Modernism in literature involves absurdism

The argument

Is Absurdism a part of, or response to Modernism? The style, mainly embraced by those in the Avant-Garde camp, and decidedly a major moment in theatre shares much in common with Nihilism and also criticizes ‘idealistic’ sentiments in the same vein as the spearheading Modernist authors and poets. But, in its very nature, Absurdism is a slippery thing. By the 50s, not long before the counterculture explosion of the 60s, Modernism was assuming a different shape. While literary Modernism had historically been a very loose and hard to define movement (some prefer to call it a period), it had, in retrospect, been defined by the correspondence and conversation between a number of prominent figures. The Modernist approach was centralized within certain literary circles or came about from collaboration in sub-movements, like Imagism, Surrealism, or Impressionism. While notable writers such as Franz Kafka may have explored Absurdity in their fiction, the style gained traction with playwrights such as Samuel Beckett, Eugene Ionesco, Luigi Pirandello, and Harold Pinter. These writers were preceded by The Theatre of the Absurd in France during the 1940s and visionary practitioner Antonin Artaud. The style became defined by fragmentary dialogue, subversion, esoteric structure, and lack of resolution. The best summation of the movement’s philosophy comes from Albert Camus, who coined the term in his book The Myth of Sisyphus: Sisyphus endlessly pushes his rock up the mountain only for it to roll back down each time he gets to the top. Unlike Nihilism, it’s not about the admittance of meaninglessness, but the repetitive and bizarre struggle to look for it when there is none. Even today, Absurdity seems to be an appropriate mode to address the chaos of the world. After all, did we ever stop pondering meaninglessness?

Premises

Counter-arguments

The argument's own text hesitates — asking whether Absurdism is 'a part of, or response to Modernism' — and that hesitation is well founded. The Theatre of the Absurd is a postwar phenomenon, emerging in the late 1940s and 1950s, after the high-Modernist period usually dated to the earlier twentieth century; many critics classify it as a distinct movement or as part of the transition toward postmodernism rather than as core literary Modernism, so enlisting it to define Modernism is contestable. There is also a gap between the argument and the position it serves: Absurdism confronts the absence of inherent meaning — Camus's Sisyphus persists in seeking meaning where there is none — which is a metaphysical stance about meaninglessness, not the epistemological claim that truth is relative. Favouring relativism over absolute truth and depicting a meaningless cosmos are different theses, and the sibling positions, experimentation with form and focus on the individual, arguably capture Modernism's defining features more squarely.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The Theatre of the Absurd is a postwar movement often classed as distinct from, or transitional beyond, high Modernism, so it does not straightforwardly define Modernism. [Rejecting C] Absurdism concerns the absence of inherent meaning, which is not the same as the position's claim that truth is relative rather than absolute.