No More Learning

On the contrary, from within oppression itself we depicted to the oppressed community of which we were part its anger
? Situation of the Writer in 1947 \ 189
and its hopes. With more luck, more skill, more talent, more cohesion, and more drive, we might have been able to write the interior monologue of occupied France. More- over, even if we might have managed it, there would have been no reason for glorifying us inordinately. The National Front grouped its members by profession. Those among us who worked for the Resistance in their specialized jobs could not ignore the fact that the doctors, the engineers, and the railway workers were, in their specialized jobs, doing work of far greater importance.
Whatever the case may be there was the risk that after the liberation this attitude, which was easy for us because of the great tradition of literary negativity, might turn into systematic negation and might once again bring about the divorce of writer and public; because we were at war, we glorified all forms of destruction; desertions, refusals to obey, derailing of trains, setting harvests on fire, and criminal attacks.
The war was over. By persisting in this attitude, we might have joined the surrealist group and all those who make of art a permanent and radical form of destruction. But 1945 does not resemble 1918. It wasfineto invoke the flood upon a victorious and smug France which thought that it would dominate Europe. The flood has come. What remains to be destroyed? The great metaphysical destruction of the other post-war period was carried on joyously, in a spirit of unleashed explosion. Today, there is the threat of war, famine, and dictatorship. We are again super-charged. 1918 was holiday-time. A bonfire might be built of twenty centuries of culture and accumulations. Today thefirewould go out by itself or would refuse to catch. It will be a long time before the holiday season comes round again.
In this age of lean cows, literature refuses to link its destiny to that of consumption, which is too precarious. In a rich oppressive society art can still be taken for the supreme luxury because luxury seems the mark of civiliza- tion. But today luxury has lost its sacred character. The black market has turned it into a phenomenon of social
? ic? o I What Is Literature?
disintegration. It has lost the aspect of 'conspicuous con- sumption* which made up half its charm. One hides oneself in order to consume; one isolates oneself; one is no longer at the top of the social hierarchy, but on the margin. An art of pure consumption would be neither here nor there. It would no longer be supported by solid luxury, whether culinary or sartorial. It might just barely provide a handful of privileged souls with solitary escapes, onanistic pleasures, and the opportunity to miss the old sweetness of living.
When the whole of Europe is preoccupied before every- thing else with reconstruction, when nations deprive them- selves of necessities in order to export, literature (which, like the Church, adapts itself to all situations and saves itself, come what may), reveals its other face. Writing is not living. Neither is it running away from life in order to contemplate Platonic essences and the archetype of beauty in a world at rest. Nor is it letting oneself be slashed, as by swords, by words which, unfamiliar and not understood, come up to us from behind. It is the practising of a profession, a pro- fession which requires an apprenticeship, sustained work, professional consciousness, and the sense of responsibility.
It is not we who have discovered these responsibilities. Quite the contrary. For a hundred years the writer has been dreaming of giving himself to his art in a sort of innocence, beyond Good and Evil, and, so to speak, before the fall. It is society which has just laid our burdens and our duties on our shoulders. It must think that we are quite formidable since it condemned to death a hundred of us who collabor- ated with the enemy while it left manufacturers who were guilty of the same crime at liberty. It is said nowadays that it was better to build the Atlantic wall than to talk about it. I don't find that particularly scandalizing.
To be sure, it is because we are pure consumers that the collectivity proves to be pitiless towards us. An author shot is one mouth less to feed. The least important producer would be a greater loss to the nation. 32 And I am not saying that this is just. On the contrary, it opens the way to all sorts of abuses, to censorship, to persecution. But we ought to
? Situation of the Writer in 1947 \ 191
rejoice that our profession involves some dangers. When we wrote clandestinely, the risks for us were minimal, but for the printers they were considerable. It often made me feel ashamed. At least it taught us to practise a sort of verbal deflation. When each word might cost a life, you ought not take time off to play the 'cello. You go as fast as possible. You make it snappy. The war of 1914 precipitated the crisis of language. I would readily say that the war of 1940 has reval- orized it. But it is to be hoped that in taking up our names again, we were taking risks on our own account. After all; a steeple-jack will always be running a great many more.
In a society which insists upon production and restricts consumption to what is strictly necessary, the work of litera- ture is evidently gratuitous. Even if the writer strongly stresses the work that he puts into it, even if he points out, and rightfully, that this work, considered in itself, involves the same faculties as that of an engineer or doctor, the fact remains that the created object is not to be compared with
goods. This gratuitousness, far from grieving us, is our pride, and we know that it is the image of freedom.
The work of art is gratuitous because it is an absolute end and because it presents itself to the spectator as a categorical imperative. In addition, although it neither can nor wants to be production by itself, it wants to represent the free consciousness of a productive society, that is, to reflect production upon the producer in terms of freedom, as Hesiod did in the past. It is not, to be sure, a matter of picking up the thread of that boring literature of work of which Pierre Hamp was the most solemn and soporific representative. But as this type of reflection is both a sum- mons and a surpassing, it is necessary to manifest to the men of this age the principles, aims, and inner constitution of their productive activity, at the same time that we show them their works and days.
If negativity is one aspect of freedom, constructiveness is the other. Now, the paradox of our age is that constructive freedom has never been so close to becoming conscious of itself and never has it been so profoundly alienated. Never
? 192 I What Is Literature?
has work more powerfully manifested its productivity, and never have workers been more swindled out of its products and its significance. Never has homofaber better understood that he has made history and never has he felt so powerless before history.
Our job is cut out for us. In so far as literature is negative
it will challenge the alienation of work; in so far as it is a creation and an act of surpassing, it will present man as creative action. It will go along with him in his effort to pass beyond his present alienation towards a better situation. If
it is true that to have, to make, and to be are the prime categories of human reality, it might be said that the literature of consumption has limited itself to the study of
the relations which unite being to having. The sensation is presented as enjoyment, which is philosophically false, and
the one who knows best how to enjoy himself is the one who exists most. From The Culture ofthe Selfto The Possession of the World, including Fruits of the Earth and Bamabooth9s
Journal, to be is to appropriate.
The work of art, an outcome of similar pleasures, itself pretends to be enjoyment or promise of enjoyment. So the circle is completed. We, on the contrary, have been led by circumstances to bring to light the relationship between being and doing in the perspective of our historical situation. Is one what one does? What one makes of oneself? In present- day society, where work is alienated? What should one do, whatendshouldonechoosetoday? Andhowisittobedone, by what means? What are the relationships between ends and means in a society based on violence?
The works deriving from such preoccupations cannot aim first to please. They irritate and disturb. They offer themselves as tasks to be discharged. They urge the reader on to quests without conclusions. They present us with experiences whose outcomes are uncertain. The fruits of torments and questions, they cannot be enjoyment for the reader, but rather questions and torments. If our results turn out successful, they will not be diversions, but rather obsessions. They will give not a world 'to see* but to change.
? Situation of the Writer in 1947 \ 193
On the other hand, this old, used, sore, snivelling world will lose nothing thereby. Since Schopenhauer it has been assumed that objects are revealed in their full dignity when man silences in his heart the wish for power. It is to the idle consumer that they yield their secrets. It is permitted to write about them only in moments when one has nothing to do about them. The fastidious descriptions of the last century were a rejection of utility. One did not touch the universe; one took it in raw, with the eyes. The writer, in opposition to bourgeois ideology, chose to speak to us of things at the privileged moment when all the concrete relations which united him with the objects were broken, save the slender thread of his gaze, and when they gently undid themselves to his eyes, untied sheaves of exquisite sensations.
It was the age of impressions, impressions of Italy, of Spain, of the Orient. The man of letters described these landscapes, which he absorbed consciously, at the indefin- able moment between the end of the taking-in and the beginning of the digestion, when subjectivity had come to impregnate the object but before its acids had begun to eat into it, when fields and woods are still fields and woods and already a state of soul. A glazed and polished world inhabited bourgeois books, a world for sojourns in the country, which tinges us with a decent gaiety or a well-bred melancholy. We see it from our windows; we are not in it. When the novelist peoples it with peasants, they are in contrast with the vacant shadow of the mountains and the silvery sheen of the rivers. While they are hard at work digging their spades into the earth, we are made to see them dressed up in their Sunday clothes. These workers, lost in this seventh-day universe, resemble the academician of Jean Eiffel whom Pre? vost introduced into one of his caricatures and who excused himself by saying, Tm in the wrong cartoon/ Or, perhaps they too have been transformed into objects--into objects and states of soul.
For us, doing reveals being. Each gesture traces out new forms on the earth. Each technique, each tool, is a way that opens upon the world; things have as many aspects as there
? 194 I What Is Literature?
are ways of using them. We are no longer with those who want to possess the world, but with those who want to change it, and it is to the very plan of changing it that it reveals the secrets of its being. One knows the hammer best, says Heidegger, when one uses it to hammer. And the nail, when one drives it into the wall, and the wall when one drives the nail into it.
Saint-Exupe? ry has opened the way for us. He has shown that, for the pilot, the aeroplane is an organ of perception. 33 A chain of mountains at three hundred and seventy-five miles an hour and in the new perspective of flight is a tangle of snakes. They settle down, grow dark, thrust their hard, scorched heads against the sky, trying to do damage, to strike. Speed with its astringent power gathers the folds of the earthly gown and hems them in. At fourteen thousand feet above, the obscure attraction which draws San Antonio towards New York shines like rails.
After him, after Hemingway, how could we dream of describing? We must plunge things into action. Their density of being will be measured for the reader by the multiplicity of practical relations which they maintain with the char- acters. Have the mountain climbed by the smuggler, the customs-officer, and the guerilla, have it flown over by the aviator34 and the mountain will suddenly surge from these connected actions and jump out of your book like a jack-in- the-box. Thus, the world and man reveal themselves by undertakings. And all the undertakings we might speak of reduce themselves to a single one, that of making history. So here we are, led by the hand to the moment when the literature of exis must be abandoned to inaugurate that of
praxis.
Praxis as action in history and on history; that is, as a
synthesis of historical relativity and moral and metaphysical absolute, with this hostile and friendly, terrible and derisive world which it reveals to us. There is our subject. I do not say that we have chosen these austere paths. There are surely some among us who are carrying within them some charming and heart-breaking love story which will never
? Situation of the Writer in 194-/ \ 195
see the light of day. What can we do about it? It is not a matter of choosing one's age but of choosing oneself within
it.
The literature of production which is being proclaimed
will not make us forget the literature of consumption, its antithesis; it should not pretend to surpass it, and maybe it will never equal it. No one is dreaming of claiming that because of it we shall get to the very bottom and realize the essence of the art of writing. Maybe it will even disappear soon. The generation which is following us seems hesitant; many of its novels are about sad and stolen holidays, like those parties during the occupation when young people danced between two alerts while drinking cheap wine to the sound of pre-war gramophone records. In that case, it will be a revolution that didn't come off. And even if this literature does manage to establish itself, it will pass like the other, and the other will return, and perhaps the history of the next few decades will record the alternating from one to the other. That will mean that men will have definitely botched up another Revolution of infinitely greater import- ance. The fact is that only in a socialist collectivity would literature, having finally understood its essence and having made the synthesis of praxis and exis> of negativity and construction, of doing, having, and being, deserve the name of total literature. While waiting, let us cultivate our garden. We have our work cut out for us.
Indeed, to recognize literature as a freedom, to replace spending by giving, to renounce the old aristocratic lie of our elders, and to want to launch, through all our works, a democratic appeal to the whole of the collectivity is not the whole story. We still have to know who reads us and whether the present state of affairs does not make our desire of writing for the 'concrete universal' Utopian. If our desires could be realized, the twentieth-century writer would occupy between the oppressed and the oppressors an analogous position to that of eighteenth-century authors between the bourgeois and the aristocracy, to that of Richard Wright between the blacks and the whites, read
? 196 I What Is Literature?
by both the oppressed and the oppressor, furnishing the oppressor with his image, both inner and outer, being con- scious with and for the oppressed of the oppression, contri- buting to the formation of a constructive and revolutionary ideology. Unfortunately, these are anachronistic hopes; what was possible in the time of Proudhon and Marx is so no longer. So let us take up the question from the beginning, and without any preconceived conclusions let us take an inventory of our public.
From this point of view, the situation of the writer has never been so paradoxical. It seems to be made up of the most contradictory characteristics. On the credit side, brilliant appearances, vast possibilities; on the whole, an enviable way of life. On the debit side, only this: that literature is dying. Not that talent or good will is lacking, but it has no longer anything to do in contemporary society. At the very moment that we are discovering the importance ofpraxisy at the moment that we are beginning to have some notion of what a total literature might be, our public collapses and disappears. We no longer know--literally-- for whom to write.
At first glance, to be sure, it would seem as if writers of the past ought to envy our lot. 35 Malraux once said, 'We are profiting from the suffering of Baudelaire/ I don't think that that's quite true, but it is true that Baudelaire died without a public and that we, without having proved our merit, without even knowing whether we ever will prove it, have readers all over the world. One might be tempted to blush at this, but, after all, it is not our fault; it's all the result of circumstances. The pre-war autarchies and the war deprived
national publics of their annual contingent of foreign works. Today people are catching up. They're gobbling up double mouthfuls. On this point alone there is decompression. The states are in on it. I have shown elsewhere that in the conquered or ruined countries literature has recently begun to be considered as an article for export. This literary market was expanded and regularized when the collectivities got busy with it. We find there the usual procedures: dumping
? Situation of the Writer in 1947 | 197
(for example, the American Overseas editions), protectionism (in Canada, in certain countries of Central Europe), inter- national agreements. The countries flood each other recipro- cally with 'Digests', that is, as the name indicates, of literature already digested, of literary pap. In short, belles- lettres, like the movies, are in the process of becoming an industrialized art. To be sure, we benefit: the plays of Cocteau, of Salacrou, and of Anouilh are being performed everywhere. I could cite any number of works which have been translated into six or seven languages less than three months after their publication. Yet, all this is brilliant only on the surface. Perhaps we are read in New York or Tel Aviv, but the shortage of paper has limited our editions in Paris. Thus the public has been dispersed more than it has increased. Perhaps ten thousand people read us in four or five foreign countries and another ten thousand in our own. Twenty thousand readers--a minor pre-war success. These worldwide reputations are far less well established than the national reputations of our elders. I know, paper is coming back. But at the same moment, European publishing is entering a crisis; the volume of sales remains constant.
Even though we might have a certain amount of celebrity outside France, there would be no reason for rejoicing; it would be an ineffectual glory. Nations today are separated by differences of economic and military potential more surely than by seas or mountains. An idea can descend from a country with a high potential towards a country with a low potential--for example, from America to France--it cannot rise. To be sure, there are so many newspapers, so many international contacts, that Americans finally get to hear about the literary or social theories that are circulating in
Europe, but these doctrines are exhausted in their ascent; virulent in a country with a weak potential, they are in a languid state when they reach the summit. We know that intellectuals in the United States gather European ideas into a bouquet, inhale them for a moment, and then toss them away because the bouquets wither more quickly there than in other climates. As for Russia, she gleans and takes what
? 198 I What Is Literature?
she can easily convert into her own substance. Europe is conquered and ruined; she is no longer master of her destiny; and that is the reason why her ideas can no longer make their way. The only concrete circuit for the exchange of ideas passes through England, France, the Northern countries, and Italy.
It is true that our reputations are far more widespread than our books. We make contact with people, without even wanting to do so, by new means, with new angles of incidence. Of course, the book is still the heavy infantry which clears and occupies the terrain. But literature has its aeroplanes, its W s and VYs which go a great distance, upsetting and harassing, without bringing about the actual decision. First, the newspaper. An author used to write for ten thousand readers. He is given the critic's column in a weekly and he has three hundred thousand even if his articles are worthless. Then the radio. In Camera^ one of my plays, banned in England by the theatre censors, was broadcast four times by the B. B. C. On a London stage it would not have found, even making the improbable assumption that it would be a success, more than twenty to thirty thousand spectators. The drama broadcast of the B. B. C. automatically provided me with a half-million. Finally, the cinema. Four million people frequent the French cinemas. If we recall that at the beginning of the century Paul Souday reproached Gide for publishing his works in limited editions, the success of ThePastoralSymphony will enable us to measure the distance that we have covered.
However, of the columnist's three hundred thousand readers, he'll be lucky if a few thousand have the curiosity to buy his works, into which he has put the best of his talent. The? others will learn his name from having read it a hundred times on the second page of the magazine, like that of the physic which they've seen a hundred times on the twelfth. The Englishmen who would have gone to see In Camera in the theatre would have done so with a knowledge of why they were going, on the basis of the reviews and mouth to mouth criticism, and with the intention of judging the
? Situation of the Writer in 194J \ 199
work. When my B. B. C. listeners were turning on their radios they were unaware of the existence of the play or of me. They wanted to hear, as usual, the Thursday drama broadcast. As soon as it was over, they forgot it, as they did the preceding ones.
In the cinemas, the public is attracted by the names of the stars, then by the name of the director, and last of all by that of the writer. The name of Gide recendy entered certain heads by invasion, but I am sure that it is curiously married there with the beautiful face of Miche`le Morgan. It is true that the film has caused a few thousand copies of the work to be sold, but in the eyes of its new readers the latter appears as a more or less faithful commentary on the former. The wider the public that the author reaches, the less deeply does he affect it, the less he recognizes himself in the influence he has; his thoughts escape him; they become distorted and vulgarized. They are received with more indifference and scepticism by bored and weary souls who, because the author cannot speak to them in their 'native language', still consider literature as a diversion. What remains is formulas attached to names. And since our reputations extend much farther than our books, that is, than our merits, whether great or small, we need not see in these passing favours which are granted us the sign of a first awakening of the concrete universal but quite simply that of a literary inflation.
That would be nothing; it would be enough, in short, to be on guard; after all, it depends on us for literature not to be industrialized. But there is worse; we have readers but no public. 3 In 1780 the oppressing class alone had an ideology and political organizations. The bourgeoisie had neither party nor political self-consciousness. The writer worked for it directly by criticizing the old myths of monarchy and religion, and by giving it a few elementary notions whose content was chiefly negative, such as those of liberty, political equality, and habeas corpus. In 1850 the proletariat, in the presence of a conscious bourgeoisie which was provided with a systematic ideology, remained formless and
? 200 I What Is Literature?
obscure to itself, pervaded by vain and hopeless anger. The First International had only scratched its surface. Everything remained to be done. The writer could have addressed the workers direcdy. We have seen that he missed his chance. But at least he served the interests of the oppressed class unintentionally and even unknowingly by practicing his negativity on bourgeois values. Thus, in either case, circum- stances permitted him to testify for the oppressed before the oppressor and to help the oppressed become conscious of themselves. The essence of literature found itself in accord with the exigencies of the historical situation. But today everything is reversed. The oppressing class has lost its
ideology; its self-consciousness vacillates; its limits are no longer clearly definable; it opens up and it calls the writer to the rescue. The oppressed class, cramped in a party and tied down by a rigorous ideology, becomes a closed society. One can no longer communicate with it without an inter- mediary. The fate of the bourgeoisie was tied up with European supremacy and colonialism. It is losing its colonies at a time when Europe is ceasing to govern its destiny. It is no longer a matter of litde kings carrying on wars for Rumanian oil or the Bagdad railroad; the next conflict will necessitate an industrial equipment that the entire Old World is incapable of furnishing. Two world powers, neither of which is bourgeois and neither of which is European, are disputing the possession of the universe. The triumph of one means the advent of state control and international bureaucracy; of the other, the coming of abstract capitalism. Everybody a civil servant? Everybody an employee? The bourgeoisie will be lucky if it can keep the illusion of the sauce with which it will be eaten. It knows today that it represented a moment in the history of Europe, a stage in the development of techniques and tools and that it has never been the measuring rod of the world. Besides, the feeling it had of its essence and its mission has been dimmed. It has been shaken, undermined, and eroded by economic crises with consequent internalfissures,displace- ments, and landslides. In certain countries it stands like the
? Situation of the Writer in 1947 | 201
fac? ade of a building which has been gutted; in others, great sections of it have collapsed into the proletariat. It can no longer be defined by the possession of goods, of which it has less and less each day, nor by political power, which it shares almost everywhere with new men who have sprung directly from the proletariat. At present it is the bourgeoisie which has taken on the amorphous and gelatinous aspect which characterizes oppressed classes before they have be- come conscious of their state. In France we discover that it is fifty years behind in equipment and in the organization of heavy industry. Whence, the crisis in our birth-rate, an undeniable sign of regression. Besides, the black market and the occupation have caused forty per cent, of its wealth to pass into the hands of a new bourgeoisie which has neither the morals, the principles, nor the goals of the old one. Ruined, but still oppressive, the European bourgeoisie barely manages to keep governing, and with modest means. In Italy, it keeps the workers in check because it is sup- ported by the coalition of the Church and misery. Elsewhere, it makes itself indispensable because it supplies the technical staffs and administrative personnel. Elsewhere again, it rules by dividing. And then, above all, the era of national revolu- tions is closed. The revolutionary parties do not want to overturn this worm-eaten carcase. They even do what they can to prevent its collapsing. At the first sound of cracking there would be foreign intervention and perhaps the world- wide conflict for which Russia is not yet ready. An object of everybody's solicitude, doped by the U. S. A. , by the Church, and even by the U. S. S. R. , at the mercy of the changing fortunes of the diplomatic game, the bourgeoisie can neither preserve nor lose its power without the concurrence of foreign powers. It is the "sick man* of contemporary Europe. Its agony may last a long time.
As a result, its ideology is collapsing. It justified property by work and also by that slow osmosis which diffuses into the soul of the possessors the virtues of the things possessed. The possession of property was, in its eyes, a merit and the finest self-culture. But, property is becoming symbolic and
? 202 I What Is Literature?
collective. One no longer possesses things but their signs or the signs of their signs. The arguments of 'work-merit' and 'enjoyment-culture* have turned flat. Out of hatred of the trusts and the bad conscience which abstract property induces, many turned towards fascism. Summoned by their wishes, it came, replaced the trusts by a system of directorship, then disappeared, and the system remained. The bourgeois gained nothing. If they still possess, they do so harshly and joylessly. They considered wealth as an
unjustifiable state of fact; they have lost faith. Neither do they retain much confidence in that democratic re? gime which was their pride and which collapsed at thefirstpush. But as national socialism in turn collapsed just when they were about to rally to it, they no longer believe either in Republic or Dictatorship. Nor in Progress; it was fine when their class was on the way up; now that it is declining, they are no longer concerned with the notion; it would be heart- breaking for them to think that other men and other classes will ensure it. Their work brings them into no more direct contact with actual matter than before, but two wars have made them discover fatigue, blood and tears, violence, and evil. The bombs have not only destroyed their factories but have caused fissures to appear in their idealism as well. Utilitarianism was the philosophy of saving; it loses all meaning when the savings are compromised by inflation and threats of bankruptcy. To quote Heidegger roughly, 'The world is revealed at the horizon of instruments which are out of order/ When you use a tool, you do so to produce a certain modification which is itself the means of bringing about another, and so on. Thus, you are engaged in a chain of means and ends whose scope escapes you, and you are too absorbed in the details of your action to question its final ends. But if the tool should break, the action is sus- pended and you see the whole chain. So with the bourgeois; his instruments are out of order; he sees the chain and knows the gratuitousness of his ends. As long as he believed in them without seeing them, and as long as he was working over the nearest links with his head down, they justified
? Situation of the Writer in 1947 \ 203
him; now that they hit him right between the eyes, he discovers that he is unjustifiable. The whole world is dis- closed and likewise his forlornness in the world. Anguish is born. 37 And shame too. Even for those who judge it in the name of its own principles, it is manifest that the bourgeoisie has been guilty of three betrayals: at Munich, in May '40, and under the Vichy government. Of course, it corrected itself; many Vichyites of thefirsthour were in the resistance in '42. They realised that they had to fight against the occupier in the name of bourgeois nationalism. And it is true that the Communist Party hesitated more than a year; it is true that the Church hesitated until the Liberation. But both of them have enough strength, unity, and discipline to demand of their initiates that they forget their past faults, The bourgeoisie has forgotten nothing. It still carries about
the wounds inflicted upon it by one of its sons, the one it was most proud of. By condemning Pe? tain to life imprison- ment, it feels that it has put itself behind bars. It might apply to itself the words of Paul Chack, an officer, a Catholic, and a bourgeois, who, because he blindly followed the orders of a Catholic and bourgeois marshal of France, was accused before a bourgeois tribunal under the government of a Catholic and bourgeois general, and who, stupefied by this sleight-of-hand, kept mumbling throughout the trial, 'I don't understand/ Harassed, without a future, without guarantees, without justification, the bourgeoisie, which objectively had become the sick man, has subjectively entered the phase of the guilty conscience. Many of its members are bewildered; they shuttle between anger and fear, which are two kinds of flight. The best of them still try to defend, if
not their goods, which in a good many cases have gone up in smoke, at least the real bourgeois conquests: the universality of laws, freedom of expression, habeas corpus. It is they who form our public. Our onlypublic. They understood, in reading the old books, that literature, by its nature, is ranged on the side of democratic freedom. They turn to it; they beg it to give them reasons for living and hoping, a new ideology. Perhaps never since
? 204 I What Is Literature?
the eighteenth century has so much been expected of the writer.
We have nothing to tell them. In spite of themselves, they belong to an oppressing class. Victims, doubtless, and innocent, but, still tyrants and guilty. All we can do is reflect their unhappy conscience in our mirrors, that is, advance a bit further the decomposition of their principles. We have the thankless job of reproaching them for their faults when they have become a curse. Ourselves bourgeois, we have known bourgeois anguish. We have had that harassed soul. But since the characteristic of an unhappy conscience is to want to tear itself away from the state of unhappiness, we cannot remain tranquilly in the bosom of our class, and since it is no longer possible for us to leave it with aflapof our wings by giving ourselves the appearance of a parasitic aristocracy, we must be its gravediggers, even if we run the risk of burying ourselves along with it.
We turn towards the working class which today, like the bourgeoisie in 1780, might constitute for the writer a revolu- tionary public. It is still a virtual public, but it is singularly present. The worker of 1947 has a social and professional culture. He reads technical, union, and political journals. He has become conscious of himself and his position in the world and he has much to teach us. He has lived all the adventures of our time, in Moscow in 1917, in Budapest, in Munich, in Madrid, in Stalingrad, and in the Maquis. At the time that we are discovering in the art of writing freedom in its two aspects of negation and the creative transcendence of negation, he is trying to free himself and, by the same token, to free all men from oppression for ever. As a member of the oppressed, he may see the object of his anger reflected by literature in its aspect of negation; as a producer and revolutionary, he is, par excellence, the subject of a literature ofpraxis. We share with him the duty of contesting and destroying; he demands the right to make history at the
moment when we are discovering that we are part of history. We are not yet familiar with his language; neither is he with ours; but we already know the means of reaching
? Situation of the Writer in 1947 \ 205
him. We also know that in Russia he engages in discussion with the writer himself and that a new relationship between the public and the writer has appeared there which is neither a passive and female waiting nor the specialized criticism of the intellectual. I do not believe in the 'Mission* of the proletariat, nor that it is endowed with a state of grace; it is made up of men, just and unjust, who can make mistakes and who are often mystified. But it must be said without hesitation that the fate of literature is bound up with that of the working class.
Unhappily, these men, to whom we must speak, are separated from us by an iron curtain in our own country; they will not hear a word that we shall say to them. The majority of the proletariat, strait-jacketed by a single party, encircled by a propaganda which isolates it, forms a closed society without doors or windows. There is only one way of access, a very narrow one, the Communist Party. Is it desirable for the writer to engage himself in it? If he does it out of conviction as a citizen and out of disgust with literature, very well, he has chosen. But can he become a communist and remain a writer?
The C. P. aligns its politics with that of Soviet Russia because this is the only country in which onefindsthe rough draught of a socialist organization. But if it is true that Russia began the social revolution, it is also true that she has not ended it. The retardation of her industry, her shortage of supervisory personnel, and the masses' lack of culture have prevented her from realizing socialism by herself and even from imposing it upon other countries by the con- tagion of her example. If the revolutionary movement which started from Moscow could have spread to other nations, it would have continued to evolve in Russia itself in propor- tion to the ground it gained outside. Contained within the Soviet frontiers, it congealed into a defensive and conserva- tive nationalism because it had to save, at any cost, the results it had achieved. At the very moment when it was becoming the Mecca of the working classes, Russia saw that it was impossible, on one hand, for her to assume her
? 2o6 I What Is Literature?
historical mission and, on the other, to deny it. She was forced to withdraw into herself, to apply herself to creating supervisors, to catch up on her equipment, and to perpetuate herself by an authoritarian re? gime in the form of a revolu- tion at a standstill. As the European parties which derived from her, and which were preparing for the coming of the proletariat, were nowhere strong enough to take the offen- sive, she had to use them as the advance bastions of her defence. But as they could serve her, in regard to the masses, only by fostering revolutionary politics, and as she has never lost hope of becoming the leader of the European proletariat if circumstances should some day show them- selves more favourable, she has left them their red flag and their faith. Thus the forces of the World Revolution have been diverted to the maintenance of a revolution in a state of hibernation. Still, it must be acknowledged that, in so far as it has honestly believed in the possibility, even though remote, of seizing power by insurrection, and in so far as it has made it its business to weaken the bourgeoisie and to bore from within the Socialist Party, the C. P. has practised a negative criticism of capitalistic institutions and re? gimes which has maintained the outer appearances of freedom. Before 1939 it made use of everything: pamphlets, satires, bitter novels, Surrealistic violence, overwhelming evidence regarding our colonial methods. Since 1944 things have become aggravated; a collapsing Europe has simplified the situation. Two powers remain standing, the U. S. S. R. and the U. S. A. ; each one frightens the other. From fear, as we know, comes anger, and from anger, blows.
Now, the U. S. S.