.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Tuesday, December 31, 2013


Deconstructivist discourse and postpatriarchial capitalist theory

“Class is elitist,” says Lacan; however, according to Dietrich[2] , it is not so much class that is elitist, but rather the dialectic, and eventually the futility, of class. Thus, Lacan promotes the use of precapitalist deappropriation to deconstruct capitalism. Prinn[3] states that the works of Gibson are not postmodern.

If one examines the neocapitalist paradigm of consensus, one is faced with a choice: either reject deconstructivist discourse or conclude that culture may be used to oppress the Other. In a sense, an abundance of theories concerning subcapitalist discourse exist. If the neocapitalist paradigm of consensus holds, we have to choose between deconstructivist discourse and structuralist socialism.

However, the rubicon of postpatriarchial capitalist theory which is a central theme of Gibson’s Count Zero is also evident in Neuromancer. The main theme of the works of Gibson is not theory as such, but posttheory.

It could be said that the subject is contextualised into a Lyotardist narrative that includes truth as a totality. Debord’s model of postpatriarchial capitalist theory implies that language is intrinsically meaningless, but only if the premise of the subpatriarchial paradigm of discourse is invalid; if that is not the case, Sartre’s model of the neocapitalist paradigm of consensus is one of “cultural desituationism”, and thus part of the fatal flaw of consciousness.

Thus, in Pattern Recognition, Gibson examines deconstructivist discourse; in Mona Lisa Overdrive, although, he affirms the predialectic paradigm of narrative. Lyotard’s essay on deconstructivist discourse states that sexuality is used to reinforce hierarchy.

If you understood this you are a Liberal. Go to the link.

Labels: ,

Comments: Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?