This is an extended review of this complex and at times difficult book.
The authors of this book, Lowy and Sayre, are a pair of Frenchmen who have taken up the question of defining Romanticism and describing its ideological manifestations. These two academics venture into the arcane world of Romantic thought, tracing it from the late eighteenth century to the present. In the process, the duo believe they have pinpointed the essence of the Romantics that has eluded all other scholars to this point, namely, that it is essentially anti-capitalist in its outlook. After making this identification, Sayre and Lowy attempt to demonstrate why others fall short where they succeed and continue on to trace the development of anti-capitalist thought through the writing of various intellectuals who fit their theoretical paradigm.
Throughout their work, Lowy and Sayre raise many important questions for our consideration. Most of the questions, however, are not concerned with their analysis of the individuals whose ideas they describe. Rather, the major issues are with their overall approach to the question. First, throughout the book the authors equate the terms capitalism and modernity, using them more or less interchangeably. Much depends on whether the reader accepts this premise. Equally important, in terms of framing the entire debate, is the question of whether opposition to modernity (or capitalism) really is the defining characteristic of a Romantic. A critic can justly argue that this terminology is broad enough that almost any form of protest against the modern world can thereby earn the label of Romantic. Finally, Sayre and Lowy must attempt to deal with the quandary laid out by Isaiah Berlin that students of Romanticism must choose between seeing it as an attitude prominent over a given span of years or a state of mind traceable throughout history. They choose the later, in contradiction to many authors in the field. Indeed, their contention that they have found the answer to the riddle of what constitutes Romanticism, whereas previous generations have failed, raises the red flag of academic arrogance immediately. Though Lowy and Sayre offer an 87-page justification for their position, spending roughly 35% of the book refuting the ideas of others, they bid goodbye to the interest of all but the most dedicated readers in the process.
If the reader accepts their premises for the moment, however, and examines what Lowy and Sayre write about classifying various types of Romanticism, they will find eleven different categories, from restitutionists to fascists to libertarians to Marxists. Obviously splitters, rather than lumpers, the authors are clearly not interested in the premise, favored by scientists, that a simple thesis is preferable to a complex one. They require twelve pages just to explain what their thesis includes and what it leaves out. By so blatantly rejecting any semblance of simplicity in favor of eleven variations of Romanticism, they sacrifice a great deal in terms of narrative clarity and a consistent storyline.
Unfortunately, even with eleven different categories to work with, the work still suffers from glaring omissions. For example, the writers limit their narrative to three primary countries: Britain, France, and Germany. Occasionally, the Russians make an appearance, but most Romantics there go unnoticed, as do the handful of Americans of the Romantic persuasion. If Romanticism even existed anywhere else, the reader would not know it after reading this volume. If the authors want to argue that Romanticism is in opposition to modernity, they would do well to remember these three are not the only modern nations worth considering. A related issue concerns the breadth of coverage offered. Lowy and Sayre believe that traditional accounts vastly overemphasize the artistic and musical aspects of the Romantics, at the expense of their political and economic worldview. Unfortunately, in turning the tables, they commit the same sin of omission, making virtually no mention of Romantic artists or musicians. For the authors, everything flows from the political and economic thinking and writing of the handful of academics they lionize. While this is essentially a requirement to make their thesis operable, to simply leave out the composers and painters who other writers in the field see as exemplars of the Romantic worldview leaves a gaping hole in the analysis.
While on the topic of building an argument based on the writings of a handful of academics, it is worth considering the merits of this approach. While Lowy and Sayre offer an erudite analysis of the thinking and evolution of such writers as John Ruskin, Christa Wolf, or Ernst Bloch, the reader ends each section wondering why these individuals matter, outside of their ideas. The answer is rarely forthcoming from the authors. Are these authors mentioned part of an actual movement that plays a role in art, economics, or politics, or simply examples of a critique of modernity scattered throughout the past 200 years? While the former may be true, the reader ends with a strong impression that it is the latter. The subjects of analysis in the book may be important in their own right for their critique of capitalist society, but who among them can claim an influence extending outside a small handful of students and academics? The book would be of greater service if it focused on this question, rather than exhaustively detailing the minute twists and turns in the career of an intellectual known today only to a small handful of specialists. Instead, the reader finds equivocal statements such as “Henry Lefebvre…may have had a fairly direct impact.” (224)
There are a few logical errors to the reasoning found in Romanticism Against the Tide of Modernity as well. On page 19 the authors claim that Soviet communism was but an ephemeral break with bourgeois civilization. If this is true, how can they later claim (187) Christa Wolf is specifically important for living and writing in a “non-capitalist” country? Finally, in the concluding chapter, Sayre and Lowy offer up some statements that are at best questionable, at worst simply wrong. Their discussion of Romanticism at the heart of cultural mass production (226) demonstrates how they occasionally stretch their definition of Romanticism to the point of absurdity. The products of the culture industry draw on the Romantic characteristics of “dreams, fantasies, and phantasms to create an emotional charge.” True enough, but the culture industry is also a significant part of what drives the modern capitalist society Romanticism is supposed to oppose. Worse yet, the book’s foray into critiquing modern pop culture films like Star Wars falls flat on its face. There are no primitive indigenous people close to nature that play important roles in the original trilogy. There are the ewoks, but their motivation is the invasion of their home planet, not fear of the modern world. As for The Godfather, the “warm” family ties that appear so Romantic have cooled considerably by the end of the second film. Throughout this final chapter, Lowy and Sayre attempt to defend Romanticism and plead for a fuller consideration of what it offers intellectually. This is certainly within their rights as authors but does markedly contrast with the rest of their writing.
In fairness to the book, it does offer a coherent theme in its critique for those of an intellectual bent who have interest in a critique of capitalist society. Chapter three offers a Marxist perspective through the writings of Rosa Luxemburg, Gyorgy Lukacs, and Marx himself. The discussion of John Ruskin can serve as a model for the others. Ruskin was a bridge between the Romantics of the early nineteenth century and the middle of that century whose influence would extend into the twentieth century as well through William Morris. His violent opposition to modernity created a personal disdain for all but the most pure-hearted Romantics such as Thomas Carlyle. Like many other figures described by Lowy and Sayre, religion played a central role in Ruskin’s philosophy. What kind of role depended on his current status of belief or unbelief. One of Ruskin’s main contributions, in the eyes of the authors, was to shift the debate from art criticism to social criticism. Part of this critique is that humankind lives in a state of fallen grace from an ideal, organic way of life, centered in the Middle Ages, that lacked the need for accumulation and commodification. His vehicles for criticizing modernity were his examinations of modern science, the domination of life by money (mammonism), and industrialism. At times, the discrepancy between the alienation of modern life and this idealized past is so great that Ruskin sees a binary choice between life and death.
The book’s final issue is that it is not easy to read. If you are a specialist or someone who wants to learn about some of the anti-capitalist or anti-modern theorists of the past 200 or so years, you’ll find value here. Everyone else should probably try another book if you want to know about Romanticism.