Several pages and high marks for Foucault -- finds that MF's notion of language as a structure (or medium) of power is spot-on, and MF makes "a far from negligible contribution to a radical crit thry aimed at human emanicpation (p 111)". Derrida's Spectres bk. -- in SAs reading -- is a firm critique of "neo-lib. and capitalist offensives" and SA is in "greatest sympathy" with JD's defense of the "Marxist Spirit" -- defined by JD (a/c to SA) as the undertaking of radical critique -- and with JDs claim that "reason" and "liberation" are synonynmous (112). He actually cites them, and ppl like G Vattimo, to set them apart from both the general "state of mind" (his phrase, not mine"), and from Lyotard and other folk.
This beggars the question of how one can see the post-structuralists (either JD or MF or whomever) as in fact postmodernists, not least since they each found the idea bankrupt themselves (except Lyotard anyway), but hell, we should all have thick skin. Also: "The intellectual tendencies of our epoch cannot even be summmed up under the pomo label, which represents an umbrella category under which are to be found political positions, theoretical stances, and centers of interest having so little in common that the all-embracing label itself must be regarded as dubious" (110).
The chapter is indeed a critique of "postmodernism", but he means this -- wants to mean this, but lacks the time or patience or theoretical resources to develop this argument adequately-- as a common sense or lived-ideology, or as a structure of feeling (as those whacked pomo's Gramsci and Raymond Williams put it). In other words, he intends a cultural and social analysis, as opposed to an inconsequential rant about them damn French and their cohorts in the crime of Truth's murder. He calls it a dominant ideology instead, but hell, I'm on his side anyway. He also wants to emphasize the "media-sponsored interpretations" of this same dominant ideo., and that it is an ideology of crisis (by which he means, interestingly, a crisis of econo alienation). B/c he is a Marxist and a serious intellectual ("tempermentally predisposed not to lambaste views I find unconvincing, but rather to seek out whatever is interesting or novel...."[110]), he doesnt trash ppl like Foucault or even what he calls the "relativists" in economics and social science (whom are his real targets anyway, and whom he says have done good work and fostered an atmosphere of tolerance-- cf p109), let alone will he get all histrionic like a threatened cyber-Bolshevik, or like an erstwhile, self-indentified Marxist Philosopher turned-vulgar marxist hatchetman (I mean someone like Eagleton or Callinicos, actually).
Finally, if we want to have a useful discussion, maybe we should actually read or at least cite a few pages (or few lines) of something. If its "pomo" you want, maybe some of Frere Jacque's stuff. Given the racist and chauvinist screeds about Arabs and Kosovars (or indeed trade unionists!), etc one happens to see from time to time, I'd recc "White Mythology." Or for some stellar Marxist Theory (socio-philosophical), one cant beat Balibar, the Race Nation Class bk with Wallerstein, or the short and sweet Philos. of Marx., or Masses, Classes and Ideas. Or hell, SA's Eurocentrism bk, which would suit my own interests better. Or Paul Smith's Millenial Dreams, which I've put off for far too long. Or some recent book on nationalism. Or hell, dont read anything. But no one should want to be taken seriously as a critic of either pomo-discourse or of the zeit-geist, unless he or she can name names or otherwise betray some knowledge of some text.
Yours in Marxism Space, Dan
PS to Doug if youre reading this: that response to Brenner wasnt attached, methinks. try again? Thanks
At 03:31 PM 1/4/00 -0500, you wrote:
>Sam Pawlett wrote:
>
>>In Amin's latest MR PRess book Spectres of Capitalism, he lists a good
>>chunk of Derrida, Lyotard and Foucault in the biblio. I trust he has
>>read them but he doesn't discuss any author in particular in the chapter
>>on "postmodernism." I suspect he has better things to do and think
>>about.
>
>Really? Marx took the leading bourgeois thinkers of his time - and even
>some minor, risible characters - very seriously. Why shouldn't a
>contemporary Marxist do the same?
>
>Doug
------------------------------------------------------ Daniel F. Vukovich Dept. of English; The Unit for Criticism University of Illinois Urbana, IL 61801 ------------------------------------------------------