- modernity was at once transient, fleeting, contingent AND eternal and immutable; the project of Modernism was effectively the last hurrah of the Enlightenment project: to create a scientific narrative of chaos that could both rationalize internal social fragmentation within a narrative of Progress AND break from the past
- Postmodernism, on the other hand, celebrates difference, fragmentation, and the vernacular; it is spatial and pragmatic rather than temporal and abstract, and it revels in chaos and complexity. As opposed to the Modernist city, the PoMo city is not divided into functional zones but instead develops by its own logic into something apolitically beautiful in its chaos.
- Both Modernism and Postmodernism are dialectically related to their particular "regime of accumulation," the particular configuration of capitalists, workers, state employees, financiers, and other political-economic agents that stabilizes the net product between consumption and accumulation. In the first half of the 20th century, Fordism kept the regime of accumulation stable by slowly shaping global mass-production and mass-consumption into a core/periphery model with the US in the center.
Showing posts with label consumption. Show all posts
Showing posts with label consumption. Show all posts
Sunday, April 7, 2013
101: David Harvey's Condition of Postmodernity
David Harvey's The Condition of Postmodernity both updates and spatializes classical Marxist theory and situates studies of place within the context of post-1973 global capitalism. He argues that postmodernity is a historical-geographical condition that is an aesthetic response to the crisis of overaccumulation. Throughout, he emphasizes the continuity from modernity to postmodernity, the connection between new cultural and economic practices, the post-1973 development of flexible capital accumulation on a global scale, and new ways of thinking about time-space compression. Some of his main points:
99: Domosh & Seager's Putting Women in Place
In Putting Women in Place: Feminist Geographers Make Sense of the World, Mona Domosh and Joni Seager show that space and place are both gendered and integral to the construction of gender. In providing an overview of feminist geographical scholarship (up to 2001), they argue that this gendering has historically (and is currently) integral to processes of segregation, dominance, and resistance, in places like work and home as well as in the actions of everyday life. Further, they situate this discussion of gender and geography within both local urban historical geographies in Western Europe and the US AND a structural analysis of global gender issues. Their book is divided into six parts:
Home: history and analysis of a space almost universally associated with women. Focusing on England and the US form the 17th century on, they show how the emerging capitalist system separated the male world of production from the female world of reproduction, from the Victorian cult of domesticity to mid-century suburbia. They then interrogate the raced and classed connections between notions of domesticity and turn-of-the-century social engineering projects aimed at "Americanizing" urban working-class and immigrant women and rural Native American women.
Home: history and analysis of a space almost universally associated with women. Focusing on England and the US form the 17th century on, they show how the emerging capitalist system separated the male world of production from the female world of reproduction, from the Victorian cult of domesticity to mid-century suburbia. They then interrogate the raced and classed connections between notions of domesticity and turn-of-the-century social engineering projects aimed at "Americanizing" urban working-class and immigrant women and rural Native American women.
Labels:
bodies,
consumption,
Cultural Geography,
domesticity,
empire,
environment,
gender,
general and theoretical,
globalization,
history,
home,
labor,
mobility,
nationalism,
place,
space,
women
Saturday, April 6, 2013
84: Lizabeth Cohen's Town Center to Shopping Center
In "From Town Center to Shopping Center: The Reconfiguration of Community Marketplaces in Postwar America," Lizabeth Cohen shows that the shift in consumer spaces from downtown shopping districts to suburban shopping centers and malls threatens the public sphere on which democracy depends.
The new landscapes of postwar mass consumption had three major effects on American community life:
The new landscapes of postwar mass consumption had three major effects on American community life:
- by commercializing public space, they brought market segmentation, including divisions by race and class, to community life
- by privatizing public space, they privileged the rights of property owners over citizens' rights to free speech
- by feminizing public space, they gave women more of a claim to the suburban landscape, but they circumscribed their power by constructing them as consumers only
83: Lizabeth Cohen's Making a New Deal
In Making a New Deal: Industrial Workers in Chicago, 1919-1939, Lizabeth Cohen uses the new social history/ history from the bottom up to figure out "how it was possible and what it meant for ordinary factory workers to become effective unionists and national political participants by the mid-1930s." Like E.P. Thompson, Cohen studies Chicago workers' slow progress to class consciousness and unionization in the 1920s and 1930s by looking at whole people embedded in complex communities instead of at the working class as a narrow block defined by productive labor. Accordingly, she argues that daily life both inside and outside the workplace, combined with changes in politics and the developing consumer market, led to new choices in a new world where daily lives eventually lead to political decisions.
In other words, Cohen looks at how the cultural became political. She shows that in the 1920s, Chicago, people may have worked together in factories, but they went home to ethnic enclaves and kept their money in their communities: shopped at local stores, banked with local banks, listened to ethnic radio stations, watch movies at local theaters, etc, even though national chains were already penetrating the city. They participated in popular culture not as a homogeneous mass but as ethnic and racial communities, each interpreting cultural products differently. Their only organizational experience was in forcing welfare capitalism to meet their needs.
In other words, Cohen looks at how the cultural became political. She shows that in the 1920s, Chicago, people may have worked together in factories, but they went home to ethnic enclaves and kept their money in their communities: shopped at local stores, banked with local banks, listened to ethnic radio stations, watch movies at local theaters, etc, even though national chains were already penetrating the city. They participated in popular culture not as a homogeneous mass but as ethnic and racial communities, each interpreting cultural products differently. Their only organizational experience was in forcing welfare capitalism to meet their needs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)