From: "Eric" <ericandmary-AT-earthlink.net> Subject: RE: global meta-narratives no local narratives yes... Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 12:25:08 -0600 Steve, Hugh, Glen: There is a thesis about postmodernism I am trying to express and I recognize that it is probably a little incoherent. Possibly the thesis is not even valid. The thesis stated in rather simplistic terms is this. Every once in a while, an Event occurs whereby our world-view changes; some obvious Western examples are Athens during the Age of Pericles, the development of Christianity during the Roman Empire, and the Renaissance. I believe ours may also be one of those times - and what we call postmodernism is a first feeble attempt at expressing this changed reality. I recognize you'll probably read this and say to yourself this is simply another huge metanarrative and therefore completely contradictory. Perhaps it is, but in my reading of Lyotard I think he is critiquing metanarratives along somewhat Deleuzian lines insofar as he understands reality to be composed of multiple, vast, intersecting planes of difference; plateaus bursting with various flows. The problem with metanarratives is that they presume a linear, one-dimensional grid or framework which attempts to describe reality from a single dimension and presume this is still somehow capable of describing the whole. Such linear totalitarianism was characteristic of both modernism and the 20th century. In mentioning Hayek, I was attempting to make the point that, once the obvious ideological differences are put aside, one value of his theory of economics as a spontaneous order is that is has something to offer very similar to the concept of development and complexification put forward by Deleuze and Lyotard. All three were saying that capitalism is the engine of complexification, although Lyotard and Deleuze go further because they see economics as merely the outward sign of an internal disorder, a productive libidinal chaos of desire at the heart of things. The monster named General Economy by Bataille is the real Leviathan. Its lines of flow include such things as information, DNA, migrations, culture, space, technologies, fashion etc. The shift that must occur in our thinking, and this is the postmodern turn, is one that recognizes reality as a kind of field in the sense this has been defined by quantum physics. Instead of seeing Hayek and Popper merely as utopians or ideologues (which they certainly were) perhaps it is possible to read them against the grain, as Marx might have, were he still alive. Obviously, Neoliberalism is far from having creating an open society in the Popperian sense which is why there is such internal dissension today amongst the ruling elites; and why such a strong disciple of Popper as George Soros has argued for a more enlightened form of capitalism and has become very critical of the current political arrangements. It is also interesting to read the comments of Hayek in light of the current US aggressive stance of unilateralism vis-à-vis the rest of the world community: "The international Rule of Law must become a safeguard as much against the tyranny of the state over the individual as against the tyranny of the new super-state over the national communities. Neither an omnipotent super-state, nor a loose association of 'free nations', but a community of nations must be our goal." Negri could not have stated the matter any better himself. I don't think it is necessary to avoid critique and I am not arguing that only capitalism is currently allowed a metanarrative, but I do think Marxian and other forms of radical thought need to redefine themselves in terms of the new conditions we face today. Even if we can no longer seriously believe in the old myths of emancipation, perhaps this opens the door to an even more radical politics - one based upon the global conditions that present themselves here and now in the 21st century. eric
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005