1. What Is the Role of Theory in Modernist Studies? (Lawrence's
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
1. What is the role of theory in modernist studies? (Lawrence’s influence on Delueze and Guattri) or What is the relation between modernism and theory? 2. How does sublime return in modernism? (Flaneur and flaneuse, texts or textualism, interpretations vs Kantian sublime which reason fails to grasp) MODERNISM AND THEORY Unit One Connections: Concrete and Abstract Introduction: The missing link STEPHEN ROSS Theory’s modernism: concrete abstract connections 1 Rip the veil of the old vision across, and walk through the rent: thinking through affect in D. H. Lawrence and Deleuze and Guattari ANNELEEN MASSCHELEIN Deleuze and his sources Response to Anneleen Masschelein IAN BUCHANAN 2 Modernism, postmodernism, and the two sublimes of surrealism ROGER ROTHMAN The two sublimes, fourth time around Response to Roger Rothman ALLAN STOEKL 3 “What true project has been lost?” Modern art and Henri Lefebvre’s Critique of Everyday Life THOMAS S. DAVIS Disdained everyday fields Response to Thomas S. Davis BEN HIGHMORE 4 Time and its countermeasures: modern messianisms in Woolf, Benjamin, and Agamben HILARY THOMPSON Time’s exception Response to Hilary Thompson PAMELA CAUGHIE PART II Modernism’s theory: abstract affiliations 5 The persistence of the old regime: late modernist form in the postmodern period NEIL LEVI In the time of theory, the timeliness of modernism Response to Neil Levi GLENN WILLMOTT 6 Invisible times: modernism as ruptural unity C. D. BLANTON More than a hint of desperation – historicizing modernism Response to C. D. Blanton MORAG SHIACH 7 “This new evolution of art”: Adorno’s modernism as a re-orientation of aesthetics OLEG GELIKMAN What’s new? On Adorno and the modernist aesthetics of novelty Response to Oleg Gelikman MARTIN JAY 8 Fables of progression: modernism, modernity, narrative ANDREW JOHN MILLER Modernism and the moment of defeat Response to Andrew John Miller SCOTT MCCRACKEN Unit Two PART III Forum 9 Aesthetics CHARLES F. LTIERI 10 Ethics MELBA CUDDY-KEANE 11 Green BONNIE KIME SCOTT 12 Avant-garde JANE GOLDMAN 13 Theory SUSAN STANFORD FRIEDMAN Afterword FREDRIC JAMESON Some statements and questions: Avant-garde challenges a tradition and modernism accepts it! How can you identify Postmodernist Avant-garde? Does it exist? Connect Late-capitalist social condition with Postmodernism. Stephen Ross: “Introduction: The Missing Link” We focus on the Europianist concepts of modernism to multiple modernisms. We also ask the question: what is the role of theory in new modernism studies? The time of High Theory has been replaced by other theories which discourse multiple modernities. However, high theory and its connection with modernism is also studied in this course. Modernism and Theory has three objectives: (1) to continue the new modernist revolution by showing that theory is modernism’s key continuation, (2) to redress the misperceptions of modernism installed by theory, and by the same token (3) to redress theory’s marginalization within the new modernist studies. Theory and Modernism: The complicated history of modernism and theory is mainly about the break with the past and yet discuss the continuity. They both legitimize differences with the past. De Man and Jameson talk about how modernism shows its nature by establishing differences with the past. Jameson writes how periodization is necessary for modernism. It is a cultural moment which narrates its sense of singularity. They both reinvent and revive a spirit of critique, and orient themselves from Enlightenment and follow logic of misprision or in Bloom’s terms, the anxiety of influence. Narratives of Modernism, a history: First: The first stop in this genealogy is the Enlightenment. Originating in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries with the rise of empiricism and a reinvigorated humanism, the Enlightenment produced massive discontent with the social, political, and cultural order of the ancien régime. Popular frustration at the slowness with which social change followed economic change (generated by the explosion of imperialism and the first full manifestations of capitalism), coupled with an intellectual context that privileged human reason’s capacity to understand the world, set the stage for a qualitative shift in history. The result was an explosively diverse set of energies, including a series of scientific and political revolutions extending from the late seventeenth to the late nineteenth centuries; utopian experiments in America (Brook Farm, Walden) and elsewhere; declarations of the universal rights of man and woman; challenges to slavery from both slaves (e.g. Toussaint L’Ouverture) and Europeans; a rash of new laws broadly extending rights of property ownership and franchise; populist leaders and egomaniacal dictators (e.g. for both, Napoleon Bonaparte); horrifying brutality in the midst of celebrations of reason and humanity (the Terror following the 1789 revolution, imperialist exploitation and cruelty); vociferous critiques of the prevailing social order such as those of Marxism, anarchism, feminism, and abolitionism; angry retrenchments by dominant social groups; massive industrialization; the “permanent revolution” of capitalism gone metastatic; and even the persistence of the ancien régime to which the revolution of 1789 was meant to put an end. It provoked William Wordsworth into a transport of joy— “Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive, / But to be young was very heaven!” (1979 [1805]: ll. 692–3)—but it also drove Karl Marx to call for “the ruthless criticism of everything existing” (1978 [1843]: 13). Everything seemed up for grabs with the elevation of human agency to the driving force of history and the celebration of what seemed to be an infinite potential for improvement. Second: Modernism announced its difference from the Enlightenment through a misreading that reduced its messy complexity to an image of complacency, decadence, and corruption. Originating the very narrative category of “the Enlightenment,”3 modernism portrayed the Enlightenment as coextensive with the mortifying aspects of a modernity that had become an “iron cage” (Weber 1958 [1904]: 181), and the challenge to “make it new” a promise to break out of it. It was cast as privileging nationalism over cosmopolitanism, corporatism over individualism, uncritical loyalty over critical affiliation, and social hierarchy over egalitarianism, at once barrenly superstitious in its mania for spiritualism and too rational in its treatment of human beings. In Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno’s terms, the Enlightenment had ceased any longer to critique myth, and had become a myth itself, “the scientific ethos of the philosophes [was] dramatized as a misguided will to power and domination over nature, and their desacralizing program as the first stage in the development of a sheerly instrumentalizing world-view which will lead straight to Auschwitz” (Jameson 1998b: 25). [But] As modernism gained cultural currency, and particularly as it became part of the academic institution through the tireless efforts of T. S. Eliot, F. R. Leavis, and the New Critics, modernists’ pronouncements took on an authoritative hue and became doctrines rather than objections to be heard and responded to. A radical separation took place between modernism’s capacity to disrupt conventions, and its increasing ability to set them. [And] In remarkably short order, avant-garde modernism became “late” modernism. But, as with the Enlightenment, this is not to say that modernism was totally bereft of its capacity for critique. Many of the conditions it challenged persisted even as modernism was canonized, and its texts continued—and continue today— to confront them eloquently. Likewise, its avant-garde dimension continued to produce new challenges to accepted orthodoxies, including institutional modernism, long after Eliot and Pound had become éminences grises. Third: In the hands of this new narrator, the story of modernism was retold through rigorous and closely argued challenges to the pieties that had produced the bloodiest century in human memory (and still wasn’t over), and sustained global inequalities in an age of unprecedented wealth. Reading modernism as continuous with modernity rather than a critique of it, and focusing on the separation of aesthetics from politics and ethics upon which modernist doctrine was putatively based, theory completed the transformation of Conrad, Lawrence, Woolf, Forster, Ford, Pound, Yeats, Eliot, Joyce, James from vocal critics of modernity’s dehumanizing excesses to its official spokespersons. As the century neared its end, critiques of modernism driven by theoretical challenges to its philosophical, metaphysical, epistemological, and ontological underpinnings proliferated in all quarters. First feminist, then African-American and postcolonial critics attacked: critiques of modernism as sexist, racist, homophobic, hetero-normative, misogynist, anti-Semitic, imperialist, and fascist became conventional. Theoretical challenges to categories like taste, culture (of the high variety), and civilization, along with resurgent debates over the ideological significance of form, style, and technique cleared the way to reading the very categories of aesthetic value on which modernism staked its reputation as themselves ideological. ***** In Part 1 Theory’s Modernism: “Introduction” and essays by Masschelein and Buchanan The focus is how theorists have borrowed from modernism directly. Theory derives from writers, literature, art, and philosophy. The focus in the