Product Description

It has become an intellectual commonplace to claim that we have entered the era of `post-modernity'. Three themes are embraced in this claim - the poststructuralist critique by Foucault, Derrida and others of the philosophical heritage of the Enlightenment, the supposed impasse of the High Modern art and its replacement by new artistic forms, and the alleged emergence of 'post-industrial' societies whose structures are beyond the ken of Marx and other theorists of industrial capitalism.

'Against Postmodernism' takes issue with all these themes. It challenges the idealist irrationalism of poststructuralism. It questions the existence of any radical break separating Post-modern from Modern art. And it denies that recent socio-economic developments represent any fundamental shift from classical patterns of capital accumulation.

Drawing on philosophy and cultural history, 'Against Postmodernism' takes issue with some of the most forthright critics of post-modernism - Jurgen Habermas and Frederic Jameson, for example. But it is most distinctive in that it offers a historical reading of these theories. Post-modernism, Alex Callinicos argues, reflects the disappointed revolutionary generation of '68, and the incorporation of many of its members into the professional and managerial `new middle class'. It is best read as a symptom of political frustration and social mobility rather than as a significant intellectual or cultural phenomenon in its own right.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #215017 in Books
• Published on: 1990-02-22
• Original language: English
• Binding: Paperback
• 207 pages

Review
'This book is indeed a pleasure to read.' Radical Philosophy

'Erudite and intelligent study.' Theory, Culture & Society

From the Back Cover
It has become an intellectual commonplace to claim that we have entered the era of `post-modernity'. Three themes are embraced in this claim - the poststructuralist critique by Foucault, Derrida and others of the philosophical heritage of the Enlightenment, the supposed impasse of the High Modern art and its replacement by new artistic forms, and the alleged emergence of 'post-industrial' societies whose structures are beyond the ken of Marx and other theorists of industrial capitalism.

'Against Postmodernism' takes issue with all these themes. It challenges the idealist irrationalism of poststructuralism. It questions the existence of any radical break separating Post-modern from Modern art. And it denies that recent socio-economic developments represent any fundamental shift from classical patterns of capital accumulation.

Drawing on philosophy and cultural history, 'Against Postmodernism' takes issue with some of the most forthright critics of post-modernism - Jurgen Habermas and Frederic Jameson, for example. But it is most distinctive in that it offers a historical reading of these theories. Post-modernism, Alex Callinicos argues, reflects the disappointed revolutionary generation of '68, and the incorporation of many of its members into the professional and managerial `new middle class'. It is best read as a symptom of political frustration and social mobility rather than as a significant intellectual or cultural phenomenon in its own right.

About the Author
Alex Callinicos is Professor of Politics at the University of York. He has authored many books including Making History (1987).

Customer Reviews

a nice argument for not jumping in the current bandwagon
I have been engaged in an study of philosophy only for the past two years and mostly for my interest in politics and social science. I like many people have heard this word "postmodernism" a lot before studying philosophy and of course wandered what all these was about. Now after really sudying the current trends in philosophy and how things were in that field not too long ago i have to say that intellectuals are not different from children always chasing for the new toy to buy or adeolecents following the latest musical trends or latest trends on fashion just because its popular. Dissilusion intellectuals who were too inocent to believe that 1968 was going to be the revolution who later drifted into this "postmodernism" as almost escapism but without forgetting their radicalness (is that a real word in english)is an important argument that Callincos makes although i wish he treated how strange is to see some Leftists calling themselves postmodernists without thinking how complaining so much about modernism as to call oneself postmodernist does not sound too far from conservative or fascist gloom, anti-rationality and nihilism because lets remember in these postmodern times in which "metanarratives" have been discredited we have seen a reinassance of anti-rational, sectarian, nihilistic and fascistic nationalism everywhere. Personally after studying what these postmodernism was all about i thought it must be a philosophical trend dominated by political and social conservatives being after all so much inspired by Mr. Nietzche and nazi symphatizer Mr.Heidegger and arguing so much on points of no return wich negates us the posibbility of further significant positive changes.
Like Callincos argues nevertheless its almost just funny to see all these theoretical elaborations from these relativists trying to convince us these times are so much different from say before 1975 and also trying to convince us of some suposedely points of no return which if anyone will distance Michel Foucault work from all this postmodernist blabla will see that all of these is just another passing fad. This is not to deny "postmodernism" any real value or interesting insight something which Callincos doesnt do either, but his interesting analysis of the current situation of societies, the economy, the arts and of politics could let us separate in some ways what is going on right now from exagerations of the interpretation of current or fashionable ideologies or trends and also let us see how much these later are shaped by the first ones. I guess in a few words many of the readers of this book will be ones who just dont like to be trendy.

a nice argument for not jumping in the current bandwagon
I have been engaged in an study of philosophy only for the past two years and mostly for my interest in politics and social science. I like many people have heard this word "postmodernism" a lot before studying philosophy and of course wandered what all these was about. Now after really sudying the current trends in philosophy and how things were in that field not too long ago i have to say that intellectuals are not different from children always chasing for the new toy to buy or adeolecents following the latest musical trends or latest trends on fashion just because its popular. Dissilusion intellectuals who were too inocent to believe that 1968 was going to be the revolution who later drifted into this "postmodernism" as almost escapism but without forgetting their radicalness (is that a real word in english)is an important argument that Callincos makes although i wish he treated how strange is to see some Leftists calling themselves postmodernists without thinking how complaining so much about modernism as to call oneself postmodernist does not sound too far from conservative or fascist gloom, anti-rationality and nihilism because lets remember in these postmodern times in which "metanarratives" have been discredited we have seen a reinassance of anti-rational, sectarian, nihilistic and fascistic nationalism everywhere. Personally after studying what these postmodernism was all about i thought it must be a philosophical trend dominated by political and social conservatives being after all so much inspired by Mr. Nietzche and nazi symphatizer Mr.Heidegger and arguing so much on points of no return wich negates us the posibbility of further significant positive changes.
Like Callincos argues nevertheless its almost just funny to see all these theoretical elaborations from these relativists trying to convince us these times are so much different from say before 1975 and also trying to convince us of some suposedely points of no return which if anyone will distance Michel Foucault work from all this postmodernist blabla will see that all of these is just another passing fad. This is not to deny "postmodernism" any real value or interesting insight something which Callincos doesnt do either, but his interesting analysis of the current situation of societies, the economy, the arts and of politics could let us separate in some ways what is going on right now from exagerations of the interpretation of current or fashionable ideologies or trends and also let us see how much these later are shaped by the first ones. I guess in a few words many of the readers of this book will be ones who just dont like to be trendy.

An optimistic Marxism
Alex Callinicos, political philosopher and Marxist-Trotskyist activist, launches a blistering attack against the leading stars in the postmodern, or poststructuralist, trends in recent thought, such as Derrida, Foucault, Deleuze and Lyotard, by regarding their idealist irrationalism as the last decadent gesture of late capitalism. His "symptomatological" critique interprets their efforts to decentre the autonomous, undifferentiated "subject", or self, in addition to their tepid relativism and their tortuously obscure writing style as signs of a reactionary nihilism on the part of disillusioned, middle-aged bourgeois academics. Central to Callinicos's analysis were the events surrounding the failure of the student insurrection of Paris '68, which, in consolidating peacemeal reformism in the form of trade unionism on the one hand, and allowing the Maoist left to emerge triumphant on the other, effectively ruled out any chance of a people's revolution,leading to the detumescent revolutionary fervour of many intellectuals, which culminated, according to Callinicos, in the "crisis" which he considers the postmodern phenomena. Callinicos also discounts any claim made by postmodernism towards elaborating a coherent or practicable theory of political resistance. He also takes issue with major thinkers in the post-Marxist camp, such as Marcuse, Adorno and Horkheimer, whom he dismisses for their political quietism, even though his critique is greatly indebted to at least one neo-Marxist, Jurgen Habermas, in his urge to continue the project of modernity, in a bid to rewaken the hope of further human emancipation. Callinicos's broad-ranging critique also leads him to attack the theorists of the post-industrial society, who maintain that classical Marxism is incapable of penetrating the mystified structures of global, or "disorganised capital", and he rebuts by claiming that there has been no significant change in the methods of capital accumulation since Marx' day, and that worldwide revolution is still necessary and justified. He also argues that postmodernism does not in any way represent a qualitative break with the Modernism, in terms of literary, aesthetic or architectural styles, but is merely a refinement of it. However, Callinicos's optimism leads him into a blind-alley, as his findings, compiled in 1989, has been overtaken by events, such as the growth of thw worldwide web (e-commerce, m-commerce) the heightening of globalised capital, the further erosion of nation-state boundaries and the proliferation of the services industry as opposed to manufacture - all which have inaugurated a new phase in capital formation which may elude even Callinicos's efforts at analysis. Secondly, Callinicos's negative criitque, though effective at times in pointing out some of the contradictions that bedevil cultural theory, does not offer a clear programme for political action. The only path open to him, of course, is the attempt to establish another "meta-narrative" such as the working-class emancipation, a course that his no become out-of-date subsequent to the colossal failure of communism in the Soviet Union, and the establishment of the Stalinist terror state. By contrast, poststructuralism, with its obsession with the fragment, the paradox and the plural nature of values, seems to occasionally offer a not always positive, but often energetic engagement with, political aporias. Nevertheless, Callinicos's study contains a wealth of useful information and many interesting observations on the historical, economic, literary and aesthetic trends dominant up to the Modernist impasse, and is supported by extensive quotations and a bibliography. Overall, however, he misses the point, as his analysis is far too partisan and hence, incomplete, to be totally convincing.