Page 200 - Vinkler, Jonatan, Ana Beguš and Marcello Potocco. Eds. 2019. Ideology in the 20th Century: Studies of literary and social discourses and practices. Koper: University of Primorska Press
P. 200
Ideology in the 20th Century: studies of literary and social discourses and practices
ers and politicians regarded modernism as a cultural trend whereby they
could successfully advance their interests. Then I define the concept of
‘socialist modernism’ and demonstrate in what ways its historiographic
usefulness is superior to that of ‘neomodernism’ and ‘socialist aestheti-
cism,’ two Romanian concepts commonly used thus far in reference to
this period. Lastly, I focus on assessing whether socialist modernism can
be integrated in the transnational scheme of modernism (for instance, if
it aligns with the so-called ‘late modernism’) or if it qualifies as a mere lo-
cal or, at most, regional phenomenon.
From Socialist Realism to Socialist Modernism
To adequately understand the role of socialist modernism in Romanian
literature, a brief overview of the history of modernism in Romania is in
200 order. Both the term ‘modernism’ and the cultural phenomenon it des-
ignates were introduced into Romanian culture sometime around 1900,
when traditionalist movements dominated the literary field (see Terian
2014, 18). Following a two-decade marginal position within the Romani-
an literary system, modernism went on to dominate the 1920s, mainly as
a result of extensive advocacy on the part of the then most prominent Ro-
manian literary critic Eugen Lovinescu (1881–1943), who included it in a
wider discussion on cultural interactions and transfers known as the the-
ory of ‘synchronism’ (Dumitru 2016). Although modernism would come
to pervade the Romanian literary thought for the next quarter of a cen-
tury, its popularity had its limits in the sense that modernism was more
readily accepted in poetry than prose and that it was attributed a formal
rather than an ideological dimension (Terian 2014, 20–27).
After 1948, following the imposition of communism, modernism was
systematically rejected in Romania due to its association with the deca-
dent bourgeois capitalism. Over the coming years, an increasing num-
ber of works produced by influential modernist writers were blacklisted
and, in turn, socialist realism rose to become the dominant literary par-
adigm in Romania. Nonetheless, in 1964/1965, a significant shift in the
policy of the Romanian communist regime, commonly labeled the ‘thaw’
or ‘liberalisation,’ would be witnessed. This turn, apart from leading to
the abrupt disappearance of socialist realism from the Romanian cultur-
al scene, allowed for a revival—at least in part—of modernism. A curso-
ry browsing through Cronologia vieții literare românești (The Chronolo-
gy of Romanian Literary Life) is enough to trace this process: the entries
for the 1960s feature a surprisingly large number of references to either
‘modernism’ or ‘modernist’: 3 mentions in 1963; 5 in 1964; 13 in 1965; 41
ers and politicians regarded modernism as a cultural trend whereby they
could successfully advance their interests. Then I define the concept of
‘socialist modernism’ and demonstrate in what ways its historiographic
usefulness is superior to that of ‘neomodernism’ and ‘socialist aestheti-
cism,’ two Romanian concepts commonly used thus far in reference to
this period. Lastly, I focus on assessing whether socialist modernism can
be integrated in the transnational scheme of modernism (for instance, if
it aligns with the so-called ‘late modernism’) or if it qualifies as a mere lo-
cal or, at most, regional phenomenon.
From Socialist Realism to Socialist Modernism
To adequately understand the role of socialist modernism in Romanian
literature, a brief overview of the history of modernism in Romania is in
200 order. Both the term ‘modernism’ and the cultural phenomenon it des-
ignates were introduced into Romanian culture sometime around 1900,
when traditionalist movements dominated the literary field (see Terian
2014, 18). Following a two-decade marginal position within the Romani-
an literary system, modernism went on to dominate the 1920s, mainly as
a result of extensive advocacy on the part of the then most prominent Ro-
manian literary critic Eugen Lovinescu (1881–1943), who included it in a
wider discussion on cultural interactions and transfers known as the the-
ory of ‘synchronism’ (Dumitru 2016). Although modernism would come
to pervade the Romanian literary thought for the next quarter of a cen-
tury, its popularity had its limits in the sense that modernism was more
readily accepted in poetry than prose and that it was attributed a formal
rather than an ideological dimension (Terian 2014, 20–27).
After 1948, following the imposition of communism, modernism was
systematically rejected in Romania due to its association with the deca-
dent bourgeois capitalism. Over the coming years, an increasing num-
ber of works produced by influential modernist writers were blacklisted
and, in turn, socialist realism rose to become the dominant literary par-
adigm in Romania. Nonetheless, in 1964/1965, a significant shift in the
policy of the Romanian communist regime, commonly labeled the ‘thaw’
or ‘liberalisation,’ would be witnessed. This turn, apart from leading to
the abrupt disappearance of socialist realism from the Romanian cultur-
al scene, allowed for a revival—at least in part—of modernism. A curso-
ry browsing through Cronologia vieții literare românești (The Chronolo-
gy of Romanian Literary Life) is enough to trace this process: the entries
for the 1960s feature a surprisingly large number of references to either
‘modernism’ or ‘modernist’: 3 mentions in 1963; 5 in 1964; 13 in 1965; 41
