The Condition of Postmodernity 13 - autonomous learning

354 The condition of postmodernityby traditional communist parties and 'orthodox' Marxism) and therepressive powers of corporate capital and bureaucratized institutions(the state, the universities, the unions, etc.). It saw itself from thevery outset as a cultural as well as a political-economic force, andhelped force the turn to aesthetics that post modernism has beenabout.But there were unintended consequences of such a line of action.The push into cultural politics connected better with anarchism andlibertarianism than with traditional Marxism, and set the New Leftagainst traditional working-class attitud and institutions. The NewLeft embraced the new social movements which were themselvesagents of fragmentation of old left politics. To the degree that thelatter were at best passive, and at worst reactionary, in their treatmentof race and gender issues, of difference, and of the problems ofcolonized peoples and repressed minorities, of ecological and aestheticissues, some kind of political shift of the sort that the New Leftproposed was surely justified. But in making its move, the New Lefttended to abandon its faith both in the proletariat as an instrumentof progressive change and in historical materialism as a mode ofanalysis. Andre Gorz proclaimed farewell to the working class, andAronowitz announced the crisis of historical materialism.The New Left thereby cut itself off from its own ability to have acritical perspective on itself or on the social processes of transformationthat underlay the surge into postmodernist ways of thought.In insisting that it was culture and politics that mattered, and that itwas neither reasonable nor proper to invoke economic determinationeven in the last instance (let alone invoke theories of capital circulationand accumulation, or of necessary class relations in production), itwas unable to stop its own drift into ideological positions that wereweak in contest with the new-found strength of the neo-conservatives,and which forced it to compete on the same terrain of imageproduction, aesthetics, and ideological power when the means ofcommunication lay in its opponents' hands. In a 1983 symposium,Marxism and the inte1pretation of culture, for example, most of theauthors paid far more attention to Foucault and Derrida than theydid to Marx (Nelson and Grossberg, 1988). Ironically, it was anold left figure (noticeably absent from that symposium), RaymondWilliams, a long-time student of working-class cultural forms andvalues, who crossed the tracks of the New Left and tried to reestablishthe material groundings of what cultural practices might beabout. Williams not only rejected modernism as a valid category but,by extension, saw postmodernism as itself a mask for the deepertransformations in the culture of capitalism which he sought toidentify.The crisis of historical materialism 355The interrogation of 'orthodox' Marxian formulations (by writersin the tradition of Fanon or Simone de Beauvoir as well as by thedeconstructionists) was both necessary and positive in its implications.Important transitions were indeed afoot in political economy,in the nature of state functions, in cultural practices, and in thetime-space dimension across which social relations had to be assessed(the relation between, say, apartheid in South Africa and workingclassmovements in Europe or North America became even moresignificant as a political issue than it had been at the high point ofdirect imperialism). It took a properly dynamic rather than staticconception of both theory and historical materialism to grasp thesignificance of these shifts. Of the areas of greatest development Iwould list four:1 The treatment of difference and 'otherness' not as something tobe added on to more fundamental Marxist categories (like class andproductive forces), but as something that should be omni-presentfrom the very beginning in any attempt to grasp the dialectics ofsocial change. The importance of recuperating such aspects of socialorganization as race, gender, religion, within the overall frame ofhistorical materialist enquiry (with its emphasis upon the power ofmoney and capital circulation) and class politics (with its emphasisupon the unity of the emancipatory struggle) cannot be overestimated.2 A recognition that the production of images and of discoursesis an important facet of activity that has to be analysed as part andparcel of the reproduction and transformation of any symbolic order.Aesthetic and cultural practices matter, and the conditions of theirproduction deserve the closest attention3 A recognition that the dimensions of space and time matter,and that there are real geographies of social action, real as well asmetaphorical territories and spaces of power that become vital asorganizing forces in the geopolitics of capitalism, at the same time asthey are the sites of innumerable differences and othernesses thathave to be understood both in their own right and within the overalllogic of capitalist development. Historical materialism is finally beginningto take its geography seriously.4 Historical-geographical materialism is an open-ended anddialectical mode of enquiry rather than a closed and fixed body ofunderstandings. Meta-theory is not a statement of total truth but anattempt to come to terms with the historical and geographical truthsthat characterize capitalism both in general as well as in its presentphase.