Narration problems drove Lukács to Marxism, not the reverse

Evidence

Thus in the very working out of the problems of the Theory of the Novel itself there are decisive signs of that shift from a metaphysical to a historical view of the world that will be ratified by Lukács’ conversion to Marxism. Indeed, I would be tempted to reverse the causal relationship as it is generally conceived, and to claim that if Lukács became a Communist, it was precisely because the problems of narration raised in the Theory of the Novel required a Marxist framework to be thought through to their logical conclusion. — Fredric Jameson, Marxism and Form, 372

Categorization

• DEEPTHINKING: The claim that aesthetic/narratological problems compelled the Marxist commitment — rather than ideological commitment reshaping the aesthetics — is the paradigm case of Jameson’s immanent dialectical reading, exactly the method the reader is after.
• QUESTION: Is this imputation about Lukács supported by his own biographical testimony, or is this Jameson’s over-reading? Worth checking Lukács’s own account of his conversion.
• XREF: connects to: Anti-Communist bias distorted English reception of Lukács and Sartre; Lukács’s Theory of the Novel harbors a form-content contradiction that undermines its conclusions — Fredric Jameson, Marxism and Form, 368; Lukács’ critique of modernism predates his Marxist turn — Fredric Jameson, Marxism and Form, 400 (+4 more)

Broader Connections

• Lukács’ critique of modernism predates his Marxist turn #corroborates (0.85) — Fredric Jameson, Marxism and Form, 400
• Lukács’s route to Marx passed through an inescapable Hegelian frame #corroborates (0.80)
• Lukacs’s dialectic is historically monist, not dualist between nature and humanity #expands (0.72)
• Lukacs’s Leninist loyalty and anti-modernist taste limited his critical flexibility #complicates (0.70) — Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination, 537