Liu Kang and Fredric Jameson

Work: Politics, Ideology, and Literary Discourse in Modern China: Theoretical Interventions and Cultural Critique 

Authors: Liu Kang and Xiaobing Tang (with a foreword by Fredric Jameson)

Link: http://books.google.com/books?id=0tqn4W3ohgQC&pg=PA19&lpg=PA19&dq=fredric+jameson+politics+ideology+and+literary+discourse+in+modern+china&source=web&ots=NVKrdelLP8&sig=-fBJVLQF10_Sg7OVTlii7LpsJCo&hl=en#PPP10,M1

     In the work Politics, Ideology, and Literary Discourse in Modern China by Liu Kang and Xiaobing Tang, Fredric Jameson writes a forward prompting readers to look into the possibility of China starting over, reinventing its culture yet again, in an effort to warm readers up for the deep, engaging theories and philosophies of Liu Kang and Xiaobing Tang later on. Jameson points out that despite the past trend of cultural rebirths ending in cul de sacs, for China to make a fresh start now would be easier and much more inclined to succeed because of the obliteration of tradition from the past revolutions. Generally, Jameson focuses on the traditional place of hegemony in Chinese culture and China and the impact of euro-centrism stating that, “Intellectuals confront opportunities and can have a sense of mission instructively different from obtains in Eastern Europe, where a dogmatic belief in Western political and economic paradigms is coupled with an utter loss of hope in the prospects for modernization as a total social process.” 

     In the forward, Jameson speaks of the third world intellectuals highly and often to demonstrate his belief that they, the young generation of literary theorist scholars of the PRC (including their colleagues in Hong Kong and Taiwan), despite the effects on hegemony and the obliteration of the bourgeoisie during Mao’s communist reign, will be the ones to see fully the crippling effects of western influence from the past and use that wisdom to prevent more cultural imperialistic attacks in the future. He states that, “As for the traditions of pre modern national culture, socialism clearly broke the mould of those patterns, only later on obligingly breaking the mould of its own (Maoist) ones.” Jameson makes many predictions as to what may happen in Chinas future, especially what with the freedom of intellectuals now, but also subtly (yet lengthily) illustrates his faith in the theory that revolution is a counter analytical measure in the debate of a uniform globalistic system of modernity. Jameson, as well as Liu Kang (which is probably why he mentions Jameson so often in his essay on Modernity in China), both firmly believe that a fundamental aspect of revolution involves questioning whether the system in effect is correct and just…essentially this unrelenting curiosity debating what is best by the cultural revolutionaries eventually and inevitably leads to change, i.e. revolution. 

     In Kang’s essay, ‘Debates about Modernity in China’ in the book The Cultures of Globalization, Kang quotes Jameson saying that, “We need a non-Euclidean geometry to conceptualize a space where China is situated. A global or geographical term is needed for the ways in which chronological nonsynchronicity manifests itself in a spatial and even national form.” This strongly exemplifies the politically liberal character of both Kang and Jameson suggesting that China develop a political, economic and cultural structure that which is a sturdy framework yet not strictly by the book liberal or Western (to preserve the traditional culture of China and it’s lengthy history.) Essentially one of the main points both texts emphasis is the conflict presented by the culturally imperialistic ways of the West on China and the fact that modernity in some ways does exist in the country therefore there must be an alternative to Westernized, capitalistic globalization. Although some Western culture is inevitable, media should be monitored and questioned to form a semi resistance in efforts to prevent corruption of the system. Neither author pushes any one specific form of government, but rather pushes their faith in any system that uses checks and balances to prevent corrupt, fraudulent practices. 

     When describing revolution among many things pertaining to identity, nationalism, modernism etc…rather than audaciously advising the adoption of a set standard framework, Jameson often uses a viewpoint heavily influenced by philosophy (especially, in this text, in relation to subjectivity and political revolution.) To lead into a heavy philosophical section of subjectivity regarding political structure in his forward, Jameson first begins to explain his opinion on postmodernism with the statement, “Unlike modernism, however which was specifically Western and marked as an import, postmodernism in its very nature can and always is home-grown, its pluralist celebration of difference constituting an immediate authorization of local cultural production over imports, whether from the outside or from the national power centers themselves. Nor can the theory of postmodernism be said to be Western exactly, for it arrived in Europe as an import…” this further exemplifies (pertaining to previous statements above) his feeling that there is always, at least a partial anyway, alternative to 100% cultural, political and economic reform. When speaking of identity Jameson often speaks of the ‘center’ and explains that even “decentered” subjects may obtain a powerful identity. He later goes on to say that the center has something to learn from the outer margin and that essentially all the ‘center’ is is a constitutive blindness repressing all the utmost political importance’s within itself identified as ‘nationalisms;’ therefore Chinese national subject is a derivative of the psychic or subjective and it is because of this intervention on debates over subjectivity and identity that has led China to search for an alternative rather than look at the possibility of effective difference outside in other social formations and other systems of production. 

On the Author (of the Forward)

Fredric Jameson

     Fredric Jameson is a contemporary neo-Marxist writer and a literary critic with strong roots in politics and philosophy. First focusing his writing and studies on the work of Jean-Paul Sartre, Jameson developed a reputation as being an anarchist-like intellectual against the establishment of literature and structural literary criticism. Jameson began thinking outside of the box and took on a new perspective truly his own when writing and analyzing the work of others. In the 1960’s he began studying and published several works on Marxism, capitalism, postmodernity, fascism etc…he added a branch of high political tone to his intellectually blooming philosophical tree of thought. Although he emphasized many different dimensions of thought in his works, he often focused on the way literary works are placed in historical sequences and analyzed the way history affects and creates literary work…thus his works on predicting the effects of globalization by comparing the past of a country with the past of a previously similar country plus given variable plus outcome of said latter country. Jameson’s theology and overall intellect have made many important contributions to the scholarly society of politics and philosophy. He urges readers to think deeper and more abstractly about contemporary issues and justifies and rationalizes a firm case in even the most ambiguous of debates.