Fredric Jameson, |A Singular Modernity: Essay on the Ontology of the Pre...

Fredric Jameson’s exploration of modernity and modernism in A Singular Modernity challenges the conventional understanding of these concepts, asserting that modernism is largely illusory and overly reliant on capitalist structures. In his analysis, Jameson critiques modernity’s inability to deliver on its utopian promises, arguing that it functions more as a justification for the capitalist status quo than as a genuine advancement of human progress. By framing modernity as an ideological construct rather than an actual historical or philosophical breakthrough, Jameson lays the groundwork for a radical reevaluation of the term.

At the heart of Jameson’s argument is the idea that while we may develop a cluster of ideas surrounding modernity, these ideas are ultimately insufficient because they rest on problematic assumptions. These assumptions, he argues, perpetuate the capitalist status quo and surrender any possibility of imagining alternative futures. Jameson’s A Singular Modernity is dense with references to a wide array of philosophical, historical, literary, and artistic texts, ranging from ancient Greek thought to contemporary theory. His goal is to uncover the ideological underpinnings of modernism, suggesting that modernist categories such as “the new” are themselves dependent on deeper, and often hidden, ideological narratives.

One of Jameson’s key arguments is that postmodernist critiques, despite their apparent opposition to modernism, remain fundamentally tied to modernist notions of innovation and the repudiation of historical narrative. In this sense, Jameson suggests that postmodernism, with its emphasis on difference and rejection of metanarratives, still relies on modernist frameworks. For instance, he contends that thinkers like Jean-François Lyotard, who denounce historical narratives, remain caught in the logic of modernism because they fail to escape the underlying ideological narratives that shape modern thought. Museums, art galleries, and the general emphasis on “the new” continue to drive the perception that modernity is always about innovation, yet these perceptions obscure the more pervasive influence of capitalism in shaping what is considered modern.

Jameson’s understanding of modernity is rooted in his critique of capitalism and globalization. He views modernity as synonymous with the rise of global capitalism, a phenomenon that, while outwardly appearing to offer new possibilities, is in reality a continuation of the same capitalist structures that have existed for centuries. This position, which Jameson outlines in the preface of his book, frames his subsequent analysis of modernity as an attempt to challenge conventional wisdom and reveal the hidden ideological forces that sustain it. Despite this fundamental critique, Jameson attempts to approach the concept of modernity without presupposing the correctness of any particular use of the term.

One of Jameson’s most significant contributions to the study of modernity is his development of four key “maxims” that define modernity. The first of these maxims concerns the relationship between the present and the past. In its most commonly understood form, modernity is seen as a break from the past, with the present positioned as superior to earlier historical periods. However, Jameson complicates this understanding by suggesting that the dichotomy between past and present is itself a construction that breaks down upon closer examination. Rather than seeing history as a series of oppositional moments, Jameson argues that historical periods form a continuum in which each era is not inherently better or worse than those that precede or follow it. He characterizes this dynamic as the “dialectic of the break and the period,” in which breaks between historical periods ultimately transform into new periods themselves.

An illustrative example of this process can be seen in the relationship between the Renaissance and the Middle Ages. The Renaissance, according to Jameson, retroactively created the concept of the Middle Ages as a distinct historical period, despite the fact that the so-called Middle Ages only became defined in relation to the Renaissance’s construction of its own identity. This leads Jameson to his first maxim: “We cannot not periodize” . The act of dividing history into periods is unavoidable, even as the distinctions between those periods remain fluid and constructed.

Jameson’s second maxim further develops his critique of modernity by positioning it as a narrative category rather than a philosophical or conceptual one. Modernity, he argues, is not defined by any set of abstract ideas, but rather by the stories we tell about it. For instance, the rise of capitalism can be understood as a narrative in which feudalism is replaced by a new bourgeois order, just as the Nazi regime under Hitler represented a new form of German modernity. In this sense, modernity is not a concept that can be easily pinned down; instead, it is constantly rewritten and redefined according to the needs and desires of the dominant social and political forces at any given moment.

Jameson’s third maxim challenges the notion of modernity as a force that brings freedom. While modernity is often linked to the ideals of individual freedom and bourgeois democracy, Jameson suggests that these ideals are themselves ideological constructs designed to perpetuate the dominance of Western capitalism. The assumption that premodern societies were unfree and characterized by a lack of individuality serves to justify the narrative of modernity as the only pathway to freedom. However, Jameson argues that consciousness and subjectivity are ultimately unrepresentable, and that modernity cannot be fully understood through these categories. His third maxim thus asserts: “The narrative of modernity cannot be organized around categories of subjectivity; consciousness and subjectivity are unrepresentable; only situations of modernity can be narrated” .

Finally, Jameson’s fourth maxim addresses the relationship between modernity and postmodernity. He argues that postmodernism marks a break with modernity not in terms of its rejection of traditional concepts like self-consciousness, irony, or reflexivity, but in its abandonment of these ideas altogether. In the postmodern aesthetic, the emphasis on individual freedom and self-expression that characterized modernism is replaced by a sense of detachment and the loss of individualism. According to Jameson, this break reflects a broader cultural shift away from the ideals of modernity, culminating in the collapse of utopian aspirations. His fourth maxim states: “No ‘theory’ of modernity makes sense today unless it comes to terms with the hypothesis of a postmodern break with the modern” .

The second half of A Singular Modernity focuses on Jameson’s critique of artistic modernism. He examines various models of modernism as presented by thinkers such as Paul de Man, Theodor Adorno, and Clement Greenberg, ultimately concluding that modernist subjectivity is “allegorical of the transformation of the world itself, and therefore of what is called revolution” . However, Jameson also notes that modernist philosophies, particularly those influenced by Nietzsche, have embraced a form of radical depersonalization, which serves to distance individuals from the very revolutionary possibilities that modernism initially promised.

In his final analysis, Jameson argues that modernism is an American invention, shaped by the political climate of the Cold War. Late modernism, he suggests, marked the end of an era of social transformation, as the promise of modernism was left unfulfilled. Instead, modernism became tied to a culture of consumption, in which the ideals of utopia and revolution were replaced by the demands of capitalism. In this sense, Jameson concludes that modernism is not simply an incomplete project, as suggested by thinkers like Jürgen Habermas, but rather a failed one. The conceptual framework of modernity is inextricably linked to capitalism, and as a result, any true alternative to modernism must come from outside this framework, drawing on sources that imagine radically different futures.