View
224
Download
1
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Chapter VII: Conclusion: Timeless Instabilities - Amorphous
Futures
Postmodernism is a discourse that begins with delegitimizing all forms of knowledge
associated with the Enlightenment. Following Lyotard’s famous doctrine of
“incredulity toward metanarratives,” (The Postmodern Condition xxiv)
postmodernists launched a bold offensive against everything that constituted the
modern. Postmodernism undermines the foundations of modernist discourse and
creates an epistemelogical crisis. It is an anti foundational philosophy that presumes
the end of modernism and attempts to establish itself on its ruins. As Richard
Beardsworth rightly points out, Lyotard’s attempt in The Postmodern Condition is “to
define a socio-historical category, what comes after modernity, the ‘post’ of
postmodernity” (43). The term postmodern originated as a reaction to the artistic
movement of late 19th
and early 20th
centuries. The postmodernists declared that
modernism was completely exhausted and was a dying aesthetic.
However, there are oppositional voices like that of Habermas, for example,
that defend modernism on the ground that it is still an incomplete project. Habermas
contends that one cannot declare the end of modernism by closing only one sphere of
modernity, that is, aesthetic modernism. Societal modernity is an ongoing process that
cannot be ‘closed’ so easily. The postmodern debate stirs up other important debates
of cultural modernism and societal modernity. The efforts of postmodernists to
collapse the boundary between culture and society are thwarted by the left whereas
neoconservatives react with some confusion. For many, like Daniel Bell, the social
outcome of capitalism is less important than its cultural outcome.
288
Modernism struggled with binary oppositions like past and present, change
and stability, community and alienation, god and man. But, postmodernism attempts
to overcome the tension by casually canceling the oppositional other of the binary. It
chooses present over past, instability over stability superman over god and alienation
over community. It is essentially a reaction to cultural modernism which was
representative of bourgeois art. Bourgeois art had alienated itself from the praxis of
everyday life and the avant gardists, who are often seen as the latecomers to
modernity tried to relink art with practical life. However, their experiment failed only
because capitalist modernization had taken western societies too far ahead in a
different direction. Habermas rightly points out that the debate on the end of
modernism cannot be properly understood if one concentrates too much on art. It is
important to understand the condition of modernity and its links with enlightenment
philosophy. The failure of modernism can be attributed to the extravagant
expectations of enlightenment thinkers who thought that scientific knowledge would
ensure progress and emancipation for all humankind. The disastrous events of the 20th
century such as, Auschwitz and Hiroshima destroyed the optimism of the modernists.
Theories of the death of art claimed that art had realized the Hegelian absolute
spirit in a strange and perverted way. They followed the line of Nietzsche and
Heidegger who had argued earlier that history had arrived at its teleological end.
Nietzsche, with his excessive subjectivity believed that the anarchistic power of
reason could be countered by Alexandrian myth. Heidegger, towing Nietzsche’s line,
believed that art and metaphysics could be merged to produce a new artistic
philosophy. Both of them together created the greatest epistemological crisis in
western philosophy. Such theories about the death of art concurred with
eschatological notions that history was moving towards a definite end. This belief in a
289
determinate end to history was the legacy of the Judeo-Christian tradition bequeathed
to western metaphysics. The death of art, in essence, implied the death of western
metaphysics. Postmodernism emerges as a theory of culture from this crisis created
primarily by Nietzsche. Nietzsche was quick to realize the basic discordance between
art and truth in modernity and sought to reconcile the two by invoking Alexandrian
myth. Nietzsche’s philosophy is a rejection of Kantian metaphysics and an inversion
of the Hegelian dialectic. With Heidegger this metaphysical tradition inaugurated by
Nietzsche comes full circle. Cultural postmodernism is a continuation of the same
tradition. Postmodernists announce the end of modernist art, architecture and culture
and inaugurate a new era of commodity art.
Modernity was the apogee of enlightenment rationality; it created tensions
between faith and rationality, meaning and meaninglessness, self and the world and so
on. The technological world that scientific rationality produced was a challenge to
modernist thinkers like Weber, Marx and Durkheim. Enlightenment thinking had
divided German intellectuals between two opposing political and philosophical
camps: the Marxists and the liberals. Liberals like Nietzsche were unwilling to desert
their faith and jump to the socialist camp. In fact, Nietzsche’s extreme disgust with
the diremptions of modernity drove him towards anarchistic visions of apocalypse,
that is, the telos of Christian faith. Weber wallowed in the space between the two in
great uncertainty about the future of modernity.
Postmodernity emerges from these tensions and contradictions of modernity. It
challenges the episteme of western philosophy by arguing that abstract notions of
philosophy cannot be adequately articulated in language and logic. The anti-
foundationalist stand of postmodernism refuses philosophy its right to language; at the
290
same time it tries to lay its own foundations in a play of language. Lyotard borrows
from Wittgenstein’s to propose that all forms of knowledge are legitimated through
endless language games. This is the curious linguistic turn of postmodernism. It plays
with language to destabilize enlightenment theories as much as it tries to legitimate
itself through the same language game. This is the essential paradox of
postmodernism. Nevertheless, the postmodern debate instigates two diametrically
opposed reactions: one from the Marxists and the other from neoconservatives. The
neoconservative stand that rejects enlightenment philosophies in favour of discourse
gets the approval of the Catholic Church. It reflects the latest trend in official
Christianity: a trend that shows an anti-science attitude.
Mario De Caro and Telmo Pievani suggest that “since Joseph Alois Ratzinger
became Pope Benedict XVI, in April 2005, the Catholic Church’s attitude toward
science, and particularly toward the theory of evolution, began to change again—this
time in a direction that Galileo would not have appreciated” (Caro and Pievani 7).
They argue that the catholic church has been talking against the theory of evolution in
particular, in recent times and more generally about “the ethical, political, and
spiritual dangers of the excessive allegiance to science within contemporary Western
societies” (7). Postmodernism celebrates an anti-science attitude even though the
culture it promotes is thoroughly implicated in a technologically determined world: a
world of images produced by the market and the media. This is the second
contradiction in postmodernism. In a world rife with religious fundamentalism,
postmodernism’s allegiance to religion and its anti-scientific stand are indeed
controversial.
291
The Marxists, on the other hand, rebut postmodernism for its refusal to
politically engage with history. As Terry Eagleton rightly points out, the
postmodernists portray an anarchistic vision of the very same epistemology they wish
to destabilize. They are not interested in a political critique of capitalism, instead, by
indulging in a shadow fight with the culture of capitalism the postmodernists
unconsciously convert their theory into an ‘ahistorical’ discourse. In effect,
postmodernism becomes both apolitical and ahistorical. Further, it borrows the
concept of the fragmented self from modernism and the idea of dissolution of art in
everyday life from the avant garde. However, in an ironic twist, it removes critical
distance from the schizoid self and radical political elements from the avant garde. As
a result it cancels the revolutionary impulse of modernism and converts it into a weak
and docile narrative. Postmodernism is the institutionalization of these elements of
modernism in a different form. Jameson’s view of postmodernism is quite different
from that of Eagleton.
For Jameson, the effacement of the boundary between high and popular
culture and the commodification of art in late capitalism are the key features of
postmodernism. He identifies pastiche and schizophrenia as two significant aspects of
postmodern art. Both refer in some way to the representation of highly subjective
experiences in postmodernism that often turn out to be incoherent. Jameson’s
argument focuses mainly on the consumer culture of late capitalism and fails to probe
the economic logic that produces that culture. As a result, it becomes a superficial
critique of capitalism. Eagleton reacts to Jameson’s idea of parody by suggesting that
postmodernism actually parodies the revolutionary impulse of the avant garde.
Postmodernism carries the project of the avant garde further of bringing art close to
life. However, paradoxically, it inverts that project by trying to take life close to art.
292
And later it claims in Baudrillardian fashion that reality cannot be represented in art
since there is no reality beyond the hyper reality of the image. Reducing social reality
to the level of images perceived on the mental screen is the most absurd inversion
postmodernism effects. It is the same as inverting Marxism to revert to Hegelianism.
Postmodernism collapses the superstructure into the base, the cultural into the social
and claims that the social as implied in many modernist theories is no longer valid.
Baudrillard, for example, announces the end of the social arguing that simulation
technology has imploded the meaning of the social in the endless images on TV. “The
social only exists in a perspective space; it dies in the space of simulation, which is
also a space of deterrence” (In the Shadow of the Silent Majorities 92).
However, on close examination, it becomes clear that the shift from
modernism to postmodernism is not the same as the shift from modernity to
postmodernity. If aesthetic modernism refers to particular practices in the field of art,
architecture and literature, postmodernism includes films and pop art to make the list
longer. Modernity and postmodernity on the other hand, refer to the societal
conditions created by particular modes of industrial production. The transition from
modernity to postmodernity signals a shift from the Fordist model of centralized
production and distribution to the post-Fordist model of decentralized production and
flexible accumulation. Whereas modernism / postmodernism binary is implicated in
the cultural field alone, the meaning of modernity / postmodernity is invested in the
socio-economic sphere. According to Raymond Williams, society and economics
were limited categories when compared to culture which was more a delimited
category. Nevertheless, it is important to keep in mind the inevitable connections
between culture, economics and society while making an analysis of postmodernism.
293
Neoconservatives like Daniel Bell try to break these connections and declare
each of them as autonomous, self-constituting spheres. They argue that the
independent artist made use of this autonomy to produce the kind of art that
transgressed all limits ascribed to it. Neoconservatives perceive art practices of
adversary culture as decadent forms of bourgeois society and push the blame for this
development onto the economic practice of capitalism. They try to save culture from
capitalism in the hope of saving at least some sedimented aspects of religion from the
ruthless leveling process of capital. Such attempts land the neoconservatives in a
dilemma because they try to save both faith and capitalism which is an impossible
proposition. One can save only either and not both of them. The neoconservative
position on postmodernism leads to the holier than thou tradition of Anglo-American
liberal humanism. The Marxist stand leads one to two slightly different positions: one
focusing on consumer society theories such as that of Mike Featherstone and Fredric
Jameson and another leading to a more radical critique of post-industrial society. The
post-industrial society theories delve deeper into the economic processes of late
capitalism to suggest that postmodernism is linked to globalization.
The logic of consumption turns everything into commodity and culture is no
exception. Commodified culture is subject to the leveling logic of capital and the free
market determines its parameters. In late capitalism, culture is reduced to acts of
consumption and leisure time activities. The culture of consumption is the inevitable
corollary of what Scott Lash and John Urry designate as ‘Disorganized Capitalism’.
It does not desire the integration of needs because that would imply the integration of
the social. Therefore, consumer culture has serious sociological implications because
individuals begin to relate the possession of commodities with social status. In
commodity culture, cultural products act as symbols of social capital. Bourgeois art
294
breaks the boundary between art and everyday life to infuse aestheticism into
industrial design, advertising and media practices which become the prominent sites
of cultural production. Sociologists recognize these developments in culture and use
terms like, information society, knowledge society, media society and consumer
society to designate the new society. However, postmodernism’s obsession with
culture and its deliberate attempt to supersede the social produces a methodological
crisis in sociological theory.
The Postmodernists’ claim of complete autonomy for culture and their
argument that culture is self constituting gives one the impression that postmodern
culture and postmodern society are two different categories. However, this is the
deception postmodernism effects; it claims greater autonomy for culture with the
intention of dissolving the social in the cultural. Therefore, postmodernity and
postmodernism become commonly interchangeable terms unlike modernity and
modernism. The term modernity has political-ideological connotation whereas
modernism generally refers to aesthetic or cultural practices. Talcott Parsons suggests
that it is necessary to keep the analytical boundaries of the different spheres as distinct
as possible in spite of interpenetration between them. A cultural critique of capitalism
like that of Jameson will lead one to a superficial criticism of consumer culture; on
the other hand, a socio-political critique will help one unearth the ideological
processes that support the functioning of the system. Postmodernists like Baudrillard
argue that there is no longer any social because the fragmentations produced by the
media have destroyed the sociality of the contract between individuals and society.
There can be no postmodern sociology because of such inherent paradoxes and
contradictions in postmodernism. Postmodern sociology can have no concept of
postmodernity since the social is collapsed into the cultural. Therefore, the
295
postmodernists’ call to revamp the methods of classical sociology can be declared
invalid.
On the other hand, a socio-political analysis reveals that the hyper-real world
of simulation, the global network of media and the market with which postmodernism
associates itself is, in fact, linked to the processes of globalization. The absorption of
popular or mass culture into commodity culture marks a significant transformation
where culture includes other aspects like individual style and preferences. Moreover,
mass culture theories carry the logic of consumption to a level where it becomes a
new ideology by itself. According to Baudrillard, the ideology of consumption
socializes the masses by freeing them in the market just as the ideology of production
in the early stages of industrial capitalism produced the masses. In other words, the
ideology of consumption is a further step in the productivist logic of capitalism. The
1960’ decade saw the unhindered expansion of consumer culture and pop art
production in Europe and America. The art of Andy Warhol, for example,
demonstrates that commoditized art does not make any distinction between cultural
capital and economic capital. Consumer culture proves the fact that art, like capital,
carries only exchange value. In that sense, postmodern art is a further development
over avant garde art. Whereas the avant gardes still believed that art carried a value
transcending that of capital, the postmodernists make a daring compromise to expose
art to the logic of the market. Moving beyond the political economy of use value, art,
in its fully aestheticized phase becomes the supreme form of capital.
The emergence of postmodern ideology in the 1960’s coincides with the
weakening of leftist politics following the failure of revolutionary movements in
France, and also with the rise of free market capitalism in England and America.
296
Reaganism and Thatcherism replace many socialist concepts including the concept of
the welfare state. If the market produces commodities, the media produce images of
commodities. The corporate television as the prime producer of images colludes with
the corporate market to produce image as commodity and vice versa. This media-
market coalition in the age of globalization has inaugurated a new postmodern
politics. It signals the decline of political ideologies and the rise of postmodern
politicians who begin to act as agents of the corporate elite who support or constitute
the coalition. The kind of politics influenced or rather dictated by the media-market
combine support the process of globalization which is the most palpable symbol of
postmodernism today. Globalization has several dimensions to it, though, at first
glance, it may appear as a purely communicational concept. Any debate on
globalization and its relation to postmodernism will lead to two different positions:
one that celebrates globalization suggesting that it promotes cultural pluralism and
another that denounces it arguing that it forces smaller economies to integrate with the
larger global economy. Nevertheless these two positions share a common axis since
cultural globalization and economic globalization are mutually complementary and
contradictory. They are interconnected in a strange dialectics of the market.
Neoconservatives in host countries oppose globalization on the ground that it
forces cultural homogenization through export of commodities and culture, whereas
Marxists oppose it arguing that it weakens indigenous economies by making them
dependent upon stronger and stable economies of the west. The Marxists also propose
that large flows of international capital allow greater exploitation of local labour.
Interpenetration of cultures in globalization has, in fact, sharpened cultural difference
and identities and quite often economic resistance may assume the form of cultural
resistance in host countries. Traditional cultural identities associated with rituals raise
297
their head in the form of various fundamentalisms in a technologically advanced
postmodern age. In an age of information and communication revolution,
multinational capitalism and consumerism, postmodernism and religious
fundamentalism share a platform of strange incongruities.
Globalization marks a shift in economic practices with a remarkable increase
in the number of transnational corporations and the creation of a new transnational
capitalist class. Leslie Sklair refers to the new class as the “international managerial
bourgeoisie” (Sklair 62) and it consists of various professionals who come together as
partners in global finance and trade. The members of this class function as purveyors
whose business is to promote the consumerist goals of the global capitalist system. In
addition, large scale cultural flows through the media and migration of huge
populations across the globe has intensified interpenetration resulting in hybridity.
The cultural logic of postmodernism celebrates this hybridity in the name of
pluralism. The silence of Marxism amidst all the noise generated by the rhetoric of
postmodernists is rather perplexing. It signifies the decline of European Marxism and
the subsequent rise of postmodern / anti-Marxist rhetoric in the Anglo-American
context of the 1960’s. It also signifies the failure of leading French intellectuals like
Levi-Strauss, Lacan, Barthes and Althusser to articulate the ideas of the revolution to
the public. The failure of Marxism to shape the collective imagination of the people
implies the failure of the people to shape their political futures. In post-war Europe
Marxism began to wane in popularity as the idea of conflicting classes of the
bourgeois and proletariat failed to catch the imagination of the people. Moreover,
classes lost their visible identities when businessmen, technocrats, bureaucrats and
selfish politicians formed an axis to share political power.
298
By the end of the 20th
century, developments in the field of information and
communication technology helped the process of expansion of Taylorism to all
sectors of industry. With the decline in trade union politics and the deskilling of
labour, industrial management is all about effective implementation of technological
rationality. Computerization assists in the process of control and surveillance so
crucial to management. Postmodernism emerges as a cultural theory amidst such
major shifts in the character of industrial society. It refuses to engage politically with
the realities of global politics, on the contrary, it plays a touch – and – go game with
ideologies. Its anti-Marxist rhetoric collaborates to a large extent with its anti-science
and quasi-spiritual attitudes. The postmodernists revel in the fragmented social which
is of their own making and deny metatheory’s role in interpreting the complex
economic and social processes responsible for the apparent fragmentation.
Postmodernism’s opposition to Marxism is mostly based on its anti-
enlightenment stance. Enlightenment disenchanted the world and rendered its
theological interpretations impossible. Disenchantment of the world had troubled
Weber and Nietzsche in the 19th
century by dislocating meaning. They believed that
enlightenment philosophies were responsible for such disenchantment that dissolved
“overarching systems of religious understandings of the world” (Lorraine Y. Landry
143). Postmodernism’s cultural revivalism can be understood as its effort to reenchant
the world: to fill it with possible new cultural meanings. This explains its dubious
silence on another metanarrative – religion. Postmodern liberals reject Marxism
dubbing it a metanarrative whereas neoconservatives accept postmodernism
conditionally. Nevertheless, both show a movement in the same direction. The
symptoms of religious revival are seen in the fringes where postmodernism tries to
appropriate quasi-religious forms into the culture of capitalism. Moreover, by
299
destroying all binaries, especially the most crucial binary of the subject and object, it
turns out to be a pseudo-scientific project. It is designed to cheat the critical human
subject by dissolving the object in the subject. Therefore, postmodernism is more a
loss of critical subjectivity than subjectivity per se. The apparently naïve subjectivity
of postmodernism conceals its thirst for power and privilege associated with religion.
It is a new post-Marxist cultural liberalism that cannot distance itself from religion
because it is born out of it.
Another important feature of postmodernism that makes it anti-Marxist is its
antagonism to scientific rationality. Recent developments in science like cloning, the
human genome project or in vitro fertilization have proved to the world that
humankind is able to achieve what was formerly thought of as impossible. Viewed
positively, this appears as the realization of the utopian aspirations of enlightenment,
however, from another angle, it appears as a dangerous narrowing of boundaries
between human and animal, and human and machine. From a theological perspective
the super human being has indeed become a reality and has begun to play god. This
clearly explains postmodernism’s opposition to science and also to Marxism.
The rise of postmodernism coincides with the historic decline of Western
Marxism and the entry of capitalism into former socialist economies. Perry Anderson
attributes the decline to certain shifts that turned Western Marxism away from radical
political action towards philosophy. This was an attempt to invert Marxism and put its
rational kernel back into Hegelian thought. In fact, Marxism lost its radical content
when it entered French intellectual thought. The decline of critical intellectuals
groomed in dialectics marks the birth of eclectic postmodern philosophers. Ironically,
it was French intellectuals who gave the term ‘Intellectual’ its significance when they
300
abruptly intervened in French politics of the 19th
century by taking sides in the
infamous Dreyfus affair. Many intellectuals have played significant roles in politics;
among them are Antonio Gramsci, Edward Said and Noam Chomsky. Gramscian
intellectuals are supposed to play a major role in locating social activity in specific
class-struggles and in defending class interests. Lenin also believed that philosophical
knowledge of metaphysics, ethics and morality should also turn towards praxis to
locate itself in material history.
Traditionally, intellectuals were moral philosophers who passively ruminated
on the world but Marxist intellectuals like Gramsci assigned a new historic role to
them. However, postmodernists undermine both Marxist historicism and
intellectualism and give it a linguistic turn. They prioritize language and psychology
over politics and class struggle. Cultural studies experts like Stuart Hall gave the
culturalism / structuralism debate a turn that marked the shift away from Marxism.
This was a shift from Gramscian intellectualism to post-Marxist culturalism.
Culturalism produced an entirely new class of intellectuals who, freed from political
and social commitments beyond the academy made knowledge their social capital.
Academic intellectuals can be further differentiated as humanistic intellectuals and
technical intelligentsia. Owing to the growing influence of the technical intelligentsia,
given their links with industry, the position of humanistic intellectuals has
considerably weakened in the academy. Nevertheless, intellectuals have evolved over
time though the political influence of humanistic intellectuals may have considerably
reduced in the 21st century. The Western intellectual no longer carries the radical
questioning attitude that often led to his own persecution. Therefore, the death of the
critical intellectual can be taken as a symbolic death that signifies the death of
ideologies.
301
The social world that reproduces the material conditions of existence
challenges intellectuals to take an ideological stand on political issues. However,
postmodern intellectuals refuse to do this and try to reproduce their own class in
bourgeois institutions like the university. Humanistic intellectuals had always played
the role of cultural legislators; however, they proselytized on cultural matters in a
different social environment. As Zygmunt Bauman rightly suggests, in late capitalism,
the market invaded social space to an extent that it drastically changed that
environment. It introduced the culture of consumerism which became the habitat of
postmodern philosophers.
Postmodern philosophers make a historic compromise with market forces and
destroy the foundations of western philosophy that served as the living bases of
humanistic intellectuals. With this, the intellectual is finally freed from the burden of
representing anything or anybody. He neither represents the masses nor any particular
ideology. The high intellectuals of postmodernism collude with the market, the
publishing industry to get pecuniary benefits and flirt with the media to gain celebrity
status. The Postmodern intellectual surrenders to the ideological structures of the
market and the media. Without political ideologies he loses his subject identity. He
can no longer critique anything because he belongs to those “structures of betrayal”
(Bove 101) that resist criticism. Regis Debray calls this the historic betrayal of
postmodern intellectuals. Within the postmodern discourse, one is called upon to
mourn the death of ideology and loss of the critical subject. Postmodernism not only
invalidates the knowledge practices of modernism, it also destroys the intellectual
associated with those practices.
303
Balibar, Etienne. “Class Struggle to Classless Struggle.” Race, Nation, Class:
Ambiguous Identities. Ed. Etienne Balibar & Immanuel Wallerstein. London:
Verso, 1991. 153 -184. Print.
Barlas, Mehmat and Olgu Caliscan. “Virtual Space as Public Sphere: Rethinking
the political and Professional Agenda of Spatial Design.” METU JFA 23
(2006): 1-20. Print.
Baudelaire, Charles. The Painter of Modern Life. Trans. P.E Charvet.London:
Penguin Books, 1972. Print.
Baudrillard, Jean. “Simulacra and Simulations.”Jean Baudrillard: Selected Writings.
Ed. Mark Poster. Stanford: Stanford U P, 2001. 169 -187. Print.
---. In the Shadow of the Silent Majorities. Trans. Paul Foss, John Johnston, Paul
Patton and Andrew Berardini, Original Pub. In French in 1978.Los Angeles:
Semiotext(e), 2007. Print.
---. “The System of Objects.”Jean Baudrillard: Selected Writings. Ed.Mark Poster.
Stanford: Stanford UP, 2001. 13-31. Print.
---. “Consumer Society.” Jean Baudrillard: Selected Writings. Ed.Mark Poster.
Stanford: Stanford UP, 2001. 32-59. Print.
---. The Consumer Society. London: Sage pub. 1998. Print.
304
Bauman, Zygmunt. Intimations of Postmodernity. London: Routledge, 1992. Print.
---.“A Sociological Theory of Postmodernity.” Between Totalitarianism and
Postmodernity. Ed. Peter Beilharz, Gillian Robinson and John Rundell.
Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1992. 149-162. Print.
---. Legislators and Interpreters: On Modernity, Post-Modernity and Intellectuals.
UK: Polity Press, 1987. Print.
Beardsworth, Richard. “On the Critical ‘Post’: Lyotard’s Agitated Judgment.”
Judging Lyotard. Ed. Andrew Benjamin. London: Routledge, 1992. 43 - 80.
Print.
Bell, Daniel. “Introduction / The Disjunction of Realms: A Statement of Themes” The
Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism. New York: Basic books, 1978. 3-32.
Print.
Benjamin, Walter. “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction.”
Illuminations. New York: Schocken Books, 1968. 217 - 251. Print.
Bennett, Andy. Cultures of Popular Music. Buckingham-Philadelphia: Open UP,
2001. Print.
Bernstein. J. M. The Fate of Art: Aesthetic Alienation from Kant to Derrida and
Adorno. Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State U P, 1992. Print.
Berry, Philippa. “Postmodernism and Post-Religion.” Cambridge Companion to
305
Postmodernism. Ed. Steven Conner. Cambridge: Cambridge U P, 2004. 168 -
181. Print.
Borgmann, Albert. Crossing the Postmodern Divide. London, Chicago: U of Chicago
P, 1992. Print.
Bourdieu, Pierre. “Forms of Capital.”Handbook of theory and Research for the
Sociology of Education. Ed. Richardson. J. Westport: Greenwood, 1986. 128-
163. Print.
---. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. Trans. Richard Nice,
Cambridge MA: Harvard U P, 1984. Print.
---. The Logic of Practice. Cambridge, U.K: Polity, 1990. Print.
Bove, Paul. In the Wake of Theory. Hanover: U P of New England, 1992. Print.
Burbach, Roger. Globalization and Postmodern Politics: From Zapatistas to
High-Tech Robber Barons. London: Pluto, 2001. Print.
Burger, Peter. “The Negation of the Autonomy of Art by the Avant-Garde.”
Postmodernism: A Reader. Ed. Thomas Docherty. New York: Columbia U P,
1993. 237- 243. Print.
Cahoon, Lawrence E. The Dilemma of Modernity: philosophy, Culture, and Anti-
Culture. Albany: State U of New York P, 1988. Print.
306
Caro Mario De and Telmo Pievani. “Bellarmine’s Revenge? On Some Recent
Trends in the Roman Catholic Church Concerning the Relation of Faith
and Science,” boundary 2, 37:1 (2010). 2-22. Print.
Castells, Manuel. The Information Age: Economy, Society, and Culture. Vol. III
End of Millenium. U.K: Wiley-Blackwell Publishers, 2010. Print.
Castoriadis, Cornelius. “The Movements of the Sixties.” World in Fragments:
Writings on Politics, Society, Psychoanalysis, and the Imagination. Stanford:
Stanford Univ. Press, 1997. 47-57. Print.
Chaudhary, Kameshwar. Intellectuals and Society: A Study of Teachers in India.
Mumbai: Popular, 2004. Print.
Chomsky, Noam and Edward S. Herman. Manufacturing Consent: The Political
Economy of the Mass Media. New York: Pantheon Books, 1988. Print.
Chowers, Eyal. “Max Weber: The Fate of Homo-Hermeneut in a Disenchanted
World.” Journal of European Studies. 25 (1995):123-140. Print.
Chun, Allen. “The Institutional Unconscious; or, The Prison House of Academia.”
Boundary 2. 27.1(2000): 51-74. Print.
Congdon, Lee. “Nietzsche, Heidegger and History.” Journal of European Studies.
3(1973): 211-217. Print.
307
Conner, Steven. The Cambridge Companion to Postmodernism. New York: The
Cambridge Univ. Press, 2004. Print.
Cook, Roger. “Andy Warhol, Capitalism, Culture and Camp.” Space and Culture.
6.1 (2003). 66-76. Print.
Dallmeyr, Fred. “The Discourse of Modernity: Hegel, Nietzsche, Heidegger and
Habermas.” Habermas and the Unfinished Project of Modernity. Ed Maurizio
Passerin D’Enterves and Seyla Ben Habib, New York: Polity Press, 1996.59-
96. Print.
Debord, Guy. The Society of the Spectacle. Trans. Ken Knabb. Canberra: Treason,
2002. Print.
Debray, Regis. Teachers, Writers, Celebrities: The Intellectuals of Modern France.
Trans.David Maccy. London: New Left, 1981. Print.
Derrida, Jacques. Specters of Marx, the state of the debt, the Work of Mourning,
and the New International. Trans. Peggy Kamuf. Original Pub. Editions
Galilee 1993. First English Pub. New York- London: Routledge, 1994. Print.
Dimitriadis, Greg. “Jean-Paul Sartre and the Moral authority of the intellectual”
Cultural Studies: Critical Methodologies, Vol. X, No. X, XXXX xx-xx, DOI:
10.1177 / 1532708608322040, (2008): 1-11. Print.
Eagleton, Terry. “Capitalism, Modernism and Postmodernism”, Modern Criticism
308
and Theory: A Reader. Ed. David Lodge and Nigel Wood New Delhi:
Pearson, 2003. 361-373. Print.
Eysteinsson, Astradur and Vivian Liska. “Introduction: Approaching Modernism.”
Modernism. Amsterdam: John Benjamin, 2007. 1-8. Print.
Featherstone, Mike. Consumer Culture & Postmodernism. London: Sage,1991. Print.
Fischman, E. Gustavo and Peter Mc Laren. “Rethinking Pedagogy and the Gramscian
and Freirean Legacies: From Organic to Committed Intellectuals or Critical
Pedagogy, Commitment and Praxis.” Cultural Studies: Critical
Methodologies. 425.5 (2005): 425-446. Print.
Foster, Hal. Introduction. The Anti-Aesthetic: Essays on Postmodern Culture. New
York: The New Press, 1998. Print. Print.
Frampton, Kenneth. “Towards a Critical Regionalism: Six Points for Architecture
of Resistance”, The Anti-Aesthetic: Essays on Postmodern culture. Ed.Hal
Foster. New York: The New Press, 1998. 16-30. Print.
Giddens, Anthony. The Consequences of Modernity. Stanford, California: Stanford
UP, 1990. Print.
Gouldner, W. Alvin. The Future of Intellectuals and the Rise of the New Class.New
York: Oxford UP, 1982. Print.
Gramsci, Antonio. “Introduction: The Intellectuals.” Selections from the Prison
309
Notebooks. Madras: Orient Longman, 1996. 3-23. Print.
Habermas, Jurgen. “Modernity- An incomplete Project.” Trans. Seyla Ben Habib,
The Anti-Aesthetic: Essays on Postmodern culture. Ed. Hal Foster New York:
The New Press, 1998. 3 -15. Print.
---.“The Entry into Postmodernity: Nietzsche as a Turning Point” The Philosophical
Discourse of Modernity, Trans. Fredric G. Lawrence. Massachusetts, USA:
MIT Press, 1990. 83 -105. Print.
---. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category
of Bourgeois Society. Trans. Thomas Burger and Frederic Lawrence. Original
Pub. In German 1962. Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1989. Print.
Harvey, David. The Condition of Postmodernity. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1989.
Print.
Hart, William D. “Marx, Said and the Jewish Question.” Edward Said and the
Religious effects of Culture.” Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UP, 2004. 143-162.
Print.
Heise, Ursula K. “Science, Technology, and Postmodernism.” Cambridge Companion
to Postmodernism. Ed.Steven Conner. Cambridge, U.K: Cambridge UP, 2004.
136-167. Print.
Hetata, Sherif. “Dollarization, Fragmentation, and God.” The Cultures of
310
Globalization. Ed. Fredric Jameson and Masao Miyoshi. Durham: Duke UP,
1998. 273-290. Print.
Hicks, Stephen R.C. Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from
Rousseau to Foucault. Tempe, Arizona, New Berlin, Wisconsin: Scholargy
Pub. 2004. Print.
Hyussen, Andreas. “The Search for Tradition: Avant-Garde and postmodernism in
the 1970s.” Postmodernism: A Reader. Ed. and introduced by Thomas
Docherty. New York: Columbia UP, 1993. 220-236. Print.
Irr, Caren. “The American Grounds of Globalization: Jameson’s Return to
Hegel.” On Jameson: From Postmodernism to Globalization. Ed. Caren Irr
and Ian Buchanan Albany: State U of New York P, 2006. 213-240. Print.
Jacoby, Russell. The Last Intellectuals: American Culture in the Age of Academe.
New York: Basic books, 1987. Print.
Jameson, Fredric. “Postmodernism and Consumer society.” The Anti-Aesthetic:
Essays on Postmodern culture. Ed. Hal Foster. New York: The New Press,
1998. 111-126. Print.
---. “Postmodernism and Consumer Society.” The Cultural Turn: Selected Writings on
the Postmodern. London: Verso, 1998. 1-20. Print.
---. Postmodernism or The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. UK: Verso, 1991. Print.
311
---. “Foreword.” The Postmodern Condition: A Report on knowledge. Jean Francois
Lyotard. Minneapolis, USA: Univ. of Minnesota Press, 1993. vii-xxii. Print.
---. “Postmodernism and the Market”. Mapping Ideology. Ed. Slavoj
Zizek. London: Verso, 1994. 278-295. Print.
---. “Notes on Globalization as a philosophical issue.” The Cultures
of Globalization. Ed. Fredric Jameson and Masao Miyoshi, Durham: Duke
UP, 1998. 54 -77. Print.
Johnson, Paul. Intellectuals. New York: Harper & Row, 1988. Print.
Johnston, M.William. “The Origin of the Term ‘Intellectuals’ in French Novels
and Essays of the 1890s.” Journal of European Studies. 43.4 (1974): 43-56.
Print.
Judy, A.T Ronald. “Untimely Intellectuals and the University.” Boundary 2.
27.1(2000): 121-133. Print.
Kaufmann, Walter. Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist. Princeton
New Jersey: Princeton UP, 1974. Print.
Keane, John. “The Modern Democratic Revolution: Reflections on Lyotard’s The
Postmodern Condition.” Judging Lyotard. Ed. Andrew Benjamin. London
and New York: Routledge, 1992. 81-98. Print.
312
Kroker, Arthur and David Cook. The Postmodern Scene: Excremental Culture and
Hyper-Aesthetics. Montreal, Quebec: New World Perspectives, Culture Texts
Series, 1986. Print.
Kumar, Krishan. From Post-Industrial to Post-Modern Society. Oxford: Blackwell
publishers Ltd, 1995. Print.
Landry, Lorraine Y. Marx and the Postmodernism Debates: An Agenda for Critical
Theory. Westport, Connecticut. London: Praeger Pub. 2000. Print.
Lash, Scott and John Urry. The End of Organized Capitalism. Wisconsin: The U of
Wisconsin P, 1987. Print.
Lee, Congdon. “Nietzsche, Heidegger, and History.” Journal of European Studies 3
(1973): 211-217. Print.
Lemert, Charles. “Post-Structuralism and Sociology.” The Postmodern Turn: New
Perspectives in Sociological Theory. Ed. Steven Siedman. Cambridge:
Cambridge Univ. Press, 1994. 265 - 281. Print.
Lukacs, Georg. History and Class Consciousness. Trans. Rodney Livingstone. First
Pub. Hermann Luchterhand Verlag, Berlin, 1968. First English Trans. The
Merlin Press, 1971. New Delhi: Rupa, 1993. Print.
Lukes, Steven. Emile Durkheim: His Life and Work. Harmondsworth: Penguin. 1981.
313
Print.
Lyotard, Jean Francois. The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge.
Trans.Geoff Bennington and Brian Massumi. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P,
1984. Print.
Mannheim, Karl. Ideology and Utopia: An Introduction to the Sociology of
Knowledge. Trans. Louis Wirth and Edward Shils. New York: Harcourt,
Brace and World,1968. Print.
Marrouchi, Mustapha. Edward Said at the Limits. Albany: State Univ. of New
York Press, 2004. Print.
Marsh, James L. Modernity and its Discontents. New York: Fordham UP, 1992. Print.
Marx, Karl and Fredric Engels. The Communist Manifesto. First Pub. in German in
1848. First English Trans. Helen Mc. Farlane in 1850.Trans. Samuel Moore.
Hammondsworth: Penguin, 1989. Print.
---. Collected Works of Marx and Engels. Moscow: Progress publishers, 1960. Print.
---. Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 (The Paris Manuscripts). Trans.
Martin Milligan. First Pub. in English, Moscow: Progress publishers, 1959.
Print.
Masuda, Yonegi. “The Information Society as Post-Industrial Society.” Computopia.
314
Ed Forester. Bethesda MD: World Futures Society, 1985. 620-630. Print.
Miyoshi, Masao. “Globalization, Culture and the University.” The Cultures of
Globalization. Ed. Fredric Jameson and Masao Miyoshi, Durham: Duke
UP, 1998. 247-270. Print.
Morris Suzuki, T. “Robots and Capitalism.” New Left Review. 147(1984): 109-121.
Print.
O’Donnell, Patrick. New Essays on The Crying of Lot 49. Ed. O’Donnell, Cambridge
and New York: CUP, 1991. Print.
Panikkar K.N. An Agenda for Cultural Action. New Delhi: Three Essays, 2002. Print.
Parsons, Talcott and Edward A. Shils. Toward a General Theory of Action, New
York: Harper Torch Books, 1962. Print.
Perdue, William D. Sociological Theory: Explanation, Paradigm, and Ideology. Palo
Alto, CA: Mayfield Pub.1986:388-393. Print.
Pescosolido, A. Bernice and Rubin A. Beth. “The Web of Group Affiliations
Revisited: Social Life, Postmodernism and Sociology.”American Sociological
Review, Vol. 65 (2000): 52-76. Print.
Pieterse, Jan Nederveen. “Globalization as Hybridization.” The Globalization
315
Reader. Ed. Frank J. Lechner and John Boli. Oxford: Blackwell publishers
Ltd. 2000. 99-106. Print.
Podhoretz, Norman. “The Adversary Culture and the New Class.” The New Class?
Ed. B.Bruce-Briggs. New Jersey: Transaction Books, 1972. 19-31. Print.
Poster, Mark. “Introduction.” Jean Baudrillard: Selected Writings. Stanford,
California: Stanford Univ. Press, 2001. 1-13 Print..
Pynchon, Thomas. The Crying of Lot 49. First Pub. 1967. U.K: Jonathan Cape.
London: Vintage, 1996. Print.
Rifkin, Jeremy. The End of Work: The Decline of the Global Labor Force and
the Dawn of the Post-Market Era. New York: Penguin, 1996. Print.
Robbins, Bruce. “Disjoining the Left: Cultural contradictions of AntiCapitalism.”
Boundary 2. 26.3 (1999): 29-38. Print.
Rose, Nicholas. “The Death of the Social? Re-figuring the territory of Government.”
Economy and Society, Routledge, 25.3 (1996): 327-356. Print.
Robbins, Bruce. Disjoining the Left: Cultural contradictions of Anti Capitalism.
Boundary 2. 26.3 (1999): 29-38. Print.
Said, Edward. Representations of the Intellectual: the 1993 Reith Lectures. London:
Vintage, 1994. Print.
316
Siedman, Steven. “The End of Sociological Theory.” The Postmodern Turn: New
Perspectives on Social Theory. Ed.Steven Siedman. Cambridge: CUP, 1994.
119 - 139. Print.
Sheenan, Paul. “Postmodernism and Philosophy.” Cambridge Companion to
Postmodernism. Ed. Steven Conner Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press, 2004. 20-42. Print.
Sim, Stuart. “Postmodernism and Philosophy.” First Pub. 1998. UK: Icon Books.
Routledge Companion to Postmodernism. Ed. Stuart Sim. USA: Routledge,
1999. 3 - 14. Print.
Sklair, Leslie. “Sociology of the Global System.” The Globalization Reader. Ed.
Frank J. Lechner and John Boli. Oxford: Blackwell publishers Ltd. 2000. 64 -
69. Print.
Smart, Barry. Modern Conditions, Postmodern Controversies. London: Routledge,
1992. Print.
Snyder, R. Jon. “Introduction.” The End of Modernity. Gianni Vattimo. Baltimore:
John Hopkins University Press, 1988.vi-lviii. Print.
Spanos, William. “Retrieving Bob Kroetch on the Occasion of his Seventieth
Birthday ‘A Likely Story’.” The New Quarterly: New directions in Canadian
Writing. Volume XVIII, Number 1, Spring 1998. 186-200. Print.
317
Storey, John. An Introduction to Cultural Theory and Popular Culture. Athens: U of
Georgia P, 1998. Print.
Sylvia, Harrison. Pop Art and the Origins of Post-modernism. Cambridge: Cambridge
U P, 2001. Print.
Tate, John.W. “Kant, Habermas, and the ‘Philosophical Legitimation’ of Modernity.”
Journal of European Studies. 27 (1997), 281 - 322. Print.
Thompson, E.P. The Poverty of Theory. First Pub. 1995. London: The Merlin Press.
New Delhi: Aakar Books, 2010. Print.
Thompson, Willie. Postmodernism and History. New York: Palgrave Macmillan,
2004. Print.
Touraine, Alan. “Is Sociology Still the Study of Society?” Between Totalitarianism
and Postmodernity. Ed. Peter Beilharz, Gillian Robinson and John Rundell,
Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1992. 173 -198. Print.
Turner, Graeme. British Cultural Studies: An Introduction. Third Edition, London:
Routledge, 2003. Print.
Vattimo, Gianni. End of Modernity. Baltimore, USA: John Hopkins U P, 1988. Print.
Vonnegut, Kurt. Player Piano. New York: Delacorte Press / Seymour Lawrence,
1952. Delta Trade Paperback, 1999. The Dial Press, 2006. Print.
318
Wallerstein, Immanuel. “Bourgeois (ie) as Concept and Reality.” Race, Nation, Class:
Ambiguous Identities. Ed Etienne Balibar & Immanuel Wallerstein.London:
Verso, 1991. 135 -152. Print.
Warhol, Andy. The Philosophy of Andy Warhol: A to B and back again. New York:
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1975. Print.
Waugh, Patricia. Practicing Postmodernism reading Modernism. First Pub. U.K
1992. New York, London: Arnold, 1997. Print.
Williams, Raymond. Marxism and Literature. Oxford: Oxford U P, 1977. Print.
---. Problems in Materialism and Culture. New York: Verso, 1980. Print.
---. “Culture is Ordinary,” (1958). Resources of Hope: Culture, Democracy,
Socialism. Ed. R.Gable. London: Verso, 1989. 3 -18. Print.
---. Culture and Society (1780-1950). Harmondsworth, U K: Penguin, 1963. Print.
---. “The idea of a common culture.” (1968) Resources of Hope: Culture, Democracy,
Socialism. Ed. R.Gable London: Verso, 1989. 32 - 38. Print.
Wrong, Dennis. “Knowledge and Power: Intellectuals, Universities and the Class
Structure, The Modern Condition: Essays at Century’s End. Stanford:
Stanford U P, 1998. 114 - 130. Print.
Yergin Daniel, and Joseph Stanislaw. “The Commanding Heights: The Battle
Recommended