Poststructuralism’s piecemeal politics arose from dashed 1968 revolutionary hopes.

Evidence

Patton’s defence of Foucault and Deleuze does, however, highlight the political sources of their ideas — the post-1968 rejection by many left intellectuals of any perspective of global social transformation, a reaction to dashed revolutionary hopes and to the rise of the ‘new social movements’ (feminists, gays, ecologists, black nationalists, etc.). Patton argues that the experience of these movements shows that ‘change in existing social relation does not have to be mediated by the totality. The conditions that sustain oppression can be altered piecemeal.’ — Alex Callinicos, Against Postmodernism, 347

Categorization

  • XREF: The political genealogy of poststructuralism — how 1968’s defeat, not intellectual insight alone, drove the rejection of totality. — connects to: Postmodernism emerged as a response to the revolutionary failure of 1968-76. — Alex Callinicos, Against Postmodernism: A Marxist
, 627; Postmodernism’s acceptance stems from 1968ers’ class position and disillusionment — Alex Callinicos, Against Postmodernism: A Marxist
, 617; Post-1968 literary theory abandoned solidarity with labor movements — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory: Nations, Classes, Literatures, 8 (+3 more)
  • corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Alex Callinicos, Against Postmodernism: A Marxist
, 347

Broader Connections