Reddit reviews Postmodernism, or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism (Post-Contemporary Interventions)

They do. Both are individualistic belief systems.


Post Modernism:

>Post-Modernism is, in essence, an individualist philosophy. Individualists encourage the exercise of an individual's goals and desires and therefore value independence and self-reliance. They also argue that the interests of the individual are more important than those of the state or of any social group. They therefore oppose external interference by society or the government on the interests of the individual.

Neoliberalism:

>When it comes to individualization, this idea is one of the fundamental aspects of neoliberalism. In fact, Bauman (2000:34) argues that in neoliberal states “individualization is a fate, not a choice.” As Amable (2011) explains, neoliberals have realized that in order for their ideology to be successful, a state’s populace must internalize the belief that individuals are only to be rewarded based on their personal effort. With such an ego-driven focus, Scharff (2011) explains that the process of individualization engenders a climate where structural inequalities are converted into individual problems.


The reason why feminism is what it is, is because of neoliberalism/postmodernism. Still love this talk about it.

But there are other critiques like The Condition of Postmodernity or Postmodernism, or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. I thought it was common Marxist logic that they were linked?

Immediately after World War II is probably the flag for the beginning of the post-modern mood as it was not something which universally occurred across the humanities and sciences. It was also more popular in the continental traditions of thought, and largely criticized in the analytical.

One of the best descriptions of this period of time, I have heard, was that academia lost it's fury, especially in America. Modernism's utopian mindset was considered a failure, and the ideal values of that period were now under harsh scrutiny. We began to question absolute truth (relativism) and the meanings of theory and belief (anti-normativity). Culture was a well-believed myth that our ancestors created; society was a driven by materialistic desires and men profiting from rabid consumers; and history was just a narrative of wars and conflict driven by powerful men. Post-modernism challenged it all: deconstructing, critiquing, shredding it apart. Intellect was for cutting rather than creating, as Foucault put it.

This period of time has largely ended. There is still an echo of it remaining in some parts of higher education; but mostly seen in social movements ignited by those theorists (Feminism, Queer Theory, Critical Race Studies, etc.) Personally, I still see distrust for ideologies and moral arguments throughout our society. I also believe consumer-capitalism has largely displaced the humanities as irrelevant because of this age (among other things).

What good came out of the mood is largely up for debate, and usually dependent on who you ask. A lot of critique of social norms, such as sex and gender, did stem from the tradition; however contemporary studies are moving away from their postmodern since they lack substantial foundations. Power Theory in political and social science could be seen as windfall from this time. The term "social construction" can be added to that as well.

The bad, in my opinion, may be the hindrances of cognitive linguistics and capacities theory. Widespread acceptance of moral relativism and late existentialist nonsense. Fredric Jameson talked about this period's sheer refusal to critically engage in cultures, histories, and social reason, which led to poor multiculturalism and puerile respect for other socities. Much of what was said is just all-around obtuse, obscure—blurring the lines between our beliefs but never trying/desiring to piece together what they deconstructed.

> Surely you aren't suggesting his entire bibliography is rotten through and through and nothing of use can be salvaged?

No, but it is so riddled with corrosive antirealism, subjectivism, and Nietzsche's aristocratic power plays that salvaging it involves amputating the rotten arms and legs in order to save the productive fingers and toes.

Catherine MacKinnon put it best:

>"The postmodern version of the relation between theory and practice is discourse unto death. Theory begets no practice, only more text. It proceeds as if you can deconstruct power relations by shifting their markers around in your head. Like all formal idealism, this approach to theory tends unselfconsciously to reproduce existing relations of dominance, in part because it is an utterly removed elite activity. On this level, all theory is a form of practice, because it either subverts or shores up existing deployments of power, in their martial metaphor. As an approach to change, it is the same as the conventional approach to the theory/practice relation: head driven, not world driven. Social change is first thought about, then acted out. Books relate to books, heads talk to heads. Bodies do not crunch bodies or people move people. As theory, it is the de-realization of the world.

It's not an accident that Foucault overtly embraced neoliberlism, or that his epigones are typically utterly removed elites who are hostile to the working class -it is the cultural logic of late-capitalism and trapped in a prison-house of language as far past its expiration date as a linguistic and semantic theory date as hylomorphism is as a theory of matter.

While Foucault asked some interesting questions we might be able to salvage by providing better answers, his own answers and framework ("discourse") has been a cancer on the left which needs to go.

Fulfilled: Kim Stanley Robinson (plus two or three more). And, to be more directly Marxist, his thesis advisor Fredric Jameson.

Focault was a liberal who was funded by American liberal capitalist foundations and intelligence because of their anti marxism potential to divide the left, while underhandedly drawing the left to the right.


https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/06/15/why-the-cia-cares-about-marxism/




The phd by mckinnion, the most influential modern feminist and out spoken critic of pomo that turned the focus from class to gender was funded by the national science foundation in the us, which had a directive to combat Marxism in academia.



The left have been criticizing pomo all along.

This is one of the well regarded books on it, I have not read it myself. Its regarded by many as an ideology thats in service of capitalism.


https://www.amazon.com/Postmodernism-Cultural-Capitalism-Post-Contemporary-Interventions/dp/0822310902

Not really. They didn't even get the name of the sub right, since 99% of them skipped the required reading assignments.

https://www.amazon.com/Postmodernism-Cultural-Capitalism-Post-Contemporary-Interventions/dp/0822310902/