art-e-conomy _ reader - marko stamenkovic

112
consequences that the theory on the ‘end of history’ has hardly played any role in
the rhetoric of the transition.
The recognition that society is facing an entirely new and unprecedented situation
has figured at another level of social and political rhetoric. This experience has probably
been much more fundamental than what is reflected in social and political rhetoric.
The experience of this new historical situation and the articulation of this experience
may also be far removed from each other, because having to concentrate on their
survival, social groups have little time to give expression to the new experiences in
a differentiated manner.
The postmodern ‘discourse’ of the post-socialist transition has been closely linked
with the ‘end of history’ ‘discourse’. This connection is based on the concordance of two
main tenets of the postmodern, ‘interdiscursiveness’ and the end of ‘metanarratives’,
with conclusions drawn from the hypothesis on the ‘end of history’. Tangible structures
and intellectuals products are through and through informed by postmodern features
in our world. Relying on the postmodern ‘discourse’ in exploring this new reality may
yield important new results. These postmodern features could hardly be brought to
light through other ‘discourses’. The fact is already of historical significance that the
post-socialist transition has taken place in countries already strongly characterised by
postmodern attitudes. The combination of anti-totalitarianism, limited consumerism
and self-seeking individualism is a social reality. The processes of the post-socialist
transition would be unimaginable without them.
Not a few elements of the postmodern ‘discourse’ are markedly present in political
and social rhetoric as well. This presence, however, hardly ever becomes explicit.
Rhetoric exposes the intense ‘arbitrariness’ of the current state of affairs, the prevalence
of a multifaceted ‘eclecticism’, the ‘interdiscursiveness’ of intellectual products and
political and social relations. This rhetoric also represents the various instances of
postmodern ‘deconstruction’. Both political and social rhetoric shows, therefore, no
awareness that several rhetorical figures can be related to the intellectual outlook of
the postmodern. It is also remarkable that the postmodern ‘discourse’ establishes
the community of East and West. We can only wish that constitutive elements of
the postmodern condition will not be divided between East and West as were the
elements of Marxism. At the time, the East inherited Marx, while the West inherited
the capital (and the ‘Capital’ with capital C). Now it is unfortunately conceivable that
the West will espouse postmodern ‘interdiscursiveness’, while the East will only get
postmodern ‘deconstruction’.
I have tried to offer a survey of the most important ‘discourses’ of the post-socialist
transition. It is important to note, however, that the transition process as a whole
should always be seen as a composite of these ‘discourses’.