TPM Cafe: Intellectual Claim-Jumping Watch

I have a serious problem with David Ruccio's showing up here with Economics Outside the Mainstream | TPMCafe. Let me tell you why. We need a little intellectual backstory: Fredric Jameson is a powerful, brilliant, provcative, and thought-provoking cultural critic. The arguments he makes in Postmodernism, or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism about the relationship between cultural forms and the shape of material life at the end of the twentieth century may be right and may be wrong, may be fruitful and may turn out to be dead ends, but are certainly worth exploring--are properly part of anyone's optimally-diversified intellectual portfolio. Jameson has taken his ideas and hung the word "postmodernism" on them as an identifying label.

Now come David Ruccio and Jack Amariglio (2003), Postmodern Moments in Modern Economics (Princeton: Princeton University Press), p. 5:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0691058709/ref=sib_dp_pt/002-4656857-0079243#reader-link: It needs to be said straightaway that we do not pursue an approach that sees postmodernisms as a particular world-historical phase, Nothing in our treatment invokes the "postmodern" as the latest stage in "late capitalist" (or "post-Fordist") economics, and especially the process of "globalization."

The main reason for our neglect of this approach is that we reject its basic premises, first, that capitalism has morphed within the past half century into a distinct socioeconomic phase captured by the concept of "late capitalism" and, second, that "postmodernism" as a noneconomic phenomenon illustrates the existence of such a phase, or that postmodernism refers to a historical rupture in the global economy. Since our main objective is to address the ways in which postmodernism currently appears, or could guide new developments, within the discipline of academic economics, we have chosen not to elaborate our objections to this line of thought.

Still, this work is ubiquitous in the fields "outside" of academic economics, a few words on it will put the rest of our analysis into clearer relief. It is not our aim to disparage this literature or to dissuade economists from interacting with it. To the contrary, economists should read it, partly because its picture of present world economic circumstances is so far from the mainstream neoclassical orthodoxy (and so much loser to heterodox, especially Marxist, views), that it can be engaged productively as a bona fide challenge, not only to that orthodoxy, but to cross-disciplinary dialogue. Our own interests in postmodernism and its contributions to the field of economincs, though, lie elsewhere.

The best known advocate of the "late capitalist" approach is the literary and cultural theorist Fredric Jameson. Jameson (1991) captures the flavor of treating postmodernisn as the cultural form of the latest phase of capitalist development in his frequent reference to three identifying aspects of "late capitalism": mass communication, a shift in the location and conditions of global production, and the rise of new industries (mostly in information technologies) that allow for the unbroken worldwide expansion of capitalist markets and, hence, profitability...

Let me translate this into English:

• Everybody else uses "postmodern" to mean one thing.
• We don't: we object to everybody else's meaning of "postmodern."
• We won't tell you why we object to everybody else's meaning of "postmodern."
• Even though we object to it, we don't want to disparage everybody else's work on "postmodernism."
• In fact, we think economists should read this literature on "postmodernism" that we object to--but do not disparage.
• Fredric Jameson had considerable intellectual success defining and investigating "postmodernism" as a particular cultural style--a reflection of the changes in the economic base of society brought about by globalization and by the rise of mass communications.
• We're going to pull off an intellectual claim-jump on Jameson's word.
• We're going to grab some of the intellectual excitement and voltage that Jameson has generated and loaded into "postmodernism."
• We're going to do pull this energy over to our side by redefining Jameson's word, and using it as a label for our stuff, which is very different from his, which we object to.

Elementary discourse ethics and intellectual honor demand that Jameson be better treated: "postmodern" is his concept, with a meaning that he has given it, and that meaning should be respected.

Comments

[andres]

*sigh*. Somehow, a lot of the passage from Ruccio and Amariglio got lost in Brad's translation. For one who is familiar with their work and that of the rest of the _Rethinking Marxism_ group, their meaning is quite straightforward: whereas many analysts such as Jameson emphasize the historical process aspect of postmodernism, they emphasize postmodernism with regards to its philosophical methodology, ie its combination of epistemology and metaphysics.

Also, "object to" as used by Ruccio and Amariglio does _not_ mean that they think Jameson's work is false or untrue, but that it focuses on a particular area which they believe is less important or to them, less interesting. That is why they do not "disparage" Jameson's work.

What totally confuses me is Brad's connection between Ruccio's comments on TPM and this passage from a book published four years earlier. As far as I can understand it, Brad is trying to show that Ruccio is guilty of hypocrisy in that he treats Jameson in the same manner that he complains mainstream economics treats heterodoxy. But this is simply not true. Ruccio and Amariglio have not labeled Jameson's work "quackery" or "pseudo-science" or "astrology", nor have they attempted to deny tenure to Jameson, or rejected Jameson's submissions to _Rethinking Marxism_.

That's what I understand Brad is trying to do. If I'm wrong, I would appreciate being corrected, but if I'm right, I have to call intellectual foul--Brad is attempting a rhetorical cheap shot here, and it's not a pretty sight.

[RWB]

Jameson wasn't the first thinker to define postmodernism (although he addressed it pretty early in the game), and other thinkers have defined it in non-Marxist ways (although it is almost always defined in historicist ways). So for Ruccio and Amariglio to take what they want from Jameson and discard the rest seems OK with me--especially as they acknowledge doing so. Jameson took postmodernism from Jenks and Lyotard and probably others, and synthesized his own powerful, interesting theory, so why should anyone else be denied that opportunity? Postmodernism, like modernism, is too broad a category to have a single narrow definition.

[Brad DeLong]

Nobody should be denied the opportunity to synthesize your own theory. What elementary discourse ethics tells us is that you shouldn't steal somebody else's label. String theorists don't call their theory "relativity." New classical macroeconomists don't call their theory "monetarism."

[andres]

Brad DeLong: "Nobody should be denied the opportunity to synthesize your own theory. What elementary discourse ethics tells us is that you shouldn't steal somebody else's label. String theorists don't call their theory "relativity." New classical macroeconomists don't call their theory "monetarism.""

Aaah, Brad. But over in the other discussion thread, you are defending to the death the right of what I call "sticky-price-wage neoclassical economics" to call itself Keynesian, which many would see as a type of intellectual claim jumping. In other words, you are taking an economic theory that doesn't seem to resemble The General Theory in the least and lumping it in in the same category.

Now it's fair enough to look at Keynes earlier writings (his thoroughly entertaining spanking of Churchill, to be exact) to point out that Keynes did on occasion think like a sticky-price-wage neoclassical economist. Fine--you take what you like of Keynes, leave the rest, call yourself Keynesian, and go on from there. But then you can't have your cake and eat it too, you big glutton. Ruccio and Amariglio have just as much right to call themselves postmodern as you have to call yourself a Keynesian.

[andres]

Just to give both sides of the story, here's Jack Amariglio's reply to Brad in the comments to Brad's identical post in TPM Cafe:

http://bookclub.tpmcafe.com/blog/bookclub/2007/may/31/intellectual_claim_jumping_watch

Dear Professor Delong,

It is exciting to see that you are a proponent of the work of Fredric Jameson. I wonder. Do you teach his work in your courses? I hope so, and would love to see the syllabus for such a course (please send it to me if you have it available). I do teach, in fact, a course in Postmodernism (co-taught with colleagues in English and Philosophy of Science), and also a course in Marxian Economics, and use Jameson's work each time these courses are taught. I have been teaching Marxian Economics for nearly 30 years now, and Postmoderism for about 15 years, so Jameson is never ignored.

Or, alternatively, are there courses in Marxian Economics in the Berkeley Economics Program that teach Jameson, and even more critically, his "mentor" of sorts, the great Marxist economist Ernest Mandel, and teach about the long vibrant and thrilling (and also difficult) legacy of Marxian economics during the past century? A quick look at the course listings online for both undergrads and graduates in economics at Berkeley don't reveal any course in Marxian Economics, though it's definitely possible that some texts are used in courses on development, comparative systems, and your own history courses. I did see that you use the Communist Manifesto in your history course, but didn't see Jameson listed anywhere, nor any Marxian text from the late 19th century forward. I could be mistaken, of course, so I'd be glad to stand corrected.

In our book "Postmodern Moments of Modern Economics," written, we thought, in English, but perhaps not, we discuss Jameson's outstanding contribution to the development of the idea of postmodernism as a "stage" in the history of capitalism (in his case, corresponding to the Mandelian phase of "late capitalism"). His thesis as you know is that the culture of our societies (here, he's talking mostly about western culture) is derivative or at least takes its primary shape in response to changes in late capitalist production and its global spread. Suffice it to say that Jameson's analysis is brilliant and should be read by every economist, since, in my view, it outstips the analysis of the many effects of capitalist globalization by most professional economists writing on the subject. While it is complex and intricate in places and requires as you put it an "optimally-diversified intellectual portfolio," since he refers to so many philosophers, literary works, films, artists, and so forth, that many people find it maddening and impenetrable, it puts forward a fairly simple, familiar, and orthodox Marxist position that the culture/superstructure of any historical period is mostly a consequence of the movements and contours of the economy. At least that's how David Ruccio and I and many others have read him. We do not share this position about the historical development of capitalism, and so, as we say in our book, we are not partisans of Jameson's use of the term "postmodern" to describe this present phase of culture and economy.

As for the statement that we have "jump claimed" Jameson's use of the term postmodern, I think this is just bad history on your part. Postmodernism is an older term, it did not originate with Jameson, and in fact, its "origins" are mostly associated with movements in art and literature, architecture, and philosophy. Names that come to mind are Leslie Fiedler, Susan Sontag, Ihab Hassan, Charles Jencks, Jean-Francois Lyotard, and many, many others. Jameson came on the scene with his views about postmodernism sometime in the early 80s. By then, postmodernism had been long debated and even surpassed in the fields I mention. For a very few books on the history and use of the term postmodernism, I advise anyone interested to consult the following texts:

Hans Bertens, "The Idea of the Postmodern: A History" (it has a nice chapter on Jameson, by the way)

Steven Best and Douglas Kellner, "Postmodern Theory" (it also has a chapter on Jameson, after chapters on the use of postmodernism and different understandings of it in Michel Foucault, Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari, Jean Baudrillard, Jean-Francois Lyotard, and later in the book, Jurgen Habermas)

Steven Connor, "Postmodern Culture: An Introduction to Theories of the Contemporary" (with some helpful chapters on postmodernism as a term and movements in the 1950s through 90s in art, literature, architecture, popular culture, and much else).

Stuart Sim, editor, "The Routledge Companion to Postmodernism" which has both chapters and a dictionary or glosary of terms. The chapters include postmodernism in politics, in literature, in television, in music, and art and architecture, in science, and much else. Needless to say, the term and its use is different depending on the context and discipline and historical moment. Jameson figures in some places and times, and not at all in others. Theorists like Jacques Derrida and Lyotard take up more space and cover more fields in this book.

Pauline Marie Rosenau, "Postmodernism and the Social Sciences" This book was originally published in 1992. One startling thing, but also unsurprising given Chris's excellent Nation article, is the complete omission, other than one small footnote to Deirdre McCloskey, of Economics as a field in which "postmodernism" existed. Rosenau has extended discussions of postmodernism in philosophy and epistemology, in sociology, in historiography, in political theory and movements, international relations, women's studies, and much else. But just about nothing on the discipline of Economics. Our book tried to rectify that situation, by the way. Additionally, Jameson is mentioned very briefly in this book, and his work is included only toward the end of the text when Rosenau discusses Marxism and postmodernism.

Margaret A. Rose, "The Post-Modern and the Post-Industrial." Lots of focus on what is considered the paradigmatic field in which postmodernism emerged: architecture. So, lots on the writings and use of the term postmodern in the hands of Charles Jencks and Paolo Portoghesi, among others. Jencks, incidentally, is often credited as well with the "invention" of the term, but this is incorrect as any genealogical study would show.

Also, a quick Google search for either "postmodernism" or "history of postmodernism" or any other close version will demonstrate that Jameson neither invented the term, nor was he or is he the most cited or important theorist of postmodernism in most fields of scholarly inquiry. Pride of place most often goes to folks like Hassan, or Lyotard, or Derrida, or Jencks, though Jameson is defintely a crucial figure, along with David Harvey, Edward Soja, and others who have tried to figure out how Marxian theories of capital accumulation and really existing capitalism have been altered in line with something called the postmodern.

To be honest, we came upon the term postmodernism and got interested in it later through our growing exploration in the 70s and 80s of French Marxism and French anti-analytic philosophy and especially epistemology. The key figures for us were Louis Althusser, Etienne Balibar, Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Lyotard, and others. Indeed, both David and I had written articles in the 80s and 90s, easily available if you and others are interested, on Althusser, Foucault, Derrida, Lyotard, et al. and their potential for use among Marxists and economists before we took up the specific term "postmodenism" as an organizing thread. You might see our articles from 1991 in which, in different locations, David and I separately begin to think through the question of the postmodern moments of economics. Jameson didn't figure in our discussions, or only marginally so, at that time. We also, in the 70s and 80s, began to read quite broadly in literary studies (so Terry Eagleton, for example) and architecture. We enjoyed Jameson's work when it appeared, though, as we've said, as non-determinist Marxists--a school of thought that was mostly pioneered by our mentors and co-authors, Stephen Resnick and Richard Wolff of the University of Massachusetts--we never bought into his primary determinist thesis.

I hope this clears up some of what you state and also imply in your post. I'd be glad to correspond more directly with you, or on any other site, to discuss postmodernism in general, postmodernism in economics, and also the work of Jameson. I extend this invitation to any reader of this comment and the overall blog discussion taking place thanks to Chris Hayes's article. Mostly, though, I'd be happy to discuss the place of Marxism--whether Jameson's or ours or someone else's--in the discipline of Economics. Perhaps that's a conversation that is most worth having if you and others are increasingly interested in expanding our field to include extensive coverage of such fine work.

Best Regards,

Jack Amariglio

[Chris Cagle]

I'll second what others have commented, but more tersely: well before Jameson, postmodernism as a term had been used to signal a philosophical stance on reality (aligned with poststructuralism but not synonymous with it), to encapsule arguments about post-industrial society, and to describe conscious movements of various late 20th-century artists. Jameson's big contribution (and why his book is so valuable) is that a) he does a really good job at summarizing these various meanings; and b) he points to correlations between postmodernity as historical condition and postmodernism as artistic aesthetic and modes of reception.