I agree very much with Tom Walker's point below, which is snipped from his longer post. The simultaneity of examining both the material conditions and the "work of art" itself goes right to heart of what I think is necessary. And, I doubt very many would disagree on this list, as I doubt there are very many die-hard strong economic determinists around. But I also agree with a comment that Hayden White made a while ago when he said that Marxists, especially, aren't very good at analyzing culture. Personally, I have found postmodernism, and Derrida/Foucault especially, as providing a useful entry to a more serious analysis of literature, art, culture, etc. Certainly, if one reads _Specters of Marx_ you won't find Derrida denying the effectivity of material conditions, just the opposite, but detailing that is not his object or his strength. But you will find a detailed reading of a some important texts and political conditions, both from now and in the past, and for Derrida to come out and argue (1) that there are many Marx's, ie, no one single reading of his text(s), and (2) that some of these Marx's are entirely unavoidable in confronting today's problems is, I think, a remarkable statement. I don't think we should dematerialize or decontextualize Derrida and deconstruction. Afterall, for many, Derrida and deconstruction are synonomous with the claim that everthing is a discourse and the belief that there is no firm ground from which to take a political position. And yet, here was this putative non-materialist arguing that Marx is entirely uncircumventable in today's world. And, this purveyor of a supposed non-political literary method, deconstruction, dedicating his book in a moving forward to the recently murdered Chris Hani, who was murdered as a communist by a Polish emigrant escaping communism. There is no question in my mind that Derrida, in his lectures and in the book, was making clear which side he was on. He was making clear that deconstruction (or as I would extend it, but he might not, postmodernism), while not implying a particular position on social theory, does not preclude one either. One just needs to listen to McCloskey to know that. Is it the most profound book written on Marx or about the world (in some sense) today? Certainly not. All you have to do is read the critiques of it from his friends, eg, Ernesto Laclau and Gayatri Spivak in a recent issue of Diacritics to see this. Yet, Fred Jameson, no fan of a dematerialized postmodernism, could see a lot of value in this work (as do I obviously) in his long review article in New Left Review. My point is that there is something there worth reading, but that is, of course, true of many books and we do have to make choices. As Jerry Levy has been emphasizing, I agree that theory is hard and not easily encapsulated in 15 minute sound-bites. It is also true that theory is not everything. I think to understand the importance of a theory, or a book, we need also see how that book or theory fits into a broader intellectual, material, and cultural context. It is the same thing that Althusser did in the early 60s. When he wrote his famous essays, he was clear that they were being written in a particular conjuncture, one where he was a member of the French communist party, yet was critiqueing the orthodox French Marxism of the immediate post-Stalin era. To understand what I and others see as important in postmodernism and deconstruction you have to keep in mind the recent context of both postmodernism and Marxism (which we have pointed out too many times to repeat again). That would give you a materialist understanding of why so many are attracted to various strands of postmodernism. Steve Cullenberg >Exactly. Or, to put it slightly differently, what if "explanation" is not >all there is? What happens when we expand the range of cultural expression >to include not just philosophical texts and didactic comic books, but >painting, music composition, architectural design, performance, etc. In my >view, such a broadening of scope requires us to simultaneously examine >_both_ the material conditions of cultural production and the internal >tendencies of the "work of art" itself. > >And this brings us back to Walter Benjamin, who in my estimation continues >to have something to say to contemporary political conditions in spite of -- >or perhaps because of -- his philosophical erudition. >Regards, > >Tom Walker, [EMAIL PROTECTED], (604) 669-3286 >The TimeWork Web: http://mindlink.net/knowware/worksite.htm *********************************************** Stephen Cullenberg office: (909) 787-5037, ext. 1573 Department of Economics fax: (909) 787-5685 University of California [EMAIL PROTECTED] Riverside, CA 92521
