Avant-Garde Become the New Establishment?

¶ … Avant-Garde become the new Establishment?

The avant-garde of English literature - that is, 20th century English literature; is indeed the "establishment." Having become the establishment by virtue of the very nature of what is defined as avant-garde, then 20th century advent-garde English literature authors like Salman Rushdie, have progressed to become the "establishment" (Kostelanetz 1982 16). It is, of course, more cool to be the avant-garde as opposed to the establishment. The avant-garde, by nature of their uniqueness, and the fact that they progress in acquiring an audience, means that they are rare, unusual, and, as such, very much in the news and spotlight.

Rowlings, author of the Harry Potter books, has moved from the coveted position of avant-garde, accomplished with her first book that she will readily mention was rejected by 13 major editors before finally being bought by her publisher; has moved on to establishment. It does not detract from her accomplishments anymore than it detracts from the very progressive nature of Salman Rushdie's book, the one that made him famous, Satanic Verses.

As the work gains momentum and audience, it becomes establishment by virtue of its reigning popularity and success, even though it was the initial lack of popularity and success that brought the attention that propelled it to establishment status. Having entered the status of "establishment" means that the author or other artist has become somewhat of an authority in his or her genre or medium, and they have a following. Usually the following ensures success of future works.

Shakespeare was at one time avang-garde, moved to establishment, and, now, is classic. However, an author who remains mired in his or her own uniqueness, may remain in a "cult" like status, meaning a small but sustainable audience that keeps him in the avant-garde, meaning that he remains somewhat enigmatic in his literary message and voice.

Because the avant-garde often are controversial in putting forth ideas, the current age of political correctness lends itself to putting anyone who is willing to describe events, people, and places as they are, without the flowery, keeping the ideas in the politically correct arena. At one point in time, one might suggest, it was avant-garde to be politically correct, especially during the 1960s.

Paul Peppis (2000) discusses English literature and the avant-garde. Much of the English literature avant-garde in the 20th century had to do with romanticizing colonialism and empire building. Today, that literature is establishment, the avant-garde became the English literature that took the romanticism out of the literature, and was controversial in not just presenting the colonized perspective, but creating non-English protagonists around whom the cultural events of other than British society revolved around in the telling of the story. There is, Peppis points out, a sense of Englishness that is represented by the establishment, and is that sense of Englishness that the avant-garde confronts in English literature (36). When Salman Rushdie and other contemporary authors of English literature write about the colonial period from the perspective of the colonized, it confronts that Englishness, casting the work into the avant-garde.

Commenting on the avant-garde, Matei Calinescu (1987) writes:

Modernity has opened the path to the rebellious avant-gardes. At the same time, modernity turns against itself and, by regarding itself as decadence, dramatizes its own deep sense of crisis. The apparently contradictory notions of avant-garde and decadence become almost synonymous and, under certain circumstances, can even be used interchangeably (Calinescu 5)."

At the point where modernity turns against itself in the way that Calinescu describes, it then becomes establishment. It is the abandonment of the Puritanism, and in the case of English literature, in modernity, the abandonment of the colonial romanticism.