It is not often that a book
cover nearly outshines the book itself, but Rachel Willie's first book is close
to being upstaged by the cover showing Wenceslas Holler's illustration of Aesop's
fable 'Of The Rebellion of the Arms and the Legs'.[1]
The use of art or in this case,
the use of drama to understand and explain the counter-revolution that took
place during the Restoration period is a positive development.
Willie's use of art as the
cognition of life is in the spirit of great Aleksandr Konstantinovich Voronsky if not his politics. As Voronsky writes "What
is art? First, art is the cognition of life. Art is not the free play of
fantasy, feelings and moods; art is not the expression of merely the subjective
sensations and experiences of the poet; art is not assigned the goal of
primarily awakening in the reader 'good feelings.' Like science, art cognises
life. Both art and science have the same subject: life, reality. But science
analyses, art synthesises; science is abstract, art is concrete; science turns
to the mind of man, art to his sensual nature. Science cognises life with the
help of concepts, art with the aid of images in the form of living, sensual
contemplation."[2]
 |
| Rachel Willie |
Willie's book from a historiography
standpoint is revisionist through and through. Willie is part of a new generation
of British historians whose Historiography is an explicit rejection of previous
Whig and Marxist historiography.
While not ignoring what
passes for Marxist historiography her uncritical attitude towards Margot Heinemann[3] is
especially troubling. Heinemann was intimately connected to the Stalinist
perspective of Peoples history practised by the British Communist Party. The
Communist Party sponsored a form of "People's History" first came to
prominence after A.L. Morton's People's History of England was published. As
Ann Talbot points out, Morton obscured the class character of earlier rebels
and revolutionaries and popular leaders "regarding them all as
representatives of a national revolutionary tradition. This historical approach
reflected the nationalism of the bureaucracy, their hostility to
internationalism and their attempts to form an unprincipled alliance with the
supposedly democratic capitalists against the fascist Axis countries.[4]
Heineman is only mentioned
twice in the book, so it is hard to gauge how much she influences Willie. My
guess is quite a bit, and the extent of her influence will probably come out
during further projects by Willie.
While Heinemann is used from
a political standpoint, her use of Jurgen Habermas is down to her agreement
with his philosophical outlook. Habermas was a crucial figure in the anti-Marxism
Frankfurt School.
Much of Habermas's writings were
borrowed by cultural theorists such as Stuart Hall who in turn borrowed certain
conceptions from the Italian left-wing figure Antonio Gramsci, particularly the
latter's notion of cultural hegemony in addressing popular culture as a
preferred sphere of political activity. As Paul Bond writes "Gramsci was
attractive not merely for his cultural writings—many of which were produced
during solitary confinement under the Mussolini fascist regime—but also for his
attacks on economic determinism, his explicit rejection of the theory of
Permanent Revolution and his justification of the nationalist orientation of
Stalinism: As Gramsci declared, "To be sure, the line of development is
toward internationalism, but the point of departure is 'national'—and it is
from this point of departure that one must begin".[5] Willie's theoretical outlook appears to be an
amalgam of all three.
Willie's absentmindedness towards
Habermas's politics is another troubling aspect of the book. As Uli Rippert[6]
points out, Habermas represents the political transformation that took place in
many of his generations from the late 1960s who protested against the Vietnam War but have now thrown their lot in
with the German bourgeoisie's imperial designs and warmongering.
Willie's usage of the work
of Hannah Arendt is perhaps the most baffling. Arendt was a liberal opponent of
fascism who was an apologist of Martin Heidegger's Nazi sympathies. Arendt bent
over backwards in her attempts to downplay Heidegger's Nazi connections saying "Heidegger
himself corrected his own 'error' more quickly and more radically than many of
those who later sat in judgment over him—he took considerably greater risks
than were usual in German literary and university life during that period."[7]
To conclude, while being a
useful introduction to the study of Restoration drama, it is beholden of Willie
in the future to defend her choices of political and philosophical friends.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Belly_and_the_Members
[2] Art as the Cognition of Life,
Selected Writings 1911-1936, -Aleksandr Konstantinovich Voronsky, Mehring Books,
Michigan, 1998,-ISBN 0-929087-76-3, 554 pages,
[3] Puritanism and Theatre: Thomas
Middleton and Opposition Drama under the Early Stuarts, 1980
[4]
"These the times ... this
the man": an appraisal of historian Christopher Hill
by Ann
Talbot-25 March 2003
[5]
Cultural theorist Stuart Hall
(1932-2014): A political career dedicated to opposing Marxism- https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/03/05/hall-m05.html
[6] Jürgen Habermas—Germany's state
philosopher turns 85
By
Ulrich Rippert-18 June 2014-
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/06/18/habe-j18.html
[7] Quoted in The Case of Martin
Heidegger, Philosopher and Nazi-The Cover-up-By Alex Steiner
4 April
2000- https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2000/04/heid-a04.html
