Ah, well done Ralph you have reminded me that the Fredric Jameson book is actually entitled "Postmodernism: or, the cultural logic of late capitalism". Utterly brilliant. Have people on this list got the point about postmodernism not being a policy (which can easily be reversed) but rather being a deeply ingrained condition with many supports in material reality? If you don't understand this read Jameson's book and in particular the chapter on "Postmodernism and the Market".
Harvey's book came two years before Jameson's which no doubt enabled Jameson to improve. In general, I would say that Jameson's book understands postmodernism and the grip it has on us better than Harvey. Jameson's book starts to get inside the problem whereas Harvey's book tends to be fixated on externalities and doesn't get to the *logic* of postmodernism - note the subtitle of Jameson's book in which he clearly signals he is going to try to address the logic of the problem. Harvey does not offer this, probably because his knowledge of Hegel is much less than Jameson's. Indeed, Harvey's two references to Hegel in his book are entirely negative and follow the dogmatic orthodox Marxist logic that because Marx's history improved on Hegel therefore Hegel's philosophy has nothing to offer - a complete non-sequitur and, by the way, certainly *not* Marx's view. Marx famously considered himself to be a pupil of the master of the dialectic: Hegel. That Hegel is *the* master of the dialectic according to Marx is a fact that many find uncomfortable but it cannot be got around, despite contemporary Marxism's attempt to do so through a doomed strategy of avoidance. Phil Walden -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ralph Dumain Sent: 13 March 2008 05:53 To: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] the insights of post-modernism And what, pray tell, are Hegel's answers? What do you think of David Harvey's THE CONDITION OF POSTMODERNITY? If there is such a thing as postmodernity (the condition), distinct from postmodernism as a theoretical approach, when do you think it began? It seems to me that historical amnesia and the falsification of history have set in, obliterating the reality of the '60s and '70s. For example, I saw a book some years ago referring to the jazz of the 60s and 70s (the avant-garde, I presume, I don't recall viz. fusion), the postmodern period. But this is a falsehood, misusing labels to falsify a period of time which was neither experienced nor conceptualized as this re-baptism suggests. At 11:39 PM 3/12/2008, Phil Walden wrote: >Fredric Jameson's "The Condition of Postmodernity" is AFAIK still definitive >on postmodernity. He tackles the question of why postmodernism is hegemonic >in the universities. Crucially, he explains to the left that postmodernism >is not a policy, but is something much more deeply ingrained than that - a >*condition*. Unfortunately the left - e.g. Callinicos's book "Against >Postmodernism" - has completely failed to understand this crucial point. > >If postmodernism were a policy it could be easily reversed by reversing the >policy. But Jameson instructs us - or those of us that are willing to think >- that deep problems at the level of human psychology and interpretation and >the structure of contemporary life (low attention spans, passive nihilism, >etc) mean that postmodernism is a deep-seated *condition*. How to fight it >is a very big question. I think Hegel has most of the answers. > >Phil Walden _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
