Howe embarks on a nuanced exploration of the term ‘modern,’ in his Introduction to The Idea of the Modern. His attempt to 'define' modernism mirrors the very characteristics of the fragmented literature it seeks to encapsulate, echoing the modernist spirit of perpetual questioning and discomfort. Through the lens of Howe's attempt at a definition and the preceding discussion about whether it is even useful to embark on such a quest, it becomes apparent that Howe’s struggle is inherent in defining a movement that resists definition. Howe’s prescient nod to the potential end of modernism opens a doorway to the impending dawn of postmodernism. By examining Delillo's White Noise, one can follow the throughline from modernism to postmodernism with the consistent focus on questions. Howe's exploration of the term "modern" and the preceding discussion in the Introduction both mirror the very characteristics of the fragmented modernist literature. Through a dance between defining and resisting definition, Howe's Introduction provides a nuanced glimpse into the perpetual questioning and evolving intellectual landscape, while hinting at the transition from modernism to postmodernism.
Howe begins his exploration of the term ‘modern’ in his Introduction to The Idea of the Modern, guided by the “brilliant iconoclast” Lovejoy's critique of conventional periodization terms in that they are “helplessly imprecise.” Lovejoy's rejection of terms like "The Romantic Period" or “The Age of Milton” prompts Howe to justify his selection of "modern." He concedes the imprecision of such terms and similar to the fragmented nature of modernist literature, Howe attempts to ‘define’ modern or what falls under the rubric of modernist literature while acknowledging the inherent challenges in this endeavor.
The attempt to define modernist writing mirrors the characteristics of the literature it seeks to articulate. Howe's admission that "what follows are pieces and patches, a series of notes, with the ideas of many other writers ... cheerfully drawn upon" aligns with the modernist spirit. Like the circular nature of some modernist writers like Virginia Woolf, Howe states that he “will be discussing a literary movement or period that I call “Modernism,” while knowing full well that the term is elusive and protean, and its definition hopelessly complicated.” And yet Howe still attempts to talk about it.1
Modernism celebrates the problematic and the unanswerable as a means of demonstrating authenticity. “It is a dynamism of asking and learning not to reply.” This theme is driven home time and time again in Howe’s ‘definition’ of the modern; "the true question... need only be asked over and over again, forever in new ways." Howe states, “the problematic is adhered to because it comes to be considered good, proper, and even beautiful that men should live in discomfort.” Nietzche one of his many famous one-liners also made reference to this idea. “Truth has never yet hung on the arm of an absolute.” Central to modernism is the notion that the value of a question lies not in its answer but in its perpetual asking. Howe's assertion that "we represent ourselves, we establish our authenticity, by the questions we allow to torment us" underscores the modernist philosophy of embracing questions as a mode of authenticity.
Doubt and discomfort in Howe's ‘definition’ mirror Modernism, emphasizing the movement's obsession with questions. “The very idea of a question [is] redefined: no longer an interrogation but now a mode of axiomatic value.” This itself mirrors Howe’s struggle with Lovejoy and himself in whether an attempt to create a ‘definition’ is even useful at all. “That descriptive elements I attribute to this movement clash with one another, I acknowledge…” says Howe. “Yet”—and this is the critical element that Howe highlights in both his ‘definition’ of modernism and his own discussion of the usefulness of definitions—“there is value in these difficulties: they point to the fascinating complexities of our subject.” This is Howe’s definition of Modernism as it relates to questions as explored above, except in this case Howe had not even arrived at modernism and had only been discussing the usefulness of a definition. Furthermore, Howe’s “authenticity” is established by beginning with the question about the usefulness of a definition. The ethos of modernism has seeped into writers so much so that in their very discussions of the usefulness of defining it, a modernist tone is taken. Howe writes in his ‘definition,’“learn[] to respect, even to cherish signs of [] division. [Modernism] sees doubt as a form of health.” There is much doubt in Howe’s definition and his uncertainty as to whether there should be an attempt at one in the first place. Yet in Howe’s own words, it should be seen “as a form of health.”
Howe's attempt to define modernism becomes a profound reflection of the modernist dilemma. His acknowledgment that "the dilemma [is] that modernism must always struggle but never quite triumph, and then, after a time, must struggle in order not to triumph” captures another aspect of modernism and his own attempt at a definition. The deliberate avoidance of “ a neatly shaped synthesis of what modernism may be,” aligns Howe's efforts with the inherently ambiguous nature of modernist expression. In both the discussion about the ‘definition’ and the ‘definition’ itself Howe’s slipperiness is reminiscent of Modernist writing. While Howe never states this explicitly there seems to be an element of both “struggl[ing] but never quite triumph[ing]” and “struggl[ing] in order not to triumph,” within both his ‘definition’ and the discussion about the utility of a ‘definition.’
In the discussion, Howe writes, “in compiling this anthology about literary modernism and here offering some views of my own, I choose to risk the very dangers against which Professor Lovejoy warns.” There is an element in this quote of the struggle without the triumph, or in this case the certainty of triumph. To end his discussion of whether or not to attempt a definition, Howe writes his goal is “to keep ideas in motion, the subject alive.” Again, while this is not explicit there is a potential read of this in that Howe is struggling in order not to triumph. Howe has established his authenticity by pointing out the problems inherent in a definition from terms like Modernism no longer serving their function as “mere[] conveniences of discourse” to his acknowledgment of the contradictions that will creep up in his ‘definition.’ Thereby, Howe has established his credibility. Even while pointing to all of the problems (as modernism does) Howe ends up moving forward regardless, yet he ends on this point: “to keep ideas in motion, the subject alive.” This could be his way of struggling in order not to triumph. In a way Howe had triumphed by laying it all bare as a modernist would and he has the reader bought in. Yet, he ends on a point that will automatically allow for his opinion to be uprooted, “keep [his] ideas in motion.” Keep his ‘definition’ on unsteady ground, never sure, constantly “alive,” and a part of being “alive” is change.
Howe references the potential end of Modernism stating,2 “Modernist literature seems now to be coming to an end,” and while it does not seem at least from this isolated introduction to The Idea of the Modern that Howe anticipated the next cycle i.e. postmodernism, it is fascinating that he picked up on the end of modernism right at the moment that now with hindsight looking back many would peg as the beginning of postmodernism. This is even more brilliant3 given the fact that only by looking back can historians usually draw lines4 and state with confidence when one era ended and another began whereas Howe saw it in the moment itself.
The transition is intriguing, and examining Dellilo’s White Noise and the conversation between characters Jack and Heinrich is helpful. This put next to Howe’s final point about what Modernism is “9) And Last: Nihilism Becomes the Central Preoccupation, the Inner Demon, at the Heart of Modern Literature” can show the transition. Modernism according to Howe is dealing with questions rather than answers, and that this final piece that Howe brings up is possibly the “the true question” that Modernism deals with: the question of nihilism. To the extent that this is true we can see postmodernism creeping into this discussion. Ultimately, the ability to disentagle the definitions or to really say anything with certainty5 about this subject is extremely tough for someone.6 Yet, there is a line to be drawn between this last point of Howe’s and Howe’s general point with regard to Modernism its focus on questions and this can be seen plainly in Dellilo’s postmodern White Noise and a specific excerpt/conversation that takes place within it.
Through a short excerpt from White Noise the essence of some of the questions postmodernism asks becomes evident. The excerpt focuses on a conversation between Heinrich and Jack, two characters from White Noise, while they are driving in a car and it is raining outside.7 The conversation begins with the deceivingly simple question of, “Is it raining outside?” The conversation takes off when Jack says to Heinrich “Is that rain or isn’t it” in response to Heinrich’s initial refusal to answer if it is in fact raining outside. Through the course of the conversation, Heinrich’s refusal to answer the question becomes more clear. Initially, Jack asks him to rely on his senses to which Heinrich responds, “Our senses? Our senses are wrong a lot more often than they’re right. This has been proved in the laboratory…” Jack responds with the classic rejoinder ‘gun to your head’ what would you say? To which Heinrich responds, “What truth does he want? Does he want the truth of someone traveling at almost the speed of light in another galaxy? Does he want the truth of someone in orbit around a neutron star…” The conversation continues along a similar vein, but the main thrust being that Dellilo through Heinrich’s questions deconstructs many of the major aspects of what might have once been taken for granted like science and history. Rather the very notion of truth appears to be dependent on someone else’s subjective experience. This notion of questions is a throughline from Modernism to Postmodernism. The way the questions are posed, the essence of the questions, their depth; all of these aspects may evolve, but the permanence of questions remains.8
In the intricate dance between defining and resisting definition, Howe's exploration of the term "modern" encapsulates the essence of the modernist dilemma. Guided by Lovejoy's critique, Howe grapples with the imprecision inherent in periodization terms, while simultaneously mirroring the fragmented nature of modernist literature he seeks to articulate. The attempt to 'define' modernism becomes a reflection of the movement itself, embracing doubt and discomfort as hallmarks of authenticity. Howe's acknowledgment of the value in the difficulties of defining modernism echoes the modernist philosophy of perpetual questioning. The struggle without complete triumph, the deliberate avoidance of a “neatly shaped synthesis,” and the celebration of doubt are mirrored in Howe's 'definition' and the discussion surrounding the usefulness of one, and the broader discourse on modernism. Written in 1967, Howe's prescient observations provide a lens for understanding the transition to postmodernism. The exploration of Dellilo's White Noise sheds light on the persistence of questions from modernism to postmodernism, revealing a subjective and experience-dependent nature of truth. In this, Howe's essay not only explores the complexities of modernism but hints at the evolving landscape of intellectual movements, leaving the reader with a sense of openness, perpetual motion, and the enduring presence of questions.
Remind you of anything?
and this was written in 1967 so fairly close
my limited knowledge of history and how historians classify things notwithstanding
Arbitrary though they may be see Howe’s initial point with regard to Lovejoy
It is funny because I do not mean this in a postmodern way rather it is merely coming from a lack of knowledge and my general understanding that this question itself, is a question of much debate among scholars who know far more than I will ever know
Like myself who is not nearly as well versed in even the classics of either era to really say anything
Or is it?
Unless they’re not