What is Modernism?

Though nearly a century has passed since the birth of the period "Modernism", the discussion of Modernism's meaning has far from ceased. Just as Christopher Reed discusses the binaries of Modernism in his attempt at clarification, critics continue to argue what the Modernists did and did not mean with their respective works (2). From the critical readings assigned this week, each author puts a different aspect of Modernism on the literary table.

Bonnie Kime Scott addresses the role of gender in Modernism. We were asked to look over her first piece, "Intro to Gender of Modernism" as well as her later, reflective piece, "A Retro-prospective on Gender in Modernism". Considering the living arrangements that the Modernists (particularly the Bloomsbury group) had, I thought that this particular aspect would be very interesting. It is true that there is a lot of focus on women writers at this time, however with the rise of women's rights, it only makes sense that their would be significant focus on their work. Aside from this, the clusters that the Modernists arranged themselves in are extremely reminiscent of matriarchal society. As a former student of anthropology, I can not help but notice the support, guidance, and love that each of these individuals had for each other. And as Reed argues, the Modernists were defensive of individuality, but it was in these groups that growth occurred (9).

In Scott's second piece, she immediately dives into the rise of interest in the men of Modernism and the masculinity of the writing during that time. For me, this second writing hit the nail on the head. With the mixing of homosexuality and heterosexuality during the Modernist period, the idea of gender can be conflicting - where does masculinity begin and feminism end and is there some third, shaded area that conveys both genders? The possibility of transsexuality raises some red flags when I consider literature. Does this transsexuality make it difficult for the writer to establish his/herself. Maybe the shadiness of clear gender takes away from the writer's message or conveyance (which brings up further argument about whether or the not the writer even has one). I feel that Scott's second piece was much more unclear than her first and perhaps she is even unsure of her message.

Christopher Reed's "Intro to Bloomsbury Rooms" was the best article (I thought) of this week's readings. After reading the introduction in the Cambridge Companion to Modernism (which was a precise overview), I thought Reed's article on "Heroism and Housework" was perfectly modernist. The piece was loaded with binaries, which at first, was confusing. How can something be active and passive at the same time? But, after I continued on, Reed made a very heady, unclear period much more accessible than I had first thought. The idea of domesticity versus heroism was extremely interesting. The fact that many conceived the Bloomsbury group to be too domestic because their art that was furniture and it seemed that Bloomsbury was rebelling against this idea of domesticity, yet embracing it at the same time. Just as they were clearly a group, yet they desired to be recognized at an individual level. This constant give and take of Modernism is what is most intriguing to me. There seem to be no definitive answers, only hints that lead to more questions and force us to dig deeper to look at the political, social, gender, and class struggles of men, women, and whole civilizations at this time. I look forward to experiencing Modernism first hand with the aid of critical readings because just reading these articles have left me clamoring for some sort of tangible story in which to relate it all.