Questions on Writer in Bourgeois Society

kelley kwalker2 at gte.net
Wed Sep 6 00:20:43 PDT 2000


john k, i sent this to the list i run with ken, jordan and kirsten, pulp-culture. i figured a few folks might be interested and that it would def. engage at least one person i know. what follows is his response to your query. i agree that when sartre refers to the aristocracy they certainly were considered parasites. afterall, they were considered such as opposed to the "entrepreneurial bourgeoisie" who worked hard, invested and built their businesses damn it! the aristocracy simply lived off tradition. anway, if i can find it, i have a discussion of this somewhere and i'll pass it along. for now, here's gary norris <stroszek at earthlink.net> in response to your questions.

kelley

from: gary patrick norris <stroszek at earthlink.net>

>

> First, it never occurred to me that the aristocracy was "parasitic". I

> thought that at least in its origins it was a warrior class, which I

> assumed could not be parasitic. So, is a warrior class parasitic? If

> not, did the aristocracy degenerate to parasitism?

we're talking 18thC here, so it is very important to keep in mind how the aristocracy maintained wealth, not earned it. the aristocracy of the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries certainly hadn't earned their wealth; they inherited and maintained it.

as concerns sartre's view of parasitism:

parasites depend upon the existence of a culture that toils per/consistently in the world (and maintains the environment, works the environment) so that they, the parasitic element, may live off the results of others' labor. even when considering the term in strictly biological terms, sartre's metaphor works.

> Second, what is parasitism? Note that clerks and priests in Sartre's

> passage are lumped with parasites. But since clerks and priests do

> necessary work (at least, necessary to somebody) in what sense are

> they parasites?

clerks do not exist independent of the aristocracy.

the Church is aristocratic. therefore, priests are parasitic.

and i would argue, kelley, that the priests did not perform necessary work. priests' work has some meaning, however that doesn't quite meet the standards of necessity.

> I rather agree that the writer, at least the poet, has lost a meaningful

> function in bourgeois society. Poetry may be interesting, but it just

> isn't needed. Sartre says that there is nevertheless a bourgeois blessed

> use for writers (and poets).

function and fashion...also, you have to have a segment of society that represents special functions for human endeavor. the bourgeoisie doesn't appreciate appearing one dimensional. i am sure you have heard poets revered as priests. a poet like baudelaire vomits at the idea that he is a priest for bourgeois ideals. makes me want to puke. this revolt, or urge, is natural and necessary. and, if you accept it (write as a poet, for example,) then the declassing element comes in...where or with whom do i belong? it doesn't matter in the end...only the act of writing means anything...

> What would that be today? Journalist, like

> Safire or Molly Ivins, perhaps? Copywriter for an ad agency? Ghost

> writing like Buchanan? Technical writing for IBM?

the poet still functions as a medium for observation and will still find a niche...

but i wonder if you are not looking at sartre's problem with a too pragmatic and capitalistic eye? all your examples are roles that, if the writer can perform them well, are lucrative careers. the poet is an artist: baudelaire's contempt for his readers was necessary for him to remain an ideal poet.

and we are not talking journalist or technical writer...

the problem is hard to compare with professional writing of today, because writer's then had to scramble from patron to patron. most were poor and despised. many were in exile. they certainly hadn't decided to go to school and then kissed ass in order t oget into NYU's journalism program, and then did as they were told until they landed that "i wanna be like fran leibowitz" writing gig.

today, you can be a despised artist or a wealthy professional writer. you can be declassed or an aristocrat. you can make the choice and get away with the decision. it is just that a new level of modernism-- professionalism-- has been added. i get this from my father (sometimes): "if you like to write, why not write and make money."

somehow, the writing and the money are tied together. some of us writers feel the need to separate this completely.

sartre once said to an audience of academics, leftists i presume from the flavor of his comment, he found it very disconcerting that while he devoted his study for the (hopeful) benefit of the proletariat, only the bourgeoisie could understand what he had written.

the problem sartre faced, baudelaire faced, most activists face, is that while the composition/work may be praised for its genius*** (therefore, "contribute to the myths that permit the oppression of the proletariat,") the artist/worker must stay apart from any class.

***i am using genius both as a state of intellect and as a place, as in "the genius of the greek home was the altar. "

for the artist who loves her art,

the society that supports an act exiles the agent.

in this world, your work becomes a reflection/reaction to the class that supports it. hence, sartre's complaint about his position as a radical becomes poignant rather than merely self-concerned.

anyone who has participated in labor work, sold a piece of art, or published/read their writing (in an ongoing fashion) has experienced this type of revolt.

"I know the passionate lover of fine style exposes himself to the hatred of the masses; but no respect for humanity, no false modesty, no conspiracy, no universal suffrage will ever force me to speak the unspeakable jargon of the age, or to confuse ink with virtue."

"...A difficult matter, to rise to that divine callousness! For, despite my most commendable efforts, even I have not been able to resist the desire to please my contemporaries, as witness in several places, laid on like make-up, certain patches of base flattery aimed at democracy, and even a certain amount of filth meant to excuse the dreariness of my subject. But the gentlemen of the press having proved ungrateful for tender attentions of this kind, I have eliminated every trace of both, so far as possible, from this new edition."

--a couple of selections from Baudelaire's preface to Les Fleurs du Mal



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list