Valences of the Dialectic

by Fredric Jameson

After half a century exploring dialectical thought, renowned cultural critic Fredric Jameson presents a comprehensive study of a misrepresented, vital strain in Western philosophy. The dialectic, the concept of the evolution of an idea through internal contradiction and conflict, transformed two centuries of Western philosophy. To Hegel, who dominated nineteenth-century thought, it was a metaphysical system. In the works of Marx, the dialectic became a tool for materialist historical analysis, a theoretical maneuver that his critics derided and his descendants on the Left have wrestled with ever since. Jameson brings a theoretical scrutiny to bear on the questions that have arisen in the history of this philosophical tradition, contextualizing the debate with essays on commodification and globalization, and with reference to the work of Rousseau, Fichte, Heidegger, Sartre, Derrida, and Lacan. Through rigorous, erudite examination, Valences of the Dialectic charts a movement toward the innovation of a “spatial” dialectic, culminating in a remarkable meditation on globalization, through a study of Paul Ricoeur. Jameson presents a new synthesis of thought that revitalizes dialectical thinking for the twenty-first century.

Genres: Philosophy, Theory, Nonfiction, Politics, Academic, Criticism

625 pages, Hardcover

First published January 5, 2008

About the author

Fredric Jameson was an American literary critic, philosopher and Marxist political theorist. He was best known for his analysis of contemporary cultural trends, particularly his analysis of postmodernity and capitalism. Jameson's best-known books include Postmodernism, or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism (1991) and The Political Unconscious (1981).

Reviews

[Iñigo · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fred's pretty good in this one yeah

[Michael · Rating 5 out of 5]

In Valences of the Dialectic, Frederic Jameson does what Kolakowski failed to do in his third volume of Main Currents of Marxism: provide an intellectually rigorous appraisal of western Marxist political philosophy in the second half of the 20th century. Like with Kolakowski, Jameson begins with an historical overview of dialectical thinking that influences Marx and Marxist writing. Starting with Hegel, then working through Marx, Jameson broadly defines dialectical thinking in terms of contradiction, a definition he holds to throughout the different valences presented in the book. These valences include commentaries on the (mostly French, mostly post-1968) philosophers influenced by Marx, key historical concepts of Marxism as it plays out as both a political program and a philosophical critique of politics in the 20th century, and ending with a meditation on the emergence of history and historical thinking. Jameson is, as always, lucid and interesting, offering interpretations of Derrida, Lenin, Sartre and Lukacs among others while also taking up Marxist economics in an era of advanced globalization. A challenging book with plenty to offer.

[Aung Myat Minn · Rating 5 out of 5]

not finished wholly but can’t help rating it 5 stars+ despite the fact that It seems sometimes like Jameson is enjoying himself fucking with his written proses to jerk off his intellectual load into my head .

[Carl]

inspired to read this by review at London Review of Books.

[Peter Harrison · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a magnificent book. Beginning with a basic restatement of what we mean when we talk about dialectics, with three fundamental 'laws' underpinning it as a thought process:

* The law of the transformation of quantity into quality and vice versa;
* The law of the interpenetration of opposites;
* The law of the negation of the negation.

The remainder of the book is then a range of essays, often previously published elsewhere, which implement and expand on the use of dialectics across a range of philosophical and revolutionary areas of interest. Throughout Jameson is keen to emphasise the analytical side of Marx, and to avoid the retrofitting of philosophical 'systems' (structuralism, existentialism etc.) onto his thought. In this sense Jameson takes the same stance as David Harvey who in his work on Capital encourages us to read it on Marx's own terms.

Much of this fascinating and extremely thought provoking. It is not however a basic introduction to dialectics, and you are I think best served coming to this book with at least something of an idea of what it is all about. Some - particularly the final two chapters based on literary criticism - is quite dense reading.

There is an extended discussion of spectrality based on the work of Derrida which is masterful, and quite an achievement to have unpicked from Derrida's impenetrable work. Jameson also discussed Lukacs in some depth, and does a good job of rehabilitating his concepts of reification and totality as key themes. He also provides a convincing exposition of 'false consciousness' which belies the standard use by the worst of vulgar Marxism. The final analysis of time, narrative, and history is hard work but worthwhile for understanding the complexity involved in time as a category.

This book then is a description of the dialectical method, but more than that it is the detailed and expert use of that method in a range of insightful analyses. More than anything it is inspiring for the continued value and use of dialectics in thinking about the modern world.

You can also find this review on my blog:
https://marxadventure.wordpress.com/2...

Together with the notes that I wrote while reading it:
https://marxadventure.wordpress.com/2...

And a couple of other blog posts inspired by various sections:
https://marxadventure.wordpress.com/2...
https://marxadventure.wordpress.com/2...
https://marxadventure.wordpress.com/2...
https://marxadventure.wordpress.com/2...
https://marxadventure.wordpress.com/2...

[Mesut Bostancı · Rating 4 out of 5]

Should be kept as a reference guide on your shelf. Way more than you should reasonably go through in one sitting. Best to pick and choose in order to have the context (in relation to other -isms) for a particular subject, all vetted by the authority of mature Marxism. The section on ideology (actually once a pamphlet) was an amazing organization of so many theories on ideology, all presented nicely. As nicely as Eagleton in "literary theory". The introductory chapter on dialectics was also really good. But man, do I really need 100 more pages on Hegel? Woof.

[Bean Wagon · Rating 5 out of 5]

Jameson outlines the necessary qualities required of a historiographical project for the modern digital age of ultra-imperialism. In doing so, Jameson drafts the narrative and aesthetic characteristics required for this broader drama (streaming project) that could revitalize the marxist tradition and by extension history itself.

[Mariam Rawwas · Rating 4 out of 5]

The main point of this entire text is deceptively simple: one must think dialectics dialectically. In asking whether the dialectic is a method or a system, Jameson immediately undercuts the question itself, due to its undialecticity. Beyond Hegel and Marx, Jameson provides readings of Derrida, Deleuze, Lukács, Sartre, Lenin, Rousseau, Ricœur, et al., even if he does not necessarily have much new to say on any of these fronts. He insists that Lukács' defense of literary realism was in no way a defense of naïve realism in any sense, which would do much to buttress his position if one were to accept the reading. However, there's a massive problem, which is that, for all his indebtedness to (Lacanian) psychoanalysis, Jameson simply does not understand sexual difference. In enumerating pre-dialectical oppositions, before attempting to save them from Manichaeism, Jameson lists race, gender, etc., as interests amenable to Capital as opposed to class struggle (following Žižek's reductive party line), before admitting that, to the extent his imaginary relies on some fundamental, ontological opposition, it would be that between good and evil (this might be Badiou's position). But for Lacan, it is precisely sexual difference which is ontologically primary, and Jameson seems to miss this entirely (he even tries to revivify Lukács on the subject-position of the proletariat via feminist standpoint epistemology). His admiration of Žižek, then, is rather symptomatic, even if he does help clarify the move he always relies on: the dialectic as a parallax view that allows for a return to the original position: in critiquing its critique, one sees the truth of the original position in a new light.

[Will K · Rating 4 out of 5]

read the title essay

[Chris Nagel · Rating 1 out of 5]

I gave up on this halfway through. Does Jameson ever get to window treatments AT ALL??

[Berit · Rating 3 out of 5]

I think I will have to re-read this to truly appreciate it, because this is a project of such magnitude that I feel like I am only starting to grasp parts of it now, after finishing his work. It is definitely worth studying and coming back to though, because it is such an expansive exploration of Hegel's dialectics and what it might mean for our time, and specifically for Marxism in our time...it's wonderful. I guess I haven't seen the last of Jameson yet!

[Robert Jr. · Rating 5 out of 5]

See my review here: http://marxandphilosophy.org.uk/revie...