Between Standardization and Serialization: Kenneth Burke, Fredric Jameson, and Radical Criticism in the Post-Fordist Era

Author(s):  
Jason Maxwell

This chapter considers the odd status of literary and rhetorical critic Kenneth Burke within English Studies. It does so by examining a debate between Burke and Fredric Jameson that occurred in the late 1970s in the journal Critical Inquiry; careful attention to the nuances of their exchange reveals why Burke has come to occupy such a central role within the discourse of rhetorical theory but has been largely overlooked within literary and critical theory. Although Burke and Jameson share many similarities concerning methodology and a host of related issues, they ultimately split on the structural characteristics of late capitalism. Whereas Burke asserts that capitalism operates by producing conformity and standardization, Jameson argues that capitalism must be understood as a much more dynamic system. Their differences on this matter illuminate a number of underlying tensions within theoretical work produced in the humanities today.

2001 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 413-431 ◽  
Author(s):  
LAURENCE COUPE

Nearly every handbook of critical theory acknowledges Kenneth Burke (1897–1993) to be the twentieth-century North American critic who was most ahead of his time. Yet he seems to have been so ambitious that we still do not know how to place him. Indeed, it would require the space of a whole book to trace the extensive but scarcely documented impact which he has had. Concepts for which many other critics became famous may be traced back to him: ‘‘the order of words’’ (Frye); ‘‘the rhetoric of fiction’’ (Booth); ‘‘blindness and insight’’ (De Man); ‘‘narrative as a socially symbolic act’’ (Jameson); ‘‘the anxiety of influence’’ (Bloom). Indeed, it may well be that very anxiety which has led so many contemporary critics to repress his memory. But there is a change in the critical climate, corresponding to the global. This article is written in the hope that Burke will shortly be recognized as the first critic systematically to analyse culture and literature from an ecological perspective. As the dating of our epigraph indicates, he initiated this project over half a century before the rise of ecocriticism in the United States. Moreover, this was no passing phase for him; his whole career may be understood as a profound experiment in green thinking.


2019 ◽  
Vol 63 (3 (466)) ◽  
pp. 27-37
Author(s):  
Aleksander Zbrzezny

The aim of this paper is to present the main ideas of Mark Poster – an important member of Critical Theory Institute (University of California, Irvine). His theoretical work concerns contemporary French philosophy, Marxism, and media theory. Poster introduces the concept of the “mode of information” as a continuation and development of critical theory. The mode of information is rooted in Foucault’s thought, especially in the very term of discourse. Including analyses of electronical communication, it allows describing social field as a super-panopticon. According to Poster, the mode of information can be an important device to research such problems like family, leisure, work or politics.


Author(s):  
Sean Homer

Fredric Jameson (b. 14 April 1934) is North America’s leading Marxist cultural theorist and critic. He is the Knut Schmidt-Nielsen Professor of Comparative Literature, Professor of Romance Studies (French) and Director of the Institute for Critical Theory at Duke University, where he has worked since 1985. Jameson has been the recipient of many awards throughout his career; some of the most recent and prestigious include the 2012 Lifetime Achievement Award from the Modern Language Association (MLA) and the 2008 Holberg International Memorial Prize in recognition for, in the words of the awarding committee, his career-long research “on the relation between social formations and cultural forms.” Jameson was a central figure in the renaissance of Marxist literary criticism in the United States in the 1970s, and with his students at the University in California, San Diego, he helped to found the Marxist Literary Group (MLG) in 1969. In the early 1980s his essays on postmodernity and late capitalism were seminal in grounding the concept of postmodernity in transformation in contemporary capitalism and became the center of intense debates. Postcolonial critics such as Simon During criticized Jameson, and Marxist criticism generally, for his Eurocentrism and refusal to take into account the subaltern experience (see During 1987, cited under Critical Readings: Selected Articles). This may seem to be a particularly misplaced criticism of Jameson, whose work has always engaged with non-anglophone traditions, and has also been extremely influential in Latin America, China, and many other parts of the globe. In the mid-1980s, Jameson lectured in Beijing. These lectures, collected in Postmodernism and Cultural Theories (Jameson 1987, cited under Collected Essays and Lectures), were enormously influential on younger Chinese intellectuals and understandings of postmodernity in China. Since his semi-retirement, Jameson has been compiling many of his articles for a monumental six-volume project, The Poetics of Social Forms; a literary project that was first announced with the publication of Postmodernism, or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism (Jameson 1991, cited under Postmodernism) and is surely without comparison today. The exact structure of the project is not clear, but at least four volumes have been published to date: Postmodernism, or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism (1991); Archaeologies of the Future (Jameson 2005, cited under Science Fiction and Utopia); The Modernist Papers (Jameson 2007, cited under Modernism); and The Antinomies of Realism (Jameson 2013, cited under Realism). In addition, A Singular Modernity (Jameson 2002, cited under Modernism) provides “the theoretical section of the antepenultimate volume,” and a footnote in the Hegel book promises Volume 2 will be on allegory and titled Overtone: The Harmonics of Allegory. As Sara Danius described it in her address to the Holberg committee, The Poetics of Social Forms attempts to “provide a general history of aesthetic forms, at the same time seeking to show how this history can be read in tandem with a history of social and economic formations,” (see the Archives section for further details).


2020 ◽  
pp. 019145372091993
Author(s):  
J.F Dorahy

In recent years, a series of key social, political and economic events has placed the critique of capitalism very much on the theoretical agenda. Responding to these developments, many have begun to express the need for a rapprochement between social criticism and the critique of political economy. The present essay represents a contribution to the recovery of the project that was once synonymous with critical theory itself via a critical engagement with the early writings of Jürgen Habermas. Not only is Habermas’ explicit engagement with the critique of political economy among the most substantial to be found within the mainstream tradition of critical theory, his early social-theoretical insights into the emergent ‘primacy of the political’ in late capitalism can be taken as representative of a number of broader trends in late-20th-century thought which sought to go beyond the premises and categories of Marx’s economic works. Simply put, no reappraisal of the relationship between critical theory and the critique of political economy can succeed, I submit, without taking seriously Habermas’s path-breaking and wide-ranging innovations.


2015 ◽  
Vol 42 (3) ◽  
pp. 247-273 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roland Boer

This article argues that the key to Stalin’s early theoretical work on the national question may be read as an attack on culturism – the propensity to identify an intangible ‘culture’ (often with religious factors) as the basis for collective identity. Although his criticism is directed at a number of social democratic organisations at the turn of the twentieth century, it also has pertinence for today due to the persistence of culturist assumptions. Two factors are important in his criticism. The first is to define ‘nation’ in order to sideline the culturist position, although his own definition is not without its problems. The second tackles the question of the structure of the state: does one begin with ‘national culture’ or with class? Stalin proposes that class is the determining factor, which then enables a very different approach to ‘national culture’. The unexpected result is that the unity provided by a focus on the workers and peasants produces both new levels of cultural diversity and enables a stronger approach to ensuring such diversity. The approach undertaken in this article pays careful attention to Stalin’s theoretical and philosophical arguments as they appear in his written texts.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document