Fredric Jameson: a brief spotlight analysis, referring to extracts

from The Political Unconscious and 'Postmodernism and

Consumer Society
Fredric Jameson is a very influential Marxist theorist. Born in Ohio and educated at
Haverford College before earning a doctorate at Yale University, Jamesons work focuses on
the relationship between aesthetics and social history in conjunction with modes of
production and has received much of both praise and criticism. This essay shall focus on
extracts from two of his works: The Political Unconscious and Postmodernism and
Consumer Society.
Always historicize! [1] is the opening phrase or, as Jameson himself puts it, slogan of The
Political Unconscious. It means to treat from the perspective of history, and is so central to
Jamesons thought that he acknowledges it will unsurprisingly turn out to be the moral
of The Political Unconscious (p. 1822). Jamesons goal in writing this text was to create a
metacommentary which when applied could explain the link between aesthetics and social
history. His strategy is essentially Marxist-based and his justification for this is that a Marxist
interpretative framework encompasses all others the ethical, the psychoanalytic, the mythcritical, the semiotic, the structural, and the theological (p. 1823) - and is thus conceived as
that untranscendable horizon (p. 1823) of aesthetic analysis.
Jameson asserts that all literature comes to the reader with an already read status even
new texts are read with a hangover of unconscious prejudice and interpreted under the
influence of opinions of the time. A metacommentary is therefore necessary, according to
Jameson, to uncover how and why this network of interpretations has been established.
In forming this metacommentary, Jameson describes three distinct phases that a piece of art
must be examined through if one wishes to determine properly its meaning. The first of these
is looking at what the piece of art refers to in its own political history. For example, Mary
Shelleys Frankenstein, if reviewed under such a light, may raise the issue of how far science
and research can go before it becomes unethical. The second phase of analysis is looking at
the piece of art in the context of its social period, its ideologeme. If we
use Frankenstein again, we may say that the issue raised here would be the growing power of
science and the shrinking dominance of the Church as science begins to question religion,
man questions God and so becomes God, as Frankenstein does in creating his monster. The
third and final phase of analysis, known as the ideology of form, is looking at the piece of art
not only in its own social period but in the entire history of the mode of production. Again,
using Frankenstein, we may say the issue raised would be the Church-dominated feudalism
slowly succumbing to industrial capitalism as scientific breakthroughs allow for technological
advancements.
As using Frankenstein as an example has shown, the three phases of analysis, although
distinct, do not at all contradict each other and in fact when used together allow for a deeper
level of understanding on behalf of the critic. Jamesons claim that a Marxist strategy can
allow for an all-encompassing interpretative framework thus seems to have some substance
behind it in terms of examining the relationship between a piece of art and its corresponding
place in social history; there are, however, some issues that can be raised. Indeed, whilst
offering a rather complete picture when it comes to a piece of arts relationship to its place in
social history, techniques such as close-textual analysis do not seem to have any place in
Jamesons metacommentary. Although it could be argued that such a technique is not
compatible with his aims, the rather Althusser-like implication made by Jameson that all art
is produced and can be explained by economic and social circumstance does seem to take

away some of the unique and immediate beauty of works such as Miltons Paradise Lost and
the tragedies of Shakespeare. It seems to imply that these works of masterpiece were
inevitable due to the shape of society at the time: they were produced not by talented
individuals but collectively in the mechanical arms of economic formation.
In his Postmodernism and Consumer Society Jameson extends his ideology of form idea
looking specifically at postmodernism in relation to modernism. He asserts that most of the
postmodernismsemerge as specific reactions against the established forms of high
modernism [2]. The implication behind this is that throughout the transitions we make
between different economic and social systems ideas do not suddenly appear and disappear:
they become dominant and receptive; they grow and shrink in power. If applied to literary
movements, this implication can explain why Jameson believes pastiche is an integral feature
in postmodernism: in a world in which stylistic innovation is no longer possible, all that is
left is to imitate dead styles, to speak through the dead masks and with the voices of the styles
in the imaginary museum. (p.1851) In other words, if ideas are finite, in that they do not
appear and disappear but grow and shrink in dominance, then one day they must all be
familiar to us. Jameson seems to be suggesting that with postmodernism this day has come,
and in the field of aesthetics all we can now do is imitate.
It would be difficult to challenge the influence Jameson has had and still has as a Marxist
theorist. Although his work has received criticism for being obscure and inaccessible, he has
developed a large following and his ideas, once fully understood, are indeed valuable. Whilst
his metacommentary inThe Political Unconscious may not be as all-encompassing as he may
have wished, it is an extremely useful interpretative technique when attempting to establish
the real meaning in the relationship between a piece of art and its place in social history.
Furthermore, his views on postmodernism have been significantly influential and are still
relevant to this day.

[1] Fredric Jameson, The Political Unconscious: Narrative as a Socially Symbolic Act, in The
Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism, ed. by Vincent B. Leitch (New York: Norton,
2010), pp. 1822-1846 (p. 1822). Subsequent references are to this edition and are given in
parenthesis.
[2] Fredric Jameson, Postmodernism and Consumer Society, in The Norton Anthology of
Theory and Criticism, ed. by Vincent B. Leitch (New York: Norton, 2010), pp. 1847-1860 (p.
1847). Subsequent references are to this edition and are given in parenthesis.

Primary Sources
Fredric Jameson, Postmodernism and Consumer Society, in The Norton Anthology of
Theory and Criticism, ed. by Vincent B. Leitch (New York: Norton, 2010), pp. 1847-1860.
Fredric Jameson, The Political Unconscious: Narrative as a Socially Symbolic Act, in The
Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism, ed. by Vincent B. Leitch (New York: Norton,
2010), pp. 1822-1846.

Secondary Sources
Louis Althusser, Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses, in The Norton Anthology of
Theory and Criticism, ed. by Vincent B. Leitch (New York: Norton, 2010), pp. 1335-1360.