Lash defines postmodernism as imagistic, de-differentiated, and immanent within modernism

Evidence

Scott Lash proposes that we see Postmodernism as ‘a figurai, as distinct from discursive, regime of signification. To signify via figures rather than words is to signify iconically. Images or other figures which signify iconically do so through their resemblance to the referent.’ Consequently Postmodern art involves ‘de-differentiation’, so that, on the one hand, the signified (meaning) tends ‘to wither away and the signifier to function as a referent’, and, on the other hand, ‘the referent functions as a signifier’. Contemporary film (Blue Velvet) and criticism (Susan Sontag’s attack on interpretation) provide Lash with examples of this essentially Imagist art, but, like Lyotard, he sees Postmodernism as immanent within Modernism, particularly in the shape of Surrealism, which ‘understood reality to be composed of signifying elements. Thus Naville enthused that we should get pleasure from the streets of the city in which kiosks, autos and lights were in a sense already representations, and Breton spoke of the world itself as “automatic writing”. — Alex Callinicos, Against Postmodernism, 111

Categorization

  • DEFINE: Precise definition of Lash’s figurai/discursive distinction in postmodern signification — essential terminology for contesting Jameson’s account.
  • XREF: Lyotard’s immanence-within-modernism view of postmodernism links this to the reader’s broader counterargument structure against Jameson’s claimed epochal break. — connects to: Defining Postmodernism as internal to Modernism abandons its periodizing claim; Postmodernism can only be defined relative to the equally confused term modernism — David Harvey, The Condition of Postmodernity: An…, 92; Postmodernism is a tendency within late modernism, not its successor — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory: Nations, Classes, Literatures, 236 (+1 more)

Broader Connections