Conservative Literature?

[Drkshadow03]

I once read on a blog a leftist writer claim that conservatives cannot write good fiction or create original art for that matter. Her theory went that since conservatism is reactionary by nature they ware in capable of experimenting, inventing new forms, and challenging the status quo, a necessity for creating innovative art, in this person's opinion. It's an interesting theory.

Do you think conservatives are incapable of creating good and innovative art? Can you name some examples from literature, art, film of good conservative art or conservative-leaning artists (meaning writers, directors, painters, etc.)? When considering this question, does a problem exist in that what was fairly "liberal" and "progressive" for its time is now considered conservative?

Thoughts?

[JBI]

Johan Sebastian Bach. Literature is trickier, but I think Pope, Johnson, et al. constitute a sort of conservatism.

[Lokasenna]

Evelyn Waugh and P G Wodehouse spring to mind. T S Eliot too.

Wordsworth also turned Tory eventually...

[Eryk]

Are conservatives less creative than liberals? (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/beautiful-minds/200811/are-conservatives-less-creative-liberals-0)


We already know from prior studies that conservatives prefer simple representational art over abstract art, traditional poetry over the avant-garde, and music that is simple, familiar, and 'safe'.

But what about when it comes to engagement in creative behaviors and actual creative ability? Are conservatives less creative than liberals?

Psychologist Stephen J. Dollinger assessed the creative behaviors and products of 426 undergraduates. For behavior, he assessed engagement in various creative activities, spanning the domains of visual arts, literary arts, performance, and crafts.

He found that compared to liberals, those endorsing more conservative positions had fewer creative accomplishments, and produced photo essays and drawings that were judged as less creative (although statistically significant, note that the effect sizes weren't huge). Even taking into account the vocabulary and openness to experience of each participant, the results for drawing products and creative behaviors still held up. Interestingly, he also found that those who were more conservative did worse on the vocabulary test and were less open to experience.

[Modest Proposal]

The real issue I believe is that literature repressents the dissenting group in society. Since European and western society in general has had a conservative ruling class for much of history, most of its art--dissenting--is liberal.

But look at the great Russians. Fyodor D., Leo Tolstoy, both were anti-communist and strong Christians.

I really believe that it is more a matter of great art--usually--BEING SEEN AS that which speaks as a minority against a system in power.

Also Salvadora Dali and Ezra Pound were Fascists and T.S. Eliot was very conservative.

[Emil Miller]

Henry James
Marcel Proust
Henry de Montherlant
Guy de Maupassant

[LukeS.]

The article linked to is really in reference to contemporary politics in the united states. "Liberal" and "Conservative" have precise definitions, as measured by views about particular topics, like gay rights and multiculturalism. I don't think it is safe to point out authors from other countries or those from the distant past; they didn't have the same labels and issues to deal with.

The article also erroneously assumes that being liberal causes one to be more creative, when in fact it very well may be that there exists only a correlation between the two. Claiming that America will become more creative simply because Barack Obama is the president is absurd.

[Drkshadow03]

Are conservatives less creative than liberals? (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/beautiful-minds/200811/are-conservatives-less-creative-liberals-0)

The other possible area of bias that immediately stood out when reading the description of the study was that judges (MFA student) themselves might be liberal and prefer a certain type of art. I wonder if they tried to get MFA judges who came from different political backgrounds . . .

[mayneverhave]

The fascist sympathizing Ezra Pound?

[Desolation]

Kerouac, Dostoevsky, and Baudelaire were somewhat conservative.

I think that it's more correlation than causation. With the atmosphere of modern America, and the poor treatment of artists by Capitalism, it makes sense that present day artists within America would be more liberal.

[Drkshadow03]

By the way, can those who offered names explain what about these authors makes them conservative in your minds and more specifically how that conservatism was articulated in their actual literary/art works?

For example, in what form does Henry James' conservatism appear in his work? Ditto Proust, Waugh, and everyone else people named.

[LukeS.]

But the argument is that being politically conservative means being less creative...it isn't necessary that one's politics come through into one's artwork.

Of course, it goes with out saying that if you are artistically conservative, then you aren't pushing the envelope or experimenting with form. But artistic conservatism and political conservatism are not the same thing.

[SFG75]

JBI and others have pointed out that some already famous writers are "conservative" within the sense of the word traditionally. I would also add the works of Ayn Rand to that category, though objectivism is only a cousin of conservatism.

[Virgil]

Of those not mentioned Dante, Wallace Stevens, W.A. Auden, Marianne Moore, William Faulkner, Joseph Conrad, Ayn Rand, Mario Vargas Llosa, Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa, Walker Percy, Cormac McCarthy, Jane Austen, J.R.R. Tolkein, C.S. Lewis. These come to mind, and I'm sure there's more. And perhaps some of those are disputable, but I can make the case for each. I could also make the case for William Shakespeare, but I could also make the case against him. He seems to go both ways, though i think more plays I would call having a conservative bent that a liberal.

[LukeS.]

No, they haven't. J.S. Bach doesn't count. In order to actually discuss the thesis, we need examples of contemporary American artists, because the study categorized subjects as liberal or conservative based on their responses to contemporary American political issues.

If we're going to talk about people from history who were "conservative" in the broad sense of the word, then we aren't really engaging the study at all. Ayn Rand is the closest, but was she really "creative?" (Did she experiment with form, challenge the status quo, etc.?)

I for one think the study is ridiculous, and as with any study, alone it means nothing. It must be replicated, many many times, else we don't have anything to say.

[Virgil]

Any writer that explicitly writes from a political bent (on either side) is automatically less than creative than not. Political writing is boring, limited, and emphemeral.

[Eryk]

In order to actually discuss the thesis, we need examples of contemporary American artists, because the study categorized subjects as liberal or conservative based on their responses to contemporary American political issues.

Current authors that come to mind are Dean Koontz (donates to Republican candidates), Orson Scott Card (social conservative), P. D. James (religious and political conservative), and Mark Helprin (A Soldier of the Great War is one of my all time favorite novels).

[hellsapoppin]

Years ago Al Capp was a hard core right winger whose cartoons and writings were extremely creative. He was beloved by the far right pundits until the day he was convicted for sexual deviation.

[stlukesguild]

Personally, I think the artist's political, social, economic, religious, and personal and sexual beliefs and practices have little to do with the aesthetic merit of their art or their aesthetic creativity... outside of the instances in which the art directly addresses these issues. Ingres, Degas, Dante and many others were clearly conservative in their political positions. A vast majority of the history of art is filled with artists, poets, novelists, and composers who held close to the conservative religious beliefs that they inherited from their parents. The idea of a study of creativity among Liberals vs Conservatives is absurd because it ignores the fact that what is defined as Liberal or Conservative varies over time and between cultures, and it ignores that fact that few people (outside of the extremists) fall clearly into one camp or the other. Many people are fiscal conservatives but liberal with regard to social issues. Some people are conservative with regard to politics but quite liberal with regard to religion or sexual practices. The whole question strikes me as another "Us vs Them" provocation that has been devisive to American public discourse for far too long.:mad:

[Etienne]

Personally, I think the artist's political, social, economic, religious, and personal and sexual beliefs and practices have little to do with the aesthetic merit of their art or their aesthetic creativity... outside of the instances in which the art directly addresses these issues. Ingres, Degas, Dante and many others were clearly conservative in their political positions. A vast majority of the history of art is filled with artists, poets, novelists, and composers who held close to the conservative religious beliefs that they inherited from their parents. The idea of a study of creativity among Liberals vs Conservatives is absurd because it ignores the fact that what is defined as Liberal or Conservative varies over time and between cultures, and it ignores that fact that few people (outside of the extremists) fall clearly into one camp or the other. Many people are fiscal conservatives but liberal with regard to social issues. Some people are conservative with regard to politics but quite liberal with regard to religion or sexual practices. The whole question strikes me as another "Us vs Them" provocation that has been devisive to American public discourse for far too long.:mad:

Yes indeed, it is really the kind of discussion that could only occur in this typically American dichotomy. Somehow some people think this is a scale by which everything and anything can be measured. But I don't think that even American politics could be measured by these standards, let alone the rest, and especially not artistic creativity.

[Drkshadow03]

Stluke,

those are all very good points.

[Manchegan]

I agree with the study. American conservatism doesn't mesh well with art, especially on a social level. Let's do a quick excercise...

In your head, imagine a typical liberal. What does s/he dress like, do for fun, and talk about?

Can you picture him creating art somewhere? or discussing art with friends? You most certainly can. He's drinking chai latte and wearing a neat little hat while writing poems in an outdoor cafe, isn't he?

Now do the same with a conservative...You're picturing either a redneck, religious nut (you leftist pig) or else a trim and proper businessperson. In either picture, does said conservative care about any aesthetics, form, or creativity? Of course not. He's got money to make or else Nascar to watch.

That was fun, wasn't it? Now, we were playing a game in broad stereotypes, and there are certainly exceptions to the general rule (As a semi-conservative writer, I hope I am one), but the rule stands. I'm embarrassed to discuss my writing or art in general with my conservative friends. They see it as pointless and gay. Luckily I keep a few liberals around in case I need to talk about anything lofty and pointless.

[haprdgn]

Dr. Seuss?

[stlukesguild]

AcccKK!!! :eek2:

You gotta love how the computer monitors our discussions and throws up ads to match: Ann Coulter- Free!

:sick: Where's the "barf" smiley when you need it?!

[Drkshadow03]

AcccKK!!! :eek2:

You gotta love how the computer monitors our discussions and throws up ads to match: Ann Coulter- Free!

:sick: Where's the "barf" smiley when you need it?!

Her next book is going to be a collection of sonnets, "Why I Hate Liberals and Love Rush Limbaugh." It's of course going to be a collection of erotic poetry!

[JBI]

Honestly, there have historically been totalitarian maniacs as good writers - art and politics hardly matter, evidently - Conservatism is mostly a Western creation anyway, and in the way you mean it, I think mostly an American phenomenon, though it has strands in Canada and England as well. Classical conservatism is an honorable intellectual movement - contemporary conservatism, arguably is a whole other beast with nothing really to do with its for-runner - and I think they are now at neo-neo-neo-Conservatism, so things are looking a little weird.


In the scheme of things though, artist's personal politics rarely matter. The whole humanist idea of Petrarch of the removed humanist from politics was shot down by Petrarch to, when he realized Cicero was so darn heavily involved in politics (and arguably wasn't the nicest of people, despite his style).

[mal4mac]

Evelyn Waugh and P G Wodehouse spring to mind. T S Eliot too.

Waugh and Eliot I'd agree are good counter-examples.


Wordsworth also turned Tory eventually...

Didn't his poetry decay at the same rate as his politics?:D

It's fairly difficult putting such labels on older poets, but couldn't Dante, and maybe even Shakespeare be considered as at least small 'c' conservatives? Dante basically accepted the Christian ideas of heaven and hell and created a new scripture, isn't that a conservative attitude?

I can't see how or why aesthetic value would be created more readily from class struggle than from Waugh's Oxford experiences. In any case, the true arbiters of taste (the best authors and critics) have produced a list of canonical authors that come from all parts of the political spectrum. So the left wing forum commentator was just allowing her left wing prejudice to overcome any smattering of literary culture she might have.

If you are left wing, and want a smattering of literary culture, then read the first few chapters of Waugh's Brideshead Revisited. That should stop you from making inane comments like 'Tory's can't be great writers'. Of course, if you become a great writers, it doesn't mean that your political views, or basic human decency, will necessarily become of the highest standard.


JBI I would also add the works of Ayn Rand...

You can't. You are not a gatekeeper of literary culture. She isn't rated by any leading literary critics. She's also not rated by philosophical gatekeepers. She's rated by objectivists, so if you are attracted to that minority cult then you can herald her as your queen. But please stop trying to force bad writing on those concerned with good writing.

[Drkshadow03]

Honestly, there have historically been totalitarian maniacs as good writers

Besides Eliot, did you have others in mind?

[stlukesguild]

Machiavelli? Ezra Pound?

[JBI]

Besides Eliot, did you have others in mind?

Not even - there have been real major figures across cultures who have been full out megalomaniacal dictators. Chinese ones come to mind first on this, but ultimately, what's the point of naming them if only a few here have actually heard of them. Also, many Roman writers have questionable politics, but ultimately, Mortal Terror will be far better to tell you about them than me.


I guess a more nuanced character would be Mao as accomplished poet and calligraphist. Take what you want from that, but he is held in quite high esteem as an artist, and philosophical/political thinker. What do we make of that then?

[Drkshadow03]

Not even - there have been real major figures across cultures who have been full out megalomaniacal dictators. Chinese ones come to mind first on this, but ultimately, what's the point of naming them if only a few here have actually heard of them. Also, many Roman writers have questionable politics, but ultimately, Mortal Terror will be far better to tell you about them than me.


I guess a more nuanced character would be Mao as accomplished poet and calligraphist. Take what you want from that, but he is held in quite high esteem as an artist, and philosophical/political thinker. What do we make of that then?

Well, technically Mao counts as Leftist, no?

[JBI]

Well, technically Mao counts as Leftist, no?

Oh, I was running a little off topic - certainly he is some sort of political radical - though leftist is a pretty arbitrary title.

Borges would be a better figure of "conservative", as would Hugo too, I was just trying to illustrate how politics generally have no bearing on the power of the artist, and how, naturally, we will ignore, over time, a person's biography as making them not worth reading as artists.

[Modest Proposal]

Oh, I was running a little off topic - certainly he is some sort of political radical - though leftist is a pretty arbitrary title.

Borges would be a better figure of "conservative", as would Hugo too, I was just trying to illustrate how politics generally have no bearing on the power of the artist, and how, naturally, we will ignore, over time, a person's biography as making them not worth reading as artists.

A great essay by Toni Morrison, I believe titled "Dancing in the Dark", talks about just such a proposition. She was suggesting that authors like Poe and Faulkner not be neglected for perceived racism. I completely agree.

[JCamilo]

Machiavelli? Ezra Pound?

Well, Borges, Voltaire, Virgil, Thomas Carlyle... (I have disagree with those that listed Baudelaire)... Maybe Flaubert... However wrote 1001 Nights...

I have seen this question before, more with the idea that great art is always creative, always revolutionary and this demands that the artits must be always fighting against soemthing and we are never going to have a period of good production with stability, which seems to be rather contraditory with some hystorical momments. Of course it is not relevant if we are talking about the work itself,it can becase circular and point they can not be conservative but always creative and we better get drunk.

[PeterL]

Someone probably could construct definitions of the terms "liberal" and "conservative" such that all of the bad writers would be in the conservative pile. Then again, that's kind of what people have already done with those terms. The definitions have been changing frequently. Thomas Jefferson was a liberal, but these days people who agree with his political views are classified as libertarians rather than liberal.

[stlukesguild]

I guess a more nuanced character would be Mao as accomplished poet and calligraphist. Take what you want from that, but he is held in quite high esteem as an artist, and philosophical/political thinker. What do we make of that then?

Of course, for a while Mao's writings and perhaps 3 or 4 other books were the only texts permitted to be read during the Cultural Revolution. If you pretty much eliminate all competition I guess that might gain a rather high esteem for the few who still survive.

[JBI]

I guess a more nuanced character would be Mao as accomplished poet and calligraphist. Take what you want from that, but he is held in quite high esteem as an artist, and philosophical/political thinker. What do we make of that then?

Of course, for a while Mao's writings and perhaps 3 or 4 other books were the only texts permitted to be read during the Cultural Revolution. If you pretty much eliminate all competition I guess that might gain a rather high esteem for the few who still survive.

It doesn't matter - he was well regarded as an accomplished artist long before the cultural revolution, and has since gone down in history as a great poetic mind. The bulk of his poetical opus was supposedly written between 34 and 36 - so, ultimately, the voice isn't that of the World War 2 Mao, The Great Leap Forward Mao, or the Cultural revolution Mao, or even the "You don't go, I too will not go" Mao - The poems themselves at any rate, clearly do not display the mentality of the cultural revolution - after all, they are written in Classical Chinese, with much reference to Tang Poetry in general - Mao's writings on various Tang poets too have had influence on the critical field as well.

Besides which, the so called Little Red Book which actually was published in mass during the Cultural Revolution isn't a bad book in itself either - as literature I think it reads really well, despite whatever perception one might have of its author, whether it be tyrant or savior.




I don't think Mao as a literary figure can really be disputed - it's not as if the PRC Communist Party are trying to wipe out the past anyway - the literary history of China is far better taught, in terms of curriculum, in Urban centres (I put this distinction here, as it is impossible to ignore the lack of proper education systems within some provinces, and the rural parts of China in general) than English is taught in England or the US, or Canada. Quite simply, if you are suggesting that Mao is only popular because he stomped out competition, you are ignoring the fact that literary culture has been, and ultimately is one of the soul forces that not only governs Chinese thought and education, but also forms the way language is used itself.

Within all that then, there has, and is still room for Mao as a poet, so I think by denying him, you are making too great assumptions. He isn't Li Bai, but ultimately, nobody is.

[sixsmith]

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Yeats.

I'm also thinking Mishima, Bellow. Knut Hamsun was slightly to the right of Genghis Khan.