1114 A STUDY ON AESTHETIC DIMENSIONS OFCHINESE DREAM of the critic is to"appreciation of the beauty and entertainment"or"spiritual redemption."The signification of Mao's talk lies in that it elevates the general literary theory and aesthetic theory up to the level of social development and national redemption.The key meaning of arts is to liberate people.The task of the critic is to devote into and stimulate this cultural consciousness.Therefore,the Kant-like conception and standpoint of "non-utility of beauty"or "arts for the sake of arts"could not help to understand Mao's talk and its value in academy and the history of Chinese modernization. Literature and Arts,as the form of culture,play an important role in the procedure of establishment of cultural leadership.Mao's talk coincided with the thoughts brought by Remond Williams in 1960s,which both consider the question in the term of"cultural theory of revolution".As we all know,from Williams to Eagelton, the English Marxist critics combine the Marxist literary criticism with English literature study and shaped England school”and“England theory”,as the most important school after“school of Frankfurt'”and“school of Althusser".In my opinion,the success of England Marxism lies in:facing the significant question of reality, adopting the way they can achieve,devoting into the people's cultural liberation and being a participator of "common experience.Meanwhile,the England Marxists possess adequate academic accomplishments,and own the capability to upgrade the expression to the level of"Aesthetic"which the literature and arts should possess. As the theorist occupied in the filed of Aesthetics and Literary Criticism,it holds a meaning for the Chinese revival and the development of Society,via our explanation and criticism,which should be the value of all what we devote ourselves to. References Ross Terrill.(2006).MAO:A Biography.Beijing:China Renmin University Press. Selections(Anthologies)of Marx and Engels.(1995).Beijing:China Renmin University Press. Frederic Jameson.(2007).Archaeologies of the Future:The Desire Called Utopia and Other Science Fictions.(Wang Fengzhen, Trans.).Marxist and reality,5. Terry Eagleton.(2006).Marxist and Realism.(Wang Zhaoyuan,Trans.)"Study on Marxist aesthetics".Guilin City:Guangxi Normal Press. Carle Jaspers.(2005).Man in the Modern Age.(Wang Defeng,Trans.).Shanghai:Shanghai Translation Publishing House. Terry Eagleton.(2005).Walter Benjamin or Towards a Revolutionary Criticism.(Guo Guoliang,Trans.).Translation Press. Selected works of Mao Zedong.(Vol.3).(1991).Beijing:China Renmin University Press
1114 A STUDY ON AESTHETIC DIMENSIONS OF “CHINESE DREAM” of the critic is to “appreciation of the beauty and entertainment” or “spiritual redemption.” The signification of Mao’s talk lies in that it elevates the general literary theory and aesthetic theory up to the level of social development and national redemption. The key meaning of arts is to liberate people. The task of the critic is to devote into and stimulate this cultural consciousness. Therefore, the Kant-like conception and standpoint of “non-utility of beauty” or “arts for the sake of arts” could not help to understand Mao’s talk and its value in academy and the history of Chinese modernization. Literature and Arts, as the form of culture, play an important role in the procedure of establishment of cultural leadership. Mao’s talk coincided with the thoughts brought by Remond Williams in 1960s, which both consider the question in the term of “cultural theory of revolution”. As we all know, from Williams to Eagelton, the English Marxist critics combine the Marxist literary criticism with English literature study and shaped “England school” and “England theory”, as the most important school after “school of Frankfurt” and “school of Althusser”. In my opinion, the success of England Marxism lies in: facing the significant question of reality, adopting the way they can achieve, devoting into the people’s cultural liberation and being a participator of “common experience. Meanwhile, the England Marxists possess adequate academic accomplishments, and own the capability to upgrade the expression to the level of “Aesthetic” which the literature and arts should possess. As the theorist occupied in the filed of Aesthetics and Literary Criticism, it holds a meaning for the Chinese revival and the development of Society, via our explanation and criticism, which should be the value of all what we devote ourselves to. References Ross Terrill. (2006). MAO: A Biography. Beijing: China Renmin University Press. Selections (Anthologies) of Marx and Engels. (1995). Beijing: China Renmin University Press. Frederic Jameson. (2007). Archaeologies of the Future: The Desire Called Utopia and Other Science Fictions. (Wang Fengzhen, Trans.). Marxist and reality, 5. Terry Eagleton. (2006). Marxist and Realism. (Wang Zhaoyuan, Trans.). “Study on Marxist aesthetics”. Guilin City: Guangxi Normal Press. Carle Jaspers. (2005). Man in the Modern Age. (Wang Defeng, Trans.). Shanghai: Shanghai Translation Publishing House. Terry Eagleton. (2005). Walter Benjamin or Towards a Revolutionary Criticism. (Guo Guoliang, Trans.). Translation Press. Selected works of Mao Zedong. (Vol. 3). (1991). Beijing: China Renmin University Press
Journal of Literature and Art Studies,December 2015,Vol.5,No.12,1115-1122 doi:10.17265/2159-5836/2015.12.002 DAVD PUBLISHING "Postmodern Politics"and the Reconstruction of Marxist Critical Discourse* DUAN Ji-fang South China Normal University,Guangzhou,China Marxist discourse is subject to incredulity and negative impact under the deconstructionist dissolution of"totality" and negation of historical"meta-narrative".But the ideological tension of Marxism has constituted the theoretical basis of deconstructionist and postmodernist criticism of Capitalism and its culture.Furthermore,it is the radical hope of postmodernism.Within the scope of"postmodern politics",Marxism still boasts critical competence and theoretical reconstruction capabilities under Capitalist global narrative."Deconstructive Marxism"contains complex ideological contradictions,on which we should conduct in-depth criticism. Keywords:postmodernism,deconstructionism,Marxism,ideological tension Since the middle of the 20h Century,with the progression of postmodern deconstruction strides,every basic, entitative and meta-narrative discourse have suffered huge impact and challenges.The postmodern "deconstruction"represents a revolution of knowledge norms,which has devastated the powerful Western metaphysics tradition and ethical norms and challenged the knowledge foundation and academic systems of many disciplines.As a"grand narration"with huge influence on 20h Century Western knowledge and cultural construct,Marxism has also suffered impact from the deconstructionist dissolution of totality and negation of historical "meta-narrative".However,postmodernism,including deconstructionism,has never rejected Marxist knowledge discourse,especially its critical theories,which even constitutes the main spiritual origin of radical postmodern aesthetic critics.Up until now,different ideological forces born from 20th century western political setup are still undergoing constant shift and restructuring.Ideologically,culturally and politically,a variety of sects are still undergoing gaming and contrast,which makes the clashes between deconstructionism and Marxism more prominent.Their covert or overt ideological tension has formulated a key node of 20h century Western ideological field.This essay attempts to explore the twisted relationship between deconstructionism and Marxism from the point of view of "postmodern politics"so as to offer a way of comprehending the mutation of Western philosophical spirits in the 20h century. Acknowledgements:This paper was funded by China National Find of Social Sciences"the Research of Fundamental Problems of the Contemporary Aesthetic and Criticism Forms"(15ZDB023). DUAN Ji-fang,a professor in the School of Chinese Language and Literature,South China Normal University,Guangzhou, Guangdong Province,His research field covers Marxism aesthetics and cultural theory,aesthetic ideology,aesthetic illusion
Journal of Literature and Art Studies, December 2015, Vol. 5, No. 12, 1115-1122 doi: 10.17265/2159-5836/2015.12.002 “Postmodern Politics” and the Reconstruction of Marxist Critical Discourse DUAN Ji-fang South China Normal University, Guangzhou, China Marxist discourse is subject to incredulity and negative impact under the deconstructionist dissolution of “totality” and negation of historical “meta-narrative”. But the ideological tension of Marxism has constituted the theoretical basis of deconstructionist and postmodernist criticism of Capitalism and its culture. Furthermore, it is the radical hope of postmodernism. Within the scope of “postmodern politics”, Marxism still boasts critical competence and theoretical reconstruction capabilities under Capitalist global narrative. “Deconstructive Marxism” contains complex ideological contradictions, on which we should conduct in-depth criticism. Keywords: postmodernism, deconstructionism, Marxism, ideological tension Since the middle of the 20th Century, with the progression of postmodern deconstruction strides, every basic, entitative and meta-narrative discourse have suffered huge impact and challenges. The postmodern “deconstruction” represents a revolution of knowledge norms, which has devastated the powerful Western metaphysics tradition and ethical norms and challenged the knowledge foundation and academic systems of many disciplines. As a “grand narration” with huge influence on 20th Century Western knowledge and cultural construct, Marxism has also suffered impact from the deconstructionist dissolution of totality and negation of historical “meta-narrative”. However, postmodernism, including deconstructionism, has never rejected Marxist knowledge discourse, especially its critical theories, which even constitutes the main spiritual origin of radical postmodern aesthetic critics. Up until now, different ideological forces born from 20th century western political setup are still undergoing constant shift and restructuring. Ideologically, culturally and politically, a variety of sects are still undergoing gaming and contrast, which makes the clashes between deconstructionism and Marxism more prominent. Their covert or overt ideological tension has formulated a key node of 20th century Western ideological field. This essay attempts to explore the twisted relationship between deconstructionism and Marxism from the point of view of “postmodern politics” so as to offer a way of comprehending the mutation of Western philosophical spirits in the 20th century. Acknowledgements: This paper was funded by China National Find of Social Sciences “the Research of Fundamental Problems of the Contemporary Aesthetic and Criticism Forms” (15ZDB023). DUAN Ji-fang, a professor in the School of Chinese Language and Literature, South China Normal University, Guangzhou, Guangdong Province, His research field covers Marxism aesthetics and cultural theory, aesthetic ideology, aesthetic illusion. D DAVID PUBLISHING
1116 POSTMODERN POLITICS"AND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF MARXIST Skepticism Toward“Mega-narration”and Deconstructionist“Political Impulse” The concept of"meta-narrative"first appeared in The Postmodern Condition:A Report on Knowledge by the French philosopher Lyotard.Lyotard holds that postmodern condition is in its essence a knowledge condition in which processes of perceiving the world,obtaining knowledge,way of thinking and language expression have been reexamined.It's an activity of"decoding"and"re-coding"the knowledge structure and discourse system, which means the end of universal discourse,or "meta-narrative"(1997,p.138).In his opinion,"meta-narrative" refers to all kinds of grand narratives and theories,including religion,Marxism and Darwin's evolution theory, which are compulsory and oppressive.This has crated a contradiction.On one hand,production of modern knowledge requires a legitimate narrative;on the other hand,modern scientific knowledge is produced during the process of criticizing traditional knowledge.Now that the universal foundation of modern scientific knowledge has become a difficult problems,it's necessary to completely deconstruct fundamental delusion of modern knowledge in order to"rewrite modernity"(1997,p.138). Lyotard's description of postmodern condition of knowledge not only proposes postmodernists'efforts to reexamine the foundation of modern scientific language,but also points out the essentials of postmodernism ideologically,mentally and culturally.In both theory and ideology,the one who has practiced these essentials most overtly is no others than deconstructionism,which is represented by Derrida.Derrida practiced"decoding" of knowledge structure and discourse system proposed by Lyotard from the angle of linguistic semiology theory. In his famous book Of Grammatology,Derrida proposes that since Saussure's Course in General Linguistics, language has always been viewed as a semiotic system in which the distinction between signifier and signified,or at least“parallelism”,constitutes an obvious“phonocentrism”.“Writing were considered intermediary of intermediary and was trapped in the externality of sense"(2005,p.16).in his opinion,this linguistic view has never cast off the extension of"logocentrism"since Heidegger and "deeply hidden in the entire long age of metaphysics history"(2005,p.16).In the metaphysics tradition,"logocentrism"belittles writing and endows prerogative to phonetic entity.Derrida challenges this traditional thinking in the name of Saussure's"randomicity of signs".He maintains that "Signs exist as long as there were sense.We only think with signs"(2005,p.69). Presentation could only play their role through surrogates,which are signs themselves.Signs symbolizes"an absent presence",which is purposeless.Yet meaning is scattered in the chain of signs,where it was continuously deferred.Writing and books represent the deferral of meaning,which is not"the diagram of speech"defined by Saussure.It's at the outside and inside of speech.Writing is a linguistic game played with the"absent presence" of signs By interpreting and applying the"absent presence"property of signs,Derrida establishes its writing theory. In his point of view,the history of writing declares its absolute externality.It describes writing's internalization of language,which is a huge "supplementary"for spoken language and voices.Thus,oral language and voice couldn't represent a constant meaning,It will be perpetually put in the distinction and deferral caused by the "absent presence"of signs(1976,p.313).That's why text is not a self-sufficient world.And there is no binary oppositions between signifier and signified,writing and speech.Differences,deferral and transformations changes writing to a"non-being trail of sense".From the point view of writing,Derrida subverts linguistic views since Saussure and challenges the powerful "phonocentrism"of the west and its metaphysics tradition.In his
1116 “POSTMODERN POLITICS” AND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF MARXIST Skepticism Toward “Mega-narration” and Deconstructionist “Political Impulse” The concept of “meta-narrative” first appeared in The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge by the French philosopher Lyotard. Lyotard holds that postmodern condition is in its essence a knowledge condition in which processes of perceiving the world, obtaining knowledge, way of thinking and language expression have been reexamined. It’s an activity of “decoding” and “re-coding” the knowledge structure and discourse system, which means the end of universal discourse, or “meta-narrative” (1997, p. 138). In his opinion, “meta-narrative” refers to all kinds of grand narratives and theories, including religion, Marxism and Darwin’s evolution theory, which are compulsory and oppressive. This has crated a contradiction. On one hand, production of modern knowledge requires a legitimate narrative; on the other hand, modern scientific knowledge is produced during the process of criticizing traditional knowledge. Now that the universal foundation of modern scientific knowledge has become a difficult problems, it’s necessary to completely deconstruct fundamental delusion of modern knowledge in order to “rewrite modernity” (1997, p. 138). Lyotard’s description of postmodern condition of knowledge not only proposes postmodernists’ efforts to reexamine the foundation of modern scientific language, but also points out the essentials of postmodernism ideologically, mentally and culturally. In both theory and ideology, the one who has practiced these essentials most overtly is no others than deconstructionism, which is represented by Derrida. Derrida practiced “decoding” of knowledge structure and discourse system proposed by Lyotard from the angle of linguistic semiology theory. In his famous book Of Grammatology, Derrida proposes that since Saussure’s Course in General Linguistics, language has always been viewed as a semiotic system in which the distinction between signifier and signified, or at least “parallelism”, constitutes an obvious “phonocentrism”. “Writing were considered intermediary of intermediary and was trapped in the externality of sense” (2005, p. 16). in his opinion, this linguistic view has never cast off the extension of “logocentrism” since Heidegger and “deeply hidden in the entire long age of metaphysics history” (2005, p. 16). In the metaphysics tradition, “logocentrism” belittles writing and endows prerogative to phonetic entity. Derrida challenges this traditional thinking in the name of Saussure’s “randomicity of signs”. He maintains that “Signs exist as long as there were sense. We only think with signs” (2005, p. 69). Presentation could only play their role through surrogates, which are signs themselves. Signs symbolizes “an absent presence”, which is purposeless. Yet meaning is scattered in the chain of signs, where it was continuously deferred. Writing and books represent the deferral of meaning, which is not “the diagram of speech” defined by Saussure. It’s at the outside and inside of speech. Writing is a linguistic game played with the “absent presence” of signs. By interpreting and applying the “absent presence” property of signs, Derrida establishes its writing theory. In his point of view, the history of writing declares its absolute externality. It describes writing’s internalization of language, which is a huge “supplementary” for spoken language and voices. Thus, oral language and voice couldn’t represent a constant meaning, It will be perpetually put in the distinction and deferral caused by the “absent presence” of signs (1976, p. 313). That’s why text is not a self-sufficient world. And there is no binary oppositions between signifier and signified, writing and speech. Differences, deferral and transformations changes writing to a “non-being trail of sense”. From the point view of writing, Derrida subverts linguistic views since Saussure and challenges the powerful “phonocentrism” of the west and its metaphysics tradition. In his
POSTMODERN POLITICS"AND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF MARXIST 1117 book Positions,Derrida emphasizes that"Grammatology must destruct everything that binds scientific concepts, norms and being-theology,logocentrism and phonocentrism"(2001,p.40).His provocative voices were echoed by the theories of J.Lacan,French philosopher,Yale School of the U.S.and another French philosopher Michel Foucault.Lacan combines deconstructionist theory with psychoanalytic theory,discovering Derrida's sense from the relationship between language and psychology and deepening his decomposition of speech and writing to the level of subject and mind.He believes that what confines language is the whole language and cultural system,which constitutes a complex network where ego and subject are undoubtedly governed under. With Sigmund Freud's unconsciousness concept,Lacan points out the "centralism"of this system's "logocentrism"and by highlighting and modifying the mobility and rhetorical of"signifiers",he dissembles the cultural system that restrains the expression process of language,deepening Derrida's deconstruction theory. French philosopher Michel Foucault's research represents the revolution of deconstructionist epistemology and historical theories.In the book Archaeology of Knowledge,Foucault conducts profound analysis of the power mechanism and system that affects knowledge discourse from the angle of the historical generation of the knowledge discourse system,discovering the evolving mechanism of"knowledge hegemony"in the evolution of the history of western culture.Foucault holds that the generation of all the knowledge concepts and establishment of all the knowledge system are the process of completion of the domination of"discursive formation"by "knowledge hegemony"through differentiation,purification and exclusion.Thus,"discursive formation" represents the generative mechanism of knowledge discourse system,which requires the involvement of cultural mechanism,such as cultural publicity,ideology and education.But more importantly,it's through power institutions such as schools,churches and prisons.He believes that the function of these power institutions is not organic or holistic,but filled with fragmentation and overlap,where correction facilities such as prisons, sanitariums and hospitals are its best examples.The fragmentation and overlap is where the energy of "knowledge hegemony"gathers,enabling it to permeate inside of knowledge system. If Lacan relieves deconstructionism from Derrida's "linguistic turn"to focus on the question of"subject construction"of"unconsciousness"and "language and cultural system",then Foucault's knowledge archaeology position brings deconstruction theory deep into the core of epistemology and historical theories.With their efforts. deconstructionism was not only able to destruct the powerful Western metaphysics tradition,but also completely dismembered the philosophy historical totality,shaking the universal foundation of modern scientific knowledge. However,it's far from enough to interpret deconstructionism from the standpoint of epistemology.From the backdrop of knowledge theory,deconstructionism was an revolution of thinking in the field of philosophy,which is closely connected to the western social,political and cultural reality of the 1960s.As Derrida is not only a literary professional,his deconstructionism also demonstrates the purport of political criticism,which was what he meant by saying:"To think about philosophy,you have to go beyond philosophy in one way or another"(2001, p.12).In Derrida's deconstructionism,the writing of text inside language process brought by the randomicity of signs is hidden with opposition of nonvariant sense.Though his writing theory was conducted within the scope of linguistics,its hidden opposition to consistent historical consciousness is inseparable to the transition of capitalist mode of social production and capital operation of the time.In Foucaul's knowledge archaeology,oppressive power is hidden in the relationship between knowledge and power,discipline and punishment,and craziness and civilization (1997,p.12).He attempts to interpret the operation and expression mode of power mechanism in
“POSTMODERN POLITICS” AND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF MARXIST 1117 book Positions, Derrida emphasizes that “ Grammatology must destruct everything that binds scientific concepts, norms and being—theology, logocentrism and phonocentrism” (2001, p. 40). His provocative voices were echoed by the theories of J. Lacan, French philosopher, Yale School of the U.S. and another French philosopher Michel Foucault. Lacan combines deconstructionist theory with psychoanalytic theory, discovering Derrida’s sense from the relationship between language and psychology and deepening his decomposition of speech and writing to the level of subject and mind. He believes that what confines language is the whole language and cultural system, which constitutes a complex network where ego and subject are undoubtedly governed under. With Sigmund Freud’s unconsciousness concept, Lacan points out the “centralism” of this system’s “logocentrism” and by highlighting and modifying the mobility and rhetorical of “signifiers”, he dissembles the cultural system that restrains the expression process of language, deepening Derrida’s deconstruction theory. French philosopher Michel Foucault’s research represents the revolution of deconstructionist epistemology and historical theories. In the book Archaeology of Knowledge, Foucault conducts profound analysis of the power mechanism and system that affects knowledge discourse from the angle of the historical generation of the knowledge discourse system, discovering the evolving mechanism of “knowledge hegemony” in the evolution of the history of western culture. Foucault holds that the generation of all the knowledge concepts and establishment of all the knowledge system are the process of completion of the domination of “discursive formation” by “knowledge hegemony” through differentiation, purification and exclusion. Thus, “discursive formation” represents the generative mechanism of knowledge discourse system, which requires the involvement of cultural mechanism, such as cultural publicity, ideology and education. But more importantly, it’s through power institutions such as schools, churches and prisons. He believes that the function of these power institutions is not organic or holistic, but filled with fragmentation and overlap, where correction facilities such as prisons, sanitariums and hospitals are its best examples. The fragmentation and overlap is where the energy of “knowledge hegemony” gathers, enabling it to permeate inside of knowledge system. If Lacan relieves deconstructionism from Derrida’s “linguistic turn” to focus on the question of “subject construction” of “unconsciousness” and “language and cultural system”, then Foucault’s knowledge archaeology position brings deconstruction theory deep into the core of epistemology and historical theories. With their efforts, deconstructionism was not only able to destruct the powerful Western metaphysics tradition, but also completely dismembered the philosophy historical totality, shaking the universal foundation of modern scientific knowledge. However, it’s far from enough to interpret deconstructionism from the standpoint of epistemology. From the backdrop of knowledge theory, deconstructionism was an revolution of thinking in the field of philosophy, which is closely connected to the western social, political and cultural reality of the 1960s. As Derrida is not only a literary professional, his deconstructionism also demonstrates the purport of political criticism, which was what he meant by saying: “To think about philosophy, you have to go beyond philosophy in one way or another” (2001, p. 12). In Derrida’s deconstructionism, the writing of text inside language process brought by the randomicity of signs is hidden with opposition of nonvariant sense.Though his writing theory was conducted within the scope of linguistics, its hidden opposition to consistent historical consciousness is inseparable to the transition of capitalist mode of social production and capital operation of the time. In Foucaul’s knowledge archaeology, oppressive power is hidden in the relationship between knowledge and power, discipline and punishment, and craziness and civilization (1997, p. 12). He attempts to interpret the operation and expression mode of power mechanism in
1118 POSTMODERN POLITICS"AND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF MARXIST capitalist society by exploring "the bizarre relationship between knowledge,academics,theories and authentic history".Hence,deconstructionism is not only a revolution in philosophical thinking,it's more a set of codes of cultural and political message,within which an impulse of"radical political aesthetics"is bred.British scholar Terry Eagleton suggests that Derrida and deconstructionism "does not seek to deny the existence of relatively certain truth,sense,feature and continuity;in contrary,he seeks to view these things as a historical result of something more broad and profound-language,unconsciousness,social system and practice"(2006,p.144). Undoubtedly,the hidden cultural and political message of deconstructionism has been inherited and spread by postmodernism. "Postmodern Politics"and the Bleak Fate of Marxism There is extreme unity between deconstructionist methodology and standpoint,which is in pursuit of that "feeling of non-stop,never-satisfied motion"(Miller,1998,p.132).This innate"uncertainty"method,at the end of day,makes deconstructionism a strategy of revolution.Postmodernism has made its way to contemporary cultural and political structure of the west with the help of this revolutionary strategy and inflicted the conversion of the context of contemporary cultural and political research,which is showcased in the following three aspects: firstly,from the angle of linguistics,deconstructionism provides strategic basis for postmodernism's involvement in contemporary western cultural and political reality through edge instigation of the Western metaphysics tradition;secondly,from the standpoint of"differentiation",deconstructionism challenges the voice of authority, providing ideological reference for postmodernism's challenges of contemporary cultural and political pattern; thirdly and most importantly,the "political impulse"of deconstructionism offers spiritual guidance for the radical political orientation of postmodernism.It's because postmodernist internal ideological consistency to deconstructionist political orientation that makes it showcases thick political connotation and tendency in terms of distinct revaluation,holding high the banner of "postmodern politics"on the cultural and political stage of the West. One distinct feature of"postmodern politics"is cultural criticism,which first and foremost is a type of "cultural politics",which has inherited multiculturalism in terms of reading and interpretation of literary and cultural text and insists on the absolute horizon politically and ideologically.Typical theorists are George Lucas, Fredric Jameson,Theodore Wiesengrund Adorno,Walter Benjamin,Bertolt Brecht,and Jean-Paul Sartre.They focus more on the cultural changes and the operation form of social power in contemporary Western society They also emphasizes that the alteration of social and political form and the shaping and conversion of potential social subject,which is a subversive way of discourse.In his book,the Cultural Logic of the Late Capitalism, Jameson declared clearly that:"I have always been advocating reading art works from the angle of political, social and historical angles"(1997,p.4).He holds that"Everything is social and historical.In fact,everything, “at the end of the day"”,is political”(l994,p.l4).“Postmodern politics'”is also a type of“micro-politics”.While questioning totality and grand-narrative,postmodern thinkers actively embrace micro-politics and view it as an important political field.Compared to multiculturalism of"cultural politics","micro-politics"holds the banner of “identity”and“difference”.It actively digs up“discrimination'”in the reality of politics with micro perspective of "politics of difference"and "politics of identity",such as women,people of color,members of alien races,and homosexuals.Lastly,"postmodern politics"is also a "replacement politics".Among the voices of
1118 “POSTMODERN POLITICS” AND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF MARXIST capitalist society by exploring “the bizarre relationship between knowledge, academics, theories and authentic history”. Hence, deconstructionism is not only a revolution in philosophical thinking, it’s more a set of codes of cultural and political message, within which an impulse of “radical political aesthetics” is bred. British scholar Terry Eagleton suggests that Derrida and deconstructionism “does not seek to deny the existence of relatively certain truth, sense, feature and continuity; in contrary, he seeks to view these things as a historical result of something more broad and profound—language, unconsciousness, social system and practice” (2006, p. 144). Undoubtedly, the hidden cultural and political message of deconstructionism has been inherited and spread by postmodernism. “Postmodern Politics” and the Bleak Fate of Marxism There is extreme unity between deconstructionist methodology and standpoint, which is in pursuit of that “feeling of non-stop, never-satisfied motion” (Miller, 1998, p. 132). This innate “uncertainty” method, at the end of day, makes deconstructionism a strategy of revolution. Postmodernism has made its way to contemporary cultural and political structure of the west with the help of this revolutionary strategy and inflicted the conversion of the context of contemporary cultural and political research, which is showcased in the following three aspects: firstly, from the angle of linguistics, deconstructionism provides strategic basis for postmodernism’s involvement in contemporary western cultural and political reality through edge instigation of the Western metaphysics tradition; secondly, from the standpoint of “differentiation”, deconstructionism challenges the voice of authority, providing ideological reference for postmodernism’s challenges of contemporary cultural and political pattern; thirdly and most importantly, the “political impulse” of deconstructionism offers spiritual guidance for the radical political orientation of postmodernism. It’s because postmodernist internal ideological consistency to deconstructionist political orientation that makes it showcases thick political connotation and tendency in terms of distinct revaluation, holding high the banner of “postmodern politics” on the cultural and political stage of the West. One distinct feature of “postmodern politics” is cultural criticism, which first and foremost is a type of “cultural politics”, which has inherited multiculturalism in terms of reading and interpretation of literary and cultural text and insists on the absolute horizon politically and ideologically. Typical theorists are George Lucas, Fredric Jameson, Theodore Wiesengrund Adorno, Walter Benjamin, Bertolt Brecht, and Jean-Paul Sartre. They focus more on the cultural changes and the operation form of social power in contemporary Western society. They also emphasizes that the alteration of social and political form and the shaping and conversion of potential social subject, which is a subversive way of discourse. In his book, the Cultural Logic of the Late Capitalism, Jameson declared clearly that: “I have always been advocating reading art works from the angle of political, social and historical angles” (1997, p. 4). He holds that “Everything is social and historical. In fact, everything, “at the end of the day”, is political” (1994, p. 14). “Postmodern politics” is also a type of “micro-politics”. While questioning totality and grand-narrative, postmodern thinkers actively embrace micro-politics and view it as an important political field. Compared to multiculturalism of “cultural politics”, “micro-politics” holds the banner of “identity” and “difference”. It actively digs up “discrimination” in the reality of politics with micro perspective of “politics of difference” and “politics of identity”, such as women, people of color, members of alien races, and homosexuals. Lastly, “postmodern politics” is also a “replacement politics”. Among the voices of