Search results

Strindberg's strategies of commitment, disengagement and new commitment across the border between literature and politics represent an intriguing intellectual adventure we can follow throughout his life as a writer. My article focuses on Strindberg's dilemma as it took form in the first half of the 1880s, and observes it through his fundamental and controversial relationship with the Swedish journalist, literary critic and Social-democratic political leader Hjalmar Branting, with the Danish playwright, literary critic, journalist and radical liberal politician Edvard Brandes, and with the Norwegian writer, politically engaged intellectual and nasjonalskald Bjørnstjerne Bjørnson. For a period they all experienced, along with Strindberg, the ambivalence of working in a social field where art and politics were intertwined, and were to a certain extent involved in the same project, each with his own interpretation. For Strindberg the writer, defending his autonomy from the political field in the end became crucial. What did his colleagues expect from his work? How did Strindberg react to their expectations? What is his legacy today with respect to stances such as intellectual autonomy from power, democratic rule, pacifism and critique of civilization, but also anti-feminism and anti-Semitism? Strindberg's unruly genius illustrates that it is at times difficult to draw the dividing line between radicalism and reaction, and that the great modernists were often also great anti-modernists.