Of Marxism, Marketing, Cyborgs and Women
Whether we consider it in a codified and hierarchical fashion (sic), or as part of a postmodern and eclectic soup, subversive or neutered, the readings this week all point to the power of the aesthetic in literary, and political, discourse. The discussion of postmodernism as a cultural trend in dialogue with that of Nationalism in the case of Taiwan (and I would argue elsewhere: to be conscious of hybridity, borrowing and irreverence one has to some extent to be aware of the cultural baggage and limitations of a nation or other determined imagined object) and of Taiwan (note “she”) as a (female) cyborg that is engaged by Sebatian Lau is informative both of the literary work we examine from this sphere this week, but also the discussion of Marxist Aesthetics, their role and function in the Mainland Chinese context. Lau argues a distinction between a “apolitical” postmodernity that is purely aesthetic, and notably self-consciously put beyond the realms of the political, and the use of postmodernity by a politically aware and motivated avant garde. Although I feel that this distinction could be of use some limited use in the political environment of the Taiwan of the day, in effect it robs postmodernity of precisely its subversive power: that is its power to move between the political and the apolitical seamlessly, and irreverently, to erase the difference between the form and content.
Zhu Tianwen’s Fin de Siecle Splendor is precisely an example of a postmodern style that exists in Taiwan that is fairy congruent with postmodernism as it is touted in the West, when any attempt is made at touting it all. Moving between romantic description and list-like elaboration of the latest fads, we are presented with that cold cyborgian confusion of surface and depth, at once compelling and disturbing.
One question that comes to mind is whether it is possible to have a postmodern aesthetics that is also Marxist. Naturally, an aesthetic system as schematized as that present in Marxist practical political life and theoretical discourse provides fruitful grounds for a superficial revolution along postmodern, consemerist lines, I would argue, however that despite the distinctions made by Ban Wang between a western idea of the aesthetic as superfluous, superficial and false, aesthetics are equally schematized n western literary and popular discourses, simply through different means, and this latent quality allows for certain different sorts of manifestation to occur in the re examination of same when it comes to the advent and spread of postmodernity as a phenomenon. Certainly, if we take indifference, or use, misuse and appropriation of emotional response to be one of the hallmarks of postmodern thought in the west and elsewhere, the writings of many “avant-garde” authors of china in the 80’s/90’s would seem to qualify, including Ge Fei.
The question we return to regards the limitations of “postmodernism” if they exist, and if they do, whether they exist along culturo-national lines. Taking a suitably postmodern stance I conclude that I, cyborg, have no conclusion to offer as yet.
