Date: Wed, 24 Jan 1996 23:49:54 +1100 From: bpalmer-AT-pcug.org.au (Bryan Palmer) Subject: Re: humanising post humanism (was Re: In defence of humans) >> They must of, mostly they have been avoided, while respondends have picked >> over the more marginal and peripheral of my comments. Also, when in doubt, >> use the obscurant pomo language, to problematize understanding. >> > >I think this last bit gets to the root of the misunderstanding (which is >now almost becoming ritualistic). Unfortunately, I think you are right about the ritualism of the debate over the past few posts. I have found the discussion highly useful, but also challenging. It is easy to argue that my want/need to "do" is a part of the job I hold. I have very complex feelings about the very very (in Australia, small-l) liberal agenda the Government pursues, and which the opposition would also pursue if it were in government. I readily acknowledge that we (policy people) always simplify (as opposed to problematize) the social problems we choose to solve. Even the process of deciding that some domain, is a social problem and another is not, is problematic. I acknowledge that in the past our actions have always imposed a way of thinking on others (by definitiuon). I am dumbfounded to think that my worldview has been socially constructed, that it is constantly contested, and that I am both a witness to and a participant in the processes of contest. As you can see, in all this I am absolutely fascinated by postmodernist modes of thinking. However, I am not an academic; and my mortgage keeps me trapped in my current employment (more structures). I was serious when I asked what would a postmodernist do in my job (assuming he/she would accept). I am also interested in the *why* of their response to larger "ethical" issues, such as rape, genocide or ecological vandalism. I agree there is a dialectic to be found. And that makes me uncomfortable. If this all seems a little rambling and unfocused, I am sorry, I am struggling to find plainer language in which to express the anguish I feel. Unfortunately, I suspect I am being accused of wasting your (plural) time; and as our interactions have become a little ritualistic, I will withdraw to think more about the kind of dialectic that allows me to move forward. >Speaking as one of the "pomo" people, >what you see as the marginal and peripheral can also be seen from "our" >perspective as the very heart of the issue, especially when it is a >battle over concepts (which is where "we" do much of our cultural work). >As Nancy Fraser has argued in her wonderful UNRULY PRACTICES a lot of >contemporary political theory and ACTION is a matter of arguing over what >is important and what marginal. Can you post me a more detailed refernce, this sounds like it is very relevant to my thesis. >Bryan, I think you keep on ignoring that >this is the heart of the pomo argument. We are not neglectful of the >important issues, obscuring it behind jargon--we are arguing that the >important issues are different than the ones you think are important. >(And as Richard Rorty would argue, there is no neutral vocabulary to decide which is more important; there are only the two or more competing vocabularies). I know it sounds very liberl/pluralist, but in Western liberal democracies, governments act as arbitrators in these contests (and not for one minute do I think they are impartial or conscious of this process). Their actions and decision shift power balances, legitimise some discourse, discredit others. I am not saying this is good, but I am grappling to see the alternative. The post structuralist critique is very interesting but ultimately not much more. >On the other hand, I think I can understand your frustration. The sort >of cultural work that poststructuralists do (subverting concepts, >performing revaluations) isn't the only kind of work to be done (as "we" >sometimes suggest--but mind you, it is still work, very hard work at >times). And this sort of work, I imagine, often seems irrelevant, even >unhelpful to the sort of work that you want to do. Erik, there is a glimmer of hope that there is some way I can (at least for myself) appropriate some of what I find in the rich land of postmodernism, to achieve (again for myself at least) the dialectical understanding you speak of at the end of your note. >I would agree that it can be unhelpful (if expediency, pragmatic >efficiency, even a feeling of basic agency) is what you are after (I >don't understand these terms pejoratively), but I would strongly disagree >that "our" interjections and underminings are irrelevant or marginal. >Their job, in >my mind, is to subltly alter (not, to be sure, determine) the course of >the sort of work you want to do. Why "subltly alter" but not "determine"? Why change at all? I feel I am being teased (no insult implied). You have said elsewhere that poststructuralism is reformist. > I guess what I am trying to move toward >is some sort of dialectical understanding. Any dialectic does not leave >the initial sides intact. But you know what, THAT'S OKAY. My >Foucauldianism can use some growth (Foucault would approve); social >policy can use some redirection, even if preceeded by the disorienation >that an encounter with a Foucauldian might bring. I can heartily agree with you here. By the way, I appreciate you taking the time to answer my questions and discuss my difficulties. _______________________________________________________________ Bryan Palmer bpalmer-AT-pcug.org.au Canberra - Australia's National Capital ------------------
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005