Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
the fact that societies throughout the world are in the throes of a profound and rapid
government policy by multinational corporations are only a few points on the landscape
of change. The West is currently experiencing a profound shift from an industrial society
understood ways of seeing the world and with our taken-for-granted ways of
There is a rise and fall of epistemology through the history of the bourgeoisie. We
are truly in the period in which bourgeoisie epistemology is a "lost civilization": just at
the time when the actual limits and validity of knowledge appear to have been stretched
to infinity. During the early period of its development - the trade in handicrafts in Italy,
Dutch trading in commodities, or the slave trade - the embryonic bourgeoisie was
constrained and repressed by the rigidity of the feudal system , its rights and obligations,
its taxes and bondage and the Church. In the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries huge battles
had already been fought under the banner of religion, to weaken the stranglehold and
terror of the Church, and to grant the citizen their own "godliness.” The bourgeoisie
citizen perceived the opportunity for social wealth and power in the world around him,
irrespective of his admission to the nobility and the Church: it was this secular, common
In the earlier period, the struggle was fought out in religious terms. Since
Sixteenth century it had been fought out in terms of secular religion, philosophy, and
1
particularly in terms of knowledge. The bourgeoisie regarded the knowledge of feudalism
required a knowledge of nature as a vital necessity for the expansion of the productivity
of labour. Since mid-eighteenth century that knowledge of Nature had been used for
making of profits. But, the dispute over knowledge was not “conscious.” The thinkers of
this time glorified the name of Nature, the common people, the name of experience,
human labour, the name of sensation, human needs, the name of Reason and production.
The bourgeois gentlemen did not know Nature as such, but only as given to them by the
level of development of society at the time. The labouring masses were to them
synonymous with Nature. The conception of knowledge during this period went through
the accumulation of value: it began with right itself and culminated in the vision of a civil
The bourgeoisie really did develop an objectively true knowledge of nature and
demonstrated it in the expansion of industry and technique. But, when the bourgeoisie
took over the political power in a given country, a counter-tendency began to arise. On
the one hand, there was the need for the techniques of social control, and on the other, an
agency was required to maintain control over knowledge. Political economy, for instance,
began as a genuine enquiry into the origin of the wealth of nations: but from the mid-
nineteenth century it was required as one of the means of maintaining and justifying the
status quo. It is a fact, that while the bourgeoisie was a class excluded political power, the
promotion of natural science had a definite political value, and it was a part of its
2
formation; subsequently, the bourgeoisie stands in a contradictory, ambivalent relation to
science.
The first period in the development of epistemology is the "Classical" period from
the Copernican Revolution up to Hegel and, with important qualifications, to Karl Marx.
This is the period in which the bourgeoisie is historically progressive class involved in
breaking down the dogma of feudalism and the great religions. During this period, the
terror of the Inquisition, later against the theological reasoning. This first period
considerable extent of the opposite tendencies fought out at each stage in the
development of epistemology are marked out along national lines. Further development
one hand, epistemology turns inwards towards psychology, taking on the character of
irrationalism, and rejecting the validity of knowledge. On the other hand, it continues to
develop "despite itself" in connection with the development of natural science, especially
physics.
that Truth is only useful for survival, Nietzsche also observes: "In spite of all the value
which may belong to the true, it might be possible that a higher and more fundamental
value for life generally should be assigned to pretence, to the will to delusion” (Beyond
Good and Evil, 7). Schopenhauer, Nietzsche's teacher, who harboured a pathological
hatred for Hegel, expounded a system of classical German school of philosophy, built
3
around Will rather than Rationality. Likewise, Kierkegaard wrote not only in revulsion at
the hypocrisy and corruption of the church and the establishment of his day but also
Michel Foucault spent most of his career tracing the threads of truth and power as
they intertwine with the history of human experience. He especially loved to study
asylums and prisons because they are close to an encapsulated power structure. Using
presented a highly politicized analysis of the functions of power and power relations.
Throughout his work Foucault seeks to make sense of how the contemporary
society is structured differently from the society that preceded it. He has been particularly
dangers inherent in the Enlightenment reforms that were designed to correct the barbarity
disturbing effects with regard to the power of the individual and the control of
government.
(Madness and Civilization, The Birth of the Clinic, Discipline and Punish, The History of
Sexuality) and his later work on sexuality and governmentality. In the early works,
Foucault gives a sense that power somehow inheres in institutions themselves rather than
in the individuals that make those institutions function. What Foucault explores in these
books is how the creation of modern disciplines, with their principles of order and
4
control, tends to "disindividualize" power, making appear that power inheres in the
prison, the school, the factory, and so on. The Panopticon becomes Foucault's model for
He explores the ways the governments claim greater control over and enforcement of
even more private aspects of our lives. In particular, Foucault explores the transition from
punishment was effected on the body in public displays of torture, dismemberment, and
obliteration, in the latter punishment and discipline become internalized and directed to
the constitution and, if necessary, rehabilitation of social subjects. The former was a
characteristic of contemporary societies where the subjects; especially those who dissent
the hegemony of the rulers, are internally tortured to annihilate their identities.
representative model for what happened to the society in the Nineteenth century.
Bentham argued in The Panopticon that the perfect prison would be structured in such a
way that cells would be open to a central tower. In the model, individuals in the cells do
not interact with each other and are constantly confronted by the panoptic tower (pan=all;
optic=seeing). They cannot, see when there is a person in the tower; they must believe
5
that they could be watched at any moment: "the inmate must never know whether he is
being looked at any one moment; but he must be sure that he may always be so"
(Discipline and Punish, 201). He is expected to get disciplined under the centralized
surveillance.
Bentham saw this prison reform as a model for how society should function. With a
view to maintaining order in a democratic and capitalist society, the populace needs to
believe that any person could be surveilled at any time. In time, such a structure would
ensure that the people would soon internalize the panoptic tower and discipline
themselves:
Indeed, Bentham's goal was to create an architectural idea that could ultimately, function
on its own. It does not matter who exactly operate the machine but how it functions:
"Any individual, taken almost at random, can operate the machine: in the absence of the
director, his family, his friends, his visitors, even his servants" (Discipline and Punish,
202). The idea of discipline itself functions similarly as an abstraction of the idea of
power from any individual: "'Discipline' may be identified neither with an institution nor
with an apparatus; it is a type of power, a modality for its exercise, comprising a whole
6
an 'anatomy' of power, a technology" (Discipline and Punish, 215). Bureaucracies, like
facelessness of the bureaucrat. The effect of this tendency to disindividualize power is the
perception that power resides in the machine itself (in the "panoptic machine"; the
Foucault makes clear in his later work, that power ultimately does inhere in
individuals, including those who are surveilled or punished. It is true that contemporary
Power," "something called Power, with or without a capital letter, which is assumed to
exist universally in a concentrated or diffused form, does not exist. Power exists only
when it is put into action" (Michel Foucault: Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics,
219). Foucault, therefore, makes it clear that, power in itself "is not a renunciation of
freedom, transference of rights, and the power of each and all delegated to a few"
(Michel Foucault: Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics, 220). Indeed, power is not the
same as violence because the opposite pole of violence "can only be passivity" (Michel
recognized and maintained to the very end as a person who acts; and that,
7
results, and possible inventions may open up. (Michel Foucault: Beyond
Power always entails a set of actions performed on another person’s actions and
reactions. Although violence may be a part of some power relationships, "On itself the
hermeneutics, 220); it is "always a way of acting upon an acting subject or acting subjects
structuralism and hermeneutics, 220). Therefore, the greater the capability of action of
the subjects, the greater is the power directed against them. Foucault, therefore, turns in
his later work to the concept of "government" in order to explain how power functions:
linking of one to the other than a question of government. This word must
be allowed the very broad meaning which it had in the sixteenth century.
souls, of communities, of families, of the sick. It did not only cover the
8
violence or of struggle, nor on that of voluntary linking (all of which can,
at best, only be the instruments of power), but rather in the area of the
221)
The turn to this concept of "government" allows Foucault to include a new element to his
subjects, and only insofar as they are free" (Michel Foucault: Beyond structuralism and
recalcitrance thus becomes an integral part of the power relationship: "At the very heart
of the power relationship, and constantly provoking it, are the recalcitrance of the will
hermeneutics, 221-22). Foucault, thus, provides us with a powerful model for thinking
about how to fight oppression when one sees it: "the analysis, elaboration, and bringing
into question of power relations and the 'agonism' between power relations and the
(Michel Foucault: Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics, 223). So, individuals ought to
keep vigil on power relations in order to combat oppression and maintain individual
freedom.
9
One of the most important features of Foucault's view is that mechanisms of
activities and existence. The knowledge gathered in this way further reinforces
exercises of power. Foucault refutes the idea that he makes the claim “knowledge is
power” and says that he is interested in studying the complex relations between
power and knowledge without saying they are the same thing.
possibility under which human beings become the objects of knowledge in certain
disciplines (what we call the "human sciences" or the "social sciences"). He explains the
rules and laws of formation of systems of thought in the human sciences which emerged
in the nineteenth century. His main method for looking at these disciplines, and how they
practices."
For Foucault, a "discourse" is a body of thought and writing which are united
and ideas. The idea of discourse allows Foucault to discuss a wide variety of texts,
from different countries, different historical periods and different disciplines, and
different genres.
Discourse joins power and knowledge; power follows from our casual
acceptance of the reality which we are presented with. If our identity is created by
the media, as it is increasingly, our world view is limited to the world view of those
isolated, rich, individuals. Discourse is created and perpetuated by those who have
10
the power and means of communication. Those who are in control decide who we
discourse. Every age has a dominant group of discursive elements that people live in
unconsciously. Change may happen only when a new counter-discursive element begins
the eighteenth century French writer, and Charles Darwin, the nineteenth century British
writer, as belonging to the same "discourse," or discursive family. Critics questioned this
association, asking Foucault how he could put two authors who were so different, in time
and place, together in one grouping. Foucault responds to this query, in his essay “What
is an Author?” He replies that we need not be concerned with the idea of authors at all;
rather we should see "discourse" as the groupings of texts and ideas. Foucault asks why it
is necessary to trace ideas back to specific authors and why do we insist that ideas or
concepts, or even literary works, are the creation of a single individual. In this essay
Foucault makes a list of some questions about authorship which he does not address
directly. Rather, he wants to discuss the relationship between an author and a text, and the
manner in which the text points to the author as a figure who is outside the text, and who
precedes the text. Eventually, Foucault regards the author as a Derridean "center" of the
text, the place where the text originates, yet remains outside it. Then he deconstructs that
center/author.
11
Before deconstructing center/author, Foucault refers to Samuel Beckett, the
modernist novelist and playwright, and particularly cites a line from Beckett: "what
matter who's speaking?" Foucault sees this sentence as an expression of some of the
major principles of contemporary writing, or what Foucault calls ecriture. This ecriture is
related to the French feminist idea of "l'ecriture feminine," but Foucault does not choose
signifiers; language in this kind of writing is not about the reference to a signified, but
rather it is about the play among signifiers. The ecriture that Foucault discusses tends
toward, in Bakhtin's terms, the monologic, rather than the dialogic; it is a kind of writing
that is self-referential, writing about writing, or about language itself, rather than writing
for or about social communication. As such, this writing is always working against the
grammatical rules and structures, the elements of surface structure, within which meaning
is constructed. On account of this, Foucault concludes, that such ecriture is not about "the
Writing is not the vehicle for the author's expression of his/her emotions
12
Foucault means that writing is neither an expression nor a communication; it is a
circulation of language that creates an exit for the writing subject regardless of the
existence of the author or reader as persons: they are functions rather than personages.
Another major theme or principle of ecriture that Foucault finds expressed in the
Beckett quote is the idea of a possible connection between writing and death. Throughout
most of Western cultural history, writing has been a means of staving off death, of
becoming "immortal." Foucault points to the Greek epic, where the hero can die young
because his epic feats have guaranteed his immortality, and also to a non-Western text,
The Arabian Nights, where Scheherazade's storytelling, night after night keeps her from
being killed. In modern times, writing (ecriture) reverses the situation; rather than
the humanist model, the categories of author, text, and reader seem self-evident and
separate: an author is someone who produces a text, which is then read by a reader; the
author is the source and origin of some creative power, which is unique to him or her, and
out of which s/he creates something entirely new. In the poststructuralist view, relations
between author, text, and reader are replaced by an understanding of the relations
between language and subjects. Althusser shows us how we are interpellated as subjects
one or more textual ideologies. Foucault uses the same premises to conclude that
13
"author," like "reader," is the name of a subject position within language, or, more
Foucault makes some major statements about the structure of history. He claims
that historical structures, formed by the rulers of society, have led to the devaluation of
the "event" in their rage to order the general tide of history. Foucault states that the study
recommends a different way of evaluating eccentric historical events, rather than writing
Here I believe one's point of reference should not be to the great model of
language (langue) and signs, but to that of war and battle. The history
which bears and determines us has the form of a war rather than that of a
114)
He means that history should not be structured in terms of the language and event
corresponding to the Saussurrean concepts of langue and parole, which may create two
sets of relations, of power and meaning. He asserts that history is determined by form of
events and relations of power: the language which narrates the event and the meaning it
Foucault believes that the seemingly chaotic occurrences of history are conflicts
14
enlighten us to the reasons behind actions. Every action and every historical event is seen
the web of power. The overall volume of power rises with each individual involved in the
play. The society is a huge web, and most of the power tends to be concentrated toward
the higher echelons. Foucault sees the exchange of power in very active terms: "isn't
other writings, 1972–1977, 119). It is difficult to sort out just who is fighting the war,
since Foucault seems to lean toward the "war of all against all" notion. Power moves
Generally, it seems that an intellectual can not be effective without the support of
some structure. But Foucault makes this argument for individual efficacy. The structure is
successful because it creates truth. It is in this recognition that individuals can succeed.
He remarks:
The important thing here, I believe, is that truth isn't outside power, or
lacking in power … truth isn't the reward of free spirits, the child of
Foucault means that truth remains inside the realm of power: truth is produced not out of
15
Each society creates a "regime of truth" according to its beliefs, values, and
mores. Foucault identifies the creation of truth in contemporary western society with five
political forces, the "diffusion and consumption" of truth through the apparatuses of
society, control of the distribution of truth by "political and economic apparatuses," and
truth as the issue of a whole political debate and social confrontation. Individuals would
do well to recognize that ultimate truth, Truth, is the construct of the political and
economic forces that command the majority of the power within the societal web. There
is no truly universal truth at all; the intellectual cannot therefore, convey universal truth.
The intellectual must specialize or specify so that s/he can be connected to one of the
which produces and sustain it, and to effects of power which it induces
Thus, Foucault sees the political problems of intellectuals not in terms of “science” and
“ideology,” but in terms of “truth” and “power.”" The question of how to deal with and
It is during this period that Pragmatism appeared; the American logician Charles
Sanders Peirce and the mystic William James were instrumental for it. Pragmatism
16
appeared on the scene as a tendency towards Irrationalism: "What difference would it
practically make to any one if this notion rather than that notion were true? If no practical
difference whatever can be traced, then the alternatives mean practically the same thing,
and all dispute is idle" (What Pragmatism Means, 6). In this rejection of the concept of
theoretical truth, there is the insistence on the practice as the criterion of truth, which is
progressive and rational. But this emerged only later, in the Operationalism of Percy
The task posed by the development of knowledge during this period is the
extension of the methods established in the natural sciences to the human sciences like
psychology and sociology. These sciences become an arena in which the various
solutions to the problem of knowledge are tested out. The dominant expression of
bourgeois culture is positivism, in which sociology has first place and emphasis is given
to logical analysis of the data of perception. Bourgeois epistemology, thus, evolves along
within the natural sciences, which already fought against clerical reaction. This struggle
took place under the pressure of the requirement to develop a critical approach to the
handling of concepts where sciences were required to deal more and more with entities
beyond sensation and beyond everyday consciousness. No progress could be made in this
direction without revolutionizing concepts and categories themselves. Hegel's legacy was
unknown to this line of development which was largely moving within the domain of
17
Kant. Despite the progress of materialism, the influence of idealistic positivism steadily
increased.
domination of bourgeois society and it relative stability. The beginning and end of this
period is not a question of dates and is marked differently from country to country; it is
enquiry.
the history of religion, but Soren Kierkegaard with his concept of Christian
Psychology led the assault against Hegelianism. Their advocacy of irrationalism called
for further development of philosophy informed by the study of the human condition: in
Existential Psychology. At the same time Franz Brentano’s Empirical Psychology and
science of psychology; Wilhelm Dilthey's broader approach called social psychology saw
human condition as essentially social and retained to some extent, the legacy of Hegel.
Nietzsche continued the line of Schopenhauer and Kierkegaard but placed his view on an
18
explicitly atheistic foundation while William James initiated the American version of
Sigmund Freud and Pavlov revolutionised psychology from opposite directions; both
multiplicity of trends emerged. Side by side with the various schools of psychology, as
the world slid into Fascism in Europe and as the world economy was is smashed up by
Bourgeois sociology was going fine till the world was shattered by the World War and
Discoveries of Pavlov and Freud are products of nineteenth century science; but
they provided the basis for an upsurge in efforts to bury materialism. Edmund Husserl
philosophy; Karl Jung declared a century of idealism, Alfred Adler focused on the
bourgeois individual. Kurt Koffka mixed Freud with Marx for the first time. Wittgenstein
led the way to utilize the controversy in the foundations of mathematics to find a formal
The early twentieth century was a period of crisis when capitalism was shattered by
the World War and the success of Russian Revolution, which was followed by the Great
Depression and the rise of Fascism in Europe. These crises forced fundamental revisions
in the world-view of capitalism and in the economic structure of capitalist world market.
19
The Second World War wiped out enough capital to create the basis for a boom. But it
led to the rise of the US, to a hegemonic position of world domination. It also led to one-
third of the world's population and resources being lost to capitalism in the deformed and
degenerated workers' states. The Bretton Woods arrangements brought qualitatively new
unparalleled military, technical and economic power. The historic crisis initiated with the
end of the Bretton Woods arrangements in late 1960s forced a breach on the world scale
between paper money and bank credit on the one side and any form of commodity
embodying exploited labour. This new situation emerged out of the wake of the 1970’s
slump.
The development of science reached a critical period at the turn of the century just as
finance capital toppled the domination of industrial capital. Capitalism found that it had
exhausted the possibility for the further expansion of colonies and moved into the epoch
of imperialism. Capitalism moved into a period of violent crisis just as the sciences also
moved into a series of sharp crises. Freud and Pavlov revolutionised psychology, and the
World War and Russian Revolution shook nineteenth century social theory to its
foundations. Einstein and others turned fundamental conceptions of space and time,
philosophy of the first industrial power, continued to compete with the more rationalist
epistemologies of Europe. American pragmatism emerged from the New World where
only those ideas were valid which found useful application in expanding American
20
capitalism. Undoubtedly, there was a play of "pessimism and optimism" throughout this
period.
theory of relativity and other phenomena like the wave particle-duality and quantum
mechanics, threw natural scientific epistemology into crisis. Even the great materialist
Einstein had been influenced by positivism. In the discussions and struggles which
attention on the foundations of mathematics; this made epistemology an area for struggle
and development.
In escaping the crisis arising from the end of the boom, the bourgeoisie instituted
planning and the world dominance of the US gave way to economic rationalism and a
world market in which the US had to fight against a number of emerging threats. At the
same time, the crisis was overcome by the creation of a whole range of sources of
fictitious capital which successively paper over emergent collapses with accelerated
generation of credit.
war period. It had its beginnings in the linguistics of Ferdinand de Saussure and the
which displaced positivism as the dominant bourgeois trend. Still the socio-historical
21
predominated as the world market became an integral over-pervasive reality, with the
by a single world power. Side by side with this, the developments of modern physics led
idealism of early positivism to some extent. The total absence of any alternative to formal
The fall of the USSR brought about a world in which opposition is invisible,
individuality is totally dispersed and value is apparently unrelated to work. The eclectic
industries," left to the masses of the newly industrialising countries, elite in the
Between 1970s and late 1990s, the concept of the “postmodern” was associated
particular style found in some contemporary art works and literary texts, a characteristic
of social structures at the end of the twentieth century, a change in the values of certain
the complexity. On the one hand, one can designate as “postmodern” some of the least
perceived as ushering in a different historical era and type of society. On the other hand,
22
postmodern modes of thought which generally question fundamental Enlightenment
The idea that history evolves according to an underlying logic that brings about
the gradual betterment of human societies emerged from Enlightenment thought and
thought, a widespread background assumption that is not questioned most of the time. It
turns into a strong legitimating ground for those groups, institutions, and currents of
thought which claim progress as their goal. Science and technology two of the areas in
which the idea of continuous advance and improvement clearly manifest, in provide
The gradually increasing skepticism about the idea that history would bring about
progress questions the justification for many modern institutions; it makes historians and
western thought and society. This idea attracts particularly widespread attention in the
English speaking world after the translation of French philosopher Jean Francois
knowledge, science, and technology in advanced capitalist societies. Here, the very
notion of society as a form of “unicity” (as in national identity) loses its credibility.
composed of two opposing classes (as enumerated by Marx) no longer stands in light of a
23
metanarratives.” Metanarratives provide a teleology legitimating both the social bond and
the role of science and knowledge in relation to it. A metanarrative provides a “credible”
Two influential metanarratives are the idea that knowledge is produced for its own sake
(this is typical of German idealism), and the idea that knowledge is produced for a
expressed in symbolic form. Even in physics no such universe exists which can be put
fully into symbolic form. Rather, any statement that claims to universality is only part of
the universe it claims to describe. Postmodernity implies that these goals of knowledge
are now contested and that no ultimate proof is available for settling disputes over these
goals.
societies enter what is known as the postindustrial age and cultures enter what is known
as the postmodern age” (3). He observes that this trend has been under way since the end
of the 1950s. Lyotard goes on to predict that knowledge, which has become the major
which learning is acquired, classified, made available, and exploited” (4). Knowledge in
24
computerised societies is becoming “exteriorized” from knowers. The old notion that
knowledge and pedagogy are inextricably linked has been replaced by a new view of
and will be consumed in order to be valorized in a new production: in both cases, the goal
is exchange. Knowledge ceases to be an end in itself; it loses its use- value” (5).
indispensable to productive power, is already, and will continue to be, a major stake in
the worldwide competition for power. It is conceivable that the nation-states will one day
fight for control of information, just as they battled in the past for control over territory,
and afterwards for control of access to and exploitation of raw materials and cheap labour
(5). The system of production has changed; commodified knowledge in the form of
saleable information and competitive power replace material and capital in the
Indeed, with the rise of multinational corporations, the very idea of autonomous
nation states begins to break down. The new technologies will hasten and reinforce this
opacity and noise in the commercialisation of knowledge” (5). The idea that “learning
falls within the purview of the State, as the mind or brain of society” will give way to the
view that “society exists and progresses only if the messages circulating within it are rich
in information and easy to decode” (5). Lyotard envisages a shift in the whole system of
consumption.
25
It is not hard to visualize learning circulating along the same lines as money; it
knowledge and ignorance, but rather, as is the case with money, between “payment
(6). The labour, in the transformed process is reconstituted to meet the survival of the
workforce. The educated and skilled youth have opted to become technocoolies and
Lyotard argues that knowledge and power are “two sides of the same question”
(9). In the West, narrative knowledge has been subjugated by scientific knowledge. The
latter is “governed by the demand for legitimation” (27). As the long history of
anything that fails to conform to the rules of its own language game. Narratives, by
contrast, are legitimated by the simple fact that they “do what they do” (23). Procedures,
distributors and consumers of knowledge have realized that scientific knowledge is more
In the computer age, “the question of knowledge is now more than ever a question
of government” (Lyotard, 9). The function of the state will change: machines will come
to play an important role in regulatory and reproductive processes. The power to make
26
14). Eventually, Lyotard cautions, “professors” (academics) will no longer be needed.
Most of the work they currently undertake can and will be taken over by computerised
data network systems (53). Academics are subordinated to the position of facilitators of
“could become the "dream" instrument for controlling and regulating the market system,
principle” (Lyotard, 56). This would involve the use of terror, or at least pressure tactics
like loan strategies widely known as Euro diplomacy, Dollar diplomacy and so on.
supplying them with the information they usually lack for making knowledgeable
decisions.” Lyotard believes we should take the second of these two paths and provide
free public access to data banks. This would respect both “the desire for justice and the
desire for the unknown” (67). It is an attempt to reconcile the opposites and to offer man
maximum satisfaction.
relationship between new developments in western capitalism and the rise of the
formal features in culture with the emergence of a new type of social life
27
be dated from the postwar boom in the United States in the late 1940s and
early ’50s or, in France, from the establishment of the fifth republic in
culture, economy and society, which are analogous in their structural pattern.
consumption patterns. They include a faster turnover in the areas of fashion and styling, a
television, an explosion of suburbia at the expense of both city and country, by the
the postwar development of capitalism that has spawned postmodern culture. The formal
features of the postmodern culture “in many ways express the deeper logic of that
particular social system” (Postmodern Culture, 125). The apparent irrationality at the
surface structure of the textual system gives way to the rationality at its deep structure.
This deeper logic, with its key element of perpetual change, has led to “the
“perpetual present” from which all memory of tradition has disappeared (Postmodern
Culture, 125). In postmodern art, that deeper logic surfaces into two basic features: that
at the scene when we, as a result of radical fragmentation, have “nothing but stylistic
diversity and heterogeneity” (Postmodern Culture, 114). Pastiche is “blank parody,” that
28
is, parody without parody’s “ulterior motive, without the satirical impulse, without
laughter, without that still latent feeling that there exists something normal compared to
which what is being imitated is rather comic” (Postmodern Culture, 114). In the age of
total eclectism pastiche is all that remains of parody that has lost its former function.
Moreover, this is a late and rather curious echo of John Barth’s “The Literature of
there is another sense in which the writers and artists of the present day
will no longer be able to invent new styles and worlds – they’ve already
115)
For all practical purposes, the artist is condemned to lifeless imitations and permutations;
that is, to produce art that is essentially about art itself and, more specifically about its
own failure. The artistic dilemma is not limited to high art; it also pervades mass culture,
and is instantiated, for example, in what Jameson calls the “nostalgic film” (Postmodern
Culture, 116), historical films that paradoxically are utterly ahistorical. Jameson
observes:
The very style of nostalgia films invading and colonizing even those
29
have become incapable of achieving aesthetic representations of our own
Such movies present the real in terms of simulations. The present day experiences are
The second basic feature of postmodernism is what Jameson calls “its peculiar
language disorder resulting from the subject’s failure “to accede fully into the realm of
speech and language”( Postmodern Culture, 118). It is language which gives us our
absence of the experience of temporal continuity in the patient who is condemned to live
to link up into a coherent sequence”( Postmodern Culture, 119). In, Jameson’s view
postmodern thinking. Mandel’s Late Capitalism distinguishes three periods within the
30
corresponding phrases in the culture: there is a first period dominated by market
capitalism and by its aesthetic corollary, realism; the second period characterized by
capitalism in conception with society and material by the modernist aesthetic; and a third
period, the current one, of late capitalism, which then corresponds to the postmodernist
of nature and the unconscious: that is, the destruction of precapitalist third
world agriculture by the Green Revolution and the rise of the media and
Particularly in the west, late capitalism has succeeded in penetrating and commodifying
representation itself. Late Capitalism has commodified culture and its representative
space, media: both visual and verbal, and their inter spaces.
According to Mandel, the capitalist triad has produced three separate and
fundamental technological revolutions; the third phrase has led to “machine production
of…electronic and nuclear powered apparatus since the 40’s of the twentieth century”
(Late Capitalism, 78). This suggests to Jameson another area from which representation
has disappeared and simultaneously another twist of the Kantian sublime, the so called
31
“hysterical sublime” (Late Capitalism, 76). According to Jameson, the technology of our
own moment – the computer, the television set, and other machines of reproduction
rather than of production – no longer processes the “capacity for representation” (79) that
machinery of the futurist moment,” the “older speed – and – energy sculpture” still
represents its historical moment, television “articulates nothing” (Late Capitalism, 79).
Our reproductive technologies cannot represent the real, even though it fascinates us
communicational and computer network” that in its turn would lead us to the “whole new
decentered global network of the third stage of capital itself” (Late Capitalism, 80). It is
our awareness of that “enormous and threatening, yet only dimly perceivable, other
reality of economic and social institutions” that gives rise to the postmodern sublime
The postmodern hysterical sublime is a vague intimation of the real world of late
capitalism, a world in which “our bodies are bereft of spatial coordinates” (Late
Capitalism, 87) and they remain beyond representation. In the sublime this
unrepresentable “new global space” becomes “most explicit, has moved closest to the
surface of our consciousness, as a coherent new type of space in its own right” (Late
Capitalism, 88). It is this sublime that gives rise to intensities that are both exhilarating
and fearful. Whereas for Lyotard the experience of the sublime, which is equally
32
ambivalent, is politically enabling, for Jameson it is nothing of the sort; it is more so
since the experience remains unarticulated and is, therefore, ultimately unsettling.
In this radical perspective, even a term like “fact” comes under scrutiny. While
scientists readily admit that facts are theory –laden: that is, that they cannot be
given situation are relevant –. Postmodern critics of scientific rationality develop this
non-controversial point by arguing that facts are actually not “discovered,” but created by
scientific procedures. This point finds acceptance by the Edinburg School of sociology of
knowledge, and by the French sociologist Bruno Latour. They argue that truth or
falsehood of scientific claims is not established by the “real world,” but by complex
In this perspective, “truth,” “fact,” and “objective knowledge” are the terms
Rorty, argues this view point in his seminal book, Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature,
Speaking about facts and external realities make sense, only within the framework
established by a particular social community; one cannot claim any foundations for
factuality beyond the social consensus. The way how this consensus gets established
depends on the relations of power in the social community. Many critics, and of Rorty in
particular, have pointed out that such fully fledged relativism, often, leads to conceptual
33
difficulties and self-contradictions and of postmodern approaches to science in general. It
is difficult to ascertain whether facts are valid within a social consensus framework.
The Marxist literary critic, Terry Eagleton challenges the relative nature of
cultural truth. He asks: “Is the belief that everything is culturally relative itself relative to
a cultural framework? If it is, then there is no need to accept it as gospel truth; if it is, it
undercuts its own claim,” (The Idea of Culture, 92). Marxist theorists agree that the mass
media has ideological power, but they disagree as to its nature. In Marxist media analysis,
media institutions are regarded as being “locked into the power structure, and
consequently as acting largely in tandem with the dominant institutions in society. The
media thus reproduced the viewpoints of dominant institutions not as one among a
perspective” (Culture, Society and the Media, 21). The media exclusively represents the
cultural identities and cultural preferences of the dominant groups that control the media.
tendency to avoid the unpopular and unconventional and to draw on “values and
assumptions which are most valuable and most widely legitimated” (Mass
Communication and Society, 26). Most theorists in the Marxist tradition in Britain like
Stuart Hall have approached the issue of media portrayals of violence in terms of their
objectives whether such portrayals have served “to legitimize the forces of law and order,
build consent for the extension of coercive state regulation and de-legitimate outsiders
and dissidents.” (Culture, Society and the Media, 14). “They have thus examined the
impact of the mass media in situations where mediated communications are powerfully
34
supported by other institutions such as the police, judiciary and schools. The power of the
media is thus “portrayed as that of renewing, amplifying and extending the existing
predispositions that constitute the dominant culture, not in creating them” (Culture,
Society and the Media, 27). The power of the media consists in perpetuating and
reinforcing the dominant culture in the multicultural society. Similarly, “some Marxist
rituals that legitimate the power structure in liberal democracies. Voting is presented as
conceived in terms of reinforcing political values that are widely shared in Western
democracies and actively endorsed by the education system, the principal political
The mass media are, in classical Marxist terms, a “means of production” which in
capitalist society, are in the ownership of the ruling class. According to the classical
Marxist position, the mass media simply disseminate the ideas and worldviews of the
ruling class, and deny or defuse alternative ideas. This is very much in accord once with
Marx’s argument:
The class which has the means of material production at its disposal has
control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that
thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of
35
According to this stance, the mass media functions to produce “false consciousness” in
the working-classes. This leads to an extreme stance whereby media products are seen as
monolithic expressions of ruling class values which ignore any diversity of values within
the ruling class and within the media, and the possibility of oppositional readings by
media audiences.
According to theorists of Marxist political economy the mass media conceal the
economic basis of class struggle: ideology becomes the route through which struggle is
obliterated, rather than the site of struggle. Whereas early Marxists mostly found
disregard for the most basic tenets of Epistemology. It is the conviction of the author, yet
to be substantiated, that this epistemological blindness has its ground in the severing of
money from its connection with labour-time. This can be explained in terms oh how the
fictious value of money predominates not only industrial capital but also finance capital.
It is further to be investigated whether these conditions lead to the possibility for the
negation and transcendence of the domination of the value relation over the life of
which differs from the reflex action of Marxists. The bourgeoisie epistemology is as
barren as its ethics. But the actual validity and limits of knowledge have been pushed to
infinity. Value is still the means of domination of a few over the vast majority of whom
are reduced to barbarism. The existence of value has become less a materialistic and
more voluntaristic.
36
Louis Althusser , the French Marxist philosopher, saw Marxism as a science. One
(Lenin and Philosophy, 10). Althusser's work represents the move away from a
(Understanding Media Cultures: Social Theory and Mass Communication 37). Ideology
transforms human beings into subjects, leading them to see themselves as self-
determining agents when they are in fact shaped by ideological processes. Tony Bennett
points out the pitfalls in Althusserean philosophy. Althusser contends that all ideological
failing to allow for internal conflict (Culture, Society and the Media, 53). Althusser,
therefore, contradicts the classical Marxist view that a capitalist society disintegrates due
to its internal conflict. Stuart Hall observes that in Althusser's theory it is difficult “to
discern how anything but the "dominant ideology" could ever be reproduced in
discourse” (Media Culture and Society: A Critical Reader, 78). It seems to rule out the
37
In Althusserian theory mass media texts “interpellate the subject” whereas many current
media theorists argue that the subject only projects meaning onto the media texts. For the
notion of a “struggle over meaning” one must turn to Volosinov and Gramsci.
argues that a theory of ideology which grants a purely abstract concept of consciousness
metaphysical. Ideological forms are not the products of consciousness, but rather they
produce it. In this regard, Tony Bennett also observes: “Rather than being regarded as the
economic sphere, the signifying systems which constitute the sphere of ideology are
themselves viewed as the vehicles through which the consciousness of social agents is
produced” (Culture, Society and the Media, 51). He means that ideology is not a product
of consciousness, but a means through which the consciousness of social agents are
produced.
this development in the post-war period: national liberation, the civil rights movement
and women's liberation. The failure of the 1960’s rebellions leads many disappointed
former Marxists to the general arena of bourgeois philosophy. The decline in modern
political perspectives has forced a further development in the form of a "return to Marx.”
and other forms of irrationalism, liberation epistemology, modern physics and the
38
foundations of mathematics and revisionist Marxism. In its questioning of rationality,
strong technoscientific wave of industrialization was met with intense cultural skepticism
in order to offer both the critique of social rationization and the restrictions
The conflict over the nature and social functions of scientific rationality has persisted into
In this context, it is significant that German sociologist Ulrich Beck has suggested
the term “risk society” as a substitute for “postmodern society”. The debates over
technoscientifically generated risks, which are primary sites of conflict between scientific
expertise and public participation, are in his view fundamental to the understanding of the
global society of the present and future. It is not clear whether the gradual shift from the
concept of the postmodern toward that of globalization will mitigate the intensity of the
conflict over scientific rationality. A more frequent and intimate contact between
different cultures is expected to reinforce the demand for the consideration of different
39
sorts of research and knowledge. It may also reinforce the demand for the products of
western science and technology and thereby relegate to the background any questioning
of its dominance. The postmodern forms of science and technology, which have evolved
over the course of the twentieth century, are already exerting a shaping influence on those
societies that are still struggling to shape their own forms of the modern. Western debates
over the fate of postmodernism are evaluated in this global context of emergent
central role.
40