What do you think?
Rate this book
Declaration
Physical 202 p. : port. ; 22 cm. English literature 20th century, History and criticism. Wilson, Colin 1931-2013. Outsider. Authors, English 20th century ; Biography.
- GenresEssays
202 pages, Unknown Binding
First published January 1, 1957
32 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
November 13, 2017
This book is vital for anyone studying the cultural environment of postwar Britain and the rise of a generation of writers, filmmakers, and critics once termed as Angry Young Men. In fact, as their later careers proved, it was a disparate group of people with varied responses to the specific political and cultural situation they found in the United Kingdom in the years immediately after the Second World War and on into the 1950s. Chapters include contributions from: Colin Wilson, John Osborne, John Wain, Kenneth Tynan, Bill Hopkins, Lindsay Anderson, Stuart Holroyd and, at least one decidedly much calmer woman, Doris Lessing.
January 26, 2022
(I wouldn't usually bother with a review this thorough, but this book has given me so much to think about that I didn't expect, that I needed the clarity of writing this down for myself.)
Declaration is a very interesting collection of essays by Doris Lessing, Colin Wilson, John Osborne,
John Wain, Kenneth Tynan, Bill Hopkins, Lindsay Anderson, and Stuart Holroyd. Definitely recommend to anyone studying the so-called 'Angry Young Men' movement, or literature/theatre/film of the 50's.
The essays are intended to outline the 'credo' of each artist, and almost all of them focus in some way on the dramatic shifts in culture/morality/consciousness occurring in the post-war period, Britain's first H-bomb, the welfare state and British bureaucracy, and trends within their own field (novels, poetry, theatre, cinema, and popular philosophy).
The writers are generally from working or middle class backgrounds, which was almost a defining feature of the 'AYM' movement. But it is surprising to see this relatively new intelligentsia already forming a fairly homogeneous set of ideas. It is very clear to see the beginnings - nihilism, rejection of science, etc. - that would come to dominate academia and the arts in the following decades.
Lessing, Tynan, and Anderson all write about the partisan nature of culture, and in favour of a committed literature/drama (i.e. producing work with a conscious political commitment).
Lessing is the most radical, explicitly defends materialism, and politically attacks the reactionaries within the 'AYM' movement. She explores the theme of socialism liberating culture, and human potential more broadly.
Tynan is more concrete, arguing we must change culture with real reforms too. He defends the struggle to establish a National Theatre (ongoing from 1948 to 1963) and to free culture from the Lord Chamberlain's Office and the censor. But he doesn't go beyond this reformist outlook.
Both Tynan and Anderson ponder the confusion of the British Left, particularly after the Hungarian Revolution was crushed by the USSR (which many saw as exposing the bankruptcy of Stalinism). They claim British socialism lacked emotion and a convincing narrative - reminiscent of the arguments still heard today among the reformist left.
Anderson also argues that British culture/consciousness had not caught up with reality: that Britain was an industrial and imperialist power with a failing industry and no empire! He says, in order to understand culture, we must understand the society that produces it. He explores the consciousness of the new intelligentsia, and the bankruptcy of liberalism, but never once mentions class.
The three also firmly reject the withdrawal, spiritualism, atavism, nihilism, 'Zen Buddhism', etc. of others within the intelligentsia, the 'AYM' movement, and even the very same book (we'll get to Wilson, Hopkins, and Holroyd in a moment).
Lessing makes a moralistic criticism of those who wished to bury their heads to the world's problems, attacking Kingsley Amis' pathetic view that 'there are no good causes left' and Wilson's anti-humanism. Anderson attacks Amis too, as well as Wain, plainly putting it that they don't believe in politics any more because they're unable to draw a line between abuses and the system that creates them. Tynan is the most interesting, arguing that this withdrawal and subjectivism tends to solipsism and a belief that communication (and therefore shared understanding?) is impossible - I doubt he could have known at the time how right he would be proved to be.
The two John's are the weakest contributions. John Wain adds some interesting comments about consciousness/culture and conditions, but nothing special. And John Osborne's section is the weakest by far, contributing a disjointed muddle that feels like it was typed in one sitting. It does, however, reveal his own sense of being alone, detached from society, and no longer identifying with his class origin - something that I think influences the nihilism that defines the right wing of the movement (which, even at this point, the outwardly 'left-wing' Osborne fits more comfortably in).
The reactionaries Wilson, Hopkins, and Holroyd all make very similar arguments. They argue that the 'chaos' of the post-war period was leading to a crisis in culture. They point the blame at a lack of belief, or even religion, and the damaging influence of Marxism and science (among other things).
Hopkins also claimed the world was 'exhausted' with reason, while Holroyd (exposing his class-blind perspective) adds that democracy and the establishment are completely 'arbitrary'.
They all agree that the solution is a return to religion, and building a new existentialism or 'self-knowledge'. They are all clearly subjective idealists, though they try variously to hide it. Hopkins is the most 'out there' in this respect, arguing for a type of thinking beyond/without boundaries/patterns/restrictions/etc. (so nonsense then).
I suspect they all harbour disgusting social views. Wilson's existentialism is sickeningly elitist - essentially that only some (the kind of people who would have been ‘great men in a previous epoch) can ride the wave of chaos and make a meaningful sense of life, while the rest of us are left to consume football, telly, and advertising.
Holroyd is (eventually) the most honest, openly naming his enemies... only the most progressive products of the current era; "the faith in the scientific method, the myth of progress, and the idea of the perfectibility of man”!!
Interestingly, both Wilson and Holroyd claim to be against A.J.Ayer and Logical Positivism, lumping them with materialism and arguing contemporary philosophy was firmly at the service of science. This is completely upside down.
What is similar in both camps is the (varying degrees of) idealism and disillusionment/nihilism. I think that's very telling, when considering the ideas which would build (directly or not) upon their foundation in decades to come.
Declaration is a very interesting collection of essays by Doris Lessing, Colin Wilson, John Osborne,
John Wain, Kenneth Tynan, Bill Hopkins, Lindsay Anderson, and Stuart Holroyd. Definitely recommend to anyone studying the so-called 'Angry Young Men' movement, or literature/theatre/film of the 50's.
The essays are intended to outline the 'credo' of each artist, and almost all of them focus in some way on the dramatic shifts in culture/morality/consciousness occurring in the post-war period, Britain's first H-bomb, the welfare state and British bureaucracy, and trends within their own field (novels, poetry, theatre, cinema, and popular philosophy).
The writers are generally from working or middle class backgrounds, which was almost a defining feature of the 'AYM' movement. But it is surprising to see this relatively new intelligentsia already forming a fairly homogeneous set of ideas. It is very clear to see the beginnings - nihilism, rejection of science, etc. - that would come to dominate academia and the arts in the following decades.
Lessing, Tynan, and Anderson all write about the partisan nature of culture, and in favour of a committed literature/drama (i.e. producing work with a conscious political commitment).
Lessing is the most radical, explicitly defends materialism, and politically attacks the reactionaries within the 'AYM' movement. She explores the theme of socialism liberating culture, and human potential more broadly.
Tynan is more concrete, arguing we must change culture with real reforms too. He defends the struggle to establish a National Theatre (ongoing from 1948 to 1963) and to free culture from the Lord Chamberlain's Office and the censor. But he doesn't go beyond this reformist outlook.
Both Tynan and Anderson ponder the confusion of the British Left, particularly after the Hungarian Revolution was crushed by the USSR (which many saw as exposing the bankruptcy of Stalinism). They claim British socialism lacked emotion and a convincing narrative - reminiscent of the arguments still heard today among the reformist left.
Anderson also argues that British culture/consciousness had not caught up with reality: that Britain was an industrial and imperialist power with a failing industry and no empire! He says, in order to understand culture, we must understand the society that produces it. He explores the consciousness of the new intelligentsia, and the bankruptcy of liberalism, but never once mentions class.
The three also firmly reject the withdrawal, spiritualism, atavism, nihilism, 'Zen Buddhism', etc. of others within the intelligentsia, the 'AYM' movement, and even the very same book (we'll get to Wilson, Hopkins, and Holroyd in a moment).
Lessing makes a moralistic criticism of those who wished to bury their heads to the world's problems, attacking Kingsley Amis' pathetic view that 'there are no good causes left' and Wilson's anti-humanism. Anderson attacks Amis too, as well as Wain, plainly putting it that they don't believe in politics any more because they're unable to draw a line between abuses and the system that creates them. Tynan is the most interesting, arguing that this withdrawal and subjectivism tends to solipsism and a belief that communication (and therefore shared understanding?) is impossible - I doubt he could have known at the time how right he would be proved to be.
The two John's are the weakest contributions. John Wain adds some interesting comments about consciousness/culture and conditions, but nothing special. And John Osborne's section is the weakest by far, contributing a disjointed muddle that feels like it was typed in one sitting. It does, however, reveal his own sense of being alone, detached from society, and no longer identifying with his class origin - something that I think influences the nihilism that defines the right wing of the movement (which, even at this point, the outwardly 'left-wing' Osborne fits more comfortably in).
The reactionaries Wilson, Hopkins, and Holroyd all make very similar arguments. They argue that the 'chaos' of the post-war period was leading to a crisis in culture. They point the blame at a lack of belief, or even religion, and the damaging influence of Marxism and science (among other things).
Hopkins also claimed the world was 'exhausted' with reason, while Holroyd (exposing his class-blind perspective) adds that democracy and the establishment are completely 'arbitrary'.
They all agree that the solution is a return to religion, and building a new existentialism or 'self-knowledge'. They are all clearly subjective idealists, though they try variously to hide it. Hopkins is the most 'out there' in this respect, arguing for a type of thinking beyond/without boundaries/patterns/restrictions/etc. (so nonsense then).
I suspect they all harbour disgusting social views. Wilson's existentialism is sickeningly elitist - essentially that only some (the kind of people who would have been ‘great men in a previous epoch) can ride the wave of chaos and make a meaningful sense of life, while the rest of us are left to consume football, telly, and advertising.
Holroyd is (eventually) the most honest, openly naming his enemies... only the most progressive products of the current era; "the faith in the scientific method, the myth of progress, and the idea of the perfectibility of man”!!
Interestingly, both Wilson and Holroyd claim to be against A.J.Ayer and Logical Positivism, lumping them with materialism and arguing contemporary philosophy was firmly at the service of science. This is completely upside down.
What is similar in both camps is the (varying degrees of) idealism and disillusionment/nihilism. I think that's very telling, when considering the ideas which would build (directly or not) upon their foundation in decades to come.
December 3, 2019
This is worth reading for the Colin Wilson and Bill Hopkins contributions, although the latter is available for free on the counter currents website now. Most of the essays in this aren't very interesting though.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews