Non serviam. Political Literature Today: Alexandre Gefen

Literature that aims to change our society

Alexandre Gefen wants to use his book The literature is a political affair (“Literature is a Political Affair”) demonstrates that literature—contrary to the often-held assumption that it merely serves entertainment—is fundamentally a political matter. A central concern of Gefen's is to emphasize that contemporary French writers, although they reject the classical notion of “committed literature,” are by no means aesthetically indifferent to the political problems of their country. Rather, these authors very often use their narratives as a tool for analyzing inequalities. They employ elements of autobiography or reportage to question social discourses and sometimes even attempt to anticipate or prolong societal crises. In doing so, they reject the idea of ​​an “ivory tower” into which they are to be confined and which they can no longer endure. They fulfill social demands by participating in literary residencies, for example, in communities, hospitals, retirement homes, or with young people and migrants. The book thus reveals an impressive panorama of a “combative and modern literature that wants to change our society.”

Gefen argues that the 21st-century writer once again fully participates in the "cité" in the sense of the res publica, both through their body and their work. This contradicts the notion that writers are politically marginalized. According to him, literature is politically useful for understanding the world, that is, for improving it. It is seen as a response to the need for intervention in a world marked by crises, where past points of reference are dissolving and territorial, familial, and social fragmentation is occurring. It fills the void created by the disappearance of other systems of meaning-making. Authors such as Alice Zeniter and Nicolas Mathieu renew the collective social and historical narrative and imbue the world with political meaning. In doing so, they open up new forms of personal or collective action that differ from the often-considered outdated models of representative democracy.

An important aspect that Gefen highlights is the historical coexistence of literature and politics: the modern conception of literature arose concurrently with the emergence of liberal democracy. Gefen describes the democratic way of life as a whole "as the daughter of literature," which has accompanied, constructed, and forged the constitution of the individual. Although the figure of the politically engaged writer is often rejected, values ​​such as equality, a multicultural society, anti-racism, feminism, and ecological concerns appear to be dominant. The idea of ​​literature's political potential seems to prevail—the notion that politics is omnipresent in literature, in bodies, in the relationship to the environment, in representations, themes, vocabulary, and syntax. A politically motivated struggle of low intensity is seen as inevitable, with the literary work having a political impact without relying on doctrines.

To support these claims, the book is based on a collection of previously unpublished interviews with twenty-six contemporary writers. These conversations were conducted between summer 2020 and summer 2021 and are based on a set of identical questions. The focus is primarily on authors of narrative fiction.

I would like to see these questions posed to writers in other countries as well; I have assigned each question to a dimension of the relationship between politics and literature:

Do you feel nostalgic for socially engaged literature?Historical relevance/evolution of engagement)

Do you believe that contemporary literature has become depoliticized or, on the contrary, repoliticized?Current dynamics of politicization)

Are there any great literary works with political relevance for you?Inherent political dimension of the work)

And what about major political texts with a literary dimension?Literary quality of political discourse)

“Politics in a literary work is like a pistol shot in the middle of a concert, something crude that one cannot escape,” said Stendhal. What do you think about that?Integration of political content)

Does literature stand in opposition to political discourse and political language? Should writers be in government?The relationship between language and power / The role of the author in politics)

Mallarmé asserted: “Man may be a democrat, but the artist doubles himself and must remain an aristocrat.” Are literary aspirations and experiments compatible with the goals of democratization?Formal aesthetics and democratic accessibility)

Do you believe there is a left-wing and a right-wing language?Language as an ideological marker)

Can literature be beneficial to democratic life?Democratic Use/Function of Literature)

What is the scope of the political for you? Are contemporary cultural and religious issues, the question of ecology, feminism, and identity political issues in your eyes?Definition/Scope of the Political)

Do your books depict contemporary French society? And if so, with what ambitions and difficulties?Representation of society)

Have some of your texts been described as political? Under what circumstances? How did you react?Reception and classification)

Have you ever taken a public stance as a writer? Do you sign petitions and placards?Public engagement of the author)

Which personal encounters with politics have shaped you the most? Do you remember your first demonstration and your first elections? Are you part of a family tradition or a political habitus?Personal political leanings)

If you had to tell the story of a contemporary politician's life, who would you choose?Politicians as literary figures)

From the interviews

Jean Rouaud

For Jean Rouaud, literature and politics have both "had their time" and represent "wastelands of past aspirations" that coincide with the end of industrial society and the decline of ideologies of progress. He sees literature's function as more "notarial," documenting the rise of a social class. Although he harbors an aversion to "politically engaged literature" after the Second World War, he speaks out publicly when the boundaries of civility are crossed, even if he considers its influence to be limited. He argues that art is not "democratic" in the sense of being chosen by the majority, but rather that the market, driven by quotas, often attempts to establish bestsellers as "literature," which he views as a decline. For him, the political is more than just elections; it is the "social superego" that reminds us that the world is not doomed to consumerist mediocrity.

Yannick Haenel

Yannick Haenel rejects nostalgia for "committed literature," emphasizing that literary works today must instead question world events, especially in the face of economic, ecological, and linguistic destruction. He argues that writers have lost significance in their role as public figures. Instead, contemporary literature is always political, but in a more ethical way, aiming "to save what is lacking, to practice justice," rather than to overturn everything. For Haenel, literature is "irreducible" and "on the side of that which says no" by being free and serving no one. He views the writer as a "sovereignty without employment," whose freedom of non-affiliation is valuable to all. For him, the "scope of the political" encompasses everything that concerns existence, with ethics including the political.

Laurent binet

Laurent Binet believes that literature is "always political, whether it wants to be or not." Although he criticizes the "thesis novel," he acknowledges its value. He sees literature as an "antidote to political rhetoric." For Binet, the artist's goal is to create "aristocracy for all" by sharing their vision with the greatest possible number of people, thus enabling a higher standard for everyone. He believes that literary experimentation is compatible with democratization because it "levels things up." His own historical novels, such as his Uchronia, exemplify this. Civilizations, are inevitably political due to their subject matter.

Camille de Toledo

Camille de Toledo rejects the rigid concept of "engaged literature" and defines the political dimension of literature as its capacity "to influence codes, fictions, and representations." This constitutes a fundamental work on the very foundation of language itself. He views human life as a "vast daily production of texts," in which everything is intertwined with political history. For him, "democratic society as a whole is a daughter of literature," as it has accompanied and shaped the constitution of the individual. He emphasizes that the true political dimension lies in the "poetics" of the work, which filters and condenses world events instead of simply resorting to opposition.

Alice Zeniter

Alice Zeniter is not nostalgic for "politically engaged literature" and does not see literature as superficially depoliticized or repoliticized. She is convinced that literature is always political, as it "explores the difficulty of organizing oneself within a shared society" when different values ​​clash. In her novels, she attempts to make visible the violence hidden in statistics and history textbooks by offering "incarnations, perceptions, and time." She criticizes the stance that separates art and politics as one held by those who profit from the political situation and seek to silence others. For her, literature is rarely prescriptive, but rather illuminates failures and complexities.

annie ernaux

For Annie Ernaux, the political is "perceived through the social." Her literature is an instrument for making social structures, class relations, and power relations visible, particularly through a "collective autobiography." She distinguishes her "political literature" from "engaged literature" by critically examining social functioning without using writing as a mere tool. For her, writing is always a political act in the broadest sense, as it creates a "picture of the world, of individuals" and questions the social order as well as the situation of women. She emphasizes equality as the foundation of liberty and fraternity.

Marie-Hélène Lafon

Marie-Hélène Lafon harbors no nostalgia for politically engaged literature, as writing is inherently political for her, because we, as human beings in the world, are political beings. She sees politics as the "background of the picture," not merely as current events. For her, the ability to facilitate access to language and thought through literature is crucial for a democratic life. She strives for a "capital language" to honor the "tiny lives" of the rural population she describes, considering this an act of justice that transcends simple class analysis. She rejects the notion of a "language of the left" or a "language of the right," as style is highly personal and does not allow perspective to be reduced to political preferences.

Eric Reinhardt

Éric Reinhardt observes a "repoliticization" of literature in recent years. Previously, literature was considered "literary" if it remained aloof from contemporary society. He argues that literature should not merely express opinions but should "bring to light aspects of our reality" that only the novel can reveal by enabling "insights" through characters and situations. He defends a concept of "elitism for all," in which sophisticated literature respects the reader as intelligent and offers them "elaborate literary nourishment." For him, all questions of existence are political.

Mathieu Larnaudie

Mathieu Larnaudie sees a “political dimension inherent in literature,” as it depends on where the gaze is directed and the intensity is applied. He argues that literature is always already “engaged,” since it cannot remain untouched by world events. For him, the political dimension of literature lies “in the form, in the use it makes of language, in the aesthetic decisions it makes,” not in the mere illustration of a “cause.” He distinguishes literary language, which explores ambiguity, from political discourse, which aims for unambiguity. Literature contributes to democratic life by promoting critical thinking and a non-utilitarian use of language.

Nicholas Matthew

Nicolas Mathieu rejects "committed literature" because of its didactic and unambiguous nature. He prefers a "political literature" that is interested in social functioning and performs a critical function without becoming a mere tool itself. For him, the writer's task is "to bear the complexity of the world." Literature can have an emancipatory effect by "lifting veils and dispelling illusions." He believes it makes us "a little freer, a little less stupid." For him, everything concerning the necessity of living together is political.

Alice Ferney

Alice Ferney perceives an "absolute freedom" in literature and sees political struggle as a legitimate literary subject. She believes that it is not literary production itself, but rather literary criticism that has been politicized. Literature can reveal the "essence of totalitarianism" through "incarnation and detail." Literature opposes political discourse through its free, creative relationship with language and its claim to truth. For her, it is crucial that the artist is not "demagogic" and that sophisticated literature does not preclude democratization. Literature expands human experiential knowledge and fosters empathy.

Karine Tuil

Karine Tuil is convinced that so-called "engaged literature" has not disappeared, but rather "awakens awareness." For her, the act of writing itself is political, as it involves a conscious decision to withdraw in order to observe and describe society. She argues that literature strengthens and serves political discourse by being present wherever it is desired to have a place, for example, in political forums and courts. Literature, for her, is the "linchpin of democratic life," essential for freedom of expression, especially in totalitarian states. Everything is political for her, and her goal is to represent reality "justly and truthfully," even its most corrosive aspects.

Laurent Gaude

Laurent Gaudé has an ambivalent view of "engaged literature," but affirms the writer's ability to engage with the political sphere. He sees a "permanence" of political interest in literature, since writers, as citizens, are shaped by their time. He cautions against reducing political literature to "militantism." For him, literature's greatest strength lies in its "plurality," which makes it incompatible with dogmatic thinking and transforms it into a tool of democratic life. He strives to transform "civic anger" into "literary objects."

Aurelien Bellanger

For Aurélien Bellanger, politics is a "limit of the world," and the novel interacts with this limit through its imagination, manipulating concepts that would otherwise be cognitively inaccessible. He believes that "good literature cannot be transferred to politics" because it has its own specific mode of effect. He aspires to be an intellectual and educator who analyzes the current political landscape. He sees a "general tendency toward fascism" in democratic society and believes that literature, despite its official role, can contribute to counteracting it.

Patrick Chamoiseau

Patrick Chamoiseau prefers the term "conscious literature" to "engaged literature," whereby consciousness for him is a "poetic awareness of the presence of the world's diversity." He sees the function of art as opening up the imagination and unleashing "signs, lines of escape, and possibilities" in every situation of domination. "To be political today means remaining a creator in the face of all this" (neoliberalism, ecological challenges, the digital world, etc.). His literature is a "literature of relationship": relationship to the self, to the world, to the living, to the cosmos. For him, political manifestos and petitions are important, but the most profound change is brought about by the "poetic detonations" of great works of art that deconstruct prevailing imaginaries.

natalie quintane

Nathalie Quintane is trying to break free from the label of "politically engaged literature." She observes a "massive return of the political to literature," which often remains merely thematic and lacks formal innovation. For her, all novels and poems are political. She prefers that the political be an "integral part of the sentence, of the text," and not appear as a disruptive intrusion. Her work aims to combine "experimental forms" with broad readability, without trying to please a preconceived audience. Literature should add an extra layer, encouraging readers to be less hesitant and simultaneously more open to doubt.

Emmanuelle Pireyre

Emmanuelle Pireyre doesn't believe that "engaged literature" has disappeared. She sees a shift in what is considered "politicized": personal narratives that present minority perspectives can have a political impact. Literature stands in contrast to the political discourse of power because it opens up meaning and invites doubt, in contrast to the univocal language of conviction. The "main question is the freedom of meaning in language," which is being instrumentalized by marketing and politics. Pireyre suggests employing writers and artists as advisors to those in power, since their broad perspectives can contribute to the renewal of political criteria.

Chloe Delaume

For Chloé Delaume, “literature is always engaged; writing is and remains a political act.” She criticizes a “depoliticization of form” in contemporary literature, which prioritizes “real-life narratives” over aesthetic and stylistic concerns. For her, “form is all-powerful,” and an “aesthetic demand” is a political demand. Her work focuses on feminism and creating “tools” for female readers to make their personal stories appear politically relevant. She believes that everyday language is being emptied of meaning by politics, which is why writers must “go beyond it.”

Philippe Forest

He feels a certain "nostalgia" for politically engaged literature, as it fulfills a critical function and stands in contrast to "pure entertainment literature." He argues that "every literary work is political, implicitly or explicitly." He contradicts Mallarmé's notion of the "aristocratic" artist and emphasizes that "even the most sophisticated literature makes common cause with democracy." Literature serves to combat ideologies that enslave and alienate the individual and protects their freedom. He considers his own works a political protest against the "religion of resilience" of neoliberalism.

Mathias Énard

Mathias Énard has reservations about the traditional model of "engaged literature," but he separates his public persona from his civic activity. He believes that the novel is "inherently political as soon as it enters the city." For him, literature is the "conditio sine qua non of democracy," as it provides access to diverse perspectives and ideas and offers a retreat from the constant flow of information. He emphasizes linguistic pluralism as the foundation of political pluralism. For him, the political encompasses armed conflicts, ecology, minority rights, and women's issues.

Stéphanie Dupays

She yearns for a literature that "subverts prevailing narratives" and "introduces a slightly shifted perspective." For her, the writer's primary task is "to name, to find the most fitting expression" in order to reveal reality and to restore "weight and content" to language emptied by political and commercial use. Literature should not persuade or manipulate like political discourse. She believes that literature can benefit democratic life by fostering critical awareness and providing narratives through which a society can understand itself. She rejects the slogan "Everything is political" as a dilution of the concept.

Leila Slimani

Leïla Slimani expresses a certain nostalgia for "art for art's sake" literature. She perceives an increasing "repoliticization" of literature by the media and critics, who often impose labels on works and focus on social issues. Nevertheless, she is convinced that every novel is political because it "recreates the world," observes it, and presents it to us. For her, literature is "absolutely essential for democratic life" because it reveals "the possibility of another world" and "glorifies human freedom." She laments the impoverishment of political language and its inability to convey complexity.

Marie Cosnay

Marie Cosnay agrees with the notion that "literature says something" and that writers "have duties." She sees a repoliticization of literature as a reaction to "great alarms," ​​manifested in genre mixing and the return of sociology to literature. Her deepest literary experiences are political and rooted in her childhood, marked by war and suffering. The task of literature is "to see and to show." She interprets Stendhal's "Gunshot" as the political element intruding upon the work, disrupting it, but simultaneously giving it new scope.

Marie Darrieussecq

Marie Darrieussecq rejects "committed literature" because she understands the novel as a space of ambivalence that does not serve the dissemination of explicit messages. She observes a strong repoliticization of contemporary literature through the return of the intimate. Her works, such as TruismsHer works are deeply political and arose from anger at societal norms and the "culture of rape" imposed on women. Furthermore, the increasing presence of animals and planetary concerns (ecology, the Anthropocene) pose new political questions. She avoids direct political discourse in her novels, preferring literary complexity to stimulate reflection. She shares Mallarmé's view that art is not accessible to everyone, but rejects writing for an elite. She differentiates between conservative ("right-wing") and progressive ("left-wing") styles of writing, which she considers deliberately disruptive. Literature is essential for democratic life by revealing other worlds and freedom, which is why dictatorships fear it. For Darrieussecq, the political encompasses everything related to social life, including culture, religion, feminism, and identity. She is publicly committed to feminism and freedom of expression; her texts are political as long as they do not become tracts.

Arno Bertina

Arno Bertina views "engaged literature" as a "horizon," a "tension that operates within books," rather than a fixed historical condition. He argues that books are political not only through their explicit treatment of political or social issues, but also through their "formal work." He values ​​works that introduce complexity into identities and situations, thus opposing the political discourse that seeks to simplify them. Literature enables "separation in self-intoxicated times" and can "instill desire where only despondency prevails." He agrees with the statement "Everything is political" in a profound sense.

Sandra Lucbert

Sandra Lucbert rejects the category of "engaged literature" and argues that all literature is inherently political. It either serves the hegemonic order (capitalism, white male heteronormativity) or opposes it. True political literature not only discusses political issues but "attacks the foundations of hegemonic language." It calls for "conscious counter-hegemonic political positioning" that challenges power structures. through the power of They dismantle literature, which requires formal transformations and new funding models. Their core message is the crisis of the hegemonic order and the need for new literary forms to reflect it.

Trends and differences

Literature is inherently political.

An overwhelming majority of authors share the conviction that literature is inherently political, regardless of the author's intention. It is an expression of being in the world and of engaging with it.

Distinguishing it from traditional “engaged literature”

Many authors are distancing themselves from the classical model of "littérature engagée" (as described by Sartre), which they often perceive as too didactic, simplistic, or belonging to a bygone era. The time of the writer as public tribune, they argue, is over.

The social as the focus of the political

A strong emphasis is placed on the role of literature in depicting and analyzing social structures, class relations, inequalities, and marginalized groups. This includes making the invisible visible and illuminating the complexities of coexistence.

Meaning of language and form

Many argue that the political dimension lies not only in the content, but essentially in the manner in which it is presented. Who Something is said – through language, style, form, and aesthetic choices. Literature becomes a counter-language to political jargon and media discourse. Storytelling understood.

Emancipatory potential

Literature is seen as a tool for individual and collective emancipation. It promotes critical thinking, broadens perspectives, fosters empathy, and challenges dominant narratives.

Far-reaching concept of the political

A significant number of authors use a very broad definitional framework for the political, which includes cultural, religious, ecological, feminist and identity-related issues and is not limited to institutional politics.

Differences in positions

Direct public engagement vs. the impact of work alone

Some authors, such as Annie Ernaux, Laurent Binet, Patrick Chamoiseau, Karine Tuil, Marie Darrieussecq, Arno Bertina, and Sandra Lucbert, are prepared to take a public stance or sign petitions when they deem it necessary. Others, including Jean Rouaud, Yannick Haenel, Marie-Hélène Lafon, Éric Reinhardt, and Nicolas Mathieu, reject direct public intervention by writers, considering it ineffective or believing that true political impact should lie within the work itself. Mathieu Larnaudie takes a more nuanced approach, selectively assessing the effectiveness of public forums and favoring personal writing.

Optimism vs. pessimism regarding the impact of literature

There are authors who are very optimistic that literature can change the world by raising awareness and revealing new possibilities (e.g., Leïla Slimani, Karine Tuil, Patrick Chamoiseau, Mathias Énard, Philippe Forest). Others are more cautious or even pessimistic regarding the direct impact of literature in a world shaped by media and commercialization (e.g., Jean Rouaud, Yannick Haenel, Mathieu Larnaudie, Stéphanie Dupays).

“Aristocratic” vs. “democratic” artist (Mallarmé)

Some authors agree with Mallarmé's view that the artist must remain "aristocratic" in their demanding work, even if humanity is democratic (e.g., Alice Ferney, Leïla Slimani, Éric Reinhardt to some extent). Others, while appreciating high artistic standards, reject the "aristocratic" label as elitist or outdated. They strive to make sophisticated art accessible to everyone (e.g., Laurent Binet, Patrick Chamoiseau, Nathalie Quintane, Emmanuelle Pireyre, Chloé Delaume, Philippe Forest, Mathias Énard, Arno Bertina, Sandra Lucbert).

The existence of a "language of the left" and a "language of the right"

Most authors reject the idea of ​​a clear "language of the left" and "language of the right." They see style as individual or as transcending political categories. Some, however, acknowledge that certain stylistic tendencies can be associated with a political affiliation or that language can be instrumentalized.

Representation of contemporary society

Some authors explicitly address the portrayal of contemporary French society (e.g., Annie Ernaux, Karine Tuil, Leïla Slimani, Stéphanie Dupays, Aurélien Bellanger). Others focus more on historical events or global issues, where a direct representation of the present is less attractive or effective for their political aims (e.g., Laurent Binet, Laurent Gaudé, Mathias Énard, Patrick Chamoiseau).

Gefens Conclusion

In the concluding section, Gefen summarizes the diverse political functions of contemporary literature and gives an outlook on its role in democracy:

Indirect political impact

Gefen observes that the political action of writers is often more subtle than direct activism or argumentative discourse. Literature can have a political impact by analyzing and reinterpreting history.

Uncovering social trauma

Literature has the ability to uncover social traumas and foster a collective awareness, which can even influence the media and legislation. Gefen cites the fight against harassment and incest as examples, where literary contributions have brought the issue into public debate.

Relevance to current social issues

The literature addresses central concerns such as ecology, social inequalities, migration and feminism, which are perceived as the main concerns of writers.

Emancipation and reinvention

It serves as an instrument of emancipation and individual reinvention by enabling new perspectives and questioning established norms. It can encourage readers to share the experiences of others and thereby form communities.

Criticism and utopian/dystopian visions

Writers uncover the dark side of official history, make emerging identities visible, and imaginatively explore solutions for the future, including through dystopian depictions of control societies or post-gender utopias.

“Micropolitical” action

The politics of literature is described as a complex, nuanced field that defies simple formulas. It promises a new efficacy by rejecting paternalism and focusing on the accurate representation of the plurality of ways of life. It is a “micropolitical” action that aims to “change the world without seizing power.”

Strengthening democracy

Gefen emphasizes the role of writing and reading as effective practices in democratic life, based on a conscious awareness of the diversity of lifestyles and the precise articulation of these. Despite all the threats to democracy, there is a consensus on the democratic role of literature, even if many authors refrain from direct partisan political engagement.

This article is written in German and can be found at https://rentree.de. Automatic translations into English and French are available. English, French.