Ilan Rubens

FREDRIC JAMESON

Born: April 13th 1934

From: Cleveland, Ohio, US

He is best known for his analysis of contemporary cultural trends and

has written book about them, including “Postmodernism: The Cultural

Logic of Late Capitalism”, “The Political Unconscious” and “Marxism

and Form”.

PROFILE

• Jameson’s theory begins with the history of the problem of

representation. He traces three stages of representation. Modernity

believed it could represent itself in simple literal signs. Modernism

was troubled by the possibility that these signs might not represent

any reality beyond themselves. Postmodernity no longer worries

about this problem. It assumes that signs exist by themselves,

detached from any external reality. Today's most typical images are

simulacra: copies of originals that have just been created only for

the purpose of becoming mass-produced signs (like the corporate

logo).

POSTMODERNISM

Within each postmodern cultural artifact (a building, newspaper, billboard, commercial, garment, song, book, film, etc.) signs are thrown together in random ways. They come and go for no apparent reason. A cultural artifact is now just a random collection of signs momentarily existing side by side, ready to change at any moment into another random collection. So it cannot point beyond itself to any meaning. It cannot represent any reality outside itself. It cannot even raise the question of its relationship to any reality outside itself. It refers only to itself; it is its own referent. And our world is now so dominated by these signs and simulacra that they have become our reality. There is no other reality beyond them to which they could refer. Since the signs are not supposed to relate to anything beyond themselves, it makes no sense to ask what they mean. So the problem of meaning simply disappears.

POSTMODERNISM

If postmodern signs comment about anything at all, they can only comment

about themselves and the other signs alongside them. Our culture Is filled with

examples of such self-referential comments. Cartoon characters, for example,

often say things like: "I'm only a cartoon character" or "I love living in comic

book time." The genie in Disney's Aladdin, for example, is constantly reminding

us that we are watching a film with little relationship to the original tale of

Aladdin. Much of the appeal of Stars War, Episode I, came from our pleasure in

watching the film refer to images from earlier (i.e., later) episodes of Star

Wars. Film buffs could also see Lucas’ endless references to films by other

directors.

MEDIA

The quickest way to understand these ideas is to turn on your television. Video is the most characteristic medium of postmodernism. The essence of the medium is to keep up a ceaseless flow of images. It makes virtually no difference what reality they depict. What every TV show is really "about" is the flow of images. This is just as true for news shows and adverts as for entertainment. We see the cutting edge of postmodernism most clearly in "infotainment" and "infomercials," when we aren't quite sure whether we are watching a news or entertainment show or a commercial. Those are the moments when we realize most clearly that the image itself—not the content—is what counts. So it makes no sense to ask about the meaning of the image. The point of every TV show is just to keep the images moving. Anyone who tries to interpret the images temporarily stops the flow, which violates the essence of the medium itself. Television inherently resists the question of meaning. When we watch TV we don't ask what it means.

POSTMODERNISM ON TELEVISION

For example, TV coverage of a war might be interrupted by a football

player selling beer. War, football, and beer are each particular codes.

Modern people would try to decode the message by asking what reality

each image represents. They would ask whether the tempting TV image

of a frosty brew really corresponds to the taste of that particular beer.

They would ask why our society worships football stars as its greatest

heroes. They would ask about the true historical context of the war.

Then they would go on to search for the larger reality represented by

the convergence of all three. They would try to figure out why these

three sets of images are thrown together, how war and beer and

football are relate together, and what the overall point is. This would be

the modern way of decoding the message.

POSTMODERNISM ON TELEVISION

But postmodernism is different. Instead we recognize that the

intoxication of beer is vaguely related to the intoxication of football,

which is vaguely related to the intoxication of war. The same goes for

machismo or victory celebrations. Of course intoxication, machismo,

and victory celebrations can have quite different meanings in each of

these three codes. But from a postmodern viewpoint people don't

pursue those differences or ask about their relationships. They accept

the images living side by side.

POSTMODERNISM ON TELEVISION