1labe n7 junio 2013 ISSN 2171-9624

Juan Carlos Rodrguez and the Renewal of Althusserian Marxismo1

MALCOLMK.REED

StonyBrookUniversityUnited States of America

1Paracitaresteartculo:Read,MalcolmK.(2013).JuanCarlosRodrguezandtheRenewalofAlthusserianMar-xismlabe 7[www.revistaalabe.com](Recibido31-03-2013;aceptado03-04-2013)2Areviewarticleofthefollowingtexts:Tras la muerte del aura (En contra y a favor de la Ilustracin); Para una lectura de Heidegger (Algunas claves de la escritura actual) y Formas de leer a Borges (o las trampas de la lectura).

Juan Carlos Rodrguez y la renovacin de marxismo althusseriano2

Juan Carlos RodrguezTras la muerte del aura (En contra y a favor de la Ilustracin)

Granada: Editorial Universidad de Granada. 2011

Para una lectura de Heidegger (Algunas claves de la escritura actual). Granada: Editorial Universidad de Granada. 2011

Formas de leer a Borges (o las trampas de la lectura). Almera: Editorial Universidad de Almera. 2012

labe n7 junio 2013

2

ISSN 2171-9624

Intheimmediateaftermathof1968,anumberofworksonMarxistliterarytheoryappearedthatweredestinedtocommandtheattentionnotonlyofwriterswhowerere-cognizablyMarxistorMarxianbutofotherswhoboastedlittleinthewayofallegiancetotheMarxisttradition,howeverbroadlydefined.TwosuchworkswereTerryEagletonsCriticism and Ideology (1976)andFredricJamesonsThe Political Unconscious (1981).WhiledeeplyandconfessedlyindebtedtoLouisAlthusserforkick-startingtheircareers,inspirationallyspeaking,bothEagletonandJamesonweresubsequentlytorevealanam-biguous,eventroubledrelationtotheFrenchMarxist:Eagleton,throughaseriesoftextsthat, theirunquestionabledistinctionnotwithstanding, runhot andcold in their com-mitmenttoAlthusserianism;Jameson,throughabrandofHegelianizingMarxismthatfinallyprovedunabletotakeonboardthefullcomplexityoftheAlthusserianlegacy.Pre-cedingboththesescholarschronologically,andbearingcomparisonwiththemintermsofintellectualrange,ambition,andproductivity,wasJuanCarlosRodrguez,whoseTeo-ra e historia de la produccin ideolgicaappearedin1974.Exceptthattherethesimila-ritiesend,forwhereasEagletonandJamesonweredestinedtoachievestarstatuswithintheirprofession,aratherdifferentcareertrajectoryawaitedRodrguez.Whileaccruingconsiderablelocalnotorietywithinhisownacademyandanotinsignificantfollowing,theSpaniardwasyetunabletobreakintotheinternationalcircuitofvisitingprofessors,guestspeakers,conferences,etc3.Moresignificantly,andagainincontrasttohisAnglo-Saxoncounterparts,thisformerstudentofAlthusserwastoremainoverthedecadesaloyal,althoughbynomeansuncritical,followerofhismaster(cf.Rodrguez2003).Suchdestiniescallforcloserscrutiny. Atthemostgenerallevel,thedisciplinaryinertiaofAnglophoneHispanism,uponwhichaccesstotheinternationalacademynecessarilydepended,compoundedbytheglo-balimbalancesbetweenmetropolitanandnon-metropolitanintellectuals,effectivelynu-llifiedtheimpactoutsideSpainofRodrguezswork,whichwillbetranslatedintoEnglishatarelativelylatedate(seeRodrguez2002;2008)4.Morespecifically,theimportancethattheSpaniardattachedtotheradicalhistoricityofliteratureandculturemusthavebeenmajorobstacletoitsreceptionwithinabourgeoisacademypersuadedoftheappealofsuchuniversalthemesaslifeanddeath.LalitereturanohaexistidosiemprewasthestatementwithwhichTeora e historiafamously,orperhapsnotsofamously,began.Tomamoseltrminohistoriamuyenserio, itsauthorfurtherwarned,yenconse-quencianotratamosdeponerparches(6).Therecanbenoquestion,weareimmediatelyinformed,of continuing to think in termsof an inside and an outsideof literature.Entender laobra literariadesdesuradicalhistoricidadquieredecir,porelcontrario,

3With,ofcourse,minorexceptions,specificallyinthecaseofItaly,wherehisworkhasbeenenthusiasticallyrecei-ved,cf.FrancescoMuuzzioli,Rodrguezelapoesiadelno,in Lalternativa letteraria (Rome:EditorieMeltemi,2001),99-123.4ThewaveofAlthusserianscholarshiphadbecomeamereripplebythetimeitbelatedlyreachedtheshoresofBritishHispanism(cf.Smith1988:115-17),amarginalizeddisciplinestrugglingtoemergefromtheclutchesofaconservativebrandoftheologicalexegisis.

3labe n7 junio 2013 ISSN 2171-9624

paranosotros,quetalhistoricidadconstituyelabasemismadelalgicaproductivadeltexto:aquellosinlocualeltextonopuedeexistir(nopuedefuncionarniensnifuerades)(6).Andfinallycamethekillerpunch,atleastasfarasthetraditionalistcriticwasconcerned:justasliteraturehadnotalwaysexisted,neithernecessarilyhadthesubject.Thereexistednosubjectforallseasons,onlyonethatserved,onalocalizedlevel,therequirementsofabourgeoissociety.Tosuchclaimsthebourgeoisacademyrepliednotwithcritique,whichwouldhavemeantengagingthesubstanceofRodrguezsargument,butwithsilence,themosteffectiveformofliberalcensorship. Buthow,inthatcase,itwillreasonablybeasked,wereEagletonandJamesonabletooutwitthecensor?Becausetheywerepreparedtoaccepttheexistenceoftranshistori-calcategories?Obviouslynot.Eagleton,tobeginwith,wasbynomeanssilentuponthereachofhistory,andspecificallytakesAlthussertotaskforclaimingthatideologyper-formsaubiquitoussocialfunction:Itishardtoseehowwecouldeverknowthatideologyisunchanginginitsbasicdevices;butonetellingpieceofevidenceagainstthisclaimisthefactthatAlthusseroffersasageneraltheoryofideologywhatisarguablyspecifictothebourgeoisepoch.TheideathatourfreedomandautonomylieinasubmissiontotheLawhas its sources inEnlightenmentEurope. Inwhat senseanAthenianslave regar-dedhimselfasfree,autonomousanduniquelyindividuatedisaquestionAlthusserleavesunanswered(Eagleton1991:149-50).Thepointiswellmade,andlooks,onthefaceofit, tobemore than adequatelyhistoricizing.Theonlyproblem is thatEagleton rarelyextendshisgazebeyondbourgeoiscultureand,morerestrictedly,beyondthemodernnovel,asaresultofwhichthereferenceto theslavemoderemained littlemorethanagesture. Onthefaceofit,JamesonscommandtoAlwayshistoricize(Jameson1981:9)wordsuncannilyreminiscentofthosewithwhichRodrguezopensTeora e historia mightseemtopromisemore.Consider,tobeginwith,histhorough-goingcritiqueoftheFrankfurtSchoolsattachmenttotheautonomoussubject,thelattercharacteristicofthebourgeoisiesprogressivephase,whichprecludesanyimaginativeappealbackbeyondbourgeoiscivilsocietytosomepre-individualisticandprecapitalistsocialform(Jameson1988 [1978]: 109-10).Equallyencouraging is Jamesonsanticipationof the ideologicalbarriersthatmustinevitablystandinthewayofthehistoricizingimpulse:Thatthestruc-tureofthepsycheishistorical,andhasahistory,is[]asdifficultforustograspasthatthesensesarenotthemselvesnaturalorgansbutrathertheresultsofalongprocessofdifferentiationevenwithinhumanhistory(Jameson1982:62).Andyet,strangetosay,thechapterinThe Political UnconsciousonMagicalNarrativesismoreconcernedwithhistoricizingNorthropFryesbrandofmythcriticismthanengagingthecomplexitiesoffeudaltextsthemselves,andsimplymarksonestageinJamesonsgravitationtowardsaversionofHegelianMarxismthatunderstoodhistoryastheunfoldingofaMovingSpiritorSubject.Therewas,itseems,noescapingthereachofthesubjectform,inoneguiseoranother.

labe n7 junio 2013

4

ISSN 2171-9624

AndsoEagletonandJamesonproceededontheirmerryway,theformertowardsreflectionsontheGodDebateandthemeaningandexistenceofGoodandEvil,thelattertowardsapost-marxismgloomilypersuadedofitsowninevitablefailureandsubjectiontoconsumerism, inbothcases to the infinite reliefofabourgeoisacademy itselfbusypronouncinguponthedeathnotonlyofStructuralMarxismbut,yetagain,ofMarxismitself.Wewillletthemgo,safeintheknowledgethatsoonerorlatertherewillneedtobeasettlingofaccountsbetweenthemandaSpanishMarxistwho,bywayofcontrast,remai-nedsteadfastinhiscommitmenttotheradicalhistoricityofliteratureand,morebroadly,totheMarxistnotionsofexploitationandtheclassstruggle.Moregermanetothepresentreview is theextent towhich, throughhisongoingattachment toStructuralMarxism,Rodrguezsworkremains(ineverysense)unthinkablewithintheparametersofAnglo-Americancriticalcircles.(Thebestproofofthevalidityofhisideologicalunconsciouswillbeitsrejectionbyabourgeoisacademythat,unconsciously,doesnotwishtoknow.)Toelucidatefurther,letusturntothefirstworkunderreview, Tras la muerte del aura(2011).

Towards a theory of social function Oneoftheadvantagesofbeginningour reviewwithTras la muerte isthatthisworkprovides,amongotherthings,aretrospectiveoverviewofthetheoreticalconceptsintroducedbyRodrguezintothestudyofliterature,principalamongwhichisthatofthemodeofproduction:Todomododeproduccin,theAlthusserianwrites,es,dehecho,unproceso,unaseriedeformacionessocialesquesedesarrollanatravsdetresnivelesotrestpicasconjuntas:elnivelpoltico,eleconmicoyelideolgico(Rodrguez2011a:28).Whileeachinstanceexertsitsownparticularinfluence,whichallowsittobeabstrac-ted,foranalyticpurposes, it isvital toenvisagethedeterminateprocessesofrelativelyautonomouslevelsasoperatingsimultaneously,ifunequally,atthelevelofthestructu-redwhole:Ningunodelostresnivelesexisteenabstractosinonicamentecomofuncio-namientosocial,unfuncionamientonovisibleyabsolutamenteentremezclado(28).WewillbeconstantlymisledinourreadingofRodrguezsworkifwefailtoholdinfocusthiskeynotionofthecomplexunity,understoodasnothinglessthantheon-going(alwaysalready there)co-presenceof itselements, the lattercaught inaconstant interplayofreciprocalinfluences. Equallyimportantisnotionofastructureindominance,whichaccordsprimary,secondaryandtertiarydominancerespectivelytotheeconomic,politicalandideological,throughwhichtooff-settheideaofachaoticwarofeveryelementagainsteveryother.TheprimacyoftheeconomyandRodrguezisparticularlyinsistentuponthispointdoesnotexplainthepoliticalandideologicalinstancesinsuchawaythatthesecansimplybededucedorderivedfromthestructureofthemodeofproduction.Rejected,then,istheclassicallyMarxistnotionthatthesuperstructurecanbereducedtotheeconomic

5labe n7 junio 2013 ISSN 2171-9624

base.Rodrguezexplains:siaceptramosaslascosaselpropiomaterialismohist-ricosevolveria imposibleyconl,porsupuesto, lanocinde ideologa (ode incons-cientepulsional/ideolgicoensentidoamplio)(29).Indeed,theAlthusserianfurtherjettisonstheveryconceptsofbaseandsuperstructure,whichheseesasinvertingandthereforereprisingthebourgeoisspirit/matterdichotomy. Bythisstageintheargument,thereaderofliberalpersuasionswillalreadyhavebeguntotargetwhats/heperceivestobeabiasinfavourofstructure,totheneglectoftheindividual,adducingasevidencetheAlthusseriansself-confessedanti-humanism.Theproblem,webelieve,lieselsewhere.ThedifferencebetweenRodrguezandhispost-modernandneo-liberalrivalsisthat,forthelatter,humansubjectivityisacceptedasthebasisofsocialtheorywhile,fortheAlthusserian,theemphasisfallsuponthesocialstruc-turesandrelationsthatprecede,andthereforedetermine,theinterpellationofindividualsubjectivities:lasformasdelaindividualidadsondistintasen[cadamododeproduc-cin],slo que no hay una individualidad previa a su forma ideolgica constituyente. Se tratamsbiende la construccindesubjetividades histricas desdeelnacimiento,puestoquehoynacemos capitalistas (comoenotro tiempose naca feudal osenaca escavista,etc.)(30).TheAlthusserianisnotseekingtherebytorobhumanpracticeofitscomplexityorofitscapacitytotransformsociety.Norishedenyingthefactthatsocialmechanismsarenecessarilymediatedthroughtheindividual.Onthecontrary,Rodrguezwillinglyconcedesthatitistheindividualwhocreatesforhim/herselfanideologicalformoflife,otherwiseaser-como-soy,intheabsenceofwhichthesystemcannotfunction.Thatsaid,heremainsalertthroughouttothedangerofconflatingtheindividualsubjecti-vityupwards,soastoencompassthesocialstructuresthatotherwisedetermineit(thereisnosuch thingsas society,etc.), and loadshisargumentaccordingly: there isno Ipriortohistory,justasthereisnoIpriortoitsbirth,outsidehistory5. AlongsidetheAlthusseriannotionofholisticcausality,Rodrguezwilldevelophisowndistinctivenotionofan ideological matrix,accordingtowhicheachmodeischarac-terizedbyitsowndistinctiverelationbetweenexploiterandexploited,theslavemodebythemaster/slaverelation;feudalism,bythelord/serfrelation,andthecapitalistmode,bytheSubject/subjectrelation.Intheslavemodeandunderfeudalism,thedistinctionbetweentheexploiterandexploitedisclear,asisthenatureoftheexploitativeprocessthroughwhichtheformerextractsthesocialsurplusfromthelatter.Undercapitalism,bywayofcontrast,thetwoelementsofthematrixappearequalafairdaysworkforafairdayspaymaskingtherebytheexploitativenatureoftheextractionofsurplusvalue.Theeffectof thesematrices is to furtherannulthetraditionalbase/superstructurerelation

5Belatedly,itistrue,RodrguezhascometoregretthedearthwithinMarxismofasubjectivereferenceatthelevelofideology:Nuestrolenguajedebedesermuchomssubjetivoymuchomenosdirectamentepolticouobjetivotalcomohasidoantes,ohasidohastaahora(quizspornecesidades,quizsporquetenamosquedefendernosdemuchascosas).Sobretodorespectoalosjvenes,porquehayunacuestinbsica:losjvenessqueseencuentransinesperanzadetrabajoparamaanaysinposibilidadesdehorizontedevidamsqueelqueyahay(Rodrguez2012a:160).

labe n7 junio 2013

6

ISSN 2171-9624

infavourofacompletelynewproblematic,andtofurtherdisplacethefocusofattentionfromthesubject,astheallegedsourceofideology,tothesystemic:laideologanopodraserentendidayaascomounconjuntodeideaspolticasofilosficas,sinoqueseconstitutuyeenunnivel(tanrealcomocualquierotro)paraquefuncioneunMododeProduccion(Rodrguez2011a:31).Socialstructures,ittranspires,mustbeconceptua-lizedalongtwodimensions,onethatstressestheinfluenceofthestructuredwholeonideologyandonethatstressestheimpactoflatterupontheformer:Sonlasrelacionessocialesquienesconstruyenlaideologa,alavezquelaideologacontribuyeaconstitutirlasrelacionessociales(31).

Through this complex process of argumentation, Rodrguez arrives at his keynotion,thatofideologyasakindofhumus.Secretedoriginallyattheleveloftherela-tionsofproduction,ideologyislegitimizedsubsequentlythroughtheIdeologicalStateApparatus,suchastheChurchortheSchool,insuchawayastopervadethethoughtsandactionsoftheindividual.Rodrguezexplains:Poresolaideologaesinconscienteyporesohehablaladosiempredeinconscienteideolgico(evidentementeapartirdeeseinconscienteperosloapartirdeahsepodrnconstruirluegotodaslasfigurasdelaconsciencia:desdelamoralalaestticaolapoltica(31).Andthusisborntheconceptoftheideologicalunconscious,tostandalongsideandindeed,aswillbeseenbelow,toencompassitslibidinalcounterpart. Sufficeittoregister,bywayofconcludingthisoverviewofRodrguezsconcep-tualapparatus,thecontradictionstheAlthusserianseesasbuiltintotheinternalfunctio-ningofeachmodeofproduction,togetherwiththoseoperativebetweenseparatemodes,whenthesearearticulatedwithinthesamesocialformation.WewouldfurtheraddthatcontradictioningeneralwillproveessentialtoRodrguezsunderstandingofthecom-plexitiesofculturalprocess.

Cashing out the concepts Rodrguez, itgoeswithout saying, isnot interested indevelopinganumberoffinitematricesintowhichempiricaldescriptionsmaybeforced,norinarrangingmodesofproductionintoanevolutionaryseries,inaccordancewithsomeultimategoal.Tobesure,modeofproductionanalysisisasvulnerabletoreificationasanyotherconceptualapparatus,notoriously so in thecaseof vulgarMarxism,andperforceRodrguezhim-selflooksatSpanishsocietyduringthetransition(fromfeudalismtocapitalism)fromacertainlevelofabstraction.Thatsaid,itishiscapacitytoholdhisgeneralcategoriesanddescriptiveaccountsofdeterminatemodes inproductivetensionthataccounts for theexplanatory forceof theAlthusserians approach, as is immediatelyapparentwhenweturntotheopeningsectionofTras la muerte,whichaddressesthebourgeoisnotionofHumanNature.

7labe n7 junio 2013 ISSN 2171-9624

Rodrguezusestheoccasiontoorchestrateaconfrontationbetweenhisversionoftheideologicalunconsciousanditslibidinalequivalent,astheorizedbyLacan.Atfirstblush,theLacaniansuspicionofallformsofnaturalismandessentialismmayappeartochimehappilywithRodrguezscritiqueofHumanNature.Moreover, there is little toobjectto,fromtheAlthusserianstandpoint,intheLacanianemphasisupontheheteroge-neityofdesireandlanguageand,morespecifically,uponthepowerofdesiretodislocateanddisrupt thesymbolicorder,a factwhichpossiblyexplainsRodrguezswillingnesstomakeconcessions.Specifically,heispreparedtoacceptthat,asLacanclaims,wearebynaturesexual,speaking,mortalbeings:Yesaseralapropiapotencialidadpsquica(estructuradocomolenguaje)delaespeciehumana(40),butwithimportantqualifica-tions,notablywithrespecttotheLacanianconcernwiththerelationbetweenthesubjectand language as such,which,Rodrguezclearlysuspects, returnspsychoanalysis toanhistoricalandpoliticalvacuumultimatelynolessdebilitatingthanthemostcrudelynatu-ralisticinterpretationofFreud.Hencehisresistancetoanyattempttoontologisehumannatureonthebasisofthelibidinaldrives:esaspulsionesestnsiemprevacas,hayquerellenarlascomoserellenaunsueoocomoserellenaunpavo:hayqueconfigurarlas,ponerlasenactovivindolas.Yese relleno,esaconfiguracindel yo,esapuestaenacto,sloloestablecenuestrolenguajefamiliar,nuestrasrelacionessociales,nuestroin-conscienteideolgico(40).Ifbiologygoesallthewayup,itisnolesscertainthathistorygoesall thewaydown:Yahorasecomprenderporqudigoquemisplanteamientossuponenunanthihumanismoterico,puestoqueelyonoexistesinoquesloexisteelyosoyhistrico.Porsupuestoteniendoencuentaquelapulsionalidaddelyoessiempredecisivaasuvezenlaconstituticinysingularizacindelyosoyhistrico(41). Havingcompletedthistheoreticalgroundwork,RodrguezisperfectlypositionedtocontestthelinguisticturninevidenceinAnthropology,throughare-readingofLvi-StraussandtheobjectificationofthesubjectinMontaigne.Thedetailsofhisargumentneednotconcernushere.Sufficeittonotetheanalyticprecisionaffordedbythedeploy-mentoftheconceptsoutlinedabove,whichallowstheAlthusseriantoexplorethedeter-mininginfluencesgermanetobothLvi-StraussandMontaigne.ThissameprecisionissimilarlyinevidenceinthefollowingessayonDraculaandvampirism,whereitenablesRodrguez,amongotherthings,tocaptureeverynuanceofthetransitionfromfeudaltobourgeoissociety,notleastofallwithrespecttothenotionofblood:obvioquelaideologadelasangreestotalmentefeudal:elhonorselavaconsangre,lasangre(azul)delosnobles,inclusolassangrasmdicas,etc.Yobviotambinelcarcterreligiosodelarelacinvino/sangre,etc.PerotampocopuedecaberdudadequelaobsesinsanguneadelDrculadeStokerobedeceigualmentealaobesinbiologicistatpicadelPositivismodelapoca(cfr.lasmltiplesobservacionesmdicasalrespectoenlaobra),entendidapues,lasangrecomolaexpresividadmaterialbsicadeeselanvitaldelqueenseguidahablaraBergson,yquepreanuciabaClaudeBernardensuFisiologa,etc.(p.74footno-te7).

labe n7 junio 2013

8

ISSN 2171-9624

ThenextchapterfindsRodrguezfurtherfocusingonthecontradictionsthatarisebetween the ideologicalmatricesofco-existentmodes,as thesearemediated throughTolstoy:CmoseibaaconsiderarTolstoiunsujetolibresinmssisuindividualidadhabaestadoconfiguradasiempreporsucondicindeseorfeudal,porestaratadoasulinajeyalSeordeloscielos?(124).Asafeudallord,alsobearerofalltheideologicalprejudicesthatdefinesuchastatus,theauthorofAna Karenina willnothesitatetopu-nishthelatterseponymousheroine,adivorcedwomanwithachildwho,inhercapacityas free subject,hasdared todefy theconventionsof society.That said, theprogressi-vetransformationofancestrallinesintonewmonogamicfamiliesfindsthesameauthorbetterdisposedtowardsNatashaandPierre(in War and Peace),newsubjectivitieswhoteeteronthebrinkoftheworldofliberty.How,itmightbeasked,doesTolstoymanagetoresolvetheproblemsheposes?Thesimpleansweristhathedoesnt,which,Rodrguezconcludes,shouldhardlycomeasasurprise,itbeingthetaskofliteraturenottoresolvetheproblemsthatrealhistoryposesbuthowtopresentthem. Toexplorethesemattersingreaterdetail,letusturntowhatis,inmanyrespects,thecoreofTraslamuerte,namelyitstreatmentofthenewdrama.

Staging Human Nature We saw abovehowRodrguez arrived at thenotionof the ideological uncons-cious.Thediscussionof thenewdrama inTras la muerte isof special interest in thatit throws into relief diverse aspects of this seminal concept, an appreciation ofwhichfurther enables us to anticipate the obstacles to its reception in the bourgeois acade-my.Theseobstaclesshouldnotbeminimized:perforcethetraditionalcriticapproachesRodrguezsworkfromthestandpointofempiricism,thatis,fromastandpointinternaltotheideologythattheAlthusserianiscritiquing.Itisnosmallmattertobecalledupontoconsiderthehistorical,ideologicallymotivated,originsofcategorieslongheldtorefertouniversalaspectsofhumannature,andthisineffectiswhatthetraditionalcriticisbeingaskedtodo.

ForRodrguez,LeandroFernndezdeMoratnistheSpanishrepresentativeparexcellenceofthenewbourgeoisdramaandEl s de las niashiskeywork.Theclassicaltheatre,werecallfromTeora e historia,isborninthewomboftheAbsolutiststatewhatistraditionallyreferredtoasthemedievaltheatrewasinfactaformofliturgyasthere-presentationofdistinctivelypublic,thatistosay,politicalthematics.Thenewdrama,bywayofcontrast,arrivesinthewakeofthenewconstitutionalism,culminatinginCdiz,1812,andwilltaketheformofthepublicrepresentationofaquintessentiallyprivatespa-ce:Elmodeloserahoraelindividuoysuprivatizacinposesivaofamiliartrasvasadaalespaciopblico(172).Private,thatistosay,self-possessionunderscoresthenewsocialcontract, theworkingsofwhichpresupposetheexistenceofsubjectscharacterizedbytheirfreedom,freedomtochoose,amongotherthings,whichpartnertomarry.Except

9labe n7 junio 2013 ISSN 2171-9624

that,ontheevidenceofEl s de las nias,privatefreedomstandsinfraught,nottosaycontradictory,relationtothepubliclylegitimatedpowerofmerchantcapital.Toelabo-rate:whilethenubileyoungwomanpossessescertaininalienablerights,whichthepa-triarchalauthoritiesinsistsheisboundtoexercise,inrealityshecannotevenbesaidtopossessesherownpersonage,which,quacommodity,circulatesonthemarriagemarket. How,givensuchseeminglyintractablecontradictions,isitpossibleforthesystemtoworkatall?Rodrguezisveryexplicitonthispoint:Porquesinosfijamosenelfondodelosfondosdelasobrasmoratinianasores-publicanasdelXVIIIloimportantenoesquelaniasecaseconelviejooconeljoven,sinoqueloimportanteesexactamenteeso:que laniatengaquecasarseparaqueelcontratosocial/familiarsiga funcionandoentantoquerepresentacinpblicadeloprivado(173).Inotherwords,whiletheyoungwomanfreelyexercisesherchoicewithrespecttoherpartner,atthelevelofconsciousintention,herdecisiontomarryisalwaysalreadydetermined,unconsciously,bythema-trixeffectofthewholesocialformation.Thebroaderimplicationsoftheargumentareclear:whileindividualsexperiencethemselvesasfree,andmust,withintheirreduciblelimitstheirfreedom,choosetoact,thereality(inscientificterms)isthattheiractsaretheoutcomeof,tocoinaphraseofMarx,manydeterminations. Bywayofcontrast,thedominantbourgeoisideologyisconvincedastotheexis-tenceofthefreesubjectitdoesnotwishtoknowotherwiseandwishes,moreover,toseeitsvaluesconfirmeduponthestage:Puesbien:apartirdeaqu(yconelejemploprcticodeLa comedia nuevaydelrestodesusobras)Moratnnosofrecelaslneasbsi-casquedebenestructurarunacomedia(198).Andthoserulespresuppose,asRodriguezproceedstoexplains,theself-appointedfunctionofthepoetasanobserverofNature,understoodasdistinctivelyHumanNature,raisedtothescenicstatusofanaturalisticmo-del.Crucialtothefunctioningofthismodelistheproximity/distancebetweenthestageandtheaudience.Proximity,insofarastheaudienceneedstobeabletoidentitywiththescenicsetting,otherwisethebourgeoisdrawingroom,justasitneedstoabletoempa-thise(tolaughandcry)withthefateofitsoccupants,otherwisethemembersofthebour-geoisnuclearfamily;distance,insofarasthevaluesondisplaymustberaisedtomodelicstatus:Loqueelespectadordebeverall,enelescenario,essuproprioinconsciente,suspropiascreencias,quealdistanciaraseaparecencomolegitimadas,comoautnticasycomoverdadessemejantes(vero-smiles)alaspropias.Sloquecorregidas,reformadasymsslidas(199).Thequalificationisimportant:thefunctionofthetheatreisnotsimplytoentertainbutalsototeachandtoreform,asanecessaryideologicalaccompanimenttothereformsbeingenactedcontemporaneouslyattheeconomicandpoliticallevels6.

6Rodrgueznotes,inpassing,thatthesamemagicisinevidenceinthecinema;alsothatthedistance/proximityoppositionoperatesratherdifferentlyinthetheatreofBrecht.

labe n7 junio 2013

10

ISSN 2171-9624

Philosophy and Human Nature WhiletheappearanceofDerrideandeconstructiondidmuchtomodifythedivi-sionoflabouroperatingwithintheEnglish-speakingacademy,itremainsthecasethattheliterarycriticinthissameacademystillfailstoseeknowledgeofphilosophyasane-cessary,integralpartofhisorherprofessionalbaggage.Nothingcouldbefurtherfromthe situationweencounter inRodrguez, as is immediately apparentwhenwe turn tothenextsectionofTras la muerte,entitledLainvencindelcriticismo.Acertainironyattachestothiscontrast:thephilosophicaltraditiontohavemostattractedtheattentionoftheAlthusserianisthatofAnglo-Saxonempiricism,takeninconjunctionwiththeKan-tianreactiontoit.Letusconsiderthedetails. Althusserhimself,itwillberecalled,calledempiricismtoaccountforassumingthe process of knowledge to begin with a purely objective given, otherwise what isimmediatelyaccessibletodirectobservation,andfortherebycollapsingtheprocessofknowledgeintoanontologyofexperience(AlthusserandBalibar1970:35ff).Atthesametimehewasequallycriticaloftheconceptofthelinearortransitivecausalityprevalentwithinempiricistcircles,aconceptthat,alongsideexpressivecausality,hecontrastedun-favourablywithhisownnotionofstructuralcausality(186-87).Indicationsare,however,that,suchdisquisitionsapart,theFrenchMasterwasrathermorefamiliarwithMontes-quieuandthecontinentaltraditionthanhewaswithJohnLockeandBritishempiricism.ThesamecannotbesaidofRodrguez,who,inthepresentsectionof Tras la muerte,asthroughouthiscareer,showshimselftobeaclosereaderofJohnLockeandparticularlyofDavidHume,whoseideashesummarizestogreateffect.

IncontrasttoLocke,whocontinuedtodefendtheideaofrealandunknowableunifiedessences,Humearguedthatwhenthemindthinksofanobject,itsimplyassocia-tesvariousperceptionstogether,thefurtherimplicationbeingthat,inRodrguezsownwords,lasustancialidaddelyonoexisteporqueesslounagregadodeexperienciasps-quicas(Rodrguez2011a:217).Theresultisaspeciesofpsychologicalsubjectivismwithfarreachingconsequences:notonlyisontologydissolvedbut,totheextentthatphysicallawsareidentifiedwithconstantconjunction,theverynotionofscientificlawsiscalledintoquestion.Again,asRodrguezsuccinctlyremarks:lasmosisentrenaturalezayna-turalezahumanasehacemuyfrgilpuestoquelaideadecausalidadresultaabsolutamen-tedudosa(217).

Butthat,ofcourse,wastheleastofit.HowevertroublingtheHumeanrejectionofunderlyingsubstancesforthephysicalsciences,itprovedquitedevastatingfortheno-tionofsociality,asthebasisofcivilsociety.Clearly,ifnolawsexistedandeveryonedidastheypleased,theprospectofsocialchaosreareditsuglyhead.Humesresponsewastorecognizetheneedfornorms,notleastofallwithrespecttoaesthetictaste,butofakindtobeestablisheda posteriori,onthebasisofforce,consensus,habitandcustom.Desde

11

labe n7 junio 2013 ISSN 2171-9624

estepuntodevistavolvemosacomprobarquelanormatividaddeHumepretendesertanmnimacomolasreglasdelmercado(224).

Enter at this point the figure ofKant,who, over and above the rathermodestpowers attributed to themindbyHume, argued for theexistenceof complex a priori categories,includingtheconceptofcausation,thatthemindbringstobearonitsexpe-rienceoftheworld.Hisreasoningwasasfollows:while(asHumeandotherempiricistsargued)objectsandtheiractivitiesaretheproductofsenseimpressions,thelatterareinturnactivelystructuredandorderedbyconsciousness.Suchwasthebasisforatranscen-dentalontologyofthesubjectthateffectivelyrevivedthenotionofunderlyingunitiesofobjects,albeitatthecostoflocatingthemfirmlywithinaconstitutingsubject.Opposedtothissubjectwasanobjectrelegatedtothestatusofanunknowablenoumentalentity. AndinthiswaytheterrainispreparedforaconfrontationwithJorgeLouisBor-gesand,inparticular,withTln,Uqbar,OrbisTertius. The attractionsof the latter, froman analytic standpoint, areobvious: BorgestraduceliteralmentedeHumeparaincorporarloasurelatoTln, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius(217).Principally, inTln there isnoconception that spaceendures through time. InthewordsofBorgeshimself:Lapercepcindeunahumaredaenelhorizonteydespusdelcampo incendiadoydespusdelcigarroamedioapagarqueprodujo laquemaznesconsideradaunejemplodeasociacindeideas(Borges1971:23).AsRodrguezwillremindus, theexamples thatBorgeschooses,of the smoke, thenubend, theburnedwood,aretakendirectlyfromHume,thepointbeingthatTlnrefusestorecognizetheexistenceofstructuralmechanismsorlawsoverandabovethatofconstantconjunctionsthatconstitutephysicalevents.Quierodecir:queunascerillas,unbosqueardiendoylascenizasquequedandespussupongaunarelacincausa/efectonoesalgoenabsolutoprescriptivo,dependedecadacaso(Rodrguez2011a:217).ExceptthatonTln,itisnotsimplytheexistenceoflaws,physicalandjuridical,thatisquestionedbutthatofsubstan-tives.Decomposedintoaseriesofadjectives,thelatterareconvocadosydisueltosenunmomento,segnlasnecesidadespoticas(Borges1971:22). Astrangeworld,indeed,andonewondersexactlywhyitshouldhavebeensosuc-cessfulinimposingitselfontherealworld:Casiinmediatamente,larealidadcedienmsdeunpunto(Borges1971:35),until,thatis,werecalltheinextricableinterminglingofHumewithKantuponwhichRodrguez insists: [Borges]esmuyhumiano,aunquelomezclaconKant(Rodrguez2011a:221).Thetextualevidenceisoverwhelminglyinsupport:BorgesstoriesinvariablyturnontheKantiannotionofthesublime,thenotionthroughwhichthenarratorstrivestocapturethesenseoftheineffable,suchasourfe-elingsbeforeathunderstormoralandscape,ortheimpressionproduceduponthenarra-torbyHerbtAshesredactionofTln:Mepuseahojearloysentunvrtigoasombrado

labe n7 junio 2013

12

ISSN 2171-9624

yligeroquenodescribir,porquestanoeslahistoriademisemocionessinodeUqbaryTlnyOrbisTertius.EnunanochedelIslamquesellamalaNochedelasNochesseabrendeparenparlassecretaspuertasdelcieloyesmsdulceelaguaenloscntaros;siesaspuertasseabrierannosentiraloqueenesatardesent(Borges1971:18-19).Thestageisthussetforanagonorstruggle,betweentwonarrativeversions,thatoftherealworldandthatoftheidealworldofTln,astruggleinwhichvictorygoestotheversionmostabletofreeitselfofanycontaminatingtruckwithmatter.Theoutcomeisano-brainer:EntrelasdoctrinasdeTln,ningunahamerecidotantoescndalocomoelmaterialismo(Borges1971:24-25).

From Idealism to Materialism Theprincipal lesson thatRodrguez takesaway from Tln,Uqbar,OrbisTer-tius,withrespecttoempiricismandthestatusoflaws,relatestoquestionsofjudiciallaw:loscasossonlaclavedelsistemajurdicoanglosajn:ahnocabenloscdigospreviosonormativos(Rodrguez2011a:217).Theobservationisunexceptionalataninformativelevel:theBritishlegalsystem,fromitsmedievalbeginnings,hasspurnedRomanlawinfavourofacommonlawbasedonindividualprecedents.AndyetareadingmoreattentivetothemanifestcontentofBorgesshortstorymightwellhaveprioritizedthequestionof scientific law. Estemonismoo idealismo total, theBorgesnarratorobserveswithrespecttoTlnsdominantphilosophy,invalidalaciencia.Explicar(ojuzgar)unhechoesunirloaotro;esavinculacin,enTln,esunestadoposteriordelsujeto,quenopuedeafectaroiluminarelestadoanterior.Todoestadomentalesirreducible:elmerohechodenombrarlo id est,declasificarloimportaunfalseo.DeellocabradeducirquenohaycienciasenTlnnisiquierarazonamientos(Borges1971:23).Thisstatementneatlybringsouttheabsurdityoftheempiricistposition:iflawsofnaturearesimplyconstantconjunctionsofevents,thenitisthesubjectthatcreatesthelawsofnature! Thesignificanceofthispointbecomesapparentifwefollowtheempiricisttra-ditionthroughtoHegelandMarx.Hegel,itwillberecalled,rejectedtheHumeanviewofobjects,acceptedbyKant,asmerecongeriesofpropertiesbroughttogetherbycons-ciousness,infavourofanalternativenotionthatenvisagedthemasimmanentirreducibleunities,independentofhumanexperience.Concessionsweremadetotheroleofsenseimpressions,asreceivedbyconsciousness,whichcontinuedtobegivenrecognitionwi-thintheHegelianscheme,butonlywithinthestrictestoflimits:theimportantfactforHe-gelwasthatobjectivitydidnotdependonourexperiencesforitsrealisationbutenjoyedanontologicallyprimaryunity,attheleveloftheAbsoluteSpiritorReason,otherwisethecompleteideaofhumanfreedom.ThedynamicsofthisAbsoluteSpiritweresummari-sedbyRodrgueztoeffectin Teora e historiaintermsofthevicissitudesofcontentandform:elcontenido(osealaideaencarnadaenlapoca)noseencuentraagustoenesapocaytiendearompersuformaparaencarnarseenotraformanueva(noseencuentra

13

labe n7 junio 2013 ISSN 2171-9624

agusto:estoes,impelidoporlanecesidaddeliberarsealaalienacin/mediacinporlamateria,buscandoreencontrarse,elespritupersigueunaencarnacinmsplena,msliberadora,sobrelaanterior)(Rodrguez1990:125). NowIthinkthesematterswouldhaveyieldedtheirfullintellectualloadifRodr-guezhadpressedthemfurthertoconfrontthephilosophicalbasisofhisownMarxism.For as shouldbeobvious,Hegelsprinciple that essences arenon-empirical/actual ispreservedintheMarxianideathattheobjectsofpossiblesense-perceptionhavea priori statusassocialstructuresandlawsthattranscendthelevelofindividualexperience.InfreeingtheobjectfromitstranscendentalsubjectivedependenceonformsofcognitionMarxwasabletopositsuchphenomenaasthelawofvalueasobjectivelyreal,althoughsometimesunrealizedorrealizedasunperceivedrelations,distinctfromand,duetotheinfluenceofotherlaws,outofphasewiththephenomenatheygenerate.Inthisway,byplacingtranscendentalstructuresinaknowabletranscendentalobjectratherthansub-ject,MarxwasfurtherabletoextricatethetranscendentalmethodofcritiquefromthesubjectivistictrapthekindoftrapsetforitinTlnand,intheprocess,totransformtranscendentalidealismintotranscendentalrealism. ThekeyMarxisttextinthiscontextwouldobviouslybethe Critique of Political Economy (1857),butifMarxscommentatorshavefailedtoappreciateitsradicalinnova-tions,thefaultisnotentirelytheirs.ForasRoyBhaskarremindsus:Marxneversatisfac-torilytheorizedhisscientific,asdistinctfromsimplematerialobject,realism(Bhaskar1993:345),fromwhichfollowedanunder-developmentofthecritiqueofempiricism,asdistinctfromidealism,oftheintransitivedimensionandthemeofobjectivityincontrasttothetransitivedimensionandthethemeoflabour(345).Althusser,wesawabove,wasnotslowtotargetempiricismforitstheoreticalshortcomings,particularlyinsofarasitthinkstheknowledgeoftherealobjectasa real part oftherealobjecttobeknown[], inscribed in the structure of the real object(AlthusserandBalibar1970:37-38).Towhich,asiswellknown,Althusserrespondedwithhisdistinctionbetweentherealobjectandtheobjectofthought,togetherwithhisassertionofthesocio-historicalnatureofknowledgeagainsttheahistoricalandempiricistassertionoftheimmediacyofthefacts.Whatevermaybesaidinitsfavour,thisdistinctionhaspredictablyexposedAlthussertothechargethathehasineffectreducedthereal object,otherwiseontologicallypriortotheobject of thought,tothequasi-Kantianstatusofalimitingconcept(Bhaskar1989:143)7.

7AfulldiscussionoftheseissueswouldneedtoaddresskeyaspectsoftheAlthusserianlegacy,beginningwithBa-rryHindessandPaulHirst,who,initiallysupportiveofAlthusser,shiftedrapidlyfromananti-realistvoluntarismofPre-Capitalist Modes of ProductiontothesystematicrejectionoftheprincipleofstructuralcausalityinCapitalism Today.Inthelatterwork,theconceptofsocialstructureisruthlesssimplified,attheexpensenotonlyofdistincttheoreticallevelsbutalsoofthematrixeffectofthecomplexwhole(seeResch1992:99-105).Althussersownlatebrandofaleatorymaterialism(Althusser2006),whichsacrificestheemphasisuponrealstructuresandprocessesinhistoryforacelebrationoftheaccidental,unwittinglyopenedthedoortoapostmodernMarxismofnominalistpersuasionthatgravitatedtowardsmethodologicalindividualism(seeCallariandRuccio1996).Thespiriteddefen-ceofAlthussercarriedoutbyMichaelSprinker(seeSprinker1992)hasnotpreventedanewgenerationofcriticalrealistsfromreiteratingthecriticismvoicedbytheirMaster.ThusNeilCurrywrites:ForAlthusser,thereisnorealofthereal.Theexterior(absence)cannotbepositedasanterior(present)fortodosowouldimplysomethingratherthannothingcomingfromsomewhere.ThiswouldbedeemedspiritualormetaphysicalbyAlthusserand,therefore,wouldberejected(Curry2004:147).

labe n7 junio 2013

14

ISSN 2171-9624

Rodrguezhimself,inthevolumesunderreview,iscontent,aswehaveseen,toreiteratethepositionsassumedbyAlthusser:Ningunodelostresnivelesexisteenabs-tractosinonicamentecomofuncionamientosocial,unfuncionamientonovisibleyab-solutamenteentremezclado(Rodrguez2011a:28).Likewise,withrespecttothespecificlevelofideology,theAlthusserianrestscontentwithhisearlierformulationinTeora e historia(Rodrguez1990:11-13),accordingtowhichsocialrelationsareontologicallyrealifonlyobservableintheireffects.Ideology,itfollows,is[unnivel]tanrealcomocual-quierotro(Rodrguez2011a:31)Nowwhilethereisnothingobjectionabletoitinprinci-ple,thiswayofconceptualizingthesocialworldwasvulnerabletothereturnofidealism,unlesssustainedbytheappropriatephilosophicalunderlabouring.Andthethreatofsuchareturnwasnevergreaterthanwhen,ontheauthorityofJorgeLuisBorges,postmoder-nismreleasedsubjectiveexperiencefromitsmaterialistchains. WewillbereturningtoRodrguezsreadingofBorgesbelow,butfirstweneedtodiscusshisPara una lectura de Heidegger.

Being and History ThereareseveralreasonswhythephilosopherofBeing and TimemighthavebeenasourceofparticularinterestfortheAlthusserian.Firstly,thereisacertainsatisfactiontobefoundinlocatingsuchanimportantfigure,whoseideaspretendtoplumbtheveryessenceofBeingandTime,withinaverydeterminatesetofhistoricalparameters.Secon-dly,Rodrguezisdoubtlesskeentomeasurehisdistancefromanexistentialistprojectthat,tosomeextent,emergesasacompetitortohisown.Regardingthefirstofthese,theAlthusseriansummarizestherelevantparametersinthefollowingterms:alarmedbytheriseofGermancommunismanddespairingofthecapacityofconservativesandliberalstodealeffectivelywithit,asetofleadingimpresariosandbankersbecameconvincedoftheneedtofinancetheNazisasaprotectivemeasure,protectivethatisoftheirowncapitalistenterprises.Ofcourse,RodrguezdoesnotintendtoarguethatHeideggersphilosophyasawholeisasimplereflexofitssocialcontext.Hisambitionisrathertohincareldiente(12)intothediscursiveconjuncturethatphilosophyandcontextshareincommon. More important than this relatively routine contextualizing exercise, however,there is thequestionof the inherent interestHeideggersprogrammeholds forsome-bodyofRodrguezsintellectualpersuasions.Therecognitionthatmeaningishistoricalwas,afterall,whatledHusserlsmostfamouspupiltobreakwithhismasterssystemofthought.Husserl,Rodriguezrecalls,parapoderesencializarelserdelascosas[]habatenidoqueolvidarsedelSer.Yrecuperareseolvidodeserseresobvioelejever-tebraldetodoelHeideggerpleno[].Yah,eneseolvidodelser,fuedondeHeideggerviolabrechadecisiva(Rodrguez2011b:30).Thehistoricizingimpulse,whichdrovetherecoveryofbeing,will remaincrucial toHeideggersongoingattempt tooverturn thestaticeternaltruthoftheWesternmetaphysicaltradition.Noristhatwherethesimilari-

15

labe n7 junio 2013 ISSN 2171-9624

tieswithRodriguezsworkends.WhatiscentraltoHeideggersthought,asRodriguezexplains,isnottheindividualsubjectbutBeingitself.ThemistakeoftheWesternmeta-physicaltradition,accordingtotheexistentialist,hasbeentoseeBeingassomekindofobjectiveentity,andtoseparateitsharplyfromthesubject.Heideggersprojectdefinesitselfaccordingly:sitodoelplaneamientoburgus(laIlustracinrevolucionaria)sehababasadoenlarelacinSujeto/Sistema(oSujeto/Objeto)cmotacharlabarradeenmedioydarleunnuevosentidoatodoelplaneamientopermaneciendoporelmo-mentosinembargodentrodelplaneamiento?Paraintentardestruirlo/salvarlo?(61-62).How,inotherwords,toreturntopre-Socraticthought,beforethedualismbetweensubjectandobjectopenedup,whenBeinghadsomehowencompassedboth?

AndthusdoesHeideggersprojectofdescentbegin, throughagradualdeepe-ningofthoughttowardstheremains(fragments)ofHeraclitusandParmenidesandtheonetrue,authenticeventthedirectpresenceofBeingasavitalexperience.Rodrguezcharts themajor themeswithmeticulous care: the sense of Being as thrownness, theimportanceof thinkingnoton beingbut from being; language as thehouseofbeing;thedangersposedbythelanguagesofpublicityandofscience/technology,thesubjec-tivizationofthoughtandobjectivizationofthething,existencetowardsdeath,etc.etc.TheAlthusserianwill largely refrain from critique, and is left simply towonder, evenwhenHeideggerentersthestrangeworldofetymologyandtheallegedlysubstantialistrootsof language:casicomolasEtimologasdeSanIsidoroynoexagerounpice(92).WillrefrainfromcritiqueexceptwhenitcomestodrawingacontrastbetweentheexistentialistsreviewoftheriseofCartesianismandhisown:Anosotrosnosinteresasinembargocomocuestinintempestiva[]:porquycmolasubstancia(upokei-menon)setransformensujeto.Quocurriahesabrechaeneltodogranticooenelbloqueevolutivo,delahistoriadelafilosofa?Porqulaaparicindelsujetoydelasubjetividadcomoasuntopropio(Sache selbst)delaFilosofatalcomosenosofrecedesdeDescartesaHegeloHusserl?Cundoyporquapareceesesujetolibreycomoconciencia?(104).

Onlywhenthematerialistcomestomakeanoverallassessmentwillhefinallybarehisteeth,atwhichpointhewillnotspareabodyofworkthatabandonedtheabstractionsofWesternmetaphysicstosetupadifferentkindofmetaphysicalentityDaseinitselfthat,inthelastinstance,representsasmuchaflightfromhistoryasanencounterwithit.Heisparticularlyunforgivingregardingthephilosopherscelebrationofpeasantaware-ness.HeideggernopiensajamsqueesoszuecosdelacampesinathereferenceistothefamouspaintingbyVanGoghestnrotosydeslustradosporeltrabajoyelsudorcotidianoenelcampo.PiensasloqueseesenciancomoArteporsuenraizamientoenlapropiatierranativa(147n31).Theomissionistakentobesymptomaticofamorefun-damentalabsence:Heidegger,s,sepreocupdelcapitalismodigamosliberal,delestali-nismorusoyporsupuestodesumundonazienlainmediataposguerra.Ysepreocup

labe n7 junio 2013

16

ISSN 2171-9624

hastaqupuntodelaesenciadelatcnicahastaconvertirlaenelejedetodo(159).WhathefailedtonoticewasthepenetrationofNorthAmericancapitalintothefabricofdailylife,totheextentthatthenewwayofbeing-herebecame,bydefinition,capitalist:

loqueseleolvidaHeideggernofueelolvidodelSer,claroest,sinoelolvidodelser-del-capitalismocomoconfiguracindenuestravidacotidiana.Enciertomododejplenamentede ladoelmundoangloamericano(jamscitaaLockeoaHume, jamsalfordismooaltaylorismocomoformasdevida,slomerasalusionesalindividualismooalpragmatismoenNorteamrica).YsindudaeseeselautnticovacodeHeidegger:noquelaesenciadelatcnicaylacibernticaconfigurasenelmundo,sinoquelatcnicaylaciberntica,etc.estabanenvueltasen(yproducidaspor)lasrelacionesvitalescapitalistasquesonlasqueverdaderayglobalmenteconfigurannuestromundo(160-61).

Heidegger and the New Marxism Itwillbeusefulatthispoint,bywayoffurthercharacterizingRodrguezsideas,todiscussalongsidethemthoseoftwoscholarsthat,whilecomparablewiththeSpaniardsinsofarasthey(a)convergeonthesamerealobject,inthiscasetheworkofHeidegger,and(b)shareacommongroundingintheworkofAlthusser,areyetincommensurablewith them with respect to certain (unconscious) theoretical assumptions that sustainthem.ThescholarsIhaveinmindaretwoinnumber,AndrewCollierandJonathanJose-ph,bothofthemconnectedmoreorlesscloselywiththeBritishschoolofcriticalrealism. ColliertracesmuchofthesamegroundcoveredbyRodrguez,namelyHeideggersattempttoescapetheerrorsbequeathedbythelastthreehundredyearsofCartesianphi-losophyandthosethatreachusfromthemoredistantoriginsintheclassicalworld.Wewillnotlingeronthedetails.Sufficeittosaythatthecriticalrealistsexplorationoftheopposition of use to exchange values, as it operates, differentially, in Socrates, Plato,AristotleandtheSophists,usefullyaugmentstheSpaniardswork.Equallyinteresting,andmoregermanetoourpresentconcerns,arehiscommentsonHeideggerscritiqueofthetechnologicalconceptionofrealityasastockpile.Whileitisacritiquewithwhichhe fullyconcurs indeed,hebelieves it tobesingularlyrelevant to themodernworldCollierbelieves the sourceof the stockpileattitude is tobe foundnot in scienceortechnology,asHeideggerbelieves,butincommercialism.Whythepreferenceforcom-mercialismovercapitalism?Collierarguesasfollows:whilecapitalismcanbeviewedasbothamarketeconomyandasocietydividedalongclasslines,onlythefirstofthesecha-racteristicstothestockpileattitude(Collier2003:78).Commercialismtoday,thecriticalrealistelaborates,hasbecomeakindoftotalitariancommercialism,evidenceofwhichistobefoundintheshiftfromtheHeideggeriannotionofrootednessordwellinginaplacetoamarketingofgeographythroughtourism.Heconcludes:Thisall-pervasiveideologyistheprincipalenemyofeverydecentperson(Collier2003:79).

17

labe n7 junio 2013 ISSN 2171-9624

Whatmightseemarelativelyminorissuethemarketeconomyversusclassdivi-sionisnothingofthekindwhenviewedfromRodrguezsperspective.Ofcourse,thereisnodenyingtheprioritizationofthemarket inThe Communist Manifesto nosvaadecirquelaburguesanacedelmercado.Unfortunately,anditpainsRodrgueztohavetosayso,itsauthors(MarxandEngels)wereinthisrespecttotallymisguided(Rodrguez2012a:140),asMarxhimselflaterwenttogreatlengthstoexplaininCapital.TheAlthus-serianpointsspecificallytothelattersfamouschapterontheprimitiveaccumulationofcapital,inwhichpriorityhasshiftedtowhatisinvisibleaboutcapitalism,namelytheex-tractionofsurplusvalue.ThedifferencebetweenCollierandRodrguezinthisrespectisfundamental:atthepointwherethecriticalrealistdisplacesattentionfromtherelationsofproductiontocirculationdoubtlesstotheinfinitereliefofhisbourgeoiscolleagueswithintheacademytheSpanishAlthusserianstepsforwardtore-assertthecentralityofclassconflictandtheextractionofsurplusvalue,asindispensabletoanyMarxismworthyofthename.

WhateverColliers other shortcomings, his viewon the pervasive influence ofconsumerismsuggestsafamiliaritywiththeAlthusseriannotionofstructuralcausality,thevalidityofwhichhewarmlyacknowledgeselsewhere8.ItispreciselysuchanotionthatislackinginJonathanJosephandinthepotentiallyfruitfulcontrastthathedrawsbetweenAlthussersunflinchingdefenceofscience(asopposedtoideology)andHeideggersde-fenceof layknowledge(asopposedtoscience).AdifficultyarisesquiteearlyonwhenJosephquestionswhatheunderstandstobetheequationinAlthusserbetweenideologyandpracticalknowledge:whilethismaybetrueofknowledgeembeddedinworkprac-ticesa fairdaysworkfora fairdayspaythis isnottrueof theknowledgeneededtocookamealorrideabicycleortofindoneswayaroundacity(Joseph2004:144).Really?Inthatcase,howdoesoneexplaintheculturalvariationsinspatial,cartographicawarenessfeudallords,aseveryhistorianknows,wereaccustomedtobarterawaywholetractsoftheirland,throughtheirinabilitymentallytoenvisageitsboundariesorwhythebourgeoisieinvestedsomuchenergyinthereformationofeatinghabitsthroughoutthefifteenthandsixteenthcentury? Butwhiletheseareperfectlyvalidobjectionstomaketoasociologistswhoclearlyhaslittleunderstandingofhistory,theydonotgettotherootoftheproblem,thenatureofwhichbecomesmoreapparentinthefollowing:Wecanstartwithlayknowledgeinvol-vedinpracticesandlookathow,asthisgetsmorecomplex,itmaybecomemoreideologi-cal(144).Atworkhereisthenotionofaunilateralprogression,whichbeginswithfactsinthemselves,disguisedasthepractical,anddevelopstowardstheideological,alongapathofincreasingcomplexity.Soontore-appear,becausealreadyimplicitinthissame

8SeeparticularlyAndrewCollier,Scientific Realism and Socialist Thought (HemelHempstead:HarvesterWheats-heaf,1989).

labe n7 junio 2013

18

ISSN 2171-9624

notion,istheconceptofthefreesubject,encapsulatedinJohnMacquarriesclaim:Iam,thereforeIthink(156).TheinversionoftheCartesianformulaisratherlessradicalthanJosephseemstobelieve,inthatitcontinuestoprioritizethesubjectandsoinvitetheconclusionthatAlthusserandHeideggermaybothbehappilycombined(156).Ourownconclusion,somewhatdifferent,isthatthesociologistremainsfirmlyanchoredinanempiricistunconscious,thelattertotallyoddswiththeAlthusseriannotionofhistoryasaprocesswithoutasubject,alsoofthematrixeffectofthemodeofproduction,accordingtowhich all social activities are ideologically inflected, although admittedly in varyingdegrees.

Linguistic Idealism or Materialism? WeleftBorgesatthepointwhereanidealistTlnhadtriumphedoverthematerialworld:ElcontactoyelhbitodeTlnhandesintegradoestemundo(Borges1971:35).AlsowiththewarningthatthefailureofAlthusserianstoclearlythematizeontologyex-posedthemtoarecolonizationbyidealism,recentlyreconstitutedinvariouspostmodernforms.WiththisinmindletusrejoinRodrguezsanalysisofBorgesaselaboratedinhisrecentlypublished Formas de leer a Borges. Forthosescholars,includingthepresentwriter9,whohaveseeninBorgesanin-corrigibleidealist,Rodrguezhasasurpriseinstore:EscuriosoascomoBorges,apar-tirdelidealismodeBerkeley,puedehallarunsubsueloslidoparaelmaterialismodesuescritura(Rodrguez2012b:33).Thegistofhisargumentappearstobeasfollows:thematureBorgeswillsystematicallydistancehimselffromtheviewofwritingthatunders-tandsitselfasanexpressiveactivity,expressive,thatis,ofthesubjective(authorial)pre-sencethatprecedesit.Confirmation,ifrequiredtheobservationsisourscanbefoundinTlninthemarginalaside:stanoeslahistoriademisemocionessinodeUqbaryTlnyOrbisTertius(Borges1971:19).Oncethesubjectiseliminated,oneisseeminglyleftwiththematerialstructuresoflanguage,carriedtosuchanextremeastoconstitutean absolutematerialist ontology.Amaterialist ontology!Borges!UnderstandablyRo-drguezhimselfcantquitebelievethestrangenessofit,ashenevertiresofreiterating:HeaquloasombrosodelamaterialidaddelaescrituraenBorges,creadaapartirdeunidealismotanlmpidocomodeBerkeley(34). Materialism,materialitythetermsreachusladenwithagooddealofaccumula-tedbaggage,someofwhichtiesthemtoempiricism,eventhoughempiricismhasidealistformsandtendencies.Certainly,materialisminitsmostgeneralmetaphysicalformrefers

9Cf.MalcolmK.Read,Jorges Luis Borges and his Predecessors or Notes towards a Materialist History of Linguis-tic Idealism (ChapelHill:NorthCarolinaStudiesintheRomanceLanguagesandLiteratures,1993).AlsoReadsElposmodernismoysuspredecesores:unaperspectivaBorgiana,inElizabethMonasteriosP.(ed.),Con tanto tiempo encima: Aportes de literature latinoamericana en homenaje a Pedro Lastra(LaPaz,Bolivia:Pluraleditors,1997),299-308.

19

labe n7 junio 2013 ISSN 2171-9624

to theviewthateverythingthatexists is insomesensematerial,althoughthis leavesaconsiderablebodyofontologicalproblemsunresolved.Moreover,tocomplicatematters,versionsofmaterialismhavetendedtobeconstructedwithreferencetoidealism.Thisis,ofcourse,thestuffofmanuals,ofmarginalrelevancetothecaseofBorges.Thatsaid,someclarityofdefinitioniscalledfor,atleastwithrespecttothetraditionrepresentedbyBerkeley,thenicetiesofwhichcanbestbeunderstoodwithreferencetothatofHegel.Aswasexplainedabove,thelatterdidnotmaintainthatrealitywascomposedofmentalobjects,ashasoftenbeenwronglyassumed,bywayofconflatinghis idealismwiththephenomenalismoftheBritishempiricists.Objectswere,forHegel,creationsoftheIdeathat,onceinexistence,areasmaterialornon-phenomenalasanythingcouldbe,whichmakes theGermanphilosopheranon-realistmaterialist,paradoxical thought thismayseem.Phenomenalism,bywayofcontrast,isaformofnon-materialistrealism,insofarasevenBerkeley,amongtheempiricists,continuedtoallowfortheexistenceofthought-independententities10. Having done this necessary groundwork, let us endeavour to make sense ofRodrguezs argument.Unsurprisingly,wefindHumequickly added to theempiricistmix: Hume, theAlthusserianelaborates, tambindestruye la imagende la relacincausa/efectocomoclavedeladiscursividadcientfica.Ycuriosamente,almododeBor-ges,establecelaaleatoriedaddelossignossucesivoseneltiempo,deloquesellamaralaarbitrariaasociacindeideas(Rodrguez2012b:34).NowthealeatorynatureofsignsundeniablyliesveryclosetothecoreofBorgeswriting.

EvenrestrictingourselvestoTln,theevidenceisoverwhelming.FollowingtheinitialchanceeventElhechoseprodujoharunoscincoaos.BioyCasareshabace-nadoconmigoesanoche(Borges1971:13)weenterintotheworldoffiction,aworldinwhichthesameprocessthepassagefromtherealtofictionalisreprised:ahoramedeparabaelazaralgomspreciosoymsarduo.Ahoratenaenlasmanosunvastofragmentometdicodelahistoriatotaldeunplanetadesconocido(19).Authorsthereare,althoughofasingularlycollectiveandsometimesratherfadedkind(queentresusafiliadostuvoaDalgarnoydespusaGeorgeBerkeley[31]),displacedbytheobjectivityof the text, a text subject to the law of chanceand, consequently, experiencedby thenarrator,castasreader, invertiginous, that is tosay, transcendental terms: Tal fue laprimeraintrusindelmundofantsticoenelmundoreal.Unazarquemeinquietahizoqueyotambinfueratestigodelasegunda(33). Such,presumably,iswhatRodriguezhasinmindwhenhewrites:Elescritor,cre-yendoqueeslibre,ejercesulibertadlanzandoungolpededadospero,alfinal,estegolpededadosdependedelazar,queestporencimadel.Elescritorestobligadoalanzarel

10IamindebtedforthesedistinctionstoRuben22.

labe n7 junio 2013

20

ISSN 2171-9624

golpededados,nocomounalibertadsinocomounanecesidad.Quiendominaeselazar,queesimprevisibleypertencealniveltrascendental(Rodrguez2012b:82).Victory,inthecaseofTln,Uqbar,OrbisTertius,fallstoaplanetthat,likeanyfiction,asopposedtoajournalisticreport,issweptcleanofchance:CmonosometerseaTln,alaminu-ciosayvastaevidenciadeunplanetaordenado?(Borges1971:35).Ordered,letusrecall,insofarasconsistingnotofaconcourseofobjectsinspacebutaseriesofimmaterialacts.InotherstoriesbyBorges,theagonicstrugglepitsonewriteragainstanother,awriterwho,likehisorhercompetitor,isalsoinvariablyareader:JuandePanoniaagainstAu-reliano,RedScharlachagainstLonrot,EmmaZunzagainstLoewenthal.Thecharactersmayvarybutthecriterionbywhichtheyarejudgedremainsthesame:whowillproducethemore transcendental text,more transcendentalbecausemorecompletelydetachedfrommaterialcircumstanceandthereforemoreabletocontaintheotherwithin itself?It is this agon thatRodrguezprojectsonto thebroadercanvasof literaryproduction,arguingineffectthatifanyreadingisboundtobeconstrainedbytheobjectivityofthetext,thatobjectivitycannotcontaintheendlessproductivityofthetextacrosstime:sibienlacontingenciadeltextonoslosefijaasmismasinoquedetieneeldeliriodelalectura(tnopuedesdecirsobreeltextomsqueloqueeltextodicedesmismo,ansindecirlo),sinembargoesacontingenciafijadanopuedeevitarqueeltiempolaatravieseylahagaviajarencontradesmisma(Rodrguez2012b:47). ThedensityandabstractnatureofRodrguezsprosemightpossiblyhaveblindedthereadertoacuriousslippage,curiousatleastinthecontextoftheAlthusseriansearlyseminaltexts:itisnolongerhistorythattraversestheliterarytextbuttime.

Time or History? Historicity/temporality:onlyanuanceseparatethem,exceptthatitisthediffe-rencethatseparatesidealismfrommaterialismas,onceuponatime,Rodrguezwouldhave insisted, anddid in fact insist,whereelsebut in a chapteronBorges, LanochedeWalpurgis: deStoker aBorges, included in La norma literaria. In this piece, theAlthusserianaddressesBorges famousshortstory PierreMenard,autordelQuijote,inwhich,itwillberecalled,PierreMenardsetsoutnotonlytoreadtheQuijotebutalsotoreproduceit,wordforword.Menardsproject,Rodrguezargues,iscontainedwithintheboundariesofaphenomenologythat,intheKantianmode,insiststhattheworkofartdemandsthepresenceofareadertoreceiveitandtore-inscribeit.Menardsbrilliancelayincarryingoverthisprojectfromreadingintowriting,theeffectofwhichwastothrowintoreliefoneimportantfact:locatedathisownhistoricalmoment,MenardnecessarilyproducesatextthatisboththesameasbutradicallydifferentfromCervantes.Thus,asBorgeshimselfexplains,whilebothtextsspeakofhistoryasthemotheroftruth,thatofMenardnecessarilymeanssomethingverydifferentfromCervantes:Menard,contem-porneodeWilliamJames,nodefinelahistoriacomounaindagacindelarealidadsino

21

labe n7 junio 2013 ISSN 2171-9624

comosuorigen.Laverdadhistrica,paral,noesloquesucendi;esloquejuzgamosquesucedi(Borges1971:57).SomuchBorgescansee.Whathecantsee,becauseheenvisageswritingonly fromthestandpointof the individualandnot fromitsobjectivereality,istheideologicalhorizonwithinwhicheverypieceofwritingiscontained:Por-queesehorizonteideolgiconoesunaatalayaexteriordesdelaqueeltextoseve(desdelaqueselee)sinoqueesehorizonteideolgicoeselnudomismo,laclavedelalgicainternadecadatexto:laqueloproduceydesdedondeseproduce. Id est:laradicalhisto-ricidaddelaliteratura(Rodrguez2001:402). Inthisessay,Rodrguezisresoluteinviewingtheliterarytextasthedeterminate,materialproductofanobjectivelyrealhistoricalconjuncture,asopposedtoapurelydis-cursiveform,detachedfromitsmaterialproduction.Ofcourse,theAlthusserianwouldhavereadilyacceptedthatthemechanismsofproductiondonotdeterminethereceptionof the text,butonly to insistonwhatamaterialist theoryof receptionwouldconfirm,namelythatthenewlydiscoveredfreedomofthereaderinbourgeoissocietyexercisedquintessentiallyinthereadingofthebiblewasnolessideologicallydeterminedthanthatofthewriter,andnolessenclosedwithinitsownideologicallimits.NowwhileRodrguezwoulddoubtlesscontinuetorecognizesuchpositionsashisown,onesimpressionisthata fundamentalshifthastakenplaceinhismorerecenttext, that, furthermore,Borgesownidealismhassomehowinvadedandoverwhelmedhisownmaterialism,somewhatinthemannerthatTlndisplacesmaterialreality,soastosetinmotionanendlesslypro-ductivetextuality: Conloquelafijacindelalecturaquedalibredecualquierbarra,decualquierlimitacin,ysiemprepuedecomenzarareiniciarse,andintheprocesstoliberatespaceandtimefromanycontaminatingtruckwithhistory:Asestedoblejuegodeltiempoquefijaelespaciodelaescritura(ysupuestamentetambineldelalectura)peroque,porsertiempo,nopuedeestarsequieto,diseminalagrafaysushuellashaciaotrosespaciosyotroslugares,yaslalabordelalecturapuedereivindicarse(Borges2012b:47). Fromheretheroyalroadstandsopentothepost-structuralistcelebrationoftheinfiniteopennessofthetextand,morespecifically,ofindefinitemultiplicityofmetaphors,which,Rodrguezassuresus,nosayudanacomprenderlamaterialidaddelaescritura(54).It isaroadthatnoMarxisthasanybusinesstakingfortheveryimportantreasonthatthematerialitymasksavalueformthatisinfactaformofidealism,constructedalongthefollowinglines.Thefirststepis todematerializethenetworkofsocialrelationsbyreconfiguringthemasaformofdiscourse.Thenextstepisre-materializethemthroughthefetishisticforegroundingoftheirphysicalmateriality.Bothstepscombinetoesta-blishtheapparentone-waydeterminationoflanguageoverthereal.Thereisverylittlethatiscuriousaboutallofthis,exceptthatitsuggestsagreaterproximitytotheidealismofKantandHegelthantothesubjectiveidealistsofempiricistpersuasion.Inotherres-pects,itiseminentlypredictableinitsstrategicaim,whichistocoveroverandconcealtheunderlyingsocial(economic)relationsproducingthediscursive.Leftuncontested,

labe n7 junio 2013

22

ISSN 2171-9624

itseffectscanbedisastrous,notleastofallfortheveryconceptofideology,which,oncedetachedfromthemodeofproduction,canbeconvenientlyrecastasaspeciesoffree-floatingdiscourse.ItishardtoimagehowsuchAbsoluteIdealismcouldbemistakenformaterialism,orindeed,bemistakenforwhatitis,namely,a(ruling)classtheoryofpro-duction.ExceptbyaMarxismwhoseownholdonontologicalrealismhasbeenseriouslyweakened.

Conclusion FredricJamesonandTerryEagleton,webeganbysuggesting,haveeachintheirownway,succumbedtotheforcesofanadvancedcapitalistculture,thebrillianceoftheirindividualachievementsnotwithstanding.Itwouldhavebeenstrangewereitotherwise,consideringthattheirrespectivecareerscoincidedwithaperiodthatsawtheLeftinfull-scaleretreatbeforetheforcesofneo-liberalism,asembodiedintheregimesofReaganandThatcher.ClasspoliticswasalwaysaproblematicexerciseintheStates,where,forhistoricalreasons,inequalityhasbeenlargelyviewedthroughtheprismsofrace.ButeveninBritain,classcametobeseenbymanyontheleftasnolongerplausibleasavehicleofchange,incontrasttoidentitypolitics,wherehistoryactuallyseemedtofavouringthosefightingfortheemancipationofwomen,gaysandethnicminorities.InSpainthesitua-tionwas,atleastforatime,ratherdifferent.Atapointwhenabjuringthelefthadbecomeroutinefurthernorth,thisnationsbelatedentryintomodernityand,inquicksuccession,intopostmodernity,providedtheperfectstandpointfromwhichtotheorize,inmateria-listterms,theearliertransitionfromfeudalismtocapitalism.Itwasanopportunitynottobemissed,andRodrguezdidnotmissit:breakingwithbourgeoisscholarship,hewasable,inarelativelyshorttime,tocomeupwithatheoryofideologicalproductionthatwassophisticated,complex,and,consideringitwaslaunchedatatimewhenthebroaderAlthusserianmovemententeredintocrisis,remarkablefor itsstaying-power.Overtheensuingdecades,oneworkfolloweduponanother,eachenduringlycriticalofadominantsystem that they continued todefine as inherently exploitative, indefianceof awholegenerationofso-calledMarxists,whoprogressivelymadetheirpeacewithcapitalism.Ofcourse,nobodycouldremainimmunetothecrushingsenseofpowerlessnessthatgri-ppedwhatwasleftandRodrguezdidnt,aswehavesuggestedwithrespecttohismostrecentworkonBorges.Thatsaid,thetextsunderreviewarriveasatimelyreminderoftheforceofhisearliercritiqueofcapitalismanditscontinuedrelevancetoagenerationofyoungpeoplewho,unemployedintheirthousands,mustarmthemselvesagainstapoliti-cal,entrepreneurialandfinancialelitethat,evenasitconvenientlydismissestherelevan-ceofclasspolitics,quietlygoesaboutitsprincipalbusiness,thatofshovellinghugesumsofmoneyintoitsbankaccounts.

23

labe n7 junio 2013 ISSN 2171-9624

Bibliography

Althusser,LouisandtienneBalibar.1970.Reading Capital. Trans.BenBrewster.London:NLB.

-----.2006.Philosophy of the Encounter. Later Writings, 1978-87.Trans.G.M. G o s -hgarian.LondonandNewYork:Verso.

Bhaskar,Roy.1993. Dialectic: The Pulse of Freedom.LondonandNewYork:Verso.

-----.1989.Reclaiming Reality: A Critical Introduction to Contemporary. Philosophy.LondonandNewYork:Verso.

Borges,JorgeLuis.1971.Ficciones.Madrid:AlianzaEditorial.

Callari,AntonioandDavidF.Ruccio(eds).1996. Postmodern Materialism and the Future of Marxist Theory: Essays in the Althusserian Tradition.HanoverandLondon:WesleyanUniversityPress.

Collier,Andrew.2003.TheRightRebellionintheWrongCause:Heidegger,Tech-nologyandtheMarket.InAndrewCollier,In Defence of Objectivity and OtherEssays: On Realism, Existentialism and Politics.LondonandNewYork:Routledge.69-82.

Curry,Neil.2004. Lost inTransit:Reconceptualising theReal. In JonathanJose-phandJohnMichaelRoberts(eds),Realism Discourse and Deconstruction.LondonandNewYork:Routledge.137-49.

Eagleton,Terry.1991.Ideology: An Introduction.LondonandNewYork:Verso.

Jameson,Fredric.1981.The Political Unconscious: Narrative as a Socially Symbolic Act. Ithaca,NewYork:CornellUniversityPress.

-----.1988.The Ideologies of Theory Essays 1971-1986. Volume 1: Situations of Theory. ForewardbyNeilLarsen.London:Routledge.

Joseph,Jonathan.2007.BeingandKnowledge.InDefending Objectivity: Essays in Honour of Andrew Collier. EditedbyMargaretS.ArcherandWilliamOuthwaite.Lon-donandNewYork:Routledge.143-57.

Resch,1992.Althusser and the Renewal of Marxist Social Theory.Oxford,LosAnge-les,Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

labe n7 junio 2013

24

ISSN 2171-9624

Rodrguez,JuanCarlos.(1990)(1974).Teora e historia de la produccin ideolgica: Las primeras literaturas burguesas (siglo XVI.Madrid:Akal.

-----.(2001)(1984).La norma literaria.Madrid:EditorialDebate.

-----.(2002).Theory and History of Ideological Production: The First Bourgeois Lite-ratures (the 16th century). Newark:UniversityofDelawarePress.

-----.(2008). State, Stage, Language: The Production of the Subject.Newark:Univer-sityofDelawarePress.

-----.(2011a).Tras la muerte del aura (En contra y a favor de la Ilustracin) Granada:EditorialUniversidaddeGranada.

-----.(2011b). Para una lectura de Heidegger (Algunas claves de la escritura actual). Granada:EditorialUniversidaddeGranada.

-----.(2012a).Elmanifiestoyelpensamiento,Pensar desde abajo.FundacinAnda-luzaMemoriayCultura1(2012),130-61.

-----.(2012b).Formas de leer a Borges (o las trampas de la lectura).Almera:EditorialUniversidaddeAlmera.

Ruben,David-Hillel.(1977). Marxism and Materialism: A Study in Marxist Theory of Knowledge.Hassocks,Sussex:HarvesterPress.

Smith,Paul Julian. (1988).Writing in the Margin: Spanish Literature of the Golden Age.Oxford:ClarendonPress.

Sprinker,Michael.(1992).TheRoyalRoad:MarxismandthePhilosophyofScience.In New Left Review,191:122-44.