S&S Quarterly, Inc. Guilford Press
Literary "Leftism" Reconsidered The Proletarian Moment: The Controversy over Leftism in Literature by James F. Murphy Review by: Alan Wald Science & Society, Vol. 57, No. 2 (Summer, 1993), pp. 214-222 Published by: Guilford Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40403343 . Accessed: 02/01/2015 18:16 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact
[email protected].
.
S&S Quarterly, Inc. and Guilford Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Science &Society.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 141.213.236.110 on Fri, 2 Jan 2015 18:16:12 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
REVIEW ARTICLES
Vol. 57, No. 2, Summer 1993, 214-222 Science& Society,
LITERARY "LEFTISM" RECONSIDERED* I A reconsiderationof United States left-wing literatureof the 1930s, particularlyits relationto the CommunistParty,is now proceedingat a faster pace than at any point since the tail end of the McCarthyiteantiradical witch-hunt of the 1950s. At thattime,WalterRideout's 7%*? Radical Novel in theUnitedStates,1900-1954 (1956) and Daniel Aaron's Writers on the (1961) broke withred-baitheft:Episodesin AmericanLiteraryCommunism of the arts"1to inauing conspiracytheoriesof "Communistinfiltration gurate a liberal paradigm for the study of the literaryradicalism that reached its apex in the 1930s. Through the use of extensiveprimarysources (interviews,letters, unpublished manuscripts,and a wide reading in left-wing publications), the two scholarsforgedan influentialviewof the leftliterarytraditionof the 1930s and afteras a sincerebut misguidedeffortboastinga fewgenuine but modest achievements.In the 1960s and 1970s, a flood of subse- some more hostileto Red quent studiesofferedvariantinterpretations - withoutdisplacingthisdomiwriters,but the majoritymore sympathetic nant paradigm. A qualitativelynew and improvedstudyof the epoch began in earnest with the consolidation of feminismin the academy in the 1980s, whichcast a fresheye on hithertoneglectedpro-Communistwriterssuch * The ProletarianMoment:The OverLeftismin Literature, byJames F. Murphy. Controversy of IllinoisPress, 1991. 221 pp. Urbana, Illinois:University 1 See Eugene Lyons' The Red Decade (1941) for one of the most popular versionsof this approach.
214
This content downloaded from 141.213.236.110 on Fri, 2 Jan 2015 18:16:12 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
LITERARY"LEFTISM"
215
as Tillie Olsen, Meridel Le Sueur, and Josephine Herbst. Next arose the now-famous"canon debates," challengingthe way in which the regnant models of "literary excellence"came to have sway.At the presentmoment there are hopeful signs that a freshexaminationof left-wing writersof color may be under way. In these same years of intenserethinking, an impressivenumber of new kindsof reprintsof 1930s novels,shortfiction,reportageand poetry was published by the FeministPress, MonthlyReview,West End Press, and various universitypresses. The originalstaple of 1930s radical texts were byJohn Dos Passos, James T. Farrell,Mike Gold, Richard Wright, GranvilleHicks, and John Steinbeck.The books appearing in the 1980s and early 1990s include Carlos Bulosan's If You Want to Know What We Are (1983), FieldingBurke's Call Home theHeart (1983), JosephineJohnson's Now in November (1985),JosephKalar's PoetofProtest (1985), Meridel Le Sueur's I Hear Men Talking(1984),JosephVogel's Man's Courage(1989), MaryHeaton Vorse's TheRebelPen (1985), Clara Weatherwax'sMarching! Marching!(1991), Albert Halper's Union Square (1991), Guy Endore's Babouk(1991), MaryHeaton Vorse's Strike(1992), and Ruth McKenney's IndustrialValley(1992). Well-selectedanthologiessuch as JackSalzman and Leo Zanderer's Social Poetryof the Thirties(1978) and CharlotteNekola and Paula Rabinowitz's WritingRed: An Anthology of AmericanWomen 1930-1940 (1987) also expanded the availabilityof 1930s texts. Writers, In the past threeyears,the new editionshave been joined by a genuine renaissance of freshcriticalstudies applyingthe new methodologies thatgrewout of the 1960s, especiallyfeministliterarytheoryand a more sophisticatedMarxism.Among the most provocativeof such works are and Recovery: ModernAmericanPoetryand thePoliCaryNelson's Repression ticsofCulturalMemory, 1910-45 (1989), Paula Rabinowitz'sLaborand Desire: Women* s Revolutionary Fictionin DepressionAmerica(1991), and James Bloom's LeftLetters:The CultureWars ofMike Gold and JosephFreeman (1992). Additionalbook-lengthworksare nearingcompletionby Douglass Wixson,BarbaraFoley,ConstanceCoiner,RobertShulman,HarveyTeres, MorrisDickstein,and others. Now appearsJames F. Murphy'sTheProletarianMoment:The ControversyOverLeftismin Literature, carryinga briefbut unequivocal endorsementby Cary Nelson in a preface.Its aim is to correct"one of the most in the writingof recentAmericanliteraryhisglaringmisinterpretations the tory"(195). Surprisingly, post-1960sconcerns of gender, race, mass culture,and literarytheoryhave no role in Murphy'scorrection.Instead, Murphyfocuses exclusivelyon the question of who actuallyled the campaign againstand dealt the finalblow to literary"leftism"withinthe cultural movement led by the U. S. Communist Party(CPUSA). Was the struggleagainst vulgar,sectarianand dogmatic versions of Marxistcul-
This content downloaded from 141.213.236.110 on Fri, 2 Jan 2015 18:16:12 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
216
SCIENCE & SOCIETY
tural theoryand practice waged mainlyby the writersaround Partisan Reviewmagazine, withthe death blow coming as a resultof the Popular Frontturnin 1935? Or was the "leftism"trendrepudiatedby the cultural leadership of the CPUSA itself,prior to and independent of the new outlook ratifiedby the SeventhWorld Congress of the Comintern? As Murphydocuments, "leftism"was a significantphenomenon in Communistculturalcircles in the USSR and Germanyas well as in the United States in the 1920s and early 1930s. While its exact meaning is uncertain,and the termwas never embraced by those accused of practicing it, Murphyuses "leftism"to referto criticalviews hostile to the entire bourgeois literaryheritage,including modernism (that is, the selfconscious formal experiments of T. S. Eliot and James Joyce); more "aesthetconcerned with sociological labeling than withliterary-specific ics"; and favoringimmediatepoliticalimpact over the subtletiesof literary technique. Murphyis in accord withmostpreviousscholarssuch as Rideout and Aaron in his belief that such attitudesconstituteda genuine source of contentionin the culturalmovementled by the CPUSA. What is unique is his argumentthat "leftism"was repudiated and defeated by partyculturalofficialdomin the United Statespnortoand independentof the shift to the Popular Front,whichhe claims was also the case withthe defeat of "leftism"in the Soviet Union and Germany. Of course,the recordshowsthat,in 1935, manyof the organizations, publications,and literaryassumptionsof the early 1930s were replaced literature,and a desire to mobilize by a call fora democratic,anti-fascist the best-knownwriterstoward this end. This switchhas long stood as a watershedin theorizingthe course of left-wing politicsduringthe Depression decade in many arenas beyond mere culturalpolicy. But Murphy insiststhatthe repudiationof "leftism"occurredearlier;it was a resultof the CPUSA culturalleadership's embracinganti-"leftism" on its own as "the culminationof a long process thatbegan withthe Proletcultcontroversyin the Soviet Union in the earlytwenties"(191). In other words, Murphyholds that this strugglewas between more sophisticatedand less informedversionsof Marxism,with the sophisticated versionwinningout as timewenton, new experiencesaccrued,and additional textsby Marx and Engels came to light.Significantly, thiswas an internalevolution separate fromthe polemical effortsof the editors of PartisanReviewmagazine, which has long been regarded as the chief antagonistof "leftism"in thatera.2 Even more surprising,Murphyinsists 2 PartisanReviewwas a U. S. Marxistjournal establishedin 1934 by Communistsbut which grew increasinglyindependentbefore re-launchingitselfin 1937 as a champion of both modernistsensibility and quasi-Trotskyist politics.
This content downloaded from 141.213.236.110 on Fri, 2 Jan 2015 18:16:12 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
LITERARY"LEFTISM"
217
thatthe officialCommunistPartyorientationwas not antagonisticto but actuallyin supportof literarymodernism:"In the Daily Workerand New Massesa favorableattitudetowardmodernismpersistedto the end of the decade" (147). If Murphy is accurate, the idea that Partisan Reviewled a unique strugglein support of modernismand against "leftism"is a fabrication initiatedby the Partisaneditorsthemselves.He believes his view is a crucial corrective:"In numerousbooks and articlesthe criticismof leftismis described as a dissidentposition thatfirstemerged in the originalPartisan Review,and was directed against views thatdominated the proletarian literaturemovementand were propagatedby theNewMasses.The first formulationsof this interpretationcan be found in articles writtenby membersof the originalPartisanReviewstaff. . ." (2). Murphyinsiststhat the argumentsof PartisanReviewwere then taken over wholesale and by all subsequent scholarsforvarious "political"reasons.3 uncritically The most problematicfeatureof Murphy'sbook is thathe has close to no evidence for the more sensational of his claims: that the CPUSA culturalleadershipwas open to modernism,and thatall scholarsprior to Murphyhimselfuncriticallyrepeat Partisan'sself-aggrandizing historyof the events.What the record more accuratelyshows is that some writers who employedmodernisttechniqueswere treatedsympathetically by the CPUSA culturalleadershipiftheypoliticallysupportedthe USSR and the CPUSA's orientation.It would also be more accurate to say that many scholars(includingmyself)have seen the most effectivecritiquesof "leftism" coming from the pages of the earlyPartisanReview- although it certainlydoes not follow that all have thereforeviewed thatjournal as the firstor sole voice against "leftism." On the other hand, several of Murphy'sunderlyingpremises strike me as the indispensable foundationfor all futurework on the period. For example, Murphyis on solid ground when he remarksof debates about the specificnature and functionof creativeliterature,and about the relationbetween art and politics,literatureand propaganda, and fiction and journalism, that "the argumentsand positions formulatedon these questions in the New Masses and other organs of the proletarian literaturemovementwere by no means as simple and crude as has often been suggested,and deserve reviewfor theirown sake" (3).
3 Some of thesereasonshe specifiesprecisely;forexample,MurrayKempton(in PartofOur Time,1955) and Walter Rideout allegedlywanted to aid the Cold War, while Malcolm Cowley(DreamoftheGoldenMountains,1964) wanted to "disown" his "radical past" (2). Other scholars,forreasons thatare neverexplainedby Murphy,simplyrepeat "thePartisan Review'sversionof the discussionover leftism"(3). I don't believe thatMurphyproduces sufficient documentationtojustifyanyof these chargesabout motivation.
This content downloaded from 141.213.236.110 on Fri, 2 Jan 2015 18:16:12 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
2 18
SCIENCE & SOCIETY
II The difficulty for the reader of thisbook is to throwout the bath water in aiminghis blastagainstthosewho whilesavingthebaby.Unfortunately, have shown sympathyfor PartisanReview'sversion of the 1934-36 controversy,Murphycreates a simplisticamalgam of a wide range of scholars who couldn't possiblyhave similarmotives,political or literary,and who disagree on substantiveaspects of the "leftism"debate. This secret team of scholarsand memoiristsincludes mutuallyantagonisticveterans of the decade such as Malcolm Cowleyand Max Eastman;post-World War II liberals such as Aaron, Rideout, and MurrayKempton; 1960s radicals of differenttypessuch as James Gilbert,myself,and Lawrence Schwartz; and miscellaneousindividualswho happened to have writtenan essaywith a referenceto the topic, such as AlvinStar and JackSalzman. His villain in the fieldof scholarlystudiesof radical drama is Ira Levine, the author of a little-knowndissertation,Left-wing DramaticTheoryin theAmerican Theatre(1985), while the major books, such as Morgan Himmelstein's Drama Was a Weapon(1963) and Malcolm Goldstein's The PoliticalStage (1974), are never mentioned. With such a wide range of names and textsat his disposal, Murphy is situated to combine decontextualizedquotations to provejust about anythinghe wants. He shiftsamong names and manipulates sentence fragmentsto fabricatea consensus,a homogeneous "other,"of incompetentand/or unscrupulouspeople who swallowedand thenpromotedthe Partisanline. Regrettably, Murphyneversummarizeson its own termsthe workof a singleone of these alleged apologistsforPartisanReview,which could be accomplished in a page or two. Instead, each work,whether or a briefessay,is representedby a sentence, booklength,multi-volume, or sentence fragment,insertedin a highlyconstructedsequence of contexts.This makes fora tediouskind of formulaicreading.Everyfewpages Murphyinformsus that,contraryto thisor thatscholar (the appropriate name can be chosen fromhis hit list),the opposite is allegedlythe case. The problem for the targetsof Murphy'sassault is that it would be an incrediblebore to reconstructwhateach of these diversefigureswas trying to do, and to then show how these effortsdifferfromthe simplistic viewsthatMurphyattributesto them.In otherwords,Murphymakes his case in such a way that,to tryto set the record straight,one would have to go to such lengthsof documentationthat it would fill most of this journal and put even the most sympatheticreaders to sleep! Since Murphyallows no distinctivenessor subtletyto the views of thosejammed togetherin a pro-PartisanReviewgang, the argumentsof many are never addressed, let alone refuted.All I can offerhere is the
This content downloaded from 141.213.236.110 on Fri, 2 Jan 2015 18:16:12 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
LITERARY"LEFTISM"
219
kindsof claims, generalizationthatmost of these scholarsmade different and the degree of meritvaries. A reviewof theirwork according to the standardsof scholarly"fairplay"- whichusuallyrequires thatone tryto make a plausible case for an opponent's view prior to demolishingit would resultin a richerand more subtle grasp of past literaryscholarship in thisarea. My own viewis thatsuch carefulcritiquewould produce conclusions similarto whatmanyyoungerscholarsin the fieldof U. S. radical history (such as Maurice Isserman,Mark Naison, Robin Kelley and Paul Buhle) have argued in the 1980s and 1990s: U. S. Communismwas not free of politicaldependencyon the Soviet Union, or of the normal institutional constraintsthat flow fromhierarchyand bureaucracy;but Communist Partymembers and sympathizerschose this dependency out of certain convictions,and theyappropriatedthe leadership's directivesand orientationsin ways demonstratingrank-and-file agency as well as a responsivenessto local conditions. It is also myopinion thatthephenomenoncalled "leftism" has sources in two areas. One source is over-simplified, mechanicalMarxistthinking thatappeared (and stillappears) naturallyin all radical movements,someworkeristelementsbutjust as often timespromoted by anti-intellectual, zealots. The other source is the tendencyof by purist,college-educated some officialsin partyinstitutionsto judge cultureexpediently,or funcauthorswell,and tionally,in termswantingto treatpoliticallysympathetic art that assist current As a result,resistance help promote might policy. to "leftism"withinthe movementmightbe generated in various ways: but also possiblypromotedby Communistsof broader culturalsensibility, that in in more or less produce instigatedby changes policy flexibility what kinds of culture assist the current orientation. political judging The above analysissuggeststhatwhat we call "leftism"never really disappearsfroma radicalmovement;moreover,it playsvariousrolesunder different politicalcircumstances.In fact,a studyof CPUSA culturalpolicy coveringmore yearsthan does Murphy'swould reveal manysimilarconflictsbetween a desire forgreaterautonomyby writersand a demand to writemore simplyon the part of some partyfunctionariesand zealous A variantof "leftism"was clearlypresentin the attackon rank-and-filers. in AlbertMaltz the post-Browderera, and cultural"leftism"was discussed again in the wake of the 1956 Khrushchevrevelations.If one examines lesser-knowndebates in partyculturalorgans,one can see manyfamiliar traitsin disagreementsaround such mattersas the treatmentof Arthur Miller'sDeath ofa Salesman,the reluctanceby some Communisteditors to publish Tom McGrath's poetry,and the assessmentof anti-racismin post-WorldWar II Hollywoodfilms.Thus it is not surprisingthatMurphy
This content downloaded from 141.213.236.110 on Fri, 2 Jan 2015 18:16:12 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
220
SCIENCE & SOCIETY
can findpatternssimilarto the U. S. controversyin debates in the USSR, Germany,and elsewhere. However, Murphyconfuses the matterunnecessarilyby the way in which he too-readilyconflatesthe issue of specificpromodernistsympathies into the other features of "leftism."If Murphy is correct - and I thinkhe is - thatmostpreviousscholarsfailedto demonstratethedegree to which writersother than those linked to PartisanReviewtook up the cudgels against "leftism,"it does not follow that actual sympathyfor modernism as a school existed among the CPUSA culturalleadership. Opposing "leftism"and supportingmodernismare hardlyidentical. For example,Murphypresentsas an instanceof "leftism" a 1925 article in the Daily Worker all thatis one Robin Dunbar literature by dismissing not explicitlyMarxist-Leninistand that is not writtenby workers for workers(58). He then shows howJoseph Freeman,in contrast,made an effortto "go beyondsociologicalanalysisin literarycriticism"(62). Murphy also notes thatMike Gold, despite manyvulgarstatementsagainst"bourgeois" literatureand formalism,praised "the language of the intoxicated Emerson,"the "clean,ruggedThoreau,"and the "vastWhitman"(68). This is fairevidence that the more extremeformsof "leftism"were rejected by leading writersfor partypublications. However, all his examples provingthat the CPUSA culturalleadership held sympathyfor modernismare much weaker. We are told that partyjournalist A. B. Magil in a New Masses article endorsed Anatole Lunacharsky'sview that "even in the period of its decline the art of a dyingclass is stillcapable of makingsignificantcontributionsin the field of form"(80). Magil is quoted as reportingthat the 1931 Charkov Conference"recognizedthe positivevalue of some of the experimentalmovements. . ." (80). We are also told that GranvilleHicks praisedJohn Dos Passos' TheForty-Second Parallel and 1919 for"creatingnew formsforthe of both the forcesof life and the forces of death in just representation our war-tornsociety"(138). But these and Murphy'sother examples offernothingcomparable to the serious engagementwithT. S. Eliot on the part of PartisanReview editor WilliamPhillips,nor the evolvingview of Philip Rahv and Phillips that the modernistrevolutionin literarysensibilitywas a counterpartof the Marxist-Leninist revolutionin politicalsensibility. that literatureshould be vivid,forgedwithcraft,and so Arguments are to on, testimony genuine literaryconcerns on the part of partyintellectuals. This degree of authenticliterarysensibilityshould be acknowledged. At the same time, it should not be confused with a defense of modernism.If Murphywantsto make a convincingcase thatthe CP culturalleadership was sympatheticto literarymodernism,as modernismis
This content downloaded from 141.213.236.110 on Fri, 2 Jan 2015 18:16:12 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
LITERARY"LEFTISM"
221
conventionallyunderstood,he should have identifiedauthoritativeCommunistPartyculturalfiguresand reviewed their records in detail. The most importantof these would be V.J.Jerome (Isaac Jerome Romaine, 1896-1965) who was placed in charge of culturalworkin the 1930s. But Jerome's name never even appears in the book.4
Ill Dismay at Murphy'spolemical overkill,and disagreementwithhis handling of the modernistaspect of the "leftism"controversy,should not obscure the admirablefeaturesof his study.Foremostis his viewthatone must base one's argumenton the documented record, not on postfacto memoirs;the latterare primarilyrationalizationsof the "victors,"who, in thissociety,I mightadd, have become victorsmore throughsupporting thandefyingthe rulingsocial order and itsdominantculture.Specifically, in the case of the battle over literarymodernism,Murphyaccuratelyobserves that the storyof the victorshas been that of the leading Partisan Revieweditors,who have repeatedlyreferredback to strugglesover leftismand modernismas justification fortheirtorturedand unsavorypolitical since World War II.5 All such claims about the past record trajectory should not be takenat face value but treatedwitha healthyskepticisma skepticismwhich is usually aimed 100% only at the other side, the CPUSA's culturalleadership. A second noteworthyfeature of Murphy's method is his use of a comparativedimension in studies of the literaryleft. Despite national differences,Communistliterarymovementsexisted in numerous countries,in manyinstancesproducingdebates thatwere roughlyanalogous. Thus Murphyincludesenlighteningmaterialon controversiesabout "leftism" in both the USSR and Germany.6He also pays special attentionto 4 This is hardlythe only significantblunder. Key literarytextsof the time such as E. A. Schachner's"Revolutionary Literature in theUnitedStatesToday"(Windsor(Quarterly, Spring 1934) are never mentioned;the politicaltrajectoryof MarxistcriticAlan Calmer is misrepresented;and otherpoliticaland literaryepisodes are ineptlydescribed.These would be forgivableifMurphy,and Nelson in his foreword,werenot so adamantin insistingthat onlyMurphyhas done his homeworkin the readingof left-wing publications. 5 Aftera flingwithTrotskyism in the late 1930s, Phillipsand Rahv progressively moved to a stance conciliatoryto Cold War anticommunistliberalismin the late 1940s and 1950s. Then, in the 1960s,Rahv stunnedhis associatesby returningto a kindof elitistLeninism beforehis death in 1973. Today, Phillips'viewsare hardlydistinguishablefromneo-conservatism. 6 However,Murphystatesthatthe materialsummarizedis not original:"This section [on Germany],as well as the one on the Soviet Union, is intendedas backgroundto the discussion in the UnitedStates,and does not claim to add anythingnew to researchalready done by others"(17).
This content downloaded from 141.213.236.110 on Fri, 2 Jan 2015 18:16:12 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
222
SCIENCE & SOCIETY
the possible influenceon U. S. writersof authoritativestatementsfrom abroad, and the appearance of influentialwritings(for example, letters by Marx and Engels on literaryquestions) in InternationalLiterature,a journal published in Englishin Moscow. significant A thirdattractivefeatureof Murphy'smethod is his broadeningout of the frameof referenceforconsideringthe politicsof literarydisputes in a few new areas. For example, when discussingreviewsof controverin addition to sial books he turnsto the literarypage of the Daily Worker the more regularlyconsulted New Masses and PartisanReview.He also augmentsdiscussionsof problems in poetryand fictionwitha consideration of similar issues in drama, the genre that was in many ways the dynamiccenter of leftculturein the 1930s. The problem of an organized political movement'srelation to culture has come up repeatedlyin the theoryand practice of U.S. radicalism - not only in socialist movements,but in the women's movement, labor movement,and movementsof people of color. If "leftism,"as I see it, grows froma combinationof overzealous individualsand the exigencies of institutionstryingto "lead" culturalactivities,then we can expect the reappearance of individualsand functionarieswho insistthatartmust be aimed at reaching"the masses" (or, at least,theirestimateof the consciousness of these allegedlyhomogeneous masses); whojudge the qualityof artisticcreationsprimarilyby the backgrounds(class, gender,race, in formor subject matter ethnicity)of the artist;who disparage difficulty as "elitist";and who resortto knee-jerkpoliticalcoding of artisticforms and subject. Hence, the debate over "leftism"and modernismpresentsmanylessons for culturalworkerstoday. Afterreading Murphy'sindictmentof previous scholarshipand his interpretationof the "leftism"controversy, Marxistessaysin PartisanReview myopinion remainsthattherevolutionary between 1934 and 1938 (that is, specificallyprior to Philip Rahv's 1939 "ProletarianLiterature:A Political Autopsy,"an outrageous caricature published in SouthernReview)present some of the most powerfuland thoughtfulcritiquesof vulgarMarxistthinkingin the arts. But Murphy, despite his regrettablepolemical overkill,has demonstratedthat there remains much more to be gleaned by reading widely,deeply and carefully,and withoutconventionalanticommunistpreconceptions,into the literarylegacy of our Red forerunners. ALAN WALD
Department ofEnglishLanguageand Literature The University ofMichigan 7611 Haven Hall Ann Arbor,MI 48109-1045
This content downloaded from 141.213.236.110 on Fri, 2 Jan 2015 18:16:12 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
