From: swilbur-AT-wcnet.org
Subject: Re: [postanarchism] Katsiaficas: "Coexistence With Islamic Fundamentalism?"
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 12:04:02 US/Eastern


Jason says:
> I think the biggest issue here is that you all are
> arguing, with people like Jameson, that we are
> currently in the stage of 'postmodern capitalism',
> whereas I see it more like Paul Virilio or Zygmunt
> Bauman, that what we are in right now is more of
> 'hypermodernity', an epoch in which the instrumental
> rationality that characterized the post-Enlightenment
> era is now being stretched to the limit, with the rise
> of the internet, information warfare, spy satellite
> systems, total information awareness, etc. - from this
> perspective, none of these technologies, none of this
> 'globalization', is really about 'difference' at all,
> as is claimed, rather it is about the universalization
> of the One, precisely *in order* to render difference
> and mutual tolerance of the Other as a practical
> impossibility. From this perspective, the postmodern
> is more of something to aspire to, as a hope for the
> future, for a world in which many worlds fit, rather
> than a description of where we currently are, and I
> find this to be much more accurate in its both
> description and prescription.

Jason,

The two perspectives are not really mutually 
exclusive. Recall that my *point* was that a 
certain "respect for difference" could become
indifference, if other projects and commitments
weren't factored in. Jameson's reading of post-
modernism as "cultural logic of late capitalism"
is based in pretty conventional marxian political
economy - a kind of generalization in the social
sphere of the analysis of commodity fetishism. 
If you look at Virilio's critiques of "real time"
and the current fascination with the here-now, 
there are some shared concerns. Perhaps the two
meet in the vicinity of Debord's description of
the spectacle's logic: "what appears is good; 
what is good appears." Context is destroyed in
contemporary systems. Difference is primarily 
deployed in terms of the differentiation and
distancing of things we might otherwise think 
were bound up with one another. They can't 
function as commodities otherwise. 

Market logic: we're soaking in it - whether you
want to call our situation "modern" or "post-".
I'm not sure it makes much difference. The terms
themselves solve nothing, and describe nothing in
particular, outside of specific definitions and
fleshed out analyses. 

I'm more concerned about making sure we don't just
accept warmed-over market logic when we talk about
"respect" or "tolerance." For that reason, i find
myself attracted to the notion of "differance,"
and the rather "impure" economy implied by it. 

-shawn

---------------------------------------------
This message was sent using Endymion MailMan.
http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/