File spoon-archives/marxism.archive/marxism_1994/marxism_25Jul.94, message 92


From: Thomas Schumacher <tschumac-AT-magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Subject: Re: Some theses on Marx
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 94 18:23:45 EDT


Yes, the Harvey book is "that green one":

Harvey, David. (1989). THE CONDITION OF POSTMODERNITY: AN INQUIRY INTO THE
     ORIGINS OF CULTURAL CHANGE. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.

I just re-read it (again) and think it's quite good (Meaghan Morris's 
criticisms notwithstanding: THEORY, CULTURE, & SOCIETY, v. 9, no. 1), although 
he does get a bit sloppy at the end.  Whatever.

The Jhally cite is:

Jhally, Sut. (1989). The political economy of culture. In Ian Angus and Sut
     Jhally (Eds.), CULTURAL POLITICS IN CONTEMPORARY AMERICA (pp. 65-81). New
     York: Routledge.

This is a good essay, although limited in scope and perhaps most useful for
undergrads.  I like it though because he introduces the idea of real
subsumption of the culture industries as marking a shift in their place in
marxist cultural critique.

As for fetishization, I would also point to those passages in CAPITAL vol. I 
where Marx talks about the fetishization of capital (cf. pp. 482f, 548f, in 
Viking/Penguin ed.).  Marx says that not only are commodities fetishized, but 
so to is capital itself (as it appears as a "thing" to the workers in the form 
of machinery rather than as the capitalist relation).

Which Bourdieu are you relying on here?  I'd like those cites....

Tom Schumacher

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005