The New Left’s cultural-political self-conception drove postmodernism’s turn to aesthetics.

Evidence

The New Left was preoccupied with a struggle to liberate itself from the dual shackles of old left politics (particularly as represented by traditional communist parties and ‘orthodox’ Marxism) and the repressive powers of corporate capital and bureaucratized institutions (the state, the universities, the unions, etc.). It saw itself from the very outset as a cultural as well as a political-economic force, and helped force the turn to aesthetics that post modernism has been about. — David Harvey, The Condition of Postmodernity, 2200

Categorization

• XREF: Directly feeds Harvey’s core thesis that postmodern culture is causally tied to political-economic shifts; connects to earlier chapters on flexible accumulation. — connects to: Modernism’s aesthetic withdrawal from reality was a retreat from politics — Alex Callinicos, Against Postmodernism: A Marxist…, 216; Postmodernism emerged as a response to the revolutionary failure of 1968-76. — Alex Callinicos, Against Postmodernism: A Marxist…, 627; The Postmodern Condition grew from far older aesthetic-political commitments — Perry Anderson, The Origins of Postmodernity, 73 (+4 more)

Broader Connections

• The New Left treated culture as constitutive, not subordinate to economics #expands (0.85)
• The Postmodern Condition grew from far older aesthetic-political commitments #corroborates (0.82) — Perry Anderson, The Origins of Postmodernity, 73
• The New Left expanded rather than collapsed the definition of culture and politics #expands (0.75)