György Lukács

From The Art and Popular Culture Encyclopedia

(Difference between revisions)

Current revision

"However, with a single great exception, that of Walter Benjamin (and in his footsteps, Brecht), Marxists have not understood the consciousness industry and have been aware only of its bourgeois capitalist dark side and not of its socialist possibilities. An author such as Georg Lukacs is a perfect example of this theoretical and practical backwardness."--"Constituents of a Theory of Media" (1970) by Hans Magnus Enzensberger

Related e

Wikipedia
Wiktionary
Shop

Featured:

Rhombicuboctahedron by Leonardo da Vinci

György Lukács (April 13, 1885 – June 4, 1971) was a Hungarian Marxist philosopher and literary critic. His literary criticism was a defense of realism and centered on the novel as a literary genre. His best-known works of literary theory include The Theory of the Novel (1916), his essay "Kafka or Thomas Mann?" and Realism in the Balance.

[edit]

+{| class="toccolours" style="float: left; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 2em; font-size: 85%; background:#c6dbf7; color:black; width:30em; max-width: 40%;" cellspacing="5"
+| style="text-align: left;" |
+"However, with a single great exception, that of [[Walter Benjamin]] (and in his footsteps, [[Brecht]]), [[Marxists]] have not understood the [[consciousness industry]] and have been aware only of its bourgeois capitalist dark side and not of its socialist possibilities. An author such as [[Georg Lukacs]] is a perfect example of this theoretical and practical backwardness."--"[[Constituents of a Theory of Media]]" (1970) by Hans Magnus Enzensberger
+|}
 {{Template}}
-'''György Lukács''' ([[April 13]], [[1885]] – [[June 4]], [[1971]]) was a [[Hungary|Hungarian]] [[Marxist]] [[philosopher]] and [[literary critic]].  Most scholars consider him to be the founder of the tradition of [[Western Marxism]].  He contributed the ideas of [[reification (Marxism)|reification]] and [[class consciousness]] to [[Marxist philosophy]] and [[Marxist theory|theory]], and his literary criticism was influential in thinking about [[Literary realism|realism]] and about the [[novel]] as a [[literary genre]].  He served briefly as Hungary's Minister of Culture following the [[1956 Hungarian Revolution]].
+'''György Lukács''' ([[April 13]], [[1885]] – [[June 4]], [[1971]]) was a [[Hungary|Hungarian]] [[Marxist philosopher]] and [[literary critic]].  His literary criticism was a defense of [[Literary realism|realism]] and centered on the [[novel]] as a [[literary genre]]. His best-known works of literary theory include ''[[The Theory of the Novel]]'' (1916), his essay "[[Kafka or Thomas Mann?]]" and [[Realism in the Balance]]''.
+==See also==
+*''[[The Historical Novel]]''
+* [[Theodor Adorno]]
+* [[Max Horkheimer]]
+* [[Antonio Gramsci]]
+* [[Louis Althusser]]
+* [[Cultural Marxism]]
-== Work ==
-===History and Class Consciousness===
-:See [[Class consciousness]]
-:See [[Political consciousness]]
-Written between 1919 and 1922 and first published in 1923, ''[[History and Class Consciousness]]'' initiated the current of thought that came to be known as [[Western Marxism]]. The book is notable for contributing to debates concerning [[Marxism]] and its relation to [[sociology]], [[politics]] and [[philosophy]], and for reconstructing [[Marx's theory of alienation]] before many of the works of the [[Young Marx]] had been published. Lukács's work elaborates and expands upon Marxist theories such as [[ideology#Ideology as an instrument of social reproduction|ideology]], [[false consciousness]], [[reification (Marxism)|reification]] and [[class consciousness]].
-In the first chapter, "[http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm What is Orthodox Marxism?]", Lukács defined orthodoxy as the fidelity to the "Marxist method", and not to the "dogmas":
-<blockquote> "Orthodox Marxism, therefore, does not imply the uncritical acceptance of the results of Marx’s investigations. It is not the ‘belief’ in this or that thesis, nor the exegesis of a ‘sacred’ book. On the contrary, orthodoxy refers exclusively to method. It is the scientific conviction that dialectical materialism is the road to truth and that its methods can be developed, expanded and deepened only along the lines laid down by its founders." (§1) </blockquote>
-He criticized [[Marxist revisionism|revisionist]] attempts by calling to the return to this Marxist method, which is fundamentally [[dialectical materialism]]. In much the same way that [[Louis Althusser|Althusser]] would later define Marxism and [[psychoanalysis]] as "conflictual sciences", Lukács conceives "revisionism" as inherent to the Marxist theory, insofar as dialectical materialism is, according to him, the product of class struggle:
-<blockquote> "For this reason the task of orthodox Marxism, its victory over Revisionism and [[utopian socialism|utopianism]] can never mean the defeat, once and for all, of false tendencies. It is an ever-renewed struggle against the insidious effects of bourgeois ideology on the thought of the proletariat. Marxist orthodoxy is no guardian of traditions, it is the eternally vigilant prophet proclaiming the relation between the tasks of the immediate present and the totality of the historical process." (end of §5) </blockquote>
-According to him, "The premise of dialectical materialism is, we recall: 'It is not men’s consciousness that determines their existence, but on the contrary, their social existence that determines their consciousness.'... Only when the core of existence stands revealed as a social process can existence be seen as the product, albeit the hitherto unconscious product, of human activity." (§5). In line with Marx's thought, he thus criticized the [[individualist]] [[bourgeois]] philosophy of the [[subject (philosophy)|subject]], which founds itself on the voluntary and conscious subject. Against this [[ideology]], he asserts the primacy of social relations. Existence &mdash; and thus the world &mdash; is the product of human activity; but this can be seen only if the primacy of social process on individual consciousness, which is but the effect of ideological mystification, is accepted. This doesn't entail that Lukács restrain human [[liberty]] on behalf of some kind of sociological [[determinism]]: to the contrary, this production of existence is the possibility of ''[[praxis (process)|praxis]]''.
-Henceforth, the problem consists in the relationship between theory and practice. Lukács quotes Marx's words: "It is not enough that thought should seek to realise itself; reality must also strive towards thought." How does the thought of [[intellectual]]s be related to class struggle, if theory is not simply to lag behind history, as it is in Hegel's philosophy of history ("Minerva always comes at the dusk of night...")? Lukács criticizes [[Engels]]' ''[[Anti-Dühring]]'', charging that he "does not even mention the most vital interaction, namely the dialectical relation between subject and object in the historical process, let alone give it the prominence it deserves." This dialectical relation between subject and object gives the basis for Lukács' critique of [[Kant]]'s [[epistemology]], according to which the subject is the exterior, universal and contemplating subject, separated from the object.
-For Lukács, "ideology" is really a projection of the class consciousness of the [[bourgeoisie]], which functions to prevent the [[proletariat]] from attaining a real consciousness of its revolutionary position. Ideology determines the "form of [[Objectivity (philosophy)|objectivity]]", thus the structure of knowledge itself. Real science must attain, according to Lukács, the "concrete totality" through which only it is possible to think the current form of objectivity as a historical period. Thus, the so-called eternal "[[law (principle)|laws]]" of economics are dismissed as the ideological illusion projected by the current form of objectivity ("What is Orthodoxical Marxism?", §3). He also writes: "It is only when the core of [[being]] has showed itself as social becoming, that the being itself can appear as a product, so far unconscious, of human activity, and this activity, in turn, as the decisive element of the transformation of being." ("What is Orthodoxical Marxism?",§5) Finally, "orthodoxical marxism" is not defined as interpretation of ''Capital'' as if it were the Bible or as embracement of certain "marxist thesis", but as fidelity to the "marxist method", [[Dialectics#Marxist dialectics|dialectics]].
-Lukács presents the category of ''[[reification (Marxism)|reification]]'' whereby, due to the [[commodity]] nature of capitalist society, social relations become objectified, precluding the ability for a spontaneous emergence of class consciousness. It is in this context that the need for a party in the [[Leninist]] sense emerges, the subjective aspect of the re-invigorated [[dialectical materialism|Marxian dialectic]].
-In his later career, Lukács repudiated the ideas of ''History and Class Consciousness'', in particular the belief in the proletariat as a [[subject (philosophy)|subject]]-[[object (philosophy)|object]] of history" (1960 Postface to French translation), but he wrote a defence of them as late as [[1925]] or [[1926]]. This unfinished manuscript, which he called ''Tailism and the Dialectic'', was only published in [[Hungarian language|Hungarian]] in 1996 and English in 2000 under the title ''A Defence of History and Class Consciousness''. It is perhaps the most important "unknown" Marxist text of the twentieth century.
-===Literary and aesthetic work===
-In addition to his standing as a Marxist political thinker, Lukács was an influential [[literary critic]] of the twentieth century. His important work in literary criticism began early in his career, with ''[[The Theory of the Novel]]'', a seminal work in [[literary theory]] and the [[genre theory|theory of genre]]. The book is a history of the [[novel]] as a form, and an investigation into its distinct characteristics.
-Lukács later repudiated ''The Theory of the Novel'', writing a lengthy introduction that described it as erroneous, but nonetheless containing a "romantic anti-capitalism" which would later develop into Marxism. (This introduction also contains his famous dismissal of [[Theodor Adorno]] and others in Western Marxism as having taken up residence in the "Grand Hotel Abyss".)
-Lukács's later literary criticism includes the well-known essay "[[Kafka or Thomas Mann]]?", in which Lukács argues for the work of [[Thomas Mann]] as a superior attempt to deal with the condition of [[modernity]], while he criticizes [[Franz Kafka]]'s brand of [[modernism]]. Lukács was steadfastly opposed to the formal innovations of modernist writers like Kafka, [[James Joyce]], and [[Samuel Beckett]], preferring the traditional aesthetic of realism. He famously argued for the revolutionary character of the novels of [[Sir Walter Scott]] and [[Honoré de Balzac]]. Lukács felt that both authors' nostalgic, pro-aristocratic politics allowed them accurate and critical stances because of their opposition to the rising [[bourgeoisie]] (albeit reactionary opposition). This view was expressed in his later book ''The Historical Novel'', as well as in his 1938 essay [[Realism in the Balance]].
-===“Realism in the Balance” (1938)—Lukács’ defense of literary realism===
-:''See [[Realism in the Balance]]''
 {{GFDL}}

György Lukács

From The Art and Popular Culture Encyclopedia

Current revision

See also

Views

Personal tools

Search

Metas

Navigation