Asignificantamountofcontemporaryculturalcriticismhascometobeshapedaroundthesocalled‘problematicofmodernity’.Adensecomplexofdebatesandcontroversieshascriss-crossed,developed,orreactedagainstcategoriesandorientationsthatwereevolvedbytheFrankfurtSchool(especiallyAdorno)ontheonehand,amidsttheunrelentingbidofpost-structuralisttheoryforhegemonyincultural‘discourse’,ontheother.Thisarticlewillinnowayattempttosummariseorsystematisethiscomplex.ltwillattempttofocusonalimitednumberofideasthatarecrucialtoit,inordertoconsidercertainassumptionsthatneedtobeclearlyeitheracceptedorrejected.

Throughtheconceptionofmodernity,theoristswanttoconcentrateoncertainformsofsocialrelationshipandexperiencethatpredominatenotonlyinbourgeoissociety,butalsointhosenon-capitalistsocietiesthatperpetuateanalogousorbasicallysimilarformsofurbanism,industrialism,secularizationandstatification.Permeatingtheconceptinitscontemporaryusagesisatragicmood,rootedinaperceptionthattheMarxistprojecthasfailed—thathistoryhasnotseenan‘aufhebung’ofalienation,fragmentationandbourgeoisreason,andthattheMarxistmodeofcritiqueaspartofpraxishasexhausteditspossibilities.Thefundamentaldoubt,withinsomuchMarxismasalsooutsideit,isthatperhapsnosocialandexperientialtransformationcouldevercreatearationalsocietyoffreeindividuals.

Letusbeginbyconsideringtheconceptoftheindividual.Notwithstandingstructuralism,itisclearthatMarxismneedsatheoryoftheindividual.lwillattemptabriefsummaryofsomeofthefeaturesofthis.Thereare,inthevarioushistoricallyspecificsocio-economicformations,correspondinglyvarioustypesofindividual.Onthisperfectlyconcretelevel,differentformsofindividualityarestructuredbydifferentsocieties:characteristicpsychicstructures,patternsofbehaviour,consciousnessandexperience,aredeterminedbyandsimultaneouslyensurethereproductionofspecificformsofsocialorganization.Forexample,wecantalkofthegeneralcharacteristicsoftheindividualinsimpleorprimitivecommunities.ForMarxthisindividualmaintainedanintegratedpersonalityatthelevelprimitivesocietymadepossible.Justaslabourisnotyetorganisedintoanalienateddivision,sotheexperienceandfacultiesofindividualsarenotyetfragmented.Apartfromroledistinctionsbasedonsex,eachmemberofsocietyiscapableofundertakingallthebasicactivitiesfoundinthatsociety,justashe/sheattainswhateverknowledgeisengenderedinit.Thisindividualisoneinwhichthediversepsychicfunctionsarenotyetdifferentiallyrepressed.lfweworkthroughtheimplicationsofthisconceptionintermsofanhistoricised,dialecticallyreworkedpsychoanalysis,wemightsaythatcognitivethoughtdoesnotyetdominateaconsciousego,whilstemotion,intuition,andsexualityarenotyetrepressedintoanunconscious.Yetprimitivesociety,thoughunalienatedwithin,isoverridinglyalienatedbeforenaturewhichitcanhardlyatallcontrolorcomprehend;thuswemightconsidertheprimitiveindividualasrepressedinhis/herentirebeing-in-the-world.Thoughwemaytalkofconsciousandunconscious,thepsychicprocessesarenotyetsplitandchannelledintodisparatedomains.

lnclasssocietiesanalienateddivisionoflabourisaccompaniedbyfragmentationsofconsciousnessandpsyche.Particularformsofunintegratedindividualityreflectandactivelysustainhistoricallyspecificsocialrelations,institutionsandstructuresofbelief.Inbourgeoissociety,inspiteofdifferentiationsbetweenclassesandthesexes,therearecertainstructuralcharacteristicsoftheindividualthataregeneral:aconsciousegoharbouringthementalprocessesofrationalityandmoralitymediatesbetweentheouterworldofsocietyandnatureandtherepressedunconsciousprocesseswhichincludesensibilityandsexuality.Thereifiedprocessesofcapitalistsociety-inproductionandallinstitutions-aremirroredintheinstrumentalrationalityofthisreifiedconsciousness.Theabstract,mechanisticmaterialismofwesternscienceisthecounterparttoasocialmetabolismwithnaturethatdominates,dissects,andusesitasmerethingtoexploit.TheprojectofMarxismistheself-transformationofsocietyintoaconditionofclassless,unalienated,self-regulationofexistenceindynamicharmonywithnature.Society’sself-developmentasconscious‘freelyassociatedproducers’entails‘all-roundedsocialindividuals’.Itinvolvesindividuation:thoughnotatermofMarx’sthisdenotesapsychicallyintegrated,balanced,unique,concreteindividuality:aformofindividualwhoseself-fulfilmentisnotinconflictwiththatofothers,norwithsociety’stransparent,emancipatorypraxis.

Discussionoftheindividualfrequentlyconfusestheseconceptionsleading,Ibelieve,tofalsetheoreticaldilemmas.Often,acritiqueofbourgeoisindividualismisseentonecessitatethetheoreticalrejectionofindividualityasacategory:actuallytoimplythattherearenoactiveindividualsinanysociety—past,presentorfuture!Liberalideology’smystifiedreflectionofthemarketpresentsthefragmented,alienatedindividualofbourgeoissocietynotasdeterminedinactivitybyreifiedprocessesofcapitalaccumulationandlabour,butasconscious,free,andself-determined.Thejustdesiretocriticisethisideologyinallitsformsseemsultimatelytounderliestructuralism’sandpost-structuralism’srejectionofallsubjectsofhistory,perse.Thatindividualsareconstitutedbycapitalistsocialprocessestoperformunreflexivelyintherolesassignedtothem,isseentoentailthatindividualsnevercouldbesubjectsoftheiractivityandthought.Marx’shistorico-ethicalconceptofcommunistindividualityisrepulsed.

InAdorno,ontheotherhand,emergestheunarguedviewthatthereisnoindividuationwithoutrepression;thatthedevelopmentofrationalitynotonlyhasbeen,butmustinevitablybeassociatedwithdominationoverotherhumanurges—asforNietszcheandFreud.Thisviewalsoassumesthatinstrumentalrationalityistheonlyformthatreasoncantake:thatthecritiqueoftechnocraticcapitalistscienceandthedominationofinnerandouternature,mustculminateintherejectionofanyreason.Suchthinkinglosessightofaconcreteindividuation,afreeselfengagedinbalancedthought,activity,sensibilityandsexuality—informsquitedifferentfromthosecharacteristicofcapitalistsociety.

ThisarisespartlyfromtheFrankfurtSchool’stendencytobelievetherewasanautonomous,wholeindividualintheearlyphasesofbourgeoissociety:asforGoldmann’s‘problematicoftheindividual’thereistoogreatareadinesstoacceptbourgeoisliberalism’sviewoftheindividualinthelateeighteenthandearlynineteenthcenturies,whilstthenewkindsoffragmentationofindividualsandtheir‘integration’intoreified‘organizedcapitalism’areconfusedwithanobscure

notionofthe‘disappearanceoftheindividual’.Thiscontradictoryandpessimisticconclusionseemstoconcurwithcurrentbourgeoisideologies:thatthefuturecanallowoneofonlytwokindsofrelationbetweenindividualandsociety:eithertheabstractfreedomandindividualityof‘liberal’bourgeoissocietyortotalitariancollectivismwithitsimplosionof‘privatelife’.

Structuralism’s‘problematicofthesubject’beginswithamisidentificationofMarxism’sclaimtoachieveatranscendentsynthesisandrealisationfrommechanicalmaterialismandidealism,intoanewsocialontologyofactiveagencyanddeterminedstructure,withanon-Marxist‘humanism’.Althusser’sinitialmisidentificationofeconomistic‘reductionism’,withanallegedresidueofHegelian‘essence’and‘appearance’inMarxledtotherejectionofall‘Hegelian’categoriesinMarxism:inparticulartotality,dialecticaldevelopmentalprocessandactivity.InsteadofrescuingMarxismfrommechanisticdeterminismandidealism,structuralismrecreatedtheminmoresophisticatedform,throughitsconceptionofsocietyasasetofexternallyrelated‘relativelyautonomous’practices.Accordingtoitstheoryofideology,subjectsare‘interpolated’intoDurkheimiantypesofstructure,inaprocesswhichmustalwaysbeunconscious.

Subsequently,post-structuralistshave‘decentred’allprocessesinsuchawaythattheideaofindividualsexistingincapitalistsocietyatallisprecluded,whilstnocontrastcanbemadebetweenthealienatedindividualsofthatsocietyandtheactivesubjectsofapossiblefutureone.Insteadofcapitalistsocietybeingmadeupofpeoplewhoseexperienceandpsychicstructurearefragmentedandreified,whothinkinideologicalformsthatarecompatiblewiththereproductionofcapitalism,wearepresentedwithareified‘ideologicallevel’whichisuntranscendable.Revolutionarypraxiscannolongerbeunderstoodastheappropriationofknowledgebysocietyasawhole,tomakethoughtpenetratereality,makesocialrealitytransparentandcollectivelywilled,thusconstitutingindividualsasauthenticsubjects.Post-structuralismtakesreification,fragmentationandfetishisedhumanrelationsasinherentinanysocialexistence.Theprocessofproductionofa‘dispersed’subjectisnotreadasthedominantformofexperienceincapitalistsociety,butasaneternalontologicalcondition.

Adorno’snegativedialecticandpost-structuralistdeconstructionreactagainstthe‘optimism’of‘traditionalMarxism’,withitscategoriesofprogress,historicalpotentialandpraxis.CapitalismhasnotfulfilledMarxism’s‘promise’,buthasinsteaddevelopedreificationtoadegreebeyondthatimaginedbyMarxorevenLukács.Tothis,thesimplepointmustbemade,thatbecauserealityandexperienceincapitalistsocietyarereified,becausecommodifiedtimeisinstalledasasequenceofrepeatedinstants,ever-changingformsforaninertcontent,thisdoesnotmeanthatinrealitythereisnotalsoanunderlyingdevelopmentalprocess.Categoriesmustbedevelopedtounderstandnewlevelsofreificationandtograsphowandwhynofundamentalradicaltransformationhasoccurred,butthisisquitedistinctfromanassimilationofreificationintoourontologyandepistemology.Thuswespeakofthedefinitionofatask,notanappealto‘classicalMarxism’.Incontrasttoirrationalism,reversiontocritiqueasthecontinuousobsolescenceofstyles,theadoptionofajadedconsciousnessintoendless‘deconstruction’,weshouldbeembracingthetaskofovercomingdehistoricisation.

Atthispointwemightconsider‘Modernism’.Withinthatplethoraofculturalmovementstherewasacomplexoftendenciesincludingthedisintegrationoftherepresentationalimageandrationalnarrative,andaconcerntoexplorewhatwasnowunderstoodastheunconscious.ThevisualartsshatteredGalilean-Newtonianspaceandtime,andrecreatedtheminmyriadforms;atonalmusicbrokedowntheformalhierarchiesofwesternclassicaltonalityandcreatedfromitselementsafree,ungroundeddream-logic;poetryconstructednew,condensedimage-mosaicsfromlanguage.Modernismortheavant-gardewastheintegrallyentwinedculturalconcomitanttothetransitionfromliberaltomonopolycapitalism,inwhichpost-RenaissancescienceandcultureunderwentatransformationevenmoreradicalperhapsthanthatconnectedwiththeIndustrialRevolution.Initsreactionto,furtheranceof,andexplorationoffragmentationandreification,Modernismborecomplexandcontradictoryrelationstosocialandpoliticalpractice.Therewastheelitist-fasciststrand,angryatadvancedcapitalismprecludingthepossibilityofahighartfirmlyembeddedinanorganic,hierarchicalsociety;YeatsorT.S.Eliotforexample,whowantedtocreateanewaestheticofassociation,fromadialecticbetweenallculturesofthepastandnewmythsimaginedintothefragmentationofthepresent.Therewasthetendencywhichinretrospectmightbeseenasanaccommodationtothenewmegalopolis:thetechnicismofConstructivismandMeyerhold’stheatre,theBauhaus,andassociatedplanningUtopiaswhichareclosetoSocialDemocracy’sprojectofhumanisinglifewithincapitalism.

Buttherewasalsothehumanist—socialistself-emancipatorymoment.ForallitsambiguitiesIthinkthiswasthecruxofSurrealism.Surrealismwantedarevolutionaryintegrationofthehumanbeing,liberatingher/hiscreative‘speciesbeing’.Inthemovementofdreamintorealityandviceversa,iturgedapraxistoovercomethesplitbetweenconsciousandunconscious,instatingallindividualsasfreeandworld-transforming.Asindissolublefromtherevolutionarytransformationofcapitalistformsofproductionandbureaucraticdominationintoaclasslesscommunityinconscious,collectivecontroloversociallife,Surrealismconceivedanewpsychicorganisation,inwhichunsuppressedandundistortedsensibilitiesblendinadynamicharmonywithanunreifiedcognitiverationality.InasenseitcontinuedtheprojectofearlynineteenthcenturyRomanticism—associatedwithSchillerorShelleyforexample:thatofintegratingsciencewiththeethicofemancipation,seeingimaginationasthefunctionthatsynthesisesknowledgeandexperience.Aliberatingdevelopmentofthesensesandexperienceinallactivityandrelations,isinseparablefromaconsciousnessthattransformssciencefromreification,inhumanabstractionanddomination,intoknowledgeaspartoforganicpraxisindynamicharmonywithnature.

InhisarticleModernityversusPostmodernity(NewGermanCritique,No.22,Winter1981),HabermassympathiseswithSurrealism’schallengetothesealedandseparateddomainsofcultureinbourgeoissociety.Buthejudgesitsrevoltasfundamentallymisdirected,becauseheconsidersitsoughttotransformthewholeoflifethroughanexplosionoutwardof‘art’.Hesays:

Arationalizedeverydaylife,therefore,couldhardlybesavedfromculturalimpoverishmentthroughbreakingopenasingleculturalsphere-—art—andsoprovidingaccesstojustoneofthespecialisedknowledgecomplexes.Thesurrealistrevoltwouldhavereplacedonlyoneabstraction...

Areifiedeverydaypraxiscanbecuredonlybecreatingunconstrainedinteractionofthecognitivewiththemoral-practicalandaesthetic-expressiveelements.

Reificationcannotbeovercomebyforcingjustoneofthosehighlystylizedculturalspherestoopenupandbecomemoreaccessible(p.11).

IdisagreewithHabermasonthis.ThethrustofSurrealismwasnotmerelytoaestheticisethecognitiveandmoral-practicalbut,hearinganechofromRimbaud,to‘changelife’.Thismeantapraxisofliberationinallpolitical,economic,andcultural-psychicspheres,notaswampingofthembyonesinglesphere,theaesthetic.AswhenShelleysaid:‘Wewantthepoetryoflife’,thecallwasforthecreativetransformationofeverydimensionoflife,bringingintobeinganewmorality,anewscience,anewindividualperson,afreesociety.MyconcernisnottorescuetheSurrealistmovementfromallcriticism,buttoclaimthatitscentralintentionwasandisvalid.Aswithanymovement,thereasonsforitshistorical‘failure’donotnecessarilylieinitsbeingessentiallymisguided.Iwouldassertthatthehopefortransformationofbothcapitalistandstate-bureaucraticsocietiesentailsmoreandmoreamass,decentreddisalienation,amulti-subjectGramscianprocessofsociety’sself-emancipation,acultural—aestheticpraxisinallspheres,ofthekindelaboratedbyRudolphBahro.Thisisnotareturntobourgeoisrationalism’smythicalself,andnorcanitacceptthedualismofHabermaswherebyarevolutioncanonlyoccurincommunicativesocialpracticesseparatedfromatechnicalsphereofproductionwhichisregardedasalreadyrational,andincapableoffundamentalchange.

Wereturntothequestionsofrationalityandculturalcritique.Insteadofthe‘historicallyprogressivepotential’ofcapitalismleadingthroughrevolutiontohumanemancipation,theepochofModernismsawwar,crisis,andfascism.Apartfromthefactthattheavant-gardewasexploringpossibilitiesofconsciousnessandrealityquiteotherthanthosethatLukács’srealistaestheticdemandedorcouldencompass,itisunderstandablethatartistsmightrespondtothisexperiencenotthroughaworkingbeyondtheMarx-Lukácsrationalisttradition,butwithanimmediateexpressive,fantasticirrationality.Theoryhowever,shouldnotjettisonrationaldevelopmentinfavourofirrationalityandpurelystylisticrebellion.Thereactiontothe‘repressedcritique’ofStalinistDiamat(theoryofliberationturnedintodogmaanddehumanization),ortoeconomisticwesternMarxism,shouldbethroughcriticismrestoringtheprogressivedialectic:re-examiningitsoriginsandrecreatingitsrelationtonewreality.InsteadthereisthetendencyinAdornotoseeanyaspirationtosystematictheoryasapositivistcapitulationtoreality-as-given.TherejectionofcapitalistandSoviet—technocraticreality,andpseudo-Marxisms,slipsintoanirrationalsuspicionofthegenuineMarxistproject.Thereisasensethatithas‘letusdown’;itcannotbeseenthathowevermuchthetwentiethcenturyhasbacklashedonthepromiseofSocialism,ifthegoalisnotstilltounitetheoryandcollectivepracticethenthereisnopurposeintalkingaboutliberation,norultimatelyinengagingincriticismatall.Asalsoagainstpost-structuralism,itmustbeassertedthatbecausefragmentationadvanceseverfurtherinreality,thisisnotareasontorejecttotalityeitherasacategoryofthoughtorasarealattributeofsociety—nomatterhowfragmenteditselementsandtheconsciousnessitimmediatelyproduces.Andbyrejectingpost-structuralism’s‘texts’that

writethemselves,wedonothavetoembraceadogmatic,undialectical,naturalistictheoryofreflection.

Marxsoughttoovercomethedichotomiesoffactandvalue,ofknowledgeandexperience,incriticalthoughtandinconcretepractice.WesurelydonotwanttorejectthatprojectinfavourofeitherscientismoraNietzschean(oranyother)enthronementoftasteoverreasonandethics.Andneitherapermanentavant—gardismnorapureLukácsianartofcriticalreflectionanswerstheneedforasocietalaestheticofmasspraxis.Asocietyofrationalindividualsisoneinwhichallareengagedinimaginativecritiqueandrecreation.

TimCloudsley

GlasgowCaledonianUniversity,U.K.

Ateverybloodyuprisingsheflowerintograceandtruth:FromlaFemme100TétesbyMaxEnst,1929.