From: Guido.Albertelli-AT-philo.unil.ch Subject: Re: Postmodernism Date: Tue, 14 Mar 1995 16:25:48 +0000 More about "reading any way the reader wants to read" - though i fully agree with Nathan Widder's post about the "decentering of the reader", and would admit it clarifies things usefully enough. My point is that understanding postmodernism as asserting that, as far as there is no "correct" reading, everybody is allowed to read the way he wants, denotes what Nietzsche would call a reactive, or negative (as opposed to active, or affirmative) attitude towards say the "death of God", or the "end of all metanarratives". I won't deny that there is something definitely "negative" there. But what i want to point out, is that, even while admitting the death of God, and the end of metanarratives, "real world", meaning, author, truth, "values", "philosophy" or whatever, we still may maintain the claim that there _should_ be something like God, etc. - i.e. something _out there_ that can rule my life (or reading of a text). In other words, we may still feel the urge for submission. But as we now have come to recognise that there is nothing we can submit to, this need for submission (or irresponsability) turns out in its contrary (and doing this remains in fact on the same "ground"): _i_ can do what _i_ _want_, whithout having ever to respond of what i do. To this, one may oppose that we can read in Nietzsche that "if nothing is true, everything is allowed". Sure - but i would like to add: "if nothing is true, nothing is authorized" (i hope this makes sense in english; in french, it is: " si rien n'est vrai, tout est permis" - "si rien n'est vrai, rien n'est autorise"). By saying this, i would just like to indicate that Nietzsche (and postmodernism) brings us to give up the anxious philosophical (metaphysical) preoccupation with "authority" - which in my opinion is still predominant in conclusions like "as there is no cerrect reading, anyone can read a text like he wants". In fact, it just changes what has to be understood by "reading" (which may now, to say things very roughly, come closer to "writing" than to "understanding", to get some knowledge). Nathan Bauer's version of postmodernism, it seems to me, is in fact dominated by _nostalgy_, the nostalgy of God, truth, etc.. The truth, that we can come to _know_, is now that "God is dead" (or some variation around this); and like every philosophical, external, truth until now, this one has the authority - to allowing me to act (read) like i want. Another point out from these considerations. Another reactive response to the death of God etc. may be what Nietzsche calls "passive" or "active nihilism" - resignation or (self)destruction. This may certainly be found in postmodernity as well. But still another possible attitude may be that of the "last man" (in Zarathustra) - and this would be what David Westling describes as "the obsession with pastiche, a mere manipulation of the elements of our cultural heritage, as if everything had been allready accomplished, indeed, already _experienced_ - and what he thinks "is integral to the postmodern outlook". Again, this can surely be found in postmodernity. But again too, this seems to me to be a "reactive" version of postmodernity - i.e. dominated by _nostalgy_. Again, the last man is one who _knows_ (that God is dead) - but this knowledge makes him feel comfortable, as it "authorizes" him to be preoccupied only by his own little "happinness", and to enjoy it (estheticism). In my view (and apologizing for giving such a very rough conclusion), postmodernism is precisely the effort (and there is nothing simple or evident here) to "get rid" of _nostalgy_. Guido Albertelli --- from list nietzsche-AT-jefferson.village.virginia.edu --- ------------------
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005