In 1986 Fredric Jameson was one of the most famous American Marxist writers. In his essay published by the text Social Journal , “Third World Literature in the Era of Multinational Capitalism”, he became criticized for his work for years to come. Jameson speaks upon the “Three Worlds Theory” and how all texts that come from the Third World would function as the national allegory, therefore all groups from other world countries have the same cultural logic of the third world (Robert  Tally JR).

Aijaz Ahmad argues that Jameson defines the “Third World” in terms of colonialism and nationalism. The problem here is that the so-called third world is defined in “experience” while the First and Second worlds are defined by their production systems (Ahmad, 78). This quote stood out to me, ” …this classification divides the world between those who make history and those who are mere objects of it”(Ahmad, 78). Ahmad is arguing that Jameson as a Marxist wasn’t rigorous enough in his argument around Marxism playing any role within the Three Worlds theory. Instead it is contradictory because Jameson as an American white male is talking about how to overcome capitalistic views. A single story coming from all third world texts can help overcome the ongoing battle.

The battle against capitalism is still present in this world and we still use ideas from the Three Worlds Theory. I’m going to relate this to the ongoing wage crisis in America. We are seen as the best country with many opportunities but this vision of America is read through the lenses of single stories from many third world texts. Immigrants come from all over the world to find better paying jobs in America but really we struggle with minimum wages. In a study done by  OECD it is found that, “Immigrants perform relatively better than native-born workers on the labour market, but their working conditions are often poorer” (OECD,27). These people come here in hopes for a better life but get paid less to do specialized work for companies who profit so much off their small wages. This goes back to Jamesons theory of First world countries being the ones making history while the people who actually make the history are the workers from other world countries. We need to consider that these immigrants are the ones supplying us the ability to be a First World country considering that, “40 percent of the immigrant workforce that is employed in low skilled occupations” (Camarota,37). Without these workers working out lower skilled factory jobs we wouldn’t be able to survive as a First World country.

Sources:

Aijaz Ahmad’s essay, “Jameson’s Rhetoric of Otherness and the ‘National Allegory’”,  was one of the most impactful responses to Fredric Jameson’s article titled “Third-World Literature in the Era of Multinational Capitalism”. Jameson’s article is seen as one of the highest debated ideologies about First and Third world cultures and nationalism. Although Jameson does not specifically reference the Global South, it can be inferred through his text that his idea of the “diverse cultures of Africa, South America, and Southern Asia, and their literature, could be represented as having a single “Third-World” cultural logic”, while seeing others such as Europe and the United States as First World (Tally 1). This sparked major controversy.

Jameson was a very influential writer, being known as one of the most popular Marxist critics of his time. In “Third-World Literature in the Era of Multinational Capitalism”, Jameson questions the effect of literature and nationalism. He reflects on the idea that “the story of the private individual destiny is always an allegory of the embattled situation of the public third-world culture and society” (Jameson 69). This can somewhat connect to Adichie’s TED Talk, “The Danger of a Single Story”, that we covered in week one. Aijaz, among many others, express their utter discontent with Jameson’s views: that of being seen as “hasty” (Aijaz 79), “presumptuous” and “nothing less than overarching”  (Lazarus 1). Lazarus and Aijaz explain the many ways that “Third World” literature has been significant and vastly impactful to their lives and to the creation of their personal work. Aijaz goes on to criticize Jameson’s claims that “all” Third World literature fits into one box, and gives one overall statement- being considered less than or “third- worldly”.

Although seemingly out of character for Jameson to publish such “bold and outrageous” claims, his essay criticized by his peers does somewhat align to his Marxist views, as proven in his previous works “The Political Unconscious” and “Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture”. Jameson’s sense that “Third-World literature produces a national allegory out of the individual or private narrative is an attempt to illustrate the need for cognitive mapping on a global scale” (Tally 8). Jameson saw colonialism and imperialism as “if societies here are defined not by relations of production but by relations of intranational domination” (Aijaz 79). His colleagues, however, were upset with this idea, as literature does not have to play into capitalism or power of any sort, and certainly does not tell a single story.

Bibliography

Tally, Jr., Robert T. November 9, 2017. “Fredric Jameson and the Controversy over ‘Third-World Literature in the Era of Multinational Capitalism.’” Global South Studies: A Collective Publication with The Global South.

Lazarus, Neil. “Postcolonialism and the Dilemma Of Nationalism: AIJAZ AHMAD’S Critique OF THIRD-WORLDISM.” Diaspora: A Journal of Transnational Studies, vol. 2, no. 3, 1993, pp. 373–400., doi:10.1353/dsp.1993.0000.

Jameson, Fredric. “Third-World Literature in the Era of Multinational Capitalism.” Social Text, no. 15, 1986, p. 65., doi:10.2307/466493.