Project Mailer

The Mailer Review/Volume 5, 2011/Contradictory Syntheses: Norman Mailer’s Left Conservatism and the Problematic of “Totalitarianism”: Difference between revisions

← Older edit
m remove "print" rom works cited
m Small fixes.
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{DISPLAYTITLE:<span style="font-size:22px;">{{BASEPAGENAME}}/</span>{{SUBPAGENAME}}}}
{{DISPLAYTITLE:<span style="font-size:22px;">{{BASEPAGENAME}}/</span>{{SUBPAGENAME}}}}
{{MR05}}
{{MR05}}
{{Byline |last=Mantzaris |first=Alexandros |abstract=An examination of Mailer’s seemingly paradoxical position of “Left Conservatism” that may have its basis in certain mechanisms contained within the problematic concept of “totalitarianism.” |url=. . .}}
{{Byline |last=Mantzaris |first=Alexandros |abstract=An examination of Mailer’s seemingly paradoxical position of “Left Conservatism” that may have its basis in certain mechanisms contained within the problematic concept of “totalitarianism.” |url=https://grlu.us/mr05man}}
{{dc|dc=N}}'''ORMAN MAILER’S SEEMINGLY PARADOXICAL POSITION''' of “Left Conservatism” may have its basis in certain mechanisms contained within the problematic concept of “totalitarianism.” I suggest that there are two aspects to the broader problematic of totalitarianism. The first aspect has to do with what we could refer to as the historical phenomenon of totalitarianism. This phenomenon
{{dc|dc=N}}'''ORMAN MAILER’S SEEMINGLY PARADOXICAL POSITION''' of “Left Conservatism” may have its basis in certain mechanisms contained within the problematic concept of “totalitarianism.” I suggest that there are two aspects to the broader problematic of totalitarianism. The first aspect has to do with what we could refer to as the historical phenomenon of totalitarianism. This phenomenon is represented by certain political regimes and/or types of sociopolitical organizations called totalitarian, to which are attributed a number of shared characteristics such as rule by a single party, an official ideology, and a monopoly of mass communications. From Mailer’s slightly different perspective, such totalitarian regimes are thought of as suppressing the past, suppressing myth, and imposing a cowardly conformity on their subjects. Here, in short, we find the view of “a system” exhibiting certain characteristics. There is also, however, another facet to the totalitarian problematic having to do with the discourse of totalitarianism itself. From this slightly diverging angle one would observe that the discourse of totalitarianism is one whose very logic confuses political “sides” and therefore destabilizes “standard” political antagonisms. What we have here is a convergence of political opposites, the plasticity of political/ideological oppositions, and a profound ideological ambivalence.{{pg|337|338}}
is represented by certain political regimes and/or types of sociopolitical organizations called totalitarian, to which are attributed a number
of shared characteristics such as rule by a single party, an official ideology, and a monopoly of mass communications. From Mailer’s slightly different perspective, such totalitarian regimes are thought of as suppressing the past, suppressing myth, and imposing a cowardly conformity on their subjects. Here, in short, we find the view of “a system” exhibiting certain characteristics. There is also, however, another facet to the totalitarian problematic having to do with the discourse of totalitarianism itself. From this slightly diverging angle one would observe that the discourse of totalitarianism is one whose very logic confuses political “sides” and therefore destabilizes “standard” political antagonisms. What we have here is a convergence of political opposites, the plasticity of political/ideological oppositions, and a profound ideological ambivalence.{{pg|337|338}}
 
Not everyone would readily accept the central thesis of totalitarianism’s theorists, namely that the former USSR and Nazi Germany can be put in the same category. And, naturally, even fewer would accept that American democratic capitalism can itself be implicated in such a problematic category—yet, of course, that is what people like Mailer never tired of arguing.
Not everyone would readily accept the central thesis of totalitarianism’s theorists, namely that the former USSR and Nazi Germany can be put in the same category. And, naturally, even fewer would accept that American democratic capitalism can itself be implicated in such a problematic category—yet, of course, that is what people like Mailer never tired of arguing.


Line 11: Line 8:


Critics have discussed this tension, starting with ''The Naked and the Dead'' as well as its development in Mailer’s later works, in terms that are primarily moral, philosophical, aesthetic. Joseph Wenke, for example, has argued in his highly interesting study:
Critics have discussed this tension, starting with ''The Naked and the Dead'' as well as its development in Mailer’s later works, in terms that are primarily moral, philosophical, aesthetic. Joseph Wenke, for example, has argued in his highly interesting study:
<blockquote>[I]t is clear that until Mailer was able to write “The White Negro,” totalitarianism was a particularly intimidating and intimate enemy of his art. In addition to representing an external political threat, it presented itself to Mailer as an immediate ''aesthetic'' problem that insinuated itself into the very creation of his first three novels.{{sfn|Wenke|1987|p=8}}(emphasis mine)
<blockquote>[I]t is clear that until Mailer was able to write “The White Negro,” totalitarianism was a particularly intimidating and intimate enemy of his art. In addition to representing an external political threat, it presented itself to Mailer as an immediate ''aesthetic'' problem that insinuated itself into the very creation of his first three novels.{{sfn|Wenke|1987|p=8}}(emphasis mine)
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
The problem Wenke refers to is, precisely, the profound appeal that characters such as Croft and Cummings held for Mailer even as he was placing them on the side of the “heavies.” And, in general, I think it is fair to say that this tension has been mostly discussed in terms similar to Wenke’s. Indeed I sometimes have the sense that the political field has to be preserved intact in {{pg|338|339}} such critical efforts, as a sort of stable ground from which Mailer’s course can then be observed and appraised—so that, for example, in his opening to the violent (a)morality of Croft, Mailer can be said to be moving “to the Right.” This approach is somewhat problematic for, in my view, the problem or paradox here is first of all political in nature. Moral and other considerations follow. That is, it seems to me wrong to try and retain the political as a stable reference point, which can then help us explain aesthetic problems and/or moral ambiguities, because the origin of the ambiguity lies with politics and ideology.
The problem Wenke refers to is, precisely, the profound appeal that characters such as Croft and Cummings held for Mailer even as he was placing them on the side of the “heavies.” And, in general, I think it is fair to say that this tension has been mostly discussed in terms similar to Wenke’s. Indeed I sometimes have the sense that the political field has to be preserved intact in {{pg|338|339}} such critical efforts, as a sort of stable ground from which Mailer’s course can then be observed and appraised—so that, for example, in his opening to the violent (a)morality of Croft, Mailer can be said to be moving “to the Right.” This approach is somewhat problematic for, in my view, the problem or paradox here is first of all political in nature. Moral and other considerations follow. That is, it seems to me wrong to try and retain the political as a stable reference point, which can then help us explain aesthetic problems and/or moral ambiguities, because the origin of the ambiguity lies with politics and ideology.


Line 20: Line 15:


With totalitarianism ''qua'' political confusion as our guide, then, we can attempt to tackle some of the salient curiosities in the development of Mailer’s ideology, which seem to me to have been often met with a sort of embarrassed silence. One such very interesting curiosity was already noted by Diana Trilling in her seminal, early essay on Mailer’s work:
With totalitarianism ''qua'' political confusion as our guide, then, we can attempt to tackle some of the salient curiosities in the development of Mailer’s ideology, which seem to me to have been often met with a sort of embarrassed silence. One such very interesting curiosity was already noted by Diana Trilling in her seminal, early essay on Mailer’s work:
<blockquote>[H]ad Mailer been of their period [i.e., that of D.H. Lawrence and W.B.Yeats] instead of ours, he would have similarly avoided the predicament of presenting us with a hero not easily distinguishable from his named political enemy. He would have been</blockquote>{{pg|339|340}}<blockquote>able to evade the political consequences of consigning the future of civilization to a personal authority morally identical with the dark reaction from which it is supposed to rescue us. Or, to put the matter in even cruder terms, he would not have exposed himself to our ridicule for offering us a God who is a fascist. {{sfn|Trilling|1971|p=127}}</blockquote>
<blockquote>[H]ad Mailer been of their period [i.e., that of D.H. Lawrence and W.B.Yeats] instead of ours, he would have similarly avoided the predicament of presenting us with a hero not easily distinguishable from his named political enemy. He would have been</blockquote>{{pg|339|340}}<blockquote>able to evade the political consequences of consigning the future of civilization to a personal authority morally identical with the dark reaction from which it is supposed to rescue us. Or, to put the matter in even cruder terms, he would not have exposed himself to our ridicule for offering us a God who is a fascist. {{sfn|Trilling|1971|p=127}}</blockquote>
I have not read many critics trying to follow the lead offered by Trilling here and to explain, if Mailer’s God is indeed “a fascist,” how we might be able to justify such a rather unexpected reversal? Yet there are places in Mailer’s work where this ''political'' exchange with fascism is more than obvious. The following example I take from “The White Negro,” where we are told:
I have not read many critics trying to follow the lead offered by Trilling here and to explain, if Mailer’s God is indeed “a fascist,” how we might be able to justify such a rather unexpected reversal? Yet there are places in Mailer’s work where this ''political'' exchange with fascism is more than obvious. The following example I take from “The White Negro,” where we are told:
<blockquote>[I]t is possible, since the hipster lives with his hatred, that many of them are the material for an élite of storm troopers ready to follow the first truly magnetic leader whose view of mass murder is phrased in a language which reaches their emotions.{{sfn|Mailer|1959|p=355}} </blockquote>
<blockquote>[I]t is possible, since the hipster lives with his hatred, that many of them are the material for an élite of storm troopers ready to follow the first truly magnetic leader whose view of mass murder is phrased in a language which reaches their emotions.{{sfn|Mailer|1959|p=355}} </blockquote>
The first thing to note is that the very terms used by Mailer ("storm troopers,” “magnetic leader,” “mass murder”) take us beyond the field of morality and even aesthetics and points us clearly in the direction of organized politics. And I think that the way, finally, to explain such ironies is precisely with reference to the first paradox I spoke about. Namely, the idea that when one works within the totalitarian discourse, the force one posits as a counterweight to the dreaded totalitarian system will often turn out to be itself totalitarian
The first thing to note is that the very terms used by Mailer ("storm troopers,” “magnetic leader,” “mass murder”) take us beyond the field of morality and even aesthetics and points us clearly in the direction of organized politics. And I think that the way, finally, to explain such ironies is precisely with reference to the first paradox I spoke about. Namely, the idea that when one works within the totalitarian discourse, the force one posits as a counterweight to the dreaded totalitarian system will often turn out to be itself totalitarian
or potentially totalitarian.
or potentially totalitarian.
Line 32: Line 23:
The work of Georges Sorel (1847–1922), a French theorist of anarcho-syndicalism, is important for the proper understanding of our second paradox. ''Réflexions sur la Violence'', his best-known work to which I will refer, was published in 1908. For the sake of brevity I would not like to go into the details of what I hold to be Sorel’s own “Left Conservatism.” Instead I have chosen a few quotations, which will give an idea of the basis for the comparison to Mailer. The first comes from an essay on Sorel, written by Isaiah Berlin:
The work of Georges Sorel (1847–1922), a French theorist of anarcho-syndicalism, is important for the proper understanding of our second paradox. ''Réflexions sur la Violence'', his best-known work to which I will refer, was published in 1908. For the sake of brevity I would not like to go into the details of what I hold to be Sorel’s own “Left Conservatism.” Instead I have chosen a few quotations, which will give an idea of the basis for the comparison to Mailer. The first comes from an essay on Sorel, written by Isaiah Berlin:


<blockquote>Sorel remains, as he was in his lifetime, unclassified; claimed and repudiated both by the right and by the left. . . . He appeared to</blockquote> {{pg|340|341}} <blockquote>have no fixed position. His critics often accused him of pursuing an erratic course.{{sfn|Berlin|1979|p=296, 297}} </blockquote>
<blockquote>Sorel remains, as he was in his lifetime, unclassified; claimed and repudiated both by the right and by the left. . . . He appeared to</blockquote> {{pg|340|341}} <blockquote>have no fixed position. His critics often accused him of pursuing an erratic course.{{sfn|Berlin|1979|pp=296, 297}} </blockquote>


I think that both the lack of political “fixity” but also, all the more so in fact, the idea of an interstitial position between “the right and the left” clearly points us in the direction of Left Conservatism. The second extract comes from the English author and painter Wyndham Lewis, according to whom
I think that both the lack of political “fixity” but also, all the more so in fact, the idea of an interstitial position between “the right and the left” clearly points us in the direction of Left Conservatism. The second extract comes from the English author and painter Wyndham Lewis, according to whom
Line 45: Line 36:
Clearly, the two descriptions are nearly identical. Sorel’s “warring personalities” find their near-perfect equivalent in the “warring orders” of the church of Mailer’s personality. And I hope it is clear how the volatility of both personalities might be relevant to constructs such as Left Conservatism. Beyond the obvious resemblance suggested by the above extracts, it is possible to argue that Mailer often appears to share with Sorel a marked hostility towards what we perhaps could call social democracy but might be better off defining more carefully as social compromise, social peace and what Mailer has called politics as property.{{efn|Mailer discusses politics as property in Part Two, Chapter Six, of ''Miami and the Siege of Chicago''.}}
Clearly, the two descriptions are nearly identical. Sorel’s “warring personalities” find their near-perfect equivalent in the “warring orders” of the church of Mailer’s personality. And I hope it is clear how the volatility of both personalities might be relevant to constructs such as Left Conservatism. Beyond the obvious resemblance suggested by the above extracts, it is possible to argue that Mailer often appears to share with Sorel a marked hostility towards what we perhaps could call social democracy but might be better off defining more carefully as social compromise, social peace and what Mailer has called politics as property.{{efn|Mailer discusses politics as property in Part Two, Chapter Six, of ''Miami and the Siege of Chicago''.}}


In her discussion of “In the Red Light,”{{efn|Mailer’s essay is included in ''Cannibals and Christians.''}} Jean Radford notes that while characterizing the support for Goldwater in rather negative terms, “Mailer is able to admit his own excitement at the thought of Goldwater’s victory.”{{sfn|Radford|1975|p=69}} She attributes this, in part, to what she calls Mailer’s “own ver-{{pg|341|342}}sion of ''‘politique du pire''{{' "}} (and with this idea of a ''politique du pire'' we enter the heart of our second paradox). “Johnson” she writes “will only blur the reality of America’s conflicts whereas Goldwater will polarize America and out of that polarization some hope for the revolution might come.”{{sfn|Radford|1975|p=69-70}} What is noteworthy here is the preference for an energetic, violent opposition, the prospect of which is better embodied, for Mailer, in the Goldwater candidacy. A variation on this motif is the idea from the ''Presidential Papers''{{efn|See the “Prefatory Paper” entitled “Heroes and Leaders.”}} that for the physical body as well as the body politic, an “acute” disease is preferable to a “faceless” one. According to Sorel, as he explains his own notion of ''politique du pire'', the success of a Marxian “catastrophic” revolution—his ideal—requires that the capitalist system be functioning properly up to the moment of revolt. In turn, this proper function demands an openly predatory middle class brutally and unapologetically exploiting a proletariat, which in response becomes progressively more militant. Thus, Sorel writes that the revolutionary doctrine
In her discussion of “In the Red Light,”{{efn|Mailer’s essay is included in ''Cannibals and Christians.''}} Jean Radford notes that while characterizing the support for Goldwater in rather negative terms, “Mailer is able to admit his own excitement at the thought of Goldwater’s victory.”{{sfn|Radford|1975|p=69}} She attributes this, in part, to what she calls Mailer’s “own ver-{{pg|341|342}}sion of ''‘politique du pire''{{' "}} (and with this idea of a ''politique du pire'' we enter the heart of our second paradox). “Johnson” she writes “will only blur the reality of America’s conflicts whereas Goldwater will polarize America and out of that polarization some hope for the revolution might come.”{{sfn|Radford|1975|pp=69-70}} What is noteworthy here is the preference for an energetic, violent opposition, the prospect of which is better embodied, for Mailer, in the Goldwater candidacy. A variation on this motif is the idea from the ''Presidential Papers''{{efn|See the “Prefatory Paper” entitled “Heroes and Leaders.”}} that for the physical body as well as the body politic, an “acute” disease is preferable to a “faceless” one. According to Sorel, as he explains his own notion of ''politique du pire'', the success of a Marxian “catastrophic” revolution—his ideal—requires that the capitalist system be functioning properly up to the moment of revolt. In turn, this proper function demands an openly predatory middle class brutally and unapologetically exploiting a proletariat, which in response becomes progressively more militant. Thus, Sorel writes that the revolutionary doctrine


<blockquote>
<blockquote>
Line 63: Line 54:
Sorel refers to the state resulting from such “irrationality” as “decadent” and “degenerate,” and thus we have another clear parallel with Mailer’s idea of “the plague,” as in both cases we observe an attenuation of fundamental and essential conflicts.
Sorel refers to the state resulting from such “irrationality” as “decadent” and “degenerate,” and thus we have another clear parallel with Mailer’s idea of “the plague,” as in both cases we observe an attenuation of fundamental and essential conflicts.


My own extrapolation from Sorel’s idea is as follows. Someone acting in such a context and with such an understanding of how things work, he offers: would they not possibly come to believe that (please remember our second paradox) the best strategy of attaining their goals might be propping up the enemy? And is exactly this not an important part of Mailer’s strategy in the whole Goldwater affair and beyond? I am referring to all those ideas running through his 1960s work, about restoring a true Conservatism to its lost potency, so that a vital and drastic confrontation with the Left can be ensured. What is, perhaps, the best example of the paradoxical positions resulting from such an equally paradoxical attitude can be found in Mailer’s speech at the debate with William Buckley, Jr. There, what we might call a “freedom-loving” brand of Conservatism is pitted against a “Totalitarian” one and the Cold War itself is denounced as a sort of senseless distraction from another war that would be “welcome”: “the war which has meaning, that great and mortal debate between rebel and conservative where each would argue the other is an agent of the Devil.”{{sfn|Mailer|1976|p=187-8}}
My own extrapolation from Sorel’s idea is as follows. Someone acting in such a context and with such an understanding of how things work, he offers: would they not possibly come to believe that (please remember our second paradox) the best strategy of attaining their goals might be propping up the enemy? And is exactly this not an important part of Mailer’s strategy in the whole Goldwater affair and beyond? I am referring to all those ideas running through his 1960s work, about restoring a true Conservatism to its lost potency, so that a vital and drastic confrontation with the Left can be ensured. What is, perhaps, the best example of the paradoxical positions resulting from such an equally paradoxical attitude can be found in Mailer’s speech at the debate with William Buckley, Jr. There, what we might call a “freedom-loving” brand of Conservatism is pitted against a “Totalitarian” one and the Cold War itself is denounced as a sort of senseless distraction from another war that would be “welcome”: “the war which has meaning, that great and mortal debate between rebel and conservative where each would argue the other is an agent of the Devil.”{{sfn|Mailer|1976|pp=187-8}}


Sorel’s own solution for reinforcing the essential antagonism between the middle and working classes is the employment of proletarian violence. The social peacemakers’ advances, we are told, must be met with “black ingratitude” and blows. The paradox here is that such violence will prevent more{{pg|343|344}}virulent and abhorrent violence on a grander scale. For a revolution erupting in the midst of capitalist decadence would, according to Sorel, lead either to a regression to barbarism and/or anarchy, or to “the dictatorship of the proletariat.” The latter represents Sorel’s worst nightmare, since by this term he understands a revolution led by his unconscionable opponents, the “parliamentary”
Sorel’s own solution for reinforcing the essential antagonism between the middle and working classes is the employment of proletarian violence. The social peacemakers’ advances, we are told, must be met with “black ingratitude” and blows. The paradox here is that such violence will prevent more{{pg|343|344}}virulent and abhorrent violence on a grander scale. For a revolution erupting in the midst of capitalist decadence would, according to Sorel, lead either to a regression to barbarism and/or anarchy, or to “the dictatorship of the proletariat.” The latter represents Sorel’s worst nightmare, since by this term he understands a revolution led by his unconscionable opponents, the “parliamentary”
Line 103: Line 94:
{{Review}}
{{Review}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Contradictory Syntheses: Norman Mailer’s Left Conservatism and the Problematic of “Totalitarianism"}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Contradictory Syntheses: Norman Mailer’s Left Conservatism and the Problematic of “Totalitarianism"}}
[[Category:Articles (MR)]]
[[Category:Articles (MR)]]
Retrieved from "https://projectmailer.net/pm/The_Mailer_Review/Volume_5,_2011/Contradictory_Syntheses:_Norman_Mailer’s_Left_Conservatism_and_the_Problematic_of_“Totalitarianism”"