From: Judy <jaw-AT-earthlink.net> Subject: Re: Paralogy continued Date: Fri, 9 Jul 1999 12:28:47 -0700 How can there be an either/or to descriptive and prescriptive? They are different genres yet they are inextricably intermeshed. As Lyotard said, denotative statements are governed by rules, by prescriptives, metaprescriptives. There are no value free statements. Yet there are reasons to distinguishe prescriptive and descriptive, to show the differend between these genres, to untangle them as the discussion below attempts, and to open space for all kinds of questionings of the presuppositions of phrases governed by either of them. If Lyotard is being "descriptive" when he is portraying the postmodern condition as incredulous of metanarratives, it can be seen that in doing so, he is presenting a phrase universe which is at the cost of other possible portrayals: he favors this portrayal for some reason, and this is politics--he wants to portray the postmodern this way not because he thinks he's simply describing the truth but because to see things this way rather than in some other way has real effects which he desires. So when his voice is carried by the descriptive genre, it is no less prescriptive, but just more subtley prescriptive. I might think to myself, "He says people are incredulous of metanarratives these days. Is he in favor of this?" and I will guess that he is, whereas when his voice occupies the prescriptive genre such as in the citation referred to here, I am not going to wonder to myself what Lyotard is prescribing: I will say "Yes, I thought that's what he felt." Lois said >DDD, > >We were talking about whether Lyotard's prescribed that people go out >and destroy metanarratives. I didn't read him as doing this, but you >pulled up an excellent passage for study. > >"We have paid a high enough price for the nostalgia of the whole and the >one, for the reconciliation of the concept and the sensible, of the >transparent and the communicable experience. Under the general demand >for slackening and for appeasement, we can hear the mutterings of the >desire for a return of terror, for the realization of the fantasy to >seize reality. The answer is: Let us wage a war on totality: let >us be witnesses to the unpresentable; let us activate the differences >and save the honor of the name." > >In this passage I can certainly read it your way. There are many other >passages however that suggest he is being more descriptive about the >loss of metanarratives. The one that comes to mind is: > >"That is what the postmodern world is all about. Most people have lost >the nostalgia for the lost narrative. It in no way follows that they >are reduced to barbarity. What sames them from it is their knowledge >that legitimation can only spring from their own linguistic practice and >communicational interaction." > >Here, it seems to me, he is descriptive of an existing incredulity >towards the (meta)narratives. His prescriptiveness is more subtle but no less impactful--perhaps more impactful because of the kind of legitimacy carried by the descriptive genre. He does not say "Most people have lost the nostalgia for the grand narratives, and as a result, are becoming increasingly barbaric." There are a number of commentators who would say the latter about postmodernity. There is a strong prescriptive message in such descriptions. They are each governed by rules as to what statements are admissable: they prescribe these rules and legitimate these statements. Politics. Judy
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005