Frame choices that collapse politics into nationalism versus postmodernism erase socialist alternatives.

Evidence

This exclusive emphasis on the nationalist ideology is there even in the opening paragraph of Jameson’s text, where the only choice for the ‘Third World’ is said to be between its ‘nationalisms’ and a ‘global American postmodernist culture’ Is there no other choice? Could not one join the ‘Second World’, for example? There used to be, in Marxist discourse, a thing called ‘socialist and/or communist culture’ which was neither nationalist nor postmodernist. Has that vanished from our discourse altogether, even as the name of a desire? — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory, 393

Categorization

• XREF: Directly parallels Ahmad’s broader critique that discourse-determinism on the left obscures material/class structures — the reader’s stated research angle. — connects to: Only socialist-articulated Third World nationalisms resisted US cultural pressure; bourgeois ones embrace postmodernism. — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory: Classes, Nations, Literatures, 394; Rejecting Marxism foreclosed self-critique, so poststructuralism replaced rather than corrected nationalism — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory: Nations, Classes, Literatures, 70; Externalizing socialist practice leaves nationalism as the only conceptual frame available — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory: Classes, Nations, Literatures, 364 (+2 more)

Broader Connections

• Externalizing socialist practice leaves nationalism as the only conceptual frame available #corroborates (0.85) — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory, 364
• Rejecting Marxism foreclosed self-critique, so poststructuralism replaced rather than corrected nationalism #complicates (0.75) — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory, 70
• Ideology works by taking certain frames for granted so alternatives stay unthinkable #expands (0.70)