The Politics of Theory: Ideological Positions in the Postmodernism Debate

Author(s): Fredric Jameson

Source: New German Critique, No. 33, Modernity and Postmodernity (Autumn, 1984), pp. 53-
65
Published by: New German Critique
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/488353 .
Accessed: 03/04/2013 05:47

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

New German Critique and Duke University Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to New German Critique.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 14.139.62.114 on Wed, 3 Apr 2013 05:47:45 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ThePolitics
ofTheory:
in the
Positions
Ideological
PostmodernismDebate

by FredricJameson

The problem of postmodernism- how its fundamentalcharac-

teristicsare to be described,whetherit even existsin the firstplace,
whether theveryconcept isofanyuse,oris,on thecontrary,a mystification
- thisproblemis at one and thesame timean aestheticand a political
one. The variouspositionswhichcan logicallybe takenon it,whatever
termstheyare couched in,can alwaysbe showntoarticulatevisionsof
history,in whichtheevaluationofthesocial momentin whichwe live
todayis theobjectofan essentially politicalaffirmationorrepudiation.
Indeed, theveryenablingpremiseof the debate turnson an initial,
strategic, presuppositionabout our social system:to grantsome his-
toricoriginality to a postmodernist cultureis also implicitly
to affirm
some radicalstructuraldifference betweenwhatis sometimescalled
consumer society and earlier moments of the capitalism from
whichit emerged.
The various logical possibilities,however,are necessarilylinked
withthetakingof a positionon thatotherissue inscribedin thevery
designation"postmodernism"itself,namely,the evaluationof what
mustnow be called highor classicalmodernismitself.Indeed, when
we make some initialinventoryof the varied culturalartifactsthat
mightplausiblybe characterizedas postmodern,the temptationis
strongto seek the"familyresemblance"ofsuch heterogeneousstyles
and products,notinthemselves, butinsome commonhighmodernist
impulse and aesthetic againstwhich theyall, in one way or another,
standin reaction.
The seeminglyirreduciblevarietyof the postmoderncan be ob-
servedfullyas problematically withintheindividualmedia (ofarts)as
betweenthem:whataffinities, besides some overallgenerationalreac-
tion,to establishbetweenthe elaboratefalsesentencesand syntactic
mimesisofJohnAshberyand themuchsimplertalkpoetrythatbegan
to emergein the early1960s in protestagainstthe New Criticalaes-
theticofcomplex,ironicstyle?Bothregister, no doubt,butinverydif-

53

This content downloaded from 14.139.62.114 on Wed, 3 Apr 2013 05:47:45 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
54 ThePolitics
ofTheory

ferentwaysindeed,theinstitutionalization ofhighmodernismin this

same period,theshiftfroman oppositionaltoa hegemonicpositionof
theclassicsof modernism,thelatter'sconquest oftheuniversity, the
museum, the artgallerynetworkand the foundations,the assimila-
tion,inotherwords,ofthevarioushighmodernisms,intothe"canon"
and the subsequent attenuationof everything in them feltby our
grandparentsto be shocking,scandalous, ugly,dissonant,immoral
and antisocial.
The same heterogeneity can be detectedin thevisualarts,between
theinauguralreactionagainstthelasthighmodernist schoolin painting
- AbstractExpressionism- in the workof AndyWarhol and so-
called pop art,and suchquitedistinctaestheticsas thoseofconceptual
art,photorealism and thecurrentNew Figuration or neo-Expressionism.
Itcan be witnessedinfilm,notmerelybetweenexperimental and com-
mercialproduction,but also withintheformeritself, whereGodard's
"break" withthe classical filmicmodernismof the great"auteurs"
(Hitchcock,Bergman,Fellini,Kurasawa)generatesa seriesofstylistic
reactionsagainstitselfin the 1970s,and is also accompaniedbya rich
newdevelopmentofexperimentalvideo (a newmediuminspiredby,
but significantlyand structurallydistinctfrom,experimentalfilm).In
musicalso, theinauguralmomentofJohnCage nowseemsfarenough
fromsuch latersynthesesofclasicaland popular sytlesin composers
like Phil Glass and TerryRiley,as well as frompunk and New Wave
rockof the typeof The Clash, The TalkingHeads and The Gang of
Four, themselvessignificantly distinctfromdisco or glitterrock.(In
filmor in rock,however,a certainhistoricallogiccan be reintroduced
bythehypothesisthatsuchnewermedia recapitulatetheevolutionary
stagesor breaksbetweenrealism,modernismand postmodernism, in
a compressedtimespan, such thattheBeatlesand theStonesoccupy
thehighmodernistmomentembodied bythe"auteurs"of 1950sand
1960s artfilms.)
In narrativeproper,the dominantconceptionof a dissolutionof
linearnarrative,a repudiationof representation, and a "revolution-
ary"breakwiththe(repressive)ideologyofstorytelling generally,does
not seem adequate to encapsulatesuch verydifferent workas thatof
Burroughs,butalso ofPynchonand IshmaelReed; ofBeckett,butalso
of the Frenchnouveauromanand its own sequels, and of the "non-
fictionnovel"as well,and theNew Narrative.Meanwhile,a significant-
lydistinctaesthetichas seemedtoemergebothincommercialfilmand
in thenovelwiththeproductionofwhatmaybe called nostalgiaart(or
la mode
ritro).
But it is evidentlyarchitecturewhich is the privilegedterrainof
struggleof postmodernismand themost strategicfieldin whichthis

This content downloaded from 14.139.62.114 on Wed, 3 Apr 2013 05:47:45 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 FredricJameson 55

concepthas been debated and itsconsequences explored. Nowhere

else has the "death of modernism"been feltso intensely,or pro-
nouncedmorestridently; nowhereelse havethetheoretical and practi-
cal stakesin thedebate been articulatedmoreprogrammatically. Of a
burgeoningliterature on thesubject,RobertVenturi'sLearningfrom Las
Vegas(1971), a seriesof discussionsby ChristopherJencks,and Pier
Paolo Portoghesi'sBiennalepresentation, AfterModern Architecture,
may
be citedas usefullyilluminatingthecentralissues in theattackon the
architectural highmodernismoftheInternational Style(Le Corbusier,
Wright,Mies): namely,thebankruptcy ofthemonumental(buildings
which,as Venturiputs it,are reallysculptures), the failureof its pro-
or
topolitical Utopianprogram(the transformation ofall ofsocial life
byway of thetransformation ofspace),itselitism includingtheauthor-
itarianismofthecharismaticleader,and finallyitsvirtualdestruction
oftheoldercityfabricbya proliferation ofglassboxes and ofhighrises
that,disjoiningthemselvesfromtheirimmediatecontexts,turnthese
last intothe degradedpublic space of an urban no-man's-land.
postmodernismis itselfno unifiedor monolithic
Still,architectural
period style,but spans a wholegamutofallusionsto stylesofthepast,
such thatwithinit can be distinguisheda baroque postmodernism,
say, Michael Graves),a rococo postmodernism(Charles Moore or
Venturi),a classicaland a neoclassicalpostmodernism(Rossi and De
Porzemparcrespectively), and perhaps even a Manneristand a Ro-
manticvariety, nottospeakofa High Modernistpostmodernismitself.
This complacent play of historicalallusion and stylisticpastiche
(termed"historicism"inthearchitectural literature)isa centralfeature
of postmodernismmore generally.
Yet thearchitectural debates have themeritofmakingthepolitical
resonanceoftheseseeminglyaestheticissuesinescapable,and allow-
ing it to be detectablein the sometimesmore coded or veiled dis-
cussions in the otherarts. On the whole, fourgeneralpositionson
postmodernismmay be disengagedfromthe varietyof recentpro-
nouncementson the subject;yeteven thisrelativelyneat scheme or
combinatoire is furthercomplicatedby one's impressionthateach of
thesepossibilitiesis susceptibleof eithera politicallyprogressiveor a
politicallyreactionaryexpression(speakingnow froma Marxistor
more generallyleftperspective).
One can, forexample,salutethearrivalofpostmodernismfroman
essentially anti-modernist standpoint.'A somewhatearliergeneration

1. The followinganalysisdoes notseem to me applicable to theworkof theboun-

This content downloaded from 14.139.62.114 on Wed, 3 Apr 2013 05:47:45 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
56 ThePoliticsofTheory

of theorists(most notablyIhab Hassan) seems alreadyto have done

somethinglikethiswhentheydealtwiththepostmodernist aestheticin
termsofa moreproperlypost-structuralist thematics(theTelquelattack
on the ideology of representation, the Heideggerianor Derridean
"end of Westernmetaphysics"):here what is oftennot yet called
postmodernism(see theUtopianprophecyattheend ofFoucault'sThe
OrderofThings) is salutedas thecomingofa whole newwayofthinking
and beingin theworld.ButsinceHassan's celebrationalso includesa
numberofthemoreextrememonumentsofhighmodernism(Joyce,
Mallarm6),thiswould be a relatively moreambiguousstance,wereit
not for the accompanyingcelebrationof a new informationhigh
technologywhichmarkstheaffinity betweensuch evocationsand the
politicalthesisof a properlypostindustrial
society.
Allofwhichis largelydisambiguatedinTom Wolfe'sFrom Bauhausto
OurHouse,an otherwiseundistinguishedbook reporton the recent
architecturaldebatesbya writer whoseownNewJournalism itselfcon-
stitutesone ofthevarietiesofpostmodernism. Whatis interesting and
symptomatic about thisbook is howevertheabsence of anyUtopian
celebration of the postmodern and - far more strikingly- the
passionatehatredoftheModern thatbreathesthroughtheotherwise
obligatorycamp sarcasmof the rhetoric;and thisis not a new,but a
datedand archaicpassion.Itis as thoughtheoriginalhorrorofthefirst
middle class spectatorsoftheveryemergenceoftheModern itself-
thefirstCorbusiers,as whiteas thefirstfreshly builtcathedralsof the
12thcentury, thefirstscandalousPicasso heads,withtwoeyeson one
profilelikea flounder,thestunning"obscurity"ofthefirsteditionsof
Ulyssesor TheWasteLand:as thoughthisdisgustof theoriginalphilis-
tines,Spiessbiirger,bourgeoisor Main StreetBabbitry,had suddenly
come back to life,infusingthenewercritiquesofmodernismwithan
ideologicallyverydifferent spirit,whose effectis on the whole to
reawakenin the reader an equally archaic sympathywiththe pro-
topolitical,Utopian,anti-middle-classimpulsesofa nowextincthigh
modernismitself.Wolfe'sdiatribethusoffersa stunningexample of
thewayin whicha reasonedand contemporary, theoreticalrepudia-
tionofthemodern- muchofwhoseprogressive forcespringsfroma
new sense oftheurbanand a now considerableexperienceofthede-
structionofolderformsofcommunaland urbanlifein thename ofa
high modernistorthodoxy- can be handilyreappropriatedand
pressedinto the serviceof an explicitlyreactionary culturalpolitics.

darytwogroup,who earlyon appropriatedtheterm"postmodernism"in therather

sense of a critiqueof establishment"modernist"thought.
different

This content downloaded from 14.139.62.114 on Wed, 3 Apr 2013 05:47:45 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 FredricJameson 57

These positions- anti-modern, pro-postmodern - thenfindtheir

opposite number and structuralinversionin a group of counter-
statementswhose aim is to discreditthe shoddiness and irrespon-
sibilityof thepostmodernin generalbywayof a reaffirmation of the
authenticimpulseofa highmodernisttraditionstillconsideredto be
aliveand vital.HiltonKramer'stwinmanifestoes intheinauguralissue
of his newjournal,TheNewCriterion, articulatetheseviewswithforce,
contrasting themoral responsibility of the"masterpieces"and mon-
umentsofclassicalmodernismwiththefundamentalirresponsibility
and superificiality ofa postmodernismassoicatedwithcamp and with
the "facetiousness"of which the Wolfe styleis a ripe and' obvious
example.
Whatis more paradoxicalis thatpolitically Wolfeand Kramerhave
muchin common;and therewould seem tobe a certaininconsistency
in the way in which Kramermust seek to eradicatefromthe "high
seriousness"of the classicsof the modern theirfundamentally anti-
middle-classstanceand theprotopoliticalpassion whichinforms the
repudiation,by thegreatmodernists, of Victorian taboos and family
life,ofcommodification, and oftheincreasingasphyxiationofa desac-
ralizingcapitalism,fromIbsen to Lawrence,fromVan Gogh toJack-
son Pollock.Kramer'singeniousattemptto assimilatethisostensibly
anti-bourgeoisstanceof thegreatmoderniststo a "loyal opposition"
secretlynourished,by way of foundationsand grants,by the bour-
geoisie itself- while most unconvincingindeed - is surelyitself
enabled by the contradictionsof the culturalpoliticsof modernism
proper, whose negationsdepend on the persistenceof what they
repudiateand entertain- whentheydo not,veryrarelyindeed (as in
Brecht),attainsome genuine politicalself-consciousness - a sym-
bioticrelationshipwithcapital.
It is, however,easier to understandKramer'smove herewhen the
politicalprojectof TheNewCriterion is clarified:forthemissionof the
journal is clearlyto eradicatethe 1960s and what remainsof that
legacy,to consignthatwhole period to thekindofoblivionwhichthe
1950swas able todeviseforthe1930s,or the1920sfortherichpolitical
cultureof the pre-World-War-I era. TheNew Criterion thereforein-
scribesitselfin theeffort,on-goingand at workeverywhere today,to
constructsome new conservativeculturalcounter-revolution, whose
termsrangefromtheaesthetictotheultimatedefenseofthefamilyand
ofreligion.Itis thereforeparadoxicalthatthisessentiallypoliticalproj-
ect should explicitlydeplore theomnipresenceofpoliticsin contem-
poraryculture- an infectionlargelyspread duringthe 1960s, but
whichKramerholds responsibleforthemoralimbecility of thepost-
modernismof our own period.

This content downloaded from 14.139.62.114 on Wed, 3 Apr 2013 05:47:45 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
58 ThePoliticsofTheory

The problemwiththeoperation- an obviouslyindispensibleone

fromthe conservativeviewpoint- is thatforwhateverreason its
paper-moneyrhetoricdoes notseem to have been backedbythesolid
gold ofstatepower,as was thecase withMcCarthyism or in theperiod
ofthePalmerraids.The failureoftheVietnamWar seems,at leastfor
the moment,to have made the naked exerciseof repressivepower
impossible,2and endowed the 1960s witha persistencein collective
memoryand experiencewhichitwas notgivento thetraditionsofthe
1930s or the pre-World-War-I period to know. Kramer's"cultural
revolution"therefore tendsmostoftento lapse intoa feeblerand sen-
timentalnostalgiaforthe 1950s and the Eisenhowerera.
It willnotbe surprising, in thelightofwhathas been shownforan
earlierset of positionson modernismand postmodernism,thatin
spiteof theopenlyconservativeideologyof thissecond evaluationof
the contemporaryculturalscene, thelattercan also be appropriated
forwhatis surelya farmore progressiveline on the subject.We are
indebted to JtirgenHabermas3 forthisdramaticreversaland rear-
ticulationofwhatremainstheaffirmation ofthesupremevalue ofthe
Modern and therepudiationof thetheory,as well as thepractice,of
postmodernism.For Habermas,however,theviceofpostmodernism
consistsverycentrallyin its politicallyreactionaryfunction,as the
attempteverywhere to discredita modernistimpulseHabermas him-
selfassociateswiththebourgeoisEnlightenment and withthelatter's
stilluniversalizingand Utopian spirit.WithAdorno himself,Haber-
mas seekstorescueand torecommemorate whatbothsee as theessen-
tiallynegative,criticaland Utopian powerof thegreathighmodern-
isms. On the otherhand, his attemptto associatetheselastwiththe
spiritofthe18thcenturyEnlightenment marksa decisivebreakindeed
withAdorno and Horkheimer'ssomber DialecticofEnlightenment, in
whichthescientific ethosofthephilosophesis dramatizedas a misguided
willtopowerand dominationovernature,and theirowndesacralizing
programas thefirststagein thedevelopmentofa sheerlyinstrumen-
talizingworld viewwhichwill lead straightto Auschwitz.This very
strikingdivergencecan be accountedforby Habermas' own visionof
history,whichseeksto maintainthepromiseof "liberalism"and the

2. Writtenin spring,1982.
3. See his "Modernity- An IncompleteProject,"in Hal Foster,ed., TheAnti-
(PortTownsend,Washington:Bay Press,1983), pp. 3-15. The essaywas first
Aesthetic
published in New GermanCritique,
22 (Winter1981), 3-14, under the differenttitle
"ModernityversusPostmodernity."

This content downloaded from 14.139.62.114 on Wed, 3 Apr 2013 05:47:45 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Fredric
Jameson 59

essentiallyUtopiancontentofthefirst, universalizingbourgeoisideol-
ogy (equality,civil rights,humanitarianism,free speech and open
media) over againstthe failureof those ideals to be realized in the
developmentof capitalitself.
As fortheaesthetictermsofthedebate,however,itwillnotbe ade-
quate to respond to Habermas' resuscitationof themodernby some
mereempiricalcertification ofthelatter'sextinction.We need to take
intoaccountthepossibilitythatthenationalsituationinwhichHaber-
mas thinksand writesis ratherdifferent fromour own: McCarthyism
and repressionare, forone thing,realitiesin the Federal Republic
today,and theintellectualintimidation oftheLeftand thesilencingof
a left culture (largelyassociated, by the West German right,with
"terrorism") has been on the whole a farmore successfuloperation
thanelsewherein theWest.4The triumphofa new McCarthyismand
of the cultureof the Spiessbfirgerand the philistinesuggeststhe
possibilitythatin thisparticularnationalsituationHabermas maywell
be right,and theolderformsofhighmodernismmaystillretainsome-
thingof thesubversivepowerwhichtheyhave lostelsewhere.In that
case, a postmodernismwhichseeksto enfeebleand to underminethat
powermaywellalso merithisideologicaldiagnosisinalocal way,even
thoughthe assessmentremainsungeneralizable.
Bothofthepreviouspositions- antimodern/propostmodern, and
promodern/antipostmodern - are characterizedbyan acceptanceof
thenewtermwhichis tantamountto an agreementon thefundamen-
tal nature of some decisive "break" between the modern and the
postmodernmoments,howeverthese last are evaluated. There re-
main,however,twofinallogicalpossibilitiesbothofwhichdepend on
therepudiationofanyconceptionofsucha historicalbreakand which
therefore, implicitlyor explicitly,call intoquestion theusefulnessof
theverycategoryofpostmodernism.As fortheworksassociatedwith
thelatter,theywillthenbe assimilatedback intoclassicalmodernism
proper,so thatthe"postmodern"becomes littlemore thantheform
takenby the authenticallymodern in our own period, and a mere
dialecticalintensificationof the old modernistimpulse towardsin-
novation. (I must here omit yet another series of debates, largely
academic, in which the verycontinuity ofmodernismas itis herereaf-
firmedis itselfcalled into question by some vastersense of the pro-
foundcontinuity ofRomanticismitself,fromthelate 18thcenturyon,

4. The specificpoliticsassociatedwiththe"Greens" would seem to constitutea

reactionto thissituation,ratherthanan exceptionfromit.

This content downloaded from 14.139.62.114 on Wed, 3 Apr 2013 05:47:45 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
60 ThePolitics
ofTheory

ofwhichboth themodernand thepostmodernwillbe seen as mere

organicstages.)
The two finalpositionson the subjectthuslogicallyproveto be a
positiveand negativeassessmentrespectively ofa postmodernism now
assimilatedback into the high modernisttradition.Jean-Francois
Lyotard5thusproposesthathisownvitalcommitment to thenewand
theemergent,to a contemporary or postcontemporary culturalpro-
duction now widelycharacterizedas "postmodern,"be grasped as
partand parcelofa reaffirmation oftheauthenticolderhighmodern-
ismsverymuchinAdorno'sspirit.The ingenioustwistor swervein his
own proposal involvesthe propositionthatsomethingcalled "post-
modernism"does notfollowhighmodernismproper,as the latter's
wasteproduct,butratherverypreciselyprecedes and preparesit,so that
thecontemporary postmodernisms all around us maybe seen as the
promise of the return and the the
reinvention, triumphantreap-
pearance, of some new highmodernismendowed withall its older
powerand withfreshlife.This is a propheticstance,whose analyses
turnon theanti-representational thrustofmodernismand postmod-
ernism;Lyotard'saestheticpositions,however,cannotbe adequately
evaluatedin aestheticterms,sincewhatinformsthemis an essentially
social and politicalconceptionofa newsocial systembeyondclassical
capitalism(our old friend,"postindustrialsociety"):the vision of a
regeneratedmodernismis inthatsenseinseparablefroma certainpro-
pheticfaithin thepossibilitiesand thepromiseofthenewsocietyitself
in fullemergence.
The negativeinversionof thispositionwill thenclearlyinvolvean
ideological repudiationof modernismof a typewhich mightcon-
ceivablyrangefromLukics' older analysisofmodernistformsas the
replicationofthereification ofcapitalistsocial lifeall thewayto some
ofthemorearticulatedcritiquesofhighmodernismofthepresentday.
What distinguishesthisfinalpositionfromthe antimodernismsal-
ready outlined above is, however,thatit does not speak fromthe
securityof an affirmation of some new postmodernistculture,but
rathersees even thelatteritselfas a meredegenerationof thealready
stigmatizedimpulsesofhighmodernismproper.Thisparticularposi-
tion,perhapsthebleakestofall and themostimplacablynegative,can
be vividlyconfrontedin the worksof theVenetianarchitecture his-

5. See "Answeringthequestions: WhatIs Postmodernism?"inJ.-F.Lyotard,The

PostmodernCondition ofMinnesotaPress,1984),pp. 71-82;the
(Minneapolis:University
book itselffocussesprimarilyon scienceand epistemologyratherthanon culture.

This content downloaded from 14.139.62.114 on Wed, 3 Apr 2013 05:47:45 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 61
FredricJameson

torianManfredoTafuri,whoseextensiveanalyses6constitute a power-
fulindictment ofwhatwe havetermedthe"protopolitical"impulsesin
high modernism(the "Utopian" substitutionof culturalpoliticsfor
politicsproper,thevocationtotransform theworldbytransforming its
forms,space or language). Tafuri is howeverno less harsh in his
anatomyofthenegative,demystifying, "critical"vocationofthevari-
ous modernisms,whosefunctionhe readsas a kindofHegelian "ruse
ofHistory,"wherebytheinstrumentalizing and desacralizingtenden-
cies of capitalitselfare ultimatelyrealized throughjust such demoli-
tionworkby thethinkersand artistsofthemodernmovement.Their
"anticapitalism"thereforeends up layingthe basis for the "total"
bureaucraticorganizationand controloflatecapitalism,and itis only
logicalthatTafurishouldconcludebypositingtheimpossibility ofany
radical transformation of culturebeforea radical transformation of
social relationsthemselves.
The politicalambivalencedemonstratedin theearliertwopositions
seems to me to be maintainedhere,butwithin thepositionsofbothof
these verycomplex thinkers.Unlike many of the previouslymen-
tioned theorists,Tafuriand Lyotardare both explicitlypoliticalfig-
ures,withan overtcommitment tothevaluesofan olderrevolutionary
tradition.It is clear,forexample, thatLyotard'sembattledendorse-
mentofthesupremevalue ofaestheticinnovationis to be understood
as thefigurefora certainkindof revolutionary stance;whileTafuri's
whole conceptual frameworkis largelyconsistentwiththe classical
Marxisttradition. Yetbotharealso, implicitly, and moreopenlyat cer-
tainstrategic moments,rewritable intermsofa post-Marxism whichat
lengthbecomesindistinguishable fromanti-Marxism proper.Lyotard
has forexample veryfrequentlysought to distinguishhis "revolu-
tionary"aestheticfromtheolder ideals ofpoliticalrevolution,which
he seesas eitherbeingStalinist, oras archaicand incompatiblewiththe
conditionsof thenew postindustrial social order;whileTafuri'sapo-
calypticnotionofthetotalsocialrevolutionimpliesa conceptionofthe
"totalsystem"of capitalismwhich,in a period of depolitizationand
reaction,is only too fatallydestinedforthe kind of discouragement
which has so oftenled Marxiststo a renunciationof the political
altogether(Adorno and Merleau-Pontycome to mind, along with

andUtopia(Cambridge:MIT Press,1976)andModern
6. See inparticularArchitecture
withFrancescoDal Co (NewYork:Abrams,1979); and also my"Architec-
Architecture,
PapersinArchitectural
tureand theCritiqueofIdeology,"inReVisions: andCriticism,
Theory
1-1 (Winter,1984).

This content downloaded from 14.139.62.114 on Wed, 3 Apr 2013 05:47:45 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
62 ThePolitics
ofTheory

manyoftheex-Trotskyists ofthe 1930s and 1940s and theex-Maoists

of the 1960s and 1970s).
The combinationschemeoutlinedabove can nowbe schematically
representedas follows;the plus and minus signs designatingthe
politicallyprogressiveor reactionaryfunctionsof the positions in
question:

ANTI-MODERNIST PRO-MODERNIST

Wolfe -
PRO-POSTMODERNIST Lyotard ({
Jencks+

Kramer -
ANTI-POSTMODERNIST Tafuri{ +
Habermas +

Withtheseremarkswe come fullcircleand maynow returnto the

more positivepotentialpoliticalcontentof thefirstpositionin ques-
tion,and in particularto the questionof a certainpopulist impulsein
postmodernismwhichithas been themeritofCharlesJencks (butalso
ofVenturiand others)to have underscored- a questionwhichwill
also allow us to deal a littlemore adequatelywiththe absolute pes-
simismofTafuri'sMarxismitself.Whatmustfirstbe observed,how-
ever,is thatmost of the politicalpositionswhichwe have found to
informwhat is most oftenconducted as an aestheticdebate are in
realitymoralizingones,whichseekto develop finaljudgmentson the
phenomenonofpostmodernism, whetherthelatteris stigmatizedas
corrupt or on the other hand salutedas a culturallyand aesthetically
healthyand positiveformofinnovation.Buta genuinelyhistoricaland
dialecticalanalysisofsuchphenomena- particularly whenitisa mat-
terofa presentof timeand ofhistoryin whichwe ourselvesexistand
struggle- cannotaffordthe impoverishedluxuryof such absolute
moralizingjudgments:thedialecticis "beyondgood and evil" in the

This content downloaded from 14.139.62.114 on Wed, 3 Apr 2013 05:47:45 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 FredricJameson 63

sense of some easy takingof sides,whence the glacial and inhuman

spiritofitshistoricalvision(somethingthatalreadydisturbedcontem-
porariesabout Hegel's originalsystem).The pointis thatwe arewithin
thecultureofpostmodernismto thepointwhereitsfacilerepudiation
isas impossibleas anyequallyfacilecelebrationofitiscomplacentand
corrupt.Ideological judgment on postmodernismtodaynecessarily
implies,one would think,a judgmenton ourselvesas well as on the
artifacts in question; nor can an entirehistoricalperiod,such as our
own, be grasped in any adequate way by means of global moral
judgmentsor theirsomewhatdegraded equivalent,pop-psychologi-
cal diagnosis (such as those of Lasch's CultureofNarcissism).On the
classicalMarxianview,theseeds ofthefuturealreadyexistwithinthe
presentand mustbe conceptuallydisengagedfromit,both through
analysisand throughpoliticalpraxis(theworkersof the Paris Com-
mune,Marx once remarkedin a striking phrase,"havenoidealstoreal-
ize"; theymerelysought disengageemergentformsof new social
to
relationsfromtheolder capitalistsocial relationsinwhichtheformer
had alreadybegun to stir).In place of the temptationeitherto de-
nounce thecomplacenciesofpostmodernismas some finalsymptom
of decadence, or to salute the new formsas the harbingersof a new
technologicaland technocraticUtopia, it seems more appropriateto
assess thenew culturalproductionwithintheworkinghypothesisofa
generalmodificationofcultureitselfwithinthesocial restructuration
of late capitalismas a system.7
As foremergence,however,Jencks'assertionthatpostmodernar-
chitecture distinguishesitselffromthatofhighmodernismthroughits
populist priorities,8may serve as the startingpoint forsome more
generaldiscussion.Whatis meant,inthespecifically architecturalcon-
text,is thatwherethe now more classicalhighmodernistspace of a
Corbusieror a Wrightsoughtto differentiate itselfradicallyfromthe
fallencityfabricinwhichitappears - itsformsthusdependenton an
act of radical disjunctionfromits spatial context(the greatpilotis
dramatizingseparationfromthegroundand safeguarding theNovum
ofthenewspace) - postmodernist buildingson thecontrary celebrate

7. I have triedto do this in "Postmodernism,Or, The Cultural Logic of Late

Capitalism,"NewLeftReview,146 (July-August, 1984), 53-92; mycontributionto The
op. cit.,is a fragmentof thisdefinitive
Anti-Aesthetic, version.
8. See, forexample, CharlesJencks,Late-Modern Architecture
(New York:Rizzoli,
1980);Jenckshere howevershiftshis usage of the termfromthe designationfora
culturaldominantor period styleto the name forone aestheticmovementamong
others.

This content downloaded from 14.139.62.114 on Wed, 3 Apr 2013 05:47:45 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
64 ThePolitics
ofTheory

theirinsertionintothe heterogeneousfabricof thecommercialstrip

and themoteland fast-food landscapeofthepost-superhighway Amer-
ican city.Meanwhile a play of allusion and formalechoes ("his-
toricism")secures the kinshipof these new art buildingswiththe
surroundingcommercialicons and spaces, therebyrenouncingthe
highmodernistclaim to radicaldifference and innovation.
Whetherthisundoubtedlysignificant featureofthenewerarchitec-
tureis to be characterizedas populist mustremainan open question:
since itwould seem essentialto distinguishtheemergentformsofa
newcommercialculture- beginningwithadvertisements and spread-
ingon to formalpackaging ofall kinds,fromproductsto buildingsand
not excluding artisticcommoditiessuch as televisionshows (the
"logo") and bestsellersand films- fromtheolder kindsof folkand
genuinely"popular" culturewhichflourishedwhen theolder social
classes of a peasantryand an urbanartisanat stillexistedand which,
fromthe mid-19thcenturyon, have graduallybeen colonized and
extinguishedby commodification and the marketsystem.
Whatcan at leastbe admittedis themoreuniversalpresenceofthis
particularfeature,whichappears more unambiguouslyin the other
artsas an effacement of the older distinctionbetweenhighand so-
called mass culture,a distinction on whichmodernismdepended for
its specificity,
its Utopian functionconsistingat least in part in the
securingofa realmofauthenticexperienceoveragainstthesurround-
ing environmentof philistinism,of schlock and kitsch,of com-
modificationand ofReader'sDigestculture.Indeed, itcan be argued
thattheemergenceofhighmodernismis itselfcontemporaneouswith
thefirstgreatexpansionofa recognizablemass culture(Zola maybe
takenas the markerforthe last coexistenceof the artnovel and the
bestsellerto be withina singletext).
It is nowthisconstitutive
differentiationwhichseemson thepointof
disappearing: we have alreadymentionedthewayin which,in music,
afterSchdnbergand evenafterCage, thetwoantithetical traditionsof
the"classical"and the"popular" once againbegintomerge.In a more
generalway,itseemsclearthattheartistsofthe"postmodern"period
have been fascinatedpreciselyby the whole new object world,not
merelyoftheLas Vegas strip,butalso ofthelateshowand thegrade-B
Hollywoodfilm,ofso-calledparaliterature withitsairportpaperback
categoriesofthegothicand theromance,thepopular biography,the
murdermystery and thescience-fiction or fantasynovel(in sucha way
thattheolder genericcategoriesdiscreditedby modernismseem on
thepointoflivingan unexpectedreappearance).In thevisualarts,the
renewalof photographyas a significant medium in itsown rightand
also as the"plane ofsubstance"in pop artor photorealismis a crucial

This content downloaded from 14.139.62.114 on Wed, 3 Apr 2013 05:47:45 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 65
FredricJameson

symptomof the same process. At any rate,it becomes minimally

obvious thatthe newerartistsno longer"quote" the materials,the
fragmentsand motifs,of a mass or popular culture,as Joyce(and
Flaubert)began to do, or Mahler;theysomehowincorporatethemto
the pointwheremanyof our older criticaland evaluativecategories
(founded preciselyon the radical differentiation of modernistand
mass culture)no longerseem functional.
But ifthisis thecase, thenitseemsat leastpossible thatwhatwears
the maskand makes thegesturesof "populism" in thevariouspost-
modernistapologias and manifestoesis in realitya mere reflexand
symptomof a (to be sure momentous)culturalmutation,in which
what used to be stigmatizedas mass or commercialcultureis now
receivedintotheprecinctsofa newand enlargedculturalrealm.In any
.case, one would expecta termdrawnfromthe typologyof political
ideologies to undergo basic semanticreadjustmentswhen its initial
referent(thatPopular-front class coalitionof workers,peasantsand
pettybourgeoisgenerallycalled "the people") has disappeared.
Perhaps,however,thisis notso newa storyafterall: one remembers,
indeed,Freud'sdelightat discoveringan obscuretribalculture,which
alone among the multitudinoustraditionsof dream-analysison the
earthhad managedto hiton thenotionthatall dreamshad hiddensex-
ual meanings-- exceptforsexual dreams,whichmeant something
else! So also it would seem in the postmodernistdebate, and the
depoliticizedbureaucraticsocietyto whichit corresponds,whereall
seeminglyculturalpositionsturnout to be symbolicformsofpolitical
moralizing,exceptforthesingleovertlypoliticalnote,whichsuggests
a slippagefrompoliticsback intocultureagain. I have thefeelingthat
theonlyadequate wayoutofthisviciouscircle,besidespraxisitself, isa
historicaland dialecticalview which seeks to grasp the presentas
History.

This content downloaded from 14.139.62.114 on Wed, 3 Apr 2013 05:47:45 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions