CULTURE AND CAPITALISM
The Mind in Chains: Socialism and the Cultural Revolution. Edited by C. Day Lewis. (Frederick Muller. 5s.) '
THE intention of this book, according to the dust-cover, is to explain " the Socialist attitude to culture " and apply " the Marxian analysis to non-political aspects of society, and civilisation." The subject is divided under several headings. Education is dealt with by Mi. Rex Warner ; 'Literature, by Mr. Edward Upward ; the Films, by Mr. Calder-Marshall ; the Theatre, by Miss Barbara Nixon ; Art, by Mr. Anthony Blunt ; Music, by Mr. Alan Bush ; the Press and Radio, by Mr. C.harles Madge ; Psychology, by Mr. Alistair Browne ; Science, by Mr. J. D. Bernal ; Religion and Morals, by Mr. T. A. Jackson ; and Culture and English Tradition, by Mr. Edgell Rickword. It may be true, as the dust-cover says, that it is impossible for any one man to deal with all those problems ; yet one feels it is a pity that such a man could not be found ; for if the basic assumption is true, the problem is a single one, whether manifested in education or literature or science or morals, and uniformity of approach was therefore needed if it was to be clearly stated. There is little chance of consistency in a book written on eleven subjects by eleven writers ; and so " the Socialist attitude to culture " is not always explained, or explained in the same way, and " the Marxian analysis " seldom applied. The scientists have more or less succeeded-in their object, and the writers 'have more -Or" lesS fitiled, with the' exception of Mr. Madge, Mr. Calder-Marshall- and Mr. Rickword, whose contributions are excellent. The essays on the Theatre, Art and Music, how- ever, • are very disappointing, and consist mainly of truism qualified by assumption.
ME. Upward's • essay on Literature is interesting because of the questions it raises. His argument may be summarised roughly as follows. To the Marxist critic, " a good book is one that is true not merely to a temporarily existing situation but also to the 'future conditions which are developing within that situation." (Is the Iliad a good book by this definition, and if so what are the future conditions developing within its situation ?) " A work of literature, past or present, is good in so fie 'as' it is true to the fundamental realities of today."' "For the Marxist the fundamental forces of today are those- 'which are working to destroy capitalism and to establish socialism: Consequently he considers that no modern book can be true to life unless it recognises, more or less clearly, both the decadence of present-day society and the inevitability of revolution." " If we accept Sir James Frazer's view that there have been three main and successive phases in.1 the thought of man—the phases of magic, religion and science—and that science, unlike religion, agrees with magic in proclaiming man's power over nature, we may suppose -that 'future writers will no longer regard Tragedy— the contemplation of the defeat of man—as the most effective and -mit, serious literary form. It is pOssible that the ' fairy' story.—celebrating the triumph of man over dangers and difficulties—will reappear on a higher, a scientific level."
This is a coherent case, though depending too much on assumption ; but can it be called an interpretation of literi- ture ? Do we enjoy " Drink to me only with thine eyes," or " O' Sunflower weary of Time " because they are true to the 'future cOnditions developing within the situations they describe ? And are not works of literature good in so far as they are true to fundamental realities, without our confining these realities to today ? Or are there no fundamental realities ? Mr. Upward seems to deny it when he says that the future will not think highly of tragedy. That seems to me a belief possible only to those who sec human life as a historical process in which the individual existence does not really count. For • tragedy is not the contemplation of the defeat of man, but the contemplation of the defeat of the individual. It is Lear and Antony who die, not man. The individual dies ; man goes on. Literature takes both into account ; if it were concerned only with the second, Mr. Upward's interpretation' of it would no doubt be perfectly satisfactory. But by its very nature it is concerned with both ; consequently tragedy will always be a serious form, for though death is a matter of no importance to man, it stands' at the end of all individual life.
This is not to deny that Mi. Upward's interpretation is valid, and extremely. useful, up to a point. But it contains many difficulties, and these, it seems to me, are raised by Mr. Upward himself, not by his ideas as a socialist. A socialist society will. not.radically change the nature of litera- ture, any more than the Greek city State, or the feudal State, or. the capitalist State has done. Literature cannot ignore politics, but neither can it be fundamentally changed by any new political system ; otherwise we could not understand the literature of other ages. The sole explanation of that under- standing is that human life always remains the smite in certain fundamental qualities. The norm in which these qualities are manifested is the individual existence. It may be that we have hitherto insisted too exclusively on this fact, but nothing can be gained, either from Mr. Upward's point of view or any other, by ignoring it.
EDWIN MUIR.
Previous page
