Berman's Dialectical Modernism: A Critical Analysis

Berman's Dialectical Framework of Modernity

In his book All That Is Solid Melts into Air, Marshall Berman unfolds his unique understanding of modernism as a fundamentally dialectical system that brings together the forces of individual characters and social mechanisms. In other words, Berman believes that modernity stands for the distinct interaction between individual people and their social environment, an interaction that ultimately alters both. Berman explains this notion: "These world-historical processes have nourished an amazing variety of visions and ideas that aim to make men and women the subjects as well as the objects of modernization, to give them the power to change the world that is changing them, to make their way through the maelstrom and make it their own" (Berman, 16). This is a particularly interesting point of view because it establishes that Berman is centrally aiming to develop a theoretical and, indeed, historical landscape through which people today can perceive the meanings underlying the modern world. One critic summarized his stance as three primary notions: "(a) modernization is the social changes that are constantly taking place in this respect, (b) modernity is the way in which these changes are immediately lived and experienced (consciously or not), while modernism is the post-facto reflection and intellectual/artistic/literary/material/political representation of these changes" (Jimenez-Munoz 2002). Accordingly, Berman contends that an appropriate investigation into modernism can help us better grasp the modern age as a fusion of changing conditions and changing people.

The key idea that brings Berman's argument together is, essentially, that for current modernism to possess any substantive perspective regarding itself, the paths through which it has already traveled need to be critically examined. He writes, "To appropriate the modernities of yesterday can be at once a critique of the modernities of today and an act of faith in the modernities — and in the modern men and women — of tomorrow and the day after tomorrow" (Berman, 36). This goal is motivated by the apparent emptiness that Berman, and many others, seem to perceive in the way society operates. Two of the driving forces in civilization, to Berman, are the oppressive forces of government and the ruling class on one hand, and the forces of personal liberty and determination to battle oppression on the other. Thus, "To be modern is to live a life of paradox and contradiction. It is to be overpowered by the immense bureaucratic organizations that have the power to control and often to destroy all communities, values, lives; and yet to be undeterred in our determination to face these forces, to fight to change their world and make it our own" (Berman, 13). To see that our perseverance is not meaningless — that our singular ideas and works of art do have influence — it is necessary to understand the works of Goethe, Marx, and Baudelaire within Berman's dialectical structure.

By defining the appearance of modernity as somewhat superficial or shallow, the works of writers who decisively stepped outside the traditional boundaries of social and political philosophy become particularly important subjects for Berman's discussion. It is reasonable to think that as modernization spread through human history, its literary indicators began to appear ever more readily; as changing history increasingly acted upon individuals, many individuals reciprocated this influence by contributing to the works of literature. According to Berman, if we look at modernism as a progression of three phases — introduction to modern life, revolutionary reactions, and the spread of modernity on a global scale — then it is possible to understand the present as well as the future, not just within art and literature, but in philosophy and life as well.

Marx, Hegel, and the Material World

It is notable that Marx's understanding of the metaphysical world and of society is fundamentally similar to Berman's orchestration of modernity. Centrally, both men believe the modern world to be based upon similar dialectical systems. Marx held that human knowledge automatically begins from our experiences with the outside world — from our sensations and perceptions — and consequently, the interaction between the individual, the situation, and the material object is what conglomerates to form reality. Therefore, objective truth is not fully attainable because these perspectives are so fundamentally unique to each individual. This premise leads Marx to the conclusion that previous philosophers were merely successful in describing the world, but that the task implied by his materialistic views is that the setting in which human reality plays itself out needs to be changed if the goal is to improve life (Strathern, 52). So, although personal points of view are what define reality, the sum effect of these points of view can be altered to place mankind in a better state of being.

Ultimately, Marx writes, "Modern bourgeois society, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and exchange, is like the sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers of the underworld that he has called up by his spells" (Marx, 52). Marx's mentor, Hegel, took the opposite position; he believed that the routine assertion of individual freedom categorically contributed to the limitation and oppression of that freedom. The almost perfectly formulated self-doubt regarding cultural norms and commitments — seen in thinkers like Hume — were, to Hegel, elemental causes of death and destruction in the world. His understanding of the dialectic brought him to the conclusion that massive social movements aiming to achieve personal freedoms must be seen in contrast to the acquisition of social freedom, which was something entirely different. To Hegel, this represented the total fracturing of social perspective, traveling from the near-singular social thought of the Greek philosophers to the seemingly infinite points of view held by his contemporaries. Consequently, the emerging modern world was faced with a dilemma that could only be answered by looking to the social perspective: "The problem with modern life was that its rationality was not immediately apparent to its participants; for that, one required a set of reflective practices that could display and demonstrate the rationality of modern life, namely, those involved in modern art, modern religion, and, most importantly, modern philosophy" (Pinkard, 472). Thus, actions can be designated as right or wrong only by considering one's stance relative to these prevailing social constructs of rationality.

Berman categorically backs Marx's idea that looking at modernity as Hegel did ignored the fact that even if Hegel's form of understanding were attainable, the material world surrounding humanity is inevitably altered through the process of knowing it. Berman explains, "If we think of modernism as a struggle to make ourselves at home in a constantly changing world, we will realize that no one mode of modernism can ever be definitive. Our most creative constructions and achievements are bound to turn into prisons and white sepulchers that we, or our children, will have to escape or transcend if life is to go on" (Berman, 5–6). In this way, Berman acknowledges that concepts like freedom and liberty can be corrupted into social prisons, but that the individual nature of reality is vindicated by the fact that the battle between oppression and liberation must never cease. Freedom, as defined and understood at one point in time, therefore fails to carry through history without the central dialectic of modernity continually reshaping what true freedom means.

Baudelaire, Aestheticism, and the Heroism of Modern Life

It is also significant that Berman investigates the works of Baudelaire, who was one of the first proponents of aestheticism — a notion Berman suggests is one of the launching pads for modernity. Aestheticism first found its philosophical footing in the eighteenth century, drawing its understanding of nature and beauty from the writings of Immanuel Kant, who expressed the notion that art was autonomous. Just as comprehending the beauty of a tree does not depend upon auxiliary information about the physical properties of trees, beauty itself was perceived to be independent of everything but itself. Kant was convinced that the autonomy of the human soul permitted such internal recognitions of external beauty. For this reason, Kant was less interested in the physical creations of art than in the impressions that art could leave upon the intellect — what he called reflective judgment (McGreal, 283). This way of understanding the world is supported by the observation that although people receive sensory information from the same material reality, every individual's interpretation of external events is necessarily shaped by the individual forces of perception. Consequently, the same physical work of art cannot be expected to be understood in the same way by every person who experiences it.

From these historical and abstract foundations, Berman asserts that Baudelaire was successful in establishing the "heroism of modern life." Put differently, Berman agrees that artistic expression is a distinct facet of modernity, and that it spiritually sustains humanity by reflecting the dialectical nature of the human condition (Berman, 142–43). Berman reinterprets the apparent autonomy of art as a consequence of his broader definition of modernism.

Conclusion: Strengths and Limits of Berman's Argument

Finally, Berman brings his discussion to the current condition of society and humanity in general. He maintains that his broad dialectical framework holds; yet, he never seems able to escape the notion that the oppressive mechanisms of society, far from being universal and conceptual, could in fact be the expression of individualistic interpretations of the modern world — not just consequences of them. In short, individual greed and lust for power, it could be argued, not only guide human history, but guide human philosophy and art as well. It may be possible, taking an entirely negative view of mankind, that history is merely an extension of each person's attempted grab for power over others, and not, as Berman suggests, an extension of each person's attempt to understand reality.

Overall, Berman's attempt to bring the philosophical, artistic, and historic facets of human history under a broad dialectical system is hindered by the numerous requirements placed upon justifying such an expansive position. He is most successful in establishing that human reflection and social resistance are perpetual processes typical of modernity. Berman's historical investigation yields some vague patterns but ultimately fails to establish modernist thought as the major driving factor in history.

Works Cited

Berman, Marshall. All That Is Solid Melts into Air. New York: Penguin Books, 1988.

Jimenez-Munoz, Gladys M. "Review Essay: All That Is Solid Melts into Air." A New African Journal of Culture, Politics and Consciousness, vol. 1, issue 1, 2002.

Marx, Karl. Communist Manifesto. New York: Labor News Company, 1933.

McGreal, Ian P. Great Thinkers of the Western World. New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 1992.

Pinkard, Terry. Hegel: A Biography. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

Strathern, Paul. Marx in 90 Minutes. Chicago: Ivan R. Dee Publishers, 2001.