Martine: Harvey's Book, Morris's Critique, Harvey's Response

Hi Classmates, this will probably seem very long on a blog page. I like how Rob's piece is shorter. I'm thinking I'll go that route tomorrow.

HARVEY'S CONDITION OF POSTMODERNITY: SUMMARY
In this 1989 book, Harvey argues that there has been “a sea change in cultural as well as political-economic practices since around 1972.” (p. vii). He sees intellectual commitment to postmodernism as a wrong-headed distraction from the importance of class and Marxist explorations of capitalism. While post-modernist thinkers reject ‘meta-theories,’ Harvey argues that Marxist meta-theorizing is particularly useful in a post-modern moment. He presents the ‘condition’ of post-modernity as a cultural accompaniment to a new shift in capitalism towards flexible modes of accumulation, an aesthetic response to new conditions of space-time compression (p. 327). Harvey also sees the new identity-based political movements as distracting from what should be a primary concern with the class relation, and opposition to capitalism. Postmodernism appears to work in tandem with processes of capitalist accumulation for its ability to divert attention from the socialist program of struggle against capitalism. Harvey’s concern, as we have discussed in class, is with a retreat from Marxism in the academy and the mainstream – a retreat timed poorly for his release of Limits to Capital.

MEAGHAN MORRIS CRITIQUE: THE MAN IN THE MIRROR
Morris argues that when it comes to postmodern theorizing, Harvey just doesn’t ‘get it.’ His approach to the wealth of different and distinct aspects of ‘postmodernism’ is reductive, and when viewed from through his ontological and epistemological frames, Harvey only comes out insistence on ‘class fundamentalism’, trust in meta-theorizing, and an aggregated mis-understanding of ‘difference’ as something to be tacked on to class struggle. Morris aims her critique at two features of Harvey’s argument. First, she looks at how Harvey misunderstands post-modern theorists, lumping them together and caricaturing their arguments – then discrediting their stance based on this mis-representation. She focuses on his “rewriting” of Lyotard (p. 258). Morris argues that Harvey uses the ‘method’ of mistaken identity – “the representation of difference as sameness” (p. 260). This is one way, she explains, for totalizing discourse to “secure its own sense of wholeness, by relegating other viewpoints – different subjectivities – to invisible, subordinate, or competing positions” (Deutsche 1991 cited here, p. 260).

Second, Morris defends “the feminist claim that there is no such meta-theory, and that there are good reasons why we should not pretend to deploy it” (p. 258). Harvey’s commitment to meta-theory amounts, in Morris’s view, to wrong-headed faith. The problem with ‘totalization,’ is that it is a “fantasy projected by a subject who imagines that his own discursive position can be external to those ‘historical and geographical truths’ with which meta-theory … would attempt to ‘come to terms’” (p. 275). She argues that Harvey believes that he can ‘stand outside’ the world in a “priviledged and unconflicted place” (p. 275, citing Deutsche) and understand it in total. Morris suggests that the Marxist concerns with postmodernism reflect crisis within Marxism, and notes that “the major theories of ‘postmodernity’ have in fact been produced by Marxists” (p. 276).

HARVEY STRIKES BACK: POSTMODERN MORALITY PLAYS
David Harvey’s first approach to the criticism leveled at The Condition of Postmodernity by Deutsche and Massey is to make up for the lack of engagement with feminist scholarly work in the book. He tries to show that he has read and engaged with feminist scholarship, and positions himself as sympathetic with ‘third wave’ feminism. Harvey rallies together some arguments by Hartsock, Haraway, and Kristeva that are compatible with his arguments in The Condition, and uses them to address criticisms regarding ‘situatedness’ and ‘difference.’ Harvey’s general approach to criticism by feminists is to admit that he was wrong, engage with their theories, and express regret for not doing so directly in the book.

Harvey then takes up the specific criticisms of Deutsche and Massey. Harvey has evidently been hurt by their critiques, which he views as ‘personal’ attacks. Unfortunately he fails to take a high road in his response, which degenerates into barely contained personal jabs. His response to Massey is particularly pointed, he spends a good deal of it picking at her as a person, rather than engaging with the content of the critique (which he sees as negligible). Harvey begins by suggesting that both of his critics are ‘second wave’ rather than third wave feminists, and so they are not likely to agree with his arguments which he sees as compatible with the latter.

Harvey addresses Deutsche’s criticism of his approach to difference by differentiating between ‘difference’ where all differences are equally important, and ‘significant difference,’ which must be taken account of in social theory (p. 309). He seems confounded that they could misunderstand him: his approach is to seek commonality among difference (not to make ‘sameness’ out of difference), “in part because understanding commonality helps identify potential alliances between differentiated social groups” (p. 310). Harvey answers the charge that his work ‘simplifies,’ with a counter-charge that Deutsche is content to complicate without explanation (p. 311). Finally, Harvey discusses his understanding of money to counter Deutsche’s criticisms about representation. He stands by his own interpretation of Cindy Sherman’s work after attempting to trip up Deutsche’s argument and point out its inconsistencies.

Harvey’s response to Massey is unconstrained. He argues that she subscribes to a ‘flexible’ feminism that will stretch this way and that to discredit him. He accuses Massey of ‘nit-picking’ being humourless, and ‘not getting’ his own use of post-modern approaches in his selection of images for The Condition. Harvey says that “it is impossible to respond in anything but polemical terms. She rarely engages with the central theses of the book …” (p. 320). Harvey closes by leveling some serious attacks at Massey herself. He suggests that she is not committed to socialism, and that her work “has the look of an opportunistic and intellectually shoddy attempt to assume a vanguard role in a burgeoning feminist movement in geography which she herself has largely ignored over the years” (p. 321). Harvey also puts the same critique on Massey that she and Deutsche put on him – that she isn’t really a ‘feminist’ because she never cites feminist scholarship. He also takes a shot at Society and Space for allowing ‘quackery’ into their publication.