Jerome J McGann, "The Romantic Ideology" (Book Note)

 

In his critical analysis of Romantic works, McGann emphasizes the importance of understanding them within their historical context and ideological frameworks. He argues that interpreting Romantic literature solely through its own theoretical preconceptions can obscure the distinctions between the ideologies of the past and present, as well as between individual works within the Romantic movement.

 

McGann proposes a tri-partite division of Romanticism into three phases: pre-Terror apocalyptic visions, post-Terror revisionism, and second-generation anti-Napoleonic skepticism and despair. He briefly discusses key works within each phase to illustrate his point but focuses more on delineating the historical context rather than detailed analysis.

 

McGann identifies three critical ideologies influencing contemporary interpretations of Romanticism: the French Ideology, the German Ideology, and the Critical tradition. The French Ideology, rooted in Enlightenment rationalist thought, tends to view Romanticism negatively as visionary and escapist. In contrast, the German Ideology, championed by figures like Coleridge and Hegel, portrays Romanticism as a dialectical creative process striving for higher consciousness.

 

McGann criticizes the German Ideology for blurring the distinction between past and present, leading to a broad categorization of modern works as "romantic." Instead, he advocates for a Critical tradition, inspired by Heine's Die Romantische Schule, which maintains a critical distance from Romanticism's self-representations. This approach enables critics to present analyses that consistently recognize the differences between past literary works and the present, as well as the distinctions between individual works.

 

McGann's critical project, while contributing to the body of literary theory known as "the new historicism," faces criticism for oversimplifying terms, misrepresenting opposing viewpoints, and disregarding exceptions. While his polemic raises valid points, it is essential to recognize its limitations and potential misreadings before accepting it as a definitive critique of current Romantic scholarship.

 

Central to McGann's argument is his definition of ideology as "a coherent or loosely organized set of ideas which is the expression of the special interests of some class or social group." However, this definition is critiqued for its simplicity and rigidity. Scholars like Mikhail Bakhtin have argued that ideology is not a monolithic entity but rather a dynamic dialogue between differing ideas and values. Bakhtin highlights that individuals, as members of various social groups and classes, contribute to and negotiate multiple ideologies simultaneously.

 

Bakhtin's perspective expands the notion of ideology beyond economic interests to encompass the complex interplay of social, historical, and individual factors. He emphasizes that each social group possesses its own distinct language or dialect, reflecting its unique values and shared experiences. This plurality of voices and perspectives complicates the notion of ideology as a uniform expression of class interests.

 

Moreover, Bakhtin underscores the role of translation and negotiation in the process of understanding. Because individuals belong to multiple social groups and never entirely coincide in their experiences, comprehension involves an ongoing negotiation of values and meanings. Understanding becomes an interactive phenomenon shaped by the interrelation of diverse perspectives.

McGann's critique suffers from a failure to acknowledge the dialogic nature of ideology, leading to blurred distinctions within the ideological groups he identifies. His discussion sometimes conflates various Romantic ideologies with a singular Romantic Ideology, neglecting the diversity of perspectives within the movement. While every literary work represents a unique interaction between conflicting ideas and interests, there are also shared ideological elements resulting from common historical experiences and participation in a capitalist mode of production.

 

A thorough examination of Romantic ideology would require greater attention to these dialogic distinctions and engagement with theorists of capitalist ideology, such as Skinner, Pocock, Gramsci, Althusser, and Habermas, whom McGann overlooks. Moreover, McGann's endorsement of Marx and Engels' characterization of the German Ideology as "false consciousness" implies the existence of a higher "true" consciousness, identified by McGann with the Critical tradition derived from Heine. However, McGann fails to recognize that his preferred Critical tradition is itself an ideology, shaped by academic interests with their own assumptions and limitations.

 

While McGann acknowledges that all critics operate within an Ideological State Apparatus, he does not fully examine the ideology he serves or the extent to which his own critical judgments may be influenced by it. His polemical approach tends to exaggerate the faults of opposing viewpoints and neglects the possibility of dialogue within ideology. For instance, his dismissal of recent Jane Austen criticism as "romantic" overlooks scholars like Judith Newton and Susan Morgan, who have traced the complex interplay of rationalistic and Romantic ideologies in Austen's work. They demonstrate how Austen navigates conflicting ideologies based on her historical, biographical, and economic circumstances.

 

In his critique of recent theorists of Romanticism, McGann frequently misrepresents their arguments and overlooks important distinctions among various Romantic ideologies. He tends to set up straw-critics, failing to acknowledge the nuanced perspectives of scholars who have examined the diverse varieties of Romanticism.

 

One example of this is McGann's conflation of the ideology of romantic irony with what he calls "the" Romantic ideology of Coleridge and Hegel. He attributes to English Romantic Irony the argument that poetic forms not showing "an enthusiastic response to process and change" are not Romantic, which is a misinterpretation. In reality, English Romantic Irony argues that such forms are different from romantic ironic ones. Romantic irony, as an ideology, shapes some Romantic works but not all, and it competes against other powerful idea systems of the early nineteenth century, such as apocalyptic Christianity, natural supernaturalism, romantic agony, and utilitarianism. These ideologies are grounded in capitalist modes of production and differ significantly from contemporary ideologies. By hastily condemning other critics' ideological positions, McGann introduces further confusion into the discourse.

 

McGann's classification of Heine's Die Romantische Schule as an example of the Critical tradition overlooks its alignment with romantic irony. Heine's essay exhibits the rhythms of commitment and detachment characteristic of romantic irony, as he creatively engages with and skeptically deconstructs various poetic modes. Despite McGann's emphasis on Heine's sense of loss and distance, he fails to acknowledge the ironic conclusion of Heine's chapter on Uhland, which ends not in despair but with a cheer for progress. Heine sustains his romantic irony throughout, engaging in a creative and decreative process distinct from the Sehnsucht and creative process equated with it by McGann.