Résumé
In an interview published in February 1966, Pierre Boulez famously declared himself a “300% Leninist”—at least in connection to the reform of musical life in the country. In ensuing years Boulez frequently returned to this self-description, and it has since become a staple of biographical accounts of the composer. But while authors often quote Boulez’s “exaggerated claim” to Leninism (to cite Dominique Jameux’s characterization), this is typically chalked up as one example among many of his penchant for provocative rhetoric. The remark thus joins the ranks of other incendiary utterances made by Boulez over the years, regarding the uselessness of certain composers, for instance, or the necessity of destroying opera houses.
This paper reconsiders Boulez’s self-avowed Leninism. His habitual recourse to this particular trope in a series of interviews from the mid-1960s to the mid-1970s suggests that it possessed a utility that went beyond mere provocation. Rather, Boulez’s frequent invocation of Lenin provides insight into how he conceived his aesthetic project, and how this project related to the broader field of contemporary music in the years around May ’68. But just as importantly, this trope offered Boulez a means of negotiating his changing position within this same field. Among other things, it offered him a way of forestalling the threat posed by his “artistic aging” – the process identified by Pierre Bourdieu according to which an existing cohort of artists is threatened with obsolescence by the emergence of a newer one. At the same time, the metaphor authorized a division of labor that legitimized his pursuit of professionalism in music, not just artistically but politically. For what it implied was that the best way that composers like himself can act on their political engagements is to leave politics to other professionals—namely to the militants whose area of expertise is revolutionary action.
