are a specialist or someone who wants to learn about some of the anti-capitalist or anti-modern theorists of the past 200 or so years, you’ll find value here. Everyone else should probably try another book if you want to know about Romanticism.

[Uğur · Rating 5 out of 5]

Utopia is either romantic or not at all.
Lövy's work, in which the rebirth of romanticism, a 19th-century movement, was reimagined with a mission of rebellion against the order of today's post-modern capitalist society.

Is an alternative to the current modernity possible in real terms?

Our author has made a detailed explanation over his question. and seeks to escape from it by criticizing the logic that leaves man between (more systemic) dualities. On the path of rebellion and melancholy, Romanticism emerged as a multifaceted opposition to the modern civilization created by the industrial revolution and the homogenization of the capitalist order. And in the perspective of this great rebellion there is the search for qualified individuation and a new form of society.

In the age of consumerist technology, man's greatest loss has been his dreams. Maybe he is designing this within sectoral limits, but even the imagination produced within the limits contains technological arguments, reflects the structure of society and is as far away from the human spirit. We are now in a phase where even the realistic romanticism in realism is beginning to disappear. and man is never that one.

Melancholy has an imaginary elegance. We will see this very clearly, especially when we read Virginia Woolf. In my opinion, Woolf is the most important producer of melancholy. In this work, the Marxist writer Löwy focuses on the philosophy of rebellion by leaning on melancholy.

This Romanticism-oriented outlet offers a solution against the advanced capitalist period and modern slavery.

If I make a subjective assessment, the book is not without its shortcomings. Identifying the existence of historical materialism due to its nature and looking for solutions is not a solution for man. Likewise, the fact that they constantly carry out their search for a new way in today's world order through Karl Marx and Engels reinforces this insolubility. Why?
Because historical materialism crumpled the phenomenon of the will to power like a draft paper and threw it aside.

The nature of power is a reflection of the essence of the human self. The power in its hands rises by stepping on each focus like a stepping stone to ensure this. Likewise, while we see the afili state of this situation in the post-modern capitalist order, we have also seen and experienced it in real socialism. At this point, I think it is necessary to turn our faces to Italy and remember Antonio Gramsci with respect.

Therefore, the fact that it was written with a purely Marxist evaluation and that a new infrastructure was not developed in the new way sought by articulating Nietzschean thought was the lack of the book. Not to talk about Romanticism, of destruction to ascend, of transcending oneself, and not referring to Nietzschean thought.

[Kaya Tokmakçıoğlu · Rating 3 out of 5]

Löwy ve Sayre, romantizmi burjuvazinin girdiği çıkmaz sokak olarak "kültürel" bir okumaya tabi tutuyorlar. Her ne kadar kuramı 68'e projekte etmeleri çok makul gelmese de Coleridge, Ruskin, Peguy, Ernst Bloch ve Christa Wolf gibi yazarlar üzerinden yaptıkları okumanın tartışmayı ilerleten bir boyutu olduğu söylenebilir. Marksizm ve romantizm arasındaki çetrefil ilişkinin resmi ise tartışmalarının siyasal boyutu yer yer muğlaklaştığı için tam olarak çizilemiyor.

[Alexis Iparraguirre · Rating 5 out of 5]

Quizás para un especialista en literatura el mayor logro de Löwy fue su ya clásica propuesta de pensar al romanticismo como una reacción desde el ámbito del pensamiento y la cultura a los efectos de la expansión capitalista. Una afirmación que pareciera casi intuitiva en nuestros días, en los que la crítica cultural y la transdisciplinaridad es moneda de cambio común en la investigación humanística, no lo era hace 25 años, y en esto libro Löwy formula una de esas narrativas que justificaban como pocas la necesidad de pensar la literatura y las artes desde el ámbito de las ciencias sociales, y no solo de la filología. Para los no especialistas, por otra parte, es un libro indispensable para entender que lo romántico no es un adjetivo que designa a un mero dispositivo ideológico con el que la sociedad contemporánea explica la naturaleza de cierto tipo de relaciones de pareja (que debiera ser condenado), sino que se trata de un aspecto visiblemente marginal en los planteamientos centrales del movimiento. Este y sus sucesores, como lo demuestra Löwy, promueven centralmente una utopía contra capitalista, fundada en la recuperación de lógicas sociales que el capitalismo destierra por resultar de rango no cuantitativo, como el cultivo de la solidaridad, la primacía de los valores éticos sobre los mercantiles, la realización de un ideal personal a través del trabajo gustoso, entre muchos otros. Lowy recuerda que todo movimiento revolucionario moderno se funda en la convicción de poder aproximarse a esa utopía. Muy recomendable.

[Wandering Crow · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fantastic inquiry of romanticism's critiques and peculiarities going beyond the usual preconceived assumptions on it (for example the belief that it's a necesserarily reactionnary movement). South american marxists like löwy deserve more recognition.

[robertmiles · Rating 5 out of 5]

Moderniteye karşı romantizm kitabı.

[Phillip · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book makes an interesting argument that the basic characteristic of a Romantic worldview is a rejection of Modernity (specifically, capitalist Modernity with its preferences for order, productivity, and centralization) in favor of a nostalgic fascination with an imagined pre-modern (typically medieval or Greco-Roman) world in which people were not alienated from their society and social milieu. Lowy and Sayre make a compelling case that this fundamental tension within the broadly conceived Modern world has significantly driven social production--of art, philosophy, political economics, etc.--as people struggle to navigate the difficulties created by the capitalist world. Lowy and Sayre argue that there were (and are) a broad swath of Romantic responses to Modernity, from the fascistic to the utopian to the Marxist and anarchistic. But across all the variations, the key elements are a rejection of the rationalist and constricting social order of Modernity in favor of a fantastic nostalgia for a more unified past.
https://youtu.be/0jpiSZXVjxk

[Luke Echo · Rating 4 out of 5]

Much more interesting that expected. A rather ambitious survey of Romanticism and its role in social critique in the past and future.


The final chapter on the contemporary use of Romanticism was the weakest though. It was a bit disappointing that they were unable to really engage more fully with some of the critiques and discussions of romanticism and the culture industry in alternative cultures today.

[Marcelle · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting to acquire a wide view of Romanticism , "kinds" of it and its connections with Capitalism since eighteenth century across different countries in Europe, as well as to understand its presence in Literature, Philosophy, History and Art.