Page 203 - 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. 203
Socialist Modernism as Compromise: A Study of the Romanian Literary System 203
ter alternative to the non-negotiable state of servitude imposed by social-
ist realism.
Now what about the communist regime? What was the benefit for
it in this concession? According to Jameson, what accounts for—and
also defines—the postwar revival of modernism is that, “in a situation
in which modernisation, socialism, industrialisation … Prometheianism,
and the ‘rape of nature’ generally, have been discredited, you can still sug-
gest that the so-called underdeveloped countries might want to look for-
ward to simple ‘modernity’ itself ” (2002, 8). In other words, this resur-
gence of modernism provided Romanian communism with a new—and
perhaps the last—chance to sustain the myth of progress, which World
War II and the Stalinist years severely compromised. And an abstract
benefit such as this would also bring along another, more practical bo-
nus, since, as Ernst Robert Curtius and Hans Robert Jauss note, any duel
between the ‘Ancients’ and the ‘Moderns’ is indicative of a conflict be-
tween generations.2 This appears to be the case with the first battle be-
tween the ‘Ancients’ and the ‘Moderns,’ which marked the 12th century,
as well as the famous querelle of the 17th century and the 20th-century
confrontations. In the context of the post-1965 Romanian communist
regime, socialist modernism became a strategy for politically legitimis-
ing the substitution of the ‘old school’ with the ‘new guard’ by invoking
the superiority of the ‘new’ art—socialist modernism—over the ‘old’—
socialist realism. Nonetheless, since writers still celebrated the emanci-
pation from the previous ‘-ism’ and the Party held onto the previous dec-
ade’s belief that modernism was a fervent enemy of socialism, socialist
modernism could not be theorised or promoted as such. In this context,
the concept of ‘generation’ proved an invaluable resource to both the po-
litical regime and literary criticism: thus, socialist modernism could tar-
get a wider audience under the metonymic expression the ‘generation of
the 1960s’, and the evolution of the entire Romanian life during the com-
munist period could be conceptualised in terms of sequences of genera-
tions, which camouflaged and minimised the otherwise thorny issue of
movements and ideologies (the so-called ‘-isms’).
2 The opposition of generations is one of the conflicts of all tempestuous periods,
whether they are under the sign of a new spring flowering or of an autumnal decline.
In the history of letters it appears as the battle of the “moderns” against the ancients
– until the moderns themselves have become old classics”. (Curtius 2013, 98) See also
the definition given by Jauss: “a literary trope dating back to antiquity and returning
repeatedly in the generational revolt of the young” (2005, 331).
ter alternative to the non-negotiable state of servitude imposed by social-
ist realism.
Now what about the communist regime? What was the benefit for
it in this concession? According to Jameson, what accounts for—and
also defines—the postwar revival of modernism is that, “in a situation
in which modernisation, socialism, industrialisation … Prometheianism,
and the ‘rape of nature’ generally, have been discredited, you can still sug-
gest that the so-called underdeveloped countries might want to look for-
ward to simple ‘modernity’ itself ” (2002, 8). In other words, this resur-
gence of modernism provided Romanian communism with a new—and
perhaps the last—chance to sustain the myth of progress, which World
War II and the Stalinist years severely compromised. And an abstract
benefit such as this would also bring along another, more practical bo-
nus, since, as Ernst Robert Curtius and Hans Robert Jauss note, any duel
between the ‘Ancients’ and the ‘Moderns’ is indicative of a conflict be-
tween generations.2 This appears to be the case with the first battle be-
tween the ‘Ancients’ and the ‘Moderns,’ which marked the 12th century,
as well as the famous querelle of the 17th century and the 20th-century
confrontations. In the context of the post-1965 Romanian communist
regime, socialist modernism became a strategy for politically legitimis-
ing the substitution of the ‘old school’ with the ‘new guard’ by invoking
the superiority of the ‘new’ art—socialist modernism—over the ‘old’—
socialist realism. Nonetheless, since writers still celebrated the emanci-
pation from the previous ‘-ism’ and the Party held onto the previous dec-
ade’s belief that modernism was a fervent enemy of socialism, socialist
modernism could not be theorised or promoted as such. In this context,
the concept of ‘generation’ proved an invaluable resource to both the po-
litical regime and literary criticism: thus, socialist modernism could tar-
get a wider audience under the metonymic expression the ‘generation of
the 1960s’, and the evolution of the entire Romanian life during the com-
munist period could be conceptualised in terms of sequences of genera-
tions, which camouflaged and minimised the otherwise thorny issue of
movements and ideologies (the so-called ‘-isms’).
2 The opposition of generations is one of the conflicts of all tempestuous periods,
whether they are under the sign of a new spring flowering or of an autumnal decline.
In the history of letters it appears as the battle of the “moderns” against the ancients
– until the moderns themselves have become old classics”. (Curtius 2013, 98) See also
the definition given by Jauss: “a literary trope dating back to antiquity and returning
repeatedly in the generational revolt of the young” (2005, 331).
