culturallogicof late capitalism.How
do you define the currentage?
I’mtoomuch ofa philosopherto
thinkthatanageshouldbeseenas
falling under any philosophical
heading.Perhapsit shouldnotget
anyheading, but certainly not a
philosophical one.Myviewofmy
subjectis thatit should remainmod-
estin itsaspirationsandseeitsintel-
lectualgoalasonlyservingother
disciplines(history,intellectualhis-
tory,politics,politicaleconomy,law,
sociology,anthropology, alsoart,lit-
erature...)byuncoveringtheircon-
ceptual foundations and offering
piecemeal conceptual and critical
analysesof them,ratherthantrying
to sumupa wholezeitgeist.Thus,it’s
besttoleavephilosophyoutwhen
describingourageandsticktoless
grandiosedescriptionsof it. I would
bemoreorlesssatisfiedsimplyto
thinkofit asthe“age(orbetter,the
period)of theneoliberalversionof
capitalism”. Thatis what is meantby
“late”capitalism, I assume.AndI
doubtthatthisperiodhasa cultural
logic. I alsodoubtit hasacultural
logic.It hasa distinctlogic,it hasa
distinct culture,butthereis noeasy
wayof yokingthesetogetherin terms
thatbringtogethervastly disparate
concepts. Such logicas ithas is
primarily given in the economic
structuresof theneoliberalphase of
capitalism(thoughthatmaybebe-
ginning tocomeunstuckasa result
of thechroniccrisisthatis settingin).
Suchcultureasit derivesfrom
thesestructuresshouldbedescribed
intermsthatstickcloseto thatma-
terialgroundfromwhichit derives.
Soit wouldbequiteaccurateto think
ofthatculture asoneoframpant
commodification. Orit would be
quiteaccurateto describeit as a cul-
tureof obsolescence. Butto thenadd
thattheseareofa piecewithpost-
modernismistomovetoa much
greater distanceawayfromthema-
terial ground of derivation, and
whenonedoesthat,onebetter havea
verydetailednumberof carefullyar-
guedanalyticalstepsbywhichone
justifies doing so.
I’mnotsurethatI’veseenthose
stepscarefullyenoughspecifiedby
any theorist, including Jameson,
muchas Ifindhiminteresting.
Therearegenuinelyinteresting
thingsin Jameson, of course.Justto
mentionone,hewritesinsightfullyof
“depthlessness”asa featureof post-
modernistphilosophy,bywhich,if I
recall,heis suggestingthatinmod-
ernismwhatis onthesurfaceis al-
ways probed deeper, uncovering
underlyingstructures,whilein post-
modernismallis declaredtobeon
thesurface. Inmodernism,whatis
onthesurfaceis illusory,so theaspir-
ationis toplumbthedepthtoun-
earth the real, whereas in
postmodernism, the very idea of
depthis showninprincipletobeil-
lusoryandtheaspirationto seekit is
a principledpretensionwithnothing
to legitimateit philosophically.Allof
realityis onthesurface.MARX,FREUD& NIETZSCHE
Bytheselights,Marxand[Sigmund]
Freudare bothmodernists. Their
hermeneuticsof suspiciontakesthe
formof sayingthatthereismorethan
whatmeets theeyeatthesurface,
morethanideology(Marx) andcon-
scious behaviour (Freud) to be
probed, uncovering structures of
realityat a greaterdepth:economic
structures,structuresoftheuncon-
scious. Even someone like
[Friedrich] Nietzsche, by these
lights,I wouldsay,countsas a mod-
ernistratherthana postmodernist,
uncoveringa willtopowerbehind
surface phenomena such as the
avowedmoralsof conscienceandhu-
milityinChristiandoctrine.Butin
postmodernism, thehermeneuticsof
suspicion takestheformofthereis
lessherethanmeetstheeye,where
deconstructivemethodsareinten-
dedto leaveallonthesurface,mean-
ing or signification itself being
deflectedanddeferredin theplayof
signsbecausesignslackthetrans-
parencytoreachdowntoreference
orsignification.WhatI don’tfindI
amableto do(andI don’t reallyget
any plausible instruction from
Jameson on how to do it) is
Jameson’sderivationofthispost-
modernist outlook from ideas of
commodification or obsolescence
thatherightlymentionsassymp-
tomsoflatecapitalism.I thinkatbestthereis aninterestinganalogy.
Postmodernist philosophical out-
looksanda pervasivelycommodified
culturehavethisformofdepthless-
ness,it is true,butI don’tseethata
greater explanatory connection is
madebetweenthetwobyderiving
bothfromthesamesource:latecap-
italist neoliberal economic struc-
tures.I am inclined therefore to
restrictculturaldescriptions of what
actuallyderivesfromlatecapitalism
onlytocommodification,obsoles-
cence(wherethosedescriptionsof
theculturesticks closetotheeco-
nomicphenomena)butnottopost-
modernism, which is at an
extrapolateddistancefromtheeco-
nomicphenomena,a distancethatis
at bestandat mostbridged, as I said,
byananalogy.Analogiesarenotex-
planationsorderivations.I hopeI
ambeingclear.What,then,aboutpost-truth?
Yes,nowin yourquestionearlier,you
suggestedthattalkof post-truth may
beofa piecewiththeoreticalposi-
tionscharacterisedaspostmodern-
ism.I don’tthinkthatcanbequite
right.I assumeyousaythisbecause
thereis somesortof scepticismabout
thedeploymentofnotionslike“ob-
jective” truth in postmodernist
philosophicalpositions,which are
oftentakento beunblushingly com-
mittedto a kindof “relativism”about
truth.Butthatscepticismandthat
relativismis verydifferentfromthe
currentphenomena thattheterm
post-truthis intendedto describe.
Before we get to post-truth,
therefore, let me say something
about relativism regarding truth,
whichis saidtodefinea lotof post-
modernism.I thinkthere arediffer-
ent issues involved in relativism
regardingscientific truthandrelativ-
ismandnihilismregardingmatters
of truthsin thedomainof valueand
culture.Regardingthelatter,thereis
actuallyaninterestingandcarefully
constructibleexplanatoryorderiva-
tional story to tell which relate
themesof relativismaboutvalueand
culturewiththenature of capitalism
andtheintellectualhistoryaround
theriseofcapital.I dothinkthat
culturalrelativism and relativism