ISSN 1751-8229

Volume Thirteen, Number One

Postmodern Marxism Today: Jameson,

Žižek, and the Demise of Symbolic
Efficiency

Matthew Flisfeder, University of Winnipeg

Matthew Flisfeder is an Assistant Professor of Rhetoric and Communications at the

University of Winnipeg. He is the author of Postmodern Theory and Blade Runner
(Bloomsbury 2017), The Symbolic, The Sublime, and Slavoj Žižek’s Theory of Film
(2012), and co-editor with Louis-Paul Willis of Žižek and Media Studies: A Reader
(2014). He is currently completing a book manuscript called Algorithmic Desire: Towards
a New Structuralist Theory of Social Media.
A Bit of Periodization
I will begin by being reductive and for the purposes of contextualization attempt
a brief definition of “postmodernity,” the period that is not only most illuminated by the
writings of Jameson and Žižek, but also that in which their work ultimately makes
sense. With hindsight, we might say that the arrival of postmodernism is the product of
the sublation of the various subversive tendencies found within modernism, buckling
under the mighty weight of capital. “Modernism,” to put matters simply, describes the
various art movements within the cultural moment of advancing or developing
capitalism, the technological advancement of industrial modernity, as well as the rising
hegemony of the market and the bourgeoisie as its political and cultural authority.
Although it might be fair still to separate the field of cultural production out from the
market for various other goods, the market still bears upon the qualitative dimensions
of art because it debases it in its diminishment towards commodification. The art of
modernity is therefore constantly under threat of commodification, which as we know
from critics such as Adorno and Horkheimer, reduces the work of art to its mere
exchange value. This is, after all, the purpose of mass culture, according to them,
serving the ideological interests of capital. Modern art therefore exists in a dialectical
tension with mass culture – in fact, it is easy enough now, with hindsight, to claim that
modern art comes into existence as that form which endeavours to chide
commodification, thus evoking its ethic: “Make it new!”
But modernism is also instigated by the technological development of industrial
verisimilitude, where the work of art, as Benjamin tells us, can be mechanically
reproduced and copied. We might say that modernism emerges, for instance, with the
rise of Impressionism in the visual arts, which, in seeking to reinvent the authority and
authenticity of its medium – painting – against the new onslaught of the photographic
image and its mimetic powers – makes the subversion of the real its very own form of
self-authorization. Culturally and politically, too, as modern art sought to subvert
commodification, as it sought to subvert realism, it made of the bourgeoisie its public

23
enemy numéro uno. My objective in raising this brief exploration of the cultural history
of modernism is to make the following point, which bears upon the relevance of
Jameson and Žižek within the postmodern: whereas modernism, as Perry Anderson
(1998) has described, defined itself as anti-bourgeois, postmodernism occurs when,
without any (apparent) victory, that adversary is gone.
The virtual disappearance of the adversarial relationship of modernism provides
just one way that I want to express a critical overlap in the approaches of Jameson
and Žižek; and, I would say that we can simplify their overlap by looking towards the
problem of the signifier in the culture and politics of postmodern capitalism. For it is
exactly around the politics of the signifier that I locate a shared sense of the historical,
the subject, and the ideological in their work. Each, I should point out, has developed
his own understanding of the relationship between the postmodern and the logic of the
signifier, and each has done so according to a Lacanian “aesthetic.” Jameson has, on
the one hand, likened postmodernism to the aesthetic picture drawn by the Lacanian
schema of the psychotic – read by Deleuze and Guattari (1983) through the character
of the schizophrenic – as a “breakdown of the signifying chain” (Jameson 1984). Žižek,
on the other hand, has in various ways referred to a post-ideological era, but has
summarized this perspective with the notion of the “demise of symbolic efficiency”
(Žižek 1999). Both highlight the loss or the foreclosure of the master-signifier as
central to postmodernity. My proposal, in looking at the two as occupying a parallax
relationship of sorts, is to position Jameson – in the Marxist jargon – on the side of the
historical materialist logic, and to view Žižek, conversely, through the side of dialectical
materialism. But this distinction shouldn’t confuse us since Jameson is likewise very
much dialectical in his approach, just as Žižek, too, with his own periodizing schema,
is very much historical. Regardless, the historical emergence of the postmodern
positions the historicity of the signifier in each of their respective trajectories.

The Evisceration of the Signifier

If modernism may be understood as a code that subverts commodification, new media
and realism, and the bourgeoisie, postmodernism can best be grasped, not as the
point at which subversion disappears, but as the point at which it becomes

24
hyperextended – when it becomes everything (see Jameson 1998). Let’s consider this
point in the following manner: first at the level of commodification. We need to
understand the dialectical tension between the commodification of art and its
subversion, and the pace at which this dynamic is increasingly dissolved. If the ethic of
modern art was to “Make it new!,” where newness had been defined against the old
that had been diffused into the market logic of commodification – having become mere
kitsch, mere repetition of the once novel – then commodification can be seen very
much so as the driving force of modern art. We shouldn’t mistake this brand of
subversion as anomalous to the capitalist logic of deterritorialization, flight, re-
territorialization, and accumulation, since capital itself is constantly seeking to subvert
its own practices, not unlike the visual media which similarly have to continuously re-
invent themselves in order to maintain their relevance. This being the case, if
modernism sought continuously to escape commodification – that is, to escape its own
essence – postmodernism is what happens when modern art reaches its Notion, not of
escaping commodification, but of leaving no possibility of escape.
Postmodernism arrives on the scene when art and commodity converge: when
art can no longer escape commodity and where mere commodities and the culture of
the everyday, of the popular classes, become art – hence the worn out example of
Andy Warhol’s Campbell’s Soup Cans. Similarly, postmodern criticism emerges as the
lines between subversion and the canon begin to blur. Whereas modernism sought to
subvert the official art of the canon (or of the market), postmodernism is what happens
when modern art, the art of subversion, becomes the official art of the canon, the
museum, the gallery, and the university. Postmodern art and culture then becomes a
practice of subverting subversion itself. If modernism was defined by the subject
seeking to subvert the phallic signifier – the paternal metaphor – then postmodernism
is what occurs when the phallic signifier is foreclosed. In the general conditions of
modern culture, perversion is subversion. This, however, is no longer the case under
postmodernity when generalized perversion becomes typical of the reigning ideology.
This is a theme that I intend to unpack and historicize/hystericize in what follows. But
before doing so, I would like to provide a brief comment on the relationship between
the cultural and the political in postmodernity.

25
 With regards to the emergence of the political postmodern we need to question
what happens to the radical subject when the adversarial relationship between
bourgeois and proletariat begins to evaporate under the conditions of the postwar
social welfare state, where in the aftermath of the depression, the second World War,
and in the face of the “Red Threat” of the Cold War years, capital and labour come to a
compromise formation, where capital agrees to sacrifice short-term immediate profits
in order to ensure the longevity of the system; meanwhile, growing investment in social
and public programs and services, the redistribution (or what I’d like to think of more
appropriately as a more equitable distribution) of wealth made the class struggle
appear to have withered away. However, the repressed conflict of the class struggle,
under the conditions of the postwar class compromise, only ended up returning in the
guise of the so-called New Social Movements of the 1960s, from the Civil Rights
Movement and Second Wave Feminism to the Student Movement, the Antiwar
Movement, and the Gay Liberation Movement, culminating (as legend has it) in the
generation of the soixante-huitards. It’s the experience of the 60s and the rise of the
new subjects of History that allowed the new postmodern theory to claim the
disappearance of the Marxist historical subject and declare a new “incredulity towards
metanarratives,” as Jean-François Lyotard (1984) famously put it. But if there have
been, in the last several decades, two prominent voices that have declared the
continued relevance, not only of the Marxist narrative, but also of the Marxist
interpretation of the postmodern and the Marxist subject of History, it has of course
been Jameson and Žižek. If the historical picture I have just painted of postmodernism
is at all familiar to readers of Jameson and Žižek, then it is surely because I’ve drawn
upon them to produce my own claims.

Object of History/Subject of History

As I’ve already stated above, I think we can graph the relationship between
Jameson and Žižek according to the conceptual distinction between historical and
dialectical materialism – “conceptual” because I want to avoid the suggestion that
these are two different forms of critical engagement. Every Marxist position is both
historical and dialectical. But it is worth separating the two lines of inquiry to assess

26
their respective objects. I wish also to stress this separation as only conceptual to
avoid the elevation of the materialist dialectic into a dogma. Yet, I provide the
distinction between historical and dialectical materialism to show what is different and
identical in the way that Jameson and Žižek approach the logic of the signifier and its
apparent evisceration in the context of postmodern capitalism.
Jameson himself provides us with a useful framework for conceiving these two
different, however identical, logics. First, in Marxism and Form (1971), Jameson writes
that:
Marxism, owing to the peculiar reality of its object of study, has at its disposal
two alternate languages (or codes, to use the structuralist term) in which any
given phenomenon can be described. Thus history can be written either
subjectively, as the history of class struggle, or objectively, as the development
of the economic modes of production and their evolution from their own internal
contradictions: these two formulae are the same, and any statement in one can
without loss of meaning be translated into the other. (297)
Speaking of the differences between the two codes, he adds that it is:
…easier to write a history of matter than of consciousness, and the changes of
the type of commodities produced and in the systems that produce them has
somehow a tangible linear content that is lacking in the story of the productive
power of labor and the ferocity of human antagonisms at every moment of the
way. (297-298)
Later, in The Political Unconscious (1981), following his infamous proclamation –
“Always historicize!” – Jameson adds that:
… the historicizing operation can follow two distinct paths, which ultimately
meet in the same place: the path of the object and the path of the subject, the
historical origins of the things themselves and the more intangible historicity of
the concepts and categories by which we attempt to understand those things.
(8)
We can see from the outset the way that Jameson conceives the parallel, yet identical
logics of historical and dialectical materialism. Although he does not name them as
such, we can see clearly the way in which historical materialism refers to the objective

27
code – as the historical development of the various modes of production, themselves
transforming, rising, and then falling according to the various internal contradictions
that they produce. Dialectical materialism, then, refers to the subjective code – of the
class struggle, the (class) consciousness of the subject, but also – and this remains
important for the way that we can think the relationship between Jameson and Žižek –
the concepts and categories of interpretation. It is the latter that complicates what
might otherwise be the smooth distinction between the operations of the two.
Historical materialism, as a description of the historical progression or
succession of the different categories and concepts used to think and interpret the
capitalist relations of production, its culture and its ideology, is a project that we can
see developed in Jameson’s inspiring body of work, from his earliest studies of
Western Marxism in Marxism and Form, to his examinations of Russian Formalism
and French Structuralism in The Prison-House of Language, his challenges against
the anti-humanism and the anti-interpretivism of structural Marxism and post-
structuralism in The Political Unconscious, and also his readings of realism,
romanticism, postmodernism, and utopia in theory and culture. Jameson, we might
say, is an historical materialist “tracker” of the signifier (to borrow a phrase from Colin
MacCabe) as it moves through various historical practices of critical theory and
interpretation, across the changing lifespan and conditions of the capitalist mode of
production. For, in his eyes, in his writing, we see the various transformations of the
“ideology of Theory” – the changing and retroactive determination of the different
practices of critical interpretation that move along a trajectory defined by the evolving
conditions of the capitalist relations of production; and, with the postmodern anti-
interpretivist criticism, it would seem from his perspective that the suturing operation of
the signifier arrives at a dialectical standstill, leaving open a cleavage of “reflexive
impotence,” as Mark Fisher (2009) calls it, that, as Terry Eagleton (1996) has
described, resulted less from the Left’s rising-up-only-to-be-beaten-down than from an
imaginary defeat marked by the cynicism of the present that has become decidedly
anti-revolutionary. It’s within this problematic that Žižek’s brand of ideology criticism
enters the scene.

28
End of Ideology/End of History
Žižek’s earliest contributions to Marxist critical theory are particularly innovative
in the way that he responds to the apparent deadlock of the postmodern critique of
ideology. He begins in The Sublime Object of Ideology (1989) by describing the
problem of the arrival of a supposedly “post-ideological” era. The criticism of the
inadequacy of the “post-ideological” condition applies, in my view, equally to both the
Left and the Right. On the Right, from Daniel Bell (1960) to Francis Fukuyama (1992),
we have heard since the 1960s about the “end of ideology.” For Bell, this is so on
account of two overlapping historical and political phenomena: one the one hand, the
publication of Kruschev’s “secret speech,” in which he publicly denounced Stalin,
acknowledging failures of the Soviet Union; on the other hand, noting the coming post-
industrial society that – as Lyotard (1984) would later agree – changed the
technological basis of capitalism, resulting in a cultural transformation that would
eschew hegemonic struggle in favor of pragmatic consensus about global operations.
Then, of course, in 1989, Fukuyama declared the “end of history,” a claim he reiterates
in his book, The End of History and the Last Man in 1992. For him, drawing intriguingly
on a Kojèvian inspired reading of Hegel’s dialectics of history – the very same
interpretation that caused much of the French Left to reject the Hegelian model – the
demise of the Soviet Union marked the culmination of (capital ‘H’) History: no longer
the ideological battle between which is the better system – Socialism or Liberal
Democracy; for Fukuyama, the end of the Cold War and the triumph of Liberal
Democracy in politics, and the capitalist (“market”) economy, demonstrated that the
world had finally settled on the model.
End of History and end of ideology are not without their mirror reflections on the
Left. It is precisely the postmodern critiques of Marxism (and psychoanalysis) that
place Jameson and Žižek in critical positions. The post-structuralist and postmodern
Left, responding to some of the same phenomena as Bell and Fukuyama, have sought
to displace the centrality of the Marxist theories of History, ideology, and subjectivity.
Michel Foucault, for instance, in a particularly telling passage discusses what are, for
him, some of the deficiencies of the concepts of “ideology” and “repression” – two

29
terms that arise in the Althusserian theory of ideology and subjectivity, particularly in
his essay on the Ideological State Apparatuses.
Foucault asserts some difficulty with the concept of ideology for three reasons:
first, that ideology “always stands in virtual opposition to something else which is
supposed to count as truth;” second, that the concept of ideology refers to “something
of the order of the subject;” and, third, that ideology “stands in a secondary position
relative to something which functions as its infrastructure” (Foucault 1984: 60).
Regarding the concept of “repression,” Foucault finds it dismissive of the productive
aspects of power. Identifying power as repression, with the power to say “No!” – as a
force of prohibition – ignores, according to Foucault, the way that power induces to
varying degrees, forms of pleasure, the regulation of which is one of power’s primary
functions (Foucault 1984: 61).
Foucault, as it is well known, replaces the concept of ideology with his concept
of discourse, which is neither true nor false but instead produces “truth effects.” By
identifying ideology with the false – i.e., “false consciousness” – Marxism, he claims,
either ignores or dismisses its own particular subjective position within the relations of
power, interpretation, and the production of knowledge. Discourse produces
knowledge of an object; it is not simply true or false. The category of the subject
therefore exists only in and by discourse. There is, in other words, no single “Subject
of History” – a claim that both reflects and distances Foucault from Althusser. For
Althusser, “ideology interpellates individuals as subjects.” However, as he famously
claims, “History is a process without subject or goal.” Thus, ideology is on the one
hand responsible for activating the subject; however, the subject for Althusser is a
particularly fallacious, bourgeois conception of the individual, which I would oppose to
the Marxist subject(s) of History: the proletariat (plural). Denying the (singular)
existence of the subject, Foucault is then able to claim similarly the mere contingency
rather than the necessity of the proletarian revolution. With his criticism of the Marxist
(or more specifically Althusserian) rendering of the base/superstructure distinction,
Foucault also asserts his disdain for the historical materialist analysis of social,
cultural, and political change and transformation, preferring as he does the
Nietzschean genealogical approach that he uses to rebuke an apparent search for

30
historical origins or essences, which in Marxism he sees as the priority placed upon
the material relations of production in the material basis of society, or the mode of
production. With this, Foucault develops a theory of history that departs from the
historical materialist approach. We can see then in Foucault, for instance, a Left
variation on the theme: end of ideology/end of History.
The Left challenge to History (read “historical materialism”) also comes across,
of course, in Lyotard’s description of postmodernism – the end of “Grand Narrative”
let’s call it – as does the Derridean practice of deconstruction reject (or at least
destabilize) the theory of ideology; and, of course, so too does the Deleuzo-Guattarian
conception of the subject displace practices of interpretation of the ideological. In all of
these cases, there comes about a certain postmodern “breakdown of the signifying
chain,” whether it is positioned towards History, ideology, or subjectivity. We can
discern the impact of this line of inquiry further, and the impact it has had on Žižek in
particular, by exploring the early post-Marxism of Ernesto Laclau. It is Laclau’s earlier
writings on the logic of the signifier and the Real that bear upon Žižek’s Marxist
theories of ideology and subjectivity.

A Foray into Post-Marxism

Apart from his well-known book, co-authored with Chantal Mouffe, Hegemony
and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics (1985), Laclau’s
position is best articulated in two short pieces: “The Impossibility of Society” (1983)
and “Psychoanalysis and Marxism” (1986). In both pieces, Laclau tries to challenge
what he sees as the essentialist and positivist tendencies in Marxism. Laclau identifies
two overlapping problems with the Marxist concept of “ideology.” Not unlike Foucault,
the two problems that he identifies are the notions of the social “totality” and the
conception of ideology as a kind of “false consciousness.” Like Foucault, Laclau’s
criticism here appears to be grounded more so in a critique of the Althusserian reading
of both the Marxist topography of the base/superstructure and the ideological category
of the subject. With regards to the concept of the social totality, Laclau takes up the
Foucauldian conception of discourse to assert the ultimately antagonistic character of
the social. The social, he writes, “must be identified with the infinite play of differences”

31
– that is, he asserts the ultimately impossible closure of the social totality as the
product of antagonism. The social whole always remains incomplete precisely
because it is impossible to totalize meaning. With this, Laclau – like Jameson – turns
to the Lacanian discourse of the psychotic to assert that “meaning cannot possibly be
fixed,” without the operation or mechanism of fixation, of “domestication” – without a
“nodal point” or, more specifically, what Lacan later termed the “master signifier”
(Laclau 1990: 90-91; Cf. Lacan 2007). It’s not insignificant, then, that what Laclau
accomplishes here is a translation of the Foucauldian critique of the Marxist
topography into the Lacanian logic of the signifier, which equally demonstrates why
Deleuze and Guattari, for instance, rail against the ideological “tyranny of the signifier,”
a point to which I will return.
For Laclau, the logic of the signifier is also where Marxism and psychoanalysis
overlap. Unlike Foucault, however, Laclau credits psychoanalysis for bringing “a theory
of subjectivity to the field of historical materialism” (Laclau 1990: 93). As well, against
what he sees as the affirmative or positive characterization of historical materialism –
mainly as it had been produced as the dogmatic reading of dialectical materialism
under Stalin, and the affirmation of the Historical “mission” of the proletariat – Laclau
draws upon Lacan to identify lack in the form of the political antagonism as the very
reason why society “is not a valid object of discourse” (Laclau and Mouffe 2000: 111).
As he and Mouffe describe, the “impossibility of an ultimate fixity of meaning implies
that there have to be partial fixations – otherwise, the very flow of differences would be
impossible.” The social, they claim, “only exists, however, as an effort to construct that
impossible object [“society”]” (Ibid: 112). The hegemonic relationship, Laclau then
claims, “can be thought only by assuming the category of lack as a point of departure;”
and furthermore, that the “hegemonic subject is the subject of the signifier, which is in
this sense, a subject without a signified [i.e., without positive content – as lacking]”
(Laclau 1990: 96). For Laclau, the confluence of Marxism and psychoanalysis is made
possible, not by adding the two or supplementing one with the other, but by reflecting
upon their coincidence – as fixing or “suturing” the social totality, as the point of
interpellation of the subject – around the logic of the signifier. Despite agreeing with
the latter, I would be remiss not to point out that, although Laclau makes a convincing

32
case about the overlap between Marxism and psychoanalysis around the logic of the
signifier, and despite the fact that Althusser’s topographical (base/superstructure) and
ideological model is a point of contention for the Foucault-inspired critique proposed by
Laclau, it is in fact Althusser who first demonstrated another significant overlap
between Marx and Freud.
Both Marx and Freud, according to Althusser (1996), exemplify materialist and
dialectical thought. And both, he claims, have troubled significantly the bourgeois
consciousness. Marx, on the one hand, through his critique of political economy,
identified the class struggle, rather than the individual, as the motor of history. Class
struggle, for Marx, shows that there is nowhere in existence this thing we call “political
economy” or market; and, therefore, despite the way that Laclau admonishes the
apparent affirmative character of the Marxist conception of the social, bourgeois
society for Marx is plagued by a gap or a lack in the form of the class struggle. Freud
similarly troubled the bourgeois consciousness by dis-unifying (unfixing) the individual
through his discovery of the unconscious – that is, he originally de-centred the subject.
Thus, as Althusser already pointed out, both Marx and Freud show that neither society
nor the individual exist as a unified thing – conflict, in fact, prevents such a unity.
Historical materialism and psychoanalysis, both as practices of dialectical materialism,
do in fact identify lack or gap, or the negative rather than the affirmative, as the very
point of departure for existing conflicts, both socially and subjectively, implying that
each has already troubled the signifier. Bearing this in mind, there is an important line
here that runs from Laclau and Mouffe to Žižek that I explore in the following section.

The “New Doctrine of Structural Causality”

Whereas the post-Structuralist (Foucault and Deleuze and Guattari, in
particular) approach is one that rails against the “tyranny of the signifier,” and the post-
Marxist one (Laclau and Mouffe) sees in the signifier a point of convergence for the
Marxist and psychoanalytic “projects,” we can best understand the play of the signifier
in Žižek and Jameson by way of what Bruno Bosteels has referred to as the “new
doctrine of structural causality.” Just as Jameson had done so previously, Bosteels
identifies the differences between historical and dialectical materialism. “The object of

33
historical materialism,” he writes, “as theory of history, includes the various modes of
production, their structure and development, and the forms of transition from one
mode to another” (Bosteels 2005: 117). But he is somewhat more precise in
addressing the relationship between historical materialism as a “science” (in
Althusser’s terms) and dialectical materialism as a philosophy: “In principle, the
scientific nature of [historical materialism] cannot be established by historical
materialism itself but only by a philosophical theory designed for the express purpose
of defining the scientificity of science and other theoretical practices. This general
epistemological theory of the history of the theoretical offers a first definition of
dialectical materialism” (Ibid). Bosteels then uses this distinction as a springboard for
addressing the Althusserian model of “structural causality.”
Dialectical materialism, according to Bosteels, can be understood as a theory of
“contradictory breaks.” Applied, then, to historical phenomena, such as the material
transition from one mode of production to the next arising out of contradictions in each
previous one, historical materialism helps to define the object of dialectical materialist
investigation, that is, through the production and deployment of a series of analytical
concepts. Two of the concepts central to the Althusserian project are “structural
causality” and its “absent cause.” Structural causality, as Bosteels explains, rests on
the fact that “a society always possesses the complex unity of a structure dominated
by one of its instances, or articulated practices. Depending on the conjuncture at a
given moment in the history of society, the dominant can be economical, political,
scientific, religious, and so on” (Bosteels 2005: 119). Depending, then, upon the
historical conjuncture, a certain tendency will have dominance upon the
characterization of the social totality.
Tangentially, we can perhaps come to understand this through the prism of
Raymond Williams’ (1977) distinctions between dominant, emergent, and residual
elements of a culture. Whereas it is difficult to claim that any one particular cultural
formation totalizes the entire field, it is more so the case that the dominant tendency
sutures – as Laclau might say – the entire field of the social, while still running in
parallel with new emergent cultural elements, as well as residual elements from older
or more traditional culture. Similarly, although we might talk about the dominance,

34
today, of finance capital, it is not as though we have witnessed the disappearance of
agrarian capital, or industrial capital, or merchant capital. The dominance of finance
capital speaks merely to its historically contingent position in organizing the entirety of
the system within this particular stage or moment of the class struggle. Likewise, as
Jameson (1984) argues, postmodernism is not the only cultural force – it is merely the
“cultural logic of late capitalism,” which is to say that it is the culture that dominates
alongside residual elements of traditional, national or ethnic culture, modern culture,
as well as likely emergent elements of a wholly new and not yet fully formed culture,
perhaps reflective of the ideological tendency that Mark Fisher (2009) has called
“capitalist realism.” This way of reading the relationship between the dominant,
residual, and emergent is what makes the logic of the signifier, as a point of
meaningful fixation, culturally and ideologically significant. It does not totalize in the
way that Foucault, or Deleuze, or even Laclau and Mouffe describe; but it does
articulate a point of closure that is not disconnected from the historical state of power
and the class struggle. But I digress…
What then gives cause to the structural emplacement of this or that dominant
and overdetermining force is what Althusser, drawing on Spinoza, calls the “absent
cause,” or the ultimately determining instance of the mode of production. As Jameson
explains in The Political Unconscious, Althusser identifies the entirety of the structure
itself with the mode of production (36). Therefore, he writes, if we wish to characterize
Althusser’s as a structural Marxism, “one must complete the characterization with the
essential proviso that it is a structuralism for which only one structure exists: namely
the mode of production itself, or the synchronic system of social relations as a whole”
(Ibid). For Jameson, this is the sense “in which this ‘structure’ is an absent cause,
since it is nowhere empirically present as an element, it is not part of the whole or one
of the [topographical] levels, but rather the entire system of relationships among those
levels” (Ibid). This means, then, according to Jameson, that history figures as the very
absent cause of the entire structure – history, that is, if we take it in the way we have
seen already defined above as that intersection of the historical movement from one
mode of production to the next and the class struggle as the antagonistic relationship
that colours the dominant cultural and social character of the historical conjuncture; but

35
also, as the sets of relationships between subject positions differently articulated
according to the topography: base/superstructure. For what is the base if not the
expression of a particular social relationship between agents, i.e., the relations of
production, which in the case of the capitalist mode of production is a relationship of
exploitation? The superstructure similarly articulates the social relationship between
agents, but it does so according to a different set of practices that are not unrelated to
those of production. Marx (1993), in fact, notes in the introduction the Grundrisse that
every mode of production must also at the same time bear upon the legal and political
formation of every society to sustain and legitimize existing relations of exploitation.
Jameson writes, “history is not a text, not a narrative, master or otherwise, but
that, as an absent cause, it is inaccessible to us except in textual form, and that our
approach to it and to the [Lacanian] Real itself [as that which resists symbolization]
necessarily passes through its prior textualization, its narrativization in the political
unconscious” (Jameson 1981: 35). Jameson’s claim provides an important rejoinder to
the Foucauldian critique of the apparent search for historical origins in Marxism since
historical materialism shows, according to Jameson’s reading of structural causality
and its absent cause, that each new expression of the class struggle in the present –
each new historical conjuncture, marked by the ever changing conditions of the class
struggle – retroactively determines the subjective reading of the historical. Marxism
and historical materialism, upon this reading, are truly a “history of the present” – it’s
the signifier that gives history its dominant retroactive figurability. We can then read
the development of what Bosteels calls the “new doctrine of structural causality,” and
Žižek’s place within this approach, in the following manner.
Beginning with Laclau and Mouffe, Bosteels identifies three points that can be
made regarding the relationship between the Lacanian Real, the subject, and ideology.
First, as Laclau and Mouffe point out in Hegemony and Socialist Strategy, the social
field, just like the Lacanian Symbolic order (the field of the big Other) is “structured
around the traumatic kernel of the real” (Bosteels 2005: 128). The traumatic kernel of
the social field is identified by Laclau and Mouffe as (political) antagonism (Cf. Laclau
and Mouffe 2000: 122). In Lacanian terms, we could say that the social field is not-all,
and in order for it to have some ultimate fixity, it requires the addition of the master-

36
signifier. For Laclau and Mouffe, as Bosteels explains, politics only emerges because
society is lacking – it does not exist as a unified whole. There is, in other words, a gap
or void in the structure that they identify with the Lacanian Real and which Jameson
identifies with the absent cause of history.
But in a second move that veers towards Žižek and other so-called neo-
Lacanians, such as Mladen Dolar, Bosteels notes that for them the subject, in fact, is
this gap in the structure. If the Real is signalled by the very limits of the Symbolic, if
antagonism posits the impossibility of society, then the subject is what overlaps with
this very position; or, as Žižek puts it, just as the Real emerges as the limit of society,
“the subject is strictly correlative to its own impossibility; its limit is its positive position”
(Žižek 1989: 209). The subject, in other words, “is nothing but the impossibility of its
own signifying representation – the empty place opened up in the big Other by the
failure of this representation” (Ibid: 208). Better still, as Dolar explains the difference
between the truly Lacanian category of the subject and the Althusserian one, is that for
Althusser “the subject is what makes ideology work; for [Lacanian] psychoanalysis, the
subject emerges where ideology fails” (Dolar 1993: 78). Subject, here – the political or
revolutionary subject, the “proletariat” – is correlative with the impossibility of society.
Not some positive or affirmative character – not yet, anyway – but the symptomal point
at which the deadlocks of the social emerge. This is one reason why, for Žižek, the
antagonism identified by Laclau and Mouffe that forever prevents the full closure of the
social has a precise name: class struggle (Žižek 1989: 164; Cf. Žižek 1994: 22).
Class struggle, for Žižek, names the social Real – the antagonism at the heart of
the social, its limit point – at the same time that it posits the emergence of the subject
of psychoanalysis: the hysteric. The hysteric comes to figure and overlap with History
as an absent cause in the way that Jameson describes history as the absent cause of
the structure. History, according to Žižek, is “nothing but a succession of failed
attempts to grasp, conceive, specify this strange kernel [of the Real]” (Žižek 2002:
101). It’s this point that allows us, he writes, to reject the common reproach that
psychoanalysis is non-historical and transform it from a critique into a positive
identification of the historical. Put differently, in his own defense of the Hegelian
dialectic (and this is a point that asserts his own commitment to dialectical

37
materialism), Žižek argues that dialectics offers the most cogent articulation of what
Laclau and Mouffe conceive as antagonism: “far from being a story of progressive
overcoming, dialectics is for Hegel a systemic notation of the failure of all such
attempts – ‘absolute knowledge’ denotes a subjective position which finally accepts
‘contradiction’ as an internal condition of every identity” (Žižek 1989: 6). The Lacanian
subject therefore exists according to him on two levels: both as the neurotic/hysterical
subject and as the subject who emerges at the ends of analysis, when the subject has
traversed the fantasy and has gone beyond the deadlock of subjective destitution –
that is, when the subject herself occupies the position of the analyst – this subject is
for him the subject of history: “hysteria is the subject’s way of resisting the prevailing,
historically specified form of interpellation or symbolic identification…. Hysteria means
failed interpellation” (Žižek 2002: 101).
But, now, there is a third movement in Bosteels’ description of the new doctrine
that moves us back from the revolutionary character of the subject and into the subject
caught in ideology; and, this movement is where finally we can claim the originality of
Žižek’s theory of ideology, which departs from the Althusserian one, but also which
allows us to understand more fully what remains ideological – from a Marxist
standpoint – under the conditions of a post-ideological era (in both the Right and Left
versions) at the “end of History,” or more specifically, within the historical context of the
postmodern culture and society. That is to say that, when we have reached the limits
of the social, when we have reached the limits of the Symbolic – or, when we have
begun to acknowledge first-hand the nonexistence of the big Other – what is there left
to keep us within the terrain of the ideological? Žižek’s response, of course, is
jouissance: enjoyment!

Enjoyment as a Political Factor

Žižek, at the beginning of For They Know Not What They Do, posits the problem
in the following terms – and, here, we should note the specific
historicization/periodization of his writing, which took place precisely at the moment of
the Fukuyamaist pronouncement of the “end of History,” at the moment of the
apparent triumph of liberal democracy, and of course what it truly stands for within the

38
co-ordinates of capitalism: the equation of consumerism with freedom. He poses the
question: “How do we account for this paradox that the absence of Law universalizes
Prohibition?” The answer, he says, is that “enjoyment itself, which we experience as
‘transgression’, is in its innermost status something imposed, ordered – when we
enjoy, we never do it ‘spontaneously’ we always follow a certain injunction. The
psychoanalytic name for this obscene injunction, for this obscene call, ‘Enjoy!’, is
superego” (Žižek 2002: 9-10). To understand this claim we need to return to the
problem of the signifier and what it stands for, both as a marker of the postmodern, but
also as a marker of prohibiting agency or authority.
What makes Deleuze and Guattari’s (1983) reading of capitalism so intriguing is
that they figure the relationship between capitalism, the structure of the modern family,
and the impact upon each as they are reflected in the formation of the subject. As
Marx states in volume three of Capital: “Capitalist production constantly strives to
overcome [its own] immanent barriers, but it overcomes them only by means that set
up the barriers afresh and on a more powerful scale” (Marx 1991: 358). In other words,
as Deleuze and Guattari put it, capitalism constantly enforces processes of
“deterritorialization,” which implies that to overcome its own self-imposed barriers to
accumulation capital must become unhinged from its own processes and seek new
ones as a means of survival. Such a practice implies, for them, the waning of the
signifier that assigns meaning to the subjective dimensions of experience. The
neurotic subject, for them, appears in the form of the bourgeois subject who is troubled
by the changing conditions enforced by capital flight. However, rather than applying –
as they see it – the re-Oedipalization of the subject (back into the mommy-daddy-me
triad), they prefer an anti-interpretivist practice that seeks to maintain the barring of the
signifier, restricting its (re-)territorialization, keeping open the range of freedom for the
subject to accelerate the decline of the capitalist mode of production. This is why the
schizo figures as their ideal hero: he is the one who forecloses the (tyranny of) the
signifier. But there is a problem here that Žižek rightly identifies, and it addresses
precisely what is problematic about both the Deleuzian and Foucauldian approaches.
On the one hand, the Deleuzo-Guattarian approach seems correct in
demonstrating that internal revolutions to the capitalist mode of production end up

39
producing new forms of subjectivity. But it is by positing desire as a positive, rather
than a negative force – i.e., lack – that they miss the ideological dimensions of
postmodern (consumer) capitalism. The dilemma, in other words, is not one with
neurosis or Oedipalization, but with generalized perversion in the strictest Lacanian
sense. Žižek points out at the end of The Ticklish Subject the historical waning of the
Oedipus complex, which he says is somewhat tied to the postmodern fading of
authority – more precisely for my purposes, the waning of the signifier. But if the
modern authority is on the wane this creates a strange scenario for the subject. If, as
Bruce Fink puts it, “neurosis can be understood as a set of strategies by which people
protest against a ‘definitive’ sacrifice of jouissance – castration – imposed upon them
by their parents… and come to desire in relation to the law, perversion involves the
attempt to prop up the law so that limits can be set to jouissance” (2003: 38). In
perversion, the subject wishes to bring the law into existence – to make the Other exist
– since it is the very existence of the Other that provides a space for transgression as
a means of obtaining “obscene enjoyment,” as Žižek calls it. This is the sense in which
Žižek identifies the form of postmodern ideology as cynical. Drawing upon the
Lacanian description of the perverse mechanism – of disavowal – and relying on the
phrase used by Octave Mannoni, Žižek describes the cynical attitude as one of “Je
sais bien, mais quand même…” – “I know very well, but nevertheless…” (Žižek 1989:
28-30). It is even, in this way, that Žižek amends the Marxist logic of commodity
fetishism with the Lacanian theory of the fetish.
The predominant Marxist approach to commodity fetishism is one in which the
commodity masks or hides or conceals the positive – i.e., existing – social relationship
between people or, more specifically, the social relations of production and
exploitation. But the psychoanalytic conception of the fetish, instead, refers to it as that
which “conceals the lack (‘castration’) around which the symbolic network is
articulated” (Žižek 1989: 49). Fetish, in other words, mirrors the operation of the
signifier. It is that which allows the subject to disavow the lack or gap which it is within
the Symbolic order; however, what fills the lack that is the subject in the field of the
Symbolic is the fantasy structure that allows her to relate to her enjoyment – fantasy,
not as some dream of successfully obtaining the lost object of desire (the object a), but

40
that which regulates for the subject, teaches her, about what she desires. Fantasy, in
this way, becomes a support of ideology, especially when we appear to inhabit a post-
ideological era. But that is not all.
As Lacan had claimed, desire is the desire of the big Other – of the Symbolic
order. The Symbolic order, in other words, comes to figure for the subject her
relationship to her desire and to her enjoyment. As the gap within the Symbolic order,
fantasy supports the subject’s approach to this position, filling in for her what is
lacking; but she simultaneously attributes this position to the signifier that defines her.
Žižek therefore describes how “a signifier (S1) represents for another signifier (S2) its
absence, its lack $, which is the subject” (2002: 22); “the Master-Signifier, the One, is
the signifier for which all the others represent the subject” (Ibid: 21). Simply marking
the signifier as that which represents the subject, would however also miss the
relationship between the subject and the ideological implication of propping up a
power, that makes it ideological.
In contrast to the Althusserian claim that ideology interpellates individuals as
subjects – which seems to imply that ideology is somehow zapped into the mind –
Žižek adds that “ideology is the exact opposite of internalization of the external
contingency: it resides in externalization of the result of an inner necessity, and the
task of the critique of ideology here is precisely to discern the hidden necessity in what
appears as a mere contingency” (1994: 4). This implies that, at the same time that the
subject assumes a defining signifier giving her substance within the spaces of the
Symbolic, the task for the subject is to have recognized by the authority of the big
Other the signifier that she confers upon herself, and which has been conferred upon
her by the big Other. Or, to be more precise, “it is never the individual which is
interpellated as subject, into subject; it is on the contrary the subject itself who is
interpellated as x (some specific subject-position, symbolic identity or mandate),
thereby eluding the abyss of $” (Žižek 1993: 73-74). The ambiguity as to the desire of
the Other – Che vuoi? – “What do you want from me?” What am I to you?” – forces the
subject into a precipitous identification, anticipating what the Other demands. But with
the apparent loss of the Other in the postmodern, post-ideological condition of the loss

41
of the signifier, it appears as though the Other is nowhere – nowhere, that is, to confer
meaning.
It appears in postmodern times that we enjoy so much freedom. There is a loss
of authority (in the form of the big Other, in the form of political oppression, etc.). But
what if what appears as a prohibition of enjoyment is in fact its very condition of
possibility? This is the trick of the postmodern superego injunction: “Enjoy!” It becomes
all the more difficult to enjoy the more we are increasingly and directly enjoined to do
so. There is, as Žižek describes, a transgressive dimension to enjoyment where it is
the transgression, itself – breaking the rules – that garners for us our enjoyment. This
concerns the dialectical tension between desire and drive. If I can again be somewhat
reductive for the sake of brevity, we might see desire as “enjoying what we don’t have”
(to cite the title of a book by Todd McGowan). We desire insofar as we are lacking. But
if that’s the case, then drive has to do, in a way, with hating what we enjoy – that is,
the pain involved in not obtaining the apparent lost object of desire (which only exists
insofar as it remains lost), which actually procures enjoyment. Jouissance, enjoyment,
is thus caught up in an odd mixture of pleasure and pain – we both enjoy what we
don’t have but we still hate (it is experienced as painful) what we enjoy. What
separates the two, on the one hand, is the fantasy that screens the experience of the
drive – and this is why in working towards the analytical cure, the subject must
“traverse” the fantasy to arrive at the recognition that jouissance is firstly a treatment of
the relationship between desire and drive, and secondly that what we desire is the
obstacle (Cf. McGowan 2016). The latter is the position arrived at, at the ends of
analysis. But in ideology, which also knows that the obstacle is a condition of
enjoyment – the obstacle which we seek to transgress as the source of our enjoyment
– the subjective position becomes one of perversion.
If we go back and recall that, at the beginning, I pointed out that modernism was
a culture of subversion and that postmodernism is what occurs when subversion
becomes the dominant ideology, then we can similarly propose that while perversion
may have been subversive in modern times, in the conditions of postmodern culture,
“perversion is not subversion” (Žižek 1999: 247). This is Žižek’s reproach to Judith
Butler (and to Foucault), who provides perhaps what is the most cogent explanation of

42
this relationship between ideology and enjoyment. Referring to what she calls
“passionate attachment,” Butler proposes (like Foucault) that power constitutes the
subject. Power, she says, “is not simply what we oppose but also, in a strong sense,
what we depend on for our existence and what we harbor and preserve in the beings
that we are” (Butler 1997: 2). How does it do so? Butler, on the one hand, notes that
this has to do with the discursive terms set out by power and that we depend upon for
our existence. But if we read Foucault in The History of Sexuality, Volume 1, we also
see that we come to depend upon power for our existence because it is only by
resisting power that we become subjects. This is Foucault’s critique of the “repressive
hypothesis,” where amongst other things, he claims that (and this is returning to
another line of criticism addressed above) desire is not something that is repressed –
through a power that says “No!” – power, in fact, becomes the very raison d’être of
desire in the sense that: “where there is power, there is resistance” (Foucault 1990:
95). Where there is power, there is, in other (Žižek’s) words, an inherent transgression.
What the pervert knows, then, is that without the obstacle, without power, there is no
transgression – there is no jouissance. It is the perverse subject, then, whose goal it is
to prop up power, to impose an authority that says “No!” so as to be able to transgress.
This is why, I claim, that the pervert, and not the schizo, is the typical subject of
postmodern capitalism – the subject whose arrival is marked by the generalized
acceptance of subversion, when subversion becomes the dominant ideology. But let’s
put another spin on this because the pervert relates to the analyst as two sides of the
same coin, as Žižek might put it.
Both relate to enjoyment in a similar fashion, but are distinguished by their
relationship to the objet a. The pervert, we might say, remains caught in the logic of
desire, needing then the imposition of the Master(-Signifier) as an obstacle to
transgress. The analyst, however, is oriented towards drive, having traversed the
fantasy. She accepts the non-existence of the big Other, and therefore comes to
accept the possibility of her own non-existence.
I would argue that the analytical practice does, in this way, relate to the ethics of
dialectical materialism. And we can find in this ethics, very closely to the way that
Georg Lukács describes the movement from Kant to Hegel to Marx, the core of Žižek’s

43
dialectical materialism. If, with Kant (and here I am relying on descriptions produced by
all three: Lukács, Jameson, and Žižek), we can know only our knowledge of things, but
we cannot know things-in-themselves, when we move to Hegel, we find that the gap in
knowledge – the gap between phenomenal and noumenal – bears upon the subject
herself – the subject just is the very gap in our knowledge. The shift from Hegel to
Marx, then, is tied to what the Lacanian discourse calls the “act” (Lukács 1971;
Jameson 1971; Žižek 1993). When we act, we perform a radical material
transformation that likewise results in a radical transformation of the self. As Žižek
describes (and I apologize for quoting at length):
the proletariat becomes an actual revolutionary subject by way of integrating the
knowledge of its historical role: historical materialism is not a neutral “objective
knowledge” of historical development, since it is an act of self-knowledge of a
historical subject; as such it implies the proletarian subjective position. In other
words, the “knowledge” proper to historical materialism is self-referential, it
changes its “object”. It is only via the act of knowledge that the object becomes
what it truly “is”. So the rise of “class consciousness” produces the effect in the
existence of its “object” (proletariat) by way of changing into an actual
revolutionary subject. And is it not the same with psychoanalysis? Does the
interpretation of the symptom not constitute a direct intervention of the Symbolic
in the Real, does it not offer an example of how the word can affect the Real of
the symptom? And, on the other hand, does not such an efficacy of the
Symbolic presuppose entities whose existence literally hinges on certain non-
knowledge: the moment knowledge is assumed (through interpretation),
existence disintegrates? Existence is here not one of the predicates of the
Thing, but designates the way the Thing relates to its predicates, more
precisely: the way the Thing is related to itself by means of (through the detour
of) its predicates-properties. When a proletarian becomes aware of his
“historical role”, none of his actual predicates changes; what changes is just the
way he relates to them, and this change in the relationship to predicates
radically affects his existence. (Žižek 1993: 144-145)

44
Whereas the pervert seeks to impose a Master-Signifier as the sign of the obstacle
that regulates his enjoyment, the analyst retroactively creates a new one in the
process of the act, which only retroactively authorizes itself; or, in other words,
historical inevitability is only knowable after the fact. Although, we could say, the
subject caught in ideology is a product of “positing the presuppositions” of her own
existence, the knowledge that comes to the ethical position of the analyst and the
proletariat is one of “presupposing the positing.” But in order to do so, as Žižek
acknowledges, one must have access to the analytical discourse, to its interpretive
prowess. This, too, is where Marx and Freud overlap, and is where we can shift gears
to consider what Jameson has called “cognitive mapping” – what I consider to be a
foundational element of his own practice of historical materialist interpretation.

Cognitive Mapping, or Narrative as a Socially Symbolic Act

Even in Žižek’s work we can often locate the significance of the category of
cognitive mapping. In In Defense of Lost Causes, he describes an ironic coincidence
between the rise of postmodernism and developments in the biological sciences. As
he puts it, the “predominance of scientific discourse thus entails the retreat, the
potential suspension, of the very symbolic function as the metaphor constitutive of
human subjectivity” (Žižek 2008: 32). Paternal authority, for instance, he suggests is
based upon faith or trust in the identity of the father. The symbolic function of the
father (the Name-of-the-Father) operates only to the extent that we do not know
directly who our father is – we must accept his word. But, “the moment I know with
scientific certainty who my father is, fatherhood ceases to be the function which
grounds social-symbolic Trust…. The hegemony of the scientific discourse thus
potentially suspends the entire network of symbolic tradition that sustains the subject’s
identifications” (Ibid: 33). What Žižek describes here is close to his earlier claim in The
Ticklish Subject regarding the “demise of symbolic efficiency” (Žižek 1999: 322). What
he describes is the postmodern dispensation with the Master-Signifier, which as we
have seen is rendered still quite well by Deleuze and Guattari in their connection
between capitalism and deterritorialization. Again, it would appear that the
dispensation with the Master-Signifier – the apparent recognition of the non-existence

45
of the big Other, the end of History, the end of ideology, and so on and so forth –
would, on the one hand, leave open the potential for mass freedom. But on the other
hand, as we have seen, it instead brings forth new ideological conditions. This, I would
argue, is partly to do with the fact that the postmodern “incredulity towards
metanarratives” leaves open a gap in the subject’s ability to positively reflect upon and
recognize her position in the world and to herself – it creates a deadlock, an inability to
act; or, what Mark Fisher calls “reflexive impotence.”
As Žižek again puts it, the postmodern end of grand narratives, or big
explanations (like Marxism and psychoanalysis) “is one of the names for this
predicament in which the multitude of local fictions thrives against the background of
scientific discourses as the only remaining universality deprived of sense” (2008: 33).
The problem as he sees it is the existence of various parallel discourses, caught in a
chain of equivalences, none of which has been able to radically intervene in the
capitalist relations of production. All they do, he claims, is supplement the dominant
narrative with other local narratives that do not effectively disturb the existing system.
Instead, he says, “the task is to produce a symbolic fiction (a truth) that intervenes into
the Real, that causes a change within it” (Ibid) – and isn’t this exactly what Jameson
has in mind with his notion of “cognitive mapping”?
We have to recall that when Jameson first introduces the concept in his essay
on Postmodernism, he does so by pointing out the Althusserian relationship between
the Imaginary and the Real, noting that the Lacanian matrix is in fact a tripartite system
that includes the Symbolic. He then says that an aesthetics of cognitive mapping will
require the dimension of the Symbolic to provide the social co-ordinates necessary for
the subject to arrive at her ethical position. And, if I can go further along in this thread,
we might even begin to understand Jameson’s application of the Lacanian Symbolic,
as the intervention of the Symbolic in the Real, very much in the way that Žižek
describes it as a condition of the analyst’s discourse, as a return to grand narrative –
the specificity of the historical materialist one. In fact, this is how we should also
understand Jameson’s approach to allegorical interpretation, beginning with his essay
on “Metacommentary” and The Political Unconscious, and all of his work that has
since followed.

46
 One of Jameson’s chief insights relating to the concept of the political
unconscious is the fact that all interpretation is allegorical interpretation. He identifies
this, initially, by noting some of the ways that post-structural criticism has gone after
the Marxist hermeneutic, which he defines according to its own historicism and
application of historical materialism as a “master code,” as well as its practices of
ideological criticism or the theme of representation (as it has been defined by
Althusser – ideology represents an imaginary relationship of the subject to her real
conditions of existence). With his focus on practices of interpretation, Jameson points
out that every hermeneutic, whether consciously or unconsciously, is an allegorical
process, meaning that it acts as a process of rewriting. Every interpretive operation,
therefore, operates according to “some ultimate privileged interpretive code in terms of
which the cultural object is allegorically rewritten” (Jameson 2008: 451-452). Examples
of this in critical discourse include: forms of language or communication in structuralist
criticism; desire and jouissance in psychoanalysis; anxiety and freedom in
existentialism; temporality in phenomenology; collective archetypes in myth criticism;
or, even some forms of liberal humanism as in the reigning ideological framework
(Ibid: 452). The point of the political unconscious, as a concept, is that even
statements that appear as mere fact or “common sense” (more on this below) are
always already operating according to a particular interpretive framework, which we
might even say is preceded by the subject-position which gives it its particular political
shading. Or, to put this differently: there is no interpretation that is not already
determined (in the last instance) by the class struggle.
Like these other examples, Marxism, according to Jameson, proposes its own
“master code,” which he says is neither the “economy” (as in much of the reductive
criticism of Marxism which sees it as a practice of “economic determinism”), nor is it
even the class struggle. Instead, it is, according to him, that absent cause of the
system, itself: the mode of production. How might the mode of production be
conceived as an interpretive master code? History, as we have already seen from
Jameson, “is not in any sense itself a text or master text or master narrative.” It
remains, according to him, “inaccessible to us except in textual or narrative form”
(Jameson 2008: 452). Historical materialism provides in narrative form an

47
interpretation of the historical and material transition from one mode of production to
the next. It provides an explanation, from the perspective of a dialectical materialist
understanding – that is, from the subjective position of the proletariat – of the historical
transformation from one mode of production to each successive mode of production,
and the internal forces of each, its contradictions, which are sublated in the shift from
the one to the next.
We can also read this practice against the Lacanian approach that Žižek
describes, of the overlap between the ethics of psychoanalysis and the radical ethics
of the proletariat, if – that is – we begin from the position of subjective destitution,
verging towards the ends of analysis. This is a crucial moment, we might say, when
the subject is left destitute without any reason. Here, we need to indeed locate the
master code or master text, or an interpretive framework, that retroactively authorizes
the ethics of the subject. What is needed, in other words, is a practice of cognitive
mapping. At the moment of destitution, the subject is trapped by the weight of the act,
and the gravity of the decision to do so. Deciding, therefore, in some ways requires the
imposition of a teleology – that is, of asking implicitly what kind of goal do we seek
out? From the psychoanalytic perspective, the ethical imperative is one of not giving
way to one’s desire. This may create the appearance of a non-goal-oriented approach,
but if we understand anything about the drive – that which desire becomes once it has
traversed the fantasy – we know that it still maintains a goal, despite re-orienting itself
with regard to its aim. By going after its aim, the drive achieves satisfaction by never
reaching its goal – it merely circulates around the objectified lack that it is. So if we can
now return to the historical materialist interpretation, we must add, I think, another
important dimension central to cognitive mapping, which Jameson correctly identifies
as Utopia.

The Dialectic of Ideology and Utopia: Reification or Realism

All class consciousness – all ideology – is ultimately utopian. Jameson (1981)
has proposed this thesis in different ways, but along the lines of two contradictory
formulations – contradictory, that is, from the perspective of the class struggle – that I
think are pertinent to the context of the class struggle. He has, one the one hand,

48
looked at the relationship between reification and utopia, as well as, on the other hand,
that between realism and utopia. Jameson explains that every class consciousness is
utopian insofar as “it expresses the unity of a collectivity.” Such a unity is an allegorical
one in the sense that the achieved collectivity is utopian “not in itself, but only insofar
as all such collectivities are themselves figures for the ultimate concrete collective life
of an achieved Utopian or classless society.” Because of this, “even hegemonic or
ruling-class culture and ideology are Utopian, not in spite of their instrumental function
to secure and perpetuate class privilege and power, but rather precisely because that
function is also in and of itself the affirmation of collective solidarity” (Jameson 1981:
291).
Consider, for instance, the way that Žižek describes the utopian vision of the
so-called middle class: “the ‘middle class’ is in its very ‘real’ existence, the embodied
lie, the denial of antagonism – in psychoanalytic terms, the ‘middle class’ is a fetish,
the impossible intersection of Left and Right which, by expelling both poles of the
antagonism into the position of antisocial ‘extremes’ which corrode the healthy social
body… presents itself as the neutral common ground of Society. In other words, the
‘middle class’ is the very form of the disavowal of the fact that ‘Society does not exist’
(Laclau) – in it, Society does exist” (Žižek 1999: 187). “Middle class,” we might say, is
therefore the utopian fetish of the ruling order – the utopian hegemonic vision of a
“classless” society, in which the organic whole of the collectivity is secured by the
disavowal of the class antagonism. This, I believe, is what we might refer to as a
reified utopia. It is one in which the social body is articulated – is “sutured” – by the
fetish object that ultimately dispels and disavows an existing antagonism. The flip side
to the corporatist imaginary of the “middle class” utopia could also take the form of the
fetish of the “intruder” tied to the fascist-populist imaginary.
Both Jameson and Žižek have used the example of Steven Spielberg’s Jaws
(1975) to make this case. The shark in the film operates as a kind of fetish object – an
enemy or intruder – that galvanizes the collective efforts of the community, bringing
them together to formulate the unified whole. It is not unlike the way that the Nazi anti-
Semitic representation of the “Jew,” or even today the racist-populist image of the
Islamic fundamentalist, the refugee, or even those who identify as transgender – it is

49
not unlike how the images of these figures are deployed to disavow and displace the
centrality of the class antagonism. These are images of figures who operate as fetish
objects used to constitute the implied unity in the utopian vision of the organic body
through exclusion. Utopia is here reified through the fixation on the fetish object and is
similar to the logic of the commodity fetish, which is the very objectively regulated
appearance that stands as the linchpin of the entire capitalist system. The fetish
objectifies and then displaces the Real social antagonism, i.e., the class struggle,
which is the true indication of the fact that “Society does not exist.”
A realist utopia is one, conversely, that does not make any claim to the organic
composition of the collective unity of the community. In fact, its operation is to
pronounce fully the presence of the antagonism that prevents the collective unity of the
society, while simultaneously offering a glimpse of an emancipatory resolution to the
problem. It accomplishes, in other words, a mediation of the antagonism that leaves it
intact while simultaneously elucidating that which remains true on both sides of the
contradiction. The latter is also how I understand the category of the totality. A cultural
example that both Jameson and Žižek cite is the David Simon television series, The
Wire (2002-2008) (Jameson 2010; Žižek 2012). What they both show is that each
season of the series portrays a genuine social problem – the conflict between drug
dealers/organized crime and the police, which is ultimately also a racialized conflict;
the struggles of labour unions and the disintegration of organized labour; problems in
public education; and the problems with what is now commonly referred to as the “fake
news” – but each season also proposes some ultimately utopian scenario in which the
problem is ideally resolved; the solutions, however, are only ultimately defeated due to
ill political will, and the context of power within the existing class struggle. To cite
Žižek, who refers to Jameson’s piece on the series, “The Wire is a whodunit in which
the culprit is the social totality, the whole system, not an individual criminal (or group of
criminals)” (Žižek 2012: 101). He goes on to ask, “how are we to represent (or, rather,
render) in art the totality of contemporary capitalism?... The point is that the Real of the
capitalist system is abstract, the abstract-virtual movement of Capital” (Ibid). And isn’t
this in fact what Jameson means when he refers to the mode of production as the
absent cause, of History as being only available to us in textual form? Nevertheless,

50
the aesthetic rendering, and particularly the utopian realist one, provides access to
and represents the unrepresentable absent cause: the Real of the class struggle.
Dystopia is a relevant postmodern genre. Unlike the kinds of utopian
envisioning that was typical of modernism, dystopia is postmodern in the way that it
relates to History at the end of History, quite so in the sense of Jameson’s own hyper-
quoted statement (often, wrongly attributed to Žižek), that “it seems easier for us today
to imagine the thoroughgoing deterioration of the earth and of nature than the
breakdown of late capitalism” (Jameson 1994: xii). As I have argued in other places
(Flisfeder 2013; Flisfeder 2017), Jameson’s statement models the postmodern
disposition against big utopian projects. Jameson’s thesis and picture of capitalist
cynical reason (“it’s easier to imagine the end, than…”) amounts to a kind of
retroactive utopia in which the present situation (despite existing flaws) is imagined as
the best of all possible worlds – all that’s left is the end of the world. But this, I would
argue is a kind of uncritical dystopia; dystopia also has the potential for bringing to
consciousness a truly utopian ideal, what we might call critical dystopias (see Mirrlees
2015). An uncritical dystopia would be of the kind that Jameson links to reification,
whereas a critical dystopia is of the realist variety. An uncritical dystopia depicts a
future gone bad because we strayed too far from the present conditions – for example,
the film adaptation of Cormac McCarthy’s The Road (2009); a critical dystopia,
instead, shows us just where we are headed if we do not change the present course of
things historically, such as Alfonso Cuarón’s Children of Men (2006) – it stands as a
realist warning of the potential to come should we continue down our path of existing
capitalism. Critical dystopia provides in textual form what is truly at stake in the
category of the totality, or maybe even a metaphoric negative image of it – it is a
concept not unlike that of cognitive mapping, which Jameson (1998: 49) has also
proclaimed to be merely another way to express what is at stake in class
consciousness.

51
Totality as the Form of Historical and Dialectical Thought, or, How to Arrive at
the New
Far from the caricature depicted by Laclau, the concept of totality goes beyond the
modeling of the society according to the base/superstructure topography. Lukács
provides for Jameson the most adequate model of totality, which he says expresses
the limits to bourgeois consciousness: not to its content, but to its form. For Lukács,
totality shows us what is false, not so much at the level of the content of any given
ideology, but what is false at the level of its form. Applying totality to his predecessors,
Marx, for instance, showed us, not what was wrong in the details of Ricardo and
Smith, but how their models failed to identify the larger totality of perspective
(Jameson 1971: 183). This is where we can return to what is dialectical within the field
of the historical, for as Jameson also points out with regard to the shift from Hegel to
Marx:
dialectical thought is in its very structure self-consciousness… The difference
between the Hegelian and the Marxist dialectics can be defined in terms of the
type of self-consciousness involved. For Hegel this is a relatively logical one…
here the thinker comes to understand the way in which his own determinate
thought processes… limit the results of his thinking. For the Marxist dialectic, on
the other hand, the self-consciousness aimed at is the awareness of the
thinker’s position in society and history itself, and of the limits imposed on this
awareness by his class position. (Jameson 1971: 340)
Form, of course, matters for Žižek as well, as he is very keen to point out some
of the methodological overlaps between Marx and Freud when it comes to the
analyses of commodities and of dreams (Žižek 1989). What is historical about Žižek’s
thought is shown in the way that he describes the significance of the formal transitions
in the consciousness of the subject, from feudalism to capitalism, from modernity to
postmodernity, from the predominance of the Master’s Discourse to that of the
University Discourse (see Žižek 2006: 298-308). It involves the formal shift in the
position and the role of the Master-Signifier, whereas in the Master’s Discourse it is in
the position of agency, and in the University Discourse it is in the position of truth – the
truth that the university administrator is really just the repressed Master. But it is in the

52
Hysteric’s discourse that the Master is troubled, bombarded with the question: “what
do you want?” “What am I for you?” It is the Hysteric who is the true agent of the
production of new historical knowledge, the hysteric who does for psychoanalysis what
the proletariat does for historical materialism; they are the assumed subject positions
of those who produce real new knowledge, who push forward the hermeneutic practice
in the face of the dialectical motion at a standstill.
Change, as Jameson describes, “is essentially a function of content seeking its
adequate expression in form” (Jameson 1971: 328); and “form is but the working out of
content in the realm of the superstructure” (Ibid: 329). At this intersection, we might be
able to see in what sense the signifier is the cipher of both the historical and the
dialectical relative to Marxist and Freudian hermeneutics, of which Jameson and Žižek
now name the co-ordinates for the continuation of these analytical and political
projects under conditions of contemporary postmodern capitalism. So how might we
now imagine change and the new? How might we understand subversion at a moment
when the subversion of the signifier is the dominant ideology?

Communist Epilogue; or, An American Utopia

What is ultimately paralyzing about the end of history and the end of ideology,
about the postmodern incredulity towards metanarratives, about the breakdown of the
signifying chain or the demise of symbolic efficiency – what is ultimately paralyzing
about all of these things is the loss of the utopian imaginary that drives historical
progress. Therefore, those who have proclaimed the end of history, as well as those
who have chided the tyranny of the signifier, regardless of what they may attest to with
regard to their criticisms of the present system, are today the true utopians of the
present. They are those who miss the retroactive determination of the imaginary
required for emancipatory cognitive mapping, which in the same gesture that it
deconstructs the hegemonic signifier of the present, brings – through its radical act – a
wholly new one. The Communist imaginary is not one that premises a necessarily
inevitable, absolute teleology; it does not conceive a predestined historical outcome.
Rather it provides for us the co-ordinates for regulating the movement away from the
dystopian trajectory of the present that is maintained by the cynical resignation of the

53
dominant postmodern consciousness. Communism is a signifier of retroactive
speculation – or of retroactive signification. And, if postmodernism means in some
ways the elevation of subversion into the reigning ideology, then perhaps the signifier
of contemporary radical politics needs to be Communism, not as subversion, but as
our new common sense political unconscious.
Communism as our new common sense master code arises in Jameson and
Žižek’s recent projects, from Žižek’s volumes on The Idea of Communism, to
Jameson’s essay “An American Utopia” (contained in the book of the same name,
edited by Žižek, which we might also count as another volume in The Idea of
Communism series). What they both continue to demonstrate is that in the face of the
absolute foreclosure of the signifier, the deadlocks of capitalist exploitation, as well as
its own inherent internal contradictions, can only go on and transform into absolute
excess. As Žižek has put it, “when people tell me that nothing can be changed [my
response is] – no it can, because things are already changing like crazy. And what we
should say is just this: if we let things change the way they are changing automatically
we are approaching a kind of new perverse, permissively authoritarian society, which
will be authoritarian but in a new way” (Žižek 2013: 50). Against the Deleuzo-
Guattarian-inspired #accelerationist view (see, for instance, Shaviro 2015; and,
Srnicek and Williams 2015) that seeks only to exacerbate and heighten existing
contradictions, or at the very least continue to maintain the deterritorialized flows of
capital, without – that is – imposing a new signifier, we might take the advice of both
Jameson and Žižek that it is today increasingly necessary to re-invent utopia!

References
Althusser, Louis (1996) “Marx and Freud.” In Writings on Psychoanalysis: Freud and
Lacan. New York: Columbia University Press.
Althusser, Louis (2008) On Ideology. New York: Verso.
Anderson, Perry (1998) The Origins of Postmodernity. New York: Verso.
Bell, Daniel (1960) The End of Ideology: On the Exhaustion of Political Ideas in the
Fifties. New York: The Free Press.

54
Berman, Marshall (1982) All That Is Solid Melts Into Air: The Experience of Modernity.
New York: Simon & Schuster.
Bosteels, Bruno (2005) “Alain Badiou’s Theory of the Subject: The Recommencement
of Dialectical Materialism.” In Slavoj Žižek, ed., Lacan: The Silent Partners. New
York: Verso.
Butler, Judith (1997) The Psychic Life of Power: Theories in Subjection. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Deleuze, Gilles and Felix Guattari (1983) Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia.
Robert Hurley, Mark Seem, and Helen R. Lane, trans. Minneapolis, MN:
University of Minnesota Press.
Dolar, Mladen (1993) “Beyond Interpellation.” Qui parle 6.2: 75-96.
Eagleton, Terry (1996) The Illusions of Postmodernism. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Fink, Bruce (2003) “Perversion.” Perversion and the Social Relation, Molly Anne
Rothenberg, Dennis A. Foster, and Slavoj Žižek, eds. Durham, NC: Duke
University Press.
Fisher, Mark (2009) Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative? Winchester, UK: Zero
Books.
Flisfeder, Matthew (2013) “Communism and the End of the World.” PUBLIC: Art,
Culture, Ideas 48: 105-115.
Flisfeder, Matthew (2017) Postmodernism and Blade Runner. New York:
Bloomsbury should be Flisfeder, Matthew (2017) Postmodern Theory and
Blade Runner. New York: Bloomsbury.
Foucault, Michel (1984) “Truth and Power.” In The Foucault Reader, Paul Rabinow ed.
New York: Pantheon.
Foucault, Michel (1990) The History of Sexuality, Volume 1: An Introduction, Robert
Hurley, tans. New York: Vintage Books.
Fukuyama, Francis (1992) The End of History and the Last Man. New York: The Free
Press.
Jameson, Fredric (1971) Marxism and Form: 20th Century Dialectical Theories of
Literature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Jameson, Fredric (1981) The Political Unconscious: Narrative as a Socially Symbolic
Act. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Jameson, Fredric (1984) “Postmodernism, Or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism.”
New Left Review I 146: 53-92.
Jameson, Fredric (1992) “Reification and Utopia in Mass Culture.” In Signatures of the
Visible. New York: Routledge.
Jameson, Fredric (1994) The Seeds of Time. New York: Columbia University Press.
Jameson, Fredric (1998) “End of Art/End of History.” In The Cultural Turn: Writings on
the Postmodern, 1983-1998. New York: Verso.

55
Jameson, Fredric (2008) The Ideologies of Theory. New York: Verso.
Jameson, Fredric (2010) “Realism and Utopia in The Wire.” Criticism 52.3/4: 359-372.
Lacan, Jacques (1981) The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis, Alan
Sherridan, trans. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.
Lacan, Jacques (1997) The Seminar of Jacques Lacan Book XVII: The Other Side of
Psychoanalysis, Russell Grigg, trans. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.
Lukács, Georg (1971) History and Class Consciousness: Studies in Marxist Dialectics,
Rodney Linvingstone, trans. Cambridge, MA: MIT University Press.
Lyotard, Jean-François (1984) The Postmodern Condition, Brian Massumi, trans.
Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Marx, Karl (1990) Capital, Volume 3, David Fernbach, trans. New York: Penguin.
McGowan, Todd (2016) Capitalism and Desire: The Psychic Cost of Free Markets.
New York: Columbia University Press.
Mirrlees, Tanner (2015) “Hollywood’s Uncritical Dystopias.” CineACTION 95: 4-15.
Laclau, Ernesto (1990) New Reflections on the Revolution of Our Time. New York:
Verso.
Laclau, Ernesto and Chantal Mouffe (2000) Hegemony and Socialist Strategy:
Towards a Radical Democratic Politics, 2nd Ed. New York: Verso.
Shaviro, Steven (2015) No Speed Limit: Three Essays on Accelerationism.
Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Srnicek, Nick and Alex Williams (2015) Inventing the Future: Postcapitailsm and a
World Without Work. New York: Verso.
Williams, Raymond (1977) Marxism and Literature. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Žižek, Slavoj (1989 The Sublime Object of Ideology. New York: Verso.
Žižek, Slavoj (1993) Tarrying with the Negative: Kant, Hegel, and the Critique of
Ideology. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Žižek, Slavoj (1994) “The Spectre of Ideology.” In Slavoj Žižek, ed., Mapping Ideology.
New York: Verso.
Žižek, Slavoj (1999) The Ticklish Subject: The Absent Centre of Political Ontology.
New York: Verso.
Žižek, Slavoj (2002) For They Know Not What They Do: Enjoyment as a Political
Factor, 2nd Ed. New York: Verso.
Žižek, Slavoj (2008) In Defense of Lost Causes. New York: Verso.
Žižek, Slavoj (2012) The Year of Dreaming Dangerously. New York: Verso.
Žižek, Slavoj (2013) “The End of the World (As We Know It),” transcribed by Matthew
Flisfeder. PUBLIC 48: 41-50.

56