scholarly journals The real(modern)ist novel

Literator ◽  
1999 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 17-30
Author(s):  
H. Eid

This article aims to argue that the distinction in both meaning and social function between “realism” and “modernism” lies in their different positions in the economic system of capitalism. The focus point of the article is “modernism” as the cultural logic of monopoly, imperialist capitalism - a logic that never meant a “break away” from “realism”. The article's dialectical and historical approach to James Joyce's modern text A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man never accepts the internal modernist logic of the text, i.e. the complete autonomy of a work of art.Drawing on Fredric Jameson’s hermeneutics of ideology and Edward Said’s dialectical criticism, the article focuses on the ideological components of A Portrait and will explore its modernity in relation to the political economy of the world that has produced it. Moreover, it will show how A Portrait, as a modernist text, has affiliations with wider fields of power and action.

1999 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 67-86
Author(s):  
Mustafa Koylu

The article identifies the global growth of the war industry and weapons trade along with inequitable distribution of wealth and unjust econom­ic systems as major reasons for the tack of peace and prosperity every­where in the world. The article discusses the political economy of war and its implications on the socioeconomic elements of society. The paper illustrates through an economic evaluation of the Gulf War and the Iran-Iraq War the enormous damage that modem weapons and modem wars can burden a nation and its civilian population. The arti­cle does not offer any specific strategies to deal with either the ravages of the war industry during war as well as during peace, or with the inherent inequity in the economic system. But the author hopes that the awareness of these problems and their incredibly devastating conse­quences will exhort everyone into address them.


1996 ◽  
Vol 75 (4) ◽  
pp. 140
Author(s):  
Richard N. Cooper ◽  
Bernard Hoekman ◽  
Michel Kostecki

Author(s):  
W. W. Rostow

I have tried in this book to summarize where the world economy has come from in the past three centuries and to set out the core of the agenda that lies before us as we face the century ahead. This century, for the first time since the mid-18th century, will come to be dominated by stagnant or falling populations. The conclusions at which I have arrived can usefully be divided in two parts: one relates to what can be called the political economy of the 21st century; the other relates to the links between the problem of the United States playing steadily the role of critical margin on the world scene and moving at home toward a solution to the multiple facets of the urban problem. As for the political economy of the 21st century, the following points relate both to U.S. domestic policy and U.S. policy within the OECD, APEC, OAS, and other relevant international organizations. There is a good chance that the economic rise of China and Asia as well as Latin America, plus the convergence of economic stagnation and population increase in Africa, will raise for a time the relative prices of food and industrial materials, as well as lead to an increase in expen ditures in support of the environment. This should occur in the early part of the next century, If corrective action is taken in the private markets and the political process, these strains on the supply side should diminish with the passage of time, the advance of science and innovation, and the progressively reduced rate of population increase. The government, the universities, the private sector, and the professions might soon place on their common agenda the delicate balance of maintaining full employment with stagnant or falling populations. The existing literature, which largely stems from the 1930s, is quite illuminating but inadequate. And the experience with stagnant or falling population in the the world economy during post-Industrial Revolution times is extremely limited. This is a subject best approached in the United States on a bipartisan basis, abroad as an international problem. It is much too serious to be dealt with, as it is at present, as a domestic political football.


Author(s):  
Nicola Phillips

This chapter focuses on the political economy of development. It first considers the different (and competing) ways of thinking about development that have emerged since the end of World War II, laying emphasis on modernization, structuralist, and underdevelopment theories, neo-liberalism and neo-statism, and ‘human development’, gender, and environmental theories. The chapter proceeds by exploring how particular understandings of development have given rise to particular kinds of development strategies at both the national and global levels. It then examines the relationship between globalization and development, in both empirical and theoretical terms. It also describes how conditions of ‘mal-development’ — or development failures — both arise from and are reinforced by globalization processes and the ways in which the world economy is governed.


2020 ◽  
pp. 030582982093706
Author(s):  
Isaac Kamola

Why does IR scholarship seem so resistant to travel into other disciplinary spaces? To answer this question, I look at the tendency for scholars within our discipline to talk to the discipline, about the discipline, and for the discipline. We obsess over ‘IR’ and, in doing so, reify IR as a thing. I turn towards Edward Said’s arguments about the worldliness of texts, and how reification shapes how ideas travel. I then provide two illustrations of how scholars have reified IR as a thing: Robert Cox’s approach to critical theory and Amitav Acharya’s call for a ‘Global IR’. In both cases, contrary to expectation, the authors reify IR as a thing, portraying the discipline as distinct from the world. IR is treated as something with agency, ignoring how disciplinary knowledge is produced within worldly institutions. I conclude by looking at three strategies for studying worldly relations in ways that refuse to reify the discipline: showing disloyalty to the discipline, engaging the political economy of higher education, and seeking to decolonise the university. Rather than reifying IR, these strategies help us to engage our scholarly work in a way that prioritises worldly critical engagements within our disciplinary community, and the world.


2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 307-325
Author(s):  
Yinxing Hong

PurposeThe socialist political economy with Chinese characteristics reflects the characteristics of ushering into a new era, and the research object thereof shifts to productive forces. Emancipating and developing productive forces and achieving common prosperity become the main theme. Wealth supersedes value as the fundamental category of economic analysis.Design/methodology/approachThe theoretical system of socialist political economy with Chinese characteristics cannot proceed from transcendental theories but is problem-oriented. Leading problems involve development stages and research-level problems.FindingsThe economic operation analysis is subject to the goal of optimal allocation of resources with micro-level analysis focused on efficiency and macro-level analysis focused on economic growth and macroeconomic stability also known as economic security. The economic development analysis explores the laws of development and related development concepts in compliance with laws of productive forces. The new development concepts i.e. the innovative coordinated green open and shared development drive the innovation of development theory in political economy.Originality/valueAccordingly, the political economy cannot study the system only, but also needs to study the problems of economic operation and economic development. Therefore, the theoretical system of the political economy tends to encompass three major parts, namely economic system, economic operation and economic development (including foreign economy). The basic economic system analysis needs to understand the relationship between public ownership and non-public ownership, between distribution according to work and factor payments, and between socialism and market economy from the perspective of coexistence theory, thus transforming institutional advantage into governance advantage.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document