can u talk a bit more about what you think jameson doesn't get? (I have the same impression but I've never been able to rly articulate why(
yes! absolutely! apologies for the late reply and also the essay! also, I should clarify—I don't strictly dislike Jameson: he says a lot of things that I agree with, and my opinion on The Political Unconscious has a lot more to do with my opinion on Marx than it does Jameson. for instance, I find his claim that Marxist criticism is “the absolute horizon of all reading and all interpretaton” extremely compelling. [1] like Jameson, in my own research, I find myself absolutely entranced by the infinite varieties and potentialities of Marxist theory. on a more functional level, I do use structural Marxism on like, a daily basis, so there's also that.
likewise, when it comes to Jameson's theory of literature, I also am actually obsessed with this one quote that I'd like to share:
Religion is thus here the distorted or symbolic coming to consciousness of itself, of the human community... The religious figures then become the symbolic space in which the collectivity thinks itself and celebrates its own unity; so that it does not seem a very difficult next step, if, with Frye we see literature as a weaker form of myth or a later stage of ritual to conclude that in that sense, all literature, no matter how weakly, must be informed by what we have called a political unconscious, that all literature must be read as a symbolic meditation on the destiny of community. [2]
basically, according to Jameson, religion is indeed what Bataille would describe as “the search for a lost intimacy,” which is in turn unconsciously replicated, embodied, and transformed through the literary work. [3] so to Jameson, every text is implicitly political, which is something that I agree with on a very fundamental level, and is also phrased in a very beautiful way in this passage.
that being said: Jameson rejects, in a way that is really uncomfortable for me, Marx’s dialectic, and therefore Marx’s materialism. Jameson writes (and I don’t like this):
Marxism is, however, not a mechanical but a historical materialism: it does not assert the primacy of matter so much as it insists on an ultimate determination by the mode of production. [4]
ohhh, man. look I know a lot less than you in a lot of respects but, Jameson, I am pretty sure you are wrong. throughout his entire oeuvre, Marx is deeply concerned with the sensuous world, the real and inescapable importance of matter. in his dissertation, for instance, he describes matter as a continual folding and refolding, a dialectical process which actually allows for self-awareness and the existence of the world itself. matter in motion is Marx, is the dialectic that’s so central to the entirety of his work. for instance, in the preface to Capital, he writes that the dialectic is
a scandal and an abomination to the bourgeoisie and its doctrinaire spokesmen, because it includes in its positive understanding of what exists a simultaneous recognition of its negation, its inevitable destruction; because it regards every historically developed form as being in a fluid state, in motion, and therefore grasps its transient aspect as well; and because it does not let itself be impressed by anything, being in its very essence critical and revolutionary. [5]
here’s a little diagram of the dialectic that expresses the process as a negation and elevation, production and consumption, existence and essence: [6]
it’s an evolving, iterative process, which I think has truly transformative, radical implications for the reading of the literary text, but sadly one that Jameson appears to be largely uninterested in. instead, he is more concerned with the use of the Greimas rectangle as a hermeneutic tool. here’s an example using the sacred and profane, which I’ve filled out with various adjectives. [7]
so, on a very material level, the Greimas rectangle is predicated on binary opposites and physically closed off, which should stand in sharp contrast to the image of the dialectic I’ve provided. from just a pedagogical perspective, I’ve met a lot of people who take issue with the Greimas square. like, I am not the only one who doesn’t want students to base their hermeneutical approach to literature on binary opposites and logical operators. #sorrynotsorry
Jameson does acknowledge that most Marxists view the rectangle as fundamentally anti-dialectical, but he simultaneously claims that it can be “reappropriated for a historicizing and dialectical criticism by designating it as the very locus and model of ideological closure.” [8] I take issue with the word “closure” here. the dialectic, as Marx himself understands it, actively resists closure, conclusion, neat resolution, because it is cyclical and iterative, in a state of constant motion and metabolism. as I mentioned earlier, Marx actively describes the dialectic as transient and fluid.
frankly, I feel that Jameson just doesn’t understand the potency or function of Marx’s dialectic. the kind of logical (or ideological) closure that Jameson seeks throughout The Political Unconscious is just fundamentally incompatible with Marx himself, which is deeply problematic, because this book has been used as a pedagogical tool basically since it was published. in essence, I’m truly not sure that The Political Unconscious produces truly critical, original thought, which I feel strongly should be the goal of literary theory as a discipline. if we want our students to think dialectically—and I very much think we do!—we need to actually teach the dialectic. so, tldr, I think The Political Unconscious just doesn’t fully grasp the potency of Marx’s dialectical materialism, and that makes me very sad.
Jameson, The Political Unconscious, 17.
Ibid., 70.
Bataille, "General Economy," 57. likewise, Bataille argues that man is a fundamentally religious animal, which... if you're not ripping your hair out over him giving that as a definition and then saying that... idk what to say.
Jameson, The Political Unconscious, 45.
Marx, Preface to the Second Edition of Capital, 103.
c.f. Nail, Marx in Motion, 34.
c.f. Hébert, “The Semiotic Square,” 2. if anyone has any ideas for my Greimas square... please hit me up, I desperately wanna hear them.
Jameson, The Political Unconscious, 47.
