Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 19:10:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mani Salem-Haghighi <msalemha-AT-uoguelph.ca>
Subject: Re: Deleuze and Postmodernity




On Thu, 1 Dec 1994, Jonathan P. Beasley-Murray wrote:

> 
> Huyssen's book i) differentiates postmodernism and poststructuralism (the
> latter being the theory of modernism) and ii) points out how (*pace*
> Lyotard and Baudrillard, these two being suitably
> Americanized--_Postmodern Condition_ was written for a bunch of Canadians,
> after all) postmodernism isn't a French problematic at all. 

Two things on this. The Postmodern Condition was not exactly written for 
a bunch of Canadians; actually, it was sponsored by the Quebec government 
who, as you may or may not know, are less and less willing to call 
themselves Canadian, and who are looking to the French government to 
legitimise their independent status. (Personally, I don't think this says 
anything about anything.) More importantly, though, I think it is a little 
rash to suggest that "postmodernism is not a French problematic at all." 
For one thing, it theorizes global issues as it mushrooms; for another, 
it feeds concepts to all kinds of other discourses, say critiques of 
colonialism, which are very specifically French problematics. 

I think the muddle is caused by the loose definition of postmodernism, 
which is why I like your distinction (even though I think it doesn't work 
in the final analysis):
 
> Jon's rule of thumb (when he isn't talking about late capitalism a la 
> Jameson): postmodern theorists return to the body ("figure" for Lyotard) 
> while poststructuralists are still hung up on the old signifying chains 
> ("discours" for ditto).

This seems to imply that being hung up on signifying chains is NOT a 
postmodern affliction, and I think it is. And if you really buy this 
distinction, then where do you place someone like Irigaray, who is 
preoccupied (or hung up) on both the body and the signifying chains? (For 
that matter, who isn't hung up both on body and the sinifying chains? 
D+G certainly are, right? Critiquing something -Several Regimes of 
Signs, Nomad Thought, One or Several Wolves...- is still being hung up on 
it. The distinction fails to be rigorous even conceptually, because the 
the postmodern heterogeneity of discourses is necessarily theorized in 
poststructuralist terms: difference, trace, aporia... (This is also a 
reply to Karen's post about Massumi thinking D+G are neither modern nor 
postmodern.)

Hell, even intelectuals in the Middle East are worried sick about 
Postmodernism. They're becoming loopy trying to figure if you can 
appropriate postmodern tactics of resistance if your social context 
hasn't even passed through modernity in the "proper" sense, even if you 
don't even have a word for "subject" in your language. What exactly do 
you mean by calling Postmodernism an Anglo-American problematic?
I too would like to draw a distinction between postmodernism as a state of 
the culture versus as an intellectual inclination, but this is not easy, 
given the fact that the former keeps gobbling up the latter.

By the way, I apologize if my tone was a little aggresive last time, I 
can't really explain it, really. Something just snapped and the next 
thing I knew, the bird was out of the cage...

love

mani


     ------------------