Henri Lefebvre: A Critical Introduction - autonomous learning

Henri Lefebvre: A Critical Introduction - autonomous learning Henri Lefebvre: A Critical Introduction - autonomous learning

selforganizedseminar.files.wordpress.com
from selforganizedseminar.files.wordpress.com More from this publisher
02.07.2013 Views

M o M e n t s thesis follows a deliberately winding path, full of bewildering twists and turns and shifts of melody and tonality. In the Situationists he recognizes a new avant-garde generation, different from the “Lost” or “Beat” generations, angrier and more realistic than the Surrealists, and less angry and more humorous than Lefebvre’s generation of communists. “The most brilliant Situationists,” Lefebvre suggests, “are exploring and testing out a kind of lived utopianism, by seeking a consciousness and a constructive activity which will be disalienating, in contradistinction to the alienated structures and alienating situations which are rife within ‘modernity.’ ” 39 And yet, he cautions, we mustn’t accredit too much to the Situationists and their ilk. After all, youth is an age, not a social class, and thus they cannot fulfill any “historical mission.” “Yes, because it is an avant-garde, it scours the future. It marches in the vanguard, scanning and prefiguring the horizon;” but, no, it cannot change life alone, not without soliciting the help of an organized working class. Transforming hypothetical exploration into a political program, into an applicable plan, plainly requires real participation: real unified practice. 40 Lefebvre’s conclusion to Introduction to Modernity—which seems to be introducing his notion of a modernity to come—is simply that there are indications of a “new attitude” drifting in the breeze: revolts, acts of insubordination, protests, abstentions, and rebellions are, he says, there to be seen and felt; Stendhal is a man of the late twentieth century. Stendhal took the pleasure principle as his opening gambit, and “in 1961,” Lefebvre goads, “can we bring the pleasure principle back as a foundation, a starting point, and believe in the creative virtues of pleasure?” 41 —a question we still need to confront today. What the romantics saw around them then, and what the “new romantics” see around them now, is a world no longer governed by constraints: “in the name of lived experience,” Lefebvre notes (p. 291), they reject scientism and positivism and find their place in a chaos of contradictory 37

H e n r i L e F e b v r e feelings in a society riven by upheavals, convulsions, and irresolvable conflicts. “This offered their extravagant subjectivities a total—or apparently total—adventure.” Stendhal’s romanticism affirmed disparate elements of society: “women, young people, political rebels, exiles, intellectuals, who dabbled in deviant experiments (eroticism, alcohol, hashish), half-crazed debauchees, drunks, misfits, successive and abortive geniuses, arrivistes, Parisian dandies and provincial snobs.” 42 This ragged, motley array of people attempted to live out, within everyday bourgeois society, their ideal solutions to bourgeois society, challenging its moral order, surviving in its core, “like a maggot in a fruit,” trying to eat their way out from the inside. They sought to reinvent the world. And using all their powers of symbolism, imagination, and fiction, a new subjectivity was born, a new lived experience conceived; outrageous fantasy succeeded in shaping grubby reality. Could, wonders Lefebvre, a “new romanticism” do the same in the 1960s? Could a “new” new romanticism do it at the beginning of the twenty-first century? And who are the “maggots” eating their way out from the inside of our rotten society? 3

H e n r i L e F e b v r e<br />

feelings in a society riven by upheavals, convulsions, and irresolvable<br />

conflicts. “This offered their extravagant subjectivities a<br />

total—or apparently total—adventure.”<br />

Stendhal’s romanticism affirmed disparate elements of society:<br />

“women, young people, political rebels, exiles, intellectuals,<br />

who dabbled in deviant experiments (eroticism, alcohol, hashish),<br />

half-crazed debauchees, drunks, misfits, successive and abortive<br />

geniuses, arrivistes, Parisian dandies and provincial snobs.” 42<br />

This ragged, motley array of people attempted to live out, within<br />

everyday bourgeois society, their ideal solutions to bourgeois society,<br />

challenging its moral order, surviving in its core, “like a maggot<br />

in a fruit,” trying to eat their way out from the inside. They<br />

sought to reinvent the world. And using all their powers of symbolism,<br />

imagination, and fiction, a new subjectivity was born, a<br />

new lived experience conceived; outrageous fantasy succeeded in<br />

shaping grubby reality. Could, wonders <strong>Lefebvre</strong>, a “new romanticism”<br />

do the same in the 1960s? Could a “new” new romanticism<br />

do it at the beginning of the twenty-first century? And who are<br />

the “maggots” eating their way out from the inside of our rotten<br />

society?<br />

3

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!