File spoon-archives/marxism-thaxis.archive/marxism-thaxis_1998/marxism-thaxis.9803, message 483


From: Russell Pearson <R.Pearson-AT-art.derby.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 15:24:07 +0000
Subject: M-TH: Re. Caricatures, Pomo and Marxist


Justin writes:

>We may have a conflict between a Brit who comes from a tradition
>of parliamentary supremacy and Americans who have a Constitutional
>democracy in which certain minority rights are protected against the will
>of the majority. This is a debate within liberal theory, but I'm perfectly
>happy to be a liberal democrat in politics.

Justin draws out a point that has pertinence elsewhere, namely that the
role of significance of postmodernism or new social movements is radically
different in different parts of the world. Jameson talks of the
de-centralising tendencies in a great deal of radical French thought as
having a specific relevance in the highly centralised French state and in
terms of the legacy of the Stalinist PCF, whereas, when the same ideas are
applied in the more diffused American setting they have a an entirely
different impact.  In the US Jameson argues, the need is for drawing
diverse interests together, whereas in the French setting the need is (or
was) to resist the centralisation of power and to encourage diversity.

In terms of theory this has been played out as farce and tragedy in the
works of Althusser who  tried to re-invigorate Marism within the PCF, in
the face of the Maoists, Trotskyist etc pressures on the party. That, as
Meszaros wrly points out, led him to recreate a functionalist scenario is
only part of the problem- the main danger arises when this theory travels.
In the UK Althusser's became popularised under Terry Eagleton's patronage
and was quickly reified by other theorists into dogmatic ideas of ISA's and
interpellation. Much the same I expect, is the case with postmodernism- the
original ideas originating in certain contests but becoming transformed
into fixed positions of pre-ordained incredulity, deconstruction as
reaction, micro-politics as affirming oppressive identities etc, once they
get applied elsewhere. The strength of these ideas however, waxes and
wanes. In the UK they did enjoy a lively life some 5-10 years ago, but
nowadays you would be lucky to find anyone proclaiming themselves as
postmodern.  The situation in the US appears to be very different.

Many theorists would agree with Leo's comment (myself included) that "There
are many points at which I disagree with a Foucault, a Derrida, and a
Butler, but I find it intellectually useful and stimulating to engage their
work.", but the problem occurs when they then move to Marx. Without a mass
movement that genuinely challenges Capital, and with a generation schooled
in the theories of surface without depth, Marx can all too easily be
dismissed as yet another 'hermeneuticist of suspicion'.

The problem for many radicals here is that they appear thoroughly unsettled
by the whole 'linguistic turn'. One be-wailed to me that post-structuralism
was just too negative and  too 'corrosive', and that it left him without
any feeling of political agency. New social movements may re-kindle some of
that sense of agency and the capacity to change things. But, and at the
risk of caricaturing their beliefs, with the NSM's  horizons either set too
low ('community politics' and what pray, is a community?), or on the other
hand apocalypticaly high, there seems little to hope of such movements
actually challenging Capital. Perhaps the situation is different elsewhere,
in the UK it's pretty uninspiring...

Russ







     --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005