>I haven't read too much Jameson, but what little I have suggests he
>knows a bit more about political economy than most of his cultural
>studies contemporaries. I was impressed that he at least gives a nod to
>political economy and even cites Ernst Mandel's long-waves in the
>economy as his source for cycles in culture. Just a thought...
Too right! And don't forget one of the most holistic thinkers of recent times; the mighty Raymond Williams. There's some good stuff in Dan Schiller's new *Theorising Communications* along these lines, too. These boys all know a bit of political economy, too - even if they do make the outrageous case that we have a little updating to do in light of current relationships between media/information, culture, and mode/relations of production (ie. arguments for culture/communications as basic rather than as epiphenomenal superstructure). Even if you're not gonna agree with that, it can't hurt to know their reasoning and be able to articulate why you don't go with it.
I think I do.
And as for sex and gender, I can name a few people on this list who have helped me think about these things better than a lot of stuff that gets into books. Poor Judith ain't the only one in the field who has trouble making an impact in the world of real women and men.
Back to filling ant farms and trying to fix a couple of, er, over-enthusiastically embraced Chrissie pressies ...
Joyous festivities to all, Rob.
>Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 12:20:40 -0500
>From: Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com>
>Subject: Re: the Butler did it
>Doug Henwood wrote:
>>What's useful about Butler & Foucault is they make us think about all
>>micromoments of reproduction (and in Butler's case, make us think about
>>humans are sexed, which is something Marxists have been rather bad on).
>Oh yeah, also, most political economists don't know squat about culture
>the psychic life of power, and are often hostile to the effort of
>understanding it, denouncing it as mystical or decadent. And most
>radicals, Marxist or not, don't know squat about political economy - the
>name Jameson comes quickly to mind. One of the reasons I started this
>was to get these two groups to talk to each other, since I think this
>mutually reinforcing ignorance is bad for intellectual and political