a narrative, a metanarrative discussion of postmodernism seems a bit ridiculous. Postmodernists also address the issue of homogeneity, however their definition is often different than the Marxist definition. Jameson, the American Marxist, often published theories on postmodernism and addressed the issue of cultural homogeneity. Frederic Jameson's view of cultural homogeneity, with respect to postmodernism, is that it is always in contrast with cultural heterogeneity (Storey, 184). To regard "postmodernism not as a style, but rather as a cultural dominant." (Storey, 184). Culture is therefore ruled by whatever is most present (which can be argued is mass culture, which in turn implies homogeneity). The reason that Jameson was able to come to a different conclusion about cultural homogeneity is that he was from a different school of Marxism.The postmodern definition has been demonstrated as being different than that of the Marxist. How was it then that postmodern has itself, no pun intended, become the cultural dominant view of culture? David Hawkes gives an empirical answer: "The "fetishism" produced by commidification involves such things as the displacement of reality by representation, the imposition of false equivalence on objects, peoples and cultures which are actually different, the death of the autonomous subject and other notable features of the postmodern age. This theory rests upon Aristotle's distinction in the _Politics_ between exchange-value and use-value, as it is extrapolated by Marx in the opening chapter of _Capital_. Since the postmodern economy is dominated by commodity exchange rather than material production, one can argue that a critique of the psychological effects of exchange-value and the commodity form is more powerful than an approach which emphasizes the material mode of production. I would certainly read the Frankfurt School, like Jameson, as hostile to postmodernism, but they are forced to concede i...
