Words not minced

by these writers

BERLIN

A SHARP, five-day debate on literature took place

‘in December, 1964, in the German Democratic

Republic. The closed session was attended by

_ writers from the GDR, Soviet Union, Hungary, Pol-
and, Rumania and Yugoslavia. ~

Words were not minced and the difference of .

opinion were considered a healthy symptom by all
present.

A report on the debate has now been made pub-
lic. It includes remarks by participants from other
countries. Two hard-hitting, critical speeches by GDR
writers Christa Wolf and Stephan Hermlin are in-
cluded. In all, 30-writers spoke in the debate.

In a summary of the discussion, Wolfgang Joho,
editor of the monthly NDL, wrote: “At times the
GDR writers and literary historians could not help
feeling they were sitting on the poor sinner’s bench.”

Joho said the literature of the GDR was castigated
by authors from other socialist countries for provin-
cial narrowness, lack of contemporaneity, one-sided
information on trends in other countries and a lack
of open-mindedness toward world literature. The
GDR was accused of oversimplification and the use
of cliches in dealing with modern trends.

I cite these accusations not because they were all
justified, but as an indication of the frankness of
debate.

Pointing to the difficulties of the German situation,
‘as well as to many positive developments, Joho
admits: ‘We did not sufficiently take notice of some
of the things that have taken place around us in East
and West.

“Ror example, we a too superficially and sum-
marily of decadence, neglecting to define its essence
and characteristics clearly. Out of convenience, ignor-
ance and insufficient ability to differentiate, we
lumped together the most diverse, often contradic-
tory manifestations. We were too distrustful of ex-
* perimentation, which one cannot do without in litera-
ture if one does not want to stagnate.”

Joho concludes: “It is better to destroy frankly the
illusions of a supposed harmony on all questions, to
discuss differences of opinion, rather than to keep
quiet in order to pretend they do not (exist...

“If there was unanimity among those who spoke
in the debate it was on this point — that we must
not permit anything to be withheld from us which
belongs to world literature in all its breadth and
variety.”

Stephan Hermlin named three distinguished GDR
poets: whose recent books of poems could not appear
here. Hermlin, an accomplished GDR writer, is not
afraid to criticize. The significance of his statement
was that it appeared in print and thus became public
knowledge.

’ The speeches of two writers from the GDR —
Christa Wolf and Stefan Heym — can be contrasted
because they exemplify genuine criticism on one
hand and criticism for its own sake on the other.

Both writers attacked dogmatism. Heym spoke
about Stalin and Stalinism, the need to “clean out
the dirt where it was kept under the carpet.”

Changes for the better have taken place in social-
ist indusry and the natural sciences, said Heym. But
what about philosophy, art, literature? Fearless dis-
cussion without taboos and relinquishment of dog-
mas inherited from the Stalin era are seen by Heym
as the keys to righting the situation.

This-sounds courageous. But the battle on the cul-
tural field has been going on for some time. By the

time of Heym’s speech, break-throughs had already
been achieved. Heym was applying an old yardstick
to a new situation.

What has been quoted was vague and general.
When Heym came to specifics, he said:

“Where ... censors prevent a genuine discussion,
spurious discussions are conducted with much noise,
controversies without a controversy on questions of
minimal importance—public ‘debates on books which
deal with world-shaking events such as the foolish
action of a village mayor who tries to force a wrong
type of cowbarn on the farmers.”

He obviously refers to Erwin Strittmatter’s novel,
Ole Bienkopp. It deals with the tragedy of a farmer,
a staunch Communist, broken by dogmatism and
remnants of the personality cult, driven to suicide.

Stefan Heym, who sets out to attack dogmatism,
attacks the very book that forced dogmatism to re-
treat and did so much to bring about a transforma-
tion in the cultural field.

As Christa Wolf said: “It was no accident the book
became engulfed in a hot and serious debate, the re-
sult being far from certain. The possibility certainly
existed that the dogmatists might win the upper
hand. If they did not, it is because of open discussion
and because the book was carried by the support of
a large reading public.”

Christa Wolf’s speech, also directed against dog-
matism, was to the point, concrete, balanced and
beautifully expressed.

She belongs to the new generation of GDR writ-
ers. Her novel, The Divided Sky, the love story of
Rita and Manfred, has been a weapon in the fight
against dogmatism.

Manfred flees to West Berlin, not because he is
corrupt or attracted by the “Golden West,” but be-
cause of the bureaucrats who reject all his attempts
to place his talents at the service of oe new social-
ist society.

“How can you reconcile being a writer and party
member at the same time?” This question by Rolf
Hochhuth, West Germany author of The Deputy, was
a source of deep reflection for Christa Wolf.

“The sharpest conflict for a writer, particularly to-
day, will lie in the realm of truth-seeking and the
attempt to give literary expression to truth,” she said.

She rejected blind defense of an existing situation,
provincial self-satisfaction, narrowness instead of live
discussion of all .the spiritual phenomena that arise
today, every form of oversimplification and dogma-
tism, and naturally, every kind of falsification of real
life in literature.

Describing her own aims as a writer, Christa Wolf
said:

“What is the purpose of this socialism we work to
bring into being? It could happen that through the
means ... we could forget the aim — man.

“I am not interested primarily in what means of
production we will produce tomorrow. What interests
me is what kind of people will operate these auto-
matic installations. What type of person does our
society produce? Will it be an a-political fechnogral?
Will they be Socialists?

“Who will gain the upper hand? Will it be the
cynics, whom we also have? Or those who have hon-
est, genuine questions . . . who, if we don’t help
them to formulate their questions, may succumb?

“I cannot take the position of wait and see.”

The German Democratic Republic has taken a long
Stride toward open, fruitful debate on cultural issues
in the socialist world.

From the
‘Mystique’
to the
‘Love Fraud’

THE LOVE FRAUD, by Edith de Rham, Ambass®
Books

HERE HAVE been in the United States im 6,
last five years some profound and far-reacl |
struggles. Perhaps the greatest are in the % |

rights movement.

Another struggle is the reawakening of ames
women, their desire to do something about thet :
ferior place in American society.

Betty Frieden, in the Feminine Mystique, sou”
a challenge to the well-educated, middle-class 4
ican woman to leave her home and achieve some
in the field of a paid occupation. Her popular i
was read and debated by millions of women W)% ,
the last 20 years, never questioned how big busife ,
and its periphery of advertising in television, ?
papers and popular women’s periodicals was &
ing them.

Just as the Negro demands a good education *
a right to use it in a meaningful job, so her P! pH
of women’s aspirations demanded the right wi?
women to have meaningful, creative jobs by ™ |
they may earn a living.

Although her book did not deal with the pot !
of working-class women, it reawakened milliom val
American women to the fact that they havé
short-changed in American society and it put
onus for this on American big business.

Since the Feminine Mystique there have
many books and articles on the role of wome?:
latest is Edith’ de Rham’s The Love Fraud. It
vertized as a discussion of “why the structure 4)
American family is changing and what women
do to make it work.”

This book also is directed to the well-ed
American woman. The author has read widely: 74)
has amassed a tremendous amount of informé it
She discusses the views of Fromm, Freud, Hor
Bettelheim, Arendt and de Beauvoir.

Her main thesis is that women must have al
which satisfies their minds as well as being use ,
She is unable to make up her mind about Ame yeh
society. At one point she is critical of the class ~
tem; at other times she praises it.

it
She has read Engels on the family and aiscussy
sympathetically. She praises child care practice oti!
the Soviet Union. She seems, however, ee
confused by what she has read and although sh
cognizes a malaise in society she cannot diagn?

Betty Frieden discussed women in a i
ciety. But Edith de Rham doesn’t understand h ont ’
mode of production has determined the role of W?

She states that the’ position of women is pet ott}
the Soviet Union than in the United States; rakes

a

new
By |

-
a

a

wel

“seems to be unaware of why this is so. She ™ a noul

plea for day nurseries; but then she says they §
be privately run for the more affluent.

This book doesn’t add anything significant od |
discussion of the. problems of women. It ¢0# ‘|
more than it illumines. cet |
—Valerie Vi8