La literatura como oficio. Colombia 1930–1946

For most Colombian writers of the early decades of the 20th century, literature had a double civilizing mission: on the one hand, it should provide honorable and virtuous behavior models; on the other hand, it should help to forge a national identity based on the unity and purity of the language. Morals and grammar, as well as literature and politics, went hand in hand. During the 1920s, criticisms of this concept of writers’ and literature’s role in society became increasingly numerous. Its promoters were young writers who, as well as their rivals, were linked to partisan politics. Their slogan, however, was the renewal of the political and literary customs. In their opinion, politics had become an accommodating and mercantile activity, to which they wanted to return their essence of ideological struggle; at the same time, they criticized national literature for its moralizing intention, its narrow-mindedness, and its rhetorical and grandiloquent forms. An unexpected event – the triumph of the Liberal Party in the presidential elections in 1930, after almost 50 years of conservative and catholic governments – opened a period of important economic, political and cultural modernizing reforms for the country. In terms of culture for example, the state assumed the promotion as one of its central tasks: the promotion of the reading and the book, of the educational printed material, of the radio, of the theater, of the cinema and of the arts in general. In this new context, the “dissident” writers, educated in the 1920s (many of them of liberal af liation), moved to assume relatively important public positions, especially (though not exclusively), in the orientation of the educational and cultural policy of the governments that succeeded each other between 1930 and 1946, a time known as the Liberal Republic. Between sociology and history, mainly supported by documentary sources such as correspondence, literary press, and biographical and bibliographic information, the question addressed in this dissertation can be summarized as follows: what was it like to be a writer towards the middle of the 20th century in Colombia? The dissertation takes the changes of the educational and cultural policy during the Liberal Republic as the starting point to describe and analyze the transformations that took place in the intellectual occupations, especially in the writer’s occupation. For example, even though the new writers – as it was already said – also combined literature with the institutional policy, there were undeniable differences in their way of thinking and acting, not only because, in fact, they acted in a different context (modernizing, it might be said) but also because they shared the ideals of the modern intellectuals: independence of judgment, autonomy of the artistic (literary) creation, and economic retribution of their work. Nonetheless, according to the central thesis of the dissertation, these ideals were almost impossible to achieve, since there was not a solid institutional framework in Colombian society allowing their completion. The defense of the independence of judgment clashed with the writers’ af liation and partisan links; that of the literary autonomy with its predominant condition as of cials; and that of the economic retribution of their works with a weak editorial market. Nevertheless, in the midst of such contradictions, these writers represented a new gure: that of the intellectual-leader, instructor of “the masses”, and “spiritual” counselor of the nation. The qualities of the writer and the reformer gathered within him: this intersection was the source of the greatest intellectual prestige. In Colombia, during the 1930s and 40s, a literary reputation could be endorsed or achieved through a high public position. Literature included genres such as the political essay, the history, the scholarly commentary, and the parliamentary discourse. In this society where public employment could be a source of great intellectual prestige, and where “living from literature” was not possible, the statebecame a kind of sponsor and tribune for all kinds of writers. In such a context, in the absence of strictly literary institutions of promotion, the favor – asking and doing favors: a prologue, a recommendation, an appointment, etc. – became a basic principle of the literary life, based on the writers’ political af nities (both social and personal). In Colombia, until the mid-20th century, literature as a profession was closely linked to partisan politics. The parties, the public employment, and the press were the main means of education, action and reproduction of the intellectual writers, the training place for their literary aspirations and “careers”, and the main activities of their subsistence. All this is linked to the contradictions in their ambitions, discourses, and acts. It was impossible for them to be totally unaware of the distance between their lofty ideals, their social and cultural elitism, and the precariousness of their environment. Geplante Veröffentlichung (Ende 2018): Felipe Vanderhuck, La literatura como o cio. Colombia 1930 – 1946. Cali: Universidad Icesi.