Heimatlosigkeit…yeah, I can say it…

When I started to read Lukacs I honestly felt a bit overwhelmed by the language. I turned to secondary sources to try to make sense of his piece. J.M Berstein’s Philosophy of the Novel: Lukacs, Marxism and the Dialectics of Form, David H. Miles, “Portrait of the Marxist as a Young Hegelian: Lukacs’ Theory of the Novel, Graham Good’s “Review Essay: Lukacs’ Theory of the Novel, and WIKI. This research helped me to grasp some of the main points in Lukacs’ theory. There were so many that we were not able to even touch on in class. We tried to focus on what we thought were most relevant for our purposes as we are examining what the novel is and most specifically with Lukacs, its origin historically.

Lukacs’ comes from a very German philosophical tradition and is heavily influenced by Hegel.

Hegel developed a comprehensive philosophical framework, or “system”, to account in an integrated and developmental way for the relation of mind and nature, the subject and object of knowledge, and psychology, the state, history, art, religion, and philosophy. In particular, he developed a concept of mind or spirit that manifested itself in a set of contradictions and oppositions that it ultimately integrated and united, such as those between nature and freedom, and immanence and transcendence, without eliminating either pole or reducing it to the other. His influential conceptions are of speculative logic or “dialectic,” “absolute idealism,” “Spirit,” negativity, sublation (Aufhebung in German), the “Master/Slave” dialectic, “ethical life,” and the importance of history. (WIKI)

Just in this paragraph from WIKI I can see the some of the language and ideas Lukacs uses in his theory about the novel. Lukacs is also influenced by Kant. The concepts of immanence and transcendence:

• “philosophical and metaphysical theories of the divine as existing and acting within the mind or the world. This concept generally contrasts or coexists with the idea of transcendence“
• “In the context of Kant‘s theory of knowledge Immanence means to remain in the boundaries of possible experience”
• “In modern philosophy, Kant introduced a new term – transcendental, thus instituting a new, third meaning. In his theory of knowledge, this concept is concerned with the conditions of possibility of knowledge itself. He also opposed the term transcendental to the term transcendent, the latter meaning “that, which goes beyond” (transcends) any possible knowledge of a human being. For him transcendental meant knowledge about our cognitive faculty with regard to how objects are possible a priori. “I call all knowledge transcendental if it is occupied, not with objects, but with the way that we can possibly know objects even before we experience them.”He also equated transcendental with that which is “…in respect of the subject’s faculty of cognition.”Something is transcendental if it plays a role in the way in which the mind “constitutes” objects and makes it possible for us to experience them as objects in the first place. Ordinary knowledge is knowledge of objects; transcendental knowledge is knowledge of how it is possible for us to experience those objects as objects”
• “Eighteenth-century German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1781) advocated a blend of rationalist and empiricist theories. Kant states, “although all our knowledge begins with experience, it does not follow that that it arises from experience” According to Kant, a priori knowledge is transcendental, or based on the form of all possible experience, while a posteriori knowledge is empirical, based on the content of experience. Kant states, “… it is quite possible that our empirical knowledge is a compound of that which we receive through impressions, and that which the faculty of cognition supplies from itself (sensuous impressions giving merely the occasion).”

In our presentation, Tabitha mentioned critic David Miles who argues that Lukacs theory has been “more praised than read” because of the intangible concepts and the reader to have extensive knowledge of German philosophy (22). Yes I think that it would make sense to do some research on Hegel & Kant to have some familiarity with the schools of thought from which Lukacs has been inspired by.

Bernstein suggests that “the function of Lukacs historiographical schema is not to forward a universal philosophy of history, but rather to aid in the establishing of the historical specificity, the historical uniqueness of the novel and its world., the world of capitalism” (47). In other words, Bernstein is suggesting that Lukacs’ contribution to the theory of the novel is to ascertain a starting point for the inception of the novel. He does this by examining the form of Epic literature which was pre-capitalist society, influenced by gods, then God. The novel appears when “god abandons man” or as Lukacs advocates “when man became lonely and could find meaning and substance only in his soul, whose home was nowhere” (210). This idea of “tanscendental homelessness” lends itself to the origin of the novel, its content and its form. Lukacs piece was written during WWI which has been a catalyst fro the Modern literary movement, much like WWII and Post-Modernism. Both were times of great disallusionment. In Lukacs writing of his theory on the novel we are getting his worldview at a particular time period in history. I would argue that the effect of history at the time something is written is inherently significant. Vidal’s Myra is a perfect example of Lukacs’ “historico-philosophy”. I would like to examine this correlation further.

I found Armstrong’ s opinion that “desire and sexuality”  as not being independent of political history very interesting.  The inclusion of the history of sexuality in understanding the novel as being crucial, makes sense to me. I can’t help but think of how Myra would fit here. Armstrong includes Foucault in her discussion, which also harkens back to Myra, sexuality, power, politics. Hmmm…

I also found Jameson’s theories compelling. He, like Lukacs & Armstrong sees history as a vital component of the novel. “He believes novels chronologically demonstrate the evolution of culture & power-political history” (B&K’s abstract). I am drawn to the historical aspects of these theorists. Brandon said that for Jameson, the novel reflects the morals of the time, Myra, Myra, Myra…

This is taken from Kate Millet’s “Sexual Politics” written in 1969, one year after Vidal published Myra.

“a disinterested examination of our system of sexual relationship must point out that the situation between the sexes now, and throughout history, is a case of that phenomenon Max Weber defined as herrschaft, a relationship of dominance and subordinance. What goes largely unexamined, often even unacknowledged (yet is institutionalised nonetheless) in our social order, is the birthright priority whereby males rule females. Through this system a most ingenious form of “interior colonisation” has been achieved. It is one which tends moreover to be sturdier than any form of segregation, and more rigorous than class stratification, more uniform, certainly more enduring. However muted its present appearance may be, sexual dominion obtains nevertheless as perhaps the most pervasive ideology of our culture and provides its most fundamental concept of power” (Ch 2)

Bakhtin’s concept that there is no canon is something that I’d like to read more about. Why does he feel this way? How does he support this contention?

Advertisement