Marx, method, and the power of abstraction : the aesthetics of political economy

286 Pages·2005·5.63 MB·English

by  Best, Beverley.

MARX, METHOD, AND THE POWER OF ABSTRACTION:
THE AESTHETICS OF POLITICAL ECONOMY
Beverley Best
BA, University of British Columbia, 1989
MA, Simon Fraser University, 1997
THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
in the School
of
Communication
O Beverley Best 2004
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
March, 2004
All rights reserved. This work may not be
reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy
or other means, without permission of the author.
APPROVAL
NAME Beverley Best
DEGREE PhD
TITLE OF DISSERTATION:
Marx, Method, and the Power of
Abstraction: The Aesthetics of Political
Economy
EXAMINING COMMSTTEE:
CHAIR: Dr. Shane Gunster
Dr. &chard Gruneau
Senior Supervisor
Professor, School of Communication, SFU
Dr. Meaghan Morris
Supervisor
Chair, Department of Cultural Studies, Lingnan
University, Hongkong
Dr. Fredric Jameson
Supervisor
Professor, Department of Literature, Duke
Universitv,Durham, NC
Dr. Yuezhi Zhao
Internal Examiner
Associate Professor, School of Communication, SFU
Prof. Thomas Kemple, Associate Professor,
Department of Anthropology and Sociology, UBC
31 Mar. 2004
DATE:
ii
Partial Copyright Licence
The author, whose copyright is declared on the title page of this work, has
granted to Simon Fraser University the right to lend this thesis, project or
extended essay to users of the Simon Fraser University Library, and to
make partial or single copies only for such users or in response to a
request from the library of any other university, or other educational
institution, on its own behalf or for one of its users.
The author has further agreed that permission for multiple copying of this
work for scholarly purposes may be granted by either the author or the
Dean of Graduate Studies.
It is understood that copying or publication of this work for financial gain
shall not be allowed without the author's written permission.
The original Partial Copyright Licence attesting to these terms, and signed
by this author, may be found in the original bound copy of this work,
retained in the Simon Fraser University Archive.
Bennett Library
Simon Fraser University
Burnaby, BC, Canada
ABSTRACT
This dissertation is an investigation of Marx's method in his analysis of the capitalist
social formation and of his critique of the discourse of political economy.
The study is in two parts. The first part is a close textual analysis of Marx's
method focusing on his works, Capital and Grundrisse. I argue that Marxian political
economy is defined equally by a method of dialectical analysis and exposition, enunciating a
specific theory and practice of representation which negotiates and harnesses the force of what I
call the function of abstraction. The pivotal place of this particular theory and practice of
representation in Marx's work is the grounds for my suggestion that Marx's method shares
commonalities with, and is structured around the same problematics as, aesthetic discourses. For
example, both are fundamentally occupied with the relationship between form and content, and
between subject and object, with the creation of thematic imaginaries, with the critical and
representational strategy of defarniliarization, with the production of affect, and with the
potentially transformative interrelationship which representations have with the reader, viewer,
audience or subject.
The second part of the study opens up to a broader analysis of contemporary
visual cultural production-the visual arts, advertising, the Hollywood film industry-
including the situation which I refer to as "the aestheticization of consumption." I
illustrate the continuing adequacy of Marx's method of analysis of, and in, the
contemporary globalizing market economy wherein cultural production, and particularly
"image production," takes centre stage.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
At the top of the list, I extend my heartfelt gratitude to my senior supervisor, and a great
teacher, Rick Gruneau. I am also especially gratefbl for the wisdom and encouragement
of my supervisors Meaghan Moms and Fredric Jarneson. Gail Faurschou's excellent
guidance helped me find my way to my dissertation topic. Geoffrey Farmer was always
forthcoming with ideas about, and access to, his artwork, and Lindsay Brown's insight
into Farmer's work was equally invaluable. I would also like to acknowledge, with
thanks, the administrative support of Lucie Menkveld, Evelyn Hassen and, especially, the
unswerving steadiness of Neena Shahani. The final, enormous 'thank you' is reserved for
my parents who offered me much needed material support long, long after any child has a
right to request it.
For my beloved friends
who saw scarcely hide or hair of me for nearly two years.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
..
Approval.. ...........................................................................................
.ii
...
Abstract.. ..........................................................................................
..ill
Acknowledgements... ............................................................................i.v.
Dedication. ..........................................................................................v..
..
List of Figures.. ....................................................................................v ii
...
Quotation. .........................................................................................v.m
Introduction.. .....................................................................................1. ..
Chapter One
Marx's Critique of Abstraction.. ................................................................1.1.
Chapter Two
Capitalism's Process of Self-Mystification.. ...................................................4.4
Chapter Three
Marx's Theoretical Process I: Abstraction and Representation.. ........................... .80
Chapter Four
Marx's Theoretical Process 11: Historicizing the Dialectic.. ................................1 15
Chapter Five
Mediation as Allegory: Reading Political Economy Through
the Artwork of Geoffrey Farmer.. ...........................................
Chapter Six
The Aesthetics of Political Economy.. ..........................................................2 24
Conclusion.. ....................................................................................-.2.6 4
References. ......................................................................................... 273
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Geoffrey Farmer. Hunchback Kit. 2000 ...................................................1.7 7
2 . Geoffrey Farmer. "How to Make a Gargoyle. " 2000 .....................................1 78
3 . Geoffrey Farmer. The Blacking Factory. 2002 .............................................1 81
4 . Geoffrey Farmer. "A Box With the Sound of Its Own Making. " 2002 .................1 82
5. Geoffrey Farmer. Catriona JefSries Catriona. 200 1. .....................................2. 05
6. Geoffrey Farmer. Catriona JefSries Catriona. 200 1. .....................................2.0 6
7 . Geoffrey Farmer. Entrepreneur Alone Returning Back
to Sculptural Form. 2003 ....................................................................2. 07
8 . Geoffrey Farmer. Entrepreneur Alone Returning Back
to Sculptural Form. 2003 ...................................................................2.0. 8
9 . Geoffrey Farmer. "Workstation. Catriona JefSries Catriona. 200 1. ...................2 21
"
vii
"They take poetry seriously.. .
Is there anything to be gained by that?"
Marcel Duchamp
. ..
Vlll
Introduction
Several years ago, in a graduate seminar on qualitative research methods in
communication studies, I was taken to task by a fellow graduate student for what my
colleague perceived as my tendency to corral the group's discussion towards my own
narrow and specialized interest in the relationship between "method" and what is
colloquially referred to as "theory." The substance of my colleague's reproach was to
point out that my concerns-i.e., theory-had little, if anything, to do with the "real
world" and, hence, little, if anything, to do with our seminar. The initial deflation I
experienced after the exchange was eventually replaced by a sense of the helpfulness of
being pushed to articulate, explicitly, for the first time, why I was attracted to certain
research questions over others. Several years later, I realize in hindsight, that every
research project I have undertaken since that time can be classed as a (slightly) different
articulation of the same problematic, a problematic which could be called, "What Does
Theory Have to do With the Real World?", or, alternatively, "Why Method Matters." The
present study remains faithful to this line of research; fundamentally, it is concerned with
what "theory" and "method" have to do with one another, and more importantly, what
both have to do with the "real world."
The work of academics-teachers, scholars, critics, theorists-involves the formal
and institutionally sanctioned production and dissemination of explanations of the world.
The question of both method and theory concerns the "how" of the production of these
explanations. First, the study of method involves disclosing the mechanisms by which
certain explanations are established or forwarded as a consequence of the submersion or