• Ulf Schulenberg


The relationship between Marxism and pragmatism was discussed in the 1970s and 1980s. Since then, this important discussion has been neglected. In the Introduction, Schulenberg explains that his study seeks to reactivate this discussion. His book intends to achieve three things. First, it endeavors to highlight the productive tension between, on the one hand, a representationalist and teleological universalism that still needs the appearance-reality distinction and, on the other, a historicist nominalism that is antirepresentationalist and antifoundationalist. Second, it shows that a discussion of the relation between Marxism and pragmatism is of contemporary significance since it can help one to fully grasp the implications of the notion of a postmetaphysical or poeticized culture. Finally, it is argued that Marxism’s combination of theory, form, a hermeneutics of depth, and the idea (or practice) of a coherent dramatic narrative clearly opposes this philosophy of praxis to pragmatism’s version of cultural criticism and its notion of horizontal critique. Elucidating the significance of the modern process from finding to making, Schulenberg’s interdisciplinary study brings together intellectual history, philosophy, and literary studies.


  1. Berlin, I. (1999). The Roots of Romanticism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP.Google Scholar
  2. Bernstein, R. J. (1995). American Pragmatism: The Conflict of Narratives. In H. J. Saatkamp (Ed.), Rorty and Pragmatism: The Philosopher Responds to His Critics (pp. 54–67). Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt UP.Google Scholar
  3. Dewey, J. (1909). The Influence of Darwinism on Philosophy. In L. A. Hickman & T. M. Alexander (Eds.), The Essential Dewey: Vol. 1 Pragmatism, Education, Democracy (pp. 39–45). Bloomington, IN: Indiana UP, 1998.Google Scholar
  4. Dewey, J. (1957). Reconstruction in Philosophy. Enlarged Edition. 1948. Boston: Beacon.Google Scholar
  5. Flaubert, G. (1984). Sentimental Education (P. Burlingame, Trans.). New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  6. Goodman, N. (1978). Ways of Worldmaking. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.Google Scholar
  7. Hook, S. (1994). From Hegel to Marx: Studies in the Intellectual Development of Karl Marx. 1936. New York: Columbia UP.Google Scholar
  8. Jameson, F. (1977). Reflections on the Brecht-Lukács Debate. In The Ideologies of Theory (pp. 434–450). New York: Verso, 2008.Google Scholar
  9. Nietzsche, F. (1974). The Gay Science (W. Kaufmann, Trans.). New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
  10. Nietzsche, F. (1988). Die fröhliche Wissenschaft. In G. Colli & M. Montinari (Eds.), Kritische Studienausgabe Band 3. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  11. Nietzsche, F. (1996). Human, All Too Human (R. J. Hollingdale, Trans.). New York: Cambridge UP.Google Scholar
  12. Nietzsche, F. (2017). The Will to Power: Selections from the Notebooks of the 1880s (R. K. Hill, Ed. & with an Introduction; R. K. Hill & M. A. Scarpitti, Trans.). New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  13. Rorty, R. (1979). Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP.Google Scholar
  14. Rorty, R. (1982). Consequences of Pragmatism: Essays 1972–1980. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  15. Rorty, R. (1989). Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity. New York: Cambridge UP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Rorty, R. (1999). Philosophy and Social Hope. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  17. Schacht, R. (1996). Introduction. Friedrich Nietzsche, Human, All Too Human (pp. vii–xxiii) (R. J. Hollingdale, Trans.). New York: Cambridge UP.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ulf Schulenberg
    • 1
  1. 1.University of BremenBremenGermany

Personalised recommendations