The speeches of the Soviet Writers’ Congress serve the purpose of lauding Soviet writers, articulated against recurring assertions of Western decadence and creative degeneration. The most extensive critique of European modernism came from Karl Radek, whose polemical attack on modernism as the literary form of fascism prefigured the ferocious anti-formalism campaigns that increased apace from 1935. Radek attacked Joyce on the grounds of presenting a world without heroism, in which there are ‘no big events, no big people, no big ideas’, leading to monstrous distortions of perspective: ‘A heap of dung, crawling with worms, photographed by a cinema apparatus through a microscope - such is Joyce’s work’42
As fascism in Europe advanced, a more wide-ranging discussion of the relationship between fascism, modernism and Western capitalism was necessary, and the Popular Front strategy presented one way of understanding the relationship. As the
dominating tone became anti-formalist, Lukács’s essays on realism appeared in the journal as contributions to the debate, often in some tension or apparent contradiction with the
40 Gorky, ‘Soviet Literature’, p. 44. 41 Williams, Culture & Society, p. 279.
42 Karl Radek, ‘James Joyce or Socialist Realism?’, Problems in Soviet Literature, in A.A. Zhdanov et
46
direction of travel of Soviet policy. The essay on expressionism that triggered the
controversy in Das Wort in 1937 was first published in International Literature in 1934.43 In ‘Narration vs. Description’, especially, Lukács’s criticism of Soviet writers is important as an acknowledgement that socialist realism had yet to be accomplished.44
This Eurocentric current was not, of course, separable from the Soviet aesthetic debates; International Literature, although after 1935 increasingly dominated by the Soviet perspective, did feature work by European writers, including several of Lukács’s key essays on realism. In particular, the important essay ‘The Intellectual Physiognomy of Literary Characters’, published in both Das Wort and International Literature shortly after the First Moscow Trial, appears to undermine this emphasis on the writer’s own world- view (Weltanschauung) by deflecting attention almost entirely onto the mechanics of characterisation. Lukács’s argues that what secures creativity in portrayal is the way characters are individualised: their deepest and most vital characteristics. This makes the thoughts, attitudes and arguments each character makes ‘appear as the profound
characteristic property of each and every one of them.’45
In all great writing it is indispensable that its characters be depicted in all-sided interdependence with each other, with their social existence, and with the great problems of this existence. The more deeply these relations are grasped, the more diversely these interconnections are developed, the greater the writing becomes, for the closer it comes to the actual richness of life, to the “cunning” of the real process of development, of which Lenin so often speaks.46
Although Lukács argues that the processes of characterisation, the demonstration by characters of their intellectual physiognomy, do in fact correspond to actual processes of cognition, the essay is silent on the question of the relationship between the writer’s ideological position and his characterisation. In a move that further diffuses the critical focus and deflects scrutiny from the writer, Lukács writes of a ‘culture’ of realism: ‘A culture that is based upon a concrete sensibility for what is great in life, for the portrayal of
43 Reprinted in Essays on Realism (Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 1983, pp. 76-113.
44 Georg Lukács, ‘Narration vs. Description’, International Literature, 1937:6, pp. 96-7. This section was
omitted from Arthur Kahn’s translation (as ‘Narrate or Describe?’, pp. 110-148) in Writer and Critic and Other Essays (London: Merlin, 1970), somewhat surprisingly given Lukács’s defensive preface in which he seeks to position the essays as against the dominant tendency of the time (p. 7).
45 Georg Lukács, ‘The Intellectual Physiognomy of Literary Characters’, International Literature,
1936:8, p. 56.
46
47
human greatness as a reality. The classic writers of realism possessed this culture.’47
He contrasts ‘late bourgeois culture’ with ‘socialist culture’ in a way that suggests an attempt to forestall criticism based on individual authors’ orthodox or unorthodox position.
What is reflected here is a differentiated analysis of culture that refused to reduce texts wholly to authorial politics – the position was derived from Engels, but it was already being overrun by the momentum of Stalinism. Such a differentiation was crucial for the coherence of the Popular Front strategy; it side-lined the Radek-type anathematisation of bourgeois culture as decadent, as the Comintern’s analysis of fascism isolated it from capitalism as a whole. It gave political legitimacy to Lukács’s broadly progressive, ‘culturally-humanist’ view of European history, present from his earlier writings, that viewed Marx and Hegel in a tradition with Goethe and Schiller, a tradition opposed to mysticism and irrationalism, and therefore fascism.48 The debates over realism and Expression that took place in the German exile journal Das Wort in 1937 and 1938 are a key location of a Eurocentric debate on literature and anti-fascism. A polemical exchange was held in the journal in 1937 and 1938 between Ernst Bloch and Georg Lukács (Brecht’s contribution was not published at the time49), in which Lukács resumed his argument that naturalism and surrealism appeared as expressions of the antinomies of bourgeois thought that only realism had the capacity to mediate. In ‘Realism in the Balance’, Lukács also advanced the important argument that realism had not been eclipsed by modernism at all, but rather co-existed with it; the embattled co-existence of progressive and reactionary tendencies marked culture as a field of struggle, of competing traditions.50 Although denouncing modernism, Lukács’s critique is predicated on the assumption of the continued viability of European, bourgeois culture, and thereby departs from Radek’s polemic, positioning realism as an agent in the struggle for ‘the new type of revolutionary
democracy that is represented by the Popular Front,’ and in the process casting democracy not as the apparatus of bourgeois power but as the outcome of popular struggles.51 On this view, realism is a mediation between essence and appearance; modernism, far from
47 Lukács, ‘The Intellectual Physiognomy of Literary Characters’, p. 82. 48 Georg Lichtheim, Lukács (London: Fontana, 1970), pp. 85-6. 49
David Midgley, ‘Communism and the Avant-Garde: The Case of the Georg Lukács’, in Edward Timms & Peter Collier eds., Visions and Blueprints: Avant-garde Culture and Radical Politics in Early Twentieth- Century Europe (Manchester: MUP, 1988), p. 57.
50 Lukács, ‘Realism in the Balance’, p. 29. 51
48
signifying a real condition of fragmentation, merely reproduced the surface effects of a totality ever more extensive and tightly knit.
Lukács’s most salient critic on this matter was Bertolt Brecht; Brecht had, before the Das Wort debate, expressed his refusal to accept that fascism was anything other than ‘a historic phase of capitalism’: ‘Fascism can be combated as capitalism alone, as the nakedest, most shameless, most oppressive, and most treacherous form of capitalism’.52 The terms on which Brecht attacked Lukács were the same as those Lukács deployed against the Expressionists: formalism, since Lukács demanded the resumption of a nineteenth-century aesthetic in changed historical conditions, and idealism, in which Lukács appeared withdrawn and detached from reality.53 Lukács, Brecht argued, was complacent and imprecise in his notion of ‘the people’; realism must be combative and not merely progressive if it was to serve in the fight against dehumanisation. That the terms of the debate – the question of a realistic response to contemporary threats – were shared among the participants is crucial, and, indeed, echoed as we shall see in the British debates.
These fault-lines were never far from the surface in the thirties, either in theory or in practice: Brecht’s modernist rejection of some trans-historical notion of ‘progress’ and Lukács’s endorsement of the cultural past as anti-fascist resource suggested fundamentally incompatible perspectives on history. Intellectual mobilisation in the cause of anti-fascism would be continually vexed by them. The Congresses of the International Association of Writers in Defence of Culture held in Paris 1935 and in Spain in 1937 are a useful index of what the Eurocentric anti-fascism cultural movement looked like, and also of the
contradictions that always attended it. The first of these took place before the Seventh Congress – as suggested in the introduction, the Comintern’s shift to a Popular Front codified developments already taking place. Paris had been the scene of a failed Fascist coup, followed by days of rioting the previous year; these events provoked one of the earliest attempts by intellectuals to intervene in an organised manner: an appeal for unity was issued, signed by writers including André Malraux and the Surrealists André Breton
52 Brecht, ‘Writing the Truth: Five Difficulties’ (1935), in Galileo (New York: Grove Press, 1966), p.
136.
53 Brecht, ‘Against Georg Lukács’, in Theodor Adorno et al., Aesthetics and Politics (1980; London:
49
and Paul Éluard.54 The Paris Congress brought together two hundred writers from fifteen countries, and featured figures as diverse as E.M. Forster, who chaired the British
delegation, André Gide and Louis Aragon.55 Aragon announced his conversion from Surrealism to realism and Communism: ‘I proclaim the return to reality in the name of this reality which has arisen over a sixth of globe, in the name of the man who was the first to foresee it’.56
Brecht, as noted above, rejected the alliances and compromises of the Popular Front and was repelled by the Congress’s refusal to directly confront capitalism; a few days later he wrote to George Grosz, ‘We have just rescued culture. It took 4 (four) days, and then we decided that we would sooner sacrifice all else than let culture perish. If necessary, we’ll sacrifice ten to twenty million people.’57
The second Congress, held two years later in Spain in the heat of the civil war, included Stephen Spender, Sylvia
Townsend Warner and Edgell Rickword among the British delegation and was marked by a climate in which anti-fascism and Soviet-oriented Communism were in increasingly obvious contradiction. The manifesto issued by the congress made no mention of the Soviet Union, staking anti-fascism firmly on the defence of European culture;58 but the event itself was fraught with tensions: the Soviet delegation sought to use the opportunity to attack André Gide and other intellectuals taking a stand against the show trials.59 The strategy of the Popular Front, originating in the experience of the French workers’ struggle against fascism before its endorsement by the Comintern, was increasingly incompatible with the security demands of the Soviet Union. Technical and aesthetic questions ceded to statements of defiance against fascism conceived as menacing the existence of culture: the role of writers, wrote Edgell Rickword in his report on the Spanish Congress, was to ‘create books to replace those destroyed by Fascism.’60
While exemplifying an
54 Enzo Traverso, ‘Intellectuals and Anti-Fascism: For a Critical Historization’, New Politics, Vol.IX-4,
No. 36 (Winter 2004), online edition. See also Angela Kershaw, Forgotten Engagements: Women, Literature and the Left in 1930s France (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2007), pp. 56-58.
55 Margot Heinemann, ‘Left Review, New Writing and the Broad Alliance against Fascism’, in Edward
Timms and Peter Collier, eds., Visions and Blueprints: Avant-garde Culture and Radical Politics in Early Twentieth-Century Europe (Manchester: MUP, 1988), pp. 115-117.
56 Louis Aragon, ‘The Return to Reality’, International Literature, 1936:1, p. 101.
57 Cited in Tom Kuhn et al., eds., Brecht on Art and Politics, (London: Methuen, 2003), p. 162. 58 International Association of Writers in Defence of Culture, ‘Manifesto’, Left Review, III: 7 (August
1937), p. 445.
59 Charles Hobday, Edgell Rickword: A Poet At War (Manchester: Carcanet, 1989), pp. 189-194. 60 Edgell Rickword, ‘In Defence of Culture’, Left Review III: 7 (August 1937), p. 383. Charles Hobday
notes that Rickword focuses on the Congress speeches by writers opposing the Soviet delegation’s attempts to enforce ideological control: Edgell Rickword, p. 193.
50
unsectarian, Popular Front stance, such a position always threatened to elide European culture, and especially literary culture and the prestige arts, with human culture as a whole and to endorse an unexplored privileging of ‘great’ literary works. The term ‘culture’ will remain a central location of tension throughout this study; often productive, but sometimes confining.