The Mailer Review/Volume 5, 2011/Contradictory Syntheses: Norman Mailer’s Left Conservatism and the Problematic of “Totalitarianism”: Difference between revisions
JKilchenmann (talk | contribs) Added byline with author and abstract. |
JKilchenmann (talk | contribs) first three pages |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
{{Working}} <!-- EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | {{Working}} <!-- EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | ||
{{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."}} | {{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."}} | ||
NORMAN 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}} | |||
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. | |||
Now, when Mailer critics discuss totalitarianism they usually refer to what I called the "phenomenon" of totalitarianism—that is, to a "system" with | |||
certain characteristics. Although there is much to be said in this area, I believe it is equally productive to approach totalitarianism as a discourse exhibiting | |||
certain paradoxical properties. In what sense is it helpful, then, to | |||
think of totalitarianism not just as a system but in the way I am suggesting—as a discourse perpetuating the political confusion that produces it in the first place? First of all, the view of totalitarianism as political confusion allows us to confirm that Mailer’s Left conservatism does not surface for the first time in ''The Armies of the Night'', although it is there the term first appears, nor does it properly belong to Mailer’s 1960s work only. Left Conservatism, in other words, is not a later stage in Mailer’s ideological | |||
development. It is there from the start, in the uneasy relationship of the author | |||
of ''The Naked and the Dead'' to that book's most fascinating characters, | |||
Cummings and Croft, both of whom are fascists. | |||
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> | |||
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 argument, then, is that when one is working within the framework of the discourse on totalitarianism, one is bound to activate a host of paradoxical | |||
political/ideological effects (or, perhaps, side-effects),which are conducive to the development of ambivalent and problematic stances such as Left Conservatism. There are effects we could discuss. To avoid too protracted an analysis, however, I have isolated two, of which I would like to say | |||
a little more in this essay. So, to recapitulate, totalitarianism is a discourse which ultimately functions to undermine standard political oppositions and which, therefore, causes great political and ideological confusion. When working within the framework of this discourse one is bound to become implicated in a number of paradoxes, such as (1) the force one sets in opposition to totalitarianism(that is to a totalitarian "system") often turns out to be itself totalitarian or potentially totalitarian; (2) within the context of a | |||
specific political/ideological antagonism, ''opposition'' to may finally be indistinguishable | |||
from ''support'' for whatever it is one is ostensibly opposing. Or, perhaps even more paradoxically, one’s political ends may be better served by supporting one's political opponent: the best way of effectively opposing one’s opponents may finally be to support them. | |||
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|1987|p=127|}} | |||
</blockquote> | |||
I have not readmany 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 inMailer’s work | |||
where this political exchange with fascism is more than obvious. The following | |||
example I take from“TheWhite Negro,” where we are told: | |||
===Citations=== | |||
{{Reflist}} | |||
===Works Cited=== | |||
{{Refbegin}} | |||
* {{cite journal |last=Berlin |first=Isaiah |title=Georges Sorel|date=1979 |journal=Against the Current |location=London |publisher=Hogarth Press|pages=296-332 |ref=harv }} | |||
* {{cite journal |last=Trilling |first=Diana |title=The Moral Radicalism of Norman Mailer. |journal=Norman Mailer: The Man and His Work | |||
|location=Ed. Robert Lucid. Boston |publisher=Little, Brown & Co.|date=1971 |pages=108-36 |access-date= |ref=harv }} | |||
* {{cite book |last=Wenke |first=Joseph |date=1987 |title=Mailer's America |location=Hanover |publisher=University Press of New England|ref=harv }} | |||
{{Refend}} | |||