THE REAL AND THE SOCIAL: ART AS PROPAGANDA
A Report on the History of Social Realism
A Report on the History of Social Realism
Once more, from a historical perspective, literary theory and criticism seems to be eternally defending Literature and has become a tradition of apologia. In the 19th century, poetry was being defended against the claims of Scientism. Scientism claimed that poetry was not “real” or concerned with the objective facts of life. Scientism claimed that if poetic statements did not satisfy scientific (objective) criteria, then it was proceeding according to another criteria. At that time, these criteria were aligned with the principles of sensory (“imaginative”) and emotive pleasure.
In the dual defense of poetry against Scientism, two theories were coined: the Rhapsodic (Shelley) and Didactic (Arnold). The defense of poetry was divided into “Art for Art’s Sake” (Shelley), which is ultimately oriented towards pleasure; and “Art as Revolutionary or Propaganda” (Arnold), which is a depiction and criticism of life itself as it was happening at that time.
In addition, Literature was not only a depiction nor criticism of life. As De Quincey said, the function of “Literature for Power” is to move us to a higher reason or understanding of life. The notion of movement already entails a literature that changes history but this is done always through emotive pleasure.
There was a need to change this thinking as a response to the increasingly historical, realistic and social issues of that age. 19th century literary theory aimed to make poetry (if not Literature) an autonomous power. Matthew Arnold’s “Arnorldian Prophecy” directed a future where poetry would take the place of philosophy or religion. Poetry would direct people and society’s beliefs and future. To do this and to defend itself from Scientism, Literature then had become “scientifically faithful to life.”
French REALISM
“Realism” is defined as a reaction to things in the 19th century that were thought to be “unreal” like classic composure or conservative morality. Realism began with the depiction of French peasant life. There were two forms of French Realism: Flaubert’s (Literature) and Courbet’s (Pictorial Art).
Flaubert’s (Madame Bovary 1856) Theory of Realism was concerned with the professional procedure of a novelist. As a novelist, he adopted a scientific detachment in the observation of materials (i.e. life of the French peasant) and then writes about them. But Flaubert could hardly be said to render these “objects,” what was deemed as “reality” which was the French peasant life, because according to him, he detests “reality.”
Courbet, on the other hand, pushed for making verses in a fashion that was common to ordinary folk, because to do otherwise was an “aristocratic pose.” It does make sense: the topic of these verses is the French peasant yet most wrote using the language of the learned, if not the aristocrats. Where is the authenticity in that?
In Realism, there were already sociological implications on what is happening in the world at that time, in what was deemed as the “ordinary,” the meager and monotonous. These two forms of Realism was a transitional phase that intensified into “Naturalism.”
European and American NATURALISM
Realism and Naturalism were centered on the prose novel, a genre that was dedicated to the social problems of the 19th century. The concern of the Naturalist novelist is to tell the truth about society, as much as the novel’s perspective is colored by the novelist’s subjectivity.
Zola (Le Roman Experimental 1880) maintained that the novel is rich in implications for the improvement of society, like “how to be a master of Good and Evil, how to rule life, how to rule society…” The naturalist novel has become a study of how man is determined by the influences of his environment; to tell what exists and the underlying reasons for its existence, such as the family, the community, and the like.
In America, Naturalism was no longer restricted to the “ordinary” but has extended to fantastic and even Gothic realizations. Frank Norris (Zola’s counterpart through his Responsibilities of the Novelist 1903) wrote about the industrialization in Chicago. He maintained that the novel is a study of how the environment shapes a man’s character for “disease, brutality and violence.”
He combined that scientific objectivism with an optimism for the collective future of mankind. He said that in the Naturalist novel, terrible things must happen to people that would twist them from the “ordinary” in order to initiate change. William Van O’Connor thought of Norris’s Naturalism as a form of Romanticism, not an aspect of Realism, because he made his businessmen characters sound as if they were like their ancestors waging war. However, the fact remains that Norris did portray the violence of men in business.
This supports the Naturalists’ claim (from being scientifically faithful to life) to being socially oriented. They showed a concern for the plight of the working class. Their novels dealt with the problems encountered by ordinary people.
Russian SOCIAL REALISM
In the mid-19th century in Russia, Arnold’s didactic theory was perpetuated by a generation of socially conscious novelists, supported by the socio-political conditions at that time. Largely influenced by the Germans, the Russians believed that Literature should be the expression of the national spirit.
The Russian critic, Vissarion Belinsky, evaluated novels according to standards of Realism and Social Realism. What he and the rest of his followers were looking for in Literature was its fulfilment of social and national responsibilities. Literature should be an expression of the development of national spirit based on the movement of political and economic idea. Literature should extol the struggle of the common people, of the nation. Literature has become a result of the historic process (the basic concept of New Historicism).
The function of Literary Criticism is to explain hidden social meanings in the novel and other literary works. Most of the Russian critics like Pisarev (Destruction of Aesthetics 1865) were against “Pure Art” or the pleasure art. Literature should be a rendition of society and its development. They were didactic materialists pushing for social reform and to do this Literature should be produced faithful to historic events of the time.
They maintained that any work of art that is created out of fervour for social reform and a revolutionary spirit that is faithful to the historic events of that time is far more superior. It was deemed as superior because Literature, given its historic content, was the only truth. We could say that in Russian thinking “Beauty is not Truth” but rather “History is Truth.”
Tolstoy as “Conscience”
Tolstoy is one of the proponents of the emotive art theory. He said that art is matter of emotive infection; that art transmits emotion, specifically, religious emotion. As far as understood, Tolstoy was under the banner of “Art for Art’s Sake.”
So why is Tolstoy assimilated in Russian Social Realism?
In his middle years, Tolstoy looked back at his previous works and all the other works of art and felt this religious feeling. This religious feeling is contrary to Christian institutions and hierarchy. It is simply a religious feeling for the brotherhood of man and his common sonship to God. These religious emotions are and should be shared by the whole community. Tolstoy said that “art of the present age must transmit the progressive religious emotion of this age, those that relate to the universal brotherhood of man.”
He looked at all the previous works of art, including his novels, and said in his “What is Art?” (1898) that they were not works of art, because they were produced out of effete emotions, decadence. “Pleasure Art” was only lavish waste and a measure of social injustice, primarily because its patrons were the upper class and therefore written for the upper class.
Tolstoy also questioned the validity of an autonomous or non-didactic art. To him, it seems to be bound in merely a “hedonistic” or “pleasure” theory of art. According to him, the class of people who has the truest taste in art are the common folk. “Good, great, universal, religious art may be incomprehensible to a small circle of spoilt people but certainly not to any large number of plain men.”
His assertions were primarily based on the question of for whom these works of art are created (later on applied by Mao Tse-Tung in his “Talk at the Yenan Forum”). He applies the notion of easy comprehensibility with special satisfaction against the luxurious and obscure characteristic of all previous works of art.
Even Shakespeare did not escape his sweeping indignation and condemnation. His first point of contention was the use of language. All of Shakespeare’s characters were using unnatural language because they were just speaking Shakespearean (because no real person could’ve spoken or understood it anywhere), not the individual language of each character, much more of real people. There is some validity to this because the Shakespearean sonnet at that time was even alien, compared to the Italian sonnet. Another is Shakespeare’s values in writing, his lack of esteem for the working class, his lack of sincerity.
And finally, Tolstoy said that Shakespeare could be called whatever we want to call him but he was not an artist.
Dr. Judy Ick, my professor in English 23: Shakespeare, would surely kill Tolstoy if he weren’t already dead and maybe buy all of Tolstoy’s books and enter these as participants in a Book Burning Festival.
MARXISM
Tolstoy’s thesis is to destroy “Art for Art’s Sake” and uphold art as propaganda. This also has been the aim of most Marxist writers and critics. The Marxist writer must write according to dialectical materialism—the objective observation of facts, then the analyses of these facts.
According to this philosophy, the Marxist writer must emphasize class propaganda, the plight of the workers, and to continue the fight of the workers to take control of the (capitalist) state. Another concern is the origins of art based on social and economic status of the artists from the previous and present era. If the artist comes from the bourgeois class, then he will uphold bourgeois values in his work of art. If the artist comes from the working class, then the resulting work of art will uphold the propaganda.
In Marxism, any work of art is reduced to its social and economic origins. However, most Marxist writers have forgotten what Marx himself said: “Certain periods of highest development of art stand in no connection with the general development of society, nor with the material basis and the skeleton structure of its organization.”
In the 20th century, most of the writers seem to have turned away from this historico-social reality and returned to their ivory towers to write of Pure Beauty. Even Russian socialist like Leon Trotsky (Literature and Revolution, 1923) maintained the modern poet’s isolation from reality: something that would morph my brother Mario into the Tazmanian Devil of Objections.
Still, there are those like Lenin and Mao Tse-Tung who believed that Literature should be a component part of the struggle and the revolution. As MaoTse-Tung said in his “Talk at the Yenan Forum,” Literature should be a means of uniting the hearts and minds of people to achieve their nation’s goals.
AND IN THE PHILIPPINES…
The question is: How is it possible to produce great Art that veers toward propaganda? I believe that this has already been made possible in other cultures at certain periods. However, in Philippine context, this has yet to be really done.
To begin with, we need to identify what idea it is that we wish to propagate. The word “propaganda” has a connotation exclusive to “Marxist” or “revolutionary” or “communist” thought. Anything that has “propaganda” on it is immediately rejected because it speaks of inhibition of freedom, of joining a certain collective’s consciousness, of the destruction of individuality.
Personally, anything that threatens my individuality is immediately rejected. But I have seen for myself that too many individuals upholding their individualities in a collective of individuals will only lead to stagnation and disorder. Our love for our individualities has resulted in a purely self-absorbed existence. There is only the “self” and the “immediate self,” our own little worlds, and we are apathetic to the rest of reality. I believe that it is time for all of us to extend that care beyond our selves.
To propagate an idea is not something that should be rejected. As Filipinos, I think that this is what we need: one idea that we should all uphold to unite all of us; one goal that we should all work for; one objective that all Filipino writers should think about before and while they write.
Certainly there is room for individuality while upholding one idea. We can propagate this idea in our own individual ways, but keep in mind that one idea. Keep in mind that one idea should unite everyone. The idea should not be anything abstract, but something real.
The problem with most of our writers now is that they just write. They don’t really ask what is it that they are writing about, what is it for, for whom is it, how it will help change our country for the better. How many times have we heard a writer say, “I am writing for myself”? How many writers and critics have we heard say, “Do not tell me that we do not know anything about revolution. We were already there and you weren’t even born,” and then proceed to write about inconsequential things.
The greatest work of literature to be made by any Filipino is to propagate one idea, and I believe that idea is the identity for our nation. A poem, a story, a play, a novel, a text that answers the question “What is a Filipino?”
And Gat Bonifacio says, “Girl, y’all still haven’t figured it out? What the fuuuuuuuuck? Tsk, tsk.”
I say, “Ava! At least ang layo na natin sa pagiging ug-ug Indio noh! Puede ba umamin na nga sa inyong national dead heroes kung sino yun vaklushi?!”
Uuuuuuuuy, kuwento!
Guess who said “Charot”?
In the dual defense of poetry against Scientism, two theories were coined: the Rhapsodic (Shelley) and Didactic (Arnold). The defense of poetry was divided into “Art for Art’s Sake” (Shelley), which is ultimately oriented towards pleasure; and “Art as Revolutionary or Propaganda” (Arnold), which is a depiction and criticism of life itself as it was happening at that time.
In addition, Literature was not only a depiction nor criticism of life. As De Quincey said, the function of “Literature for Power” is to move us to a higher reason or understanding of life. The notion of movement already entails a literature that changes history but this is done always through emotive pleasure.
There was a need to change this thinking as a response to the increasingly historical, realistic and social issues of that age. 19th century literary theory aimed to make poetry (if not Literature) an autonomous power. Matthew Arnold’s “Arnorldian Prophecy” directed a future where poetry would take the place of philosophy or religion. Poetry would direct people and society’s beliefs and future. To do this and to defend itself from Scientism, Literature then had become “scientifically faithful to life.”
French REALISM
“Realism” is defined as a reaction to things in the 19th century that were thought to be “unreal” like classic composure or conservative morality. Realism began with the depiction of French peasant life. There were two forms of French Realism: Flaubert’s (Literature) and Courbet’s (Pictorial Art).
Flaubert’s (Madame Bovary 1856) Theory of Realism was concerned with the professional procedure of a novelist. As a novelist, he adopted a scientific detachment in the observation of materials (i.e. life of the French peasant) and then writes about them. But Flaubert could hardly be said to render these “objects,” what was deemed as “reality” which was the French peasant life, because according to him, he detests “reality.”
Courbet, on the other hand, pushed for making verses in a fashion that was common to ordinary folk, because to do otherwise was an “aristocratic pose.” It does make sense: the topic of these verses is the French peasant yet most wrote using the language of the learned, if not the aristocrats. Where is the authenticity in that?
In Realism, there were already sociological implications on what is happening in the world at that time, in what was deemed as the “ordinary,” the meager and monotonous. These two forms of Realism was a transitional phase that intensified into “Naturalism.”
European and American NATURALISM
Realism and Naturalism were centered on the prose novel, a genre that was dedicated to the social problems of the 19th century. The concern of the Naturalist novelist is to tell the truth about society, as much as the novel’s perspective is colored by the novelist’s subjectivity.
Zola (Le Roman Experimental 1880) maintained that the novel is rich in implications for the improvement of society, like “how to be a master of Good and Evil, how to rule life, how to rule society…” The naturalist novel has become a study of how man is determined by the influences of his environment; to tell what exists and the underlying reasons for its existence, such as the family, the community, and the like.
In America, Naturalism was no longer restricted to the “ordinary” but has extended to fantastic and even Gothic realizations. Frank Norris (Zola’s counterpart through his Responsibilities of the Novelist 1903) wrote about the industrialization in Chicago. He maintained that the novel is a study of how the environment shapes a man’s character for “disease, brutality and violence.”
He combined that scientific objectivism with an optimism for the collective future of mankind. He said that in the Naturalist novel, terrible things must happen to people that would twist them from the “ordinary” in order to initiate change. William Van O’Connor thought of Norris’s Naturalism as a form of Romanticism, not an aspect of Realism, because he made his businessmen characters sound as if they were like their ancestors waging war. However, the fact remains that Norris did portray the violence of men in business.
This supports the Naturalists’ claim (from being scientifically faithful to life) to being socially oriented. They showed a concern for the plight of the working class. Their novels dealt with the problems encountered by ordinary people.
Russian SOCIAL REALISM
In the mid-19th century in Russia, Arnold’s didactic theory was perpetuated by a generation of socially conscious novelists, supported by the socio-political conditions at that time. Largely influenced by the Germans, the Russians believed that Literature should be the expression of the national spirit.
The Russian critic, Vissarion Belinsky, evaluated novels according to standards of Realism and Social Realism. What he and the rest of his followers were looking for in Literature was its fulfilment of social and national responsibilities. Literature should be an expression of the development of national spirit based on the movement of political and economic idea. Literature should extol the struggle of the common people, of the nation. Literature has become a result of the historic process (the basic concept of New Historicism).
The function of Literary Criticism is to explain hidden social meanings in the novel and other literary works. Most of the Russian critics like Pisarev (Destruction of Aesthetics 1865) were against “Pure Art” or the pleasure art. Literature should be a rendition of society and its development. They were didactic materialists pushing for social reform and to do this Literature should be produced faithful to historic events of the time.
They maintained that any work of art that is created out of fervour for social reform and a revolutionary spirit that is faithful to the historic events of that time is far more superior. It was deemed as superior because Literature, given its historic content, was the only truth. We could say that in Russian thinking “Beauty is not Truth” but rather “History is Truth.”
Tolstoy as “Conscience”
Tolstoy is one of the proponents of the emotive art theory. He said that art is matter of emotive infection; that art transmits emotion, specifically, religious emotion. As far as understood, Tolstoy was under the banner of “Art for Art’s Sake.”
So why is Tolstoy assimilated in Russian Social Realism?
In his middle years, Tolstoy looked back at his previous works and all the other works of art and felt this religious feeling. This religious feeling is contrary to Christian institutions and hierarchy. It is simply a religious feeling for the brotherhood of man and his common sonship to God. These religious emotions are and should be shared by the whole community. Tolstoy said that “art of the present age must transmit the progressive religious emotion of this age, those that relate to the universal brotherhood of man.”
He looked at all the previous works of art, including his novels, and said in his “What is Art?” (1898) that they were not works of art, because they were produced out of effete emotions, decadence. “Pleasure Art” was only lavish waste and a measure of social injustice, primarily because its patrons were the upper class and therefore written for the upper class.
Tolstoy also questioned the validity of an autonomous or non-didactic art. To him, it seems to be bound in merely a “hedonistic” or “pleasure” theory of art. According to him, the class of people who has the truest taste in art are the common folk. “Good, great, universal, religious art may be incomprehensible to a small circle of spoilt people but certainly not to any large number of plain men.”
His assertions were primarily based on the question of for whom these works of art are created (later on applied by Mao Tse-Tung in his “Talk at the Yenan Forum”). He applies the notion of easy comprehensibility with special satisfaction against the luxurious and obscure characteristic of all previous works of art.
Even Shakespeare did not escape his sweeping indignation and condemnation. His first point of contention was the use of language. All of Shakespeare’s characters were using unnatural language because they were just speaking Shakespearean (because no real person could’ve spoken or understood it anywhere), not the individual language of each character, much more of real people. There is some validity to this because the Shakespearean sonnet at that time was even alien, compared to the Italian sonnet. Another is Shakespeare’s values in writing, his lack of esteem for the working class, his lack of sincerity.
And finally, Tolstoy said that Shakespeare could be called whatever we want to call him but he was not an artist.
Dr. Judy Ick, my professor in English 23: Shakespeare, would surely kill Tolstoy if he weren’t already dead and maybe buy all of Tolstoy’s books and enter these as participants in a Book Burning Festival.
MARXISM
Tolstoy’s thesis is to destroy “Art for Art’s Sake” and uphold art as propaganda. This also has been the aim of most Marxist writers and critics. The Marxist writer must write according to dialectical materialism—the objective observation of facts, then the analyses of these facts.
According to this philosophy, the Marxist writer must emphasize class propaganda, the plight of the workers, and to continue the fight of the workers to take control of the (capitalist) state. Another concern is the origins of art based on social and economic status of the artists from the previous and present era. If the artist comes from the bourgeois class, then he will uphold bourgeois values in his work of art. If the artist comes from the working class, then the resulting work of art will uphold the propaganda.
In Marxism, any work of art is reduced to its social and economic origins. However, most Marxist writers have forgotten what Marx himself said: “Certain periods of highest development of art stand in no connection with the general development of society, nor with the material basis and the skeleton structure of its organization.”
In the 20th century, most of the writers seem to have turned away from this historico-social reality and returned to their ivory towers to write of Pure Beauty. Even Russian socialist like Leon Trotsky (Literature and Revolution, 1923) maintained the modern poet’s isolation from reality: something that would morph my brother Mario into the Tazmanian Devil of Objections.
Still, there are those like Lenin and Mao Tse-Tung who believed that Literature should be a component part of the struggle and the revolution. As MaoTse-Tung said in his “Talk at the Yenan Forum,” Literature should be a means of uniting the hearts and minds of people to achieve their nation’s goals.
AND IN THE PHILIPPINES…
The question is: How is it possible to produce great Art that veers toward propaganda? I believe that this has already been made possible in other cultures at certain periods. However, in Philippine context, this has yet to be really done.
To begin with, we need to identify what idea it is that we wish to propagate. The word “propaganda” has a connotation exclusive to “Marxist” or “revolutionary” or “communist” thought. Anything that has “propaganda” on it is immediately rejected because it speaks of inhibition of freedom, of joining a certain collective’s consciousness, of the destruction of individuality.
Personally, anything that threatens my individuality is immediately rejected. But I have seen for myself that too many individuals upholding their individualities in a collective of individuals will only lead to stagnation and disorder. Our love for our individualities has resulted in a purely self-absorbed existence. There is only the “self” and the “immediate self,” our own little worlds, and we are apathetic to the rest of reality. I believe that it is time for all of us to extend that care beyond our selves.
To propagate an idea is not something that should be rejected. As Filipinos, I think that this is what we need: one idea that we should all uphold to unite all of us; one goal that we should all work for; one objective that all Filipino writers should think about before and while they write.
Certainly there is room for individuality while upholding one idea. We can propagate this idea in our own individual ways, but keep in mind that one idea. Keep in mind that one idea should unite everyone. The idea should not be anything abstract, but something real.
The problem with most of our writers now is that they just write. They don’t really ask what is it that they are writing about, what is it for, for whom is it, how it will help change our country for the better. How many times have we heard a writer say, “I am writing for myself”? How many writers and critics have we heard say, “Do not tell me that we do not know anything about revolution. We were already there and you weren’t even born,” and then proceed to write about inconsequential things.
The greatest work of literature to be made by any Filipino is to propagate one idea, and I believe that idea is the identity for our nation. A poem, a story, a play, a novel, a text that answers the question “What is a Filipino?”
And Gat Bonifacio says, “Girl, y’all still haven’t figured it out? What the fuuuuuuuuck? Tsk, tsk.”
I say, “Ava! At least ang layo na natin sa pagiging ug-ug Indio noh! Puede ba umamin na nga sa inyong national dead heroes kung sino yun vaklushi?!”
Uuuuuuuuy, kuwento!
Guess who said “Charot”?
