Editorial
Postmodernism
continues to be a controversial issue and the contributions published in this
issue reflect all the main trends on the matter. Steven Best, who has written
widely on the topic and functioned
as the editor in charge of this
particular issue, has collected
an ensemble of significant contributions expressing almost the full range
of possible responses to postmodernism. We hope that the dialogue which D&N
started on the matter will continue with further contributions in the future.
The
opening text by the late Cornelius Castoriadis, unquestionably the most
significant theorist of autonomy in the second half of the last century, is an
important critique of postmodernism. We, exceptionally, reprint this paper not
only as a tribute to the memory of Castoriadis, who functioned for many years as
a distinguished member of the Advisory Board of D&N, but also in order to
clarify his real views on postmodernism. This is particularly important today
when it seems that a trend has been developing among postmodern writers,
particularly of the post-Marxist variety, to classify him as a kind of
‘postmodernist’ –a trend which is also reflected in at least one
contribution in this issue and was amply manifested in a recent New York
conference in which his work was celebrated (and its radical political content
effectively ‘neutralised’) by post-Marxists, poststructuralists and the
like. In this essay, Castoriadis unambiguously condemns postmodernism as
generalised conformism. As he aptly puts it: ‘The value of postmodernism as
“theory” is that it mirrors the prevailing trends; its misery is that it
simply rationalizes them through a high-brow apologetics of conformity and
banality… Postmodernism is the latest case of intellectuals abandoning their
critical function and enthusiastically adhering to that which is there just
because it is there’.
In
my contribution (Takis Fotopoulos) I attempted to show that the claim
that the advanced market economies have entered a new era of postmodernity, or
even a postmodern turn, is not justified by the changes of the last quarter of a
century or so in the economic, political, cultural or scientific and theoretical
levels. These changes reflect not a rupture or break with the past but rather an
evolution of trends existing in modern society.
The thesis I put forward is that advanced market economies have, instead,
entered a new form of modernity, following the collapse of liberal
modernity in the 19th century and that of statist modernity (in both
its versions of social democracy and Soviet statism) in the 20th
century. The new form of modernity, which we may call neoliberal modernity,
represents a synthesis of the previous forms of modernity and at the same time
completes the marketisation process which began with the institutionalisation of
the market economy two hundred years ago and has led to the present
internationalised market economy and supra-national forms of governance.
Arran
Gare’
s perceptive contribution sees postmodernism as the decadence of the social
democratic state. His thesis is that
the
triumph of neoliberalism and the parallel rise of postmodernism not only are
non-accidental but in fact postmodernism has assisted the triumph of
neo-liberalism. Thus, postmodernism, by undermining the radical version of
modernism, has promoted the decadence of social democracy and ‘helped
facilitate the triumph of neo-liberalism and the reinvigoration and
globalisation of the market economy’. Gare is of course right in pointing out
that that the biggest factor leading to this decadence was today’s
concentration of power, although he
does not take the extra step and
examine the relationship between the main political and economic institutions of
modernity (representative ‘democracy’ and market economy) and the present
concentration of power, which is the inevitable outcome of the dynamics of these
institutions. However, to simply blame this decadence for the rise of
neoliberalism and postmodernism ignores
the
structural changes that led to the present neoliberal form of modernity.
Furthermore, although one would agree with Gare that post-modern theory has been
used as an ‘ideology’ to legitimise neoliberal modernity, it should not be
forgotten that postmodernism developed mostly independently of these structural
changes, as the result of a combination of parallel developments at the
epistemological level (the crisis of ‘objectivism’ and ‘scientism)’, the
ideological level (the decline of Marxism that was linked to the collapse of
‘actually existing socialism’,) and the ecological level (the vast
ecological crisis which cast a serious doubt on the meaning of Progress).
Steven
Best and Douglas Kellner
in
their contribution offer an insightful analysis of the differences between (as
well as within) modern and postmodern politics. Adopting a ‘reconstructive’
postmodernism, the authors support the case for a synthesis between modern and
postmodern politics, which involves the use of postmodern critiques of
essentialism, reductionism, and foundationalism to reconstruct Enlightenment
values and socialist politics and to radicalise the theme of participatory
democracy. However, the authors
adopt also the basic postmodern thesis which rejects any ‘universal’
political project for a systemic change and –inevitably—end up supporting
the usual kind of fragmented postmodern politics. The remedy they suggest for
this problem is a politics of
alliance and solidarity that builds on both modern and postmodern traditions and
is based on coalitions and multifront struggle. But, the lack of any common
anti-systemic aim, in combination with the composition of such alliances which
would unavoidably consist of heterogeneous movements with sometimes conflicting
aims, is bound to lead them across the well-trodden path of reformist politics
which are hopelessly inadequate to
deal with the multidimensional crisis we face in today’s’ internationalised
market economy.
Simon
Tormey’s
paper gives a comprehensive account of the post-Marxist/postmodernist
position on democracy and politics . His aim is to attack what he calls
'left
radicals' by which he means
the
orthodox Marxist critics of post-Marxism,
ignoring completely, in the process, the alternative left tradition to Marxism,
namely the libertarian left,
which is also vastly critical of postmodernism —and I would argue in a much more
significant way― as it is shown in the works of Castoriadis, Bookchin et
al. His contribution however and the clarity with which he puts forward the
post-Marxist case offers a perfect
ground on which the dialogue on postmodernism
can take place.
David
Ingram’s
paper
offers a perceptive discussion of the vexed question of the minority groups’
rights in the postmodern era of identity politics. As this discussion is based
on a form of social organisation in which society is separate from polity
(representative ‘democracy’) and the economy (market economy) it is of
little relevance to the inclusive democracy
discourse. Still, this discussion is useful because it highlights,
within the context of a comparison of two models of statist democracy (the
liberal
model of ‘overlapping consensus’ and the Habermasian model of
‘communicative consensus’) the issues involved in securing effective
protection of rights without compromising ‘identities’ and ‘differences’
based on gender, race or culture.
Carl
Boggs and Tom Pollard,
in an excellent analysis of the evolution of Hollywood’s culture, attempt to
show the close correspondence between what they call ‘postmodern cinema’ and
‘the post-Fordist, globalized phase of capitalist development which is
typified by increasing class polarization, social atomisation, urban chaos and
violence, ecological crisis, and mass depoliticization’. Although one may
raise serious reservations as to whether Hollywood’s productions today reflect
indeed a new kind of cinema representing a break with the past rather than
simply an evolution of the old culture, the article offers a very insightful
analysis of the detailed characteristics of past and present Hollywood culture,
as well as a useful typology of today’s general trends.
Ben Agger makes a very interesting attempt to develop a
social theory of the text combining insights from German critical theory and
French postmodern theory. His contribution helps to demolish the myth
of the writer as a solitary genius and not as “a social actor
positioned, by language and society, to write Asocial texts that reproduce the
existing social order”. He sees
the need for a theory of the text more urgent than ever because, as he rightly
points out, ‘what Marxists used to call ideology has not ended
with the so-called end of Communism.
If anything, ideology is more virulent, more coercive, because it has
disappeared from the pages of books proper, such as the Bible or Wealth of
Nations, into the quotidian cultural universe, informing television,
advertising, newspapers, magazines, school and college textbooks, even academic
social science and social theory, which celebrate the present as a plenitude of
social being’. He is also right in characterising today’s ideology as
largely positivist and this way more dangerous than ever. One would also have to
agree with the author that the present commodification and academisation of
culture plays a critical role in blocking critical writing. This is particularly
so today, when most writing is carried out by academics who, with an eye in
promoting their own career, would be too keen to self-censor themselves or
simply dismiss as ‘utopian’ any alternative radical ways of thinking .
However, one may raise serious reservations in the way the author sees method
and science as a new mythology and ideology, not much different from
advertising. Although it is true that positive science does play this role in
the so-called social ‘sciences’, it would be a sweeping generalisation to
extend this characterisation to all kinds of science, if not to reason itself,
as most postmodernists do. This could easily lead us again
―particularly
today!― to the paths of irrationalism (religious or otherwise) from which some
parts of Humanity emerged just a
couple of hundreds of years ago.
Finally,
Tim Duvall’s review article examines Carl Bogg’s thesis about the end
of politics. Although one may have reservations as to the causes of the present
decline of the public sphere and in particular as to whether this is just due to
the rise of corporate power rather than to the dynamics of the market economy
and representative democracy which inevitably led to the present concentration
of power, still, one has to agree with Boggs that we have indeed reached the end
of politics ‘as we know it’, i.e. what passes for politics today. However,
one may argue that the way out of this impasse is surely not the creation of one
more parliamentary party within the same institutional framework (something that
has been tested in practice with the European Green parties and dismally failed)
but the building of a mass political movement that will work as a catalyst for
the creation of a new public space and a new kind of politics ‘from below’,
which would synthesise the ‘universal’ demand for true democracy with the
‘politics of difference’.
Takis Fotopoulos,
Editor