David C. Durst. Weimar Modernism: Philosophy, Politics, and Culture in Germany 1918-1933. Lanham: Lexington Books, 2004. 233 pp. $27.95, paper, ISBN 978-0-7391-1006-5. Reviewed by Ofer Ashkenazi Published on H-German (September, 2005) The peculiarities of the Weimar Republic are ous"), which characterized the Republic's reality often characterized as fundamentally related to according to Bloch, corresponds with Jameson's "modernity" or "modernism." Weimar's affluence depiction of the second stage of capitalism's ex‐ of cultural expressions and intellectual observa‐ pansion and its cultural product: modernism. The tions, together with the fragility of the political or‐ identification of Weimar culture with "mod‐ der and the violent demise of the republic, have ernism" is thus achieved due to the incomplete ex‐ been repeatedly described by scholars as either pansion of modern capitalism, resulting in the ex‐ the most lucid example of the contradictory na‐ istence of various premodern residues within ture of modernity, or a distinctive case of devia‐ Germany's social realities and cultural discourses. tion from the modern "project." In tandem with In other words, Weimar culture should be regard‐ this tradition, David Durst's Weimar Modernism ed as an extraordinary example of modernism be‐ employs a synthesis of Ernst Bloch and Fredric cause, as Bloch pointed out, Germany was "the Jameson's observations in order to argue that classical land of non-simultaneity" (p. 21). post-World War I German "philosophy, politics, As frequently indicated by scholars, "mod‐ and culture" were essentially related to "the de‐ ernism" is an exceptionally problematic explana‐ velopment of modernism" (p. xxii). tory category.[1] Facing this difficulty, Durst Durst bases his explanation of the inherent adopts Jameson's definition of modernism as a correlation between Weimar and modernism on distinctive "structure of feeling," which is particu‐ the similarities of Bloch's account of postwar Ger‐ larly compatible with the coexistence of non-si‐ many and Jameson's description of the "logic of multaneous phenomena to which Bloch had relat‐ capitalism" in a stage of incomplete expansion. ed (pp. 105-106). Consequently, the frst objective The coexistence of contradicting social and cultur‐ of this book is to trace the developments of that al formations "from radically different moments "structure of feeling," or "modernism," which was in history" (the "simultaneity of non-simultane‐ allegedly shared by Germans during the Weimar H-Net Reviews years. It is noteworthy, however, that most of the Although Bloch's argument for the non-simul‐ time Durst establishes his arguments on the taneity of post-WWI German reality was only co‐ works of distinguished intellectuals and artists herently formulated during the 1930s, this idea (such as Adorno, Heidegger, Kracauer, Hausmann, can already be traced in his earlier writings, as and so on), rather than on inspection of popular Durst convincingly shows. Crucial to the develop‐ culture expressions and social behavior. The ex‐ ment of Bloch's idea was his dissent with Georg tent to which these intellectuals' reflections on Lukács in the years following the latter's conver‐ popular cultural tendencies actually reflect gener‐ sion to Marxism. According to Lukács, the crisis of al "structures of feeling" is still, at least, debatable. modern culture is a result of the inherent contra‐ Recounting the developments in the Germans' diction of liberal capitalism: the contradiction be‐ structure of feeling between 1918-1933, Durst tween an ideology of subjective freedom and a so‐ points to three distinct periods. Each marks a dif‐ cial order of industrial production (pp. 12-13, 44). ferent prevalent tendency among Weimar con‐ Modern Germany, he argues, was thoroughly un‐ temporaries. The frst period indicates the years der the effect of the "homogenizing dialectic of of hyperinflation (until 1924), which resulted in a capitalist synchronicity" (p. 19), which resulted in culture of "contemplation," or, in Lukács's words, utopian ideas (such as Bloch's early 1920s "passive cognitive stance of the individual over a thoughts) and the "pseudorevolutionary" art heterogeneous social object, event, or law" (p. 57). forms (e.g. the avant-garde's montage, p. 64), The second period relates to the years of econom‐ which is passive by nature. To respond to such an ic stabilization (1924-1929), which are character‐ attack, Bloch sought to reach beyond Lukács's eco‐ ized by Kracauer's famous assertion about the nomic reductionism, and sought to explain the "cult of distraction" (p. 89). Finally, the third peri‐ "crisis" of German culture and the immense ap‐ od starts with the international economic crisis of peal of fascism by emphasizing the important role 1929 and is identified with Ernst Jünger's concep‐ of premodern elements in the Weimar economy, tion of the age of "total mobilization" (p. 149). administration, and--most importantly--in Ger‐ mans' perception of reality. Since the concept of The advantage of this depiction is evident: the "non-simultaneity" rejects a homogenizing capi‐ seemingly fragmented cultural and philosophical talist totality, the new art forms are no longer a endeavors of the Weimar era would be portrayed mere symptom of the crisis of liberal capitalism, in this way as taking part in one, relatively coher‐ but an "account of ... reality as actually experi‐ ent discourse of "modernism." Based on Jameson's enced" (p. 25). conception of modernism, Durst's argument rests upon the actual existence of essential relation‐ Intriguingly, the key concepts of the theoreti‐ ships between these three "structure(s) of feeling" cal dispute between Lukács and Bloch were and the "simultaneous appearance of conflicting echoed in the writings of some prominent historical realities." The second objective of Dadaists in the early 1920s. Like Bloch, they found Weimar Modernism, therefore, is to confirm these the reason for the crisis in the residues of pre‐ fundamental connections. In execution of this modern foundations present in the core of task, Durst utilizes theories of the most prominent Weimar culture (Hausmann writes, "the frst ex‐ intellectuals of Weimar years, and highlights sur‐ pressionist was...Martin Luther", p. 45). Like prising similarities between seemingly unrelated Lukács, however, they identified the essence of theorists (for example, between the conservative the crisis with the passive, contemplative charac‐ Carl Schmitt and Dadaist Raoul Hausmann). ter of the older art form. The future vociferous conservative critic of Weimar parliamentarism, Carl Schmitt, takes a similar approach in the early 2 H-Net Reviews 1920s. Concentrating on the political sphere, regime led significant thinkers back to the idea of Schmitt locates an attitude of "political romanti‐ the simultaneous existence of non-simultaneous cism" among prominent political leaders of the re‐ formations--this time not as a cause for the crisis, public. This residue of premodern perceptions but as a solution to it. leads bourgeois regimes to chronic passivity. Facing the alarming tendency of the city Nevertheless, the paths of the above commen‐ masses to embrace the culture of mass commodi‐ tators diverged quickly, together with the eco‐ fication, Theodor Adorno turned to the music of nomic stabilization and shift of emphasis among the Schöneberg School for inspiration. Using and various intellectuals--from critique of passivity, to adapting elements from different musical tradi‐ critique of the "cult of distraction." The assertion tions, Adorno wrote, Alban Berg's Wozzeck "trans‐ that hyperinflation and the relatively quick stabi‐ form[s] the familiarity of the past into the strange lization of German economy after 1923 had had a perspective of the future" (p. 121). In other words, vast effect on the break from prewar cultures and Berg found a way to present non-simultaneous el‐ the beginning of the age of mass (consumption) ements simultaneously in his music; this is the culture is today almost a truism. Durst argues fur‐ only way art could fght the totality of capitalism ther that the vast devaluation of currency (the un‐ (p. 117). Adorno was not the only one to identify thinkable gap between gold and its paper money the false synchronization offered by the "cult of representations) also generated new evaluations distraction" and the need to fnd a substituting of the relations between the self and its artistic conceptual framework to this system. Durst reads representations, and hence, new forms of abstrac‐ Heidegger's Being and Time, for instance, as a tion in expressionist art. Consequently, the stabi‐ (Kracauerian-like) critique of urban society of the lization of currency resulted in desertion of ab‐ late 1920s: "not surprisingly," he writes, "Heideg‐ straction and the emergence of face-value realism ger describes the inauthenticity of the 'Dasein' in of the neue Sachlichkeit (pp. 86-87). The marginal‐ terms of distractedness" (p. 139). The fast change ization of prewar cultural phenomena, such as ex‐ in Heidegger's thoughts in the beginning of the pressionism, left room for a new critique of mod‐ 1930s symbolizes for Durst a new phase in ern "capitalist synchronization" (p. 93). Weimarian "structure of feeling," a tendency to‐ Durst chooses to highlight here Kracauer's re‐ wards "total mobilization," best manifested in the flections on the "mass ornament." When intellec‐ works of Ernst Jünger. tual contemplations became commodities (Weber) In his works of the early 1930s Jünger sought and the city "salaried masses" tried to forget their to promote a new age in which the worker would insecurity, a new popular "cult" was formed be totally mobilized to act for the goals of the new around the consumption of culture, which now imperial state. Alas, total mobilization, according gave an illusion of synchronized reality without to Jünger, was prevented in Germany before--and any trace of "nonsynchronic" elements. However, most notably during?"World War I, because Ger‐ Durst stresses that this sense of harmonious capi‐ man society lacked the "inner armament" (p.