After a period during which Storm Jameson’s restricted literary identity has been that of the politically engaged woman writer, critical interest in the intellectual and stylistic complexities of her work is now reviving. Yet Jameson’s background in early English modernism and the manner in which it enriches her writing continues to pass unnoticed. This thesis uncovers new evidence of Jameson’s immersion in the early English modernisms of Alfred Orage’s Leeds Arts Club and New Age journal and of Dora Marsden’s journals, the New Freewoman and the Egoist, as an avant-garde student before the Great War. Drawing analogies with the post-colonial notions of ‘Manichean delirium’ and of ‘writing back to the centre’, this thesis argues that, subsequently – as a provincial socialist woman writer struggling to make her way at the predominantly male and elitist cultural centre – Jameson developed a vexed outsider-insider relation to English modernism which she expressed during the 1920s in a series of intertextual novels critiquing the contemporary cultural scene. It examines each of these novels chronologically, beginning with Jameson’s critique of the early modernisms of Orage, Marsden and associated writers in her first two novels, before moving on to her engagement, in turn, with the work of D. H. Lawrence, Virginia Woolf and Wyndham Lewis. Employing a socially oriented model of intertextuality, this thesis reads each novel synchronically as a sceptical and often witty probing of some of the polarised, and frequently contradictory, positions taken within the modernist debate. It also interprets the 1920s fiction diachronically as a developmental journey towards what Jennifer Birkett terms the ‘stylised realism’ of the 1930s and 40s, in which William James’s Pragmatism plays a central role, allowing Jameson to assimilate those intellectual and stylistic elements within English modernism that she values before leaving the rest behind.

Djuna Barnes and Gertrude Stein may appear unrelated to one another at first glance. We have an impoverished upstate New Yorker versus relatively comfortable Californian, bisexual romantic nomad versus lesbian monogamist, nihilist versus life-affirming enthusiast, and agnostic-atheist versus secular Jew. When they are referenced together (which happens rarely), it is usually in the context of their Parisian exploits. But a closer look reveals more vital affinities. Both writers remain problematically situated in the modernist canon. Both were inspired by visual art. Both struggled to get published during their lifetimes. Both disassociated themselves from mainstream feminist movements, preferring subtler, more idiosyncratic ways of questioning the status quo. Both held a sustained interest in the queer and, as this dissertation seeks to demonstrate, imagined that theme in original ways—Barnes, through loss; Stein, through phenomenology. Writing out of the spirit of Christian martyrdom, Barnes revels in queer suffering and its transfiguring potential: queers extravagantly lose (themselves), fail, and suffer, yet such ordeals aren’t without value. The first half of my dissertation, thus, appraises Barnes’ “queer negativity” in general before pondering how its masochistic energies push against those authorities that would negate the queer. Chapter One analyzes Barnes’ mythical-seeming transgendered figures who encounter profound failure, despite the imaginative freedom emanating from their ahistorical surroundings. Barnes’ sense of queer failure intensifies in Chapter Two, where same-sex desire invokes the abject by symbolically collapsing psychic boundaries between lovers and refusing reproductive futurity. Both chapters contextualize the moral inversion that becomes the focus of Chapter Three: how does such nihilism tragically ennoble the queer and endow it with insurgent impulses? Without taking a self-consciously queer activist stance, Barnes draws on what Gilles Deleuze would later enunciate as an inverted affect regime: the power of punishment to enforce repressive sexual regulations through pain and hence to bridle perversion becomes inverted when punishment opens the portal to pleasure, when pleasure relocates to sites of perversion. If Barnes writes as a romantic martyr, Stein looks at the queer through a phenomenologist’s eyes. The reciprocity between social conditioning and consciousness, in particular, remains an urgent concern throughout her career. To be “queer,” one often breaks away from a lifetime of habituated orientations toward sex and gender. But queerness cannot wholly bracket the norms that have been left behind. It exists in relation to what it queers. Foregrounding this discussion, Chapter Four examines how Stein’s modernism, phenomenology, and queer criticism intersect. Chapter Five investigates how “Miss Furr and Miss Skeene,” “Many Many Women,” and The Making of Americans reorient us from the “straight” and narrow. Yet this reorientation remains partial. Not all heteronormative biases can be shed, as is evident in The Making of Americans’ classist undertones running through its “singular” queer vision. The sixth chapter further tests the limits of reorientation as such. Ida’s Ida desperately wants to live a queer life, but discovers that she cannot if she approaches queerness as a radically separatist ideal. A solipsistic universe where she can entirely withdraw from society through sleep, silence, or soliloquy remains a fantasy. Ida’s internal conflict, in turn, mirrors Stein’s struggle to enact aesthetic modes that prove just as impossible to practice, being devoted to eliminating memory, emotions, personal identity, and social awareness.

My thesis draws connections among Herbert Read’s aesthetics, his anarchism, and Carl Jung’s aesthetic theory. I discuss Jung’s concept of individuation and its importance in his theory of the creative process of life. He distinguished between personalistic and archetypal art, and argued that the latter embodies primordial symbols that are inherently meaningful. Archetypal art, he believed, symbolizes unconscious knowledge, which can promote self-awareness and impact on society, if an individual is able to discern its relevance and integrate this into an ethical lifestyle. Jung emphasized the importance of rational discernment and ethical choices along with free creativity. I show how Read used these Jungian concepts to explain aspects of his aesthetic and political emphasis on freedom. According to Read, art creates reality and as such it is both personally transformative and socially activist: he believed that aesthetics are a mechanism of the natural world, and that art is a unique type of cognition that manifests new forms. Art communicates new versions of reality because perception is holistic, allowing people to perceive both the essence inherent in forms and the relationships among them. Further, I consider Read’s belief that cognition and society are both organic, and should be allowed to evolve naturally. Therefore, according to Read, society must be anarchist so that creative freedom and aesthetic consciousness can be adequately supported. Finally, I conclude by highlighting the pivotal role of creative freedom in Jung’s and Read’s theories of personal and social change. I illustrate that Jung and Read concurred that the unique individual is the site of transformation, living out the organically creative nature of life.

My thesis draws connections among Herbert Read’s aesthetics, his anarchism, and Carl Jung’s aesthetic theory. I discuss Jung’s concept of individuation and its importance in his theory of the creative process of life. He distinguished between personalistic and archetypal art, and argued that the latter embodies primordial symbols that are inherently meaningful. Archetypal art, he believed, symbolizes unconscious knowledge, which can promote self-awareness and impact on society, if an individual is able to discern its relevance and integrate this into an ethical lifestyle. Jung emphasized the importance of rational discernment and ethical choices along with free creativity. I show how Read used these Jungian concepts to explain aspects of his aesthetic and political emphasis on freedom. According to Read, art creates reality and as such it is both personally transformative and socially activist: he believed that aesthetics are a mechanism of the natural world, and that art is a unique type of cognition that manifests new forms. Art communicates new versions of reality because perception is holistic, allowing people to perceive both the essence inherent in forms and the relationships among them. Further, I consider Read’s belief that cognition and society are both organic, and should be allowed to evolve naturally. Therefore, according to Read, society must be anarchist so that creative freedom and aesthetic consciousness can be adequately supported. Finally, I conclude by highlighting the pivotal role of creative freedom in Jung’s and Read’s theories of personal and social change. I illustrate that Jung and Read concurred that the unique individual is the site of transformation, living out the organically creative nature of life.