Modernism, Peter Childs (Routledge, 2000)

Introduction
If the idea that identity exists through difference (we can say what something is by dint of what it
is not) is taken as a starting point, then Modernism can be understood through what it differs
from. Modernism is, for example, not realism, the dominant mode of the novel from its inception
in Britain in the eighteenth century with the rise of bourgeois capitalism to the present day.
Realism, according to many critics, is characterised by its attempt objectively to offer up a mirror
to the world, thus disavowing its own culturally conditioned processes and ideological stylistic
assumptions. It also, modelled on prose forms such as history and journalism, generally features
characters, language and a spatial and temporal setting very familiar to its contemporary readers
and often presents itself as transparently representative of the author’s society. The hegemony of
realism was challenged by Modernism and then postmodernism, as alternative ways of
representing reality and the world.
Realism itself was once a new, innovative form of writing, with authors such as Daniel Defoe
(1660–1731) and Samuel Richardson (1690–1761) providing a different template for fiction
from the previously dominant mode of prose writing, the Romance, which was parodied in one
of the very first novels, Cervantes’ Don Quixote (1605–15), and survives in Gothic and fantasy
fiction. Throughout modern literary history, realism remains the favourite style of writing for
novelists, but many avant-garde, innovative and radical writers have sought to break its
stranglehold. Very broadly speaking, the vast majority of attempts to offer alternative modes of
representation from the middle of the nineteenth century to the middle of the twentieth century
have at one time or another been termed Modernist, and this applies to literature, music, painting,
film and architecture (and to some works before and after this period). In poetry, Modernism is
associated with moves to break from the iambic pentameter as the basic unit of verse, to
introduce vers libre, symbolism and other new forms of writing. In prose, Modernism is
associated with attempts to render human subjectivity in ways more real than realism: to
represent consciousness, perception, emotion, meaning and the individual’s relation to society
through interior monologue, stream of consciousness, tunnelling, defamiliarisation, rhythm,
irresolution and other terms that will be encountered later in the book. Modernist writers
therefore struggled, in Ezra Pound’s brief phrase, to ‘make it new’, to modify, if not overturn
existing modes of representation, partly by pushing them towards the abstract or the
introspective, and to express the new sensibilities of their time: in a compressed, condensed,
complex literature of the city, of industry and technology, war, machinery and speed, mass
markets and communication, of internationalism, the New Woman, the aesthete, the nihilist and
the flâneur.

PLUNGING IN
With regard to literature, Modernism is best understood through the work of the Modernist
authors who wrote in the decades before and after the turn of the twentieth century. It is a
contentious term and should not be discussed without a sense of the literary, historical and
political debates which have accompanied its usage. One of the first aspects of Modernist writing
to strike readers is the way in which such novels, stories, plays and poems immerse them in an
unfamiliar world with little of the orienting preambles and descriptions provided by most realist
writers, such as Jane Austen, Charles Dickens and George Eliot. In other words, Modernist
writing ‘plunges’ the reader into a confusing and difficult mental landscape which cannot be
immediately understood but which must be moved through and mapped by the reader in order to
understand its limits and meanings.

WORDS, WORDS, WORDS: MODERN, MODERNISM,

MODERNITY

(…)
‘Modernist’ is a comparatively old word which, in the late sixteenth century named a modern
person and came by the eighteenth century to denote a follower of modern ways and also a
supporter of modern over ancient literature. By contrast, ‘Modernism’ was first used in the early
eighteenth century simply to denote trends characteristic of modern times, while in the
nineteenth century its meaning encompassed a sympathy with modern opinions, styles or
expressions. In the later part of the nineteenth century, ‘Modernism’ referred to progressive
trends in the Catholic Church. In literature it surfaced in Thomas Hardy’s Tess of the
D’Urbervilles (1891), to denote what he called a general and unwelcomed creeping industrial
‘ache of Modernism’. In criticism, the context with which this book is concerned, the expression
emerged but failed to gain currency with Robert Graves’ and Laura Riding’s 1927 A Survey of
Modernist Poetry. It was only in the 1960s that the term became widely used as a description of
a literary phase that was both identifiable and in some sense over. Its literary roots have been
said to be in the work of the French poet and essayist Charles Baudelaire and the novelist
Gustave Flaubert, in the Romantics, or in the 1890s fin de siècle writers; while its culmination or
apogee arguably occurred before World War I, by which point radical experimentation had
impacted on all the arts, or in 1922, the annus mirabilis of James Joyce’s Ulysses, T.S.Eliot’s
The Waste Land, Katherine Mansfield’s The Garden Party, and Virginia Woolf ’s Jacob’s Room.
Postwar dates for Modernism’s high-point make sense in terms of British literature but not
European. Its end is variously defined, in terms of time, as 1930, 1950, or yet to happen, and, in
terms of genre, as neorealism or postmodernism. As an international art term it covers the many
avant garde styles and movements that proliferated under the names of Expressionism, Imagism,
Surrealism, Futurism, Dadaism, Vorticism, formalism and, in writing if not painting,
Impressionism. Its forebears were Darwin, Marx and Nietzsche; its intellectual guru was Freud.
Modernist writing is most particularly noted for its experimentation, its complexity, its
formalism, and for its attempt to create a ‘tradition of the new’. Its historical and social
background includes the emergence of the New Woman, the peak and downturn of the British
Empire, unprecedented technological change, the rise of the Labour party, the appearance of
factory-line mass production, war in Africa, Europe and elsewhere. Modernism has therefore
almost universally been considered a literature of not just change but crisis.
‘Modernity’ is a word first used by Baudelaire in the mid-nineteenth century. In his essay ‘The
Painter of Modern Life’ Baudelaire describes modernity as the fashionable, fleeting and
contingent in art, in opposition to the eternal and immutable.
In relation to Modernism, modernity is considered to describe a way of living and of
experiencing life which has arisen with the changes wrought by industrialisation, urbanisation
and secularisation; its characteristics are disintegration and reformation, fragmentation and rapid
change, ephemerality and insecurity. It involves certain new understandings of time and space:
speed, mobility, communication, travel, dynamism, chaos and cultural revolution. This societal
shift was differently theorised at the turn of the century by, for example, Émile Durkheim, Max
Weber and Ferdinand Tönnies. Durkheim focused on the increased division of labour inherent in
modern production, Weber on the disenchantment of a rationalised world, and Tönnies on the
gradual move from the interrelations of the close-knit rural community, the Gemeinschaft, to the
heterodoxy and anonymity of urban society, which he termed the Gesellschaft (see Bradbury and
McFarlane 1976). The foundations of sociology lie in these attempts to come to terms with
changes which were also being processed by the Modernists. The notable writers on modernity
in the first half of the twentieth century were the Frankfurt School of Critical Theorists, such as
Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer and Walter Benjamin. Benjamin’s ninth thesis in his ‘Theses
on the Philosophy of History’ provides a famous image of ‘the nightmare of history’ as the
Modernists saw it. He describes an ‘Angel of History’:

His face is turned toward the past. Where we perceive a chain of events, he sees one
single catastrophe which keeps piling wreckage upon wreckage and hurls it in front of his
feet. The angel would like to stay, awaken the dead, and make whole what has been
smashed. But a storm is blowing from Paradise; it has got caught in his wings with such
violence that the angel can no longer close them. The storm irresistibly propels him into
the future to which his back is turned, while the pile of debris before him grows skyward.
This storm is what we call progress (Benjamin 1973:259–60).

This image complements the emerging view of history, as detritus and shored ruins, in the world
of Charles Baudelaire and then Franz Kafka, of Eliot and Joyce. Modernity is both the
culmination of the past and the harbinger of the future, pinpointing a moment of potential
breakdown in socio-cultural relations and aesthetic representation. It is not surprising that artistic
reactions and responses bifurcated into the largely celebratory (Marinetti, Le Corbusier,
Mayakovsky) and, particularly in the British Isles, the primarily condemnatory or apocalyptic
and despairing (T.S.Eliot, W.B.Yeats, Ezra Pound, T.E.Hulme, D.H.Lawrence).

More generally, modernity is an imprecise and contested term. It has been said to encompass
Western history from the Renaissance,or the epoch that began with the seventeenth-century
scientific revolutions of Galileo, Hobbes, Newton, Leibniz and Descartes;it has also been argued
to have been inaugurated by the eighteenth century Age of Enlightenment and its drive toward a
mastery of nature and society through reason, since which rationality has been considered the
key to justice, morality, control, organisation, understanding and happiness. One critic, Marshall
Berman (1983), divides modernity into three phases: 1500 to 1800 (when peoplestruggled to find
a vocabulary to describe modern life); the 1800s (from the American and French Revolutions
through the great upheavals across Europe in the nineteenth century); and the 1900s (in which
almost the whole world became involved in the process of modernisation). Alternatively,
modernity has been said to be an attitude rather than an epoch (Foucault 1986). Above all it is
characterised by the attempt to place humanity and in particular human reason at the centre of
everything, from religion and nature, to finance and science.

Modernity describes the rise of capitalism, of social study and state regulation, of a belief in
progress and productivity leading to mass systems of industry, institutionalisation, administration
and surveillance. Defended as a universal endeavor which leads to the gradual emancipation of
all human beings, its adversarial critics contend that reason and knowledge are merely used to
enslave and control people in alternative ways to premodern society, which employed coercion,
religion and ‘natural’ authority to achieve social domination. One of modernity’s staunchest
defenders, the critic Jürgen Habermas, argues that ‘The project of modernity, formulated in the
eighteenth century by the philosophers of the Enlightenment, consisted in their efforts to develop
objective science, universal morality and law, and autonomous art according to their inner
logic…for the rational organization of everyday life’ (Habermas 1981:9). For Habermas,
modernity is an incomplete project because it continues to attempt its own self-redefinition
through many instances and utterances of identification and projection. But, the counter-
argument runs, while the dominance of reason and science has led to material benefit, modernity
has not fostered individual autonomy or profitable self-knowledge. It has not provided meaning
to the world or to spiritual life, religious or otherwise, perhaps reducing humans merely to
rational(ising) animals who are increasingly perceived as more complex and consequently more
emotionally, psychologically and technologically dependent. Humanity arguably appears without
purpose and is instead merely striving for change and transformation, which produce only
momentary satisfaction or meaning. Modernity is also associated with the period of European
global expansion, such that its universalising thrust has been concomitant with and dependent
upon near-global systems of subjugation and navigation, despite its Eurocentric focus.
Suggestions of counter-modernities based on colonial or postcolonial models have been made by
recent critics such as Homi Bhabha (1991) and Paul Gilroy (1993) among others.

Modernism has therefore frequently been seen as an aesthetic and cultural reaction to late
modernity and modernisation. On the one hand, Modernist artists kicked against the
homogenization required by mass systems. On the other, they celebrated the new conditions of
production, circulation and consumption engendered by technological change (Harvey 1989:23).
There were paradoxical if not opposed trends towards revolutionary and reactionary positions,
fear of the new and delight at the disappearance of the old, nihilism and fanatical enthusiasm,
creativity and despair.

PERIODS, GENRES, MODELS

Modernism is regularly viewed as either a time-bound or a genre-bound art form. When time-
bound, it is often primarily located in the years 1890–1930, with a wider acknowledgement that
it develops from the mid-nineteenth century and begins to lose its influence in the mid-twentieth
century. This is certainly the period in which most Modernist literature was written, but,
conversely, most literature written in the period was not Modernist. When genre-bound,
Modernism is associated with innovation and novelty, and has been stretched to include such
British and Irish figures as John Donne, William Blake, Samuel Taylor Coleridge and Laurence
Sterne. Typical aspects to this kind of ‘Modernist’ writing are radical aesthetics, technical
experimentation, spatial or rhythmic rather than chronological form, self-conscious
reflexiveness, scepticism towards the idea of a centred human subject, and a sustained inquiry
into the uncertainty of reality. Any adequate discussion, however, has to take note of both views
and of their meeting-point in the intense international and interdisciplinary artistic revolutions
around the start of the twentieth century.

Another approach is to attempt to construct a description of the representative features of

Modernist writing. One critic, Norman Cantor, has offered what he calls a Model of Modernism
(Cantor 1988:35), with the following characteristics. Modernism favoured anti-historicism
because truth is not evolutionary and progressive but something requiring analysis. It focused on
the micro- rather than the macrocosm, and hence the individual more than the social. It was
concerned with self-referentiality, producing art that was about itself and texts that were self-
contained rather than representational. It leant towards the disjointed, disintegrating and
discordant in opposition to Victorian harmony. Modernism also advocated that an object exists in
terms of its function; a house is therefore seen as a machine for living in (Le Corbusier) and a
poem ‘a machine made for words’ (William Carlos Williams). It was frequently and
unashamedly elitist, in that, for example, Modernist art stressed complexity and difficulty, and
also emphasized that culture had changed in response to the machine age. In terms of sexuality
and the family, Modernism introduced a new openness with candid descriptions often
sympathetic to feminism, homosexuality, androgyny and bisexuality beside a questioning of the
constraints of the nuclear family which seemed to hamper the individual’s search for personal
values. Modernists did not view ethics as superior to art, seeing the latter instead as the highest
form of human achievement. If Victorian literature was concerned with morality, Modernist
writing was concerned with aesthetics. Lastly, Cantor notes a tendency towards feelings of
apocalypse and despair following decades of creeping Victorian doubt. In this spirit, Modernist
texts often focus on social, spiritual or personal collapse and subsume history under mythology
and symbolism.

Other characteristics are a focus on the city and a championing as well as a fear of technology;
technical experimentation allied with radical stylistic innovation; a suspicion of language as a
medium for comprehending or explaining the world; and an attack on nineteenth-century
stalwarts such as empiricism and rationalism. Above all, however, from the mid-nineteenth
century onwards what has come to be called Modernism appears retrospectively to have been a
wide-ranging and far-reaching series of vigorous and persistent attempts to multiply and disturb
modes of representation. Its artistic expansion seemed to follow on from other kinds of growth:
scientific, imperial and social. These lucrative material changes were accompanied by individual
and collective crises, especially spiritual, which issued in a new literature that was rebellious,
questioning, doubtful and introspective, but confident and even aggressive in its aesthetic
conviction. In 1857, the cultural commentator and poet Matthew Arnold gave a lecture entitled
‘On the Modern Element in Literature’. He described this modern style in terms of repose,
confidence, tolerance, free activity of the mind, reason and universals (Arnold 1857). Fifty years
later the avant-garde of literature expressed the opposite: alienation, plight, chaos, unreason,
depression and a disenchantment with European culture.

(…)