In Bluebeard's Castle: Some Notes Towards the Redefinition of Culture

by George Steiner

“Four impressive lectures about the culture of recent times (from the French Revolution) and the conceivable culture of times to come.  Mr. Steiner’s discussion of the break with the traditional literary past (Jewish, Christian, Greek, and Latin) is illuminating and attractively undogmatic.  He writes as a man sharing ideas, and his original notions, though scarcely cheerful, have the bracing effect that first-rate thinking always has.” –New Yorker
“In Bluebeard’s Castle is a brief and brilliant book.  An intellectual tour de force, it is also a book that should generate a profound excitement and promote a profound unease…like the great culturalists of the past.  Steiner uses a dense and plural learning to assess his topic: his book has the outstanding quality of being not simply a reflection on culture, but an embodiment of certain contemporary resources within it.  The result is one of the most important books I have read for a very long time.”—New Society

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Essays, Cultural, Sociology, Criticism, Literary Criticism

154 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1971

About the author

See also: George A. Steiner, author on Management and Planning.

Dr. Francis George Steiner was an essayist, novelist, philosopher, literary critic, and educator. He wrote for The New Yorker for over thirty years, contributing over two hundred reviews. Among his many awards, he received The Truman Capote Lifetime Achievement Award from Stanford University 1998. He lived in Cambridge, England, with his wife, historian Zara Shakow Steiner.

In 1950 he earned an M.A. from Harvard University, where he won the Bell Prize in American Literature, and received his Ph.D. from Oxford University (Balliol College) on a Rhodes Scholarship in 1955. He was then a scholar at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey, for two years. He became a founding fellow of Churchill College at the University of Cambridge in 1961, and has been an Extraordinary Fellow there since 1969. Additionally, Steiner accepted the post of Professor of English and Comparative Literature at the University of Geneva in 1974, which he held for 20 years, teaching in four languages. He became Professor Emeritus at Geneva University on his retirement in 1994, and an Honorary Fellow at Balliol College at Oxford University in 1995. He later held the positions of the first Lord Weidenfeld Professor of Comparative Literature and Fellow of St. Anne's College at Oxford University from 1994 to 1995, and Norton Professor of Poetry at Harvard University from 2001 to 2002.

Reviews

[Szplug · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's quite remarkable to wend through this one hundred-plus page essay by Steiner—a brilliantly erudite and precisely expressive man whose prose both demands close attention and rewards such with epistemic and aesthetic wonders—and discover that back in 1971 he was exploring, in fittingly bidirectional fashion, many aspects of what he labeled Western Post-culture—its societal and psychological roots, forms, and functions, its evolutionary tendencies and cicatricial remnants, its immanence in regard to both beneficences and pathologies—that proved both presciently discerned and worthy of being revisited some three decades later by such French Humanists as Chantal Delsol and Pascal Bruckner. This is fantastically thoughtful stuff here: Steiner's the real deal, y'all.

Steiner divides his essay into four sections that both thematically and chronologically extend the one into the other: The Great Ennui—A Season in Hell—In a Post-culture—Tomorrow. The good doctor is a conservative, a mourner of a Western culture that he believes has descended into the desmesne of the lowbrow whilst regressing into a barbarism and inhumanity that the same culture's early progenitors would have found unthinkable at the time of their instilling and forming of it. With that said, he is also a thorough and thoughtful man, and while he may not be happy with how our societal structures have progressed, he understands that they are, well, the way that they are, and he means to both uncover the reasons why that came about and to try and discern, from the evolutionary memes that were underway at the time of this essay's writing, what forces were at play, how they were operating, and what they might portend for the future of the Western democracies in which they lived and breathed.

[Jeremy]

Available online:
Part 1 ("The Great Ennui")
Part 2 ("A Season in Hell")
Part 3 ("In a Post-Culture")
Part 4 ("Tomorrow")

[Jonfaith · Rating 3 out of 5]

Intellect and feeling were, literally, fascinated by the prospect of a purging fire.

Steiner gives us a rhapsody on decline and the perils of relativism. He delivers such in a series of lectures, all culled from the classic Steiner template. People are no longer literate, they are surrounded by loud music, all the great collections have followed the money to the United States.

He explains the final observation by exploring the causes of the barbaric 20C, how the European garden party from 1820-1914 was spoiled in Sarajevo. Perhaps it was libido which led to killing fields but then the relative texts aren’t annotated by the architects of destruction.
3.3 stars

[Andrew]

George Steiner... you've probably never heard of him. But you should check him out, really. One of the last great geniuses, and in the post-culture he writes about, it's damn-near impossible to reach those heights, if for no other reason than the simple fact that there's just too much data out there nowadays to parse (pretty much the same reason why after Darwin, scientists pretty much just started writing for other scientists except when they explicitly wrote popular science). This elegant text about the effects of modern media on thought doesn't offer much in the way of prescriptions, or even clear statements of purpose. Rather, you're just listening to the musings of a very charming old intellectual, in the best possible way.

[Andrew Noselli · Rating 3 out of 5]

If, due to the changing role of politics in the body collective, Christianity can no longer serve as the focus for the definition of culture, then, contrary to T.S. Eliot, ideological viewpoints such as the one George Steiner advocates in this book are inevitable; they come to resemble a literature-based view of history which suggests that we are situated at the most serious historically significant crossing-point in human history. According to Steiner, ever since World War 2 took place, a mass of ideologues have arisen which clamor for change, saying, make way, make way. Away with those who were formerly the Masters, away, away. May you abstain forever from infecting us with your dreams and desires and your conception of the good life as you told it to us. An acquaintance's observation that we are no longer a textually literate culture, as pertaining to a literate reading-culture, seems to be true; indeed, it seems to suggest that a new form of cultural literacy is necessary to provide a basis for a post-cultural social collective. "Reading and writing," Steiner says, "are the vestigial modes of an old logic." In my opinion, if it is indeed the case that a civilization inhabiting an outmoded language-system necessarily draws thinking backward and, indeed, threatens to drown it in a miasma of ethical confusions. While the scientific time of the world lies before us, we are being confronted with the question, "Do we desire a language of the future that allows us to take responsibility for our actions?" Personally, I want to speak a language of the future where there is no longer a deep divergence between humanistic learning and scientific sensibility, one that is not merely a difference in temporality, but is legitimate for all individuals, people, and cultures on a supreme first-person basis.

[Jim Coughenour · Rating 4 out of 5]

George Steiner, the polysyllabic polymath, is easy to make fun of — and I have to confess, I can hardly read him any more. But for at least 20 years I bought everything he wrote, immersed myself in his Deep Thoughts (always expressed in his over-determined, comically qualified, trademark apocalyptic syntax) — and he gave me many hours of learned pleasure. At bottom he's an entertainer, a dramatist, a great teacher — someone who even as he overwhelms you with his obvious erudition, makes you feel a bit more intelligent than you are.

This short book is my favorite, showcasing his favorite tropes on the decline and fall of culture.

[John Pistelli · Rating 4 out of 5]

Steiner is a wonderful writer; his prose is rich with allusion, concisely learned, grave in its movements. It does sometimes approach a self-serving melodrama, as James Wood once famously noted; it could stand to be aerated by some humor--even, in keeping with its classical bearings, if only of high wit. This lapse indicates a flaw in Steiner's argument: the fault in much culturally conservative discourse is in construing tradition as a kind of monolith, titanic and marmoreal. Steiner is too familiar with the classics to do this deliberately, but the whole style of his thought leads him into it, into a reverence that seems to be more for some retrospectively-constructed image of the past itself than for any particular literary work.

Steiner tries to make a somewhat difficult case: 1.) that the western canon really is as great as its conservative champions say it is, which means that it is genuinely superior to the products of other cultures and ways of life (Steiner makes some invidious remarks about "drum-taps and Javanese bells" as a metonymy for non-western art that will startle the contemporary reader); and 2.) that the western canon is as irredeemably and unavoidably built on oppression and authority as its radical detractors claim it is, from beginning to end--that you cannot have Mozart without absolutism, Mandelstam without totalitarianism, etc. So the transition to democracy in politics and culture is both a genuine relief from the hierarchical violence of the past and a genuine loss in cultural and intellectual power.

Steiner says that the move away from high culture is both justified by the Holocaust and a betrayal of the Jews. As I understand the book, Steiner is a Holocaust exceptionalist: the Shoah is not to be compared to any other genocide or mass murder. The reason is that, in the Holocaust, western civilization attacked the basis of its moral energy--the invention by the ancient Hebrews of monotheism and conscience--in the persons of the Jewish people. The impatience with conscience and morality that led to the Holocaust were incubated deep within the western tradition, were a part of culture itself, as the first chapter of this book shows. High culture, then, is complicit in the destruction of European Jewry. But the shift to democracy that undoes culture also vitiates the moral demand, the messianic promise, with which Jewish culture was associated. One sign of this is the loss of language, which is itself a form of hierarchical thinking, its grammars an ordered structure on which a society may be modeled. Late modern culture, though, is image-based and music-soaked; the word is drowned in moving pictures and throbbing drums. Our world has closed in on us, in a coerced immanence of sensation: we have lost the belief in transcendence on which any high culture would have to be based. It is telling that Steiner sees modern America as a true break with the western past, a genuine post-culture, whereas he regards the Soviet Union as essentially in continuity with tradition--Stalin, perhaps, just another dangerous monarch for the court poets to warily negotiate with, but one who at least kept the culture free of slackening influences (Steiner also sees Marxism as an episode in the moral adventure of the west that began with the invention of monotheism, an extension of the tradition rather than its repudiation--a view with which Marx himself may have agreed). I would call the general politics implied by Steiner's position neo-conservative, though in a very abstract register, one with little in the way of policy implication. Still, there is the ambivalence about America, the desire to preserve tradition, the continuing conviction of western superiority. The book ends with a hymn to science as the truest continuation of the west's Faustian spirit--the spirit to open every door in Bluebeard's castle, no matter the risk.

This is a diagnostic and predictive text. How does it hold up after 45 years? Fairly well. The processes he describes have advanced, though I gather there is a stagnation in the pace of scientific innovation that Steiner, with a belief in linear scientific progress, does not predict. High culture is about where it was, though the Internet, which is verbal to a remarkable degree, has complicated the prediction that language is finished as the center of culture--this, even as the originality and inventiveness of pop music have been stalled for almost two decades. There is, oddly, no prediction of a need for the west to confront in some way China and Japan, civilizations with their own long traditions of a high and hierarchical culture that may influence the course of things. I suppose Japan had not yet come to the global prominence at which it would arrive in the '80s and China seemed another case of a simply communist culture at the time of Steiner's writing.

There is much to quarrel with here. Steiner's interpretation of the Holocaust is probably not defensible, is perhaps even offensively allegorical. There is an answer to the charge of the absolute complicity between high culture and oppression; even from within Steiner's own paradigm, he makes no distinction between artists who flourished because they supported oppressive regimes and those who merely made great art within oppressive regimes, even in opposition to them. But Steiner is brilliant, eloquent, and always worth reading; even where he is wrong, he is intelligent, and he sharpens one's own intelligence by provoking counter-argument.

[Samuel Weitekamp · Rating 1 out of 5]

I found this book to be similar in content to Two Cultures by C.P. Snow except for it was published later. Perhaps I'm missing a good deal of Steiner's point but it seems to me to be merely a slightly revised version of of Snow's text except it deals with a wider (Western European rather than only British/American) cultural context.

Most of what I can derive from the writing is a sort of harumphy negativity toward the then-present. Perhaps I'm wrong and somewhere in this is a valid theoretical point, but it mostly feels like the writing of a crotchety man lamenting the loss of a particular deference traditionally given to those in his standing. On a positive note, I would say that Steiner finds some interesting flaws in specific aspects of mid-20th century thinking but that, in my reading, his counterpoints themselves still appear susceptible to the same flaws.

The most enjoyable sections of this book to me were when he would allude to the continued prevalence of Christian and Jewish religiosity in our current supposedly secularized society. In some of these sections I could see compelling points about our society but I don't plan on sifting through the rest of Steiner's bibliography anytime soon to find a similar of sentiment.

This book to me is most interesting as a piece of amber giving me a sense of a particular feeling of a particular group of people in a particular setting. I think I've had enough of this type of essay for the time being.

[Sebastian · Rating 4 out of 5]

Reading this essay by George Steiner gave me a persistent sensation that he wanted to prove that no matter what, I'm not as intelligent, cultivated or well-read as he is! And it's probably true, but I console myself with the fact that it's, most likely, the case for most of the people that have ever existed, with the exception of a select few that we learn about in school.

Steiner's tour-de-force about western post-culture was written in 1971 and it seems as current as ever, for the most part, even though his prediction skills for the future didn't prove to be on par with his erudition.

It's important to know, before you read this, that Steiner's a conservative and he believes that western culture is superior to any other civilization and from this basis he shares some of his views or hypothesis on various subjects that has at it's center the western post-culture.

Some of these hypotheses that I found interesting are as follows:

- Every society and civilization has a nostalgia for a golden-age past and a present fear that everything will be falling apart in the near future (seems familiar with the current zeitgeist as well?);

- The traditional western golden-age is placed between 1820 and 1915 which, even though it was worse in any way compared to the present of the 1970's (and the 2020's) for most of the people, still, for the bourgeoisie and the nobility it created a feeling of "ennui" which translated into arts and it might've been one of the reasons why World War I had to happen. To allow the "romantic" and bored nobility and bourgeoisie to have their moment of glory as they pictured it in their heads;

- The massacres of World War I devastated a whole generation of French and English moral and intellectual talents which caused a rupture in the intimate structure of daily life. The lack of intelligence, political talent and mental resistance was one of the factors that caused a cultural crisis in Europe, the emergence of totalitarian regimes and ultimately a second World War;

- The appearance of the concept of only One God was so unique and sudden for the human experience that it caused a rupture into the human psyche which has never been welded;

- The need of the human psyche for plurality was so strong that Christianity found a solution to reconcile the monotheist ideal and the polytheistic practices, through the concepts of the Holy Trinity, angels, saints;

- The white man guilt, the self negation of the western culture of it's members, the call for self-flagellation for the past crimes of colonialism is a specific cultural phenomenon. No other civilization has ever did penance in the face of previously defeated people, or morally accused and judged past conquests. Interesting that this phenomenon was limited to American universities and a few educated people, while now it's something common;

- There is no correlation between the number of educated people and social and political stability;

- The cannon of western culture was built on oppression and authority. Being educated and high-cultured will give you no moral compass, as history has shown us, especially during World-War II and the support that the Nazi got from many high profile intellectuals (same applies to the communist supporters, I would add);

- Steiner believes we are currently (1970's) experiencing a decline in culture, which is emphasized by the loss of the importance of language at the expanse of images (moving) and sound. People are drowning in images and loud music which increases the sensory side, while dulling the rational side.

Out of the four chapters I found, the last one, called "Tomorrow" the least convincing, proving that not even a genius can predict the future or appreciate new things.

[Fală Victor · Rating 4 out of 5]

Multe din ideile lui Steiner au fost realizate deja și depășite de evoluția continuă și de neoprit a societății (vorba gînditorului: "evoluția" odată începută e de neoprit), dar faptul că au fost premeditate sau precedate aceste realități merită toată admirația. Însă alte gânduri și subiecte bine tălmăcite și scrise de el în "Castelul lui Barbă albastră " sunt actuale și la fel de dureroase și necesare pentru a fi discutate - și atât mai mult - rezolvate.
Dacă Steiner acum cincizeci de ani a observat o treptată decădere sau ofilire a culturii, ce-ar mai zici acum, săracul, de-ar afla ce se petrece...

[Claudia]

apriremo, ne sono convinto, l ultima porta del castello, anche se conduce, forse proprio perché conduce, a realtà che oltrepassano la sfera della comprensione e del controllo umano. lo faremo con quella desolata chiaroveggenza, così meravigliosamente resa nella musica di bartók; perché aprire porte è il tragico merito della nostra identità.

[Existential Investigator · Rating 1 out of 5]

The blind spot which motivates the argument in this book is so extreme that one might suspect the author of dishonesty.

I was actually with him at the beginning as he described how a disillusionment swept Europe after the French Revolution. Great hopes were placed in a total reorganization of society into something expected to be revelational. The powerful spirit of Napoleon swept the people along as much of Europe was reorganized. Then it all came to a halt and a new status quo reigned. The untapped energies of the people no longer had a clear outlet in a monumental cause. Boredom and disillusionment reigned. That disillusionment was understood as crushed hopes and betrayed dreams. Yet the memory of near apocalyptic changes remained and in the hearts of those who were disillusioned to the point of borderlining desperation, apocalyptic visions became a new obsession as nihilistic energies wished to set themselves free upon the world with no clear goal.

Where this book really starts to go wrong is in the transition towards discussing the holocaust. Steiner discusses the entrance of the monotheistic god into Europe and makes much of the fact that this god is withdrawn from the world and inaccessible. This put a pressure on Europeans which they were unable to deal with, according to Steiner. For that reason, they needed to kill the god (symbolically) which left a spiritual gulf in Europe and opened the path for the entrance of a new kind of nihilism. They targeted the Jews for being the creators of this god and killing the Jews was the final most concrete act to complete the murder of the god.

There are some big problems with this interpretation on a few levels. First, just to get it out of the way, it is the interpretation of a believer imposing his god on others who cannot handle his awesome might. But there are more concrete problems in the text. Steiner discusses how culture did not stop the Germans from committing the atrocities of the holocaust, because many Nazis were highly cultured. He then takes this as a sign that culture does not have a connection to moral behaviour.

There are two huge problems with that conclusion. The first is that the Germans were not all of Europe. The disillusionment that he spoke about in the earlier part of the book took place transnationally, yet it did not result everywhere in the same conclusions as it did in Germany. This brings us to the second huge problem with this conclusion. Steiner nowhere discusses cultural developments in Germany around the time of the rise of the Nazis and in particular those cultural products which heralded National Socialistic and anti-Semitic ideas. This is the first enormous blind spot in the book. Perhaps he did not want to 'justify those works by giving them recognition', but the fact remains that he has constructed a theory which completely ignores the subject which his theory is intended to explain. Anyone with intellectual honesty should raise their eyebrows at such a fact.

The next problem in this book comes when Steiner transitions towards a prospect of the future. He no doubt already feels that he has justified himself by criticizing the causal link (to my mind, as explained above, poorly) between culture and behaviour. He talks about how traditional culture is disappearing and being forgotten (an example he gives is how poetry had an internal symbolic and reference system which connected diverse poets across time and created a kind of dialogue). In its place is the dominion of music as well as the sciences. The ultimate suggestion is that one not worry about the withering of earlier culture and embrace these new emanations and whatever flowers they might produce.

There is a very serious flaw here, as I see it. Both music and science are not meaning-making, they don't transmit values, and they don't deal with the everyday cares of people. Steiner had earlier criticized the fact that the 20th century view of the 19th century is in a large part skewed by the depictions of novels which do not adequately express how harsh and disillusioning life was in that time.

There are a few problems with this. First is that he had already gone on at length describing the ennui and disillusionment expressed in earlier forms, but he ignores depictions of lower class conditions in writers such as Dickens but also later proletarian writers, and so on. The second problem with this is that the arts are not always a direct mirroring of the world but a sort of transmutation of the cares of people into frequently idealistic forms. For example, the poetry which he does reference which describes so intricately the facets of the countryside are not meant as scientific guides to the countryside but to teach people a greater appreciation of the countryside. To take another example not in the book, Thomas Gray's Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard would contribute to contemplation upon our mortality in the same way that memento moris were in earlier eras.

So, Steiner's ultimate suggestion is that people be left bereft of their capacity to create and share meaning in an age which is already afflicted by nihilism. One star.

[Camilo González · Rating 4 out of 5]

Leer a Steiner siempre será un desafío crítico, estilístico e ideológico. Decidí empezar con este libro ya que fue lo que encontré en el mercado y es uno de sus textos iniciales que cimenta su idea de decadencia y pesimismo cultural. Antes de atacarlo con fiereza recordemos que es un texto de 1971 que fue escrito para ser leído en voz alta y para un público académico específico, tiene su contexto. Me imagino que ya mucha gente habrá peleado con Steiner y su estrecha visión occidental de la cultura, su pesimismo y fatalismo extremo por el fin de las jerarquías y el agotamiento de la palabra como consecuencia directa. Para él ha llegado el fin de la cultura, única occidental y blanca, porque tras el holocausto "las palabras están deterioradas por las falsas esperanzas y mentiras que han proclamado" (p.112).
Sin embargo, y bien se le podría dar mucho palo a este texto, seguro algún académico de los estudios culturales ya se encargó, hay varias ideas que abundan en riqueza y son muy vigentes. De las primeras dos partes resalto la claridad y los ejemplos que muestran cómo la posibilidad de un jardín de la cultura liberal, un tren del progreso, encierra toda una decadencia y agotamiento de todos los referentes anteriores, además, una inhumanidad oculta con luces. Sí, la misma cultura engendra a la barbarie: hemos construido el infierno sobre la tierra y todo pensamiento es pesadilla.
La tercera parte es la más filosófica y trascendental. Aquí Steiner ratifica su posición, innegable como mancha de la historia de los vencedores, "¿no se paga por la cultura un precio demasiado elevado?" (p.88) y propone un marco de análisis religioso del problema: "es central en una verdadera cultura cierta concepción de las relaciones entre tiempo y muerte individual" (p.91). Para Steiner una fractura de lo religioso termina de socavar la cultura y el orden: en definitiva estamos en tiempo de crisis.
La parte final es la más brillante y exquisita del libro. Aquí se habla sobre 'el mañana', o sea, nuestro pasado reciente. Su mención a la música me parece ambigua, sin embargo, rescatable. Entiendo que propone la música como una forma primitiva, una forma cíclica y perfecta, una forma donde el orden entre palabra y sociedad no está fracturado (aquí retoma a Lévi-Strauss). Entonces, la música es aquella que permitirá, tal vez, retomar al hombre y a la cultura el equilibrio fracturado. Otra idea, o lucha más bien, es con la imagen. Frente a la fractura e insensatez de la palabra, la imagen pictórica le roba protagonismo a la palabra, se hibrida con ella y le resta su status de conector y vínculo con el pasado ideal, con el origen y con el perfecto jardín. Su posición frente a la imagen es más de preocupación antes que de redención. Otra gran idea, y esta sí la sentí como un ejercicio de memoria, es la falta de referentes o conexiones de los nuevos productos culturales con su pasado bucólico. Ese ejemplo de cómo la poesía inglesa se nutre a sí misma con el linaje occidental es perfecto y une como a una familia feliz a Ovidio con Chaucer, Spenser, Tennyson, Shakespeare y Eliot (p.99). Todo se trata de rememorar el jardín y hacer todo perdurable, igual toda gran civilización, blanca y anglo para Steiner, siempre debe mantener desde sus palabras las jerarquías y el orden. ¡Si el arte no se conecta con lo perdurable mejor que vengan los dioses y nos recojan ahora mismo! Posible definición de cultura: la creación debe tener un acuerdo y una relaci��n directa de valor tanto con el genio personal que lo crea como con el tiempo que amenaza. Solo con estas conexiones, y esto sí me gusta aunque puede sonar muy conservador, la cultura tendrá la totalidad activa de toda la literatura anterior. Casi como una veta o encarnación de todo nuestro tapiz de fondo con una sola palabra. Esto es el humanismo. Me gusta pensar que la literatura siempre debe ser un retroceso hacia el infinito. La última idea que me mató fue su fe contradictoria, me explico. Frente al fin de la palabra y el lenguaje como portadores de verdad y frente a su rol de engendradores de barbarie, Steiner propone mirar otros lenguajes que, probablemente, nos lleven a un mejor fin como civilización: el refugio corre por cuenta de las matemáticas y las ciencias aplicadas; ellas también pueden, para Steiner, restituir el orden y la credibilidad de las jerarquías y ahuyentar la barbarie. Pero aquí otro problema, y viene aquí la imagen más bella del libro, para mí superior a la de El castillo de Barba Azul de Bartók, el problema que enfrentamos, y esto sí que es vigente, es la significación de Eurídice. Me la imagino siendo halada por una luz resplandeciente mientras llora y evita su deseo de mirar a Orfeo, sabe que si lo mira será el fin, el humanismo a secas, "porque la realidad de su mundo interior está a espaldas suyas, el hombre de palabras, el cantor, se volverá hacia atrás, hacia el lugar de las necesarias sombras amadas. Para el científico el tiempo y la luz están adelante" (p.133). La solución a este embrollo es que las humanidades cedan o dejen su arrogancia y admitan que es necesario otro código, un híbrido, con las ciencias exactas para salir de este infierno sobre la tierra. ¿El problema? "¿Debería continuar la investigación genética, si esta conduce a verdades sobre diferenciaciones en las especies cuyas consecuencias morales, políticas y psicológicas no somos capaces de afrontar?" (p.135). El problema es que no soportaremos la verdad que propaga la luz.
Gracias señor Steiner por este libro pero recuerde que el 'movimiento del espíritu' del 'ambiente fatigado' es una posibilidad de cualquier cultura: no solo de ustedes los vencedores.

[Ulas · Rating 4 out of 5]

Bu incecik kitap bir günde bitti. George Steiner'i ilk kez okudum, bazı fikirleri gerçekten çok ilginçti, özellikle Avrupa'daki antisemitizmin nedenine dair yaklaşımı. İş Kültür'de hep gördüğüm Tragedyanın Ölümü kitabını da almayı düşünüyorum artık. Karşılaştırmalı edebiyatçıların çalışma tarzını seviyorum.

[Bjorn Roose · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ik moet toegeven dat het eerste wat me op de cover van dit boek – uitgegeven bij Agathon in 1977; een tweede druk verscheen onder de titel Een seizoen in de hel: over de toekomst van het Westen bij De Haan in 1984 – opviel de naam ‘Steiner’ was. ‘Steiner’ zoals in Rudolf Steiner, was mijn eerste gedachte.

Maar met die Steiner heeft deze dus, voor zover ik weet, niks gemeenschappelijk behalve de familienaam en de Oostenrijkse afkomst. En dan nog. De rooms-katholiek gedoopte Rudolf Steiner werd geboren in wat tegenwoordig Kroatië is, maar toen (in 1861) nog Hongarije was (Murakirály, nu Donji Kraljevec), de joodse George Steiner werd (in 1929) geboren in Neuilly-sur-Seine, een voorstad van Parijs, waar zijn ouders zich vijf jaar eerder gevestigd hadden. En George zou net zoals Rudolf wel enige tijd in Zwitserland verblijven, maar er, in tegenstelling tot de laatste, niet sterven. Of je George Steiner een kosmopoliet mocht noemen (hij overleed in 2020) durf ik te betwijfelen, maar zijn levensreis leidde van Neuilly naar New York, van New York naar Chicago, van Chicago naar Oxford, van Oxford naar Princeton, van Princeton naar Cambridge, van Cambridge naar Genève, en van daar terug naar Cambridge. Ik vat het even kort samen, het zal u opgevallen zijn dat nogal wat van die steden universiteitssteden zijn, hij was ook somtijds in verschillende van die steden ter gelijker tijd actief.

Het tweede wat me op de voorflap van dit boek opviel, was uiteraard de titel en in het bijzonder het woordje ‘Blauwbaard’ daarin. Wie mijn boekbesprekingen wat volgt, weet immers dat Blauwbaard een regelmatig terugkerend thema is in en rond de boeken die ik lees. Het kwam dan ook ter sprake in mijn bespreking van Monsieur Hawarden van Filip De Pillecyn, Stroomafwaarts langs de Donau van Péter Esterházy, en Anne-Marie de Wuestenraedt van Rose Gronon. Bij George Steiner is het een overdrachtelijke kwestie. Dixit de achterflap: “Zoals Blauwbaards laatste vrouw een onweerstaanbare drang voelde om alle deuren van de burcht te openen totdat zij achter de uiteindelijke en fatale waarheid kwam, zo voelt ook de westerse mens een onweerstaanbare drang om steeds maar weer deuren te openen, omdat die deuren er nu eenmaal zijn. Volgens George Steiner staat onze beschaving, of wat daar nog van over is, nu voor de laatste deur. Zullen wij die deur openen? En wat is daarachter?”

Niet veel goeds, aldus Steiner zelf: “Steiner is ervan overtuigd dat de voortekenen van het einde van de westerse kultuur, zoals die zich manifesteerden in de massamoord van de tweede wereldoorlog en vooral in de uitroeiing der joden, voortvloeien uit de rusteloosheid van de negentiende eeuwse ennui en het opkomende en uiteindelijk alles verterende schuldgevoel van de westerse mens ten opzichte van het monotheïsme.”

De hele achterflap citeren, heeft weinig zin, maar ik wil u toch ook nog dít meegeven: “Een tweede diepgewortelde dwangvoorstelling van de westerse mens – zijn haat die uiteindelijk leidde tot de uitroeiing van het Europese jodendom – kwam voort uit de nostalgie naar rampspoed. Steiner meent dat het rigide monotheïsme van de jood, de ethische rechtschapenheid van het primitieve christendom en de utopistische visie van het messiaans marxisme, drie middelen waren van het joodse denken om de Europese mens tot volmaaktheid te dwingen. Men zocht onbewust zijn toevlucht tot massamoord om wraak te nemen voor de onbereikbaarheid van deze idealen; en deze drang tot vergelding, die uiteindelijk zou leiden tot een grootscheepse terugkeer tot martelingen en massale slachtingen, tot de algemene toepassing van uithongering en internering als politieke middelen, luidde een tweede Zondeval in.”

Wel, ik ben niet echt zeker dat Steiner wat hij schreef in In de burcht van Blauwbaard – Een analyse van de westerse mens en zijn kultuur ook precies bedoelde als wat de auteur van de achterflap er van gemaakt heeft, maar er worden door die auteur in ieder geval een paar van de punten ‘aangeraakt’ die in de vier in dit boek gebundelde essays – De grote ‘ennui’, Een seizoen in de hel, In een post-kultuur en Morgen – door Steiner naar voor gebracht worden. Punten die voor Steiner zelf in verband staan met T.S. Eliots Notes Towards the Definition of Culture, waarvan hij in zijn verantwoording schrijft: “Geen aantrekkelijk boek. Een boek dat is vervuld van sombere schrik over de toen recente barbarij [het werd gepubliceerd in 1948, noot van mij], maar dat ons in zijn betoog angstvallig in het ongewisse laat over de feitelijke bronnen en vormen van die barbarij”. In de burcht van Blauwbaard – Een analyse van de westerse mens en zijn kultuur ontstond dan ook, aldus nog Steiner, “uit een aantal lezingen die (…) [hij] op uitnodiging van de T.S. Eliot Memorial Lecture Foundation (…) [heeft] voorgedragen”.

En dat we de laatste deur waarvan eerder sprake intussen wellicht al geopend hebben, mag blijken uit “het landschap” dat Steiner beschrijft als datgene wat eigen is aan de tijd waarin die voordrachten geschreven zijn: “Een hoge en nog stijgende geletterdheid. Het gezag van de wet. Een ongetwijfeld nog onvolmaakte, maar snelgroeiende toepassing van representatieve vormen van bestuur. Privacy in huis en een steeds toenemende veiligheid op straat. Een spontane erkenning van de centrale ekonomische en beschavende funktie van de kunsten, de wetenschappen en de technologie. Het realiseren – af en toe stukgelopen maar niet aflatend nagestreefd – van vreedzame koëxistentie tussen nationale staten (met sporadische uitzonderingen in feite al tot stand gebracht vanaf Waterloo tot de Somme). Een dynamisch, humaan gereglementeerd samenspel van sociale beweeglijkheid en de stabiele gedrags- en machtspatronen binnen de gemeenschap. Een kode, hoewel afgezwakt door gebruikelijke weerspannigheid, die de machtsverhoudingen tussen de generaties, tussen vaders en zoons, regelde. Verlichting op seksueel gebied, maar tevens een sterke, subtiele kern van terughoudendheid die algemeen werd aanvaard. Zo zou ik door kunnen gaan. De lijst kan gemakkelijk worden uitgebreid en gedetailleerd. Wat ik bedoel is dat wij hierdoor een rijk en alomvattend beeld krijgen, een symbolische struktuur, die, indringend als een aktieve mythologie, onze huidige gevoelstoestand beïnvloedt.”

Maar té diep ingaan op wat Steiner allemaal ter sprake brengt in de verschillende essays brengt het risico mee dat ik zelf een end weg ga filosoferen – iets wat ik sowieso al al te gemakkelijk doe – en te uitgebreid citeren, gaat u mogelijk ook maar vervelen, maar een paar stukken die me bijzonder aanspraken, bijzonder wáár leken, wil ik u toch niet onthouden. Dit over het ontstaan van geschiedenis zoals we die tegenwoordig zouden definiëren: “Zoals Goethe [van wie u binnenkort ook een boekbespreking mag verwachten, noot van mij] zo helder opmerkte op het slagveld van Valmy, betekenden de populistische legers [bedoeld wordt: volkslegers, noot van mij], het idee van een natie onder de wapenen, dat de geschiedenis tot in ieder milieu was doorgedrongen. Van toen af aan zou iedere dag in de Westerse kultuur nieuws brengen – een eeuwigdurende krisis, een breuk met het pastorale stilzwijgen en de uniformiteit van de achttiende eeuw, door De Quincey vereeuwigd in zijn verhaal over de ijlbodes die door Engeland snelden met nieuws over de Iberische oorlog.” Of dit over “het eeuwige ‘morgen’ van het utopistische politieke visioen” dat “als het ware maandagochtend [werd]”: “Wanneer wij de dektreten van de Nationale Konventie en het Jacobijnse regime lezen, ervaren we iets van het duizelingwekkende gevoel van onbegrensde mogelijkheden: onrecht, bijgeloof en armoede moeten nu uitgeroeid worden, in het volgende glorieuze uur. De wereld zal haar versleten huid over veertien dagen afwerpen.” Of dit over de stad: “de moderne stad (…), la ville tentaculaire zoals een dichter haar later zou noemen – de megalopolis wier onstuitbare cellulaire deling en spreiding nu zoveel van ons leven dreigt te verstikken (…) Er bestaan aanwijzingen dat mannen en vrouwen slechts in onvoldoende mate in staat zijn om met elkaar te leven in de verstikkende nabijheid van de industrieel-stedelijke bijenkorf. Misschien heeft de stijging van het geluidsniveau, van het tempo van werk en beweging en van de intensiteit van het kunstlicht, na een eeuw van akkumulatie, een pathologische grens bereikt en destruktieve instinkten losgemaakt”. Of dit over het humanisme: “Hoe komt het dat de humanistische tradities en gedragsmodellen zo’n zwakke barrière blijken tegen politieke bestialiteit? Vormen zij eigenlijk wel een barrière, of is het reëler in de humanistische kultuur een uitdrukkelijk verlangen naar autoritair bestuur en wreedheid te onderkennen?”

Of dit over – en dat toont in ieder geval, zelfs binnen dit korte bestek, aan hoe weinig politiek correct George Steiner wel was – de genetische gevolgen van de Eerste Wereldoorlog: “We beginnen iets meer dan vroeger te begrijpen van de aard van de biologische schade, zoals die bijvoorbeeld werd aangericht door de builenpest in de veertiende en zeventiende eeuw, of door de ontvolking van bepaalde provincies van Duitsland en Centraal-Europa tijdens de godsdienstoorlogen. Maar ons inzicht blijft slechts op vermoedens berusten. Wat wij naar mijn mening wèl kunnen zeggen, is het volgende: de verliezen in de eerste wereldoorlog waren niet alleen enorm, maar ook wreedaardig selektief. Men kan, geloof ik, op grond van een ruime hoeveelheid sociologisch en demografisch bewijsmateriaal, stellen dat Engeland door de slachtingen bij Passendale en de Somme van een generatie van moreel en intellektueel talent is beroofd, dat een belangrijk deel van de beste krachten aan de toekomst van Europa is ontrukt. Het is duidelijk dat de langdurige massamoord ook voor Frankrijk verstrekkende gevolgen heeft gehad, maar deze zijn moeilijker te schatten. Door de vernietiging van hele kaders en gemeenschappen werd de hechte struktuur van het Franse leven omvergeworpen. In veel opzichten heeft zij haar evenwicht of elasticiteit nooit hervonden. Wij kunnen ons geen helder beeld vormen van de krises van de Westerse kultuur, van de oorsprong en de vormen van de totalitaire bewegingen in het hart van Europa en de herhaling van een wereldoorlog, wanneer we niet terdege rekening houden met het feit dat Europa na 1918 in zijn levenscentra was beschadigd. Ik bedoel dat letterlijk. Beslissende reserves van intelligentie, van gespannen veerkracht, van politiek talent, waren vernietigd. De satirische idee – bij Brecht en Georges Grosz – van kinderen die zijn vermoord omdat ze nooit geboren zullen worden, heeft een specifieke, genetische betekenis. Een aggregaat van mentale en fysieke potentie, van nieuwe bastaardvormen en varianten die te talrijk zijn voor ons bevattingsvermogen, ging verloren voor het behoud en de verdere evolutie van de Westerse mens en zijn instituties. Biologisch gezien worden wij nu al gekonfronteerd met een verengde kultuur, een ‘post-kultuur’.”

Of, zo mogelijk nog “fouter” dan voorgaande, over het inmiddels alom overheersende aanpraten van een schuldgevoel aan de blanke Europeanen: “(…) ook al is dit betoog nog zo beschuldigend, nog zozeer vervuld van boetvaardige hysterie, het feit dat het Westen gedurende vijfentwintighonderd jaar overheersend is geweest valt nauwelijks te ontkennen. Met alle respekt voor Joseph Needham, wiens heroriëntering van de kulturele en wetenschappelijke kaart ten gunste van China en, mogelijkerwijs, van India, zelf kan worden beschouwd als een van de meest fascinerende, kreatieve avonturen van het Westers intellekt, dient toch te worden opgemerkt dat de centra van filosofische, wetenschappelijke en poëtische invloed duidelijk waren gelegen op de geografische en raciale voedingsbomen van het Mediterrane, Noordeuropese en Angelsaksische gebied. Er zijn klaarblijkelijk talloze oorzaken voor deze hegemonie, en hun wisselwerking is waarschijnlijk te ingewikkeld om door het verstand of de historische theorie van een enkeling te kunnen worden geanalyseerd. Zij kunnen het gehele gebied beslaan vanaf de omstandigheden van klimaat en voeding (het hoge proteïnegehalte dat aan de Westerse gemeenschappen ter beschikking staat) tot aan dat subtiele samenspel van genetische erfelijkheid en toeval, onder wier invloed op de vorming van de geschiedenis wij maar zo weinig weten. Maar het blijft – naar we mogen hopen – een platitude om op te merken dat in onze ogen de wereld van Plato niet die der sjamanen is, dat de fysika van Galilei en Newton een biezonder groot gedeelte van de omringende werkelijkheid voor de menselijke geest begrijpelijk heeft gemaakt, dat de scheppingen van Mozart uitstijgen boven tromgeroffel en Javaanse bellen – hoe roerend, hoe beladen met de herinnering aan andere dromen deze ook zijn! En het is eveneens waar dat juist deze houding van zelfverwijt en wroeging, waarvan een groot gedeelte van het intellektuele Westerse bewustzijn op het ogenblik blijk geeft, ook weer een kultuurspecifiek verschijnsel is. Welke andere rassen hebben zich vol berouw gewend tot diegenen die zij eerst tot slaaf hebben gemaakt, welke andere beschavingen hebben de glans van hun eigen verleden op morele gronden aangeklaagd? Deze reflex van kritisch zelfonderzoek in naam van absolute ethische waarden, is opnieuw een typisch Westerse, post-Voltairiaanse uiting.”

Of, ten slotte, om toch eens terug te komen op wat op de achterflap werd gezegd over “het rigide monotheïsme van de jood, de ethische rechtschapenheid van het primitieve christendom en de utopistische visie van het messiaans marxisme, drie middelen (...) van het joodse denken om de Europese mens tot volmaaktheid te dwingen” en mijn niet zeker zijn dat Steiner een en ander zo bedoelde als daar aangegeven: “Het monotheïsme op de Sinaï, het primitieve christendom, het messiaans socialisme: dit zijn de drie opperste momenten waarop de Westerse kultuur kennis maakt met wat Ibsen betitelde als ‘de aanspraken van het ideaal’. Dit zijn de drie nauw met elkaar verweven stadia waardoor het Westers bewustzijn wordt gedwongen de chantage van de transcendentie te ervaren. ‘Stijg boven jezelf uit. Overschrijd de troebele grenzen van de geest om zuivere abstraktie te bereiken. Verlies je leven om het te winnen. Geef bezit, stand en aards gemak op. Heb je naaste lief gelijk jezelf – nee, veel meer, want eigenliefde is zondig. Breng ieder offer, verdraag iedere vernedering, zelfs de zelfaanklacht, zodat rechtvaardigheid kan zegevieren.’ Onophoudelijk heeft de chantage van de perfektie gehamerd op de verwarde, aardse, zelfzuchtige struktuur van het gewone, instinktieve gedrag. Als een snerpende toon, diep in het oor. Mensen zijn heiligen noch asceten; hun verbeelding is weinig subtiel; gewoonlijk bestaat voor hen de toekomst in de volgende mijlpaal. Maar de druk van het ideaal hield aan, verschrikkelijk, taktloos en machtig. Driemaal klonk het vanuit hetzelfde historische centrum. (Sommige politikologen stellen het aandeel van de joden in de idealistische ontwikkeling van het messiaans socialisme en kommunisme op zo’n tachtig procent). Drie keren kwam uit het jodendom een oproep tot perfektie voort en werd geprobeerd deze aan de stroom en de koers van het Westerse leven op te leggen. In het sociale onderbewustzijn ontstonden gevoelens van diepe afkeer, van bloeddorstige haat. Het mechanisme is eenvoudig maar fundamenteel. Het meest haten wij degenen die ons een doel voorhouden, een ideaal, een visionaire belofte die we niet kunnen bereiken, ook al hebben we onze spieren tot het uiterste gestrekt, die zich steeds opnieuw net aan het bereik van onze ontwrichte vingers onttrekt – maar die toch, en hier gaat het om, uiterst aantrekkelijk blijft, die we niet kunnen verwerpen omdat wij haar opperste waarde erkennen. Door zijn irritante ‘vreemdheid’, door zijn aanvaarding van het lijden als onderdeel van een verbond met het absolute, werd de jood als het ware ‘het slechte geweten’ van de Westerse geschiedenis. In hem bleven het opgeven van de geestelijke en morele perfektie, de hypokrisie van een gevestigde, wereldse religiositeit en de Absenties van een teleurgestelde, mogelijk wraakgierige God, levendig en zichtbaar bewaard.”

En over dat alles schrijft Steiner met veel verwijzingen naar andere literatuur - helaas niet eveneens meegegeven in een literatuurlijst op het einde van het boek –, in een bij momenten poëtische taal (“Het verleden drukte rattetanden in de grijze pulp van het heden; het zaaide vertwijfeling en wilde dromen.”), en… in tongen. Niet vertaalde zinssneden in het Frans, Engels, Duits, Italiaans zijn geen zeldzaamheid, maar de gedichten en een aantal tekstfragmenten heeft de vertaler, Peter Bergsma, aldus zijn Nawoord, “in navolging van George Steiner van een eigen vertaling voorzien”. “Hoewel ik er mij volledig van bewust ben”, schrijft Bergsma daarover, “dat er van sommige citaten al eerdere en wellicht betere Nederlandse vertalingen voorhanden zijn, heb ik gemeend omwille van de ‘authenticiteit’ de procedure van Steiner te moeten volgen.” Lees de rest van mijn bespreking hier .

[Amy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Wow if culture is dying because of moving images and music in 1970, I can’t wait to have Steiner show off how many authors, philosophers, scientists and artists he can name drop now. Although I’d be surprised if he is still alive.

[Mattjmjmjm · Rating 5 out of 5]

Despite being published in the 1970s this book is still very relevant to the contemporary reader for the most part. The book is mainly focused on the claims that go back to the 18th and 19th centuries, that a liberal humanist education could impart good morals and cultivate the best citizens for society. Writers like Voltaire and Bentham write a society free of the brutalities of the past, creating a more rational society free of religious dogma and allowance for individual liberty would bring about a better future. Of course, there was progress in technology, machinery, worker's and women's rights but there was also two world wars, the holocaust and the rise of authoritarian ideologies like Fascism and State Communism that destroyed millions of lives. The book is trying to account for the failure of liberal education and the humanistic arts to contain the irrational and violent forces repressed in modern man.

Steiner first starts with people's perception of the past as being a better time to live, a mythic golden age, they fail to see the conflicts that were at the heart of the 18th and 19th centuries. He gives the example of 1789 and 1815(start to the end of the french revolution and Napoleon's reign), people started to get more of a hold on their historical past. There were calls to break with tradition, the rise and fall of the Romantic Movement, personal feelings vs rationality, the call for freedom from the English Romantics like Blake and Shelley. "But it is clear that the Revolutionary and Napoleonic decades brought on overwhelming immanence, a deep, emotionally stressed change in the quality of hope. Expectations of. progress, of personal and social enfranchisement, which had formerly had a conventional, often allegoric character, as of a millenary horizon, suddenly moved very close." The generations following the revolutionary upheavals of 1789 and 1830 more than previous generations felt the weight of history upon them, the mundane middle-class life, the economic divide between the capitalists and workers etc. These feelings that modern life was dehumanizing lead to certain ideas such as "the noble savage" fleeing from the cities to nature(romantic pastoralism), Romantic ideals of love(sometimes stressing incest), and glorifying the artists as heroes. If the modern individual could not change society through politics then they retreated inwards to escape their alienation, art was seen as liberating humanity from backwardness.

Steiner then moves on to the larger question of why the holocaust occurred despite Europeans considering themselves cultured and civilized through modern technology and arts. It's a bit of a complex theory but I will simplify it. Basically, Steiner states that Judaism put a heavy moral demand on the individual, a single God demanding so much of the individual, unlike any other religion at the time. Out of Judaism came Christianity which continued this moral demand on the individual. "That imperative was stated and restated innumerable times in the course of Western history. It is the staple of Christian ethics, of the Christian doctrine of right living. How many could hope to respond adequately? In how many human careers were these prescripts of ascetic love, of compassion, of self-suppression, more than a Sunday tag?" Basically, the perfection demanded by Judaism was rejected by Christian Europe, the backlash against this moral demand for more a just world(this can be found in Marxism) was the Holocaust. I'm not really sure what to make of this argument, there is a risk of this argument being seen as putting blame on Jews.

Next is a broader examination of Western Culture. The idea of Western Culture rests upon "the best that has been said and thought" which at the time of the book was written was being more and more challenged. There was a backlash to the idea of Western Superiority, of idealizing Eastern Cultures, a Crisis in the Western control of the world. Steiner acknowledges the fact that a lot of western achievement was often done in very hierarchical societies where exclusion of certain groups was the norm. The problem is coming to grips with that fact. Another topic discussed is that people no longer expect things to get better, that brutality and irrationality are the rules, not the exception. That was an advantage that people in the past thought the future would be better if there was a political will "But the nobility of these errors is unquestionable, as was their energizing function. Much of the truest of our culture was animate with ontological utopia. It is modesty and realism to put aside the millenarian dream, but mendacious to deny the luck of those who dreamt it. Or to forget that our new clear-sightedness stems directly from a catastrophic failure of human possibility."

The last part of the book concerns itself with the changes in Western culture at the time of writing. Basically, he is talking about a loss of classical culture, a loss of the framework that makes understanding a lot of western literature possible(that of reading the classics and an understanding of the bible). That in America "have appeared versions of parts of the Bible and of Shakespeare in basic English and in strip-cartoon format." This part of the book can be boiled down to a dumbing down of literary culture. That the ideal literary education is not considered as important, is a loss of dynamic culture. "Let us suppose that the Victorian public-school boy, the Gymnasiast or lyceen to whom the text of Horner, of Racine, of Goethe, offered natural purchase, were always but a small number, a conscious elite. Even if this was so, the case stands. Restricted as it may have been, that elite embodied the inheritance and dynamics of culture. Its social, economic predominance and confident self-perpetuation were such that the model of a culture-whose values may, indeed, have been specialized and rninority-based-serveq as general criterion."

Overall this book covered topics I think are still very important to contemporary society. How much does liberal arts education actually influence people(for good or bad)? How to consider that the canon of great art was built upon inequality? How to continue the western tradition that started with Homer? I was left with many questions, the right sort of questions.

[Jenni · Rating 4 out of 5]

A TKO of a cultural probe. I feel like I need to read this at least two more times to really understand what is so captivating/unsettling about this investigation of the decomposition of contemporary Western culture. I don't know if I concur with certain aspects of the argument (can we reduce the 20th century to a "nightmarish joke"?), but it's hard not to be swept away by Steiner's eloquent dissection of that "archival pseudo-vitality surrounding what was once felt life." His discussions of burgeoning literacies (in the 1970s) -- science and technology -- seem almost prophetic. Talk about a fierce mind.

[Matthew Humberstone]

Exploring this one of Steiner's 'Rarities and B-sides', you get a genealogy of conservatism, a critique of secularism, a defence of Western exceptionalism and a review of the 1971 moment that could have been written in our own present. The timeliness of the argument suggests that current conditions are built on a structures of thought and feeling that could be discerned some 50 years ago. We remain knock, knock, knockin' on Bluebeard's doors.

[Austin Gustin-Helms · Rating 3 out of 5]

In Bluebeard’s Castle was the latest book I finished from Bowie’s Bookshelf. It is a collection of four lectures by George Steiner postulating his view on the breakdown of Western culture since the French Revolution to the time this book was completed around 1970. Not gonna lie, it was not an easy read. It is very scholarly with a ton of references to literature and philosophy. The author, in my opinion, comes off a bit pretentious, but who am I to judge?

[Smith Abbott · Rating 5 out of 5]

George Steiner identified in 1970 as “a dominant cliché of the contemporary mood” — the age-old (biblical, no less) belief in a “squandered utopia”: “Our experience of the present, the judgments, so often negative, that we make of our place in history, play continually against what I want to call the ‘myth of the nineteenth century’ or the ‘imagined garden of liberal culture’”....

[Joe Olipo · Rating 1 out of 5]

could I accidentally
get eaten
slipping into your
sandwich [castle]
— Eileen Myles, School of Fish

On Spikes

Gertrude Stein, on the occasion of delivering a lecture, receives some humorous counter-advice from an unnamed French professor: "Talk as quickly as you can and never look up." (From Autobiography of Alice Toklas; a previous well-wisher had suggested the antithetical approach, "talk as slowly as possible and never look down.") This anticipates what would later become the infamous style of Nabokov's lectures on literature at Cornell; his coercive refusal to engage with students belying an insecurity about losing his monopoly on time. It's always a mistake to forget the moment in which erudition is substituted for aggression. The battle over temporal scarcity takes a more frank form in competitive forensics (debate). An absolutely equal division of time produces, among other tactics, "spreading" (i.e. reading the case as fast as possible) and the "spike" i.e. the proleptic anticipation of the stock counter-argument. Every Spike is a risk. One can't always anticipate what an opponent will do — the spike, under such circumstances, in danger of becoming wasted speech. Though there are ways to tempt an opponent into opening the door to this kind of argument i.e. where erudition has produced what Nicki Minaj would call "strategically designed architecture."

George Steiner's text begins with a (proleptic) moral reckoning on the Holocaust. The notion that, "the Jew became, as it were, the 'bad conscience' of Western history [. . .] the holocaust as a polytheist reflex [. . .] in a botched attempt to kill god," is not new, being one of the stock theological responses to the centuries-old historical pogrom. We are less interested in this than in how he recuperates the "irretrievable loss" which has turned even the "precisely restored house fronts" of Warsaw into a "stage set": i.e. in the immaterial memory (what has now become "postmemory") of those still living. In this way, even those lost have access to a piece of immortality possessed by the "Immortal Poets of the Western Canon". From these unobjectionable, albeit anemic, origins, we proceed to more contentious interests. Steiner's critique of culture is perhaps the primary contention of this essay:

“What is occurring now is new : it is an attempt at a total break. The mumble of the dropout, the "fuck-off" of the beatnik, the silence of the teenager in the enemy house of his parents are meant to destroy. Cordelia's asceticism, her refusal of the mendacities of speech, proves murderous. So does that of the autistic child when it stamps on language, pulverizing it to gibberish or maniacal silence. We empty of their humanity those to whom we deny speech. We make them naked and absurd." (115)

Among the many responses to this kind of myopic historicism (Were the "Beatniks" the "Superpredators" of the 1960's?), one intuitively understands that the renunciation of coherent speech is simply the winning refusal to be brought into a debate in which one can be destroyed by erudition (read: aggression). Since the dawn of time the "destructive silence of the teenager" has never matched the power of his parents to destroy him (though they (mostly) keep it in abeyance). A more erudite response comes from Marianne Constable (Just Silences, 2006) regarding the compelled speech act (e.g. Native American cultural artifacts forcibly disclosed to the Ministry of the Interior), the Miranda Warning, and the notion, per Edward Said, that, "They cannot speak for themselves because they are already spoken for." To Steiner's subpoint that their loud music (too much sound in too little time) deafens the hearing, one might say "leave it be." To his point that they'll never memorize the verse of the Immortal Poets, one might say "then forget them."

We recall the fable of Bluebeard's Castle, in which the newly married maiden is given the keys to the castle and uses them to open a forbidden room in which the slain bodies of her husband's previous wives are cached (and possibly eaten). (One wonders: wouldn't the story work just as well if the room instead contained a fantastic gift, and scary old turban-wearing Bluebeard wasn't such a bad guy after all (responses to Steiner's "Orientalism" abide in another review) . . . Or perhaps the room contained something embarrassing like Bluebeard's peasant-boy lover, or a "Pickle Rick" poster.) The dialectic goes: Bluebeard shouldn't have given the key if he didn't want it opened, so in fact he did want it opened, so perhaps it was inevitable and he was sowing the seeds of a future punishment, and perhaps because the author wanted all this to happen.

It's not too cute to say this text itself is like Bluebeards Castle; preparing a horror scene to confront the reader who possesses an impulse for inquiry. Erudite readers will have already noted how Steiner proleptically linked the "Immortal Poets of the Western Canon" to the preservation of the memory of the holocaust. Upon refuting the absolute importance of the former "sure, Shakespeare's nice," one encounters perhaps the strongest Spike ever written in a modern essay on pop culture: i.e. "so that's what you think of the Holocaust." It's difficult to formulate a response to this, esp. because notions of Memory are already intimately linked to the Holocaust, but perhaps a possible rejoinder lies in the author's treatment of the central theme. Steiner is notably (tastefully) sparing in his use of "Bluebeard's Castle" as a motif, but he does key into the notion of inevitability we have evolved in our brief dialectic. ("We open the successive doors in Bluebeard's castle because 'they are there,' because each leads to the next by a logic of intensification. To leave one door closed would be not only cowardice but a betrayal-radical, self-mutilating-Of the inquisitive, probing, forward tensed stance of our species." (136)) Perhaps the best response, then, is to keep silent. This would be to let Steiner (and his argument) go down with the inevitable collapse of the high culture he espouses. Something better will (inevitably) take its place. The Holocaust will remain — and the time we have to wait for the Inevitable is always shorter than we expect, as in Warhol's famous anecdotes: "Victor and his boyfriend walked me back to the office. A fortune teller told Victor’s boyfriend that he would be hit by a cab. Then she said maybe that wasn’t right, that she’d better read the tarot cards, too, so she did, and then she said, “It’s going to happen even quicker than I thought.” (Pat Hackett, The Andy Warhol Diaries)

[Joshua Johnson · Rating 4 out of 5]

A bit inscrutable, at least for me. Steiner's literary grasp is far more sure than my own and that makes his allusions difficult to follow. Which seems ironic, given this is the gyst of much of his argumentation. An intriguing read.

[Patty · Rating 3 out of 5]

Wow, I had forgotten all about this book! I remember liking it a lot, but the fact that I'd forgotten all about it sort of knocks it down a bit in stars.

[Alex · Rating 3 out of 5]

For a relatively short book, there are a lot of huge topics tackled within. Steiner feels a bit all-over-the-place at times, and his writing frequently shifts between profound commentary and the somewhat-prejudiced complaints of an old man.

What I found most useful here were the questions that Steiner posed. Namely, how has our idea of culture and education changed, specifically in light of the atrocities of the first half of the 20th century? Steiner rightly calls into question the metanarratives of the 18th and 19th centuries, whether they are of Jeffersonian or Marxist variety. However, he also notably rejects one of the core tenets of the then-contemporary post-structuralism; that is, the rejection of the concept of objective truth.

Steiner acknowledges that the never-ending pursuit of an absolute truth could very well bring about the end of humanity. But, at the same time, he predicts that there is no other option than to continue pursuing our scientific endeavors. Using the metaphor of Bluebeard's Castle, Steiner predicts that humanity will not be able to stop itself from opening that final door, "because opening doors is the tragic merit of our identity." According to Steiner, those who seek only to return to an idealized version of the past "are performing an infantile charade...We cannot turn back. We cannot choose the dreams of unknowing."

While this was definitely a worthwhile read overall, I do have several complaints. This is not necessarily a work that aged particularly well; every time Steiner makes a profound observation, or poses a meaningful question, he cannot help himself from immediately descending back into the kind of comments you would expect from an elderly conservative man you'd meet at the grocery store. He complains that schools do not properly teach literature anymore; he complains about music, arguing that it is taking the place of literature in society; most notably of all, he shows a strange fixation on "Western civilization" and its religious traditions. This, in my view, leads him to several conclusions pertaining to historical events that are not entirely justified. He remarks that our modern, "post-culture" era is one in which the hierarchies of the past are being torn down, in which identities are blended together, yet he seems incapable of dismantling his own differentiation between the "Western man" and the Other.

This book gave me a lot to think about, and it certainly left me with more questions than answers.

[Theodoros Vassiliadis · Rating 3 out of 5]

Lectures turned essays by G. Steiner on his contemplative core ; non other than anthropology and its role to the formation of culture in time.
G.S. concedes that human could or could not be a part of the Rousseauic/Hesiodic mythology of a golden era for the human ,when amicality ,social feeling and simplicity were the norms and these were the conditions manifested due to his pre-fall in the category of consciousness.
Upon admitting himself to this deviation , he needed to get accustomed to hell , since the promise of paradise wouldn't be fit for him- while he was dragged to face chaos with his own eyes.
Thus the deeper reasons that man is willing to initiate havoc is that it is an element of his entropic identity, he urges himself to be drawn in this area , so that he meets the source of tragedy -the unknown ingredient in history.
When this is not occurring through barbarism , atrocity and war , it is money conquest and search for glamour that ignite his identity endeavors
Steiner presents the chasm among the animalistic and natural way (the life of the pure pleasure-desire) versus the cultural / moral which gave a rise to the former in the 20th century rendering the latter redundant.
Certain gravity is charged to the messianic visions of the ancient world and all the efforts to be realized on earth in historic time (Nazist Germany ,Soviets , French revolution , Greek democracy, Medieval christianity, Imperialist expansionism ).
When the continuous curve went toward decline , the dream was proven futile and the essence of the outcome wasn't anticipated , which lead to demoralization.
It's of great value the notion of the scapegoat that in each occasion a certain people or individual assumes as the personification of the coming failure or the obstacle that arises in the path of each 'great' idea and this is one that he analyses in a genius way

[Yasin Çetin · Rating 5 out of 5]

MAVİ SAKAL'IN ŞATOSU'NDA

George Steiner ile Siyasal Antropoloji kitabıyla tanıştım. Siyaset ve 'ilkel' kavramının eleştirisini sunar. İlkel dediğimiz o toplumların kendi siyaset anlayışlarını gözler önüne sürer. Ve o alıştığımız modern toplum düzeninden farklı bir toplum düzeninin olduğunu gösterir. O yabancı olduğumuz dünyanın yapı taşlarını bize gösterir. Yıl 1960'lardır...

Mavi Sakal'ın Şatosu'nda ismi çevirmenin ve yayınevinin tercihi olmuş, özgün ismi farklıdır. Peki neden Mavi Sakal'ın Şatosu'nda ismi seçilmiş derseniz, George Steiner metin içinde gönderme yaptığı bir opera eserinden gelmektedir. İçerik ise kültürel mirasımız ile ilgilidir. Günümüz kültürünün DNA'sında yatan 19. yüzyıl ağırlıklı olmakla beraber Humanizm'den kitabın yazıldığı 1970 başlarına kadar ele alınır. Orada durmak niyetinde değildir, kültürü nasıl algılayacağımız ve gelecek kurgumuz üzerinde bir tartışma yürütür. Nasıl oldu da Hümanizm ve Aydınlanma'nın ardından Birinci Dünya Savaşı gibi savaşıma girdik, ardından çok geçmeden tüm bu akıl yolundaki ilerlememiz bizi İkinci Dünya Savaşı'na sürükledi. Büyük bir insanlık kıyımına imza atarken ne düşünüyorduk?

Kendini eleştiri tahtasına oturtmayı başaran Avrupalılardan birisidir George Steiner, daha 1970'li yıllarda her şeye rağmen ilerlediğimiz tezini dile getiren Harari'ye eleştiri niteliğindedir bahsettikleri. Bu ilerleme hiç de eşitsizliği, sömürüyü, kıyımı haklı çıkaracak değildir. Modern dönem ilerleme dediğimizin yanında çöküş olarak adlandırabileceğimiz bir çelişki içerisinde gerçekleşmiştir. George Steiner, Mavi Sakal'ın Şatosu'nda bu tartışmayı dünü, o günü ve gelecek içinde tartışmakta, kültür anlayışımız hakkında bugün için de geçerli olan bir tartışmaya bizi davet etmektedir.

[Walter Francis · Rating 3 out of 5]

George Steiner is one of the most important literary critics of the twentieth century, and in this short book, a printed version of 4 lectures he gave at the University of Kent in England between September 1970 and January 1971, you can see the full sprawl of his genius.

Incredibly widely read and with an informed opinion of just about everything the book starts by questioning what the violent progress of history from 1915 to 1945 had to do with “culture.” He concludes that the two great Wars deleted the widely held idea that through art, humanity is always progressing forward to better itself. The loss of art as a grounding moral principle led to the turn toward science, and inevitable ecological and nuclear disaster.

The book’s conclusion is that the development of information technology, mass media and the physical and biological sciences lead us into a “post-culture.” There’s too much information out there, too much for one person to ever hope to know, and not enough basis in traditional classical culture to ensure the continuity of the human race. If we are to hope to improve our standing, we have to appreciate how much science is informed by culture and vice versa and to use that dual influence to better them both.

A very important book of ideas, but bogged down by his inability to consider “non-Western” culture as “real” culture, and his terror at the development of music and literature which isn’t based on the old white classics of Europe. At times it reads like a grouchy old man complaining about growth and change, and at times like a last great literary genius trying to point the way forward for us all.

[Esteban Galarza · Rating 4 out of 5]

Una hermosa introducción a las teorías de la cultura del posmodernismo. Hay algunos conceptos que han quedado oxidados, pero la palabra de Steiner aún es un lugar de referencia fuerte para todo lo que tenga que ver con los choques de alta y baja cultura.

Quiero destacar en sí sus apreciaciones sobre la música como el dios que apareció en el siglo XX para desplazar a la palabra escrita. Y también poner sobre el tapete el derrocamiento final de la idea de que más cultura puede evitar la barbarie. Sobre esto último, recuperó el recuerdo que muchos quieren olvidar de que había eventos de música de cámara cerca de Dachau en su época de máximo funcionamiento.

Decididamente, En el castillo de Barba Azul es un libro que puede discutirse, defenderse o detractarse, pero sí o sí es ya un punto inexorable de los estudios culturales del siglo XX.

[Omar Caccia · Rating 5 out of 5]

Un libro sulla "cultura occidentale", intesa nel duplice significato di cultura come "insieme delle conoscenze" di un popolo e come "insieme di individui" che in essa si riconosce. Ritengo che il libro, pur essendo stato scritto agli inizi degli anni 70, abbia una chiaroveggenza e una lungimiranza che avvicina l'autore ad altri giganti come Pasolini. Questo rende il libro più che mai attuale, soprattutto ora, a distanza di 40 anni e più, che possiamo verificarne le ipotesi. A mio parere ci sono un paio di parti che non sono più attuali, mi riferisco alla descrizione della differenza tra Stati Uniti ed Europa nella relazione con la cultura. Per tutto il resto, si tratta di un libro sapienziale.