Some chapter introductions of this book are accessible on-line. THE PROGRAMME links to the book through our WWW Reference to The University of Texas--Austin critical theory page.
Best and Kellner are key participants in the Critical Theory project conducted at the University of Texas. This book lays out the parameters of the project.
Best and Kellner dedicate their book to "the next generation of radical intellectuals and activists." They hope that generation "will use the insights of postmodern theory and other critical discourses to develop new theories and politics to meet the challenges of the current decade and next century." (pp. x-xi)
"Postmodern theory provides a critique of represenation and the modern belief that theory mirrors reality, taking instead 'perspectivist' and 'relativist' positions that theories at best provide partial perspectives on their objects, and that all cognitive representations of the world are historically and linguistically mediated." (p. 4)
B&K do not focus on poststructuralist theory (Derrida, Kristeva, Barthes, Lacan) but rather on "the theories of history, society, culture, and politics by theorists who we believe contribute most to developing postmodern theory." (p.31) These include Foucault, Deleuze & Guattari, Baudrillard, Lyotard, Jameson, Laclau and Mouffe. They group postmodern thinkers into those who declare a "radical break with modernity" (p. 256) and those who use postmodern insights "to reconstruct social theory and radical politics." Their examination of these theorists leads up to their penultimate chapter, "Critical Theory and Postmodern Theory" (p. 215ff). Here they explicate the purposes of the Frankfurt School. They point to the strengths and limitations of Frankfurt School critical theory. They devote generous space to Juergen Habermas's revision of modernism through the theory of "communicative action" and his rejection of postmodern theory. In the end, they propose to draw on both critical theory and postmodern theory in drawing up a model for critical theory going forward. (p. 254)
In their final Ch. 8, "Towards a Reconstruction of Critical Social Theory," (p.256 ff) they lay out their proposal for a "multidimensional and multiperspectival critical theory." We see their attempt to turn the old Frankfurt School project toward the conditions of today by being informed by postmodern theory but not being constrained by the deficiencies they uncover in their several analyses of the major postmodern figures. Since this chapter offers the most original insights of the book, below we take detailed notes on it.
8.1 For a Multidimensional and Multiperspectival Critical Theory (pp. 263-274)
In the multidimensional critical theory proposed by B&K, they would analyze the "relative autonomy of the various levels or domains of social reality and the ways in which they interact to form a specific mode of social organization." (p. 263) It would proceed dialectically and non-reductively. "It conceptualizes the connections between the economic, political, social, and cultural dimensions of society and refuses to reduce social phenomena to any one dimension." (p. 263) [[It thus differs from Marxism by rejecting the economic foundation as the single basis of social reality.]] They embrace Adorno's dialectical approach, which preserves particularity while illuminating broader social processes. (p. 264) Their critical theory is "political, relating theory to practice and searching for potentialities for change in a given society." (p. 264)
Their critical theory is "multiperspectival" in that it "views society from a multiplicity of perspectives." (p. 264). [[In this we see the postmodern opposition to totalistic narrative, its opposition to the idea that there is an objective standpoint from which to see all of reality.]] B&K express an inclusive attitude toward differing or competing positions within a discipline; they believe they each "contain important contributions to developing a critical theory of society, while each also has its blind spots and limitations." (p. 265)
B&K emphasize the importance of ARTICULATION--"the mediation of different perspectives in concrete analyses or developments of theoretical positions." (p. 266) Articulation embraces the perspectival analyses we get, for example, from the feminist theory dealing with texts or events.
"Perspectives are...specific optics informed by theoretical positions. [They are not signifying] that all standpoints are merely subjective, merely the expression of individual points of view or ways of seeing. Rather, we are using perspective to delineate the range of existing positions available to theory at a given moment in history." (p. 266)
Their proposed multidimensional and multiperspectival critical theory acknowledges no single valid perspective. Therefore, it is "open to new theoretical discourses and perspectives, eschewing dogmatism and closed theories." (p. 266) [[This is in the spirit of the creativity found in Deleuze & Guattari.]] B&K fault some postmodern theorists for their resistance to competing perspectives (p.268) and for their tendency to be "overly culturalist" at the expense of economic and political analysis. (p.269)
However, B&K recognize they are in danger of endorsing "mere e[c]lecticism and liberal pluralism" (p.269) by employing a variety of perspectives on the economy, polity, society, and culture. To resist these weaknesses, their critical theory must identify some dimensions as "more viable and important than others". And it must assert that "some critical theories and methods are more appropriate for specific contexts and problems." (p.270) In other words, they seem to say that one should select one theoretical approach for one type or slice of reality and another for a different type or slice.
"One's own goals, context, and theoretical and political orientations will obviously determine which perspectives are most relevant in given cases." (p.270)
But they acknowledge that more perspectives on a topic are not necessarily better and they do not "rule out strong and focused analyses of specific phenomena or development of a specific perspective." (p.270) They do not call for synthesis of perspectives in their entirety. "Here," they assert, "the postmodern emphasis on difference and incommensurability is valuable." (p.271)
In the face of multiple perspectives that will not resolve into a total perspective, they see the need to "choose between incompatible perspectives, or reconstruct the perspectives to avoid incoherency." (p.271)
B&K propose that multiple perspectives can be combined [though not made compatible or totally synthesized] "into an illuminating theory of the present age." (p.271) Here they draw on the history and vision of the Frankfurt School Critical Theory for reference [and a touch of inspiration]. But the original Critical Theory will not suffice for today. Postmodern theories, they have shown, have various weaknesses and cannot as such provide us with the needed theory of the present age.(p.272) So, "against the postmodern renunciation of social theory, we thus call for its reconstruction." (p.272) They would perform this reconstruction by drawing on the best of postmodern theory "while also drawing on the best of modern theory (Marx, Nietzsche, Weber, Dewey, Du Bois, de Beauvoir, and others)." (p.272)
Their main complaint against postmodern ideas is that they reject "systemic and historical theory." (p.273) No one has produced an adequate theory of postmodernity as a period. They thus argue that there is no "adequate account of the allegedly new postmodern society. An important part of such an account involves specifying the continuities between modernity and postmodernity." (p.274). It is upon these continuities that they will seek to situate their new Critical Theory.
8.2 Postmodernity, Postindustrial Society, and the Dialectics of Continuity and Discontinuity.
B&K critically describe the similarities between postmodern theory and theories of postindustrial society. B&K fault both for their shared tendencies to exhibit "technological determinism." (p.275) They both "uphold technology as the fundamental organizing principle of the contemporary society." (p.275) Postmodernists and postindustrial theorists (cf., Bell) both tend to disassociate themselves from political economy as theory. They both "totalize and project a rupture or break within history that exaggerates the novelty of the contemporary moment....both assume that a possible future is already present." (p,276) B&K fault both pm and p-i theorists for turning away from Marxian theory (p.276) as well as for overemphasizing the break between modernity and postmodernity.
B&K reject an historical view that sees postmodernity as a "radical discontinuity" (a la Baudrillard and Kroker and Cook). They also reject the other extreme, which denies a radical rupture and "stress[es] the continuities between modernity and the present (a la Habermas and Callinicos). (p.277)
Importantly, they invoke both Foucault and Derrida--big voices--to show that postmodernists need not insist upon radical rupture between modern and postmodern theory and history. Quoting Foucault: "One of the most harmful habits in contemporary thought [is] the analysis of the present as being...a present of rupture." Quoting Derrida: I do not believe in decisive ruptures, in an unequivocal 'epistemological break', as it is called today. Breaks are always, and fatally, reinscribed in an old cloth that must continually, interminably be undone." (quoted on p.278)
B&K bring in these big voices in order to set up their own theoretical position:
"While by definition postmodernity is discontinuous with or constitutes a break from previous developments, we reject any periodizing analysis which emphasizes only discontinuity in favour of a dialectical analysis which theorizes the lines of continuity and discontinuity in a transition from one movement or period to another." (p.278)
They are sympathetic to the approach of Fredric Jameson: it situates changes of thematic emphasis from modern to postmodern--not absolute changes--"within the matrix of capitalist modernity." (p.279) They also like Raymond Williams's "distinctions between residual, dominant, and emergent cultures." (p.279) And they like Ernst Bloch idea of "non-syncronicity": "we live in several different times and spaces at once." (p.279)
B&K see us living in a "society in transition" not in a totally new "postmodern social formation." (p.280) Postmodernists who totalize the new period and those who in principle reject metanarratives both are unable to provide adequate theoretical analysis of the transition from modern to postmodern. (p.280)
So, B&K propose to RECONSTRUCT notions of metanarrative because we need them in order "to do social theory, critique, and politics at all." (p. 281) They are severely critical of the postmodernist theorists for ABANDONING key concepts of modern theory and then presupposing them in their statements. (p.281) They cite Baudrillard and Lyotard as key perpetrators. (p.281) "Some postmodern critiques of modernity provide something of a caricature of modernity, reducing it to Enlightenment metanarratives (Lyotard), an oppressive semiological system which produces a hyperreal system of simulation (Baudrillard), or a 'vast carceral society' (Foucault)." (p.282)
B&K are more sympathetic to the critique of modernity offered up by the Critical Theory practitioners, Adorno and Horkheimer and Habermas. While Critical Theory "carried out a radical critique of modernity and modern theory," it is superior to postmodern projects with the same goal because it is "more differentiated vis-vis modernity and more likely to defend aspects of it." (p.282)
But they do not reject postmodern theory from their project, since they can use the conceptualizations it has offered us of the "key novelties...of our times." (p.282)
8.3 Postmodern Politics: Subjectivity, Discourse, and Aestheticism
B&K describe the limitations of postmodern theory as it relates to politics. It "lacks positive notions of the social." (p.283) It declares the disintegration of the bourgeois, humanist subject. But it offers no suitable explanation of "agency, of an active creative self, mediated by social institutions." (p.283) "Most postmodern theory sees the subject as a superfluity, a mere node within self-governing technical and semiotic systems." (p.284) But as a "desiring monad" in some pm theory, such as Deleuze and Guattari, the individual subject is resurrected after a fashion.
PM political strategy thus seems to want a cynical hastening of "the process of nihilism without also advancing any positive social and political alternatives." (p.284) B&K see this cynical and opportunistic direction in postmodern political thinking to be a wrong-headed reaction to the failure of the 1968 radical movement; it is defeatist and, worse, refuses to challenge the "pernicious aspects of capitalism." (p.285)
Nevertheless, B&K allow that "the postmodern politics of identity and difference" has had the positive effect of responding to new global social transformations. In this dimension, postmodern insights into plurality, multiplicity,, openness, contextuality are positive. (p.286) "The postmodern theory of decentred power...allows for the multiplication of possibilities for political struggle, no longer confined simply to the realm of production or the state." (p.286/7)
B&K also see positive value in postmodern theory's "attack on the modern concept of representation in its many senses"--its rejection of "the metaphor of the mind as a mirror of nature." (p.287)
However, postmodern theory generally, like modern liberal pluralist theory, is unable to grasp "systemic relations and causal nexuses," thus remaining ineffectual in adjudicating issues in the "great conversation" of social relations. (p.289) This is crippling. [[One wonders if some of President Clinton's zigs and zags are caused by his basic stance in a postmodern political discourse.]] P-m theory is inarticulate, radically individualist, and irrationalist. By estheticizing the (discredited) liberal humanist subject, it reduces the subject to an amoral desiring machine, which provides no basis for a political theory. B&K see in Marcuse a thinker who sought to resolve this problem. He saw the need for emancipation through a comabination of "instinctual rebellion" as well as "rebellion of reason." (p.291)
So, B&K, having pointed out the deficiencies of postmodern political theory, "advocate a politics of alliances, a cultural politics, and a strategic politics which combine micro- and macroperspectives and retain a salient place for critical rationality." (p.291/2)
They end this section with a blizzard of references to show the inability of postmodern political theory to engage meaningfully with issues of class struggle, gender and race struggles. They condemn the sorrow and melancholy and hopelessness found in Lyotard and Baudrillard. They affirm Jameson, Laclau and Mouffe for their arguments in favor of "utopian values" (which partake of the metanarrative totalities disclaimed by the French postmodernists). They appear to agree with British cultural theorists who condemn the French intellectuals who presume to speak for "the masses" without warrant. They accuse postmodernists of being superficial, dealing with appearances: they "thus fail to conceptualize some of the underlying dynamics of contemporary capitalist societies." (p.294)
8.4 Theory, Culture, and Politics: Conflicting Models
(pp.294-303)
As B&K see it, the dramatic changes of the late '80s and early '90s, symbolized best perhaps by the fall Soviet Communism, demand systemic theories for explanation and future direction. Postmodern theory being incapable of delivering, they look to the "classical theorists of modernity" --Marx, Dewey, Weber--and early Frankfurt School as guiding models. Marx has proven inadequate but is still relevant because of the continued force of capitalism. (p.296) They declare war on postmodern political renunciations of systemic social theory, fragmentation, nihilism, apathy, intertia: these are "theoretically and politically disabling and should be severely criticized and overcome." (p.296)
"Indeed, most postmodern theories can make little sense of the dramatic events of the era, while its claims concerning the end of history, society, the masses, and so on are laughable in the face of the resurgence of historical drama and upheaval." (p.296/7)
They accuse p-m intellectuals of "trying to dissolve the key concepts of the democratic revolution" at the very historical moment when radical democracy needs to be encouraged. (p.297)
B&K hazard a historicist theory to explain the "frenzy" over postmodern theory in the late '80s. As intellectuals lost power--the dashed hopes of the late '60s--they grasped for new cultural capital as interpreters within the academy, while outside they lost place with the end of the division between high and low culture.
Yet they would retain the postmodern predisposition toward MICROANALYSIS, which serves as a corrective to the over-generalizing of critical theory. (p.298/9) But they want to situate microanalysis in a "larger sociohistorical frame." (p.300) They hold onto Marxian categories as central in importance because of the increasing power of capitalism to shape society. (p.300) They see the dramatically new influence of transnational techno-capital as a compelling reason for developing macrotheory to explain it. (p.301)
B&K end with a rousing call for theory that will justify "hope for a better future" by seizing the utopian aspects of our present historical ambiguity and discouraging the dystopian aspects. They remain to the end persuaded that the necessary critical theory will foster "a new set of global anti-capitalist political alliances and a reinvigorated democratic socialism."
ON THE FAILURE OF CRITICAL THEORY AND POSTMODERN THEORY: "In conclusion, we...stress...that we find that neither critical theory [of the Frankfurt School, including Habermas] nor postmodern theory provide [sic] an adequate model for a theory of the present age." (p.253)
ON DELEUZE & GUATTARI: "...unlike Foucault and nearly all other posmodern theorists, D&G posit a dialectic of macro- and micropolitical struggle. [But] we believe their development of these themes is problematical. They are committed to a metaphysical concept of desire, claiming that desire is 'inherently revolutionary', that it has a fundamental nature, essence, or intentionality which is to be creative and productive, rather than manipulated and repressed. This...remains a dogmatic assumption...." (pp.105/6)
See summary notes for other quotes.
Moreover, they place their description and evaluation of postmodernists in their own programmatic framework. They are theorists on a practical mission to rescue the times from the aporias of philosophy and the failures of politics in the decades following May '68.
Neither the major postmodernists, the old Frankfurt School critical theorists, nor the new ones like Habermas, quite offer the theoretical equipment for their grand task. They are willing to borrow the microanalytic approach of postmodernists to power and process without expecting to derive a suitable comprehensive concept of the state of real or desired affairs. They look to the classic Frankfurt School figures for inspiration as they seek a new macrotheoretical stance to account for contemporary conditions unimagined by Adorno and Horkheimer and their fellows. They respect Habermas for wanting to provide a politics that will work in a de-foundationalized period but cannot satisfy themselves that he has discovered an adequate concept in communicative action. They cling to Marxian analysis because it seeks a general answer to the dilemma of capitalist hegemony--virulent on a world stage beyond anything Karl Marx could have foreseen. Yet they know that his nineteenth-century categories require reformulation for our time.
And so they conclude that it is up to them to craft a multiple approach to critical social/political theory. They want to marry micro-analysis with macro-analysis, depending upon the problem and the circumstances. That is the task in which they are engaged at the University of Texas, where they are developing their new brand of Critical Theory for our times.
We find this to be a laudable initiative. They refuse to be swallowed up by the hopeless dead end toward which anti-foundational postmodernist theory points. They likewise refuse to swing back to a romance that would seek to revive the Marxism of the classic Critical Theorists. They try to take stock of the situation of late capitalism and see in it something different than that which led to it through the modernist decades. Some of the work we have seen coming out of their program, particularly Kellner's work on television, demonstrates their eclectic macro-micro approach in an interesting and illuminating way. We very much like the spirit of optimism surrounding their program. In what might be an American way, it suggests we can do something about the encyclopedia of panic that represents the style of living today.
We finish this book, though, with an uneasy sense of philosophic dysfunction. Perhaps it comes from their too-easy assumption that they can have their metatheoretical cake and eat it too. Postmodern theory gives us a very big panic attack because of its insight into the fluidity of all thought and all life, the utter lack of a static platform upon which to place a principle (or a god) that will escape time. A Big Theory is always just a big lie that gets used for a while, as long as the folk are willing to buy it or be beaten into believing it--so says postmodern theory. Best and Kellner seem to want to allow for the possibility of a valid metatheoretical construct of sorts. Yet they insist, at the same time, upon using the products of a thought process that rejects such a possibility--the limited analyses of postmodern theory. Whether or not they are wrongheaded in their eclectic, multifaceted enterprise is perhaps not so much a philosophic issue as a practical issue of production: if in their Texas emporium they can construct analyses that influence the polity and policy of the US and beyond, then in the name of praxis they can be declared right. And such a declaration would be properly postmodern in spirit.
As the Dow Jones average on the stock market soars past 8,000, as socialism around the world takes on the shape and attitudes of the capitalist marketplace, as Tony Blair lauds Margaret Thatcher's accomplishments, we read B&K's final sentence with special interest: "...utopia and catastrophe are both part of the contemporary scene and if hope for a better future is to be rationally justified it must be gounded in a theory of both the possibilities and dangers of the present age which aims at development of a new set of global anti-capitalist political alliances and a reinvigorated democratic socialism."
Two parting comments:
(A) The stretched syntax of this sentence (and many more in the book) shows something of their strenuous effort at synoptic embrace of the situation.
(B) They are quite solidly planted in a Marx-like matrix as they seek to articulate new theory. We wonder if they can achieve a useful novelty while so firmly planted in the familiar terrain of socialist tradition.