Analysis: Realism in the Balance by György Lukács

Realism in the Balance is a thought-provoking essay written by György Lukács in 1938. It was written while Lukács lived in Soviet Russia and was first published in a German literary journal.

Lukács contended that human beings are essentially socio-historical beings. In order to describe the human condition in an illuminating manner, the writer must tell stories and create characters that reflect the socio-historical determinants of real life. In his essay, Lukács also blames modernism for alienating “an already alienated audience” and pushes for realist art that can genuinely show “the economic system responsible for turning human beings to things”.

Lukács further defends “traditional” realism of authors when compared to the rising Modernist movements. Modernism, which essentially promoted self-consciousness as well as irony concerning social and literary traditions, is a movement which Lukács felt was essential as historic necessity and yet not developed and refined enough to be viewed as revolutionarily powerful.

“A campaign against realism, whether conscious or not, and a resultant impoverishment and isolation of literature and art is one of the crucial manifestations of decadence in the realm of art.”

Lukács believed that it is traditional realism which could ultimately lead to the Marxist revolution and help the middle class with their battle against feudalism.

Lukács took a Marxist approach to explain the importance of literary realism and the authors themselves to bring about a change in the conditions of the working class by providing direction and educating them about social relations. In this regard, Realism is imperative in order to provide the sense of social totality, something which movements like Modernism could never achieve with a kind of work which “manifests itself immediately and on the surface”.

Writers which followed Realism produced better and more aesthetic works as compared to Modernism.

Thus, in the essay Lukács supports the works of Balzac, Thomas Mann, and Georgi Dimitrov and discards the Modernist school of thoughts possessing any potential for inciting revolutions. The essay comes across as a comparative study between Modernism and Literary Realism and how Realism should not be overthrown or abandoned for the sake of Modernism as it is still relevant and important for the society.

“If literature is a particular form by means of which objective reality is reflected, then it becomes of crucial importance for it to grasp that reality as it truly is, and not merely to confine itself to reproducing whatever manifests itself immediately and on the surface.”

A Brief Look on György Lukács' Life and Works

György Lukács was a Hungarian Marxist philosopher, literary critic, historian, writer and aesthetician. An avid supporter of Marxian school of thought, Lukács was one of the founders of the Western Marxism movement and also developed the theory of reification. 

He was born in an affluent Jewish family. It was only later when he turned to Marxism and started promoting Karl Marx’s views. In 1918, he joined the Hungarian Communist Party. Lukács served as commissar for culture and education in the Hungarian communist regime of Kun Bela. Unfortunately, the regime was overthrown in 1919 after which Lukács moved to Vienna and remained there for about a decade. 

He was also a member of the Hungarian underground movement and edited the review Kommunismus. During this period, he also wrote the book, History and Class Consciousness (1923) where he developed a unique and fresh perspective on Marxist philosophy of history and laid the basis for his critical literary tenets by linking the development of form in art with the history of the class struggle. Lukács never agreed upon Marxism simply being a purely scientific field and thus actively advocated the philosophical side of Marxism. 

Strikingly, he held that, even if all of Marx’s predictions were false, Marxism still would retain its validity as a perspective on life and culture. In his later critiques of literature, Lukács showed himself partial to the great bourgeois realist novelists of the 19th century, a preference that was denounced by proponents of the prevailing official doctrine of Socialist Realism in the Soviet Union.

Except for a brief period in 1930–31, during which he attended the Marx-Engels Institute in Moscow, Lukács lived in Berlin from 1929 to 1933. In 1933 he once again left Berlin for Moscow to attend the Institute of Philosophy. During this period, he wrote a famous essay titled, “Realism in the Balance” (1938) in which he defends the "traditional" realism of authors like Thomas Mann in the face of rising Modernist movements, such as Expressionism, Surrealism, and Naturalism. Practitioners of these movements, such as James Joyce, placed an emphasis on displaying the discord and disenchantment of modern life through techniques that highlight individualism and individual consciousness, such as stream of consciousness. In his essay, Lukács presents a complex, nuanced view of these movements and their relation to what he feels is "true" realism: On the one hand, Lukács feels that such movements are a historical necessity, but he also strongly expresses the sentiment that these new artistic movements lack what he views as revolutionary power. 

In 1945 he moved back to Hungary, where he became a member of parliament and a professor of aesthetics and the philosophy of culture at the University of Budapest. In 1956 he was a major figure in the Hungarian uprising, serving as minister of culture during the revolt. He was arrested and deported to Romania but was allowed to return to Budapest in 1957. Although stripped of his former power and status, he produced a steady output of critical and philosophical works. Lukács wrote more than 30 books and hundreds of essays. Among his works are Soul and Form (1911), a collection of essays that established his reputation as a critic; The Historical Novel (1955); and books on Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Vladimir Lenin, Karl Marx and Marxism, and aesthetics.

The Oval Portrait by Edgar Allan Poe: An Analysis Based On Liberal Humanism

The Oval Portrait by Edgar Allan Poe is a short, yet powerful story. It explores the ardour of an artist towards his art and his beloved wife. Both perhaps equally important to him but ultimately, passion for one takes over the other and destroys its rival.

The story captivates its reader’s attention from the first sentence itself and makes for an intriguing read; and much like other works of Edgar Allan Poe, it ends in tragedy as the reader is left reeling and fascinated by the enchanting tale. There’s a tense interaction between the images, symbols and words of the story and one single object ends up being the centre around which the whole story manages to revolve.

Examining this piece of work by Poe through the lens of liberal humanism without making it too facile would mean taking into consideration all the tenets of humanism theory.

So to begin with, let us consider what liberal humanism actually stands for. It is a philosophy that highlights the function and value of empirical knowledge and individual ideas; as opposed to relying on metaphysical or religious convictions. Liberal humanism isn’t limited to just secular thought, but the main idea is that liberal humanists are involved in supporting certain conditions which allows everyone to live as they like and make choices according to their own will rather than depending on external source.

The Oval Portrait is a timeless tale. It is viable for all ages across the universe and the fact that we’re reading this 174 years after its initial publication proves that there is no mortality attached to the story. It is still relevant and even relatable in today’s time; and to be very certain, this is definitely not an informative, scientific or autobiographical work. The characters are fictitious and so is the tale. It is enchanting and yet a little eerie, adding to the gothic, dark effect of the story. It is whole in itself and does not contain or require external contexts to make it relevant.

Human nature in this story is also very much unchanging. While the writing style and the events which take place are shocking and intriguing at the same time, the painter’s follies and the frenzy he gets in while trying to paint the perfect portrait of his wife results in the death of his lover. So while he is able to ultimately capture the essence and soul of his wife, into the painting, he ends up losing her. Taking one’s love for granted, passion turning into madness, loving someone unconditionally and recklessly enough to risk one’s own self etc., are all themes which had been used in stories before Poe and will be continued to be used in future stories as well.

This story also contains the essence of literature. It has characters which trigger certain events which lead to the progression of the story itself. Had the painter looked up once during his painting frenzy and realized that his wife was losing the colour from her cheeks just as he was painting them onto the portrait of hers, she would have been saved and sadly he didn’t and that led to the demise of his beloved.

The Oval Portrait is brief and still intriguing and makes the reader ask for more. It doesn’t attempt to provide a teaching or a lesson or even a moral. Rather, it explores the human condition and ardour which can turn into fanaticism. It is refined and polished and yet provides a raw, shocking ending. As it comes close to the end, it transcends from a mere short story to an absolutely immaculate piece of literature.

A Review of Teddy Eagleton's essay, "What is Literature?"

Terry Eagleton’s essay “What is Literature” consists more of what literature is not or can not be than what it actually is. He talks about the various definitions of literature which already exist and then goes on to contradict these definitions, thus proving that literature is far from something tangible or definitive. So how do you define something which has no boundary?

Eagleton attempts to help us understand by using interesting and relatable examples throughout his essay. The part which I liked the most in the essay was when he talks about the common understanding that literature is anything “non-pragmatic”.

He says that poems, stories, plays can be written by the the writers “non-pragmatically” but that does not mean the readers will always take them as they’re cooked up to be. What he means by this is that a lot of times, the work of a writer may be taken more seriously than it was intended, or maybe read for some other reason than entertainment. People don’t just gain knowledge and information from science books or the usual academically relevant textbooks. Novels, poetry, plays and other texts carry a lot of information too and these texts can a lot of times be read simply to gain more insight about the particular time it was written in or maybe some aspect of it which might be relevant for knowledge, general as it may or may not be. However, the writer could have just written it for entertainment purposes.

Take Percy Jackson series by Rick Riordan. While reading the series, I also got to know a lot about Greek mythology. I actually know people who have read the series not because they like fiction or supernatural books but because they are into Greek mythology and wanted to learn more about it. So this way, if we start considering literature as a type of writing which is “non-pragmatic”, we might as well stop considering the Percy Jackson series as fiction because a lot of readers have turned to it for purely pragmatic reasons, that is, to gain more insight into Greek mythology and Greek Gods. But obviously, just because the way different readers regard the text differently, it does not cease to be literature. That would be ludicrous. So in a similar way, it is also very much possible that a piece of writing which was initially meant to simply provide information turns out to be literature.

“Some texts are born literary, some achieve literariness, and some have literariness thrust upon them”

This way, Eagleton manages to debunk the belief that literature is something “non pragmatic”. Instead, he mentions that literature can be anything and everything a reader makes it out to be. The power then lies not in the hands of who creates the text but the ones who read it. According to him, it is not possible to just assign specific, inherent features to literature and call it a day. Nope, it is way more complex than that.

Eagleton then mentions John M. Ellis’s comparison of literature as “weed”. No, not the kind you think but the annoying, non-specific weed which seems to grow everywhere and is just impossible to get rid of, in general. You can’t pinpoint it to a specific plant (no, I’m serious. Weed is NOT a specific plant) and it is very unwanted, usually. Eagleton makes sense of this statement by saying that perhaps literature is the same but in the opposite way. It can come from anywhere and everywhere (much like weed) but it is taken to be different things because it is valued so highly by the readers.

All in all, this section of the essay mainly revolves around how literature can not be seen within the defined boundaries of practical and on-practical. It is way too vague to be just given a simple label like that. Instead, it is much like the weed. A functional term rather than plainly an ontological term.

The rest of the essay was good to read but I found this section to be the most informative, interesting and straight forward.

To read the full essay, check out the link http://www.dartmouth.edu/~engl5vr/Eagle1.html

A Psychological Approach to The Emperor Jones

The Emperor Jones tells the story of an autocratic black emperor who mistreats and robs his subjects. He’s confident that even after treating them like slaves and continually deceiving them, he can easily escape when they decide to revolt against the ruthless emperor.

The play begins with him foolishly telling a conniving English trader called Smithers about his plans and flaunting his fearlessness regarding the angry subjects. He’s confident that nothing can get him, until something does…

In Michele Mendelssohn’s analysis of the play, she considers a lot of aspects and major themes of the play, mainly race, language and identity. However, the part which I found the most interesting was the concept of “unheimlich” being applied to the play’s protagonist and the theory of Self by Carl Jung and how it explains Jones’s downfall.

To a non-psychology student, The Emperor Jones is probably just a paranormal play with a little thrill and horror here and there, but for psychology students, the only major genre this play can belong to is the genre of psychological thrillers...or maybe that’s just me because I love psychological thrillers, be it books like “Tell Me Your Dreams” by Sidney Sheldon or movies like “Lucy” and “Limitless”. The mind is a beautiful place which can make reality quite ugly for you at times.

Something similar happens to Brutus Jones whose past catches up with him when he continues to ignore it and seeks to forge a completely new identity for himself. He represses his insecurities and fears and ultimately ends up doing the same things to his subjects what was done to him when he was a slave.

Mendelssohn brings this to light in her paper by explaining the concept of “das Unheimliche” and connecting it with the “collective consciousness” of Jones as an African-American. The sense of being “unhomed” or “unheimlich” and lacking a sense of rootedness creates a feeling of isolation. Not being able to belong anywhere creates identity issues within one’s self. Jones ran away from his previous life as a slave and completely changed himself when he took over as a ruler. He cloaked himself with the identity of a white man and started treating his subjects much like he was treated as a slave. His persistent denial to see himself being of the same origin as the people he ruled over and repressing his insecurities into the deep, dark depths of his unconscious mind ultimately leads to him having visions of his ancestors and later himself till he is forced to acknowledge his past as well as his ancestor’s past. In the end, what he was beneath all the fancy, western clothing and the metaphorical cloak could no longer remain hidden because that was his real identity. He himself uprooted this identity and suppressed everything about his real home only to be left with nothing and nobody.

The sense of “otherness” is also mentioned in Mendelssohn’s analysis. This comes from the Jungian archetype of Self which signifies the unification of the conscious and the unconscious in a person. This didn’t happen with Brutus as he struggled to get rid of his identity as an African-American. His rejection of being a black man and favouring white values and ruling tactics disassociated his consciousness from his unconsciousness. Ultimately, he was neither African nor American, leaving him once again, homeless and without any solid identity.

Thus, the concepts of Self, collective consciousness, unheimlich and identity crisis are very well applied by Mendelssohn in her paper and aptly describe the odd behaviour and hypocritical stance by Brutus Jones in the play. His complicated identity seems to make a lot more sense when viewed through the lens of psychology and thus, makes it fun to analyse and ponder upon.