RECONSIDER ROMANTICISM From the very inception of the epoch, (English) Romanticism was political. Not only can we trace this out in figures like the young Lake Poets, Shelley and Byron but also in the precursors. We can see political sharpness in the works of the pro-poor and pro-Scottish Robert Burns, we can find it in the songs of the visionary prophet Blake too. In most discussions of the Romantic poets, these are generally considered the VIPs of the genre, leaving out Keats the Aesthete. In terms of number and literary weight it seems quite obvious that to talk about the Romantics’ merits without discussing their politics is callow. What the English professors fail to teach their students (or don’t want to perhaps) is that politics is inescapable in life and hence has a bearing in art, whether literary or otherwise. We are taught English from a very young age and yet it is only later on in life, perhaps because of our own need to know more, that we discover the wealth that lies beyond it. We are told to consume as many literature books as possible, to enjoy reading (and in the process) becoming, but even a brisk survey will show you the immensity of the non-literary world as well. Why were we never exposed similarly, with the same depth and expanse, to philosophical works at an early age? Literature has become too deified, too self-indulgent. It insists, recalling Eagleton, that you read and divorce yourself from the world of readers; that you place yourself in the centre of the thinking universe self satisfied in your own glow, which is not true. Pride is, of course, as important to a reader as it is to a writer, perhaps it should be more so but we have to follow it sequentially to where it leads – competition. Through competition, jouissance is fully enjoyed. To compete with another, we must acknowledge the other. To read simplistically is a foolish task because it is impossible to do. Take any writer, any artist and you will find hypertexts that lead you off on a pleasurable digression. You can read Moliere and know what class he belonged to, you can read Shakespeare and peep into the schooling system of the day, or Smollett and how bad hygiene must have been in the British cities. There is an entire world in every text, whatever school of criticism you follow. Romanticism was a great political movement but a national movement at its start, at its most powerful. Perhaps because it was initially contained within borders it retained a certain materialist joie de vivre at inception. A central figure in the Aufklarung tradition, JG Herder was a nationalist, talking about a volkgeist or people’s spirit/soul (a central tenet in Romanticism), and he was also an ardent collector of folk songs. It seems en vogue to call a person a political theorist or a poet but not both. History shows us that this is not true. These days to call one’s self a nationalist is akin to emotional fundamentalist. But in the Romantic era, between 1750 to 1800, nationalists were the most passionately driven lot in the quest for social change. Very simply, I would say that being a nationalist means you ‘love’ your nation (culture, society, customs). I am not going into whether this ‘love’ justifies acts that are committed for its sake, for they can are excessive –Nazis also ‘loved’ after all. Herder collecting the folk songs of his people perhaps illustrates this ‘love’, for why would he have saved if he did not love? If he did not sense a changing tide, a sweeping change why would he have bothered to think about the future and before this, about loss? The nationalist Robert Burns was almost deported to Tasmania for his “Such a Parcel of Rogues in a Nation” which the English rulers considered to be seditious literature that undermined their authority. His publisher, was not so lucky and was ‘’parcelled’’ away. Blake can be difficult to access but his Songs of Innocence sing against social tyranny. This is arguably Blake’s most powerful work in which he consistently expresses indignation at the death of naiveté on coming into the public sphere, i.e. political world. For him, naiveté is not the same as gullibility and hope supplants indifference. Truly is for him the political ought to be something far more innocent, more anarchical. This ‘love’ is a central force in the development of Romantic ideology. But why did it arise in the first place? What was so different about this age that allowed for the surges in popular and tremulous political upheavals? … i know what you’re thinking – ideology is all embracing so why was this a sphere for resistance, this movement called Romanticism. It also seems that the teachers fear telling the students about how young the Romantic poets were when they first awakened to the political life. When they conceived of their grand utopian experiment which they called ‘’pantisocracy” (in actual reality it was more like a commune), the poets Coleridge and Southey were around 22 years of age, about the final year of college. Wordsworth like his friends Coleridge and Southey was very enthusiastic when the Bastille was stormed. They must have been around 20 years of age when it happened. For Wordsworth personally it was to prove a decisive moment in his intellectual upbringing and he would continue to use the events as paragon until the last. Shelley was 18 years old when he circulated his Necessity of Atheism at Oxford. William Godwin’s anarchism is the main driving force of the essay. Anarchy it seems is a natural recourse of Youth energies but to complicate it further it might be thought of as a manifestation of an Old vs Young dialectic. The so-called teenage rebellion that we all undergo at certain times in our growing up is personal and often it is in the family, in private but the external manifestation in the public spheres are no less than political acts. I do not dispute that the Personal (private) is Political but surely the Political is Personal as well. For to make a statement, to act politically in the public sphere is to make a commitment of sorts with one’s self, only then can one act. As one starts to assume control over one’s self, gaining insight into the nature of the world, it leads to confrontation with the Old Order, with the established that control; it is one of the most enduring dialectics in human history and related in certain archetypal ways in a myriad cultures. We can come down through the ages and see this bright as day – At Paris ’68, the participants urged crowds not to ‘Be Young and Shut Up’, we come down to the ongoing Occupy Movement and we see young faces in all the photographs. We can even look at the face of Julian Assange and see an elder Clinton, from atop a platform, punishing him for his naughtiness. It is about power, about wresting it if need be from the hands of the Old Order not necessarily because of clashing ideologies but because of incompatible dreams - dreams that spawn ideology, that allow ideology to grow. As Godwin maintained, it was impossible to be rationally persuaded and not act accordingly. Committed anarchy is one of the reactionary stimulus of the idealistic. It has a rationale behind it when looked at as a dialectic. It never starts out just as angry people venting out frustrations, conviction has to be established. Committed anarchists think about the future which is why they are dangerous to the Old Order rooted in the present. They choose to see the world differently from how it is supposed to be. The Old Order needs to etherize people with the myth of the present and some obscured, often glorious, past if it is to maintain control. Big Media, because of their need for government financial support (i.e. Old Order money) chooses to reinforce the fear that comes with the uncertainty of these times to dissuade and to discourage would-be participants. They are the greatest tools that the Old Order possesses. They are more than willing to perpetuate the visions that the Old Order has. Under so called creative licenses and inflated notion of the worth of self expression they hire ‘creatives’ who send out message after message of ‘feel good’ to the consumers. Indeed modern entertainment and advertising wouldn’t be anywhere if it were not for the ideas and work put in by English Literature students. Pioneers like David Ogilvy, Bill Bernbach –the men who built Madison Avenue- were English students. Similarly, the early American filmmakers borrowed heavily from Literature, Romantic particularly, but borrowed mostly frivolous material. Material that served to entertain, rather than inform/inspire. The Hollywood studio system was a system introduced mainly to milk money from the crowds. MGM and Paramount for example were set up by businessmen. There is nothing wrong with entertaining oneself but there is something wrong with believing it is neutral. There is nothing wrong with pleasure but there is something wrong with living for it. Anarchists look on the future, upon the promises of the future and this undermines them sometimes. To not know about the past and simply build a future vision set in the present circumstances would lead to no real revolutionary change, it would simply be reformist. This is why anarchists should embrace the past as well or rather dig up the past foundations and rebuild upon them. On that front, nationalists funnily enough seem to dwell only upon the past and the present seems a passing frame. They need to work in the opposite direction as the anarchists. They are both living in the present and must not forget this vital fact. When Wordsworth attacks Neoclassical poetic diction he in effect attacks class as well. This reminds us of the ability of ideology to course beneath seemingly disparate or unrelated topics. Humanism – art for humanity’s sake though what class of humanity remains to be seen It has its nasty side too. Let us not kid ourselves about that. In 2011 the London rioters ran amok and went about destroying and stealing things helter-skelter. Peasants now had abilty from capitalism abroad to exercise muscle so exploiting another country benefitted them. Away from serfdom. Land alienation Shelly Byron could be pro revolution unlike Lake Poets because of their abroad stays because they were anarchists. Not nationalists.
Posted on: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 04:22:32 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015