Is the protagonist's passivity a deliberate form of resistance in this modernist nov

[EleanorT]

I'm re-reading one of the classic modernist novels for a book club, and this time I'm completely stuck on a literary analysis of the protagonist's seemingly passive role in his own life. The common interpretation is that he's a symbol of societal alienation, but I'm starting to read his inaction not as weakness but as a deliberate, almost subversive refusal to engage with a corrupt and meaningless system. For others who have studied or simply love this book, what textual evidence supports or refutes this idea of passive resistance versus paralysis? I'm particularly interested in the symbolism of the recurring urban imagery and whether the sparse, detached prose style itself is a formal reflection of the character's worldview.