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 ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005