Page 210 - Vinkler, Jonatan, Ana Beguš and Marcello Potocco. Eds. 2019. Ideology in the 20th Century: Studies of literary and social discourses and practices. Koper: University of Primorska Press
P. 210
Ideology in the 20th Century: studies of literary and social discourses and practices
ernism ultimately take the same form, although their functions differ. This
also applies, to some extent, to criterion (4), where two similar forms ful-
fill the same function. However, it is equally arguable that feature (4) is
closer to features (5–6), which take different forms to fulfill the same func-
tion—namely that of perpetuating the modernist rhetoric—, than to fea-
tures (1–3), which deploy the same form to serve different functions. The
most problematic characteristic is feature (7), which may appear as either
an instance of absolute divergence—opposition to vs. an incorporation
within a system—or perfect correspondence—the critique of capital-
ism—, depending on the side of the debate one stands on.
To clarify such ambiguities, the term of comparison must first be dis-
ambiguated. Where does the specificity of modernism lie: in its form or
its function—i.e. its ideology? Much to the dismay of many, my answer
210 to this question is quite simple: in both or, to be precise, in neither of the
two, since modernism is, at least in my Jamesonian view, a ‘logic,’ an as-
sociation, that is, between form and function, which in the case of late
modernism connects the ideology of aesthetics—and implicitly, the cri-
tique of capitalism—to a particular set of rhetorical devices. Yet capital-
ism is anything but a homogenous phenomenon and its famous “com-
bined and uneven development” has compelled modernism to seek out
various means of survival. It is for this reason that, in its attempt to adapt
to certain conditions, modernism sometimes abandons forms, while, at
other times, it discards functions. In all these cases, however, we do not
deal with alternative forms of modernism: it is not modernism itself that
changes, since it sacrifices some of its forms and/or some of its functions
precisely to save its ‘ logic.’ Thus, I believe that, as long as late modernism
and socialist modernism share a common ‘logic’ in spite of their under-
standable fluctuations in form and function, socialist modernism can be
seen as a variant of late modernism.
Works Cited
Borza, Cosmin. 2015. “Trei concepte ‘socialiste’: realismul, postmodernis-
mul, estetismul.” Caietele Sextil Pușcariu 2: 535–541.
Britton, Célia. 1992. The Nouveau Roman: Fiction, Theory, and Politics. Hound-
mills, London: Macmillan.
Coutinho, Eduardo De Faria. 2007. “Brazilian Modernism.” In Modernism,
vol. 2, eds. Astradur Eysteinsson and Vivian Liska, 759–768. Amster-
dam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
ernism ultimately take the same form, although their functions differ. This
also applies, to some extent, to criterion (4), where two similar forms ful-
fill the same function. However, it is equally arguable that feature (4) is
closer to features (5–6), which take different forms to fulfill the same func-
tion—namely that of perpetuating the modernist rhetoric—, than to fea-
tures (1–3), which deploy the same form to serve different functions. The
most problematic characteristic is feature (7), which may appear as either
an instance of absolute divergence—opposition to vs. an incorporation
within a system—or perfect correspondence—the critique of capital-
ism—, depending on the side of the debate one stands on.
To clarify such ambiguities, the term of comparison must first be dis-
ambiguated. Where does the specificity of modernism lie: in its form or
its function—i.e. its ideology? Much to the dismay of many, my answer
210 to this question is quite simple: in both or, to be precise, in neither of the
two, since modernism is, at least in my Jamesonian view, a ‘logic,’ an as-
sociation, that is, between form and function, which in the case of late
modernism connects the ideology of aesthetics—and implicitly, the cri-
tique of capitalism—to a particular set of rhetorical devices. Yet capital-
ism is anything but a homogenous phenomenon and its famous “com-
bined and uneven development” has compelled modernism to seek out
various means of survival. It is for this reason that, in its attempt to adapt
to certain conditions, modernism sometimes abandons forms, while, at
other times, it discards functions. In all these cases, however, we do not
deal with alternative forms of modernism: it is not modernism itself that
changes, since it sacrifices some of its forms and/or some of its functions
precisely to save its ‘ logic.’ Thus, I believe that, as long as late modernism
and socialist modernism share a common ‘logic’ in spite of their under-
standable fluctuations in form and function, socialist modernism can be
seen as a variant of late modernism.
Works Cited
Borza, Cosmin. 2015. “Trei concepte ‘socialiste’: realismul, postmodernis-
mul, estetismul.” Caietele Sextil Pușcariu 2: 535–541.
Britton, Célia. 1992. The Nouveau Roman: Fiction, Theory, and Politics. Hound-
mills, London: Macmillan.
Coutinho, Eduardo De Faria. 2007. “Brazilian Modernism.” In Modernism,
vol. 2, eds. Astradur Eysteinsson and Vivian Liska, 759–768. Amster-
dam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
