Page 176 - Contemporary Cultural Theory 3rd edition
P. 176

ContCultural Theory Text Pages  4/4/03  1:42 PM  Page 167





                                      Postmodernism and cultural theory



                     1976). As such, they were fated to become direct casualties of the
                     twin totalitarianisms of Nazism and Stalinism, both of which
                     subscribed to a determinedly—not to say lethally—anti-
                     modernist cultural politics. Driven into exile in the United States,
                     what survived in New  York was an increasingly successful
                     commodification of avant-garde style, increasingly bereft of
                     avant-garde social purpose. This was ‘post-modernism’ in the
                     most obvious of senses, that of the ‘high’ culture that survived
                     after modernism, a culture clearly dating from the 1940s. Re-
                     located geographically from Europe to America and sociologically
                     from the avant-garde to the mainstream, this was modernism as
                     a commercial enterprise.
                       ‘Post-modernism’ in this sense is grudgingly acknowledged
                     even by those most hostile to the term’s more generalising imp-
                     lications: Alex Callinicos, for example, agreed that the ‘postwar
                     stabilization of capitalism left the few still committed to avant-
                     garde objectives beached’ (Callinicos, 1989, p. 60); Perry Anderson
                     that ‘the Second World War... cut off the vitality of modernism’
                     (Anderson, 1992, p. 37).  As Fredric Jameson nicely observed
                     of an earlier version of this last essay: ‘whatever... Anderson
                     . . . thinks of the utility of the period term—postmodernism—his
                     paper demonstrates that . . . the conditions of existence of
                     modernism were no longer present. So we are in something else’
                     (Jameson, 1988, p. 359). As Anderson would later concede, this
                     something else is postmodernism. As such, it is best understood
                     neither as a distinctive style nor as a distinctive set of themes, but
                     rather as a distinctive social relation between art and capitalism.
                     In short, postmodernism is modernism stripped of its avant-garde
                     redemptive functions. As we shall see, this change also implied
                     a radical transformation in the relationship between modernism
                     and what was variously described as the mass media, mass
                     civilisation or popular culture.



                     After modernity
                     What, then, of postmodernity as distinct from postmodernism?
                     Crucially, ‘postmodern’ meant after the Second World War: the
                     generations that attempted to theorise these many and varied

                                                 167
   171   172   173   174   175   176   177   178   179   180   181