File spoon-archives/nietzsche.archive/nietzsche_1995/nietzsche_Mar.95, message 24


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 ---

     ------------------

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005