Henri Lefebvre’s work must rank as some of the most enigmatic, challenging, insightful and provocative of twentieth century philosophy (or is it politics, cultural studies, anthropology or sociology?), and in this case he is at his most demanding – so therefore his most rewarding. It seems perplexing to read an ‘Introduction to Modernity’ written between 1959 & 1962 when European historians seem to see the modern period as beginning in the middle of the 18th century, when the period of high modernism is associated with the Euro-American cultural forms of the 1930s to 1950s, and when what are now seen as modernity’s great unifying narratives are associated with writers in the mid 19th to early 20th centuries (Marx & Freud especially). What’s more, it seems perplexing when so much of what Lefebvre does here seems to anticipate the dominant narratives of post-modernism – so I wonder, how can an Introduction to Modernity so clearly outline the topography of the post-modern?
In part I suspect this anticipation is Lefebvre’s brilliance – his commentary on the mystifying and ossifying ideologies of liberal capitalism, the sclerotic ideas of official Marxism (as seen at the time in the Communist party of France that he had so recently left), and the frankly obscurantist idealism of Sartre’s existentialism. Much of this book needs to be read as a debate with other tendencies in the French left at the time, but we miss its import if that is only how we see it. To my mind, with its expositions on the intellectual and political significance of irony, and its repeated assertions and enactments of rigorous dialectical thinking and analysis, 50 years after it was written ‘Introduction to Modernity’ retains its verve and challenges us in our increasingly cynical and idealist times to return to the material, to revisit dialectics, and to ground political and cultural practice in both humanism and our material worlds. Take your time with the last two preludes (Chapters 11 & 12) – they are long, enigmatic, and demanding to the extent of frustration, but read, revisit, and relish the multiple layers of engaging polysemous philosophical and cultural analysis.