Response to "Postmodernism or Post-colonialism"
After reading Simon During's "Postmodernism or Post-colonialism", I still fell confused about his strategies of argument. First of all, I do not think he makes a very good transition while he turns his argument from postmodernism to post-colonialism. That is, he lies part of his thesis by proposing to maintain a concept which against Jameson, that "postmodernity ought not to be conceived of as a 'cultural dominant'". Actually, the strategy that During argues against Jameson is mainly based on Jameson's Hegelian heritage (see history as a dialectic process) and Adorno reference (ideology, totality). Of course we can understand that During lean his argument toward totality and history in order to shift his discussion from postmodernism to post-colonialism. Obviously, Jameson's idea about postmodernism is based on his definition of it -- he sees postmodernism as the "cultural logic of late capitalism". In this respect, we cannot criticize Jameson's idea without the consideration of the "late capitalism" context. To say it in other words, Jameson's concept of postmodernism is mainly based on the international circulation of commodities. Modernism is characterized partly by its resistance toward capitalism, so its elitist element is inevitably coming out. Jameson's depression toward postmodernism also based on its immersion within the international commodification and commodity culture.