Strength and Weakness of Lucien Goldmans Claim - Essay Example

Strength and Weakness of Lucien Goldmann’s Claim: History of Novel is Homologous with History of Socio-economic Structures Novel, as one of the most popular and critically acclaimed literary genres, has evoked a great deal of debates regarding its definition among scholars of literature as well as artists. Though there are several instances amidst the broad scenario of world literature that can be regarded as attempts of novel writing, however, novel, as a specific and separate literary genre did not emerge until 18th century (Boulton 9). Compared to other literary genres, a novel encompasses within its elaborate scope, realistically or metaphorically, true impression of the contemporary society. Thus, both perception and definition of novel have changed in different times, according to nature of the contemporary socio-economic structure. In this context Terry Eagleton, while attempting to define novel as a literary genre, has suggested, “The novel presents us with a changing, concrete, open-ended history rather than a closed symbolic universe. Time and narrative are of its essence” (Eagleton 3).” According to this observation, emergence and transformation of novel has a close connection with socio-economic and cultural transformation. Several scholars of literature, due to this aspect, has regarded the genre of novel writing as an important document that provides sufficient reflection of socio-economic structures in different times. Lucien Goldmann’s claim regarding the history of novel as homologous with history of socio-economic structures and his argument in support of such observation have provided a stronger foundation to the issue that a close connection exists between history of novel and socio-economic structures. However, in the post modernist social discourse, Goldmann’s homology has encountered certain disruptions. Goldmann has actually reached this point of conclusion regarding homology between history of novel and socio-economic structures through his specific attention on economic condition of a society. Due to such focus over economic trends, he has greatly ignored the aspect of aesthetic appeal of novels. Consequently, his observation has failed to explain the post modern socio-economic trends, which is also greatly dependent over contemporary cultural trends in society and the universalism of Goldmann’s homology loses its appeal to a certain extent. While finding the aspect of homology between socio-economic structures and the history of novel, apart from Marx, works of Lukacs and Rene Girard have also casted considerable influence over Goldmann’s interpretation. On one hand, the Marxian discourse has helped him to consider the essential healthy relationship between man and property that leads an individual to explore the “utility-value”. On the other hand using the issue of “utility-value” for the purpose of market production has generated the sensibility that an individual is gradually becoming eliminated from the healthy relationship between him and property (Gray and Gray et al 129). Goldmann’s finding of such relationship between an individual and his socio-economic environment has led him to define novel as a form, which acts as “…the transportation on the literary plane of daily life in individualist society born of production for the market. There exists a rigorous homology between the literary form of the novel … and the daily relationships, in a free market society, of men with property generally, and of men with other men” (Goldmann; Gray and Gray et al 129-130). In support of his interpretation regarding homology between socio-economic structures and history of novel, Goldmann has also provided a historical periodisation of novel as a literary genre. Through this attempt, he has actually attempted to show how status of a protagonist changes according to the transformation of basic humane values. These changes, according to Goldmann, are “relatively distinct stages in the development of capitalist society” (Gray and Gray et al 130). Depending over his observation regarding a protagonist’s changing perception of basic values that are required to enjoy a healthy social existence he has defined novel as “the story of a search for authentic values in degraded mode, in a degraded society” (Goldmann; Bennett 93). Golgmann’s periodisation of novel as a form can broadly be classified into two sections, namely the “classical novels” and “modern novels: from Kafka to Camus’ The Stranger, Sartre’s Nausea, Beckett’s novels, and the contemporary New Novel” (Goldmann and Mayrl 79). According to Goldmann, novels belonging to the second category, despite having elements of “undeniable interest”, are “insufficient” as these creations do not have enough capacity to focus over the process of conversion and how such conversion ultimately influence artistic, rather, literary creations. He feels that scope of the classical novel and liberal economy is similar as “Like the liberal economy, the universe of the classical novel recognizes only one explicit value: the individual and his development in a world at once familiar and strange to him” (Goldmann and Mayrl 79). Such observation has led him to reach the conclusion that “the novel is at once a biography and a social chronicle” (Goldmann and Mayrl 79). It becomes clear from Golgmann’s interpretation regarding history of novel he is mostly interested in providing highest degree of importance to the domain of classical novel and as he finds an explicit connection with liberal economy, he reaches the conclusion that there always exists a homology between socio-economic structures and history of novel. There is no denial of the fact that Goldmann’s observation is quite fitting for 19th century novels as the homology between liberal capitalist individualism and contemporary novel writing tradition is explicit. These novels have also become biographical for Goldmann as he interprets the author similar with problematic protagonist in the society, engaged in the quest for “authentic values” (Cohen 190). However, weakness of Goldmann’s claim becomes clear as soon as we attempt to apply his interpretation in the novels of bourgeois era because during this phase of time an individual’s class consciousness becomes confusing. Novels, belonging to the second category according to Goldmann’s classification, do not represent any such class consciousness; rather we see that protagonists actually hail from middle class section of the society and their suffering or quest for values are mainly emerged from existential crisis, generated from their existence in an extremely utilitarian society. Protagonists of the new novels are confused regarding their actual identity and their perception by the society. Their respective economic status is not the actual reason that led to their existentialist anguish. The conventional notion about social structure or hierarchy gradually faded away and an individual’s confused perception about himself or herself became most important within the domain of New Novel writing trends. In this context, it would not be incorrect if it is said that Goldmann’s periodisation of novels becomes a failure in the context of post modernist novel writing trends. “He is puzzled by the failure of ‘the novel of reification’ to step forward at the correct historical moment, but he is unable to account for this phenomenon simply because he lacks a concept which would turn his attention away from the economic base …” (Gray and Gray et al 130). It seems from Goldmann’s interpretation of homology between socio-economic structures and history of novels that the critic was more focused in exploring the tradition of novel writing from the perspective of socio-economic condition; rather than providing sufficient focus over aesthetic dimension of this particular genre of literature. Reflection of existentialism in protagonists of New Novels did not attract much of his attention as this aspect could have shifted his focus from the economic base. Thus, though Goldmann’s claim regarding homology between socio-economic structures and history of novel is correct but it loses the universality of its appeal when it comes to interpretation of New Novels in the same light. Works Cited Bennett, Tony,. Outside literature. London: Routledge, 1990 Boulton, Marjorie,. The anatomy of the novel. London: Routledge, 1975 Cohen, Mitchell,. The wager of Lucien Goldmann: tragedy, dialectics, and a hidden god. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994 Eagleton, Terry., The English novel: an introduction. New York: Wiley-Blackwell, 2005 Gray et al and Gray, Ann. CCCS Selected Working Papaers, Volume 2. London: Routledge, 2007 Goldmann, Lucien and Mayrl, William. Cultural creation in modern society. New York: Telos Press Publishing, 1976 Read More