Hannay Alastair - Two Ways of Coming Back to Reality [Kierkegaard & Lukacs]

7/30/2019 Hannay Alastair - Two Ways of Coming Back to Reality [Kierkegaard & Lukacs]

1/6

~ P e r g a m o n History of European Ideas, Vol. 20, Nos 1-3, pp. 161-166, 1995Copyright 1995 1995 Elsevier Science LtdPrinted in Great Britain. All rights reserved0191-6599/95 $9.50 + 00T W O W A Y S O F C O M I N G B A C K T O R E A L IT Y :KIERKEGAARD AN D LUIC~CS

ALASTAIR HANNAY*

G e o rg L u k f ic s , i n h is co n f ro n t a t i o n w i t h Existenzphilosophie a f te r W o r l d W a rI I , p o u re d s co rn o n w h a t h e ca l l ed th i s ' p e rm an en t ca rn i v a l o f f e t is h i sedi n w ard n es s ' w h i ch co n t i n u ed , h e s a id , t o ' mes m er i se an d mi s l ead b o u rg eo i sinte ll ec tua ls '.~ His to r i ca l ly , he he ld Hu sser l and H eidegg er acco un ta b le , bu t a l soK i e rk eg aa rd , an d t h e l a t te r t o g e t h e r w i th N i e tz s ch e h e d es c r i b ed a s' an t i d emo cra t i c ' , h o l d i n g b o t h r e s p o n s i b le fo r th e d es t ru c t i o n o f r ea s o n . Y e tL u k f ic s 's p u p i l , L u c i en G o l d m an n , r eg a rd ed L u k f ic s a s Existenzphilosophie's t ruefa ther ; no t on ly d id L ukf ics 's fi r s t bo ok Soul and Form (1910) con ta in a dec ided lyap p rec i a ti v e t h o u g h c r it ic a l p i ece o n K i e rk eg aa rd , en t it led ' T h e Fo u n d e r i n g o fFo rm o n L i f e ' ) m u ch o f L ak f ic s 's e a r li e r w o rk r ead s a s an a t t emp t t o b r in gK i e r k e g a ar d i an t h e m e s t o b e a r o n s o c ia l p r o b l e m s i n p re - W o r l d W a r I E u r o p e .W h a t h ap p e n ed i n b e t w ee n to cau s e th i s ch an g e o f mi n d o r h ea r t?

I t i s wor th no t ing tha t the l a t e r c r i t i c i sm i s t empered . Kierkegaard (andSch o p en h au e r ) s till h ad s o m e o f t h a t ' g o o d f a i t h ' an d ' co n s i s ten cy ' w h i ch t h eex i s t en t i a l i s t ph i losophers were engaged in ' cas t ing o f f ' as they ' i ncreas ing lyb ecam e ap o l o g i s t s o f b o u rg eo i s d ecad en ce ' . 3 Pe rh ap s w h a t t h e l a t e r L u k f ic s sawi n t h e s e ea rl ie r w r i t e rs w as s o me k i n d o f h e ro i c ex amp l e t h a t a l l o w ed t h em t oes cap e t h e ch a rg e o f d ecad en ce t h a t h e l eve l led a t t h e i r w o rk s . O r w as t h e r e ev ensom eth ing in Kierk egaa rd ' s th ink ing i t se l f tha t po s i t ive ly p ro te c t s i t, t ha t i s to sayev en i n L u k f i c s 's ey es , f r o m t h e ch a rg e o f d ecad en ce? M y ma i n a rg u m en t h e re istha t there i s , bu t tha t Luk~ cs d idn ' t s ee i t. I f he had , he m igh t have seen tha t thech a rg es o f d ecad en ce h e l ev el led a t K i e rk eg aa rd , co u l d j u s t a s w e l l muta t ismutandis be l eve ll ed a t h imse l f.In the ear ly essay , i t se l f a f ine exam ple o f poe t i c p rose , Lukf ics accusesK i e rk eg aa rd o f h av i n g m ad e a p o em o u t o f hi s lif e. I t a ll b eg an w i t h a 'g e s t u r e ',t h e ac t b o t h o f ren u n c i a t i o n an d d ecep t i o n b y w h i ch K i e rk eg aa rd j i l ted Reg i n eand t r i ed , in fu r therance o f h i s love o f her, t o expu nge a l l t races o f h is own l ife inh e r m i n d b y p re s en t i n g h i ms e l f i n t h e ro l e o f cy n i ca l rep ro b a t e . L u k f ic s co r r ec t l ys ees t h is a t t em p t o n K i e rk eg aa rd ' s p a r t t o f ree Reg i n e fo r a fu t u r e u n t r amm el l edb y v es t i g e s o f t h e i r co mmo n p as t a s t o t a l l y i n v a i n . A mo n g t h e p o s s i b i l i t i e sK ierkeg aard i s fo rce d to l eave her w i th , is tha t o f re f l ec ting tha t he migh t wel l bedece iv ing her , a p oss ib i l i ty which in tu rn spaw ns an end less sea o f fu r therre f l ec t ions on poss ib le mot ives and the i r impl ica t ions fo r the i r p resen tre la t ionsh ip , which i s o f cou rse jus t the s i tua t ion g raph ica l ly p resen ted inEi th er /Or ' s ' Sh ad o w g rap h s ' , a f ac t w h i ch su g g es ts t h a t t h e fu t il it y o f th e ' g e s t u r e 'w as ea r l y ap p a ren t t o K i e rk eg aa rcl h i ms e l f an d t h a t h is s u b s eq u en t w r it in g sm i g h t b e b e t t e r u n d e r s t o o d a s a n a t t e m p t e d a c c o m m o d a t i o n t o tha t fac t . Bu t

*Department of P hilosophy, P.O. Box 1024, Blindern, N -0315 Oslo, Norway.161


2/6

162 Alastair Han nayLu k ~ cs s ee s th i s e a r l y g e s t u re a s s e t ti n g t h e p a t t e rn fo r t h e r e s t o f K i e rk e g aa rd ' sl if e. W h a t K i e rk eg aa rd h ad r ea l ly d o n e was s ac r if i ce o rd i n a ry l if e fo r a p o e t ' sex i s tence . Reg ine had to be sacr i f i ced bu t s t il l loved , as the kn igh t o f res igna t ionloved h i s una t ta ina b le p r incess , wi th an idea l i sed love ves ted in a t ransc ende n tbe ing . Luk~ics sugges t s tha t Kie rkeg aard ' s re l ig ios ity der ives f rom h is poe t ' s needfo r a t r an s cen d en t a l l o cu s o f an i d ea li s ed l o v e , b ey o n d t h e f l u c t u a t io n s an dp e t t in e s s o f o rd i n a ry h u m an r e l a t io n s h i p s , a f ic t iv e re l a t i o n s h i p i n wh i ch th eac t u a l o b j ec t o f l o v e n o l o n g e r s t an d s i n th e wa y o f t h a t l o v e (p . 24 ). Th e o rd i n a ryan d eve ryd ay i s sacr if i ced to c rea t iv i ty , bu t wi th the love i t se l f p rese rved in ap u r i f i ed an d ' u n rea l ' f o rm . Lo o k ed a t i n t h is way , th e r e li g i os i ty in K i e rk eg aa rd ' swo rk s is n o t , a s K i e rk eg aa rd p re s en t s i t, a ' s eco n d m o v em en t ' back to rea l i ty fo rwhic h res igna t ion o f one ' s love to a h igher be ing i s a necessary p re l iminary . I t iss imply a re qu i re me nt o f res igna t ion i tse lf ; to p reserve the love in an unrea l fo rmt h e re m u s t b e a t r an s cen d en t G o d t o p re s e rv e it . A l i n e can b e t r aced d i r ec t l yf r o m R e g i ne t o t h e t r a n s c e n d e n ta l G o d o f l o v e ' a b o v e ' a n d ' b e y o n d ' t h e e v e r y d a y' s o m e t i m es y o u ' r e r i g h t , s o m e t i m es I 'm r i g h t ' wo r l d , a Go d fo r i s o l a t ed h u m anb e i n g s ag a i n s t wh o m t h ey a re a l way s i n t h e wro n g .

As Luk~tcs sees i t, Kie rkeg aard i s t ry ing to fo rce a n in t rac ta b le in f in i ty in to am o u l d fo rm ed o f p e r s o n a l l y s i g n if i cant b u t n eces s a ri l y l i fe -d e fy in g ch o i ce s .Ob jec t ive t ime w i th i ts p le t hor a o f poss ib i l i t ies i s f roze n hero ica l ly bu t fa l se ly in tom o m e n t s w h i ch p u rp o r t t o d i s am b i g n a t e an i n h e ren t ly am b i g u o u s r ea l i ty . In t h es u b s e q u e n t Theory of the Novel (1 9 1 6 ) Lu k f i c s was t o s ay t h e am b i g u i t y was ap o l i ti c a l an d t h e re fo re co n t i n g en t f ac t . Th e n o v e l i s t f ab r i ca t e s fo rm s em b rac i n gs u b j ec t an d wo r l d w h e re t h e wo r l d i t se l f o f f e r s n o s u ch v i s ib l e u n i t ie s . ' S o th en o v e l i st ' s p a s s i o n i s a u s e l e ss o n e . H o w m u ch m o re s o t h en t h e p as s i o n wi t hwh i ch o n e m ak es o f o n e ' s o wn l if e a no v e l! K i e rk eg aa rd ' s ' h e ro i s m ' , s ay s Lu k l t e s,was t h a t h e w an t ed t o ' c r ea t e fo rm s f ro m l if e ', he l iv ed 'i n s u ch a way t h a t ev e rym o m en t o f hi s li fe b eca m e ro u n d ed i n t o t h e g ran d g es t u re ' ( p . 4 1 ). K i e rk eg aa rd ' s' h o n e s t y ' w a s t h a t h e ' s a w a c r o s sr o a d s a n d w a l k e d t o t h e e n d o f t h e r o a d h e h a dch o s en ' . H i s ' t r ag ed y ' was t h a t h e wan t ed t o l i v e 'wh a t can n o t b e l i v ed ' (p . 4 0 ) ,s in ce , a l t h o u g h t h e w h o l e o f li fe is th e p o e t ' s r aw m a t e r i a l , b y t ry i n g t o g i ve l im i tand s ign i f icance to ' the de l ique scen t m ass o f rea l i ty ' , he s imply sp i tes tha t rea l i ty .Th e ch o i ce t h e p o e t m ak es i s n ev e r a ch o i ce o f an ab s o l u t e a n d t h e ch o i ce n ev e rma kes h im abso lu te , never a ' th ing in i tse l f an d fo r i t se lf " (p . 40 ) ; the poe t as suchn ev e r t o u ch es b o t t o m . K i e rk e g aa rd ' s g rea t n es s l ay i n t h e sp ec i al s i t u a t i o n an dt a l ent s t h a t en ab l ed h i m t o co n d u c t h is ap p a ren t l y s u cces s fu l c am p a i g n ag a i n s tl i fe ' s necessi ty . Bu t rea l ly , by g iv ing ' every app ear anc e o f v ic to ry and suc cess ' , a l lt h ey d i d was l u re h i m ' d eep e r an d d eep e r ' i n t o ' t h e a l l -d ev o u r i n g d es e r t ' ,Lu k 6cs ' s s ay s , ' l i k e Nap o l eo n i n R u s s i a ' ( p p . 4 0 -4 1 ) .Lu k ~ cs was h i m s e l f l a te r l u red q u i t e l i t e ra l ly i n t o R u s s i a , i n t h e b e l i e f t h a t h ewas a l ig n i ng h i m s e l f co n s t ru c t i v e l y w i t h an h i s t o r i ca l p ro ces s o f h u m an i s a t i o n .S i n ce Lu k t t c s 's R u s s i a p ro v ed t o b e v e ry m u ch a d e s e r t , an d a l l -d ev o u r i n g a t t h a t ,i t is t em p t i n g t o co m p are Lu k ~ tc s 's e a r l y p o r t r ay a l o f K i e rk eg aa rd w i t h t h e fac t so f h i s own l i fe , the be t te r to c la r i fy the d i f fe rences in the i r v iews on sou l , fo rm,l ife , rea l i ty , necess i ty and so on . Mig h t i t no t be tha t Lu k6 cs ' s l i fe , tho ug hp o l it i c al l y en g ag e d a s K i e rk eg aa rd ' s n ev e r was , s ca rce l y t o u ch ed b o t t o m e ith er?.Soul and Form, as t h e t i tl e i n d ica t e s , w as g rea t l y i n f l u en ced b y t h e n eo -K an t i ann o t i o n t h a t h u m a n s u b j ec t i v it y i m p res s e s fo rm s o n an i n ch o a t e m an i fo l d , n o t i nHistory o f European Ideas


3/6

Two Ways o f Coming Bac k to Real i ty 163t h e l i mi t ed ' t ran s cen d en t a l ' co n t ex t w i t h in w h i ch K an t h i ms eK w o rk ed , b u t in th ew i d e r p o s t -H eg e l i an co n t ex t o f h i s to r i ca l f o rm s o f co n s c i o u s n es s w h i ch in c l u d eev e ry t h i n g f ro m an t h ro p o l o g y t o cu l t u r e an d a r t . I n a cen t ra l ch ap t e r , amo n g a llt h e fo rms t h a t co n s c i o u s n es s can t ak e , L u k / u : s c l a i ms a p r i v i l eg ed p l ace fo r' t raged y ' . I t is p r iv i l eged in som eth ing l ike the t rad i t iona l ep i s t em olog ica l sense ,a s i t i s t h e s e l f - co n s c io u s fo rm o f t h e s o u l i n w h i ch r ea l i ty i s f aced m o s t f u l ly an do p en l y , w i th ' d ea t h - - t h e l imi t in it s eh a s an ' ev e r i mm an en t r ea l i ty ' , a t h o u g h tw h i ch q u i t e s o o n g a i n ed cu r r en cy i n H e i d eg g e r ' s ' b e i n g -u n t o -d ea t h ' .

T h e re a r e v a r i o u s w a y s o f in t e rp re ti n g an d r e s p o n d i n g t o t h e fu llack n o w l ed g em en t o f fi n it u d e . T h e K i e rk eg aa rd i an w ay is t o d e s c r i b e t h e fo rm o fconsc iousness in which i t occurs as one o f to ta l i so la t ion in which the se l f ,cons c ious o f f in i tude a s a l imi t , i n t e rp re t s i t se l f as po i sed befo re poss ib i l it i es tha tt ranscen d tha t l imi t . The H eidegg er ian w ay is to ins is t tha t the se l f has no suchposs ib i l it i es and tha t m ank ind ' s poss ib i li t ies a re c i rcum scr ibed by it s ong o ingf in i te p ro jec t s . L uk~cs represen t s a th i rd resp onse . I t i s cus tom ary , fo l lowingG o l d m a n n , t o s a y t h a t L u k ~ c s 's p a t h - b r e a k i n g Histor y a nd C lass C onsciousness(1923) repre sen t s the ove rcom ing o f t ragedy , s B u t , / f t ha t is co r rec t , i t is a so lu t ioni n a s p ec ia l s en s e . L u k ~c s d o es n o t t h i n k t h a t w h a t h e a s se r t s in t h e l a te r b o o k a r et ru t h s y o u can o n l y h av e acces s t o f ro m t h e p r i v i l eg ed p o s i t i o n o f t r ag i cco n s c i o u s n es s. O n t h e co n t r a ry , g en u i n e ly o v e rco mi n g t r ag ed y mean s d i s co v e r -ing tha t the t rag ic fo rm of consc iou sness is ne i ther es sen t ia l nor p r iv i l eged . So int h e s u b s eq u en t w o rk L u k ~cs h as i n e f f ec t r ev is ed h i s n o t i o n o f th e s en s e o ff in i tude as a f fo rd ing p r iv i l eged ep i s t emic access to rea l i ty and now re jec t s the' n a r ro w ' acces s t o r ea l i ty i mp l i ed b y t h e n o t i o n o f an i n d i v id u a l co n s c i o u sn es s .Histo ry and C lass C onsciousness w i d en s t h e ep i s tem o l o g i ca l b a s e t o em b race t h es h a red , co l lec t iv e p e r s p ec ti v e o f th e p ro l e t a r i a t. So t h e m a t u re r L u k ~cs i an v i ew ist h a t w h a t i s n eed ed fo r e s t ab l is h i n g an au t h en t i c r e l a ti o n s h i p t o r ea l it y is n o t t h eind iv idua l sou l ' s t rag ic ins igh t bu t ins igh t in to the ac tua l d i s re la t ionsh ips - -p ro v i s i o n a l , co n t i n g en t t r ag ed i e s o n e mi g h t s ay mt o b e fo u n d i n ex i s t i n gs o c i e t i e s . L u k ~cs t h u s came t o d en y t h a t an x i e t y an d d es p a i r a f fo rd afu n d a m en t a l p e r s p ec t i v e o n t h e h u m an co n d i t i o n , s ee in g i n it s i mp l y ap s y c h o p a t h o l o g i c a l d e t o u r w h i c h c a n a n d s h o u l d b e a v o i d e d .

I t i s n 't d i f f icu l t t o f i n d i n t h e H eg e l i an t h o u g h t t h a t i n s p ir ed m u ch o f L u l ~c s ' sw o rk a r a t io n a l e fo r t h i s s t ep aw ay f ro m s u b j ec ti v e fo rm s o f co n s c i o u s n es s. AH eg e l i an w o u l d f i n d an y a t t emp t t o p ro v i d e a s o l u t i o n t o t h e t r ag i cco n s c i o u s n es s th a t s i mp l y t ak es t h a t f o rm o f co n s c i o u s n es s fo r g r an t ed t o t a l l y' u n d l a lee t i ca l' , a s f f t h e s en s e o f t r ag ed y co u l d b e co n ce i v ed a s in s o m e w ay ane t e rn a ll y v a li d co g n it iv e ach i ev em en t t o b e ch a l k ed u p t o h u m an i t y an d t ak en a ti ts f ace v a l u e . T o d o t h a t w o u l d b e t o a s s u m e t h a t an y ' s o l u t i o n ' m u s t r eg a rd it a san u n s u rp as s a b l e s p i ri tu a l f ac t w h i ch i ts e l f l ay s d o w n t h e co n d i t i o n s fo r h u m anfu l f ilment . I t is p rec i se ly an assu m pt ion o f th is k ind tha t p rov ok es c r ies o f' d ecad en c e ' f r o m H eg e l i an s . W o l f L ep en i e s n ice l y ex p re ss e s t h is i n t h e t h o u g h tt h a t ' th e e l em e n t o f r e fl e ct io n in b o u r g e o i s m e l a n c h o ly w a s n o t a p h e n o m e n o n o fr a t i o n a l t h o u g h t ; r a t h e r , i t r ep re s en t ed a r e t u rn o f d i s em p o w ered s u b j ec t iv i t y t oi t se l f an d t h e a t t em p t t o m ak e a m ean s o f s e l f -co n f i rma t i o n o u t o f t h e i n h i b it i o no f ac t i o n ' . 6 H e re w e h av e t h e co n v en t i o n a l c r i t iq u e o f d ecad en t i s m. T h ep h i l o s o p h y t h a t s eek s s u b j ec ti v e s o l u t io n s t o s u b j ec ti v e p ro b l em s , an d t r ie s i nth is w ay to l eg i t imate the c on d i t ion o f the p rob lem i tse lf , re in te rp re t ing i t as a

Volume 20, Nos 1-3 , January 1995


4/6

164 Alastair Hannaynecessar~ precondition of the solution, is nothing more than melancholy'snarcissistic reflection on itself. Since the solution reflects the problem it does notconstitute a genuine escape. Nor is it hard to see how a Hegelian might readKierkegaard too in this light, for we see once again how Kierkegaard's concept offaith might easily be diagnosed as a de acto acceptance of despair, as simply anattempt to legitimate despair rather than 'overcome' it. To overcome despair inthe style proper to Hegelians, one must locate and define the limited forms ofconsciousness out of which it emerges. Subjectivity and its travails can bepinpointed as bourgeois and in the long term as surpassable contingencies of thehuman condition. Thus idleness and ennui--along with the novel--arise in acertain phase in capitalist society. Inside the frame of that society's own self-image these negative features are given positive interpretations. The subjectivityin which they arise secures its own legitimacy as the medium of authenticity,martyrdom, suffering for the truth, sin and personal redemption, or just plaindecadence which now acquires metaphysical status. But, says this rationale,whatever the flavour of the positive philosophies erected on it, the solutions hereare no less decadent than the problems.But it would be a serious mistake to think that Kierkegaardian subjectivity wasundialectical in this way. The succeeding'spheres' of life do not form solutions toproblems as defined in their predecessors. The 'solution' provided by thereligious stages for example, diagnoses melancholy and despair in religiousterms, and therefore as problems of a quite different kind and description. Thusthere is a deep divide between the ersatz heroisms of authenticity, or 'positive'decadence, and the Kierkegaardian notion that the Good can only evermaterialise in individual wills aligned to tasks done 'consistently' and in 'goodfaith'. The latter amounts to an entirely new form of consciousness, as new andradical as the one that Lukacs adopted when he chose a transindividual solutionto tragic consciousness. It is this genuinely revolutionary feature tha t made otherleft-wing thinkers such as Adorno and Marcuse take Kierkegaard seriously as agenuinely edifying thinker, as when Marcuse concedes that Kierkegaard'sexistentialism 'embod[ies] many traits of a deep-rooted social theory'.7It was just this revolutionary feature that post-World War II existentialismlacked. Without the religious point of view and its heroic promise of a worldsocialised by individual conscience in a distributive relationship to God, thereremained only 'authentici ty' or the cult of subjectivity as an end in itself, whatLuk~cs calls 'bourgeois decadence'. So in a way Lukacs is right about theexistentialists hut much closer to Kierkegaard than he allows, also in the way heprosecutes his version of 'reality' against their common foe, the bourgeoisie.Luk6cs and Kierkegaard are both martyrs to the cause of what they assume is theGood. Even the terms of their cultural criticism run parallel. Most of whatLuk6cs says about decadent literature can be paraphrased in terms of Anti-Climacus's typology of despair. The only terminological difference is that whatKierkegaard calls despair Luk~cs calls irrationality. But since what Luk~cs callsirrationality is the failure to face the possibility of a humanised world in the wayhe believed that must be done, the real disagreement is about the method andcontent of humanisation.Luk~cs systematically ignored the possibility of an unfetishised subjectivity.True to Marxist form, he assumed that the answer to all the travails ofHistory of European Ideas


5/6

Two Ways of Coming Back to Reality 165subjectivity can be given indiscriminately in terms of some transindividual realmof forces to be controlled and diverted so as to produce some special state ofhuman being, a state in which tragedy and despair need no longer occur. As aself-appointed custodian of the 'subjectivities' of the great writers, Dante,Shakespeare, Balzac, Mann, Tolstoy, whose works he interpreted as sources ofinsight into the course that the historical process should take, Luk~cs felt he wasboth saving communism from its anti-humanistic image and preserving aheritage that would one day be the property of the people. A noble andhumanistic aim. I f this was Luk~cs's heroism', we could say that his 'honesty' layin a proved commitment to the belief that literature is the irrational soul'sstriving for expression, with mankind as its topic, and that in order to be 'really'rather than fictiously and decadently about mankind, literature must catch on tohistory. In this way Luk~cs, too, it can be said, walked to the end of the road hehad chosen.What then was Luk~cs's tragedy? To overcome tragedy for Luk~cs's meansovercoming the aesthetics of subjectivity. This too is something he shares withKierkegaard, though with quite different alternatives in mind. The counter-intuitions here in both their cases are due as much to left-wing philosophers asothers, to Adorno, for instance, who saw the 'aesthetic' as a growth point and notjust a locus of sterility and decadence. It seems odd to talk of decadence andsterility in the same breath. Decadence is an integral part of Aristotle's sublunaryworld along with birth and growth, while sterility seems to be an intrusion oftimelessness or eternity. This is just what allows Luk~cs to talk o f the carnival offetishised inwardness as 'permanent '. Making the eternal into a feature of the selfis to lift the self out of reality and leave it in stasis. That indeed i~sterility. But theaesthetic, according to Kierkegaard, is only boring or sterile when developed intoa cult that refusesany kind of continuity, that refuses to impose form on life. TheKierkegaardian idea of the 'eternal' in one's self is not that of fixing a path foronesel f ahead of history and in defiance of reality, as Luk~cs's extrapolationfrom Kierkegaard's 'gesture' on behalf of Regine (and himself) would have usbelieve; it is the idea of there being a constant readiness to solve ethical tasks,precisely by providing a dimension of inner time or continuity which allowshuman (and other) value originally to manifest itself. Form does not founder onlife, it is what makes the life of value possible.

Luk~cs's wanted to live a life for humanism. When he found his bourgeoisclothes ill-suited to the better self he thought he should be, instead of taking theKierkegaardian route via self-conscious nakedness back to reality from aposition of radical choice and ethical resoluteness through faith, Luk~cs reachedresolutely into the wardrobe and grabbed a uniform. He chose the part of amilitant 'we'. Instead of embarking on an inner history, he chose to be directed bythe 'dialectic of the historical process'. 8 Luk~cs saw better than Kierkegaard thetragedy of human exploitation, and his great contribution was to bringhumanising insights to bear on the prevailing Marxist interpretation of thattragedy. But it remained essentially an intellectual contribution, and inKierkegaardian terms therefore also an aesthetic one. Luk~cs managed to livemost of his revolutionary life in a world of literature, supposing that there layhumanity's insight into its own humanisation. Really, he was taking theEuropean heritage hostage, having appointed himself its guardian on behalfofa

Volume 20, Nos 1-3, January 1995


6/6

1 6 6 Alastair Hannayu n i v e r s a l ' w e ' . T h i s d o u b l y v i c a r i o u s p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n th e l if e o f p o e t i cs u b j e c t i v it y w a s L u k ~ tc s 's o w n w a y o f m a k i n g a p o e m o f h is li fe . L u k / t c s 's tr a g e d yw a s h i s fa i l u r e t o s ee t h r o u g h t h e m y t h o f t h e u n i v e r s a l 'w e ' a n d t o d e t e c t it sd e h u m a n i s i n g p o w e r .

University of OsloA l a s t a i r H a n n a y

N O T E S1. G. Luk/Les,Existentialisme ou marxisme? (Paris: N agel, 1948), p. 84.2. G. Luk~cs, Soul and Form (Cam bridge, MA: M IT Press , 1971) . Unp ref ixed pagereferences are to this work.3. G. Luk~ics, The Destruction of Reason (1954) (At lant ic Highlands, NJ: Humani t iesPress, 1981), p. 296 .4. G. Luk/tcs, Theory of the Novel (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press , 1971) .5. G. Luk/lcs, History and Class Consciousness (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press , 1971) .6. W. Lepenies, Melancholy and Society (1969) (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univers i tyPress, 1992), p. 153.7. H. Mareuse, Reason and Revolutiolt" Hegel and the Rise of Social Theory (Boston:Bea con Press, 1941), 1960 edn ., p. 264.8 . Stephen Spender , 'Wi th Lul~cs in Budapest ' , Encounter (De cem ber 1964), p . 55.

History of European Ideas

Documents

Hannay Alastair - Two Ways of Coming Back to Reality [Kierkegaard & Lukacs]