Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 15:12:29 +0000
From: "steve.devos" <steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk>
Subject: Re: postmodernists and politics - a nice brick and associated notes




Shawn

"...I'm probably prepared to make a more scathing indictment of a 
certain "postmodernism" - defined along Jameson's lines - than most 
folks here...."

Exactly.

My general sense of the work carried out within lists such as the 
'Lyotard' one is that the major faults within the approach taken is that 
it is to reverential to the writers concerned.  For example consider the 
discussion of The Differend which disintergrated into silence over the 
summer, perhaps the silence that developed did so because of the absence 
of any attempt at critique?  Instead the attempts to read with the book 
rather than to understand it and its limitations...

My admittedly cheap and brief questions thrown at the specific Lyotard 
text - were founded on the belief that we should try and unpack and 
critique the arguments concentrated in the statements made, and in the 
process of unpacking identify what is important and what may have had 
meaning in 1983 but which simply is not  tenable now.

I'll think about the libertarian note....

best
steve

shawn wilbur wrote:

>"steve.devos" wrote:
>
>>I do not however accept any blanket and unthinking rejection of the
>>critique that underlies my rough notes.
>>
>
>I would think most of us don't accept "blanket and unthinking"
>responses.
>
>The critique of "postmodernism(s)" is now a sort of tradition, really
>long-standing in comparison to, say, current cultural memory. I know
>that i have spent nearly a decade involved in these debates in one way
>or another.
>
>My primary concern - along with the equally rough sketch of roads not
>taken within the history of "socialism" (broadly defined) - is to see
>these critiques rendered specific enough to be of practical use.
>Particularly when we're talking about causal responsibility - "fault" -
>our standards need to be fairly high. There is an unfortunately common
>form of quasi-critique used with what seems to me increasing frequency
>these days - the attribution of "connections" between already demonized
>groups and targets of new marginalization. Not too long ago, there was a
>popular party-type game where the connections between nearly everyone
>were emphasized by small "degrees of separation" from media figures
>(Kevin Bacon, for example.) Now, however, nearly any degree of
>separation can hide behind the attributions of "connections" to this or
>that outlawed group, as long as some thin thread can be established.
>It's a kind of neo-McCarthyist rhetoric for our shrinking attention
>spans. I suspect its very closely connected to present forms of
>fundamentalism. Speaking of right-left connections, it is almost
>certainly the case that much of the ground for the present assault on
>dissent was prepared by left academics embracing a fairly sloppy,
>complicit form of "postmodernism." Once upon a time, "political
>correctness" was an inside joke among lefty intellectual types - a
>measure of uncomfortable awareness of how easily materialist critique
>can degenerate into dogma. And then, at some point, as some of the
>left's projects became institutional programs, many of us forgot to
>laugh (at ourselves.) I remember a day when a colleague said something
>to the effect of "of course, i'm politically correct." From the soured
>joke to a manichaean "all about good and evil" worldview is an
>unfortunate short distance.
>
>I'm probably prepared to make a more scathing indictment of a certain
>"postmodernism" - defined along Jameson's lines - than most folks here.
>I remain cautious and unconvinced by Steve's rough sketch, suspecting
>that this may have more to do with long-standing differences between
>camps of "progressives" than anything else. I suspect the "riposte to
>the 'libertarian elements' implication" may clarify what are, by now,
>long-standing differences between Steve and myself.
>
>-shawn
>

HTML VERSION:

"steve.devos" wrote:

I do not however accept any blanket and unthinking rejection of the
critique that underlies my rough notes.

I would think most of us don't accept "blanket and unthinking"
responses.

The critique of "postmodernism(s)" is now a sort of tradition, really
long-standing in comparison to, say, current cultural memory. I know
that i have spent nearly a decade involved in these debates in one way
or another.

My primary concern - along with the equally rough sketch of roads not
taken within the history of "socialism" (broadly defined) - is to see
these critiques rendered specific enough to be of practical use.
Particularly when we're talking about causal responsibility - "fault" -
our standards need to be fairly high. There is an unfortunately common
form of quasi-critique used with what seems to me increasing frequency
these days - the attribution of "connections" between already demonized
groups and targets of new marginalization. Not too long ago, there was a
popular party-type game where the connections betwe
en nearly everyone
were emphasized by small "degrees of separation" from media figures
(Kevin Bacon, for example.) Now, however, nearly any degree of
separation can hide behind the attributions of "connections" to this or
that outlawed group, as long as some thin thread can be established.
It's a kind of neo-McCarthyist rhetoric for our shrinking attention
spans. I suspect its very closely connected to present forms of
fundamentalism. Speaking of right-left connections, it is almost
certainly the case that much of the ground for the present assault on
dissent was prepared by left academics embracing a fairly sloppy,
complicit form of "postmodernism." Once upon a time, "political
correctness" was an inside joke among lefty intellectual types - a
measure of uncomfortable awareness of how easily materialist critique
can degenerate into dogma. And then, at some point, as some of the
left's projects became institutional programs, many of u
s forgot to
laugh (at ourselves.) I remember a day when a colleague said something
to the effect of "of course, i'm politically correct." From the soured
joke to a manichaean "all about good and evil" worldview is an
unfortunate short distance.

I'm probably prepared to make a more scathing indictment of a certain
"postmodernism" - defined along Jameson's lines - than most folks here.
I remain cautious and unconvinced by Steve's rough sketch, suspecting
that this may have more to do with long-standing differences between
camps of "progressives" than anything else. I suspect the "riposte to
the 'libertarian elements' implication" may clarify what are, by now,
long-standing differences between Steve and myself.

-shawn