counter create hit The Political Unconscious - Download Free eBook
Ads Banner
Hot Best Seller

The Political Unconscious

Availability: Ready to download

In this ground-breaking and influential study Fredric Jameson explores the complex place and function of literature within culture. At the time Jameson was actually writing the book, in the mid to late seventies, there was a major reaction against deconstruction and poststructuralism. As one of the most significant literary theorists, Jameson found himself in the In this ground-breaking and influential study Fredric Jameson explores the complex place and function of literature within culture. At the time Jameson was actually writing the book, in the mid to late seventies, there was a major reaction against deconstruction and poststructuralism. As one of the most significant literary theorists, Jameson found himself in the unenviable position of wanting to defend his intellectual past yet keep an eye on the future. With this book he carried it off beautifully. A landmark publication, The Political Unconscious takes its place as one of the most meaningful works of the twentieth century.


Compare
Ads Banner

In this ground-breaking and influential study Fredric Jameson explores the complex place and function of literature within culture. At the time Jameson was actually writing the book, in the mid to late seventies, there was a major reaction against deconstruction and poststructuralism. As one of the most significant literary theorists, Jameson found himself in the In this ground-breaking and influential study Fredric Jameson explores the complex place and function of literature within culture. At the time Jameson was actually writing the book, in the mid to late seventies, there was a major reaction against deconstruction and poststructuralism. As one of the most significant literary theorists, Jameson found himself in the unenviable position of wanting to defend his intellectual past yet keep an eye on the future. With this book he carried it off beautifully. A landmark publication, The Political Unconscious takes its place as one of the most meaningful works of the twentieth century.

30 review for The Political Unconscious

  1. 5 out of 5

    Justin Evans

    On one level, I like Jameson a lot. I agree with him about a lot of important stuff: yes, most art contains hefty doses of ideology (lies we tell ourselves so we feel better about living in a crappy world) and utopian hope (desire to live in a better world than ours). Yes, to understand this you need to pay attention to history and not just the book/movie/painting/building/symphony. Yes, it's a nice idea to read stories as attempts to solve real world problems. But there's plenty not to like On one level, I like Jameson a lot. I agree with him about a lot of important stuff: yes, most art contains hefty doses of ideology (lies we tell ourselves so we feel better about living in a crappy world) and utopian hope (desire to live in a better world than ours). Yes, to understand this you need to pay attention to history and not just the book/movie/painting/building/symphony. Yes, it's a nice idea to read stories as attempts to solve real world problems. But there's plenty not to like about this book. Primarily, Jameson treats the authors he writes about as naughty schoolboys who *never* tell the truth. Young Conrad, you keep telling me you're writing about the late-Victorian culture of honor, but I know better. Present thy buttocks for a class-war** caning! Whack! 'Lord Jim' is a proto-existentialist philosophy of the act, and you know it! Whack! This philosophy of the act demoralizes the capitalists and reveals to us, your reader, the omnipresence of class war! Whack! Why not say that Conrad had some frigging clue about what he was doing? Why not see that Lord Jim just is about the late-Victorian culture of honor, that it criticizes that culture, and then ask how that critique might fit in to an historical understanding of the time? Well, doing that wouldn't let Jameson spend endless pages constructing Greimasian structural-quadrilaterals that eliminate any sense that a plot moves. That wouldn't let him make pointless, ignorant arguments about the Bourgeois Subject. That wouldn't enable him to take random pot-shots at Henry James for believing that people think stuff sometimes. In short, he might have to admit that he's no cleverer than the authors he's reading. Let's do a Jamesonian reading of Jameson. The ideology is his insistence that structuralism and anti-humanism are somehow emancipatory, when experience (not to mention his reading of Adorno) should have taught him that they are deeply oppressive.*** Jameson's utopia, on the other hand, is his belief that literature matters to us, that it isn't just an autonomous formal jewel floating somewhere in the empyrean. Nice. ** His insistence on 'class war' as *the* structure of all history just seems silly in contrast to the ideology stuff, but it's important to note why: the only definition of class that can hold this kind of weight is Marx's. His definition is: the bourgeoisie owns the means of production, everyone else is a proletariat. The problem should be clear. Lawyers, for instance, don't own the means of production; nor do plastic surgeons. By contrast, the owners of small bookstores do. Now class obviously hasn't been eliminated. But in a post-industrial society, the bourgeois/proletariat model no longer makes any sense in political terms. So, the only model of class conflict that can be a prime-mover of history no longer makes sense in political terms. We need to re-think any reliance on 'class' as said prime-mover. *** By which I mean, capital itself is structuralist and anti-humanist; the unreflective use of structuralism and anti-humanism as 'radical' theories is just bowing down before the thing you're trying to undermine.

  2. 5 out of 5

    Alan Scott

    The "unconscious" to which Jameson speaks is "history" and its class conflicts. Like Freud's idea that dreams are "disguised wishes" which have been "hidden" within the "form" of the dream, likewise within literary productions are the hidden wishes for "utopia" which are "disguised" within the artistic form of the story, in which class conflicts and social contradictions are given expression but are "disguised" and decentered within the artwork. This is because there are always contradictions at The "unconscious" to which Jameson speaks is "history" and its class conflicts. Like Freud's idea that dreams are "disguised wishes" which have been "hidden" within the "form" of the dream, likewise within literary productions are the hidden wishes for "utopia" which are "disguised" within the artistic form of the story, in which class conflicts and social contradictions are given expression but are "disguised" and decentered within the artwork. This is because there are always contradictions at play within an artistic piece. The work of art is fueled in part by a desire for "utopia" (the unfullfilled wish), but at the same time "ideology" obtusicates this (ala Freud's "Dream Work"), muddles it, and hides it by pressing these urges to the sideline, where we are instead distracted by its "apparent" theme (manifest content) or a multiplicity of meanings (latent content), none of which truly satisfies our dream for utopian realized. Jameson's idea of the unconscious also similar to Freud's: as that which has been repressed and hidden from view/ consciousness. There is nothing religious or mystical about it this ideas. Freud discussed this idea within the psyche of the individual; Jameson discussed this idea as within the social realm of discourse. For Jameson all art is political, but this political aspect has been mostly relegated to subtext. The "master code" which can unlock a text's true meaning is "History," and reading historically, or, what jameson calls "dialectical criticism." In effect, one can look to Zizek for help, and his useful distinction between the three levels of dreams: 1) manifest content, 2) latent content, and 3) the Dream Work (form). For dreams, and likewise for Jameson's idea of the work of art, the aim is not to discover the "latent meaning"-- for the latent meaning is often obvious and not terribly interesting, and doing so is often a distraction from what is really important, which is investigating the narratives "form." The search for latent meaning (what is the central theme?, what does the central metaphor represent?, etc), distracts us from the reality that the main character/ central metaphor is often just a prop used by the author to explore what is, for Jameson, more important-- the class, and social/ historical themes which are decentered and relegated as "unimportant" or sub-themes. This is a brilliant book, and manages to subsume all other schools of literary theory (structuralism, deconstructionism, etc) under Marxism, somewhat as he did when he subsumed Postmodernism under Marxism in his book "Postmodernism, or, the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism." This book is probably THE most important work of Marxist literary theory in existence. Very hard, but worth working at. I struggled with this book for a while, starting and stopping and starting then again. If you read far and wide enough, and keep at it, one day you will crack this nut and it will indeed have been worth it.

  3. 4 out of 5

    Daniel Cheng

    As one of the few great Marxists left in the US, i.e. the world’s most capitalist country, reading Jameson today is imperative for any cultural critic. Jameson adopts and expands upon the concept of “symptomatic reading” developed by Althusser in Reading Capital to apply it to literary criticism. The entire book in general is heavily indebted to Althusser, borrowing the idea that subjects are “always already” interpellated to say that a literary text is “always-already-read.” In other words, we As one of the few great Marxists left in the US, i.e. the world’s most capitalist country, reading Jameson today is imperative for any cultural critic. Jameson adopts and expands upon the concept of “symptomatic reading” developed by Althusser in Reading Capital to apply it to literary criticism. The entire book in general is heavily indebted to Althusser, borrowing the idea that subjects are “always already” interpellated to say that a literary text is “always-already-read.” In other words, we never read texts “as they are” because the text is always hidden under layers of inherited interpretations and methodologies of reading. Therefore, the object of Jameson’s study is not so much the text itself, but rather these different layers that we are confronted with when we attempt to engage with a literary text. This new object of study is what Jameson thus terms: “the political unconscious.” From here, Jameson spends the first and most interesting chapter of the book going through an analysis of structural Marxism, contrasting it with the causal presuppositions of orthodox Marxism and Hegelian Marxism in order to show why a structuralist Marxist Althusserian causality is necessary for a truly political Marxist hermeneutic. Borrowing Althusser’s proposition that history is “a process without a subject,” and thus, an “absent cause,” Jameson admirably thus repositions the purpose of a Marxist hermeneutic as one that aims for a collective reading. If history is indeed a process without a subject, then this means that a hermeneutics that simply acts as a psychology of the reified monadic subject is indeed besides the point because the “absent cause” lies elsewhere. Indeed, my favorite aspect of this book’s project is Jameson’s relentless focus on constructing a proper sociological vision in order to defetishize the bourgeois obsession with the psychological subject. Skipping over to the last chapter (the chapters of actual literary criticism aren’t quite as enlightening as the more theoretical ones, but still worth reading), Jameson finally proposes an update to the traditional methodology of Marxist cultural analysis. Analysis can no longer simply be just a negative hermeneutic that attempts to uncover ideology, but also a positive hermeneutic that reveals the Utopian vision posited by the cultural work. In other words, the job of Marxism today is not only to reveal the ideological limits that “manage” and control the potentially revolutionary political impulses of a cultural work, but also to show what kind of image for the future the work is attempting to put forward. The vast majority of Marxist cultural criticism has indeed focused only on the former aspect, the negative hermeneutic, and Jameson’s real contribution here is to combine the notions of ideology and Utopia in analysis rather than to set them opposite to one another as is normally done. Overall, great read that has definitely changed the way I approach hermeneutics for not only literature, but also history, economics, and philosophy. Indeed, Jameson’s final statement is that the methodology he has constructed can and should be extended to objects of analysis far beyond literature. A final note on the difficulty: the prose is definitely academic, but that does not mean difficult. As long as you have a basic grasp of Marxist, psychoanalytic, and Sausserian terminology, the text is incredibly lucid and not a particularly difficult read.

  4. 4 out of 5

    Alex

    Begins and ends with Durkheim. Also begins with "Always Be Historicizing" and ends with Benjamin's barbarism=civilization quote. Prettttttty pretty pretty pretty good. Marxism (Freedom defeats necessity, but not most of the time) is the best story ever told. Ideologemes are invented. Althusser and Lukacs shake hands. NorthFrye and VladPropp sing a duet. Balzac, Gissing, Conrad do a little dance to the tune of Dialectical Materialism. History as a Lévi-Straussian Savage Thinker: Greimas squares Begins and ends with Durkheim. Also begins with "Always Be Historicizing" and ends with Benjamin's barbarism=civilization quote. Prettttttty pretty pretty pretty good. Marxism (Freedom defeats necessity, but not most of the time) is the best story ever told. Ideologemes are invented. Althusser and Lukacs shake hands. NorthFrye and VladPropp sing a duet. Balzac, Gissing, Conrad do a little dance to the tune of Dialectical Materialism. History as a Lévi-Straussian Savage Thinker: Greimas squares for everybody! Really hard!

  5. 4 out of 5

    Kate

    in the old days, I wold read 5 percent of a book like this and I would understand everything I read. Now I read the whole thing and I understand 5 percent. This book has some beautiful sentences, and intensely dense language.

  6. 5 out of 5

    Adam

    A linchpin for the wind-tossed circus tent of Marxist lit crit. But Jameson is never only speaking of Marxism, literature, or criticism. His intellectual purview is simply immense, and part of the jouissance of reading his texts is the sublime realization that yes, everything is connected.

  7. 5 out of 5

    sologdin

    as might be implicit in the title, a synthesis of freudian and marxist insights, different than the synthesis of same in Deleuze & Guattari, both in terms of object and result. object here is literary theory, whereas object of D&G is more general.

  8. 4 out of 5

    Andrew

    Wouldn't be fair for me to critique this book. I don't know what avenue brought it to my reading list, but I didn't enjoy this book much at all. Maybe if I was more interested in the subject of Marxist literary critique I'd have been more patient with Jameson's excruciating, hyper-academic writing. Unpleasant to read, and I'd be skeptical of any author who deliberately uses such technical wordplay when an obvious, simple description would exist to say the same thing. If the argument of the book Wouldn't be fair for me to critique this book. I don't know what avenue brought it to my reading list, but I didn't enjoy this book much at all. Maybe if I was more interested in the subject of Marxist literary critique I'd have been more patient with Jameson's excruciating, hyper-academic writing. Unpleasant to read, and I'd be skeptical of any author who deliberately uses such technical wordplay when an obvious, simple description would exist to say the same thing. If the argument of the book is good, then I'll take someone's word for it.

  9. 5 out of 5

    Anne

    Jameson broke my brain!

  10. 5 out of 5

    Hossein

    It may seem weird a little that how text or textualization of the history seems important to Fredric Jameson, but later on, when he analyses the function of the narrative and how it can unconsciously be textualized, you find the book very useful especially for your further studies on narration and politics. I recommend this book, but after reading Ideologies of Theory by the same author

  11. 4 out of 5

    Lucas Chance

    Absolutely Amazing This stands along with The Sublime Object of Ideology, Simulacra and Simulation, and The Powers of Horror as one of my absolute favorite pieces of literary criticism and critical theory. I will return to it often for quotes and ideas.

  12. 4 out of 5

    mimosa maoist

    I like how he gives you permission to skip the first 50 pages because they're boring. But seriously this may be his finest work and it really screwed my head on straight.

  13. 4 out of 5

    Leonardo

    En su clásico The Political Unconscious, Fredric Jameson proponía una perspicua lectura crítico-ideológica de la interpretación que hacía Claude Lévi-Strauss de la singular decoración facial de los indios caduveos de Brasil: utilizan «un diseño simétrico, pero que, sin embargo, se encuentra sobre un eje oblicuo […] una complicada situación basada en dos formas contradictorias de dualidad y que acaba en un compromiso provocado por una oposición secundaria entre el eje ideal del propio objeto [la En su clásico The Political Unconscious, Fredric Jameson proponía una perspicua lectura crítico-ideológica de la interpretación que hacía Claude Lévi-Strauss de la singular decoración facial de los indios caduveos de Brasil: utilizan «un diseño simétrico, pero que, sin embargo, se encuentra sobre un eje oblicuo […] una complicada situación basada en dos formas contradictorias de dualidad y que acaba en un compromiso provocado por una oposición secundaria entre el eje ideal del propio objeto [la cara humana] y el eje ideal de la figura que representa». Jameson observa: «Ya a nivel puramente formal, este texto visual ha sido entendido como una contradicción por la resolución curiosamente provisional y asimétrica que propone para aquella contradicción» (Pág.63). (Por cierto, ¿no se parece esto a un mapa de Manhattan, donde el diseño simétrico de las calles y avenidas está cortado por el eje oblicuo de Broadway? ¿O, a nivel arquitectónico, a un típico edificio de Liebeskind, con su tensión entre líneas verticales y líneas curvas?) En el siguiente paso, decisivo, Lévi-Strauss interpreta esta imaginada resolución formal de un antagonismo no como un «reflejo», sino como un acto simbólico, una trasposición-desplazamiento del desequilibrio-asimetría-antagonismo social básico de la sociedad caduvea. Los caduveos son una sociedad jerárquica y su incipiente jerarquía ya es el lugar de aparición, si no del poder político en sentido estricto, entonces por lo menos de las relaciones de dominación: el estatus inferior de la mujer, la subordinación de los jóvenes a los viejos y el desarrollo de una aristocracia hereditaria. Sin embargo, mientras que entre los vecinos guaná y bororos esta latente estructura de poder está enmascarada por una división en moieties que corta a las tres castas y cuyo intercambio exogámico parece funcionar de una manera no jerárquica, esencialmente igualitaria, en la vida de los caduveos se encuentra presente de forma declarada, como desigualdad y conflicto a la vista. Por otro lado, las instituciones sociales de los guanas y los borors proporcionan un reino de apariencia en el que la jerarquía y la desigualdad real quedan disimuladas por la reciprocidad de las moieties, y en el que, por ello, «la asimetría de clase se equilibra […] con la simetría de las moieties» (Pág.63-64). ¿No es esa también nuestra situación? En las sociedades burguesas estamos divididos entre la igualdad formal-legal, que está sostenida por las instituciones de un Estado democrático, y las distinciones de clase, que están impuestas por el sistema económico. Vivimos la tensión entre el respeto políticamente correcto por los derechos humanos, etc., por un lado, y las crecientes desigualdades, las comunidades cerradas y la exclusión, por el otro. Exactamente lo mismo sucede con la arquitectura: cuando un edificio encarna la apertura democrática, esta apariencia nunca es solo mera apariencia, sino que tiene realidad propia; estructura la manera en que interactúan los individuos en sus vidas reales. El problema con los caduveos era que (igual que los estados no democráticos de la actualidad) carecían de esta apariencia; no eran «lo suficientemente afortunados para resolver sus contradicciones, o para disimularlas, con la ayuda de instituciones ingeniosamente concebidas con ese propósito […] Ya que eran incapaces de conceptualizar o amar directamente esta solución, empezaron a soñar con ella, a proyectarla en lo imaginario». La decoración de la cara es «una producción de la fantasía de una sociedad que busca apasionadamente dar expresión simbólica a las instituciones que podría haber tenido en la realidad, de no haberse interpuesto en su camino el interés la superstición». (Obsérvese la refinada textura del análisis de Lévi-Strauss; el propio Jameson parece perder una dimensión cuando resume su resultado: el arte facial de los caduveos «constituye un acto simbólico, por el cual las contradicciones sociales reales, insuperables en sus propios términos, encuentran una resolución puramente formal en el reino de la estética»; y, en este sentido, «el acto estético es ideológico en sí mismo, y la producción de una forma estética o narrativa tiene que considerarse como un acto ideológico por derecho propio, cuya función es inventar “soluciones” imaginarias o formales para contradicciones sociales irresolubles».) Viviendo en el Final de los Tiempos Pág.264-266

  14. 5 out of 5

    Alex Lee

    Jameson wrote this influenced in a large part by Deleuze and Guattari's Anti-Oedipus... and while he understood AO enough to explode the idea so that the dominating structure of psychoanalysis no longer functioned to colonize material, he missed the way in which Marxist structure does the same thing -- he didn't apply the same critique to Marxism. But congruous to AO, D&G also did not apply the critique of Marx although they did apply it to other structures. As a result, AO has latent Jameson wrote this influenced in a large part by Deleuze and Guattari's Anti-Oedipus... and while he understood AO enough to explode the idea so that the dominating structure of psychoanalysis no longer functioned to colonize material, he missed the way in which Marxist structure does the same thing -- he didn't apply the same critique to Marxism. But congruous to AO, D&G also did not apply the critique of Marx although they did apply it to other structures. As a result, AO has latent Marxist content within their exploration. Much of Jameson's insight into literature and culture amounts to extrapolating the central difference from its context so that meaning can be understood as relying on the exploitation of one domain in order to be valorized in the context of another... very much the same dialectical structure as constructing Utopia by eliminating narrative distortion. In a sense, Jameson is reading one narrative structure against another (Marxism) although its threading occurs with Althusserian Ideological State Apparatus -- making this kind of read very much the same as what Zizek does. Perhaps in the early 80s this was a radical exploration of literature, but today in 2016 it seems quaint and naive in its genuine blindness.

  15. 4 out of 5

    Dan

    I find the first chapter of this book the most difficult, but I have re-read it several times. Dense with theory and abstract concepts, Jameson’s description of the kind of Marxist literary interpretation that is possible in a post-structuralist age is well argued and employs ideas from the works of thinkers and critics like Louis Althusser, Northrop Frye and Claude Levi-Strauss. In his discussion he comments on interpretation, historicization, and the relation of narrative to symbolic action. I find the first chapter of this book the most difficult, but I have re-read it several times. Dense with theory and abstract concepts, Jameson’s description of the kind of Marxist literary interpretation that is possible in a post-structuralist age is well argued and employs ideas from the works of thinkers and critics like Louis Althusser, Northrop Frye and Claude Levi-Strauss. In his discussion he comments on interpretation, historicization, and the relation of narrative to symbolic action. In later chapters, Jameson interprets the realism of Honore Balzac, the “high realism” of George Gissing, and the modernist impressionism of Joseph Conrad.

  16. 4 out of 5

    Jesus

    Ekphrasis; I knew I would get at least one concept that was new to me out of this book: A word that encapsulates Andrew Marvell's Last Instructions to a Painter ( http://www.theotherpages.org/poems/ma... ). Also useful was the book's concise clarification of Gilles Deluze's changing the question asked of texts from 'what it means' to 'how it works' (108). It goes on from there, but I hope it suffices to say that you may find this book fascinating if you enjoy the following sentence: "Jamesian Ekphrasis; I knew I would get at least one concept that was new to me out of this book: A word that encapsulates Andrew Marvell's Last Instructions to a Painter ( http://www.theotherpages.org/poems/ma... ). Also useful was the book's concise clarification of Gilles Deluze's changing the question asked of texts from 'what it means' to 'how it works' (108). It goes on from there, but I hope it suffices to say that you may find this book fascinating if you enjoy the following sentence: "Jamesian point of view, which comes into being as a protest and a defense against reification, ends up furnishing a powerful ideological instrument in the perpetuation of an increasingly subjectivized and psychologized world, a world whose social vision is one of thoroughgoing relativity of monads in coexistence and whose ethos is irony and neo-Freudian projection theory and adaptation-to-reality therapy." (from page 221-222)

  17. 5 out of 5

    Caracalla

    A complicated work that helped to draw interest back onto history and context in literature. Essentially an attempt to formulate a Marxist aesthetics as a third way vs. the twin poles of Derrida and Foucault. It also responds at real length to the work of the Marxists Althusser and Lukacs, being particularly critical of the latter while attempting some damage rescue caused by the former to Classical Marxism. It does all this by combining Marxist thought with several other schools of thought A complicated work that helped to draw interest back onto history and context in literature. Essentially an attempt to formulate a Marxist aesthetics as a third way vs. the twin poles of Derrida and Foucault. It also responds at real length to the work of the Marxists Althusser and Lukacs, being particularly critical of the latter while attempting some damage rescue caused by the former to Classical Marxism. It does all this by combining Marxist thought with several other schools of thought including that associated with Freud/Lacan and Frye. The readings in the central chapters are often attractive, particularly his depiction of Conrad's proto-Modernism as a strange combination of the high Modernist and the mass popular in the novel Lord Jim.

  18. 4 out of 5

    Dave

    A fairly lucid text dealing with a method of Marxian cultural analysis that works hard to transcend the instrumentalizing perspective ("the man forces Hemingway to write this way"). I'll admit I skimmed the final chapters once I grasped the methodology (which, it seems, Jameson himself did not fully demonstrate in his demonstration chapters). His arguments for the primacy of Marxist thinking were interesting, and I'll have to see if I can come up with a good counterargument or not. Regardless, I A fairly lucid text dealing with a method of Marxian cultural analysis that works hard to transcend the instrumentalizing perspective ("the man forces Hemingway to write this way"). I'll admit I skimmed the final chapters once I grasped the methodology (which, it seems, Jameson himself did not fully demonstrate in his demonstration chapters). His arguments for the primacy of Marxist thinking were interesting, and I'll have to see if I can come up with a good counterargument or not. Regardless, I think this is an important work that helps expand my thinking about the how and why behind literary and cultural analysis.

  19. 4 out of 5

    Mattia Ravasi

    Featured in my Introduction to Postmodernist Literature: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zT4L4... "You're all writing Marxist propaganda even when you think you are not. Also, here are some chapters on Conrad, Balzac, and a guy you've likely never read." (just j0k1ng here!, this is of course a seminal masterpiece, but yours truly isn't very much into Marxist theory, also Fredric Jameson's one of my arch-enemies).

  20. 4 out of 5

    Eric

    Hard to say anything about this book that hasn't already been said, but to reiterate that it is a book you should read. Now. For those interested in MArxism, Jameson provides a wonderful review of powerful debates that shaped the engagement of its twentieth century thinkers. For those interested in literary criticism, it is hard not to fall in line with Jameson's proposed method of symptomatic reading.

  21. 4 out of 5

    Christopher

    Serious-minded throughout with an excellent restatement of the import of dialectical thought. If you take the standpoint that a movement is a collective narrative, this is one of the finest works of Marxist theory period. Serves as a brutal corrective of the nondialectical tendency to moralize in leftist culture criticism. I give this my highest recommendation.

  22. 4 out of 5

    Laura

    Een "must read" voor iedereen die geïnteresseerd is in de politiek-historische onderlaag van een literaire tekst en de ontmaskering van ideologie. Het nadeel aan dit boek is dat het enorm gecompliceerd is geschreven, waardoor je vaak moet terugbladeren en het je niet kunt veroorloven om je hoofd er niét bij te houden.

  23. 5 out of 5

    Mu-tien Chiou

    "the political unconscious" is used by Fredric Jameson in the post-structuralist sense that all cultural activities participate in politics, a fact of which the majority of their agents are unaware precisely because they are "in" it.

  24. 4 out of 5

    David

    Other than Postmodernism, his best book.

  25. 4 out of 5

    Mesut Bostancı

    Woof

  26. 5 out of 5

    David

    My favorite Jameson.

  27. 4 out of 5

    Charles Rost

    A classic of its era and still relevant, especially the first half. The later chapters can be skipped.

  28. 4 out of 5

    ػᶈᶏϾӗ

    good

  29. 5 out of 5

    Casey Wynhoff-Naramore

    More devotion to criticism would strengthen the impact of this text.

  30. 4 out of 5

    Haley Petcher

    *Read for grad school (Contemporary Theory)

Add a review

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Loading...
We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy.