"On Jameson: From Postmodernism to Globalism" (Book Note)

 

On Jameson: From Postmodernism to Globalism  presents a remarkably consistent collection, featuring noteworthy contributions by various scholars, including Caroline Lesjak on Jameson’s method, Roland Boer on metacommentary, Vitaly Chernetsky on Jameson’s post-Soviet reception, Ian Buchanan and Imre Szeman on the concept of national allegory, Caren Irr on Jameson’s American dialectic, and Philip Wegner on the function of style in Jameson.

 

However, it seems that the editors might have aspired to a more ambitious goal: to make a generational statement not merely about Jameson as a figure but about the conceptual apparatus he meticulously developed throughout his extensive career.

 

The most persuasive approach to achieve this would be to advance the conceptual apparatus, exploring new directions and applying it to fresh material. In other words, the focus should be on writing more "from Jameson" than "on Jameson," thus remaining true to the essence of Jameson's work by extrapolating it beyond the man himself. Yet, the majority of the authors in this volume, except for Robert Seguin's distinctly Jamesonian contribution and a somewhat unsteady piece by Michael Rothberg, choose to orbit around Jameson's figure. While the overall quality of these essays is high, their collective presentation might unintentionally convey a sense of assembling a "defense of Jameson."

 

Notably, some of the finest essays in the collection, such as Ian Buchanan’s "National Allegory Today" and Imre Szeman’s "Who’s Afraid of National Allegory," both previously published elsewhere, explicitly adopt a defensive stance. While these defenses are well-argued and, in some instances, justified, their amalgamation in this volume, alongside other evaluative essays, risks suggesting that Jameson primarily requires defenders—a notion that diverges significantly from the actual case.

 

If the objective is to preserve the brilliant core of Jameson's work, particularly his infamous essay "Third-World Literature in the Era of Multinational Capitalism," it might be more productive to build upon its fundamental insights rather than expending considerable energy in defending its every aspect. Contributions like those by Szeman and Buchanan, which are cogent and correct in their arguments, were cause for silent cheers when originally presented as journal articles. However, their overall impact in this collection, alongside several other evaluative essays, inadvertently implies a perceived need for defenders of Jameson, a perspective that may not accurately reflect the broader context.

 

 

While not all essays in the collection unconditionally champion Jameson, the critical ones inevitably become part of a larger pro/con dialogue. Roland Boer contributes one of the more intriguing critical pieces, presenting a compelling and elegant argument. Boer contends that Jameson's method operates in two distinct directions. First, it serves as a "translation mechanism" for navigating various critical discourses, treating each as a language with its own efficiencies but without inherent superiority. Second, within this array of discourses, Marxism is positioned as superior and the ultimate horizon, transcending all others. Boer identifies a contradiction, suggesting that Jameson cannot simultaneously engage in the neoliberal marketplace of ideas and advocate for a paleomarxist master narrative. However, Boer's interpretation overlooks Jameson's metaphorical framing of the critical space as a battleground—a "Homeric battlefield." Here, each discourse seeks to subsume the others, a process akin to negation in dialectics. The assertion of Marxism as an untranscendable horizon is not a logical proposition but an expression of will, where metacommentary serves as a tool or weapon. In this context, metacommentary incorporates the desire embedded in the analysis as part of the object of analysis, echoing Hegelian dynamics.

 

In another critical essay, Evan Watkins argues that Jameson's method doesn't yield a usable framework for others; it marks a brilliant dead end. Disagreeing with Watkins, the response posits that refuting such a claim, particularly damaging for a critic deeply invested in history, requires more than engaging in the realm of ideas. Jameson doesn't need defenders against this assertion; instead, what he requires are intellectual heirs and, using a different metaphor, comrades in arms. Fortunately, Jameson has a network of supporters and fellow thinkers worldwide, including contributors within the volume. However, this might not be readily apparent from the perspectives presented in the book.