The Discourse on Hellenicity, Historical Continuity and the Greek Left
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ANGELIKI KOUFOU The discourse on Hellenicity, historical continuity and the Greek Left THHEE DDISCOURSEISCOURSE OONN HEELLENICITYLLENICITY was shaped during nation rather than its spiritual and supra-local nature as the inter-war period along different intellectual trajecto- the nationalist historians of the nineteenth century, most ries. Rather than being the unique achievement of what notably Konstantinos Paparrigopoulos, had done.5 The has been called the ‘generation of the thirties’, this dis- presence of landscape in the thought of Periklis Gian- course was more like a palimpsest, in other words a locus nopoulos was incompatible with the nationalist ideology on which different traditions articulate with one another of Ion Dragoumis6 for example, or, for that matter, with enabling us to detect the interpenetration of ideological the dominant version of the ‘Great Idea’. and aesthetic positions and the fluidity of their bounda- The discourse on Hellenicity was specific to the histori- ries.1 As Artemis Leontis rightly observes, this discourse cal conditions that followed the final defeat of Greece in reflected the dominant form of aesthetic nationalism 1922, the collapse of the nationalist project, and the re- which identified Hellenism with the physical landscape duction of Greek territorial ambitions to Greece proper. of the Greek peninsula, not with the Greek nation at large However, as mentioned above, this discourse was like a (a great portion of which was yet to be redeemed).2 This palimpsest where different ideological trajectories inter- aesthetic and historical position drew on the ‘indigenous sected and for this reason it is necessary to deconstruct it ideal’ of Periklis Giannopoulos, who saw cultural creativ- in order to reveal the circumstances of its production as ity as based on the aesthetic value of the Greek landscape.3 well as the channels through which it affected the theory The reason why I refer to these issues, already discussed and cultural practice of the Greek Left. At this point the by A. Leontis and D. Tziovas among others, is because reader should be reminded that the generation of the they set the parameters for the discussion which follows thirties, the influential group of liberal intellectuals who and in order to look again at certain aspects of the debate. moved beyond demoticism and faced up to the challenge For example, the discourse on Hellenicity takes the geo- of Marxism, played a major role in shaping the discourse physical landscape as the locus where all phases of Greek on Hellenicity.7 The fact that an intellectual movement, history intersect and become part of a whole. In this con- such as that of the generation of the thirties, which posi- text historical continuity is effected through the unity tioned itself in the modernist avant-garde and introduced of the landscape. Yet, this view is not complementary to cosmopolitanism to the literate Greek public, ended up other ideas on Greek national cohesiveness. Although the as the champion of Hellenicityand led to the almost pa- ‘geo-climatic’ theory shared the belief in the uniqueness ganistic worshipping of the Greek landscape, as Leontis and superiority of the Greek nation – which as Leontis claims,8 demands an explanation. This retrogression was argues involved a radical transformation from the ideal of caused by a number of factors. First, there were the histori- the humble nation to the vision of transcendental nation4 cal conditions that followed the creation of the modern – it emphasized the local and physical dimension of the Greek state and shaped the Greek national and cultural 3rd SU PPL EMEN T, AT HENS 20 08 299 A SINGULAR ANTIQUITY ANGELIKI KOUFOU identity. Secondly, it owes something to the influence of socialist reviews as a case in point, particularly these with a pre-existing set of traditions which, one way or another, strong ties with the Greek Communist Party(hereafter: had generated the discussion about Hellenicity. Finally, KKE) like NeaEpitheorisi (‘New Review’) and Protoporoi we should not overlook the strong urge to create an indig- (‘Pioneers’). In these reviews pluralism of opinion, breadth enous and autonomous point of reference (entopia) as an of acceptance of artistic and specifically of avant-garde in- answer to the heterotopian visions of Greece concocted by novation were inversely proportional to the ties with the the Western appropriations of Classical Greece.9 party machine. In fact, approval of some versions of Hel- The need to forge a coherent and self-sufficient Greek lenicity in some of these reviews was the outcome of the cultural identity was made all the more urgent by the direct influence of left-wing politics on aesthetics. uncertain historical and political progress of the scrappy Until 1931 party control over NeaEpitheorisi and Pro modern Greek state. As Tziovas claims, maybe herein lies toporoiwas weak and both reviews collaborated with a the reason why the ambitious and contradictory project of large number of left-wing and socialist intellectuals, such the liberal intellectuals, which was meant to reconcile de- as Hourmouzios and Rantos, who had no official associa- moticism and cosmopolitanism, modernity and tradition, tion with the KKE.14 However, the situation in Europe, retrogressed and lost its avant-garde vigour.10 As for the pre- particularly the rise to power of Fascism in Germany and existing traditions affecting the making of the discourse on elsewhere, along with developments in the USSR, the de- Hellenicity,they were related to the discussions on the na- feat of Trotsky and the establishment of Stalinism, created ture of ‘national art’ that had taken place during the twen- a novel situation, which directly affected cultural conflicts ties,11 to intellectual conflicts regarding the modern,12 and and the circulation of ideas in Greece. Pressed between finally the demoticist tradition. Demoticism in particular, Fascism and Stalinism, the aesthetic tenets of both liberals and the high regard it had for folk culture, exerted a con- and communists in Greece began to converge to the para- stant influence over the aesthetic thought of both Marxists doxical point where Metaxas, Ritsos and Elytis meet in the and liberals. One can also find the marks of the authoritari- worship of youth, health and happiness.15 It is interesting an Metaxas regime on the palimpsest of Hellenicity. Under to follow the steps in this convergence of sorts whereby the the aegis of the regime of 4th August Hellenicity wasde- interweaving of political priorities determined aesthetic prived of every element of aesthetic creativity. Despite the choices. The selection by the leadership of the Third Inter- fact that officially the regime promoted folk culture, in fact national of Nikos Zahariadis as the new communist leader it only paid lip service to it. The transformation of popular in Greece was of major importance. Zahariadis realigned culture from a creative activity to an absolute nationalist the Party position on the social structure of modern Greek value to be guarded by the nation led to its ossification. society, the duties of the KKE and the nature of revolu- In addition, this transformation was directly affected by tion.16 In contrast to their earlier position, the new leader- discourses which emphasized biological and geographical ship claimed that the bourgeois-liberal transformation of factors as determining the state of Greekness.13 Greek society was yet to be achieved. As a consequence the At first, the discourse on Hellenicity and the emphasis Party’s duty was to channel revolutionary activities into it put on the cultural authority of the Greek landscape on fulfilling this stage before redirecting these activities to national aesthetics, seemed to have no influence among proletarian, socialist objectives.17 Greek left-wing intellectuals during this period. The Left As far as the socialist reviews were concerned, their condemned the notion of racial and geophysical unity and dependence on the Party led to their cutting every link continuity of the Greek nation as metaphysical and un- with non-Marxist intellectuals as well as regarding all founded; but this did not last. The gradual abandoning those who did not follow Party line with disfavour. The of internationalist values and avant-garde forms in art in course of these reviews seems pre-determined as it retro- favour of more conservative aesthetic choices, and the move gressed to the vindication of socialist realism. Thus, from towards folk culture, were an outcome of the hardening of discussing proletarian literature, or realism as a means of the Greek Communist Party line and the shaping of a new positively representing heroes and role-models and the aesthetic and literary canon founded upon socialist realism. party involvement of artists and writers, the review Neoi This charge can be examined by taking the left-wing and Protoporoi shifted its attention to the tenets of socialist 300 ΜΟUSEIO BENAKI ARCHAEOLOGY AND HELLENIC IDENTITY IN TWENTIENTH-CENTURY GREECE The discourse on Hellenicity, historical continuity and the Greek Left realism which embraced and enriched these values and ar- popularizing this thesis with a pamphlet entitled Whythe tistic principles.18 Moreover, the renouncing of the artistic RevolutioninGreecewillbeBourgeoisDemocratic? 26 avant-garde in the Fourth Congress of Soviet Writers, in and countering the Marxist historian Yannis Kordatos 1934, was also crucial. Following Maxim Gorky’s speech, whose work on the bourgeois nature of the Greek Revolu- the Congress exalted folk culture and literary tradition as tion expressed the former Party position.27 the true expression of the soul of the people and as a source The KKE took a populist turn, when it adopted the po- of inspiration which all communist intellectuals should litical analysis and strategy of the Third International.28 follow.19 In my view this is the point where the direction According to Philippos Ιliou, the meaning of the term taken by the Greek Left intersected with the discourse on ‘people’ was extended to cover almost every aspect of Hellenicity.