On Wednesday, June 19, 2002, at 01:27 PM, Doug Henwood wrote:
> Jeffrey Fisher wrote:
>
>>
>> On Wednesday, June 19, 2002, at 12:44 PM, Doug Henwood wrote:
>>
>>> Jeffrey Fisher wrote:
>>>>
>>>> actually, i think it's more cynicism than "postmodern relativism"
>>>> (i've never understood exactly what that is, anyway, speaking of
>>>> straw men)
>>>
>>> "There's no such thing as value - there's only supply and demand."
>>> - chief investment officer of a large insurance company, circa 1988
>>
>> do you think that's actually an expression of something postmodern?
>>
>> well, it seems in any event a good example of something jameson would
>> identify as an example of postmodernism, and arguably about something
>> you could call postmodern relativism. but insofar as i've ever
>> understood the phrase, i've always understood it as applying--or
>> perhaps rather, *seen* it applied--more to jameson, for example, than
>> to any of the phenomena about which he writes. moreover, insofar as
>> many see the resurgence of fundamentalisms as precisely a postmodern
>> phenomenon, that would belie the broad brushstroke of "postmodern
>> relativism."
>
> I have a plane to catch in a couple of hours, so I can only give a
> telegraphic response. But I think a good deal of what traditional types
> dismiss as "postmodern relativism" is a product of living in a society
> where everything is up for exchange, with money serving as the
> universal equivalent. All that's solid melts into air, etc. Jameson
> himself said p.m. is the cultural logic of late capitalism.
>
it's an interesting point. i don't think i would disagree with you on that point or with jameson in general. what i was reacting to is the way i see "postmodern relativism" bandied about in this thoughtlessly dismissive way, a way which, afaict, has little to do with exchange of anything except perhaps of thoughtful discourse for hackneyed cliches.
but that could just be me.
j