Romanticism and proto-postmodernism: rejecting meta-narratives before WWII (Berger, 79, 84)
Romanticism was the hallmark of anti-enlightenment thinking. The disillusionment from the profound thinking and indelible ideas left much to be desired. The will for revolution and its incumbent failure only furthered the nihilistic agenda. Preceding the postmodern fragmentation of society, romantics saw the false promises and responded ferociously.
Romanticism was a reactionary movement to the amazing enlightenment. A time of new ideas and intellectual discussions. The hope for an innovative change was marshalled in the west. The church bells ringing children singing and women dancing. What a time to be alive. The end of feudalism and the rise of capitalism meant more liberties for the individual. The harmony and balance that dazzled the aspirations has muddled into scepticism and nepotism. The once jolly visionaries folded on the quest for the treasure. The treasure map was a lie. They were duped on an endless journey. They must push back, it isn’t too late. The promises have not been kept, they have yet to materialise. Oppression is still the namesake of the day. The world more murkier than the days past. The hype muddled into scrutiny. Challenging the unfulfilled claims and criticising its inadequacy. Revolutions haven’t brought the envisioned change, they have only furthered the suffering of the downtrodden. They were struggling before and they are still struggling now.
Revolutions cut ties with the traditional world. The devastation of the monarchy and the church invoked secularism as the replacement. Yet the individualistic persona paraded by the enlightenment was reeling into absurdity. The pioneer cited for his autonomic quest, for his freedom, has begun to renege on this gift. This gift placed him in the wild with no protection. No shelter nor insight to make one. He had land but unable to farm it well. He has given his dues to the capitalist to tenure his land while he pays off the debt. The Industrial Revolution reinforced the individualistic persona. Yet in the end the individual ended up as a cog in a machine. He was a worker in a factory. Gruelling conditions and amateur defences. His status remained unchanged. He was legally emancipated. He was a free man but a free man in an enclosed camp. He could freely wander the extent of the camp but his ability to develop beyond was severely limited. Revolutions were supposed to remove the aristocratic nature of society and yet they remain. He did not own his own land to farm nor a company to run. He was a peasant for another lord. A self-proclaimed lord. He was a piece of the lord’s machine. A replaceable piece that ensured he would work no matter what.
Romantic man was a destitute counterrevolutionary. A man alone in the jungle. The government was either hands off or in strictly elitist hands. The capitalists ran the show without any resistance. Romantic man complained of these dire conditions. He was worked to the bone. There was no protection. He had lost his community and forsaken God. The secularism overshadowed the serenity of the spirit but lay in the dark past. The individual had lost everything. He had packed up all his clothes and sold all his extraneous possessions. He followed the Messiah across the plains for the Messiah to retract his word soon thereafter. He has served a lie. A lie that cost him everything. He has betrayed his past and was too deep. He was an individual with little reversal to the old ways. Religion was the past. The Messiah had stolen his innocence. Yet he had also not reached the promised land. His old community is insufficient for him. He has grown but insufficiently. He is no longer naive but he is still far removed from hope. He is stuck in a passive middle ground. He looked for the exotic to provide some peace from the physical torture. He couldn’t return to his communal naivety but his quest for spiritual excess was internal. He sought some salvation from his new way.
Failures of the enlightenment only garnered more desire to return to the old days. Missing the aura of the medievals. A time of collectivism and nationalistic ethos. A way back to how things were before the failed promises were made. The majestic colouring clouded the trenches of the Middle Ages. The disasters of the medieval persecution were overshadowed. The tenacity of folklore highlighted the old glory lost to the devil’s ploy. The medieval aura was was a sublime period. A period of stability and spiritual wonder. The good ol’ days. Suffocating in the modern age the medieval period was harmonious and protective. The romantic climate was hostile and asymmetric. The peasantry had different masters but without their metaphysical shields. They looked back to the medieval age as a time glorious and advantageous. Dreaming of the past as a worthwhile alternative. Their examination of individual perception of the struggle and the terror that accompanied, heightened the hero’s journey. It was one of maturity without glory, without results. A destitute smarter but still suffering under the cruel conditions. At least prior he was less aware of changing them. No hope didn’t grab his heart to say his mind.
Realists who follow romantics carefully refuted the latter’s exaggerations. The obsession with the medieval sublime was a wholehearted lie. A deception crafted by the conscious mind to salvage the horror of the day. Well if only society returned to the primitive oppression. The realists focused on the actual picture. While recognising the romantic plight they toned down the jargonist exploitation of the medieval age. The spiritual pursuit was atypical. It wouldn’t solve the issue. Instead of complaining do something about it. Act and alter the course of the world. The romantics were the first stage in shifting the direction. They compounded the decades with polemic after polemic. Resisting the meta-narratives of tranquillity. Eden wasn’t coming. Yet the realists saw a childish failure on their predecessors’ end. The exaggerations were beyond the pale. The strawman superman of the Middle Ages was a lie contorted into a devilish truth. The spirit of the past was a truly marvellous phenomenon. A place of joy and laughter. Overlooking the horrid displeasure of the unenlightened fools. A place of fidelity to a regal child of tyrannical oversight. Enlightened novices are the danger to the world of the day.
Alongside realists, modernists furthered the metaphysical end with scientific truth. Replacing the spirit with practical results. Realist empiricism flaunted its might but failed to capture the host of rational thinking. Bacon’s rejection of the medieval onslaught was parried with betrayers in his midst. His move wasn’t enough. Senses were restricted to the subjective strata. Unable to permanently lie as the cornerstone of objective criteria. Modernism sought to fill in the gaps of the previous limitations. Only secularist rationalism could solve the dangers of the day. Following the end of WWI, modernism entered the fray of the liberal push. Extending the envelope further. Conservative adults were outmatched by the youthful charm for exploration. Political revolution has steadily reemerged in the social stratosphere. Society will change not by revolution but by rebellion. Many a time by youthful visionaries who desired to see a different world. Teenagers with an authority complex. Modernism had yet to refute the objective links. Tracing the changes by a thread. Rebutting the religious traditions while upholding the secular universalism. Science and politics would guide the way. Humanism was the tract to abide by. This would usher in the utopia. The humanist themes shedding the religious dogma would curtail the last holdouts. It was a matter of time. The economic crash was harsh on the world and what would’ve been if not WWII is speculative but the war like its predecessor though on a massively greater scale shifted the world into disarray.
Postmodernism quietly developed during the silent generation. The post-war era was mute. Horrified at the destruction. Unlike the first war, there was no liberation to celebrate no victory to tolerate. The world was exposed to hell and hell it mourned. Yet this hell wasn’t over, Korea and Vietnam slowly followed. While these were American-centric cases, the impact of the space race, globalisation and youthful spunk verified a new change. WWII was horrifying but under the guise of the modern age and the industrial revolution. The promises were undermined. The youth were born into a generation which saw the claims of old crumble into oblivion. The liberation for a new future without any recourse to the past. Liberalism had been pushed to the other. Technology at its all time pursuit to some degree failing in its humanistic efforts. All must be deconstructed. All must be questioned. Nothing is as it seems. The assault on the objectivity that was slowly crumbling. The pieces that fragmented were glued back together only to be fractured further. Modernism attempted to redirect optimism toward a new age. Freedom was in sight under the humanistic democracy. Yet WWII and Vietnam slowly eroded those dreams.
Modernists were critical of their realists predecessors. Just as the romantics were critical of their enlightenment predecessors. Yet the modernists were more aligned with the romantics. Meaning that their critiques were seemingly extension of the earlier explosive romantic claims. Modernists rebelled against the current state of affairs. Seeking new solutions yet believing there was an objective alternative. Traditional models were no longer helpful but a new model was plausible. The Nietzschean nihilism wasn’t as flowering as many modernists assumed. The existential was pervasive in the individualistic paradigm. The subjective laces that encompassed the individual but said individual was a part on objective matrix. Yet the Nietzschean assumption for a new path forward was hallmarked by modernists whether with women’s rights or workers’ rights. Modernists fell short to live the dream of the democratic hope. The reason and logic of the enlightenment was refuelled by modernists who sceptically sought new humanistic outlets. Yet the Nazis, atomic bomb and the Cold War only hindered a guide to ecstasy. All this was going on and the oppressed were still under the thumb of the presumed liberators. The innovators were still living in the past.
Civil rights and gay rights pushed the envelope further to include all under the law. As the Cold War became more disgruntled, the youth advocated for more change. The internal chasm had distanced further. The youth were experimenting for a while but the renewed liberty wished to expand to others. The youthful celebration was a catalyst for consideration to these groups. Instead of revolution, rebellion would pay the toll. Rebellion against everything. The glue had no further hold. Science, politics and religion were tied up in the ideological monism. A new wave of relativism would be the humanistic avenue. Globalisation interlocked humanity. Nationalism fell to the trans-humanism of collectivism. Subjectivity was the truth but community was the sinister spider web. Romantic reels were relinking the ostracised tribes to the united field of vision. No more binaries. No more black and white. Evildoers were more complex, people were more complicated. Everything had more to say than the face exposed. There is so much lurking under the darkness. Shout to the world and break through the screen inhibiting progress.
Postmodernists didn’t call for revolution in the romantic sense. It was more critiques. Sorrows and complaints. Legitimate agony over the failed expectations. “Marxism” reemerging in the poststructuralist school rekindled the Frankfurt schools ideas. Expanding the role of the cultural issues to all sorts of globalised issues. For the first time youngsters stepped up. The protestors weren’t intellectuals but students aspiring for more change. The rebellious attitude found familiarity with the romantic assault. While different in nature and in stature, the drama and dissent was strong in both cases. The push in revolutionary directions was ironclad and forceful. Pushing for changes across the world externally and internally. Socialist movements were gaining traction. A new might for the new left and liberation clause. The new left and socialist movements were akin to the liberal movements seeking to change the world. Revolutions were external and internal. Abolitionist movements found the romantic turmoil to be inspiring and impassioning. The romantics sought to invoke a new perspective on the seemingly failed system. The same goes for the postmodernists (post-structuralists). The postmodern agenda has only secreted further into the social enterprise. The cultural revolutions of sixties are playing out even stronger as the digital age has publicised more corruption. The lefty rebellion for safe spaces, pro-abortion, hormone therapy has only credibly expanded the scope of the identity crisis.
The gruelling measure of postmodernism began with strict cynicism. The power of the rebellion of the deconstructionists challenged every frame. No stone unturned. Well except one. The Marxist spirit in its revolutionary and sometimes radical Stalinist orientation sought change at the behest of others. If others get hurt along the way it is okay since liberation is the ultimate goal. The romantics in their claims found alliances with those who felt similarly. The grassroots groups were tribally adherent to the coercive elements. Additionally to their one-sided success stories, they attempted to compel institutional power to travel alongside their cause. If the state wouldn’t assist then the government would do so but if the government was sceptical to their cause they would support the state instead. With some differences to the revolutionary candidates of the romantic era, the postmodernists sought rebellious attitudes over toppling the system. The issue is cultural then political. By electing into the government and pushing enough they could funnel their ideas onto the state. A less violent and more effective sympathy game than the bloody revolutions of the nineteenth century.
Today there are dissenters to the postmodernism paradigm. Many see them as right wingers or traditionalists (at times using harsher language). The neo-realists have emerged in the form of meta-modernists. Challenging both claims of tradition and deconstruction. Permitting identity but also questioning the pragmatic nature. Challenging governmental intervention by both sides. Neither for or against abortion or gay marriage just that each person ought to decide. The libertarian rise is less laissez-faire and more critical. Open to public education and health care but also cynical of their quality. Seeing the world as it really is once again. Empiricism has revamped itself. Science and rationality with some spirituality. Fellow right wingers have jumped on this train and at times extended to their camp which is against the policy of this meta-modern group. Reckon with the absurd world but find meaning. This middle ground rejects the Neo-liberal position the harshest, replacing it as the centrist policy. Distrusting media but hoping to reinvigorate trust in institutions. It is a new type of deconstruction. It doesn’t question every concept but decodes the conclusions and paints them as they are. Are the lefty intellectuals grifters and screamers? Are conservatives cringe and archaic? Both sides are opposed to one another and yet are deeply flawed. Challenging the paradigms for the realistic picture.
Pragmatism began after the romantic failure. Moore and Russel also raged against idealism that prominently inspired the revolutionary conduct. Realism identified the exaggerated mess that was the revolutionary current of post-enlightenment failures. While justified in their disagreements, realism attempted to minimise the bold claims for an honest projection of the difficulties. The scientific gesture was a way forward for the logician. The idealists were too experientially minded. The revolutionary mindset could be mitigated by scientific structuralism. The science of the emerging metaphysical revival would point to a conclusive future. The pragmatic nature of evolving change, of gradual development seemed to bind the middle ground between the seeming analytical modernist future and the romantic chaos. While Hegelian idealists were quite set on their path their path was the abstract boogeyman instead of the robber in plain sight. Pragmatism acted as the catalyst for an oscillated split between the objective and subjective between the metaphysical and the natural. The cynicism of romantics was not always dually revolutionary but angered at the volatile nature of failed enlightenment ideals.
While it may not be fair to group these late nineteenth century thinkers into the artistic categories that swept the nation. Though while they necessarily catalogued in these themes they do present an abstract offering. If Schopenhauer and Nietzsche were of the romantic breed than their successors would be realists and so forth. Yet what is so pivotal in the arts is its criticism and satire. The artistic placement was heavily doused with the emotional baggage of that era. Philosophy may live in the abstract but the arts were reflective personas even if a bit exaggerated in the romantics. Before endowing the artists and authors who imprinted the eventual philosophical discourse. Reckoning with the cynical assault on the post-enlightenment era. From Fighte through Schelling and Kierkegaard. Not all romantics were idealists. Schopenhauer hated idealism and Nietzsche hated Schopenhauer. Yet the pragmatists attempted to revive a sense of sensibility that was furthered by the analytical philosophers. While Russell was dismayed with pragmatism, Moore’s major publication was quite connected to the pragmatist ideals. Analytical philosophy’s roots in anglophone identity began with James at Harvard passed to Moore in England who alongside Russell began the analytic drive which furthered into the Vienna Circle. While spreading to Western Europe, it has remained a dominant anglophone study. Russell furthered the enlightenment phase in the logical stage of logical development. The modernist metric can be seen in the anglophone measures as the continental stream was setting in through Husserl’s phenomenology and its implications in the post-WWII world. Phenomenology famously made its way to France with the inspiration from Levinas influenced a new age of thinkers. Though the writings of Lukacs, Benjamin and the Frankfurt school cannot be ignored.
Though it is more pressing that the arts captured more than the philosophers refracted from their times. The enlightenment age addressed new change to the world. Ideas of secular humanism never seen before. Yet these revolutionary details were lacking in their profound impact to everyone. The logic of the enlightenment was overlayed. It failed to depict the common man nor salvage from the derailment of his ineptitude. The return to medieval ideals was a step backward to the joys of supernal serenity. While the individaul was tormented with the secular push away from the defied lifestyle. Cynical attitudes outlined the imported generation. The individual was a lone questing for paradise. Logic was not the solution it was nature. It was experience that would raise man from the depths of hell. Emerson is a perfect example of someone so entrenched in the natural. Emotion was prioritised in asserting a common folk identity. Milton and Blake are further examples of the poetic charm. Austin’s cultural criticism is the heightened emotional state of the downtrodden. The spiritual demeanour provides a bridge to the seemingly disastrous pit of the enlightenment. While the criticisms weren’t as upfront as their postmodern counterparts like Vonnegut, it was a start. Yet their criticisms were more optimistically directed toward a new life. There is a better method follow the light it will take you there.
Dickens, Tolstoy and Dostoevsky were the next wave of critical writers. Each portrayed the reality of his area as he conceived it. The novels were journalistic essays of the tumultuous identity. Focusing on different areas to argue and project. Dickens even published his books in newspapers bimonthly gaining the realistic perfection of the public. Arguing against the Hegelian motif of aristocratic identity. While logic and truth were reimposed they were done through the author’s claims. Many naturalists were offended by the existential drama over the circumstantial issues. Attacking the social layout without taking into account the economic underpinnings that carried the dismissal with it. There was a sense of bias and positivism in their ideas as pointed by later marxists. For the realists, empiricism was retuned to deal with issues at hand. Yet even their attempts to truly grab the reality as it was proved difficult. The polemical utility of the Russian writers infected their own disdain for objective reality. They were photographers. Cataloguing each event into the next story of the newspaper. Modernist rejections believed that they were using the wrong camera. Their stories were mundane and they lacked true honest character. Logic and empiricism is great until it cannot actually diagnose the problem. Yet it wasn’t as if modernism lasted too long either. The universals of modernism slowly faded over time. While the global community has been connected via the internet, nationalistic identification and even more so tribal mentalities of all different kinds are marching through the wings of the study hall.
Meta-modernity or to some degree a post-postmodernism is heavily conflated by the renewed tribalism. Whether meta-modernism has occurred or not there has been an interesting turn since corona. While many ideals remain the same with the bulldozing efforts on both ends of the political spectrum, there is a rising conservative side in the upcoming generation. Meta-modernism in the contemporary age is not one that predicts fragmentation. Yet it is happening slowly but surely. People are breaking out of their spellbound cocoons. Plurality amongst individuals is expanding and yet permitted. Those placed outside the circuit are accepted. There is a pragmatic attitude that justifies the diffusion. Being anti-war may still be a minority but it isn’t that small anymore. The libertarian party hasn’t necessary grown but it has entertained third party voters. If not for some RFK controversial points he may be winning in the polls though he has gained incredible momentum. While this is a more americanised phenomenon it is relevant in other parts of the world. Dogmas are rescinding. Change is inevitable. Being a walking contradiction is becoming normalised. The marxian motif seems to persist in its anti-oppressor ideal but it remains to be seen how extreme or if there will be a reversal. While liberal ideas have pushed and pushed the conservative strand may attempt to undo the fascinated aspirations of the liberal apparatus. Mata-modernism has trekked deeper into the abyss of liberal sanctimonious idealism.
The marxian duality is affixed into the sanctum of global identity. There is always an oppressed and oppressor. Each situation no matter the situation falls into that spirit. Ukraine and Palestine are the oppressed and Russia and Israel the oppressor. An extension of the victimisation of meta-modern philosophy. To some degree it’s the duality of structural incongruence. Yet meta-modernism finds its literary synthesis with the likes of Murakami and Wallace. Writers who are quite different than the postcolonial archetypes. While claims concerning Wallace’s meta-modern pursuits have infected a generation, the topic of choice is surrounded by the dualistic systemic discrimination. Yet Wallace’s “invention” has invaded popular culture. Anime has become mainstream in the somber mature prose of BoJack and Rick and Morty. Music amongst young youtubers has combined different remixes into enjoyable listening. The ironic but simultaensouly sincerity of life. Bo Burnham’s sets combine these elements into a comedic laugh at both sides. Yet this model is quite different than the youthful racial scheme on campuses across the country. If meta-modernism is a search for a new meta-narrative and renewed trust in institutions we have yet to arrive at that point. Though the seasonal gimmick playing out on the internet have fast-tracked a new cultural affinity. Cynicism is finally making its way into the governmental sphere. The true rejection of the bourgeois is upon us.
To be frank the use of these philosophical terms is grossly overestimated. The degree to the nature of the romantics as spiritualists as well as a revolutionaries with the Hegelian spirit is quite unique. Where the pragmatists and the modernists differ is in their recreation of metaphysical narratives. Arts reflect the time. The romantic interest with medieval spirituality and individualism sought to cope with the industrial shifts that were all too good to be true. The onslaught of the failed promises. Meta-narratives dying out. Parried in paintings and poetry. The realists emerged as urbanisation furthered and liberalism indented the harsh experience. The revolutionaries found nationalism as a collective piece of the puzzle. The end of the nineteenth century added human pieces to the produce of democratised unity. The revolutionaries had declined to rebels with a cause. Moderns ushered in the post-world war stage with a new globalised element and a promise of democracy. Liberal motives persisted as the technological basis and secular attitude held sway with scientific jargon. Religious themes still held sway but technology was the future. Yet WWII ended any such positivity. With the Cold War following pessimism snuck in once again. Satirically and then polemically denouncing the meta-narratives. Though the strongest objection was not with the postmodernists in the sixties but the 2010s. The cultural revolution was impressive but it is only in the past decades that the deconstruction has fully unveiled those broken promises.
The pro-lefty ideals of contemporary college campuses aren’t postmodernists. They aren’t even critical theorists. They are activists. Activists who no longer protest passively but issue force for their cause. Who partake in the global conversation no matter the age. Immaturity is not an exclusionary variable. The internet has boldened the issues of today on the main screen with media harassing the viewer daily. While there have been some satirical ironies in media it is insufficient. The tribal warfare and dogmatics are dividing the contemporary debate stage. It is an us-them paradigm. There is little nuance and people pleasing is the name of the game. Society has yet to turn over the next stone. Stuck in the finger pointing party shaming immaturity. The narrow-minded echo chambers. Largely exaggerated ideals that will not displace the human conscience. The phobias are at stake. To be left is not to push against the grain but to trample everyone who disagrees. To be right is not to defend liberty but to promote religious agendas on those who aren’t affiliated. The romantics were salvaged by the realists. Some of the fabulous writers: Tolstoy, Dickens and Dostoevsky still ring true today. Their message is generous even if imperfect. The failure of the modernists was their universalism and perfected caricature of humanity. The realists had their faults but their quest for values employed positive marks for the future.
Yet it was the pragmatists that had the biggest impact. While Bergson was probably the most important figure as he flowed into the continental stream with Husserl, it is Pierce’s semiotics and James’ radical empiricism that can be greatly educated. The unorthodox untraditional models were heavily abandoned by the Vienna Circle as quickly as they came. Yet there is much beauty in their ideas that do not run the route of regal logic. Their ideas are emblematic of a realistic proposal as well as empirically identifying. It is not all science and it is not all divine. It is about the world. It wasn’t mathematically sound for the logicians of the modern age. Yet it is their straightforward ideals that can salvage the damning system. What is needed is a retooled approach. One that looks to the other and sceptically deduces. The realists somewhat successfully mellowed out the exaggerated romantics but it did little to quench their thirst for complacency. The metaphysical truth of the modern age could not hold and the postmodernists undercut its efforts. In the revolution of change the final order is to redirect the government. It doesn’t need to be saved, it doesn’t need to demolished, it just needs be fixed. Protested and retooled. The pragmatic maxim may help but it is also a difficult trek. It requires seeking beyond the self and critically examine the issue. To be open to multiplicity and apparent current age hypocrisy. To be pro-gay marriage but anti-abortion or pro-transition but anti-inclusive sports. Recognising the faults but not dragging them to the extreme.
Romanticism provided a similar narrative to the postmodernists. Genuine grievances of a bygone promise. Some development was accorded but temporarily. The solutions were exaggerated in their own right. New promises hiding the old ones. Repainting the dead wall. Switching the lever but not actually managing the issue. The enlightenment failed so new revolution but the revolutions failed so expansionism but that failed so inclusivity but that failed. It is all by the power of the oppressor. The irony is that the neo-stalinists are turning into an oppressor. Using institutional power to affect change as if they were shareholders in a fortune five hundred company. The selected people have a voice, the shareholders, not the everyday citizen. While their version is only a tad more diabolical than the conservatives and their religious dogma. Forever failing to hold up the basic rights by issuing religious doctrines under the guise of science or morality. To reject both is the first step into a greyish character. Overcoming the meta-modern psychosis is the Burnham skits mocking both sides of the aisle. Everyone has expectations that need to be lowered whether guy or girl. Attacking the confident malarky of charlatanism. A ploy for likes and votes. The failed superman. The Nietzschean hope of the lone wolf who seeks his prey to provide for his family instead of the herded sheep. The pragmatist seeks to see the word with wonder and optimism even in the sceptical derision.
Pondering and questioning in hope of a next level. The realisation that there is a truth that may not be revealed, that the sublime of the other is soulful. It is knowing enough but still certain there is more to know. It is a matter of integrity in the face of true individualism. An individualism that is beloved by the group not due to any coercion nor desire to be accepted. The cycle repeats himself and the meta-narratives have fallen twice, pragmatism may be the way to end the cycle. If each side tries to outwit the other the end is nowhere in sight. More of these supposed meta-narratives will come and go. Promises will falter and more scepticism will reign free over the good citizenry. Yet if the individual respects others and himself to uphold his own moral code and distinguishes a newfound responsibility for the sublime honour of complexity, there may be hope for change.
No comments:
Post a Comment