Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 23:02:16 +0300 (EET DST)
From: J Laari <jlaari-AT-cc.jyu.fi>
Subject: Re: Postmodernism


Some remarks on hot theme.. Sorry for not giving a good,
philosophical explanation. That I'm unable to do.

Philip Locker wrote:

> Can somebody give a good, philosophical explanation of
> postmodernism?  I have a generall understanding, but I
> must admit I don't know enough.

Neither do I. I'm not always even sure what is meant with
"postmodernism"... Besides, my interest on it vanished about
ten years ago. However, I've never found any genuinely
philosophical hard core of it. But I've found some of those
French thinkers, who's been labeled as 'postmodernists' or
'post-structuralists' interesting enough to read.

Derrida's thinking I do not know.

Deleuze's thinking is weird bag of anti-dialectical
insistence combined with empiricism and materialism, but
basically he is classical philosopher figure who mainly
reads, re-reads, and interprets classics (well, there are
Logic of Sense, Difference & Repetition, and Cinema as
embodiments of deleuzian philosophy but quite difficult
books to read).

Foucault's works on human/social sciences are still quite
interesting - at least from a point of view of critique of
ideology and of sociology of knowledge - but the point is to
dig his insights concerning some specific issues. Under what
circumstances modern human/social sciences were established?
What was their role then, what are they now? Foucault's
insistence on role of knowledge (concerning individuals and
their capabilities) in relation to social power centres have
had an important effect in social research. But what was
Foucault's genuine contribution - that is a another
question.

In Lyotard's "Postmodern Condition" I think I found some
fruitful insights concerning the nature of modern culture
and tools or vehicles around knowledge. But that was then. I
mean that today the mediated nature of 'knowing' (that term
may not be the most suitable but it's the one that came to
my mind) is becoming more apparent with modern paraphernalia
(electronic media, computers, information technology in
general) but that hardly means substantial social change.
(Capitalism is 'stronger that ever' today.) Rather that all
are just effects of capitalist modernization?

I don't find any pomo-style social theoretical general ideas
convincing:

'social doesn't exist' (based on Baudrillard and Lacan)
'contemporary transformation leads to post-industrial or
 information society' (based probably on Daniel Bell's
 ideas?) etc. (See also on Lyotard above)

Perhaps because I'm not an aesthetician I've thought that
most interesting postmodern ideas do concern aesthetics (in
a broad classical sense of 'aisthesis'). In this case the
term itself would refer basically to present changing
circumstances. 'Ways of seeing', our sensual categories and
forms of experience, are possibly going through minor
transformations because of all those new technologies. I
believe that here might be found the most important
contributions of postmodern theorization. For example
Deleuze's and Foucault's use of arts and artworks as an
object of reflection could be very stimulating when looked
as an effort to grasp the changing modalities of perception,
not as new theories concerning art. As hypothetical or
'speculative' reflections on newer perceptional forms or
structures.

> What about a thread debating Marxism Vs. Postmodernism or
> Postmodernist Marxists, etc.

What about that several of 'postmodernists' had leftist and
marxist or marxisand background?

Adam reminded lately about Marx's thesis on Feuerbach (that
of *changing* the world). Now this pomo-thing surely have
done it's share of changing it - for worse, we could say
when considering some of its traits of ethical relativism,
and for better when considered under the rubric of
understanding minorities, for example. All that, of course,
*if* pomo really have had any real impact on what and how
people think and figure out some special questions.

Personally, I've been most disturbed by the pomo impact on
issues related with questions of capitalism. As if it isn't
any worth of trying to figure out the capitalist nature of
modernization.

Yours, Jukka



     --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---