The Condition of Postmodernity 13 - autonomous learning
The Condition of Postmodernity 13 - autonomous learning The Condition of Postmodernity 13 - autonomous learning
98 The passage from modernity to postmodernityunified whole but as 'disparate "texts" and parts that remain distinctand unaligned, without achieving a sense of unity,' and which are,therefore, susceptible to 'several asymmetrical and irreconcilable'readings. What deconstructivism has in common with much of postmodernism,however, is its attempt to mirror 'an unruly worldsubject to carooming moral, political and economic system.' But itdoes so in such a way as to be 'disorienting, even confusing' and sobreak down 'our habitual ways of perceiving form and space.' Fragmentation,chaos, disorder, even within seeming order, remain centralthemes (Goldberger, 1988; Giovannini, 1988).Fiction, fragmentation, collage, and eclecticism, all suffused with asense of ephemerality and chaos, are, perhaps, the themes that dominatein today's practices of architecture and urban design. Andthere is, evidently, much in common here with practices and thinkingin many other realms such as art, literature, social theory, psychology,and philosophy. How is it, then, that the prevailing moodtakes the form it does? To answer that question with any powerrequires that we first take stock of the mundane realities of capitalistmodernity and postmodernity, and see what clues might lie there asto the possible functions of such fictions and fragmentations in thereproduction of social life.5ModernizationModernism is a troubled and fluctuating aesthetic response toconditions of modernity produced by a particular process of modernization.A proper interpretation of the rise of postmodernism, therefore,ought to grapple with the nature of modernization. Only inthat way will we be able to judge whether postmodernism is a differentreaction to an unchanging modernization process, or whetherit reflects or presages a radical shift in the nature of modernizationitself, towards, for example, some kind of 'postindustrial' or even'postcapitalist' society.Marx provides one of the earliest and most complete accounts ofcapitalist modernization. I think it useful to begin with that not onlybecause Marx was, as Berman argues, one of the great early modernistwriters, combining all the breadth and vigour of Enlightenmentthought with a nuanced sense of the paradoxes and contradictionsto which capitalism is prone, but also because the theory of capitalistmodernization that he offers makes for particularly compellingreading when set against the cultural theses of postmodernity.In The communist manifesto Marx and Engels argue that thebourgeoisie has created a new internationalism via the world market,together with 'subjection of nature's forces to man, machinery,application of chemistry to agriculture and industry, steam navigation,railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation,canalization of rivers, whole populations conjured out of theground.' It has done this at great cost: violence, destruction oftraditions, oppression, reduction of the valuation of all activity to thecold calculus of money and profit. Furthermore:Constant revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted disturbanceof all social relations, everlasting uncertainty and agitation,distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier times. All fixed,
100 The passage from modernity to postmodernityfast-frozen relationships, with their train of venerable ideas andopinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become obsoletebefore they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that isholy is profaned, and men at last are forced to face with sobersense the real conditions of their lives and their relations . withtheir fellow men. (Marx and Engels, 1952, 25)The sentiments certainly match those of Baudelaire and, as Bermanpoints out, Marx here unlooses a rhetoric that defines the undersideof al modernist a s hetics. ut what i e i l about Marx is the wayhe dIssects the ongm of thIS general-conditIOn.Marx begins Capital, for example, with an analysis of commodities,those everyday things (food, shelter, clothing, etc.) which we dailyonsume in the course of reproducing ourselves. Yet the commodityIS, he avers, 'a mysterious thing' because it simultaneously embodiesboth a use value (it fulfils a particular want or need) and an exchangevalue (I can use it as a bargaining chip to procure other commodities).This duality always renders the commodity ambiguous for us; shallwe consume it or trade it away? But as exchange relations proliferateand price-fixing markets form, so one commodity typically crystallizesout as money. With money the mystery of the commodity takes on anew twist, because the use value of money is that it represents theworld of social labour and of exchange value. Money lubricatesexchange but above all it becomes the means by which we typicallycompare and assess, both before and after the fact of exchange, thevalue of all commodities. Plainly, since the way we put value onthings is important, an analysis of the money form and the consequencesthat flow from its use are of paramount interest.The advent of a money economy, Marx argues, dissolves thebonds and relations that make up 'traditional' communities so that'money becomes the real community.' We move from a social condition,in which we depend directly on those we know personally, toone in which we depend on impersonal and objective relations withothers. As exchange relations proliferate, so money appears moreand more as 'a power external to and independent of the producers,'so what 'originally appears as a means to promote production becomesa relation alien' to them. Money concerns dominate producers.Money and market exchange draws a veil over, 'masks' social relationshipsbetween things. This condition Marx calls 'the fetishismof commodities.' It is one of Marx's most compelling insights, for itposes the problem of how to interpret the real but neverthelesssuperficial relationships that we can readily observe in the marketplace in appropriate social terms.M oderniz ation 101The conditions of labour and life, the sense of joy, anger, orfrustration that lie behind the production of commodities, the statesof mind of the producers, are all hidden to us as we exchange oneobject (mon .ey) for another (the commodity). We can take our dailybreakfast WIthout a thought for the myriad people who engaged inits production. All traces of exploitation are obliterated in the object(there are no finger marks of exploitation in the daily bread). Wecannot tell from contemplation of any object in the supermarketwhat conditions of labour lay behind its production. The concept offetishism explains how it is that under conditions of capitalist modernizationwe can be so objectively dependent on 'others' whose livesand aspirations remain so totally opaque to us. Marx's meta-theoryseeks to tear away that fetishistic mask, and to understand the socialrelations that lie behind it. He would surely accuse those postmodernistswho proclaim the 'impenetrability of the other' as theircreed, of overt complicity with the fact of fetishism and of indifferencetowards underlying social meanings. The interest of CindySherman's photographs (or any postmodern novel for that matter)is that they focus on masks without commenting directly on socialmeanings other than on the activity of masking itself.But we can take the analysis of money deeper still. If money is toperform its functions effectively, Marx argues, it must be replaced bymere symbols of itself (coins, tokens, paper currency, credit), whichlead it to be considered as a mere symbol, an 'arbitrary fiction'sanctioned by 'the universal consent of mankind.' Yet it is throughthese 'arbitrary fictions' that the whole world of social labour, ofproduction and hard daily work, get represented. In the absence ofsocial labour, all money would be worthless. But it is only throughmoney that social labour can be represented at all.The magical powers of money are compounded by the way owners'lend their tongues' to commodities by hanging a price ticket onthem, appealing to 'cabalistic signs' with names like pounds, dollars,francs. So even though money is the signifier of the value of sociallabour, the perpetual danger looms that the signifier will itself becomethe object of human greed and of human desire (the hoarder, theavaricious miser, etc.). This probability turns to certainty once werecognize that money, on the one hand a 'radical leveller' of all otherforms of social distinction, is itself a form of social power that can beappropriated as 'the social power of private persons.' Modern society,Marx concludes, 'soon after its birth, pulled Plutus by the hair of hishead.Jrom the bowels of the earth, greets gold as its Holy Grail, asthe glittering incarnation of the very pinciple of its own life.' Doespostmodernism signal a reinterpretation or reinforcement of the role
- Page 4: PrefaceI cannot remember exactly wh
- Page 7 and 8: Introduction 5theatre, a series of
- Page 9 and 10: 8 The passage from modernity to pos
- Page 11 and 12: 12 The passage from modernity to po
- Page 13 and 14: 16 The passage from modernity to po
- Page 15 and 16: 20 The passage from modernity to po
- Page 17 and 18: 24The passage from modernity to pos
- Page 19 and 20: 28 The passage from modernity to po
- Page 21 and 22: 32 The passage from modernity to po
- Page 23 and 24: 36 The passage from modernity to po
- Page 25 and 26: 40 The passage from modernity to po
- Page 27 and 28: 44 The passage from modernity to po
- Page 29 and 30: 48 The passage from modernity to po
- Page 31 and 32: 52 The passage from modernity to po
- Page 33 and 34: 56 The passage from modernity to po
- Page 35 and 36: 60 The passage from modernity to po
- Page 37 and 38: 64 The passage from modernity to po
- Page 39 and 40: 68 The passage from modernity to po
- Page 41 and 42: 72 The passage from modernity to po
- Page 43 and 44: 76 The passage from modernity to po
- Page 45 and 46: 80 The passage from modernity to po
- Page 47 and 48: Postmodernism in the city 85Here we
- Page 49 and 50: 88 The passage from modernity to po
- Page 51 and 52: 92 The passage from modernity to po
- Page 53: 96 The passage from modernity to po
- Page 57 and 58: 104 The passage from modernity to p
- Page 59 and 60: 108 The passage from modernity to p
- Page 61 and 62: 112 The passage from modernity to p
- Page 63 and 64: 116 The passage from modernity to p
- Page 65 and 66: 7IntroductionIf there has been some
- Page 67 and 68: 124 Political-economic capitalist t
- Page 69 and 70: 128 Political-economic capitalist t
- Page 71 and 72: 132 Political-economic capitalist t
- Page 73 and 74: 136 Political-economic capitalist t
- Page 75 and 76: 140 Political-economic capitalist t
- Page 77 and 78: From Fordism to flexible accumulati
- Page 79 and 80: 12 10Ql+-'l:'+-' 8CQlE>E 6Cl.EQlC4Q
- Page 81 and 82: 152 political-economic capitalist t
- Page 83 and 84: 156 Political-economic capitalist t
- Page 85 and 86: 160 Political-economic capitalist t
- Page 87 and 88: 164 Political-economic capitalist t
- Page 89 and 90: 168 Political-economic capitalist t
- Page 91 and 92: 172 Political-economic capitalist t
- Page 93 and 94: 176 Political-economic capitalist t
- Page 95 and 96: 180 Political-economic capitalist t
- Page 97 and 98: 184 Political-economic capitalist t
- Page 99 and 100: 188 Political-economic capitalist t
- Page 101 and 102: 192 Political-economic capitalist t
- Page 103 and 104: 196 Political-economic capitalist t
98 <strong>The</strong> passage from modernity to postmodernityunified whole but as 'disparate "texts" and parts that remain distinctand unaligned, without achieving a sense <strong>of</strong> unity,' and which are,therefore, susceptible to 'several asymmetrical and irreconcilable'readings. What deconstructivism has in common with much <strong>of</strong> postmodernism,however, is its attempt to mirror 'an unruly worldsubject to carooming moral, political and economic system.' But itdoes so in such a way as to be 'disorienting, even confusing' and sobreak down 'our habitual ways <strong>of</strong> perceiving form and space.' Fragmentation,chaos, disorder, even within seeming order, remain centralthemes (Goldberger, 1988; Giovannini, 1988).Fiction, fragmentation, collage, and eclecticism, all suffused with asense <strong>of</strong> ephemerality and chaos, are, perhaps, the themes that dominatein today's practices <strong>of</strong> architecture and urban design. Andthere is, evidently, much in common here with practices and thinkingin many other realms such as art, literature, social theory, psychology,and philosophy. How is it, then, that the prevailing moodtakes the form it does? To answer that question with any powerrequires that we first take stock <strong>of</strong> the mundane realities <strong>of</strong> capitalistmodernity and postmodernity, and see what clues might lie there asto the possible functions <strong>of</strong> such fictions and fragmentations in thereproduction <strong>of</strong> social life.5ModernizationModernism is a troubled and fluctuating aesthetic response toconditions <strong>of</strong> modernity produced by a particular process <strong>of</strong> modernization.A proper interpretation <strong>of</strong> the rise <strong>of</strong> postmodernism, therefore,ought to grapple with the nature <strong>of</strong> modernization. Only inthat way will we be able to judge whether postmodernism is a differentreaction to an unchanging modernization process, or whetherit reflects or presages a radical shift in the nature <strong>of</strong> modernizationitself, towards, for example, some kind <strong>of</strong> 'postindustrial' or even'postcapitalist' society.Marx provides one <strong>of</strong> the earliest and most complete accounts <strong>of</strong>capitalist modernization. I think it useful to begin with that not onlybecause Marx was, as Berman argues, one <strong>of</strong> the great early modernistwriters, combining all the breadth and vigour <strong>of</strong> Enlightenmentthought with a nuanced sense <strong>of</strong> the paradoxes and contradictionsto which capitalism is prone, but also because the theory <strong>of</strong> capitalistmodernization that he <strong>of</strong>fers makes for particularly compellingreading when set against the cultural theses <strong>of</strong> postmodernity.In <strong>The</strong> communist manifesto Marx and Engels argue that thebourgeoisie has created a new internationalism via the world market,together with 'subjection <strong>of</strong> nature's forces to man, machinery,application <strong>of</strong> chemistry to agriculture and industry, steam navigation,railways, electric telegraphs, clearing <strong>of</strong> whole continents for cultivation,canalization <strong>of</strong> rivers, whole populations conjured out <strong>of</strong> theground.' It has done this at great cost: violence, destruction <strong>of</strong>traditions, oppression, reduction <strong>of</strong> the valuation <strong>of</strong> all activity to thecold calculus <strong>of</strong> money and pr<strong>of</strong>it. Furthermore:Constant revolutionizing <strong>of</strong> production, uninterrupted disturbance<strong>of</strong> all social relations, everlasting uncertainty and agitation,distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier times. All fixed,
Change language