“Rather, a genuine political literature would aim at the politicization of everything hitherto considered to be nonpolitical, of private life and psychology, perception and the emotions; it would imply an expansion of form and a refinement of the artistic fluoroscope such that the political character of the most remote and specialized areas of the experience stands revealed to the naked eye. Works like those of Brecht, or, more recently, of Godard, yield a glimpse of what such a fully political and fully conscious literature might be.” – Fredric Jameson
(via Jim Dooley)
I don't actually agree with this, for two reasons:
1/ I don't believe that every single aspect of existence is political. It can be politicized - anything can be. But it's not the case that every single aspect of an individual's existence, or indeed Existence with a capital E - E for Everything - is inherently political. Many things - conceivably most things - are apolitical, unpolitical, prepolitical, infrapolitical...
2/ Second disagreement is a question of strategy, the allocation of mental resources. What would be the political efficacy of exploring the micro-politics of this or that or the other? Does it really count as a political contribution? Well, you can see it play out all across the academy - critique as a displacement activity.
Am I the only one reminded of socialist realism? Replace the Brecht and Godard allusions with burly youths reaping wheat, and this idea of literature as solely a political delivery chute is pretty much what Stalin wanted.
ReplyDeleteOr is that just a cheap shot?