Page 206 - 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. 206
Ideology in the 20th Century: studies of literary and social discourses and practices
terparts (Pop 2018, 26–27). However, the topic of discussion here are not
the poets, but the paradigm, which apparently has not undergone any
substantial changes. How legitimate is it, then, to attach a prefix synon-
ymous with novelty in front of the name of a trend that, at most, aspires
to restore the interwar status quo? On the other hand, the issue with the
concept is not this prefix, but the absence of an identifiable determiner.
If ‘socialist modernism’ points vividly to its origins and circumstances of
manifestation, ‘neomodernism’ suggests that the paradigm emerged in a
‘neutral’ cultural environment similar to that of Western Europe. Lefter
appears to believe that this was actually the case, since he argues that neo-
modernism was “imposed … not by the artificial propaganda of the polit-
ical regime, but by the alleged ‘organic’ metabolism of our own national
historical culture” (2012b, 118). Yet, as previously shown, socialist mod-
206 ernism is just as ‘(un)natural’ as socialist realism. What helps us distin-
guish between them is not whether the Party meddled in the two move-
ments, but rather how much it interfered in their affairs. Therefore, to
perpetuate the use of the ingenuous ‘neomodernism’ in reference to this
period would equate to a mystification of a large portion of postwar Ro-
manian literature.
‘Socialist aestheticism,’ the other concept frequently deployed in rela-
tion to the Eastern European literatures of the 1960s and 1970s, was put
forth in 1963 by Serbian critic and theorist Sveta Lukić to designate the
“stage in the development of literatures of socialist countries when they
liberate themselves from socialist realism” (1972, xvi). Lukić also high-
lights the ambivalent nature of this paradigm, whereby, on the one hand,
the writers are exempt from serving any longer as agents of the commu-
nist propaganda, and on the other, their access to socially relevant top-
ics is thereby restricted. It is worth mentioning that Lukić attributes the
advent of socialist aestheticism to a compromise, in that, unlike in the
USSR, “in Yugoslavia, society, through its politicians, ideologues and
official artists, reaches an agreement with creators on what not to do”
(1972, 107). In Romania, the phrase ‘socialist aestheticism’ was first used
in 2004 by Mircea Martin, who makes no mention of the Serbian critic,
yet deploys the term to describe this paradigm along much the same lines:
he too perceives it to be a successor of socialist realism, he too credits the
negotiations between the Party and the writers with its emergence, he
too portrays it as a reversal of relations between aesthetics and ideology:
This is to say neither that the communist ideology was no longer domi-
nant, nor that the ideological surveillance of the national culture and liter-
ature ceased. The thematic areas broadened, however, the majority of the
terparts (Pop 2018, 26–27). However, the topic of discussion here are not
the poets, but the paradigm, which apparently has not undergone any
substantial changes. How legitimate is it, then, to attach a prefix synon-
ymous with novelty in front of the name of a trend that, at most, aspires
to restore the interwar status quo? On the other hand, the issue with the
concept is not this prefix, but the absence of an identifiable determiner.
If ‘socialist modernism’ points vividly to its origins and circumstances of
manifestation, ‘neomodernism’ suggests that the paradigm emerged in a
‘neutral’ cultural environment similar to that of Western Europe. Lefter
appears to believe that this was actually the case, since he argues that neo-
modernism was “imposed … not by the artificial propaganda of the polit-
ical regime, but by the alleged ‘organic’ metabolism of our own national
historical culture” (2012b, 118). Yet, as previously shown, socialist mod-
206 ernism is just as ‘(un)natural’ as socialist realism. What helps us distin-
guish between them is not whether the Party meddled in the two move-
ments, but rather how much it interfered in their affairs. Therefore, to
perpetuate the use of the ingenuous ‘neomodernism’ in reference to this
period would equate to a mystification of a large portion of postwar Ro-
manian literature.
‘Socialist aestheticism,’ the other concept frequently deployed in rela-
tion to the Eastern European literatures of the 1960s and 1970s, was put
forth in 1963 by Serbian critic and theorist Sveta Lukić to designate the
“stage in the development of literatures of socialist countries when they
liberate themselves from socialist realism” (1972, xvi). Lukić also high-
lights the ambivalent nature of this paradigm, whereby, on the one hand,
the writers are exempt from serving any longer as agents of the commu-
nist propaganda, and on the other, their access to socially relevant top-
ics is thereby restricted. It is worth mentioning that Lukić attributes the
advent of socialist aestheticism to a compromise, in that, unlike in the
USSR, “in Yugoslavia, society, through its politicians, ideologues and
official artists, reaches an agreement with creators on what not to do”
(1972, 107). In Romania, the phrase ‘socialist aestheticism’ was first used
in 2004 by Mircea Martin, who makes no mention of the Serbian critic,
yet deploys the term to describe this paradigm along much the same lines:
he too perceives it to be a successor of socialist realism, he too credits the
negotiations between the Party and the writers with its emergence, he
too portrays it as a reversal of relations between aesthetics and ideology:
This is to say neither that the communist ideology was no longer domi-
nant, nor that the ideological surveillance of the national culture and liter-
ature ceased. The thematic areas broadened, however, the majority of the
