Fredric Jameson’s "Fables of Aggression: Wyndham Lewis, the Modernist as Fascist" (Book Note)

 

Fredric Jameson’s Fables of Aggression: Wyndham Lewis, the Modernist as Fascist is an incisive and nuanced exploration of the relationship between modernism, politics, and ideology through the lens of Wyndham Lewis’s literary and artistic work. Jameson focuses on the complexities of Lewis’s role as both a leading modernist and a figure linked to fascism, navigating the tensions between his avant-garde aesthetics and his reactionary political views. This critical study situates Lewis within the broader context of modernism and examines how his works reflect and respond to the political climate of the early 20th century.

Jameson’s approach to Lewis is rooted in his broader commitment to Marxist literary theory. He is interested in how Lewis's texts, while grounded in modernist experimentation, also serve as expressions of a reactionary ideology that aligns with the rise of fascism in Europe. Jameson’s analysis examines both the form and content of Lewis’s work, probing how his aesthetics are inextricably linked to his political worldview. This focus on the dialectical relationship between form and ideology is central to Jameson’s critical method.

The book also serves as a case study in how modernist art, often seen as apolitical or purely formalist, can be implicated in the political struggles of its time. By analyzing Lewis’s complex and often contradictory positions, Jameson raises important questions about the political responsibilities of artists and intellectuals, particularly in moments of crisis.

Wyndham Lewis is a central figure in early 20th-century modernism, known for his work as a painter, novelist, and critic. He was a founder of the Vorticist movement, a British avant-garde movement that emerged as a response to both Futurism and Cubism. Vorticism embraced the machine age and sought to capture the energy, speed, and violence of modern life through fragmented, abstract forms.

In literature, Lewis is known for works like Tarr (1918) and The Apes of God (1930), which exemplify his modernist style. His writing is characterized by satire, sharp social critique, and a disdain for sentimentality and liberal humanism. However, Lewis’s political writings and sympathies, especially his flirtation with fascism and his admiration for figures like Mussolini, complicate his legacy.

Jameson’s task is to reconcile these different aspects of Lewis’s career—his modernist aesthetics and his reactionary politics—while also considering how his work can illuminate the broader relationship between modernism and fascism.

A central theme in Fables of Aggression is the pervasive sense of aggression and violence that runs through Lewis’s work. Jameson identifies this aggression not just as a thematic element but as something that shapes the very form of Lewis’s writing and art. The fragmentation, dissonance, and jagged edges of Vorticist painting and modernist literature can be seen as formal manifestations of this aggression.

For Jameson, this aggression is ideological as well as aesthetic. Lewis’s work often reflects a deep hostility toward modern democratic values, liberalism, and what he saw as the decadence of contemporary society. His satirical attacks on intellectuals, artists, and social reformers are infused with a reactionary contempt for modernity itself.

This aggression, Jameson argues, is tied to a broader sense of alienation and disillusionment in the early 20th century. In Lewis’s work, the machine age and the breakdown of traditional values produce a kind of existential crisis that manifests in violent, destructive impulses. These impulses, in turn, align with the appeal of fascism, which offered a radical, authoritarian solution to the perceived chaos and disorder of modern life.

Satire plays a crucial role in Lewis’s work, and Jameson devotes significant attention to how satire functions both as a literary technique and as a political tool. Lewis’s satirical novels, such as The Apes of God, are merciless in their critique of contemporary intellectuals and artists, whom he portrays as shallow, self-serving, and morally corrupt. His targets are often liberal or progressive figures, whom he sees as emblematic of the decay of Western civilization.

Jameson suggests that satire in Lewis’s work is a double-edged sword. On one hand, it functions as a form of cultural critique, exposing the hypocrisies and contradictions of the modern world. On the other hand, it reveals Lewis’s own reactionary tendencies, as his satire is frequently aimed at the very ideals of democracy, equality, and social reform.

In this sense, Lewis’s satire can be seen as both a critique of modernity and a reflection of his authoritarian worldview. By ridiculing the intellectual and cultural elites of his time, Lewis positions himself as an outsider, attacking the liberal consensus from a radical right-wing perspective.

One of the most provocative aspects of Fables of Aggression is Jameson’s exploration of the connections between modernist aesthetics and fascist ideology. While modernism is often associated with radical, avant-garde experimentation, Jameson shows how certain aspects of modernism—its embrace of rupture, its rejection of tradition, and its fascination with power and violence—can align with fascist principles.

Lewis’s attraction to fascism, according to Jameson, is not an anomaly but rather a reflection of deeper currents within modernist thought. Fascism, with its authoritarianism, nationalism, and emphasis on strength and purity, resonated with the aggressive, anti-humanist tendencies in Lewis’s work. At the same time, Lewis’s modernist style, with its fragmented forms and rejection of realism, mirrors the disruptive, revolutionary ambitions of fascism.

Jameson does not suggest that all modernist artists or writers were fascists, but he argues that modernism’s aesthetic strategies can sometimes serve reactionary political ends. This insight challenges the traditional view of modernism as inherently progressive or politically neutral, instead highlighting its potential complicity in authoritarian ideologies.

Jameson’s analysis of Lewis ultimately points to the political ambiguity of modernism itself. While modernism is often celebrated for its formal innovation and its break with traditional artistic conventions, Jameson argues that it can also reflect a reactionary, anti-democratic impulse. In Lewis’s case, his avant-garde aesthetics are inseparable from his disdain for modern society and his flirtation with fascist ideology.

This ambiguity is central to Jameson’s critique. He is interested in how art and politics intersect, particularly in moments of crisis or transition. For Jameson, modernism’s radical form can mask reactionary content, and the avant-garde’s rejection of bourgeois values can sometimes align with authoritarian or totalitarian movements. This insight complicates simplistic readings of modernism as either politically radical or purely formalist.

In Fables of Aggression, Jameson does not offer a straightforward condemnation of Lewis. Instead, he provides a nuanced reading that acknowledges both the brilliance of Lewis’s artistic achievements and the troubling implications of his political views. Jameson’s approach is dialectical, seeking to understand how Lewis’s work both reflects and responds to the broader cultural and political context of his time.

Jameson’s critique also extends beyond Lewis to address the larger question of how artists and intellectuals engage with politics. He raises important questions about the role of the artist in society, the responsibilities of intellectuals in times of crisis, and the potential dangers of separating aesthetics from politics.