Fredric Jameson in Vancouver, or, Why we can't have World Politics

On Thursday night I was able to attend a lecture by renown literary and cultural theorist Fredric Jameson This was more exciting due to the fact I am in the process of reading his latest book; Valences of the Dialectic. I found the talk very enjoyable; it was clear, concise, and provided a good introduction of Jameson's views on postmodernism (or post-modernity as he would prefer).

To Jameson, post-modernity is a product of the current stage of capitalist development. Post-modern society is a symptom of changes in the mode of production, particularly, the move from industrial/production capitalism to finance capitalism. Also, and I believe very important to an understanding of Jameson's argument, is while these ideas are products of late-capitalism this does not provide us an excuse to dismiss them outright. Rather we need to engage with them dialectically.

Throughout the talk, Jameson gave numerous examples of how post-modernity is represented, in art, politics, and economics, as well as a brief outline of some the key features of post-modernity. One particular idea that he focused on was that of the "singularity." Particularly as it is represented in financial derivatives.

A financial derivative is a combination of financial instruments designed primarily to mitigate risk. (An instrument of instruments!) In this sense derivatives are a singularity. They represent a coming together of financial instruments, at one time, and for one specific purpose. Consequently, they remain next to impossible to regulate as each one is a unique set of relationships designed for a specific purpose. Another example of singularities referenced by Jameson were art installations, which have a similar uniqueness in regards to their position, within time, space, & human understanding.

While the term singularity may be an apt description of Financial derivatives and the kind of relationships currently produced under finance capitalism. It is ultimately unsatisfactory politically. Towards the end of the talk, Jameson discussed the current difficulty we have conceptualising contemporary society in any meaningful way. His evidence of this fact was that we do not properly have a world politics. In a world of globalization, complex one-time only financial instruments, and the immense power of finance capitalism our current conceptual frameworks do not allow us to organize in any meaningful way. In short, we are stuck with the political tools of modernism while trying to effect change in a thoroughly post-modern world.

How then does an awareness of these "singularities" help us in this regard. I would argue that it doesn't. It may provide us with a description of what is going on, but does nothing to assist us in conceptualizing and understanding financial capitalism. I am curious as to whether Jameson believes this task is possible, or even desirable, with his clear distrust of concepts, grand-narratives, and his denial of both universals and particulars.

Hopefully, reading his most recent book will shed some additional light on these matters. However, if Jameson is right, this leaves us with two options. Either contemporary capitalism has become so complicated that we will never be able to conceptualize it in a way that can provoke meaningful change, or, we haven't done it yet and are too busy chasing our tails to proceed on this task in any meaningful way.

Sooooooo....in conclusion, don't chase your tail as you may get bit.