Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture at 25 II: Closing Roundtable
Eleanor Courtemanche

Monday, September 9, 2013

[On September 6, 2013 the Unit for Criticism and Interpretive Theory held the symposium "Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture at 25 II.” Below are remarks by closing roundtable participant, Eleanor Courtemanche (English)]

Mood Economy

Written by Eleanor Courtemanche (English)

A few days ago I came across the phrase “mood economy” as a way of describing how “working class youth are privatizing happiness” (the headline of an article in the Boston Globe). “Losing hope of the American Dream,” the headline continues, “a generation hopes for inner strength instead.” Sociology researcher Jennifer Silva, a postdoc at Harvard, has just documented how a whole generation has been locked out of the traditional metrics of success—-graduating from college, getting a job with benefits, marriage—-and is focusing instead on a totally different aspirational vocabulary that can be summarized as “Getting My Shit Together.” Their “definition of adulthood” is now built on “defining and conquering emotional problems, mental illness, family chaos, addiction.” Silva suggests that this focus on the self is not only the result of the pervasive influence of therapeutic language in pop culture, but it’s a response to an environment that literally won’t let them grow up.



Now, participants in a forum dedicated to rethinking Marxism are likely to see this development not as an empowering moment of agency but as a kind of pathetic petty-bourgeois backsliding, a mere symptom of the failure of individualism. But the desires of the working classes have only intermittently included hammering through abstract political tracts. Marxists have historically been better at some moods than others: better at sternness, at criticism, at exhortations to solidarity; less attentive to tears and softness, to depression, to aesthetic delight, to things that are funny. Of the many recent works on political affect, I’ll call attention to two that try to engage with these unpromising affects: Lauren Berlant’s Cruel Optimism, which links affect to the experience of precarity, of living in a state of permanent crisis that is no longer confined to a nomadic underclass; and also Ann Cvetkovich’s Depression: A Public Feeling–-although she is trying to reclaim precisely the kind of left-melancholic affect that Jodi Dean, in our conference readings from The Communist Horizon, would have us put behind us.


Read more

Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture at 25: Theories for the New Millennium
Guest Writer: Debleena Biswas

Thursday, February 14, 2013


Cary Nelson opens the symposium
[On February 8, 2013 the Unit for Criticism & Interpretive Theory hosted its spring symposium on “Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture at 25:Theories for the New Millennium." The below contribution is from graduate student Debleena Biswas.]

Theorizing (Dis)Unities: Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture at 25

Debleena Biswas (English)

The Unit for Criticism’s symposium, Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture at 25: Theories for the New Millennium” brought together voices that attempted to ‘world’ our modes of understanding our current situation as intellectuals, theorists, and teachers in North American universities. Some of the participants had already read the work of the invited speakers at two meetings of a faculty/graduate student seminar, and the event built on and extended those lively debates.

In the articles we read for the seminar, Carolyn Lesjak and David Kazanjian drew attention to “reading dialectically” and the productive effects of “overreading facts.” Laura Chrisman discussed the exclusion of Africa in much “black Atlantic” theory since Paul Gilroy’s seminal work, while Shu-mei Shih described new ways of thinking about world literature. Lesjak’s attention to the academic worker and the potentially revolutionary subject found echoes in Nikhil Pal Singh’s essay on race relations (a topic that resonated with closing roundtable speaker Jessica Greenberg’s description of her fieldwork with activist students in the former Soviet bloc).

Cary Nelson opened the symposium by discussing the publication of Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture in 1988 and its efforts to respond theoretically to the history of Marxism in the twentieth century. His reminiscences about the summer conference that eventually became Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture threw light on its aims in the 1980s while also speaking to many changes that have taken place in the last 25 years. According to Nelson, Marx is still urgently important at a time when there is ever less solidity to “melt into air.”

In a paper subtitled, “Why We Must all be Marxists Now,” Lesjak tried to imagine an alternative future for the university through the practice of dialectical thinking she had outlined in her article: she also referenced Nelson’s framing of the importance of struggle over the condition of the university in books such as Academic Keywords. Lesjak’s paper drew on Theodor Adorno’s introduction to Minima Moralia in which he critiques Hegel’s view of the individual as an irreducible datum, when in fact the individual is in a period of decay. Lesjak found the university to be “ill” (in a Derridean sense) and called both for theoretical and practical work on one’s own campus as well as in dialogue with the global “commons.”


Shu-mei Shih calls for new arcs of “relational comparison"
Shih, speaking again on the topic of world literature, called for new arcs of “relational comparison” based on historical connections by way of injecting new scale and scope into our conventional notions of world literature. What happens, she asked, if we consider pre-modern history as we think about global networks and relations of power? Or if we look at Western history from the perspective of its debts to the Middle and Far East as scholars like Andre Gunder Frank have done? Shih cautioned against either a reflexive anti-Eurocentrism or a rosy Sinocentrism; instead she proposed the idea of a “literary arc” that links up multiple nodes (texts, spaces, events, issues) in an open system. Literary arcs give us connected histories, one example of which is the post-slavery plantation arc that Shih wrote about in her article for the seminar. As Nelson pointed out in the discussion that followed, the arc cannot model the entire network of power relations in which it is embedded; but, as Lauren Goodlad observed, temporal arcs, which do not claim to be inclusive, can help us to do justice to particular swathes of space and time.

In a series of talking points on black internationalism that continued the exercise of evaluating old systems by the light of new facts, Chrisman looked back on a significant omission in Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture. She argued that the book largely neglected to look at the history of revolutionary, anticolonial, and independent movements in Africa which included significant Marxist activity. Choosing examples from the archives of The Negro Worker which dated back to the 1930s, she argued that these early Marxists had articulated political, cultural, and theoretical concerns that long predated Paul Gilroy’s work on the Atlantic and much else in recent theory. These articles highlighted a comparative, global, anticolonial, and anticapitalist consciousness inserting itself into critical debates long before the publication of Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture. Why weren’t such texts or at least the movements they derive from included? What would it mean to import readings of those colonial thinkers into African-American studies in the US?


David Kazanjian converses with Ericka Beckman
Kazanjian’s "For a Speculative American Studies" argued for a radical over-reading to complement the omissions of more abstract kinds of theory. He emphasized a particular meaning of speculation (the term Hegel preferred to what we call “dialectic”) and argued for scaling up everyday history-making by reading documents as if they had a speculative component. The paper built off the approach described in his essay-length review of Susan Buck-Morss’s Hegel, Haiti: and Universal History in which Kazanjian argues that the writing of an emancipated slave living in Liberia should not be viewed merely as concrete history but also as 'theory' in the sense that Hegel’s philosophy is.


Gopal Balakrishnan gave the audience a sense of his work in progress on an as yet unknown early Marx. The idea behind coverering these lost connections to Marx’s early criticisms of civil society was to provide a necessary defamiliarization when, (to borrow Ericka Beckman’s rephrasing of one of Balakrishnan’s points), we can no longer rest our theories on laws of motion of capital alone. Goodlad drew connections between questions posed by Eleanor Courtemanche and Michael Rothberg. Turning back

Gopal Balakrishnan addresses the audience in the Levis Faculty Center
to Balakrishnan’s essay on “The Stationary State” she asked what the impact of rising inequality might be on the current capitalist crisis.

Other closing remarks by Ericka Beckman, Tariq Ali, and Jim Hansen also raised broad questions about conceptions and ontological presuppositions in Marxist thought. How do the logic of actions and observed movements and not given conditions reveal relations of power? Can we get beyond Marx’s emphasis on the live-ness of things? Is Marxism still unable to deal with indigeneity? How do we encompass diversity, now?

At the concluding round table Ali, an assistant professor in History, taking debt and commodification as central terms, opened with questions about the relation of the project of political economy to the project of Marxism now, and whether they have a similar shared project. How might the quotidian be taken to larger and common scales and how can the grassroots be used for universal critique? To this end, he suggested, everyday theorists should be taken seriously, including anticolonial, nationalist, Marxist leaders outside Europe and America, because our vantage points matter. It is possible, according to Ali, to speak of the crisis of capital at venues such as this, but the legitimating discourses of capital are still powerful in Asia and Africa, and Marxist thought coming out of there would necessarily be different.

Beckman, an associate professor of Spanish and Comparative Literature, spoke about imagining a future for Marxism with an awareness of our "present saturation." She asked that we rethink "coercion" in a world where coercive apparatuses coexist with economic apparatuses in pernicious ways. She reiterated the problem of Eurocentrism mentioned throughout the symposium and emphasized the need to remain open to ideas from places to which we do not normally accord theoretical agency.

Closing Roundtable from left to right: Greenberg, Ali, Beckman,
Hansen, & Nelson

In a vivid vignette of changing zeitgeist among student activists, Greenberg, an assistant professor of Anthropology, described a "pragmatic politics of disappointment" with utopian ideas where assurances that "It will be better" hinder political revolution as people stand in place waiting for a future that never comes. Urging us to think of Marxism itself as a cultural formation, Greenberg argued for a scaling up of everyday forms of resistance into theory and a "politics of the now" following Antonio Gramsci’s idea that utopia is the opposite of politics and the present is a site and time of revolution. The struggle over grand narratives is never only ideological; people on the ground make sense of them through political actions within available horizons.


Finally, Hansen, an associate professor of English, in an apt summary of the cognitive mapping of the day, reminded us that the original collection of essays within Marxism and the Interpretation of Theory and this symposium were not the final words on academic political theory, but rather building blocks on future political thought. A necessary part of this project is imagining and testing a new language for nodes, trajectories, movements and "the people"--"masses," "commons," "occupy"--to meet our need to theorize the "now."

Cary Nelson’s closing words, emphasizing the forms of Marxist inspiration available now and the need for collective action within the politics of academia, brought back the relevance of Marxist thought within the anti-necessitarian trend in theory. Our attempts to theorize thick nodes, times and spaces of intense connections, without sacrificing an awareness of translocality or the articulations of group desire in different parts of the world, aid in connecting and constructing the complex, flexible network of (human) relations we inhabit and in which we must remain aware agents.
Read more

Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture at 25: Theories for the New Millennium: Lauren M. E. Goodlad's Opening Remarks

Monday, February 11, 2013

posted under , by Unit for Criticism
Welcome everyone to this wonderful celebration of a book that emerged from our campus 25 years ago and which, in turn, derived from a groundbreaking conference on our campus 30 years ago. I am speaking of course of Marxism & the Interpretation of Culture, a monumental volume edited by Cary Nelson & Lawrence Grossberg, collecting the ideas of luminaries such as Perry Anderson, Etienne Balibar, Fredric Jameson, Chantal Mouffe, Gayatri Spivak—the list goes on and on and on.

Marxism & the Interpretation of Culture did many things to reshape Marxist theory for a new century at a time when identity-based social movements and poststructuralist theory—with some help from twentieth-century history—were making clear that while Marxism’s grand rĂ©cit articulated a compelling responsibility to act, it did not yet incorporate a working theory of otherness: an account, that is, for how a politics of equality and mutually sustaining freedom and collectivity could appeal to--and be articulated through--a broad base of social actors while simultaneously contending with divisions along lines not only of class but also of race, nation, ethnicity, religious identity, gender, and sexuality. This is, to say the least, a tough nut to crack. In making this intervention Marxism & the Interpretation of Culture also proposed that culture was much more than a determined byproduct of economic and state power but also a social force in its own right.

Today we have gathered a terrific set of speakers who will discuss the legacy of that book, and of Marxist theory, while also offering their visions of the future of theory in the new millennium. You already have the program so I won’t thank our speakers by name but will close by making a few official announcements and thanking the many people who helped to make this symposium possible.

First, as I think some of you already know this is the first of two symposia the second of which will take place on September 6 of this year. So it is with less regret than I would otherwise express that I tell you that Nikhil Singh, whose great chapter on racial history was a highlight of last week’s seminar, was unable to join us today because of the snow storm in the Northeast. However, he has promised to join us in September. There are no changes in the schedule for today other than Singh’s absence from the panel preceding the closing roundtable.

A symposia like this one, like a good political movement, requires many, many, hands, and not a few hearts and heads as well. And it also requires financial support from many sources. You’ll soon meet my co-organizer Michael Rothberg who will be introducing the honorary opener of today’s symposium but, in addition to Michael, let me also thank our crucial co-sponsors for their generous funding: Center for Advanced Study; the IPRH, the Department of English; the Program in Jewish Culture & Society and the Initiative in Holocaust, Genocide & Memory Studies; the Social Dimensions of Environmental Policy Initiative; the Department of Spanish, Italian, & Portuguese; the Department of Anthropology; the International Forum on US Studies; the Department of History; and the Department of Political Science.

No words of thanks would be complete without expressing my gratitude to our speakers who braved some awful weather and airline snafus to be here today; to you, our audience, for joining us this morning; to the many colleagues who took part in the seminar and in moderating our program today; and finally to Graduate Assistants MC Anderson and Esti Ezkerra and undergrad assistant Sofiya Pershteyn – the multi-talented women behind the curtain of the Unit for Criticism. It’s now my pleasure to ask you to join me in thanking them as well as welcoming my co-organizer Michael Rothberg to the podium.

Read more

Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture at 25: Theories for the New Millennium: Michael Rothberg's Opening Remarks

posted under , , by Unit for Criticism

I’m pleased to join Lauren Goodlad in welcoming you all to today’s symposium. And I am especially grateful to our visiting speakers, whose urgent and stirring work many of us have been reading and discussing in recent weeks during two lively seminar sessions. It’s also a pleasure to be working again with Lauren and the Unit for Criticism. We are lucky to have Lauren as Director of the Unit.

This event has particular significance for me, so allow me to reminisce for a moment. I still remember vividly the first time I saw Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture. It was the fall of 1988, I was in my first and, as it turned out, last year in the Duke Literature Program, and I was in the house where Carolyn Lesjak was living on Clarendon St. in Durham. One of the older and more intimidating grad students—the one who always knew the answers to Jameson’s leading questions about, say, the three defining characteristics of Western Marxism—came down into the living room carrying a copy of a big red book. What’s that?, I remember wanting to know about the massive and strikingly designed volume. It was only a year later, in 1989, having left grad school and moved to New York City, that I finally started to read Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture, on my own, in a soup kitchen on E. 3rd St., down the block from the Hell’s Angels. The building-shaking noise of their motorcycles accompanied my energetic underlining of Spivak, Jameson, Lefebvre, Fields, Mouffe, and company.

Little could I have imagined that fall—the fall of the fall of the Berlin Wall—that two and a half decades later I would be involved in organizing a conference marking the publication of the book. Even less could I have imagined that I would have the honor of working with and, right now, introducing to you, one of the organizers of the original Marxism conference and a coeditor of what must be one of the two or three most influential edited volumes of critical theory in the last half century: Cary Nelson.

Besides being Jubilee Professor of Liberal Arts and Sciences in the English Department at the University of Illinois, Cary Nelson is one of the founders, indeed the founding Director, of the Unit for Criticism and Interpretive Theory. Our being here today is a direct consequence of his belief in the necessity of progressive institution building—and his savvy ability to actually get it done. It’s impossible to overstate the importance of creating these kinds of spaces of intellectual community that foster the imagination of alternative cultural and political futures. We’re all in Cary’s debt. Cary’s scholarly work, which is at the same time political work, falls roughly into three categories. He has been a path-breaking scholar of twentieth-century US poetry, especially the poetry of the left. Books such as Repression and Recovery and Revolutionary Memory, as well as the Oxford Anthology of Modern American Poetry, have fundamentally changed how we think about this field of cultural production. He has also been a critic of the academy and tireless advocate of its most marginalized members in books such as Manifesto of a Tenured Radical and the coauthored Office Hours: Activism and Change in the Academy as well as in collections such as Higher Education Under Fire and Will Teach for Food. Of course, Cary’s interest in the politics of the academy goes well beyond books—he recently completed six years as President of the American Association of University Professors and is regularly involved in consulting with and providing support for graduate student and faculty unions. Most recently, Cary helped draft a major AAUP report, Recommended Principles and Practices to Guide Academy-Industry Relationships. Finally, bringing us back to our reason for being here, Cary has played a crucial role in the shape that cultural studies and critical theory have taken in North America. Along with the Marxism conference and volume, he also co-organized and coedited the epochal Cultural Studies conference and collection along with such titles as Disciplinarity and Dissent in Cultural Studies.

Lauren and I were thrilled that Cary agreed to open our conference with some reflections on Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture and its legacies. Please join me in welcoming Cary Nelson.
Read more

top