“Social and Personal Tragedy: Tolstoy and Lawrence: from Modern Tragedy” by Raymond Williams: Summary and Critique

Introduction: “Social and Personal Tragedy: Tolstoy and Lawrence: from Modern Tragedy” by Raymond Williams

“Social and Personal Tragedy: Tolstoy and Lawrence: from Modern Tragedy” was originally published in his seminal work, Modern Tragedy in 1966 as its chapter. It is considered a cornerstone of literary theory, particularly within the framework of Marxist criticism. Williams delves into the complexities of tragedy in the modern era, arguing that the traditional conception of tragic heroes and their tragic flaws has evolved in response to societal changes. By examining the works of Leo Tolstoy and D.H. Lawrence, Williams explores how these authors have redefined tragedy to reflect the social and personal crises of their time, emphasizing the intersection of individual suffering and larger societal structures. This essay has had a profound impact on literary criticism, shaping discussions about the nature of tragedy, the role of the artist in society, and the relationship between personal and social narratives.

Summary of “Social and Personal Tragedy: Tolstoy and Lawrence: from Modern Tragedy” by Raymond Williams

Literary Terms/Concepts in “Social and Personal Tragedy: Tolstoy and Lawrence: from Modern Tragedy” by Raymond Williams

Literary Term/Concept	Explanation/Definition
Tragedy	A form of drama or literature in which the protagonist is destroyed by external or internal forces, often ending in death or downfall.
Social Tragedy	Tragedy rooted in societal collapse or destruction, focusing on external forces like power and famine.
Personal Tragedy	Tragedy centered on individuals, focusing on personal suffering, isolation, and internal struggles.
Ideology	A system of ideas or beliefs that forms the basis of political or economic theory, playing a role in shaping literary themes and conflicts.
Realism	A literary movement focusing on the depiction of everyday life and realistic events, without idealization.
Critical Realism	A form of realism that critically examines societal structures and personal experiences, showing the limitations of both social and individual reality.
Moral Code	A system of principles or rules governing right and wrong behavior, often influencing the actions of characters in tragedies.
Autobiographical Elements	The inclusion of personal experiences and details from an author’s life within their fiction, as seen in both Tolstoy and Lawrence’s works.
Characterization	The portrayal of complex, multi-dimensional characters, avoiding simplistic categorization of ‘good’ or ‘evil.’
Narrative Structure	The organization of a story’s events and relationships into a coherent structure, with interwoven subplots and thematic unity.
Symbolism	The use of objects, characters, or events to represent larger abstract ideas, such as life, death, or societal decay.
Thematic Contrast	The deliberate juxtaposition of opposing themes or elements, such as life vs. death, social vs. personal, in literary works.
Conflict	The struggle between opposing forces, which can be internal (within a character) or external (between characters or societal forces).
Naturalism	A literary movement that emphasizes the influence of nature and environment on human behavior, often presenting characters as subject to forces beyond their control.

Contribution of “Social and Personal Tragedy: Tolstoy and Lawrence: from Modern Tragedy” by Raymond Williams to Literary Theory/Theories

• Critique of the Division Between Social and Personal Experience
  Williams highlights the artificial separation of social and personal experiences in literature, arguing that this division is a core crisis in modern tragedy.
  Quotation: “The deepest crisis in modern literature is the division of experience into social and personal categories.”
• Reinterpretation of Tragic Forms
  Williams contributes to the understanding of tragedy by expanding its scope beyond individual suffering to include societal collapse, thus bridging the gap between personal and collective tragedies.
  Quotation: “There is social tragedy: men destroyed by power and famine; a civilization destroyed or destroying itself… there is personal tragedy: men and women suffering and destroyed in their closest relationships.”
• Challenging Ideological Interpretations of Tragedy
  He critiques the rigid ideological interpretations of literary works, where tragedies are often reduced to either social or individual realities, without considering their interconnectedness.
  Quotation: “The ideologies, at either point, move smoothly into action… the explanations of others are merely false consciousness or rationalization.”
• Examination of Character and Society in Tolstoy and Lawrence
  Williams explores how characters in Anna Karenina and Women in Love are not simply defined by personal relationships but are shaped by broader social forces, contributing to the theory of realism in literature.
  Quotation: “The complexity of this structure… is Tolstoy’s actual morality.”
• Critique of Modern Tragedy’s Focus on Social Codes
  Williams critiques the modern tragedy’s emphasis on social codes and laws as determining human fate, a common theme in authors like Tolstoy and Hardy. He suggests this focus limits the scope of human experience and morality.
  Quotation: “The weakness of modern tragedy, where transgression against the social code is made to bring destruction, as though the social code worked our irrevocable fate.”
• Recognition of the Interconnectedness of Personal and Social Dimensions
  The article promotes the idea that personal relationships cannot be fully understood in isolation from social contexts, challenging the tendency in literary theory to view them as separate entities.
  Quotation: “Can we not touch, even momentarily, a kind of experience in which the personal and the social are more than alternatives, are seen growing as actions from the same life?”
• Integration of Autobiography and Fiction
  Williams discusses the use of autobiographical elements in the works of both Tolstoy and Lawrence, contributing to literary theory on the role of personal experience in fiction.
  Quotation: “Tolstoy strayed into autobiography and preaching; Lawrence into preaching and autobiography.”
• Critique of Simplified Moral Judgments in Tragedy
  The article argues against simplistic moral judgments in tragedy, instead promoting a nuanced view of characters like Anna and Karenin as being shaped by complex emotional and social forces.
  Quotation: “Tolstoy, as a great novelist, refuses to deal with cardboard figures of the ‘quick’ and the ‘dead’.”
• Examination of Masculinity and Social Roles
  Williams explores themes of masculinity in both Tolstoy’s and Lawrence’s works, contributing to discussions on gender roles and expectations within literary theory.
  Quotation: “We can be misled here, as Lawrence was often misled, by too simple an idea of ‘masculinity’.”

Examples of Critiques Through “Social and Personal Tragedy: Tolstoy and Lawrence: from Modern Tragedy” by Raymond Williams

Literary Work	Critique Through Williams’ Perspective	Reference from Article
Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy	Williams critiques the common interpretation that Anna’s tragedy is purely social, arguing that Tolstoy portrays a deeper complexity of personal and social tragedy interwoven in relationships.	“Tolstoy created… a memorable figure of the avoidance of love… concerned with a whole experience, not… isolated moral action.”
Women in Love by D.H. Lawrence	Williams critiques Lawrence’s simplification of Tolstoy’s complex relationships into a binary of “quick” and “dead” characters, which limits understanding of the full depth of human experience.	“Lawrence’s version of the tragic relationship is much cruder, reducing the complexity of life that Tolstoy depicts.”
Jude the Obscure by Thomas Hardy	Williams might argue that Hardy’s depiction of Jude’s tragedy as the result of societal constraints lacks the recognition of personal responsibility and complexity of social and personal integration.	“The weakness of modern tragedy… transgression against the social code is made to bring destruction.”
Lady Chatterley’s Lover by D.H. Lawrence	Williams critiques Lawrence’s shift in focus from the complex, interwoven social and personal relationships (as seen in Anna Karenina) to a simplified vision of individual fulfillment through sexual liberation.	“The terms in which Lawrence describes how Anna and Vronsky ought to have acted are virtually a description of Lady Chatterley’s Lover.”

Criticism Against “Social and Personal Tragedy: Tolstoy and Lawrence: from Modern Tragedy” by Raymond Williams

• Oversimplification of Ideological Divisions
  Critics might argue that Williams oversimplifies the division between personal and social tragedies by framing them as ideological opposites, failing to acknowledge the fluidity and overlap between these spheres in certain works.
• Neglect of Historical and Cultural Context
  Williams’ analysis focuses heavily on the personal versus social divide but may neglect how historical and cultural factors outside of ideological conflicts shape the narratives of Tolstoy and Lawrence.
• Overemphasis on Tolstoy’s Moral Complexity
  Some might contend that Williams places too much emphasis on Tolstoy’s ability to balance personal and social complexities, potentially overlooking moments where Tolstoy’s works also fall into moral didacticism or simplifications.
• Inadequate Exploration of Lawrence’s Ambiguities
  Williams critiques Lawrence for reducing Tolstoy’s complex tragedies but may not fully explore the ambiguities in Lawrence’s own works, especially in Women in Love, where the tensions between personal fulfillment and societal structures are more nuanced.
• Selective Interpretation of Tragedy
  Williams’ interpretation of tragedy in modern literature may be seen as selective, focusing primarily on authors like Tolstoy and Lawrence while ignoring other tragic forms that do not conform to his model of personal-social division.

Representative Quotations from “Social and Personal Tragedy: Tolstoy and Lawrence: from Modern Tragedy” by Raymond Williams with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“The deepest crisis in modern literature is the division of experience into social and personal categories.”	Williams introduces the central theme of his analysis, which is the split between social and personal experiences in literature, framing it as a defining problem in modern tragedy.
“Tragedy, inevitably, has been shaped by this division.”	This quote highlights how the split between social and personal realities directly impacts the structure and themes of tragedy in modern literature.
“There is social tragedy: men destroyed by power and famine; a civilization destroyed or destroying itself.”	Williams defines social tragedy as the suffering caused by large societal forces, such as political power or widespread societal collapse.
“And then there is personal tragedy: men and women suffering and destroyed in their closest relationships.”	Here, Williams contrasts social tragedy with personal tragedy, which focuses on intimate, individual relationships, emphasizing the internal struggles of characters.
“The ideologies, at either point, move smoothly into action.”	This quote critiques how ideological positions, whether personal or social, tend to dominate interpretations of literature, pushing readers to take sides in how they view tragedy.
“Can we not touch, even momentarily, a kind of experience in which the personal and the social are more than alternatives?”	Williams questions whether it’s possible to view personal and social tragedies as interconnected rather than isolated experiences, suggesting a more integrated understanding of human experience.
“Tolstoy, as a great novelist, refuses to deal with cardboard figures of the ‘quick’ and the ‘dead’.”	Williams praises Tolstoy’s nuanced characterization, arguing that his characters are not simple representations of life and death but complex individuals shaped by their environment and emotions.
“The weakness of modern tragedy, where transgression against the social code is made to bring destruction, as though the social code worked our irrevocable fate.”	Williams critiques modern tragedy for overly relying on social norms and codes to determine characters’ fates, instead of focusing on more intrinsic and human aspects of tragedy.
“What is thought of as society does not determine the relationships; men can learn to grow beyond the institutionalized failures.”	This quote reflects Williams’ belief that individuals are not fully constrained by societal forces, and personal relationships can transcend societal limitations.
“It is an attempt to create the individual person without any relationships.”	Williams critiques the emphasis on individualism in some modern tragedies, arguing that true personal identity cannot exist without relationships and social contexts.

Suggested Readings: “Social and Personal Tragedy: Tolstoy and Lawrence: from Modern Tragedy” by Raymond Williams

1. Eagleton, Terry. Sweet Violence: The Idea of the Tragic. Blackwell Publishing, 2003.
2. Williams, Raymond. Modern Tragedy. Chatto & Windus, 1966.
3. Steiner, George. The Death of Tragedy. Yale University Press, 1996.
   https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300069167/the-death-of-tragedy
4. Barker, Howard. Arguments for a Theatre. Manchester University Press, 1989.
5. Segal, Charles. Tragedy and Civilization: An Interpretation of Sophocles. Harvard University Press, 1981.
6. Kott, Jan. The Eating of the Gods: An Interpretation of Greek Tragedy. Northwestern University Press, 1987.
7. Elsom, John. Post-War British Theatre Criticism. Routledge, 2013.