In 1926: living at the edge of time - Monoskop

ACTION = IMPOTENCE
(TRAGEDY)
For the young journalist Siegfried Kracauer, "Tragedy" belongs to a set
of concepts whose connotations of depth compromise intellectual honesty
in an age that believes in exteriority and surfaces. [see Gomina,
Movie Palaces, Stars] "Truth is threatened only by the naive affirmation
of cultural values that have become unreal and by the careless misuse of
concepts such as 'personality,' 'inwardness,' 'tragedy,' and so on-terms
which in themselves certainly refer to lofty ideas but which have lost
much of their scope, along with their supporting foundations, due to
social changes. Furthermore, many of these concepts have acquired a bad
aftertaste because they unjustifiably deflect an inordinate amount of
attention from the external damages caused by society onto the private
individual" (Kracauer, 314). Kracauer subscribes to an ethical position
which, on the assumption that individuals are widely determined by their
social environment, denies that they can be held responsible for their
Actions. [see Murder, Individuality vs. Collectivity] As he seems to suggest,
this perspective is indeed incompatible with the classical concept of
Tragedy, which deals with individuals entangled in the conflicting demands
of different value systems. Tragic agents may choose one value
system, but they will always be guilty vis-a-vis the other-and it is
precisely this state of individual (often inescapable) guilt which Kracauer
is no longer willing to accept.
Even those intellectuals whom Ernst Robert Curti us refers to as
"eagerly breathing the air of tragedy" (Curtius, 231) would probably
351