Jameson insists postmodernism can neither be celebrated nor disavowed politically.

Evidence

I was really neither of those things, but I have to conclude that I must have been “neither” in some relatively complicated and unusual way that it seemed hard for people to grasp. As far as Postmodernism is concerned, and despite the trouble I took in my principal essay on the subject to explain how it was not possible intellectually or politically simply to celebrate Postmodernism or to “disavow” it (whatever that might mean), avant-garde art critics quickly identified me as a vulgar Marxist hatchet man, while some of the more simplehearted comrades concluded that, following the example of so many illustrious predecessors, I had finally gone off the deep end and become a “post-Marxist” (which is to say, in one language, a renegade and a turncoat, and in another, someone who would rather switch than fight). — Fredric Jameson, Postmodernism, or, The Cultural Logic…, 650

Categorization

• XREF: Core to the reader’s push: this ‘neither celebrate nor disavow’ stance is what makes the cultural-dominant thesis hard to test — you cannot simply adopt or refuse it. — connects to: Jameson captured ‘postmodernism’ for the Left via discursive struggle — Perry Anderson, The Origins of Postmodernity, 171
• QUESTION: Worth chasing: is ‘neither celebrate nor disavow’ actually a testable position, or a way of making the thesis unfalsifiable by construction?
• yield-rescued: below the book’s yield-target cutoff, included anyway for connecting to: Jameson captured ‘postmodernism’ for the Left via discursive struggle — Perry Anderson, The Origins of Postmodernity, 171

Broader Connections

• Jameson captured ‘postmodernism’ for the Left via discursive struggle #complicates (0.78) — Perry Anderson, The Origins of Postmodernity, 171