Harvey vs. Deutsche (Jason)

If David Harvey is guilty in The Condition of Postmodernity of objectifying and universalizing his own “totalizing vision” of social reality, than Deutsche equally is guilty in her critique of Harvey of presenting only one (“peculiar and partial”) version of feminism. Although Deutsche raises come valid comments (such as Harvey’s limited use of Feminist literature in The Condition) her critique lacks the nuance that makes the arguments contained in Harvey’s response so convincing.

The debate between Harvey and Deutsche hinges on the relationship between situated knowledge and conceptions of difference (otherness). The thrust of Deutsche’s critique is a rejection of any social reality outside the realm of discourse; vast biographical differences between individual “subjects” render attempts at formulating social knowledge (and theory) useless. From this standpoint, Deutsche criticizes Harvey’s “totalizing” and ambitious attempt at understanding cultural change through the lens of political-economic Marxist social theory in The Condition, accusing him of purposely neglecting feminist theories of difference because of the problems they pose for his “dream of unity.” Whereas Deutsche renders all forms of representation apart from the situated subject inadequate, Harvey assumes a more nuanced, dialectical and critical approach to representation. “For my part,” says Harvey, “I would want to argue for heterogeneity of situatedness with a parallel recognition that the choice (albeit limited) of situatedness is dialectically related to some assessment of the significance of difference and the significance of the structure of domination being confronted.” For Harvey, the structure of domination to be confronted is capitalism, the common denominator and experience shared by all subjects regardless of circumstance. The significance of otherness, difference and the situatedness of knowledge vary depending upon subjective circumstance. Despite differences, however, Harvey argues that fundamental similarities (i.e. the oppressive experience of capitalism) do exist and are worth theorizing.

The arrogance that underlies Harvey’s celebrated contributions is a necessary byproduct of his ambition as well as his unwavering commitment to Marxist social (meta) theory, attributes that define his strengths as an academic. Harvey’s debate with Deutsche (and other feminists) is an example of this commitment. For Harvey, the capitalist beast represents a common point of reference from which radical social theory can be formulated and differences between subjects acknowledged (not suppressed). Similarities and commonalities are necessary for theory of any sort to be worthwhile.
The Postmodern Condition is Harvey’s attempt to use Marxist social theory to understand recent cultural and economic change that affects us all as subjects of capitalism. The chaotic world that Harvey presents is hardly a “dream of unity,” but simply a “real world” that exists in relation to, but not completely dependent upon, the realm of discourse.