Modernism, Myth, Violence, and Social Change

Abstract

In this chapter I discuss the implication of modernist literary narrative, and, more broadly, of art, in violence and social change. In developing this discussion I shall draw on Georges Sorel’s theory of social myth. For Sorel, the experience of social myth is an aesthetic experience translatable into the language of action. The language of action yielded by aesthetic experience is also a language of violence, although violence is conceived in subtle ways as something other than raw violence. Sorel defines violence through a distinction between social classes: It is very difficult to understand proletarian violence as long as we think in terms of ideas disseminated by middle-class philosophers; according to their philosophy, violence is a relic of barbarism which is bound to disappear under the influence of the progress of enlightenment. (Sorel, 2004, p. 80) Violence is different for members of the proletariat who define themselves through social myth. They are not spellbound by Utopias created by middle-class philosophers. For the latter, the progress of enlightenment leads to nothing less than an ironing out of all contradictions. By comparison, social myths help social subjects to bring into relief contrasts and contradictions, yet within a unified picture expressed in the social myth.