Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 10:53:33 -0500 From: Bob <suannschafer-AT-earthlink.net> Subject: Re: R: postmodernism and liberalism Comments interspersed throughout. >On Thu, 4 Mar 1999 sjpri1-AT-student.monash.edu.au wrote: > >> Just a thought, >> is there a way of providing a more adequate ground for this >> discussion? Perhaps it would be useful to be clear about what or who is >> referred to by the term 'postmodernism'. Criticisms of postmodernism and >>post- >> structuralism often assumes some homogenous position or theory...... >> however, there is plenty of bad thinking going on under the name of ' >> Marxism'...... > >Ah, the voice of reason! > >Sure, I agree with everything you say here. Although, given that this is >a Foucault list and that (as has been noted) Foucault is a >poststructuralist rather than a postmodernist, this obviously isn't the >place to get seriously involved in discussions about postmodernism, >Marxism, critical theory or anything else outside of the context of >Foucault. I DISAGREE. I'm sure someone (not me) can make the argument that Foucault is a postmodernist, indeed a Marxist, indeed a critical theorist. It all depends on how one defines postmodernism, a highly contentious field. And the same might be said of Marxism and critical theory. I'd like to see someone discuss these in relation to Foucault -- or at least attempt to make the case. >That's why I refered people to some books that deal with this >debate in an interesting way. (Like, on the philosophy side, Christopher >Norris's "The Truth About Postmodernism" and in the cultural studies vein >Ziauddin Sardar's "Postmodernism and the Other.") And that's very helpful. Thanks. >We all know that theories are contingent social constructions that can't >hope to do more than generate tools that may improve our understanding of >the world; that all representations are to a degree fiction; that any >"we" implies some sort of reduction; that metanarratives of liberation >like Marxism have resulted in barbarism etc, etc. Gee, some of the above sounds Foucault-ish >Concepts like freedom, justice and democracy still >have work to do. It's also a denial that gives support to the view (of >Said and others) that postmodernism is, to some degree, an intellectual >cult rather than a serious attempt to understand the world. And perhaps the detractors of Foucault might say the same of his work. >2. While postmodernism has many valuable insights it does often serve as >ideology which gives a radical/progressive gloss to what are in practice >very conservative positions. (And, to paraphrase bell hooks, it seems a >little too convienient that the postmodern critique of the subject has >arisen at the same time that many subjugated people feel themselves coming >to voice for the first time.) Where does hooks say this? >*A lot of postmodern thought doesn't seem to have understood > Kant's distinction between conviction (inward revelation) and > belief (the public sphere of openly accountable reasons, > arguments, principles, values.) But perhaps to a pomo that's a false distinction. Can you provide a citation for this Kant? >Hence the Gulf War becomes more > important as a media spectacle than as a reality etc, etc. And that would be Baudrillard, no? >*Postmodernism is blind to the political nature of many macro events, > systems and structures and is not well equipped to speak to us .... But some postmodernism doesn't pretend to do this. >The original question was >"Is postmodernism complicit with the (neo) liberal global order?" I said >"yes" I'm still not convinced. Put perhaps my notion of pomo differs largely from yours. I would make no such claims of pomo. >and referred anyone who's interested to some appropriate readings. And that's appreciated. >After all the personality >cults in the USSR and Third Reich were, surely, premodern .... I think some might make the argument that personality cults are very "modern" -- but again that depends on how one defines the "modern," "modernity," "modernism" -- still highly charged and contentious words -- to some -- although there are circles of agreement. >Of course political action at the macro level can be disasterous (we've >all read Popper etc) but struggles waged in the name of very modern ideals >did (in spite of the problems with modernity) win women the vote, largely >end colonialism, I think the end of colonialism is up for debate -- of course again that depends on how one defines "colonialism" >end apartheid, as above >win the right to free access to education as above >But it also seems pretty clear that postmodernism isn't doing much for >victims of the new holocausts (including the majority of the world's >population that is, quite literally, getting poorer ever day). What IS doing much for these peoples? >That >doesn't mean PoMo has no role. It just means that any attempt to make it >hegemonic or deny a space for critical theory should be resisted. I would certainly never attempt to make such claims. Indeed I would suggest they run counter to MY understanding of pomo. >But, lets talk about Foucault. That's what this list is for. See above.
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005