“Critical Realism And Socialist Realism” by Georg Lukacs: Summary and Critique

·  Distinction Between Socialist Realism and Critical Realism:

• Socialist realism is grounded in a concrete socialist perspective, distinguishing it from critical realism, which may approach socialism more abstractly or as a critique of capitalism. Lukács argues that “socialist realism is concerned to locate those human qualities which make for the creation of a new social order.”

·  Role of Socialism in Literature:

• The socialist perspective allows writers to see society and history clearly, which opens up new possibilities in literary creation. However, Lukács notes that while “socialist realism is a possibility rather than an actuality,” its realization is complex and requires more than just theoretical understanding.

·  Alliance Between Socialist and Critical Realism:

• There is a historical and theoretical alliance between socialist and critical realism, grounded in socialism’s commitment to truth. Lukács states that “any accurate account of reality is a contribution…to the Marxist critique of capitalism, and is a blow in the cause of socialism.”

·  Superiority of Socialist Realism:

• Lukács argues for the historical superiority of socialist realism over critical realism, asserting that the insights provided by socialist ideology allow for a deeper and more comprehensive portrayal of humans as social beings. He cautions, however, that this superiority does not guarantee the success of individual works of socialist realism.

·  Typology in Literature:

• In socialist realism, “typical” characters are those whose innermost being is shaped by the objective forces at work in society. Lukács contrasts this with “schematic” literature, where characters are merely topical, prescribed by political intentions, and lack the organic unity of profound individuality and typicality found in authentic socialist realist works.

·  Critique of Naturalism and Revolutionary Romanticism:

• Lukács criticizes naturalism, both socialist and otherwise, for stripping life of its poetry and reducing it to prose. He also critiques the Stalinist period’s misrepresentation of Marxist doctrines, leading to the rise of “revolutionary romanticism,” which he sees as an ideologically flawed attempt to create a poetic substitute for naturalism.

·  Lenin’s Perspective on Literature:

• Lenin’s idea that revolutionaries “must dream” is often misinterpreted. Lukács explains that Lenin’s “dreaming” involves a profound vision of a future achievable through realistic revolutionary measures, rooted in a correct understanding of the complexity of reality. He notes that both Lenin and Marx admired Tolstoy’s realism, despite its ideological limitations, as a model for future literature.

1. Marxist Literary Criticism:

• Truth in Literature: Lukács emphasizes the centrality of truthful depiction of reality in Marxist aesthetics, arguing that “in no other aesthetic does the truthful depiction of reality have so central a place as in Marxism.” This aligns with the Marxist literary theory’s focus on literature as a reflection of the socio-economic realities and class struggles.
• Historical Materialism: Lukács connects literary realism to historical materialism, suggesting that a correct understanding of social and historical reality is essential for realism. He states, “A correct aesthetic understanding of social and historical reality is the precondition of realism,” highlighting the Marxist approach that literature must be grounded in an understanding of historical and material conditions.

2. Socialist Realism:

• Socialist Perspective in Art: Lukács contributes to the theory of socialist realism by asserting its superiority over other forms of realism due to the insights provided by socialist ideology. He claims that socialist realism enables writers to “give a more comprehensive and deeper account of man as a social being than any traditional ideology,” which reinforces the theory’s emphasis on literature as a tool for advancing socialist ideology.
• Role of Typical Characters: The concept of “typical” characters, whose behaviors are shaped by objective societal forces, is crucial to socialist realism. Lukács writes, “A character is typical… when his innermost being is determined by objective forces at work in society.” This idea contributes to the theory by outlining how literature should depict characters that embody the broader social and historical forces at play.

3. Critical Realism:

• Alliance with Socialist Realism: Lukács argues for an alliance between critical realism and socialist realism, suggesting that critical realism can contribute to the Marxist critique of capitalism by accurately depicting reality. He notes that “any accurate account of reality is a contribution… to the Marxist critique of capitalism,” thereby positioning critical realism as a complementary approach within Marxist literary criticism.
• Limitations and Evolution: Lukács points out that critical realism has limitations in a socialist society and predicts that it will eventually evolve towards socialist realism. He states, “The scope of critical realism will narrow as a society comes into being the portrayal of which is beyond the grasp of the critical realist,” indicating that critical realism’s role will diminish as socialist realism becomes more dominant.

4. Aesthetics and Typology in Literature:

• Typological Characters: Lukács’ discussion of “typical” characters contributes to literary aesthetics by offering a framework for understanding how characters can embody the broader social and historical context. He contrasts typical characters with “schematic” characters, noting that the latter are “prescribed by a specific political intention” and lack the depth of characters in authentic socialist realism.
• Critique of Naturalism: Lukács criticizes naturalism for reducing life to mere prose, arguing that it fails to capture the “wealth and beauty” of reality. This critique contributes to aesthetic theory by challenging the methods of naturalistic literature and advocating for a more complex and poetic approach to depicting reality.

5. Modernism vs. Realism:

• Opposition to Modernism: Lukács positions socialist realism in opposition to modernism, criticizing the latter for its decadence and anti-realism. He states that ignoring the historical insights of realist writers is “to throw away a most important weapon in our fight against the decadent literature of anti-realism,” thus contributing to the broader debate between realism and modernism in literary theory.

6. Revolutionary Romanticism:

• Critique of Stalinist Literary Policies: Lukács critiques the concept of “revolutionary romanticism” that emerged during the Stalinist period, arguing that it was a flawed substitute for a correct Marxist aesthetic. He explains that revolutionary romanticism was based on a misinterpretation of Lenin’s ideas, particularly the notion that “revolutionaries ‘must dream’,” which was meant to be a vision grounded in reality, not a departure from it.

• Oversimplification of Literary Forms:

• Lukács tends to categorize literary works into rigid categories of critical realism and socialist realism, ignoring the complexities and nuances within and between these forms.
• This oversimplification can lead to reductive interpretations of literary texts.
• Deterministic Approach to Literature:

• Lukács’ view of literature as a direct reflection of social and economic conditions is overly deterministic.
• It downplays the role of individual creativity, aesthetic innovation, and the autonomy of literary texts.
• Neglect of Formalist and Aesthetic Dimensions:

• Lukács’ focus on the ideological content of literature often overshadows the formal and aesthetic qualities of literary works.
• This neglect limits a comprehensive understanding of literature.
• Politicization of Art:

• Critics argue that Lukács’ insistence on the didactic function of literature subordinates aesthetic value to political objectives.
• This approach can lead to the production of propagandistic rather than artistically compelling works.
• Essentialism of Socialist Realism:

• Lukács’ idealized vision of socialist realism as a superior literary form is often criticized as essentialist and utopian.
• The reality of socialist literature often fell short of this ideal, leading to accusations of dogmatic and prescriptive approaches to art.
• Ignoring Diversity of Literary Traditions:

• Lukács’ framework primarily focuses on European literature, neglecting other literary traditions and their contributions to the development of realism.
• This limited perspective hinders a global understanding of literary history.
• Historical Limitations:

• Some critics argue that Lukács’ theories are rooted in the specific historical context of the early 20th century and are less relevant to contemporary literary production.
• The rapid changes in society and culture since Lukács’ time have challenged the applicability of his ideas.