“Tragedy and Revolution in Tragic Ideas from Modern Tragedy” by Raymond Williams: Summary and Critique

“Tragedy and Revolution in Tragic Ideas from Modern Tragedy” by Raymond Williams occurs in his book Modern Tragedy published in 1979.

"Tragedy and Revolution in Tragic Ideas from Modern Tragedy" by Raymond Williams: Summary and Critique
Introduction: “Tragedy and Revolution in Tragic Ideas from Modern Tragedy” by Raymond Williams

“Tragedy and Revolution in Tragic Ideas from Modern Tragedy” by Raymond Williams occurs in his book Modern Tragedy published in 1979. This work holds significant importance in literature and literary theory as it delves into the evolution of tragedy from its classical Greek roots to its modern manifestations. Williams explores the interplay between tragedy and the societal, political, and cultural revolutions of the 20th century, examining how these events have shaped our understanding of tragic themes, characters, and narratives. His analysis offers a fresh perspective on the enduring power of tragedy in contemporary literature and its ability to continue to engage and provoke audiences.

Summary of “Tragedy and Revolution in Tragic Ideas from Modern Tragedy” by Raymond Williams
  • The persistence of tragic ideology: Williams argues that powerful ideologies shape our interpretation of tragic experiences, even when we think we have rejected them. He states, “We look for tragic experience in our attitudes to God or to death or to individual will, and of course we often find tragic experience cast in these familiar forms.” We tend to disassociate modern tragedy from its deep social contexts, like war and revolution, and focus instead on individual psychological or spiritual crises.
  • Separation of tragedy and social crisis: He critiques the academic tradition of separating spiritual and civilizational movement. Despite this, he emphasizes the necessity to reconnect tragedy to social crises, like revolution. Williams suggests, “We must ask whether tragedy, in our own time, is a response to social disorder,” implying that tragedy often reflects the disorder of society itself, even though it is not always directly apparent.
  • Conflict between tragedy and revolution: Tragedy and revolution are often perceived as contradictory. Revolution is seen as an opportunity for change, while tragedy depicts suffering and the limitations of human power. Williams highlights this tension, stating, “The idea of tragedy has been explicitly opposed by the idea of revolution.” However, he contends that revolution and tragedy are intertwined; both must be acknowledged as part of human experience, especially when revolution leads to violence and social upheaval.
  • The epic nature of successful revolutions: Historically, revolutions are often remembered as epic rather than tragic once they have succeeded, as nations look back on them as foundational events. Williams observes, “A successful revolution becomes not tragedy but epic: it is the origin of a people, and of its valued way of life.” However, contemporary revolutions are experienced as tragic because the suffering and violence are immediately felt.
  • Revolution as a time of suffering and lies: Revolution, according to Williams, involves extensive suffering, violence, and manipulation of truth. “The suffering of the whole action…is commonly projected as the responsibility of this party or that,” he notes, indicating how revolutions are politicized and distorted by various factions. Williams also warns of the indifference that can develop when one is distanced from the revolutionary action, stating, “There is also an exposure to the scale of suffering… which in the end is also indifference.”
  • Revolution and order/disorder: Williams connects revolution to the broader process of disorder and re-ordering in society. He writes, “The essential point is that violence and disorder are institutions as well as acts,” meaning that revolution is not just a temporary state of chaos but part of a larger institutional framework of social transformation. This idea reflects how societies institutionalize violence even before a revolutionary crisis arises.
  • Tragedy in revolution’s aftermath: Williams notes the tragic alienation that often follows revolutions, where the very efforts to end alienation create new forms of alienation. “The revolution against the fixed consciousness of revolution,” he argues, often turns its active agents into enemies of the cause itself. Revolution, in this sense, can become tragic as it produces its own contradictions and alienation even within its liberatory goals.
  • Tragedy and revolution as interconnected experiences: Ultimately, Williams contends that tragedy is inherent in the revolutionary process. He asserts, “The tragic action, in its deepest sense, is not the confirmation of disorder, but its experience, its comprehension, and its resolution.” He believes that the struggles within revolution offer a path toward understanding and resolving the broader societal disorder, highlighting the ongoing human effort to reconcile suffering with aspirations for change.
Literary Terms/Concepts in “Tragedy and Revolution in Tragic Ideas from Modern Tragedy” by Raymond Williams
Literary Term/ConceptDescriptionContext in the Text
TragedyA literary genre that involves the downfall of the main character due to personal or societal forces, often eliciting pity and fear.Williams explores the relationship between tragedy and modern social crises, emphasizing how tragedy in modern times is often disconnected from its social roots, such as war and revolution.
RevolutionA significant and often violent change in the social or political order, frequently accompanied by suffering, disorder, and upheaval.Williams discusses revolution not merely as political events but as deeply tragic processes involving human suffering, violence, and alienation.
EpicA long narrative that typically celebrates heroic deeds and nation-building events.Successful revolutions are retrospectively viewed as epics, as they become foundational events in national histories. Williams contrasts this with the tragedy experienced during contemporary revolutions.
Social DisorderThe breakdown of societal norms and institutions, often leading to conflict and suffering.Williams connects social disorder to the essence of both revolution and tragedy, arguing that modern tragedy should not be separated from the social upheavals of war, revolution, and systemic disorder.
AlienationThe feeling of estrangement or isolation from society, often resulting from social, political, or economic structures.Revolution is seen as a response to alienation, but Williams argues that revolution can itself produce new forms of alienation, even as it seeks to liberate individuals.
Historical MaterialismA Marxist concept that views history as driven by material conditions and class struggle, shaping the development of society.Williams references Marx’s early ideas of revolution, highlighting how class struggle and social change are tied to tragic experiences of alienation and suffering.
RomanticismA literary and philosophical movement that emphasizes individual emotion, imagination, and rebellion against societal norms.Williams critiques Romanticism’s influence on revolutionary thought, explaining how it created idealized visions of revolution that often disconnected from social reality, sometimes leading to nihilism.
DeterminismThe philosophical concept that all events, including human actions, are determined by causes external to the will, often leading to a sense of inevitability.Williams critiques the deterministic view within some Marxist and liberal traditions, where revolutions are seen as mechanistic processes, neglecting the human experience of suffering and agency.
NaturalismA literary movement focused on depicting life as determined by environment, heredity, and social conditions, often emphasizing the lack of human agency.Williams criticizes naturalism for portraying human suffering as passive and inevitable, contrasting it with the active agency that revolution seeks to restore.
UtopianismThe belief in or pursuit of an idealized, perfect society, often ignoring the complexities and struggles of human existence.Williams critiques utopianism and revolutionary romanticism for ignoring the inevitable suffering and alienation in revolutions, creating an idealized and unrealistic image of societal change.
Heroic LiberationThe idea of revolution or social change as a heroic, idealized struggle for freedom and emancipation.Williams warns against the oversimplified view of revolution as merely heroic, emphasizing that revolutions also involve tragic alienation, suffering, and moral complexities.
False ConsciousnessA Marxist term describing a distorted understanding of one’s social position, often perpetuated by dominant ideologies to maintain the status quo.Williams points out that revolutions often confront the “false consciousness” of people who fail to recognize their exploitation, but also notes that revolutions can create new forms of false consciousness.
DialecticA method of argument involving the resolution of opposing ideas or forces through their synthesis into a higher understanding.Williams employs a dialectical approach, exploring the contradictions between tragedy and revolution, and how they interact to shape modern human experience.
IdeologyA system of ideas and beliefs, often reflecting the interests of a particular group or class, that influences how individuals perceive and interact with the world.Williams critiques both tragic and revolutionary ideologies for oversimplifying human experiences of suffering and social change, suggesting that both are needed to understand the full scope of revolution.
Structure of FeelingWilliams’ concept of a shared social experience that is not yet fully articulated but shapes a society’s culture and consciousness.He refers to revolution as producing a “structure of feeling,” where social experiences like suffering and violence contribute to the development of new cultural expressions and ideologies.
Contribution of “Tragedy and Revolution in Tragic Ideas from Modern Tragedy” by Raymond Williams to Literary Theory/Theories
  • Rejection of Traditional Tragic Forms: Williams challenges the traditional view that tragedy is primarily a personal or spiritual crisis detached from social and political contexts. He asserts, “We are not looking for a new universal meaning of tragedy. We are looking for the structure of tragedy in our own culture.” This reorientation aligns with theories that connect literature to broader societal forces, emphasizing how tragedy reflects systemic disorder.
  • Connection Between Tragedy and Social Revolution: Williams emphasizes that tragedy is intrinsically linked to social disorder, particularly revolution. He writes, “We must ask whether tragedy, in our own time, is a response to social disorder,” thus contributing to historical materialism by viewing literature and tragedy as responses to societal crises, such as revolutions and class struggles. This aligns with Marxist literary criticism, where historical and social realities shape narrative forms.
  • Critique of Determinism in Marxist Theory: Williams critiques the deterministic views within some strands of Marxism, especially the reduction of revolution to mechanical or inevitable processes. He argues, “The more general and abstract, the more truly mechanical, the process of human liberation is conceived to be, the less any actual suffering really counts.” This critique adds complexity to Marxist literary theory, insisting on the human experience of suffering as central to understanding revolution and tragedy.
  • Extension of the ‘Structure of Feeling’: Williams develops his concept of “structure of feeling” by arguing that both tragedy and revolution reflect underlying societal shifts in emotions and consciousness. He states, “The social fact becomes a structure of feeling. Revolution as such is in a common sense tragedy, a time of chaos and suffering.” This idea contributes to cultural materialism, as it links literature to unarticulated social experiences that are shaping cultural forms.
  • Synthesis of Tragedy and Revolution in Modern Context: By proposing that modern tragedy must be understood as part of the social experience of revolution, Williams brings together previously distinct categories in literary theory. He contends, “The tragic action, in its deepest sense, is not the confirmation of disorder, but its experience, its comprehension, and its resolution.” This synthesis challenges both traditional tragic theory and revolutionary theory, contributing to dialectical criticism, which seeks to resolve contradictions within literary and social phenomena.
  • Critique of Romanticism and Revolutionary Idealism: Williams critiques Romanticism and its idealization of revolution, stating that it often results in disillusionment or nihilism: “Romanticism is the most important expression in modern literature of the first impulse of revolution… But perhaps the major part went in a quite different direction, towards the final separation of revolution from society.” His critique offers an important intervention in the theory of Romanticism, emphasizing its failure to grapple with the material and human realities of revolutionary struggle.
  • Tragedy as a Reflection of Alienation in Revolution: Williams identifies alienation as a key concept in both tragedy and revolution, stating, “The revolution against the fixed consciousness of revolution… becomes its most inward enemy.” This focus on alienation, a core Marxist concept, enriches Marxist literary criticism by examining how revolutionary movements produce new forms of alienation, reflecting the tragic dimension of social change.
  • Critique of Utopianism in Revolutionary Theory: Williams critiques utopianism in revolutionary theory for ignoring the complexities and inevitable suffering involved in revolutionary processes. He notes, “What is properly called utopianism, or revolutionary romanticism, is the suppression or dilution of this quite inevitable fact [of suffering].” This critique intersects with critical theory, where utopian thinking is often interrogated for its failure to address real social struggles and human costs.
Examples of Critiques Through “Tragedy and Revolution in Tragic Ideas from Modern Tragedy” by Raymond Williams
Literary WorkKey ThemesCritique Through Williams’ “Tragedy and Revolution”Relevant Quotations from Williams
Shakespeare’s MacbethAmbition, Power, Fate, DisorderMacbeth can be viewed as a tragedy deeply rooted in social disorder, as the play reflects the collapse of societal norms and the ensuing chaos and violence.“The tragic action is rooted in a disorder, which indeed, at a particular stage, can seem to have its own stability.”
Sophocles’ AntigoneState vs. Individual, Law, RebellionAntigone’s defiance of state law reflects the human struggle against established social orders, which, in Williams’ terms, can be seen as revolutionary tragedy.“Revolution as such is in a common sense tragedy, a time of chaos and suffering. It is almost inevitable that we should try to go beyond it.”
Victor Hugo’s Les MisérablesJustice, Poverty, Revolution, SufferingThe suffering and social disorder in Les Misérables reflect Williams’ idea that tragedy is tied to revolution, emphasizing the struggle against oppression.“I see revolution as the inevitable working through of a deep and tragic disorder, to which we can respond in varying ways but which will… work its way through.”
George Orwell’s 1984Totalitarianism, Control, AlienationThe alienation and oppression in 1984 can be critiqued as revolutionary alienation, where the oppressive system represents both disorder and tragic suffering.“The revolution against the fixed consciousness of revolution… converts friends into enemies, and actual life into the ruthlessly moulded material of an idea.”
Criticism Against “Tragedy and Revolution in Tragic Ideas from Modern Tragedy” by Raymond Williams
  • Overemphasis on Social Contexts in Tragedy: Williams’ argument that tragedy is inseparable from social disorder may be criticized for neglecting the personal and existential dimensions of tragedy. Critics may argue that he reduces complex individual emotions and fates to broader social forces, overlooking the timeless aspects of human suffering independent of societal contexts.
  • Deterministic View of Revolution: While Williams critiques determinism in Marxist theory, his own interpretation of revolution as “inevitable” can also be seen as deterministic. Critics might argue that he overstates the necessity of revolution and ignores alternative paths for societal change that don’t involve violence or upheaval.
  • Neglect of Aesthetic and Literary Elements: Williams focuses heavily on the socio-political dimensions of tragedy, which can be criticized for sidelining the aesthetic and formal qualities of tragic literature. His analysis may be seen as too utilitarian, reducing literature to a reflection of social structures rather than appreciating its artistic merits.
  • Limited Engagement with Non-Western Traditions: Williams’ theory is heavily centered on Western literary and revolutionary traditions, such as the French Revolution and Western concepts of tragedy. Critics might argue that he fails to account for non-Western forms of tragedy or revolutionary experiences, thus limiting the universality of his argument.
  • Ambiguity in the Relationship Between Tragedy and Revolution: While Williams attempts to reconcile tragedy and revolution, some critics may argue that his connection between the two remains ambiguous and unresolved. His claim that revolution is both tragic and necessary may be seen as contradictory, especially when he also advocates for human liberation through revolution.
  • Romanticizing Revolution: Despite his critique of romanticism, Williams may be seen as romanticizing revolution by presenting it as the only viable response to societal disorder. Critics might argue that this overlooks the potential for non-violent or reformist approaches to address social injustice without the tragic consequences of revolution.
  • Simplification of Historical and Social Forces: Williams’ treatment of social disorder and revolution may be criticized for oversimplifying complex historical processes. By framing revolution as a tragic necessity, he risks ignoring the nuances of how different societies and individuals experience change and suffering.
Representative Quotations from “Tragedy and Revolution in Tragic Ideas from Modern Tragedy” by Raymond Williams with Explanation
QuotationExplanation
“We are not looking for a new universal meaning of tragedy. We are looking for the structure of tragedy in our own culture.”Williams emphasizes that tragedy should be understood in the context of the society and culture in which it is produced, challenging the idea of tragedy as a fixed, universal concept.
“We must ask whether tragedy, in our own time, is a response to social disorder.”This reflects Williams’ central thesis that modern tragedy is deeply connected to societal crises like war, revolution, and social upheaval, rather than being purely a personal or spiritual experience.
“Revolution as such is in a common sense tragedy, a time of chaos and suffering.”Williams draws a direct connection between revolution and tragedy, portraying revolution as a period of suffering and disorder, aligning it with the tragic form.
“The successful revolution becomes not tragedy but epic: it is the origin of a people, and of its valued way of life.”Here, Williams contrasts how revolutions are experienced as tragic in the moment but are later reinterpreted as epic once they succeed and shape national identities.
“In experience, suddenly, the new connections are made, and the familiar world shifts, as the new relations are seen.”This quote highlights how human experience, especially in times of social crisis, can suddenly reveal new meanings, reflecting the dynamic interplay between tragedy and revolution.
“The idea of tragedy, that is to say, has been explicitly opposed by the idea of revolution.”Williams notes the historical opposition between tragedy, which is seen as defeatist, and revolution, which promotes the idea of social change and overcoming human limitations.
“The most general idea of revolution excludes too much of our social experience.”Williams critiques the oversimplified view of revolution, which ignores the complexities of social experience, particularly the tragic elements that come with revolutionary struggles.
“The revolution against the fixed consciousness of revolution… becomes its most inward enemy.”Williams argues that revolutions, while seeking to overcome societal alienation, often produce new forms of alienation, thus becoming self-defeating in their own tragic way.
“The tragic action, in its deepest sense, is not the confirmation of disorder, but its experience, its comprehension, and its resolution.”This quote encapsulates Williams’ view that tragedy is not merely about accepting chaos but about confronting and understanding disorder in order to move towards resolution.
“The more general and abstract, the more truly mechanical, the process of human liberation is conceived to be, the less any actual suffering really counts.”Williams criticizes deterministic views of revolution that ignore the human suffering involved, emphasizing the importance of recognizing personal and social pain in revolutionary processes.
Suggested Readings: “Tragedy and Revolution in Tragic Ideas 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.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *