441 pages

English

Découvre YouScribe en t'inscrivant gratuitement

Je m'inscris

New Asian Marxisms , livre ebook

Duke University Press - Tani E. Barlow

Découvre YouScribe en t'inscrivant gratuitement

Je m'inscris

Obtenez un accès à la bibliothèque pour le consulter en ligne
En savoir plus

441 pages

English

Obtenez un accès à la bibliothèque pour le consulter en ligne
En savoir plus

A propos
Informations
Extrait

Description

Displaying the particular vitality of the global traditions of Marxism and neomarxism at the beginning of the twenty-first century, New AsianMarxisms collects essays by a diverse group of scholars-historians, political scientists, literary scholars, and sociologists-who offer a range of studies of the Marxist heritage focusing on Korea, Japan, India, and China.While some of these essays take up key thinkers in Marxist history or draw attention to outstanding problematics, others focus on national literature and discourse in North and South Korea, the "Mao Zedong Fever" of the 1990s, the implications of Li Dazhao's poetry, and the Indian Naxalite movement. Illustrating the importance of central analytical categories like exploitation, alienation, and violence to studies on the politics of knowledge, contributors confront prevailing global consumerist fantasieswith accounts of political struggle, cultural displacement, and theoretical strategies.Contributors. Tani E. Barlow, Dai Jinhua, Michael Dutton, D. R. Howland, Marshall Johnson, Liu Kang, You-me Park, William Pietz, Claudia Pozzana, Alessandro Russo, Sanjay Seth, Gi-Wook Shin, Sugiyama Mitsunobu, Jing Wang

Sujets

Corée

India

China

Japan

Korea

Informations

Publié par	Duke University Press
Date de parution	09 avril 2002
Nombre de lectures	0
EAN13	9780822383352
Langue	English
Poids de l'ouvrage	1 Mo

Informations légales : prix de location à la page 0,1598€. Cette information est donnée uniquement à titre indicatif conformément à la législation en vigueur.

Extrait

NEW ASIAN MARXISMS

napositionsbook

Duke University PressnDurham and Londonn

NEW ASIAN MARXISMS

TANI E. BARLOW

Edited by

©  Duke University Press All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper  Designed by Amy Ruth Buchanan Typeset in Scala by Tseng Information Systems, Inc. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data and original publication information appear on the last printed page of this book.

Tani E. Barlowvii Preface: Everything Diverges

William Pietz Introduction: Decency and Debasement

Michael Dutton Dreaming of Better Times: ‘‘Repetition with a Diﬀerence’’ and Community Policing in China

D. R. Howland Constructing Perry’s ‘‘Chinaman’’ in the Context of Adorno and Benjamin

Dai Jinhua Redemption and Consumption: Depicting Culture in the s

Marshall Johnson Making Time: Historic Preserva-tion and the Space of Nationality

Liu Kang Aesthetics and Chinese Marxism

Sugiyama Mitsunobu The World Conception of Japanese Social Science: TheKōza ¯ Faction, the Otsuka School, and the Uno School of Economics

CONTENTS

You-me Park ‘‘And They Would Start Again’’: Women and Struggle in Korean National-ist Literature

Claudia Pozzana Spring, Temporality, and History in Li Dazhao

Li Dazhao Spring



Alessandro Russo The Probable Defeat: Preliminary Notes on the Chinese Cultural Revolution

Sanjay Seth Interpreting Revolutionary Excess: The Naxalite Movement in India, –

Gi-Wook Shin Marxism, Anti-Americanism, and Democracy in South Korea: An Examination of Nationalist Intellectual Discourse

Jing Wang ‘‘Who Am I?’’—Questions of Voluntarism in the Paradigm of Socialist Alienation

Contributors

Index





Preface: Everything Diverges

In the contemporary epoch . . . nothing resembles anything else, nothing joins up with anything else, everything diverges. —Alain Badiou,Deleuze: The Clamor of Being

nWhy publish this anthology now? There are a host of overlapping reasons to consolidate these essays into a volume. One motive is to showcase the body of Marxist work unfolding under the general aus-pices of thepositionsproject. Another is to alert Marxist scholars in other domains about work going on in this one. A third is to put a breathing point or comma at this moment to an ongoing work in progress. The distance of a pause oﬀers interested readers a chance to gauge the objectives of contemporary Marxist criticism in or about ‘‘Asia,’’ and to measure their achievements against these scholars’ ana-lytic or critical goals. Laid out together here it is easier to discern the outline of general projects engaging Marxist scholarship in this rela-tively obscure domain of so-called Asian studies. The question of what is valuable about these essays and William Pietz’s thoughtful introduction to them is related to the reasons for this book’s publication. Pietz’s critique, coming as it does from a dif-ferent (primarily activist) domain, is exemplary precisely because it is written at a moment common to us all—the present. Pietz, like the other scholars who contributed papers to this collection, lives in the turbulence of late capitalist modernity. Their work—and here I re-spectfully disagree with Pietz—is not so much a series of essays about disillusionment or hope as an attempt to confront desacralization on a profound scale and in light of absolutely speciﬁc historical catastro-

TANI E. BARLOW

phes. Thus a highly invested, even pedantic concern with the places where everything has diverged does not counsel disillusionment. On the contrary it conﬁrms to me a willingness to excavate the here-and-now. What the papers and the comment say to me is that Asianist or not, 1 the common project is not post-Marxist, but a postorthodox Marxism. In this regard, Pietz is exactly suited to the task of critic, for he also is not pining for a ‘‘new proletariat.’’ He is looking at local struggles and particularly at the theoretical commonalities that may bind them together. Orthodox Marxism has two preoccupations: the dream of univer-sal history, and the problem of the subject or agent of that teleology, the proletariat. Largely eschewing the presumption of either, what ap-pears in this volume are a series of studies that probably would not have been considered ‘‘Marxist’’ at all a generation ago. As the late Bill 2 Brugger noted, the essays coexist uneasily even now. They are not meantto coexist. Each study presses its claim to the Marxist tradition for disparate reasons that are important to spell out. Some draw on abandoned or underused resources in cultural and theoretical Marx-ism. Howland, Dai, Johnson, and Liu aﬃliate in eccentric and useful ways with the academic Frankfurt school, augmenting and deform-ing that Anglo-European theoretical archive in the process. Other crit-ics mobilize Maoist and post-Maoist Marxisms. Shin, Seth, Sugiyama, and Dutton particularly seek ways of visualizing and exploiting ana-lyses inspired at a speciﬁc conjunctures or in immediate, often violent actions. But each of these unique and perhaps oddly juxtaposed papers nonetheless appears to reach for the ‘‘universality through singularity’’ that Pozzana particularly showcases in her exploration of early Marxist Li Dazhao. Each of these scholars looks at historical moments with the presen-tist eyes of the Marxist tradition of historical scholarship. This imparts a seriousness to historical projects that is sometimes lacking in other forms of history writing. For Claudia Pozzana and Alessandro Russo, for instance, as for Sylvain Lazarus and Alain Badiou, the French phi-losophers whose works infuse theirs, the need to historically describe the epoch is paramount. Equivocations aside, this is a continuation of Marxist concerns in a postorthodox vein—which is to say that the labor expended in the patient and detailed, sometimes dismaying scholar-ship anthologized here has immediate goals. First, similar to the Subaltern Studies publications, which opened new archives and theoretical resources as a means of detecting non-

viii

TANI BARLOW

elite and often only obliquely representable subjects who had histori-cally eluded, evaded, or resisted elite dominion, the work here at-tempts to enter worlds outside the prevailing historiography of area studies. (I will have more to say about historiography below.) Second, these essays evoke the shock of recognition that marks an encounter with the historical moment on its own terms, and they are only sec-ondarily concerned with reinforcing orthodox teleology. This objective is perfectly in line with the deﬁning cultural Marxist commitment to human liberation. It diﬀers only to the degree of its preoccupation with the question of singularity in historical experience. As Pietz re-minds us, because ‘‘singularity equals the time of possibility, [it] is an eternally recurring reality in our concrete experience.’’ Of course, to exploit the possible as the eternal is one aspect of recognizing the Marxist tradition’s attention to the potential available in all human situations. But scholarship abstracts this insight; historical studies are valuable to the degree that they provide some recognition that another person, perhaps a person like me, sought out a time of possibility and realized it. Third, and in spite of recognition that consciousness and the shock of immediacy are problems in historical representation, historical naming—periodizing—moors us, the contemporaries, to an accreted global past. The job of critical historians in the generous and capa-cious historical tradition of Marxism should be to locate instants of typicality in what is otherwise a heterogeneous ﬂux of simple social experience and intellection. Why should historians bother to focus on policing and enforcing orthodox teleology and orthodox concepts of agency? Certainly our skills and capacities are better served in locating and describing diverse historical subjects, appreciating the immedi-ate historical stakes that these subjects confronted, gauging our own relationship to the past in light of their experience, and consequently wagering our own energy on the possibilities of a better future. By and large the papers collected here are contributions to a broadly construed Marxist project of historical studies. The authors seek to de-lineate moments of human experience that require special attention from critical historians in the present who are compelled to ﬁnd the best ways of understanding our epoch in relation to those pasts. If we do not know when our epoch began, how do we know what signs of distinctiveness we should be looking for when we read the heteroge-neous historical archive? The questions taken up and debated must always include cognizance of the nature of our own era. This involves understanding fully, for instance, the signiﬁcance of the Cold War and

Everything Diverges