Deconstructing Deconstructionism
Martin McPhillips
Deconstructing Deconstructionism
by Robert Locke
http://frontpagemag.com/columnists/locke/2001/locke11-28-01.htm
ONE OF THE GREAT ASSETS of the academic left is its ability to invent
and teach a synthesis, a systematic distillation of leftism into a convenient
package. Once mastered, this synthesis can be relied upon to give the adherent
a left-wing analysis of anything from Strategic Missile Defense to poetry.
Marxism once fulfilled this role for a great many, but for the past 15 years or
so, the ascendant school of sophistry has been deconstructionism. So it’s worth
getting a grip on how this philosophical con-game works and why it’s false.
Deconstructionism originally came from France in
the ‘70s. It is also known as poststructuralism, but
don’t ask what structuralism was, as it was no
better. It is based on the proposition that the
apparently real world is in fact a vast social
construct and that the way to knowledge lies in
taking apart in one’s mind this thing society has built. Taken to its logical
conclusion, it supposes that there is at the end of the day no actual reality,
just a
series of appearances stitched together by social constructs into what we all
agree to call reality. But not agree voluntarily, for society has (this is the
leftist
bit) an oppressive structure, so we are pressured to agree to that version of
reality which pleases the people in charge. (If you specialize in studying this
pressure, you are a member of the Michel Foucault school of
deconstructionism.)
[read the entire article...]
http://frontpagemag.com/columnists/locke/2001/locke11-28-01.htm
Jeffrey Davis
Martin McPhillips wrote:
>
> Deconstructing Deconstructionism
>
> by Robert Locke
>
> http://frontpagemag.com/columnists/locke/2001/locke11-28-01.htm
>
> ONE OF THE GREAT ASSETS of the academic left
No. Deconstructionism is not part of the left. It's a pure
product of the academy. It has no political import at all.
--
Jeffrey Davis <res0...@verizon.net>
Jackdaws love my big sphinx of quartz.
Martin McPhillips
>
> Martin McPhillips wrote:
> >
> > Deconstructing Deconstructionism
> >
> > by Robert Locke
> >
> > http://frontpagemag.com/columnists/locke/2001/locke11-28-01.htm
> >
> > ONE OF THE GREAT ASSETS of the academic left
>
> No. Deconstructionism is not part of the left. It's a pure
> product of the academy. It has no political import at all.
That's as incoherent a statement as it is false.
First of all, how could there be a contradiction between
something being a "product of the academy" and a) being
a "part of the left" or b) having "political import?"
That's a rhetorical question, by the way.
You should read the whole article.
Jeffrey C. Dege
>
>Deconstructing Deconstructionism
>
>by Robert Locke
>
>http://frontpagemag.com/columnists/locke/2001/locke11-28-01.htm
--
As I understand it, deconstructionism is a form of literary criticism that
is intended to demonstrate the fundamental meaninglessness of literature.
IMO, what it demonstrates is the fundamental meaninglessness of literary
criticism.
Jeffrey Davis
Martin McPhillips wrote:
>
> Jeffrey Davis wrote:
> >
> > Martin McPhillips wrote:
> > >
> > > Deconstructing Deconstructionism
> > >
> > > by Robert Locke
> > >
> > > http://frontpagemag.com/columnists/locke/2001/locke11-28-01.htm
> > >
> > > ONE OF THE GREAT ASSETS of the academic left
> >
> > No. Deconstructionism is not part of the left. It's a pure
> > product of the academy. It has no political import at all.
>
> That's as incoherent a statement as it is false.
Chomskey has challenged deconstructionists to come up with
something politically useful in all of their blather. So
far, nothing has emerged but blather. If a leftist like
Chomskey mocks deconstructionists about their alleged
politics, that's good enough for me.
>
> First of all, how could there be a contradiction between
> something being a "product of the academy" and a) being
> a "part of the left" or b) having "political import?"
When something is mocked as "academic" it is usually because
it is so rarified as to be unrelated to the real world.
Politics generally is about the nitty gritty of getting
things done. Deconstructionism is the most academic of
academic pursuits: multiplying words for the sake of
multiplying words.
Martin McPhillips
>
> Martin McPhillips wrote:
> >
> > Jeffrey Davis wrote:
> > >
> > > Martin McPhillips wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Deconstructing Deconstructionism
> > > >
> > > > by Robert Locke
> > > >
> > > > http://frontpagemag.com/columnists/locke/2001/locke11-28-01.htm
> > > >
> > > > ONE OF THE GREAT ASSETS of the academic left
> > >
> > > No. Deconstructionism is not part of the left. It's a pure
> > > product of the academy. It has no political import at all.
> >
> > That's as incoherent a statement as it is false.
>
> Chomskey has challenged deconstructionists to come up with
> something politically useful in all of their blather. So
> far, nothing has emerged but blather. If a leftist like
> Chomskey mocks deconstructionists about their alleged
> politics, that's good enough for me.
Now *that* is funny.
> > First of all, how could there be a contradiction between
> > something being a "product of the academy" and a) being
> > a "part of the left" or b) having "political import?"
>
> When something is mocked as "academic" it is usually because
> it is so rarified as to be unrelated to the real world.
> Politics generally is about the nitty gritty of getting
> things done. Deconstructionism is the most academic of
> academic pursuits: multiplying words for the sake of
> multiplying words.
Where exactly is it that you think the Left is harbored
these days? Just in Cuba and North Korea?
idleeric
Martin McPhillips wrote in message <3C0508C1...@nyc.rr.com>...
Why? It's a social construct of the Looniac Right. That's all he needs to
know.
Martin McPhillips
>
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2001 14:47:27 GMT, Martin McPhillips <jour...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >Deconstructing Deconstructionism
> >
> >by Robert Locke
> >
> >http://frontpagemag.com/columnists/locke/2001/locke11-28-01.htm
>
> is intended to demonstrate the fundamental meaninglessness of literature.
> IMO, what it demonstrates is the fundamental meaninglessness of literary
> criticism.
Your understanding is incorrect. Deconstructionism is not just a form of
literary criticism. Click on the url *above* and read Locke's article, which
is really pretty good. And then, if you have the stomach for it, try
this delightful excerpt from one of the leading deconstructionists,
Jacques Derrida--
from Spectres of Marx, by Jacques Derrida
http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/derrida2.htm
Martin McPhillips
Your idle mind is the deconstructionist's playground.
idleeric
Martin McPhillips wrote in message <3C050E65...@nyc.rr.com>...
The "left" is merely a social construct of the Looniac Right ..... it
doesn't exist.
Martin McPhillips
It appears that you don't either.
Gandalf Grey
Jeffrey Davis <res0...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3C050DE8...@verizon.net...
>
>
> Martin McPhillips wrote:
> >
> > Jeffrey Davis wrote:
> > >
> > > Martin McPhillips wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Deconstructing Deconstructionism
> > > >
> > > > by Robert Locke
> > > >
> > > > http://frontpagemag.com/columnists/locke/2001/locke11-28-01.htm
> > > >
> > > > ONE OF THE GREAT ASSETS of the academic left
> > >
> > > No. Deconstructionism is not part of the left. It's a pure
> > > product of the academy. It has no political import at all.
> >
> > That's as incoherent a statement as it is false.
>
Martin and the New McCarthyites NEED to push the belief that EVERYTHING that
comes out of the colleges is political and leftist.
That's part of constructing a useful enemy to target with the new
McCarthyism. The academic world fits that bill for several reasons.
It's far enough removed from the lunch-bucket world to be at least a little
alien to the average citizen. Demogogues like Martin can accuse academics
of building bombs as part of their class curriculum and get away with it
because the kind of American that wholly swallows the Horowitz, Cheney,
McPhillips line isn't sure exactly what it is academics do in the first
place.
Because of its isolation from the mainstream of political life, Martin can
accuse any and all academies of being bastians of liberalism and he can say
that any idea they come up with is a nefarious communist plot and pretty
much get away with it, because the majority of McCarthyites are looking for
commies anyway and are hopping scared of anything they don't immediately
understand and don't have under their direct control.
Lastly, the new McCarthyism requires a domestic enemy as an additional
reason to continue the usurpation of Constitutional power in our society.
It's a grim and ominous fact that as Bush's Tribunal decision went down, the
McCarthites redoubled their efforts. Now that the AG is going before the
Senate to answer serious questions, the McCarthyites are getting louder and
Martin's 'fifth column' articles more numerous.
That's the origin of the Cheney McCarthyism we see today. McCarthyism is
the machine that keeps a "crises atmosphere" alive and loaded with daily new
excuses for ever widening repression and ever more numerous erosions of
constitutionality.
Roger R.
"Jeffrey C. Dege" <jd...@jdege.visi.com> wrote in message
news:slrna0a2u9...@jdege.visi.com...
Actually, what it clearly demonstrates is the *fundamental* meaninglessness
of language itself, but there is nothing new about that. Once you accept
that words are symbols which have no inherent meaning, then language is
fundamentally meaningless. That does not mean that language has no utility,
it simply restates the clear truth that any meaning we attach to words is
something people agree on rather than something inherent in the words
themselves.
S. I. Hiakawa clearly pointed out that language was a map, and the map is
not the territory. Deconstructionism is nothing more than a series of
explicit examples of the social nature of language (i. e. that the meaning
attached to words is nothing more than the meaning we agree among ourselves
will be attached to them) and the fact that the reality the words point to
is much more complicated than the simplified meanings we agree to.
There isn't any manner in which deconstructionism could be an ideology of
the political left. It does not lead to any political programs, and in fact
does nothing to improve the truths of classic liberalism and progressivism.
idleeric
Roger R. wrote in message ...
>
>"Jeffrey C. Dege" <jd...@jdege.visi.com> wrote in message
>news:slrna0a2u9...@jdege.visi.com...
>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2001 14:47:27 GMT, Martin McPhillips
<jour...@nyc.rr.com>
>wrote:
>> >
>> >Deconstructing Deconstructionism
>> >
>> >by Robert Locke
>> >
>> >http://frontpagemag.com/columnists/locke/2001/locke11-28-01.htm
>>
>>
>> --
>> As I understand it, deconstructionism is a form of literary criticism
that
>> is intended to demonstrate the fundamental meaninglessness of literature.
>> IMO, what it demonstrates is the fundamental meaninglessness of literary
>> criticism.
>
>Actually, what it clearly demonstrates is the *fundamental* meaninglessness
>of language itself, but there is nothing new about that. Once you accept
>that words are symbols which have no inherent meaning, then language is
>fundamentally meaningless. That does not mean that language has no utility,
>it simply restates the clear truth that any meaning we attach to words is
>something people agree on rather than something inherent in the words
>themselves.
Hence "social construct"
>S. I. Hiakawa clearly pointed out that language was a map, and the map is
>not the territory. Deconstructionism is nothing more than a series of
>explicit examples of the social nature of language (i. e. that the meaning
>attached to words is nothing more than the meaning we agree among ourselves
>will be attached to them) and the fact that the reality the words point to
>is much more complicated than the simplified meanings we agree to.
S.I. was an early neo-con whore ... once again, an example of CA leading the
nation.
>There isn't any manner in which deconstructionism could be an ideology of
>the political left. It does not lead to any political programs, and in fact
>does nothing to improve the truths of classic liberalism and progressivism.
It's yet another parlor game humanities PhDs play to get tenure.
Next the Looniacs will expose the Food Channel as a Librull Communist plot.
Jeffrey Davis
Martin McPhillips wrote:
>
> Jeffrey Davis wrote:
> >
> > Martin McPhillips wrote:
> > >
> > > Jeffrey Davis wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Martin McPhillips wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Deconstructing Deconstructionism
> > > > >
> > > > > by Robert Locke
> > > > >
> > > > > http://frontpagemag.com/columnists/locke/2001/locke11-28-01.htm
> > > > >
> > > > > ONE OF THE GREAT ASSETS of the academic left
> > > >
> > > > No. Deconstructionism is not part of the left. It's a pure
> > > > product of the academy. It has no political import at all.
> > >
> > > That's as incoherent a statement as it is false.
> >
> > Chomskey has challenged deconstructionists to come up with
> > something politically useful in all of their blather. So
> > far, nothing has emerged but blather. If a leftist like
> > Chomskey mocks deconstructionists about their alleged
> > politics, that's good enough for me.
>
> Now *that* is funny.
Yes.
>
> > > First of all, how could there be a contradiction between
> > > something being a "product of the academy" and a) being
> > > a "part of the left" or b) having "political import?"
> >
> > When something is mocked as "academic" it is usually because
> > it is so rarified as to be unrelated to the real world.
> > Politics generally is about the nitty gritty of getting
> > things done. Deconstructionism is the most academic of
> > academic pursuits: multiplying words for the sake of
> > multiplying words.
>
> Where exactly is it that you think the Left is harbored
> these days? Just in Cuba and North Korea?
The likelihood of being a leftist AND a deconstructionist
does not make them one and the same. I'd argue that Rush
Limbaugh's (and Ann Coulter's & about 90% of the right wing
poster's here )fatuous interpolations are the same kind of
intellectual activity that a beret-and-black-turtleneck
wearing French anti-Semitic, Leftist deconstructionist is
engaged in. Every thing dismal in this world does not break
down into right and left. Taking a mote of evidence and
blowing it up into an elephant of a conclusion is a very
common intellectual activity.
Gandalf Grey
Roger R. <jayr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:LS9N7.641$Vm5.34...@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
Deconstructionism is more akin to the direction some academic thought has
gone in since Wittgenstein than it could ever be to a political left or a
political right. Wittgenstein still believed in "meaning," but he theorized
that what most people meant when they talk about "meaning" or "truth" is
just a reference to words and sentences themselves. Holding the sentence as
being the fundamental unit of meaning, he felt that "words" themselves were
meaningless save as pointers toward the meaning of the sentence they were
contained in. The 'deconstructionists' have gone further in positing
sentences and other constructions as being social artifacts in which any
literal meaning is subsumed by wider social agreements as to intent and
meaning.
Although the extents to which deconstructionism has gone seem to me to be
largely a waste of time, the idea that some nefarious political position is
contained therein is another right wing myth necessary for the creation of
ad hoc 'enemies' for the New McCarthyism. The fact that it originated and
is largely practiced in the [for the right wing] shadowy and mysterious
world of books and reading and 'higher education' makes it a perfect target
for the vague accusations and witnessless 'crimes' that McCarthyism
requires.
In point of fact, what we're seeing here is anti-intellectualism, which is
nearly as old as the republic and has been a hallmark of the right wing
since time immemorial.
>
>
Martin McPhillips
>
> "Jeffrey C. Dege" <jd...@jdege.visi.com> wrote in message
> news:slrna0a2u9...@jdege.visi.com...
> > On Wed, 28 Nov 2001 14:47:27 GMT, Martin McPhillips <jour...@nyc.rr.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >Deconstructing Deconstructionism
> > >
> > >by Robert Locke
> > >
> > >http://frontpagemag.com/columnists/locke/2001/locke11-28-01.htm
> >
> >
> > --
> > As I understand it, deconstructionism is a form of literary criticism that
> > is intended to demonstrate the fundamental meaninglessness of literature.
> > IMO, what it demonstrates is the fundamental meaninglessness of literary
> > criticism.
>
> Actually, what it clearly demonstrates is the *fundamental* meaninglessness
> of language itself, but there is nothing new about that. Once you accept
> that words are symbols which have no inherent meaning, then language is
> fundamentally meaningless.
Then what you just wrote has no meaning, according to you. It's a
vicious circle of a word out there.
> That does not mean that language has no utility,
> it simply restates the clear truth that any meaning we attach to words is
> something people agree on rather than something inherent in the words
> themselves.
Words refer to things, and words are things themselves, which are
given meaning by the things they refer to, and have a general meaning
of being referrers to things. As such, they mean something, both in
their formal purpose and in the things they refer to.
In other words, they are *not* meaningless. They are full of meaning.
But deconstructionism is not, to correct your original premise, just
about language. Perhaps you're confusing it with semiotics.
> S. I. Hiakawa clearly pointed out that language was a map, and the map is
> not the territory. Deconstructionism is nothing more than a series of
> explicit examples of the social nature of language (i. e. that the meaning
> attached to words is nothing more than the meaning we agree among ourselves
> will be attached to them) and the fact that the reality the words point to
> is much more complicated than the simplified meanings we agree to.
Deconctructionism is nothing more than an attempt to say that reality
itself is a social construct, as if the things that we refer to
are just made up out of whole cloth, and as such could be cut this
way or that so that one day they would be one thing and the next
day something else. The purpose of this effort is to devalue society
as it is so that it may be reconstructed as something else; it's at
this point that deconstructivism refers back to Marx:
from Spectres of Marx, by Jacques Derrida
http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/derrida2.htm
> There isn't any manner in which deconstructionism could be an ideology of
> the political left. It does not lead to any political programs, and in fact
> does nothing to improve the truths of classic liberalism and progressivism.
Not to suggest that the full scope of that paragraph makes any sense
at all, but deconstructionism is, in fact, an outcropping of the Left,
as obscure as it may be.
Gandalf Grey
Martin McPhillips <jour...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3C053161...@nyc.rr.com...
> "Roger R." wrote:
> >
> > "Jeffrey C. Dege" <jd...@jdege.visi.com> wrote in message
> > news:slrna0a2u9...@jdege.visi.com...
> > > On Wed, 28 Nov 2001 14:47:27 GMT, Martin McPhillips
<jour...@nyc.rr.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >Deconstructing Deconstructionism
> > > >
> > > >by Robert Locke
> > > >
> > > >http://frontpagemag.com/columnists/locke/2001/locke11-28-01.htm
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > As I understand it, deconstructionism is a form of literary criticism
that
> > > is intended to demonstrate the fundamental meaninglessness of
literature.
> > > IMO, what it demonstrates is the fundamental meaninglessness of
literary
> > > criticism.
> >
> > Actually, what it clearly demonstrates is the *fundamental*
meaninglessness
> > of language itself, but there is nothing new about that. Once you accept
> > that words are symbols which have no inherent meaning, then language is
> > fundamentally meaningless.
>
> Then what you just wrote has no meaning, according to you. It's a
> vicious circle of a word out there.
More importantly, anything YOU write has no meaning.
Sorry, Martin. No sale. Even if you were right about what deconstruction
IS, your going on to define its PURPOSE as Marxian won't wash.
The fact is that Marxism is effectively dead in America. The only people
intent on keeping it on life support is the hard right in order to obscure
the fact that right wing fascism is most definitely NOT dead.
> > There isn't any manner in which deconstructionism could be an ideology
of
> > the political left. It does not lead to any political programs, and in
fact
> > does nothing to improve the truths of classic liberalism and
progressivism.
>
> Not to suggest that the full scope of that paragraph makes any sense
> at all, but deconstructionism is, in fact, an outcropping of the Left,
> as obscure as it may be.
Because YOU say so? Please.
idleeric
Gandalf Grey wrote in message <9u39io$i8g$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>...
>
>Jeffrey Davis <res0...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>news:3C050DE8...@verizon.net...
>>
>>
>> Martin McPhillips wrote:
>> >
>> > Jeffrey Davis wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Martin McPhillips wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Deconstructing Deconstructionism
>> > > >
>> > > > by Robert Locke
>> > > >
>> > > > http://frontpagemag.com/columnists/locke/2001/locke11-28-01.htm
>> > > >
>> > > > ONE OF THE GREAT ASSETS of the academic left
>> > >
>> > > No. Deconstructionism is not part of the left. It's a pure
>> > > product of the academy. It has no political import at all.
>> >
>> > That's as incoherent a statement as it is false.
>>
>
>Martin and the New McCarthyites NEED to push the belief that EVERYTHING
that
>comes out of the colleges is political and leftist.
>
>That's part of constructing a useful enemy to target with the new
>McCarthyism. The academic world fits that bill for several reasons.
Grey matter Penis Envy: (Big Ten version)
MICHIGAN:
Washtenaw County (University of Michigan/Eastern Michigan University):
Gore: 86,647 Bush: 52,459
Ingham County: (Michigan State University):
Gore: 69,231 Bush: 47,314
OHIO:
Franklin County (Ohio State University)
Gore: 202,018 Bush: 197,862
WISCONSIN:
Dane County (University of Wisconsin):
Gore: 142,317 Bush: 75,790
MINNESOTA:
Hennepin County, City of Minneapolis (University of Minnesota):
Forget it .... Gore BLOWOUT!
IOWA:
Johnson County (University of Iowa):
Gore: 31,174 Bush: 17,899
ILLINOIS:
Champaign County (University of Illinois):
Gore: 35515 Bush: 34645
Cook County (Northwestern University):
Gore: 1280547 Bush: 534542
INDIANA: surprise! Bush wins two!
Monroe County (indiana University):
Bush: 19,147 Gore: 17,523
Tippecanoe County (Purdue University):
Bush: 26,106 Gore: 18,220
:
Gandalf Grey
idleeric <std...@mich.com> wrote in message
news:9u3f21$gkr$1...@news.bignet.net...
>
>
>
> Gandalf Grey wrote in message <9u39io$i8g$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>...
> >
> >Jeffrey Davis <res0...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> >news:3C050DE8...@verizon.net...
> >>
> >>
> >> Martin McPhillips wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Jeffrey Davis wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > Martin McPhillips wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Deconstructing Deconstructionism
> >> > > >
> >> > > > by Robert Locke
> >> > > >
> >> > > > http://frontpagemag.com/columnists/locke/2001/locke11-28-01.htm
> >> > > >
> >> > > > ONE OF THE GREAT ASSETS of the academic left
> >> > >
> >> > > No. Deconstructionism is not part of the left. It's a pure
> >> > > product of the academy. It has no political import at all.
> >> >
> >> > That's as incoherent a statement as it is false.
> >>
> >
> >Martin and the New McCarthyites NEED to push the belief that EVERYTHING
> that
> >comes out of the colleges is political and leftist.
> >
> >That's part of constructing a useful enemy to target with the new
> >McCarthyism. The academic world fits that bill for several reasons.
>
>
> Grey matter Penis Envy: (Big Ten version)
LOL. George is the perfect representative of the right. He doesn't know
and he doesn't want to know.
rachael owlglass
says...
> Jeffrey Davis wrote:
> >
> > Martin McPhillips wrote:
> > >
> > > Deconstructing Deconstructionism
> > >
> > > by Robert Locke
> > >
> > > http://frontpagemag.com/columnists/locke/2001/locke11-28-01.htm
> > >
> > > ONE OF THE GREAT ASSETS of the academic left
> >
> > No. Deconstructionism is not part of the left. It's a pure
> > product of the academy. It has no political import at all.
>
> That's as incoherent a statement as it is false.
>
> First of all, how could there be a contradiction between
> something being a "product of the academy" and a) being
> a "part of the left" or b) having "political import?"
This is a great example of deconstructionist thought, and also a
great demonstration of why it doesn't work well.
===
Deconstructionists play down the logical or descriptive value of
statements in favor of their social connotations. This works with
some limited texts (like literature, religion, and some
Archeologically valuable text), but it doesn't work anywhere that
text makes a fundamentally logical declaration.
Denouncing Deconstruction is like denouncing evolution or plate
tectonics or global warming, or even hammers and cycles. These
things by themselves are very useful tools that anyone can use to
accomplish specialized goals. By themselves, they have no
political meaning. They might receive social meaning from the
communities that use them and the history they become a part of,
but their primary purposes are not changed.
Looks like you're practicing witchhunting without a license.
Contact the Republican National Committee -- they'll be glad to
sell you one for a thousand bucks or so.
rachael owlglass
rachael owlglass
says...
Great response.
I put it another way: For twenty years, the GOP, Rush Limbaugh
and several large media corporations have overwhelmed the
meanings of the words we use to discuss politics in America.
For instance, they have given words like "Liberal" new
emotionally charged definitions that no one could possibly
identify with. This isolates Liberalism as a political strategy,
because people cease considering it without even knowing it.
The GOP got away with this, partly because the Democratic Party
has been in a coma since the mid 70s. Any old thing you do will
hold the battlefield for you, if your opponent won't fight.
So the GOP wins, but that doesn't change anything in the end. If
they don't understand how Economics works, they will cause a
recession (and they have, three times since 1980). If they don't
understand how social institutions like the Family and Work
interact, then they will institute welfare rules that don't solve
family problems and generate more broken families than would
otherwise occur from recessions (and they have). In the end, GOP
stands on issues won't help them, because vilification can't
replace reality.
rachael owlglass
rachael owlglass
says...
You don't know anything about deconstructionism, do you?
You've vilified something you know nothing about, haven't you?
Is this the way the Loonitarian GOP handles political issues?
rachael owlglass
rachael owlglass
says...
> "Jeffrey C. Dege" wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 28 Nov 2001 14:47:27 GMT, Martin McPhillips <jour...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >Deconstructing Deconstructionism
> > >
> > >by Robert Locke
> > >
> > >http://frontpagemag.com/columnists/locke/2001/locke11-28-01.htm
> >
> > As I understand it, deconstructionism is a form of literary criticism that
> > is intended to demonstrate the fundamental meaninglessness of literature.
> > IMO, what it demonstrates is the fundamental meaninglessness of literary
> > criticism.
>
> Your understanding is incorrect. Deconstructionism is not just a form of
> literary criticism. Click on the url *above* and read Locke's article, which
> is really pretty good. And then, if you have the stomach for it, try
> this delightful excerpt from one of the leading deconstructionists,
> Jacques Derrida--
Deconstructionism is a form of Philosophical Analysis that is
used to examine texts, including literary texts, for
philosophical concepts. There are lots of forms of literary
criticism, and Deconstructionism isn't useful for most of these
forms.
Deconstructionist scholars can't even agree on what the technique
is, or how it should be used. It is foolish to denounce them,
because they haven't even taken a consistant stand on what
they're doing.
This all sounds silly, until you realize that all Scientists
examine new phenomena in this way: They collect information about
something they don't understand to understand it, and to see if
it is useful. This is also how linguists, semanticists,
sociologists and anthropologists approach deconstruction, and
it's perfectly acceptable for them to disagree about its
usefulness.
Vilification is a deconstructionist concept. Your posts are a
great example.
rachael owlglass
Gandalf Grey
rachael owlglass <rac...@pyncheon.edu> wrote in message
news:MPG.166ede82...@ca.news.verio.net...
Martin is the net's premier McCarthyite. He's been posting charming little
Fatwas like this since the day the WTC came down, building a platform of
McCarthyism on the dead bodies of thousands of innocent American citizens.
He loves poorly understood terms like deconstructionism because It's easy to
revise the meaning of an uncommon term. He tried to pull the same routine
with "moral equivalence" until being soundly rebutted.
Intellectually, Martin is a snake. He has no interest in truth or facts,
hence he chooses the mostly poorly understood concepts he can find and lies
about their definitions.
All in all he's a classic template of the modern right wing hack.
>
>
> rachael owlglass
>
>
Martin McPhillips
Needless to say, you haven't a clue as to what you are talking
about. You don't do a particularly good job of faking it.
Here are some "great examples" of deconstructionism--
from Spectres of Marx, by Jacques Derrida
http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/derrida2.htm
The Archaeology of Knowledge, by Michel Foucault
http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/foucault.htm
And, of course, there's the classic parody, authored by a more orthodox
Leftist, Alan Sokal (a physicist at NYU), who was pissed that deconstructivism
was the emerging trend on the Left, and published readily by Stanley Aronowitz
(an old-line Leftist who decided to get hip), and who did not know it was a
parody,
in his journal Social Text. It's quite a riot--
Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermaneutics of
Quantum Gravity
http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/transgress_v2/transgress_v2_singlefile.html
And here's an account of The Sokal Affair in Salon--
Transgressing the Transgressors: Towards a Transformative Hermaneutics of
Total Bullshit
http://www.salon.com/media/media960517.html
Gandalf Grey
An excellent example of Martin's entire debate technique.
Harold McBoingBoing
I find it interesting that the right could (and does) say EXACTLY the same
thing about the left, with just a few substitutions of events and names. And
I would beg to differ with your statement that the right has caused three
recessions since 1980. Reagan inherited a hellish mess from Jimmy Carter (A
Democrat, remember?) with inflation rates of around %20 and unemployment
dizzily high. He managed to turn it around within four years, which is
pretty amazing in an economic time frame. But it was NOT arecession that he
created. Bush I's problems started when he believed the Democrats who
insisted that if he raised taxes, it would ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY, CROSS MY
HEART AND HOPE TO DIE go to relieve the deficit. NONE of the tax increase
went to the deficit, and the Democrats were able to blame Bush for the
recession that resulted. As a side note, when Clinton took office, the
economy was already growing at over %4 per year, and had been for quite a
while, but jobs and consumer spending, as in any economic downturn or
upturn, were the last to fall into place. Clinton was one lucky man to walk
into a situation where the recovery hadn't reached the consumer yet, but
would within months of his inauguration. Once again, it is not possible for
a president to turn san economy around in two or three months. Let us also
note that Clinton's tax hikes cut the economic growth roughly in half (%2+),
where it stayed until the Republicans took over the Congress and dragged
Clinton and the Democrats kicking and screaming into a balanced budget. And
no matter how much you repeat the malarky of Mr. Talks-through-His-Ass
(Terry MacAuliffe), about the current recession, the downturn began in March
of 2000, and no amount of "deconstructionism" can change the facts. The
bottom was falling out of the markets, AND corporate profits were nose
diving before the election even took place. Manufacturing inventories were
also rising alarmingly. Because you are so economically inclined, I guess I
don't have to point out to you that these are indicators of what to expect
about six months down the road. And they weren't GOOD indicators, by any
reading. The fact that it took six months to a year for the consumer
reaction to follow is historically normal. To blame this on a president who
wasn't even in office when the turnaround occurred is ludicrous. I would
have to venture that YOU are the one who doesn't understand how economics
work, or the time frames that are involved in changing the momentum of an
economy. Without the events of 9/11, we would be on track to a recovery
before the end of the year. As it looks now, it will take a little
longer.Your comments about the right's not "understanding" how the Family
and Work interact are HILARIOUS! After forty years of liberal "no strings
attached" welfare destroying families, neighborhoods, and young lives, you
have the chutzpah to turn around and try and blame the Republicans? Who are
you - Gandalf's wife?
>
>
Jeffrey Davis
I just thought I'd point out that the economy grew faster in
the 2nd half of 2000 and that The Other Harold has pointed
out that consumer spending still hasn't declined. In fact,
it's fairly strongly above last year this time.
The downturn in the stock market is simply a downturn in the
stock market: dot coms and tech stocks were inflated due to
a bubble and it's a Good Thing that their valuations are
more in line with reality. When the bottom really fell out
of the market (i.e. Reagan's Black Monday), the stock
market's effect on the economy at large was essentially zip.
I like your preaching that begins "Without the events of
9/11"
Most posters from the Right protest that W's policies can't
have any bearing on the recession since we're still
operating under Clinton's budget. So, which is it? Is the
recovery Clinton's or W's?
Harold McBoingBoing
Clinton's???? It is actually probably neither one of them. The economy
performed a giant brain fart as a correction to hugely over inflated
markets. Clinton did absolutely nothing about the economy, even though all
indications that a problem was looming were there in the summer of 2000. In
fairness, I don't know what ANYBODY could have done to stop the correction
that we are experiencing, except for maybe Greenspan. His raising of the
interest rates in May of 2000 is something that nobody seems to understand.
Bush has made an effort to minimize the damage, but the Congress turned his
recovery plan into a vote buying joke. Daschle is now trying to sabotage any
recovery by spending as much as he possibly can, and keeping business
hampered by tieing up investment money through taxes. Daschle is desperately
trying to keep the economy down until the 2002 elections so that the
Democrats can use it to hammer the Republicans. He is a self centered worm,
who will not allow anything that might benefit Republicans to come to a vote
on the Senate floor. His goal is not the betterment of America, but the
betterment of the Democratic party. What a truly great American!
Roger R.
"Harold McBoingBoing" <libs@rebims> wrote in message
news:9u4452$47o$0...@pita.alt.net...
>
> "rachael owlglass" <rac...@pyncheon.edu> wrote in message
> news:MPG.166eda692...@ca.news.verio.net...
> > In article <9u339i$9tv$1...@news.bignet.net>, std...@mich.com
> > says...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Martin McPhillips wrote in message <3C050E65...@nyc.rr.com>...
> > > >Jeffrey Davis wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Martin McPhillips wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Jeffrey Davis wrote:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Martin McPhillips wrote:
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Deconstructing Deconstructionism
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > by Robert Locke
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
http://frontpagemag.com/columnists/locke/2001/locke11-28-01.htm
> > > >> > > >
> >
An inflation inherited by Jimmy Carter. Remember the Republican
administration that issued the Whip Inflation Now (WIN) buttons just prior
to Jimmy Carter? And Nixon who froze wages? Actually, it was Jimmy Carter
who finally stopped inflation when in 1979 he appointed Paul Volker as chair
of the Federal Reserve. Reagan simply gets the credit because he was in
office.
>He managed to turn it around within four years, which is
> pretty amazing in an economic time frame. But it was NOT arecession that
he
> created. Bush I's problems started when he believed the Democrats who
> insisted that if he raised taxes, it would ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY, CROSS
MY
> HEART AND HOPE TO DIE go to relieve the deficit. NONE of the tax increase
> went to the deficit, and the Democrats were able to blame Bush for the
> recession that resulted.
The real problem under Bush 41 was that he was not consistent about keeping
expenditures within revenues himself. He had no program for control of
inflation and the deficit, and no liklihood that the congress would go along
with anything he did offer. He certainly never had a record of working with
congress for much of anything. The result was that the long-term
uncertainties kept investors from making long-term investments.
Clinton, to his credit, listend to Alan Greenspan and raised taxes to cover
expenditures, finally geting control of the deficits. The party-line vote to
raise taxes clealry showed investors that the deficit reduction was serious,
so they began to take risks a little further out in time.
>As a side note, when Clinton took office, the
> economy was already growing at over %4 per year, and had been for quite a
> while, but jobs and consumer spending, as in any economic downturn or
> upturn, were the last to fall into place. Clinton was one lucky man to
walk
> into a situation where the recovery hadn't reached the consumer yet, but
> would within months of his inauguration. Once again, it is not possible
for
> a president to turn an economy around in two or three months. Let us also
> note that Clinton's tax hikes cut the economic growth roughly in half
(%2+),
> where it stayed until the Republicans took over the Congress and dragged
> Clinton and the Democrats kicking and screaming into a balanced budget.
Which could never have been done without the tax increase that the
Republicans fought tooth and nail.
>And
> no matter how much you repeat the malarky of Mr. Talks-through-His-Ass
> (Terry MacAuliffe), about the current recession, the downturn began in
March
> of 2000, and no amount of "deconstructionism" can change the facts. The
> bottom was falling out of the markets, AND corporate profits were nose
> diving before the election even took place.
Much of which was a direct result of the increasing liklihood that Bush 43
might be elected President together with his talk about the coming
recession, which hadn't been apparent before he was talking about it.
Companies invest money for the future based on what they believe the future
will bring. The first problem was that the economic expansion had gone on so
long theat everyone was waiting for the other shoe to drop. The second was
that the Federal REserve sharply increased interest rates to help the world
economy recover from the Asian financial problems. Then Bush started talking
the economy down. There probably would have been a slowdown anyway, but Bush
certainly made it worse.
To top it off, the Bush tax cut proposals clearly established that the days
of deficit elimination were over and inflation was likely again.
>Manufacturing inventories were
> also rising alarmingly. Because you are so economically inclined, I guess
I
> don't have to point out to you that these are indicators of what to expect
> about six months down the road. And they weren't GOOD indicators, by any
> reading. The fact that it took six months to a year for the consumer
> reaction to follow is historically normal. To blame this on a president
who
> wasn't even in office when the turnaround occurred is ludicrous.
You are ignoring the extent to which bush worked to talk the economy down.
That had an effect.
chris.holt
...
> ... The economy
> performed a giant brain fart as a correction to hugely over inflated
> markets. Clinton did absolutely nothing about the economy, even though all
> indications that a problem was looming were there in the summer of 2000. In
> fairness, I don't know what ANYBODY could have done to stop the correction
> that we are experiencing, except for maybe Greenspan. His raising of the
> interest rates in May of 2000 is something that nobody seems to understand.
Eh? It was perfectly clear; the US economy was growing at an
unsustainable rate, the stock market was over-valued, the trade
deficit and personal and corporate debt were far too high...
He wanted to bring some sanity to the economy by reducing GDP
increases to a sustainable level; and this is what happened in
the latter half of 2000. Unfortunately, the imbalance was so
severe that the hoped-for soft landing wasn't as soft as we
would like.
> Bush has made an effort to minimize the damage, but the Congress turned his
> recovery plan into a vote buying joke.
Bush's efforts were a joke. If he'd really been interested
in minimizing the damage, he would have pumped money into
those sectors of the economy with high money velocity; instead,
he gave it to low velocity areas, significantly reducing the
"bang for the buck".
> Daschle is now trying to sabotage any
> recovery by spending as much as he possibly can, and keeping business
> hampered by tieing up investment money through taxes.
Daschle is trying to get money spent in places where it'll have
a more immediate effect, rather than a 2-year time delay. Why
should Bush want to stimulate the economy that far away? Well,
we can but guess.
> Daschle is desperately
> trying to keep the economy down until the 2002 elections so that the
> Democrats can use it to hammer the Republicans. He is a self centered worm,
> who will not allow anything that might benefit Republicans to come to a vote
> on the Senate floor. His goal is not the betterment of America, but the
> betterment of the Democratic party. What a truly great American!
Is it better to spend lots of money on a ten year stimulus plan,
followed by something that will take effect in a couple of years,
or to spend money stimulating the economy while it's actually in
a recession? You seem to favour the former.
--
chris...@ncl.ac.uk http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/chris.holt/
Roger R.
"chris.holt" <chris...@ncl.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:3C066351...@ncl.ac.uk...
The question I have is why do the Republicans want to give federal money to
the investors when there is no anticipation of additional demand for them to
invest for? Short term interest rates are already so low that any business
with a reasonable anticipation of demand for their product can get the money
to produce it. Those with no anticipated demand will either bank it or pay
off debt. With interest rates so low, banking it gets no additional
investment money out there.
So a company gets a refund of the last 15 years worth of alternative minimum
tax, but anticipates no increase in demand. Are they going to hire anyone
additional? Of course not. They will hold it until there is some reason for
the economy to turn around.
Extend payments of unemployment benefits and assist in paying for health
insurance - the foreclosures will be reduced and the use of health services
will remain at a higher level.
Jeffrey Davis
I find your mock ironic "Clinton's????" to be a refreshing
reminder. Certain things are just "true" for you guys.
(Several of the following are not from your post but from
the Many Headed Hydra of the net) For example, nothing
Clinton could do would have any good at all. And everything
has an effect except pumping CO2 into the atmosphere which
has no effect. 3 Republican investigations into Vince
Foster's suicide proves that Clinton murdered Foster. Ruby
Ridge was an example of Janet Reno's perfidy. The recession
couldn't be W's fault, but the recovery must be to W's
credit. W getting cleared of insider trading by an
investigator appointed by his dad is hunky-dory. W selling
Texas office buildings to his former partners on no-bid
contracts is politics Mother Teresa would be proud of.
Foreign countries bailing out W -- a consistent money loser
in the oil drilling business -- while his Dad was president
is just business as usual. Enough of my ranting.
You mention Greenspan's raising of the interest rates in May
of 2000. He, in fact, raise interest rates several times in
his snark hunt for inflation. If there's an apple pie of
blame for the current slowdown I'd put most of the pie on
the plate of popping the tech bubble and the consequent
drying up of investment capital and the bulk of the rest on
Mr. Genius.
As for your praise of Bush's recovery plan: it was a joke. A
huge amount of the 1.6 trillion dollar tax cut consisted of
changes in the laws on inheritance taxes. Lots of W's
backers are feeling the chill hand of Death groping on their
spines, and some mega-trillions in assets are getting a
generational shift real soon now. (That's a stimulus package
that Marx and Engels would slaver over.) W's 9/11 "inspired"
stimulus is largely his first round of stuff that Congress
wouldn't touch originally. If at first you don't succeed,
try try again. New factories and equipment in fact aren't
needed. There's a large surplus of manufacturing capacity
right now. There are deflationary pressures driving down
prices. Excess inventories. I suspect that the confluence of
forces at play here (world wide recession, deflation, an oil
glut(!), excess manufacturing capacity, decent un-employment
figures) aren't covered in the standard econ texts with any
great certainty. Drop a war into the mix and katy bar the
door. It's all guesswork.
GDWepoche
>Chomskey has challenged deconstructionists to come up with
>something politically useful in all of their blather. So
>far, nothing has emerged but blather. If a leftist like
>Chomskey mocks deconstructionists about their alleged
>politics, that's good enough for me.
>
I hate to think Chomsky finds "politically useful", short of arming Palestinian
suicide squads with suitcase nukes. But his mockery is not good enough for me.
I'm not going to salvage something as stupid as Deconstructionism just because
even a flake like Chomsky doesn't fall for it.
>Politics generally is about the nitty gritty of getting
>things done.
Well, that settles that. By that definition, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS
LEFT-WING POLITICS, PERIOD!
rachael owlglass
the Hell do you think that relates to me?
owl
rachael owlglass
> > >
> > >Deconstructing Deconstructionism
> > >
> > >by Robert Locke
> > >
> > >http://frontpagemag.com/columnists/locke/2001/locke11-28-01.htm
> >
> > is intended to demonstrate the fundamental meaninglessness of literature.
> > IMO, what it demonstrates is the fundamental meaninglessness of literary
> > criticism.
>
> Your understanding is incorrect. Deconstructionism is not just a form of
> literary criticism. Click on the url *above* and read Locke's article, which
> is really pretty good. And then, if you have the stomach for it, try
> this delightful excerpt from one of the leading deconstructionists,
> Jacques Derrida--
>
What does Deconstructionism have to do with politics?
owl
rachael owlglass
says...
Hum. This doesn't look like Deconstruction to me, but oh well.
The US Recession was engineered by Republicans so rich people
could buy stuff at good prices and maneuver their companies into
larger market shares that they wouldn't otherwise have earned.
Recessions allow rich people to gain wealth from less rich people
without having to go to the trouble to earn it.
The Stock Market doesn't determine as much as it used to. It
needed to correct itself, but its correction didn't have to bring
down much of the US Economy in the process. The whole thing is a
gladiator show where the Emperor (Shrub) throws employees to the
lions for the amusement of rich folks in the stands.
owl
rachael owlglass
says...
So what does Deconstructionism have to do with politics?
owl
GDWepoche
>The "left" is merely a social construct of the Looniac Right ..... it
>doesn't exist.
Wow, that was handy. Do you have a magic formula that will make the actual
"leftists" disappear?
GDWepoche
>For instance, they have given words like "Liberal" new
>emotionally charged definitions that no one could possibly
>identify with.
This is not true. "Liberalism" has been twisted into new meanings, but not by
Rush Limbaugh or any "large media corporation." The present meaning dates from
the immediate post-Kennedy period of Humphrey and Johnson --- and it wasn't any
conservative who made it a dirty word, it was the New Left.
Democrats have discredited the term as much as Republicans have, by continually
trying to dodge it.
My favorite all-time Freudian slip (from the late John Kennedy Jr. at a Dem
National Convention):
REPORTER: Do you think the Democratic party has moved too far to the left?
JFK JR: Well, I think we need to get away from all these liberals --- I mean,
LABELS.
>The GOP got away with this, partly because the Democratic Party
>has been in a coma since the mid 70s.
No, this is a misdiagnosis. The Democratic party was ripped in half in the
60's, when the party establishment was assualted by the New Left (who damaged
the Democratic Party far more than they ever hurt Richard Nixon).
The trouble continues because both sides in this quarrel (the anti-everything
left on the one hand, and big government liberals on the other) are almost
equally unpopular. You point to the mid-70s, but this is actually when the Dems
recovered a bit, thanks to Jimmy Carter who ran for president as an "outsider",
a political moderate, a social conservative, and a Born-Again Christian. He
got elected president. Likewise, Bill Clinton posed as a "New Democrat"
opposed to big government and far-out leftism (in other words, neither a
Humphrey nor a McGovern).
>In the end, GOP
>stands on issues won't help them, because vilification can't
>replace reality.
If you mean that empty Decon notions like "vilification" can't replace reality,
you're right. If you mean that the "reality" is that people want more
government and more leftism, you're dead wrong.
GDWepoche
>Most posters from the Right protest that W's policies can't
>have any bearing on the recession since we're still
>operating under Clinton's budget. So, which is it? Is the
>recovery Clinton's or W's?
An easy question for a change. Neither the boom, nor the recession, nor the
recovery belongs to EITHER ONE OF THEM. The idea that the President gives us
the economy (in the same manner that primitive agricultural deities gave us
good or bad crops) is truly a "social construct" that needs to be
deconstructed, permanently.
GDWepoche
>Hum. This doesn't look like Deconstruction to me, but oh well.
>
>The US Recession was engineered by Republicans so rich people
Uh, no offense, but I think you should stick to Deconstructionism.
GDWepoche
>It's far enough removed from the lunch-bucket world to be at least a little
>alien to the average citizen. Demogogues like Martin can accuse academics
>of building bombs as part of their class curriculum and get away with it ...
You're hysterical. The problem is that SOME persons in the academy (mainly in
the "Humanities") are so far removed from what you call "the lunch-bucket
world" as to be on a different planet. This is easily established simply by
QUOTING the individuals in question --- not by accusing anyone of building
bombs.
When this is pointed out, the heavens are shaken by wails of "McCarthyism".
Sorry, but we live in a democratic republic, and free speech works both ways,
Buckaroo. If you pride yourself in radical critiques, you'd better be prepared
for a little criticism yourself. By using "McCarthyism" as an all-purpose
shield, the campus left has managed to protect itself so well that it is now an
infantile ideology locked up safely in its own womb.
GDWepoche
>Deconstructionist scholars can't even agree on what the technique
>is, or how it should be used. It is foolish to denounce them,
>because they haven't even taken a consistant stand on what
>they're doing.
Well, nobody wants to run them over with a tank just because the poor folks are
CONFUSED. But nobody particularly wants to listen to them, either.
GDWepoche
>There isn't any manner in which deconstructionism could be an ideology of
>the political left. It does not lead to any political programs, and in fact
>does nothing to improve the truths of classic liberalism and progressivism.
Who ever said that the political left (in general) had any interest in the
truths of classic liberalism? As for "progressivism", IMO they gave up rights
to that term in the 60s.
GDWepoche
>In point of fact, what we're seeing here is anti-intellectualism, which is
>nearly as old as the republic and has been a hallmark of the right wing
>since time immemorial.
>
You've got the right accusation, against the wrong target. It is precisely the
vulgar way in which "Deconstructionism" is used to dispose of logic and fact
that is anti-intellectual --- and you better believe that it's not just "the
right wing" that thinks so. You can rightly say that those who use Decon in
this manner misunderstand it or misuse it --- but they're doing it all the
same, and for purposes that are undeniably "anti-intellectual". Or haven't you
heard that the very idea of individual "intellect" is just another invention of
Western Civilization (aka, the Giant Racist Penis Conspiracy)?
Gandalf Grey
GDWepoche <gdwe...@aol.comanche> wrote in message
news:20011130234831...@mb-mu.aol.com...
> Gandalf on the "academy":
> >It's far enough removed from the lunch-bucket world to be at least a
little
> >alien to the average citizen. Demogogues like Martin can accuse
academics
> >of building bombs as part of their class curriculum and get away with it
...
>
> You're hysterical.
You're a moron.
> The problem is that SOME persons in the academy (mainly in
> the "Humanities") are so far removed from what you call "the lunch-bucket
> world" as to be on a different planet. This is easily established simply
by
> QUOTING the individuals in question --- not by accusing anyone of building
> bombs.
What's your point, you idiot? That you can't understand the big bad
professors? We're willing to stipulate on that one.
>
> When this is pointed out, the heavens are shaken by wails of
"McCarthyism".
Sorry, medieval boy, but it's more like whenever anyone on a college campus
goes beyond quoting Thomas Hobbes, McCarthyites like you and McPhillips
break into chants of "FIFTH COLUMN"
Go back to square one and try again.
Scott D. Erb
Perhaps the most disgustingly dishonest thing I've seen from
right wing propagandists is the attempt to try to say that
deconstructionism and post-modernism is a common leftist ideal.
It is not. Deconstructionism has hardly touched fields like
American and comparative politics, and despite a brief marginal
growth in the eighties, has fallen out of favor in international
relations. It has a place in lit crit and art, but is hardly
something that defines the left. I think some on the right find
a few really radical authors and then try to claim they are
indicative of the "left" and liberals in general. That is
absolutely absurd.
Sigh. I really don't have time to debate these things, I'm on a
deadline so I'll end it at that. Don't believe claims the right
makes about what the left does in academia, don't take quotes
they give from some free thinking extremists as indicative of
what goes on in academia. Most scholars are pragmatic, moderate,
and take seriously the idea that education requires understanding
of different perspectives, and not programming or indoctrination
into one way of thinking. The right wants to use 'post
modernism' as some kind of bogey man to claim the left wants a
nihilistic value free society. That is utterly bullcrap,
completely dishonest, and Goebbeleseque in its level of
propaganda.
See you all next year, I gotta write me a book!
GDWepoche
>So what does deconstructionism have to do with politics? And how
>the Hell do you think that relates to me?
You can't be serious. Decon is, in practice, loaded to the gunwales with
political freight. Its primary practitioners are radical feminists, but
includes anyone who uses it in an attempt to make the past several decades look
less dismal for the political left.
Does it have to be political IN THEORY? I'll leave that one alone, except to
say that a lot of people think so, including some of Decon's own disciples.
GDWepoche
>Denouncing Deconstruction is like denouncing evolution or plate
>tectonics or global warming, or even hammers and cycles. These
>things by themselves are very useful tools that anyone can use to
>accomplish specialized goals. By themselves, they have no
>political meaning.
Considered by itself, NOTHING HAS POLITICAL MEANING UNTIL SOMEONE GIVES IT ONE.
Atmospheric data has no political import in itself, yet it's at the center of
prominent debate. And Decon has no such empirical authority. It is used
precisely to "discover" (or inject) politicism everywhere.
John D.
"Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3C086677...@worldnet.att.net...
> OK, before leaving I'll give one reply...
Why?
GDWepoche
>You're a moron.
Pay attention, everybody. This is that advanced debate technique that's he's
always lecturing us about.
>What's your point, you idiot? That you can't understand the big bad
>professors?
My point can be demonstrated by the following procedure: Identify the nouns
and verbs in the sentence, being careful to distinguish between the nouns that
are performing the action of the verb (subjects) and those nouns that are being
acted upon (objects). Proper correlation of these will reveal the meaning of
the sentence. Knowledge of Deconstructionism is not required.
Alternatively, get your little sister to explain it to you.
Remember to always wear a helmet and a safety restraint-harness when reading my
posts.
>Sorry, medieval boy ...
"Medieval boy?" You've mistaken me for my side-kick, O Myopic One. I'm
"Renaissance Man"!
>... but it's more like whenever anyone on a college campus
>goes beyond quoting Thomas Hobbes ...
Thomas Hobbes? I'd say that your experience of viewpoints outside of your own
narrow ideological niche has been "Solitary, Poor, Nasty, Brutish, and Short."
>McCarthyites like you ...
When did I accuse you of being a Communist agent? I don't remember paying you
any such compliment. The Communists were pretty picky about who they employed
as agents. You're no Whittaker Chambers, Gandalf.
>and McPhillips ...
If Martin McPhillips thinks you're KGB material, he can defend that viewpoint
himself. I'll have no part of it.
>break into chants of "FIFTH COLUMN"
Once again, the bloated ego of the left rolls into view, like a ridiculously
over-stuffed parade float. The professors I spoke of lack both the discipline
and the efficacy of a reasonable "Fifth Column". They are not competent to
overthrow anything more formidable than a Tenure Committee.
>Go back to square one and try again.
Just keep giving me lumber for my insatiable mill. Clear-cut your brain and
ship it my way, Gandalf.
Gandalf Grey
GDWepoche <gdwe...@aol.comanche> wrote in message
> Gandalf drops his H-Bomb:
> >You're a moron.
>
> Pay attention, everybody. This is that advanced debate technique that's
he's
> always lecturing us about.
>
> >What's your point, you idiot? That you can't understand the big bad
> >professors?
>
> My point can be demonstrated by the following procedure: Identify the
nouns
> and verbs in the sentence, being careful to distinguish between the nouns
that
> are performing the action of the verb (subjects) and those nouns that are
being
> acted upon (objects). Proper correlation of these will reveal the meaning
of
> the sentence. Knowledge of Deconstructionism is not required.
Neither are any of your posts, genius.
John H. McCloskey
because some undeconstructed Erb happens to be in a hurry?
Is this seriousness, newgroupies?
Is "Deconstructionism" automatically nonsense because an individual Erb doesn't
understand or sympathize with?
I kinda don't think.
Happy days
--JHM
GDWepoche
>Neither are any of your posts, genius.
Your heart's not in it any more, Gandalf. You're beginning to suspect that
America the Beautiful is not such a terrifying and shadowy place as you were
wont to suppose. Don't fight those feelings of hope and contentment.
King Pineapple
> You're hysterical. The problem is that SOME persons in the academy
(mainly in
> the "Humanities") are so far removed from what you call "the lunch-bucket
> world" as to be on a different planet.
If you want a prime example of this, look at that famous USA Today "map" of
how America voted. Here in New Hampshire, for instance, the closer and
closer you get to Dartmouth College, the more blue you see. But the state
actually went to Gore's opponent.
Martin McPhillips
"Deconstructionism...is based on the proposition
that the apparently real world is in fact a vast social
construct and that the way to knowledge lies in
taking apart in one’s mind this thing society has
built. Taken to its logical conclusion, it supposes
that there is at the end of the day no actual reality,
just a series of appearances stitched together by
social constructs into what we all agree to call reality.
But not agree voluntarily, for society has (this is the
leftist bit) an oppressive structure, so we are pressured
to agree to that version of reality which pleases the
people in charge."*
Who does that sound like, Scott?
It wouldn't be you, would it?
*Robert Locke, "Deconstructing Deconstructionism"
http://frontpagemag.com/columnists/locke/2001/locke11-28-01.htm
Scott D. Erb
Fair enough (I really don't want to get sucked into these debates
since they can take time, but your response deserves a response).
Back in graduate school I encountered a
deconstructionist/post-modernist scholar, a brilliant man, from
whom I learned a lot. However, in applying the ideas of
post-modern art and literary criticism to International Relations
it simply didn't work for most of the questions and issues asked
by critical scholars. That weakness has lead most in the field
of international relations theory (which is where
deconstructionism was strongest in poli-sci, save perhaps radical
feminist theory) away from that approach.
The 'battle' I witnessed in grad school was between
constructivists who attacked post-modern deconstructivism on the
grounds that deconstructing everything leads us into a nihilistic
spiral of interesting critical thought, but provides no solid
foundation upon which to deal with the real issues of people
dying, starving, having wars, having economic problems, etc.
Simply, it can be brilliant and useful in some ways, but isn't
useful in dealing with some real problems in and of itself.
Constructivist scholars took a scientific realist approach (some
scientific pragmatism) to find a 'via media' between the kind of
approach post-modernists took, arguing that deconstructionist
methods might be useful to critique and analyze a discourse, but
that societies are socially constructed in a real world, and
these processes can be understood, studied scientifically, and
used to come up with practical explanations and prescriptions
about real-world problems.
Constructivism was embraced by a number of mainstream scholars
who said, as it made the useful and intriguing aspects of
post-modernism understandable without ditching science or giving
into a nihilistic spiral. Post-modernists remain extremely
critical of constructivism (I read a brilliant peace by Maja
Zehfuss, for instance, attacking constructivisms slipping in of a
universal idea of identity which she argues ultimately undermines
the project -- focusing on Alexander Wendt's 'social theory of
international relations) because it accepts science as a
legitimate method of inquiry into political behavior, and rejects
the claim that everything is discourse with no grounding.
Constructivism, as a via media, veers between approaches very
close to mainstream neo-liberal institutionalism or neo-realism
(I think Jeffrey Checkel is in that category) to ones that are
much more sympathetic to post-modernist critiques. My own
approach looks at constructivism as a way to understand how
political culture shapes the way leaders (and elites) understand
the world and impacts their definition of national interest and
the legitimate and proper policy alternatives. For me its more a
method to approach a question (the impact of culture and beliefs
on policy) that is very mainstream. My approach does not at all
sit well with the post-modernist crowd (the professor I mentioned
above gave me the first grade I had in grad school and sniffed
'he's not critical enough' when asked why -- I was too mainstream
for his tastes). Still, you are absolutely right to call me on
the carpet for being too hastily dismissive of an intellectual
approach. I was just irritated by the Goebbelsesque rhetoric
used by some of the dishonest ones on the far right to label
everything to the left as 'nihilistic' or 'deconstructivist,' as
they: 1) have no clue just what the whole mode of inquiry is
about, they use it as a straw man to attack others politically;
and 2) that approach doesn't even come close to describing the
'left' in general, either politically or academically.
Still, the post-modern scholars out there are usually brilliant
and although I ultimately disagree with where they take inquiry
in political science, their work is interesting and worth while
to consider.
Martin McPhillips
>
> rachael owlglass wrote:
> >For instance, they have given words like "Liberal" new
> >emotionally charged definitions that no one could possibly
> >identify with.
>
> This is not true. "Liberalism" has been twisted into new meanings, but not by
> Rush Limbaugh or any "large media corporation." The present meaning dates from
> the immediate post-Kennedy period of Humphrey and Johnson --- and it wasn't any
> conservative who made it a dirty word, it was the New Left.
I wouldn't make the distinction like that, as a post-Kennedy phenomenon.
Working backwards, the New Left was able to exert effective control over
the Democratic Party's ideological agenda after '72 (radical feminism,
identity politics, Church committee--which was effectively anti-Cold
War or anti-anti-Communism, pro-Sandinista, etc.). It's
always good to remember that the party as a whole is a coalition, but
you can see now how the ideology has shaped not just the coalition but
the members of the coalition: hysterical feminists sounding alarums
about the ever-endangered "right to choose," hysterical environmentalists
endlessly wringing their hands about the terrors of global warming,
blacks trumpeting racism and oppression and in the far-off bleachers
demanding reparations, frightened seniors by the busload showing up
at the polls to defend "assaults" on their social security and medicare,
beleagured
labor unions, radical gays who pretend that they're all the next
Matthew Shepard, and suburban women who "relate to all that" and
buy into the idea that the problem with the local schools is that
they aren't getting enough federal money. (How Republicans lose
elections to this agglutination is a hallmark of their own
ineptitude.)
Before '72 the Democratic Party was still basically the old
FDR coalition of Southern segregationists (despite LBJ's moves
on civil rights), Northern industrial centers, a portion of
the farm states *and* *Liberals.*
*Liberals* were always involved in crafting the party ideology,
but that ideology had to serve the coalition. The obvious run-in
between the Liberals and the Old South became the finest hour
of the Liberals *and* the Republicans, but what happened after
the Civil Rights triumph of the 60's was that the Liberals
became radicalized and empowered by their own on-again, off-again
-- since the 20's and 30's -- relationship with the Marxist
undergirding of their own most ideological elements.
The program from '72 on out was twofold: cultural counter-hegemony
(radical feminism, gay rights, identity politics) and a government
answer to questions big and small, with a preference to combine the
counter-hegemony with the government answer. In other words, an
effective combination of both cultural Marxism and Fabian socialism.
And you can go right down the line with virtually every big name
Democrat and that is what you will find: Kennedy, Daschle, the Clintons,
Schumer, etc. Even the moderates always come home to the basic
program, because they are not really moderates. Clinton tried
to play the moderate, but even after his absurd declaration
in one State of the Union address that the era of big government
was over, in his last few State of the Union addresses he played
Soviet Santa Clause, promising a program for every micro-constituency
his pollsters could isolate.
Now, that's the long way of saying that, yes, you can date this
to the New Left, but the New Left was really, despite its nihilism
(which is exemplified in its academic cordon by deconstructionism,
among other things), a revitalization of the Old Left, which was
explicitly Marxist (as was the New Left) and had its big impact
on the ideological side of the Democratic Party in the 30s, even
stemming back to the 20s, if you want to take a look at the insipient
socialism of an Al Smith type politician (which was the nexus between
the ideological radicalism and the big-city bosses, who were easy and natural
converts to what is essentially Fabian socialism, but who were eventually
cut out of the picture because they were not such good fits with
the cultural counter-hegemony).
Martin McPhillips
Well, just to sum that up so that it can be understood for what
it is: "Constructivism" implies "deconstructivism." If one wishes
to engage in the explicitly Comtean Positivist endeavor of
"scientific" social science in this day and age, you must accept
a society that has already been "deconstructed."
And this was an obvious part of the discussion that I had with
you, Scott, about the Post WWII international order and America's
role in it that stemmed out of the question of missile defense.
In that discussion, when I pressed you with the *facts* of Post-War
international politics, most particularly the facts about the role
that the U.S. has played, you attempted to *deconstruct* those
facts and *deny* them, assert over them the "higher function" of
"policy analysis" and replace facts with theory instead of
using theory to understand facts.
bu...@appointed.com
like a right wing nut;
>Pay attention, everybody. This is that advanced debate technique that's he's
>always lecturing us about.
and your "intellectual" qualifications are? ........
Puking up the right wing, conservaloon line of BS isn't credible,
McPouchless
>My point can be demonstrated by the following procedure:
Interpretion of rush limpballs sphincter striations isn't a scientific
one, McPouchless.
>Alternatively, get your little sister to explain it to you.
We asked your sister, but she'd lose her street lamp.
>Remember to always wear a helmet and a safety restraint-harness when reading my
>posts.
Your posts require a gas mask and rubber gloves., McPouchless.
------------------------------------------------------
"The Afghan Mujahadeens are the moral equivalent of the Founding
Fathers of America."
-Ronald Reagan
bu...@appointed.com
like a right wing nut;
>>Neither are any of your posts, genius.
>
>Your heart's not in it any more, Gandalf. You're beginning to suspect that
>America the Beautiful is not such a terrifying and shadowy place as you were
>wont to suppose.
YOUR version of America IS a dark and terrifying place, Pouchless
Don't you suppose your fascist, nazi, taliban heros were attempting to
sell that same mantra to their people?
msoja
McCloskey) posted:
>I kinda don't think.
I disagree. You kinda don't think any good.
Happy remorse,
Mike
Gandalf Grey
msoja <mso...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:kp0i0u0e2f5oishtk...@4ax.com...
> On 01 Dec 2001 08:03:44 GMT, elchipod...@aol.com2600 (John H.
> McCloskey) posted:
>
> >I kinda don't think.
>
> I disagree.
No. You're just disagreeable.
GDWepoche
>I was just irritated by the Goebbelsesque rhetoric
>used by some of the dishonest ones on the far right to label
>everything to the left as 'nihilistic' or 'deconstructivist,'
Who's doing that? Never mind, I suppose there is always somebody out there
doing something, but as a generalization your accusation is false. I've never
heard anybody claim that the left is defined by "deconstruction". I've heard
people claim (perhaps after taking too much Allan Bloom on an empty stomach)
that the left is "nihilist" in general, which is not true; but you don't have
to assume that in order to criticize the uses that decon is being put to
(especially by people who vulgarize it). You speak of straw men, but I suspect
you just installed one in your own cornfield.
Ernest Brown
Yep, that's what old-fashioned leftist Alan Sokal was attacking in his
famous parody of deconstructionism.
-- Wisdom's Children: A Virtual Journal of Philosophy & Literature
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/billramey/wisdom.htm Submissions
welcomed.
Wayne Mann
<scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>OK, before leaving I'll give one reply...
Oh bullshit, you've promised to go many times, but never do.
Why don't you Hanson and Rosie form a club, and consider suicide so
you can all join Kangas?
Kangas is still dead, right?
John H. McCloskey
to waste even more of it.
Postmodernism casts little light on the academic study of international
relations? Not a surprise to me. I'd as soon expect it to lead to a brilliant
new school of chess strategy. Or a better mousetrap.
We basically agree, probably. I am not a PoMo myself, you understand, only a
fellow traveller, an anti-anti-PoMo.
"Still, the post-modern scholars out there are usually brilliant"
That's not my impression, exactly, but maybe your view is congruent with mine.
An interesting article by Barbara Ehrenreich from a couple years back confirmed
me in the nasty suspicion that most of 'em don't even begin to understand their
own stuff, let alone believe in it. They pretend to be ravening and
fashionable PoMos, but really they are only very tame liberals dressed up in
wolf's clothing.
PoMo is genuinely difficult to think and believe, quite apart from almost all
the texts being written in French and/or graduate-school gibberish. About 99%
of what a hostile boob like Mr. Robert Locke would call PoMo is really only
pseudo-Postmodernism. The other 1% is brilliant. (But then, isn't the top 1%
of every other cultural pyramid brilliant too?)
A curious and untraditional sect indeed, where either you are a High Priest or
else you are "objectively" an unbeliever. Who would sign on to be a Papist, if
the true dogma were generally known to be that only Popes can be saved?
That is to ask, what the devil do the other 99% think they are doing?
Not a hard question. What they are mostly doing is writing Ph.D.
dissertations. Pseudo-PoMo's affiliation to the former Marxism is politically
rather tricky to trace, but academically the link is obvious. Both systems
offer a very abstract theory (plus of course an esoteric vocabulary) that can
be applied to almost anything -- "applied" about like paint can be applied to
furniture, externally and mindlessly. ("Hey, has anybody ever explored the
feminist angle of the Westphalia Treaties?")
Inside the academy, pseudo-PoMo is possibly a major menace to first-rate
research work, but Whitewater Country is more interested in politics than in
the advancement of learning. Politically, PoMo (1% brilliant or 99% pseudo)
simply doesn't exist at all. It gets hollered at from the residual socialist
left about that all the time, as of course you know.
Yet here I sit scribbling about PoMo precisely because Onion Square and Mr.
Robert Locke want to politicize it from the right. Up to what are they?
Happy days.
--JHM
>Subject: Re: Deconstructing Martin McPhillips and the New McCarthyism
>From: "Scott D. Erb" scot...@worldnet.att.net
>Date: 12/1/2001 10:52 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <3C08FE5E...@worldnet.att.net>
John H. McCloskey
1 December 2001
(( Oh, to see ourselves as aliens see us! ))
=====
How about *that*, O Clintonistas? Does we recognize ourselves?
Prof. Dr. Martin McShrink of the _Onion Square Journal_ certainly doesn't quite
exactly work out exactly how "ideology" and "coalition" are supposed to
interact to explain us good guys to death, but can we Democrats in America with
a straight face say that we ourselves have done any better? You gotta admit he
sorta sees our problems. Maybe he sees them like a vulture sees it next meal,
but nevertheless....
Yet McShrink overloads his hostile diagnosis with quaint antique Eurobabble,
especially perhaps that "Fabian socialism" stuff. Can he really think that the
Internet somehow means the posthumous triumph of Lady Beatrice and Lord
Passfield?
Plus obviously that "counter-hegemony" phrase he is evidently obsessed by.
All dusty, all antique, all imported straight from some Central European
Homeland of howevermany years or decades back.
All futile, all feudal, all alien, all useless.
Happy days.
--JHM
alan jones
injected in every other sentence.
Maybe one way to appreciate the idea of Deconstructivism is to appreciate the
times in which the idea was conceptualized. Its seems to me, Deconstructivism is
a generalization born out of a specific case. A realization, if you will, that's
comes out of those times. It reminds me of that other big idea to came out of
the 70's, that of political correctness. Whilst i can't stand the label, which
might have been coined by its distracters, the idea itself was born out of a
realization that as a species, humans are conditioned beings and eminently
corruptible.
Pc, one might say, was a prism through which to view the mechanism of
conditioning, a mechanism to look at language, culture and history. A means by
which to question our slavery to the binds of tradition. To that extent,
Deconstructivism might be seen to follow similar lines. It looks at literature
with a contextual eye, and looks to question the true context in which a
particular work might have been created. What was the author's intent, does the
culture we bring to interpreting the reading of a work, change the intentions of
the author. Where lies the truth?
Oh but i forgot, deconstructivism is 'leftist' and as such not to be taken
serious, dismissed as irrelevant in our modern world. Even as the same questions
are asked, the same uncertainties surface to be quelled, are we to dismiss the
answers born in the last period of those same profound questions?
I wonder about this attempt to polarize an examination of text, as being either
left or right, there is just too much political baggage with those labels. To
call Deconstructivism leftist is to say there is no place for those that question
motives or consequences, we should do the other thing and simply accept.
In my opinion that is not healthy. Its not healthy to have any mechanism proceed
under its own momentum with out a countering argument, its not healthy when the
momentum of the mechanism looks to out pace the individual will. It certainly
not healthy to be blind to the mechanisms of language and culture that shape
society. Rather than submit to the pressures that a 'leftist' label immediately
creates, an objective discussion might be had, if we considered the two
polarities not as 'left or right', but as being either Progressive, or
Conservative.
The conservative, those content with looking to the past for tomorrow's answers,
or simply content with the certainties of the status quo, might be said to have
a stake in preserving the ignorance that enshrined in the system. To that extent
it might be argued that we should not look too closely at history or for that
matter at the roots of literature. To the conservative 'order' is paramount even
if the direction is suspect. The solutions that worked in the past will be made
to work into the future.
On the other hand the progressive might see the waste of human resource, and
says the best of the human character can only be realized with a change in the
way we learn to relate. The progressive might look at the systems that have
evolved and their fossilized dependencies. The progressive might look at the
systems that promote the worst of human traits even at the risk of thwarting
human progress. The progressive might question the 'traditions' we feel obliged
to follow, the cycles we find ourselves locked into, and wonder at the greater
potential that remains unfulfilled because it might go against the accepted
order of things.
In my opinion, progress isn't simply down to technologies, but might rightly be
measured in the new ways we learn to relate. With that eye, if we look at the
major changes in human relationships, the various rights that changed the way we
relate, and the greater liberties we now value, you'll see they have their
roots, not with the conservatives, but with the progressives. Where are the new
ideas on human relations to come from, if language and thought are to conform to
a conservative doctrine?
We seem as a society to make great play of genes, and think of human evolution
as principally a matter of genetics, but what of the culture, the climate of
language and ideas that shape our psychology and provides our motivations. what
of the ways we learn to relate, and the progress that affords us.
If Deconstrutivism allows us to look objectively at the mechanism of culture,
the institutions and systems that pass for traditional, with an eye for their
evolution, is that so threatening to the order of things?
Oh but i forget we are to dismiss one idea because it labelled 'leftist'. I
wonder what the conservatives made of the teachings of Christ in his times? And
yet it now forms the corner stone of western conservatism.
To read the article and judge it only on appearance, we might see a rallying cry
against this idea of the 'left', we might see this as the further attempt to
undo the language that's evolved since the 70's, an attempt to unlearn, or the
render onto society the old states of ignorance.
On the other hand if we apply this tool, deconstructivism, to the article, might
the true intentions of the author be to draw attention to this twin idea of
political correctness. This philosophical idea was born in answer to the
prevailing realization that all was not as it seemed, and that simple
realization which when applied to literature also revealed schism between
reality and appearance. [I wont speculate on the cross poster intentions, other
than to say i consider myself for the most part to be Apolitical, and look as do
most of us, to the bigger picture.]
I note the joke of Deconstructivism's convoluted language, which itself requires
an act of deconstruction, to discover the simple idea at its centre. A
convolution to satisfy academia of its merits?
Its seems to me now more than ever, that this tool might find a fresh use on the
general culture. With the knowledge that culture programs psychology, and that
the same programed psychology then grows up to create / demand the same culture,
its seems me that an objective analysis of the culture and its long term effects
on human progress is in order, and that short of any other philosophical tool,
Deconstrucivism is as useful as any other, to look unbiasly at that which shapes
us.
Can we be caught up in a thing and still observe that thing?
Cross Postin' Troll wrote:
>
> www.frontpagemag.com
>
> Deconstructing Deconstructionism
>
> By Robert Locke
>
> "The students at Tianamen Square have Deng Xiao-Ping to deconstruct
> their statue of liberty. They do not need Western intellectuals to do it
> for them." -Allan Bloom
>
> ONE OF THE GREAT ASSETS of the academic left is its ability to invent
> and teach a synthesis, a systematic distillation of leftism into a
> convenient package. Once mastered, this synthesis can be relied upon to
> give the adherent a left-wing analysis of anything from Strategic
> Missile Defense to poetry. Marxism once fulfilled this role for a great
> many, but for the past 15 years or so, the ascendant school of sophistry
> has been deconstructionism. So it's worth getting a grip on how this
> philosophical con-game works and why it's false.
>
> Deconstructionism originally came from France in the '70s. It is also
> known as poststructuralism, but don't ask what structuralism was, as it
> was no better. It is based on the proposition that the apparently real
> world is in fact a vast social construct and that the way to knowledge
> lies in taking apart in one's mind this thing society has built. Taken
> to its logical conclusion, it supposes that there is at the end of the
> day no actual reality, just a series of appearances stitched together by
> social constructs into what we all agree to call reality. But not agree
> voluntarily, for society has (this is the leftist bit) an oppressive
> structure, so we are pressured to agree to that version of reality which
> pleases the people in charge. (If you specialize in studying this
> pressure, you are a member of the Michel Foucault school of
> deconstructionism.)
>
> One of the clearest signs that deconstructionism is a con is that it is
> invariably expressed in the most complicated possible language, not the
> clearest, a sure sign that the writer is trying to sound clever rather
> than convey information. The summary I have just given would take months
> to extract from the average deconstructionist. The effort required to
> glean the actual meaning from their spaghetti tangles of run-on
> sentences, larded with a standard repertoire of tortured constructions
> and verbal tics, is a kind of hazing ritual required for initiation into
> the deconstructionist illuminati.
>
> They have a number of these standard verbal tics by which they can be
> recognized. Gratuitous plurals are one, as in "homosexualities," a
> favorite term intended to convey the great insight that not all
> homosexuals are alike. But not even Jerry Falwell thinks this! When I
> saw the home decorating section of the New York Times Sunday Magazine
> headlined "domesticities" a few months ago, I knew for sure that some
> deconstructionist young pup had finally made it to the editorial chair.
>
> The deconstructionist account differs from the Marxist one in that,
> while Marx believed that what we think is a product of our role in the
> economic system, deconstructionism prides itself on recognizing that
> there are lots of other systems besides economics forcing us to think
> this way and that. But in practice, it is very easy to write
> deconstructionist analysis that just harps on the economic angle, so
> much of deconstructionism is just cultural Marxism. Cultural Marxism
> (what Tom Wolfe calls Rococo Marxism) is to be distinguished from
> ordinary Marxism, which is about revolutions and socialism and boring
> things like that. Cultural Marxism is way too cool for that. It is
> popular with hip young academics who have read Solzhenitsyn, seen the
> Berlin Wall come down, like shopping at Crate & Barrel, but still want a
> philosophy that will distance them from bourgeois society and all those
> tasteless squares. (The sight of Marxists worrying about tastelessness
> would have reduced Lenin to a fit of giggles, but that's another issue.)
> Cultural Marxism enables one to simultaneously sneer at popular culture,
> satisfying one's elitist impulses, while taking a populist attitude
> towards it, because pop culture isn't the fault of the populace but of
> the Big Bad Bourgeoisie, or in a more sophisticated formulation, of the
> system of which the BBB is the leading element. So Marxism tends to be a
> toy that deconstructionists pick up and put down at will. (If you
> emphasize the way in which the system has a mind of its own that is
> bigger than the BBB who run it, you are a member of the Hardt-Negri
> school, as epitomized by their wildly popular new book Empire.)
>
> You may wonder how left-wing all this is, if these people are busy
> critiquing our consciousness of reality rather than trying to overthrow
> the state or achieve equality. In fact, some deconstructionists are
> apolitical, and serious leftists have been known to complain about this.
> They accuse the deconstructionists of playing abstract intellectual
> games while there is revolutionary work to be done. Intelligent leftists
> like Alan Sokal, a card-carrying Sandalista physicist at New York
> University, have belligerently attacked deconstructionism because it
> leads, if taken seriously, to the conclusion that leftism is just
> another social construct to be deconstructed. It seems leftist to start
> with, but it eventually devours itself. The deconstructionists ran afoul
> of him by straying into what can only be described as the literary
> criticism of physics, an endeavor which ended up making physics as much
> a rat's nest of opinion as the most gaseous poetry criticism. He got a
> parody of deconstructionist analysis, "The Hermeneutics of Quantum
> Gravity," published in a deconstructionist magazine, Social Text,
> without telling them it was a parody just to prove how stupid this all
> is.
>
> Deconstructionism is obsessed with finding contradictions in our
> socially-constructed picture of reality. It takes these contradictions
> as proving that reality is a social construct, because if our picture
> were actually true, it wouldn't contradict. (Marxists say that
> contradictions in the organization of our economic system produce these
> contradictions in our thinking and that the process of working out these
> economic contradictions will eventually work out the intellectual ones.)
> Deconstructionists who devote themselves to ferreting out how deeply
> these philosophical wrinkles are embedded in the structures of thought
> belong to the Jacques Derrida school. Martin Heidegger (a Nazi party
> member and author of books with titles like What is a Thing?) makes his
> appearance here as the grandmaster of ferreting out deep metaphysical
> contradictions in our structures of thought.
>
> All this make you dizzy? It's supposed to. Deconstructionists believe in
> something called the decentered subject, which is basically what you get
> when you treat the human self as just another social construct. Try
> thinking about yourself this way. See what I mean?
>
> Deconstructionists think that they are the first people in the history
> of the world to see things correctly. But they aren't even the first
> people to see things the way they see them. The Greek sophists that
> Plato jousted with 2,500 years ago held essentially their views; see
> Plato's dialogue Gorgias. Michel Foucault (the bald Frenchman who died
> of AIDS) thought he was the first person to figure out that social order
> is maintained not just through "hard" coercion like the police but
> through an intricate web of "soft" coercions that make us behave through
> the pressures of conformity and culture. But does any precocious eighth
> grader not grasp this intuitively?
>
> The central trick, the key sleight-of-hand, that makes deconstructionism
> plausible enough to fool people into believing it is this: gather up all
> the attributes of reality that are confusing, uncertain, controversial,
> or paradoxical, and claim that all of reality is this way. But the
> existence of gray areas does not refute the existence of black and
> white. Most of reality is very solid, even if there are margins that are
> not.
>
> Deconstructionism's love of social constructionism creates a disdain for
> nature. Deconstructionists have a notoriously nerdy (this is really what
> it is, sorry) view of sex because they are obliged to insist that all
> social differences are social conventions with no basis in nature. I
> have heard them come dangerously close, when verbally barreling on so
> fast they don't have time to stop, to saying that physical sexual
> differences are a social construct.
>
> Deconstructionism is notorious for lynching philosophical straw men.
> They love to pounce on other thinkers and say, "Aha! There you have an
> Enlightenment Assumption," meaning a dubious idea from the eighteenth
> century. But the Enlightenment was 200 years ago, and I have yet to see
> any dubious idea thus pilloried that people actually believe today,
> except for those that are baldly true.
>
> One of the ironies of deconstructionism is that while it is obsessed
> with the idea of social constructs, it knows very little about actual
> construction of anything. I cannot help observing that the Empire State
> Building is manifestly a social construct, in that it was constructed by
> a society. This does not seem to result in its being any less real. Does
> it not follow, if the world is a social construct, that what we have
> constructed, exists?
>
> One of the sad things about deconstructionism as a philosophy is that,
> to their credit, America's actual philosophy departments in the
> universities aren't very interested in it and tend not to teach it.
> Deconstructionism is big in English, anthropology, and anything else
> that studies culture, but not in philosophy itself. (You can verify this
> in the online course catalogue of your local college.) The reason, of
> course, is that if one is fully explicit about it as a philosophy, its
> problems very quickly come to the surface and it looks stupid. You have
> to expound it bit by bit, never getting down to brass tacks or showing
> the whole thing at once, for it to seem plausible. Only in the
> subjective thickets of the English department can it thrive, much as
> Marxism lives on there after having died in the Economics departments.
> Someone needs to tell the English departments of America to butt out of
> other people's disciplines that they don't understand.
>
> One of the most comical things one can do with deconstructionism is
> apply it to itself. For example, one favorite deconstructionist idea is
> that, to put it bluntly, words have no meaning. (They call this the
> infinite play of the signifier.) I like to ask them whether they think
> this applies to tenure contracts, specifically theirs. Or to the writing
> on their paycheck. If you are in college or know someone who is, try
> asking this question, or try having it asked, to a professor who
> believes in this stuff. I am collecting responses to be published in a
> future article.
>
> It has been said that Deconstructionism is the opiate of an obsolete
> intellectual class. Non-technical intellectuals, having deliberately
> rejected their natural role of inculcating our cultural heritage into
> the next generation, have nothing to do and are frustrated at seeing
> that all the rewards for intellectual activity in our society flow to
> the technical intelligentsia and the producers of mass culture. Since
> they don't value our heritage as heritage, they have only two sources of
> satisfaction left: corrupting the young and feeling smarter than
> everyone else. Deconstructionism is perfect for corrupting the young
> because it is the ideal way to systematize the general cynicism and
> disrespect for authority that are the natural condition of contemporary
> college youth. It raises to the level of a philosophical system the
> intuition that everything grown-ups do is a fraud. It is the metaphysics
> of Holden Caulfield. It enables the practitioner to tell himself that he
> is among the privileged group of insiders who know that the Wizard of Oz
> is behind the curtain.
>
> This is wonderful stuff to contemplate in a café in Berkeley or
> Cambridge with a cup of cappuccino in one hand. It suggests a whole
> philosophy of life, a certain attitude, even a lifestyle. It was once
> remarked that deconstructionist women all seem to wear no makeup and
> their hair tightly pulled back to embody the astringent zeal of
> deconstructionism and its refusal to be taken in by the surface
> prettiness of culture. I'm not sure this is true, but
> deconstructionists' apartments tend to be decorated with a lot of
> ironically vulgar things, like corny advertisements, suggesting that
> this object could only be here because, although worthless in its own
> right, its owner enjoys knowing the secret mechanism that produces it
> and laughs at the peasants who fall for this stuff naively. It could be
> my imagination, but I think I perceive the biggest vogue for
> deconstructionism among people who have moved to the great centers of
> culture from the to them hopeless heartland and whose desire to be
> members of the culture club is greatest. The sort of people who actually
> find it thrilling, rather than oddly without point, to find concepts of
> nosebleed levels of esotericism littering ordinary comic novels like
> David Foster Wallace's Infinite Jest. It's a wonder they haven't
> perfected a secret handshake.
>
> Deconstructionism is essential to the Left because the proposition that
> there is no real world is the only remaining way to save the manifold
> absurdities of liberalism. Forests have been leveled and careers spent
> in mastering this cult; their investment in it is enormous and they can
> ill-afford its discrediting. Conservatives must become more philosophic
> and undertake deliberate acts of intellectual aggression on the abstract
> plane. We are being attacked there, for heaven's sake, so it's time to
> fight back, particularly since our own philosophic heritage is more than
> strong enough to beat it. We must constantly reiterate that the
> intellectually-advanced opposition does not believe in a real world and
> that they teach this nonsense to impressionable young people. We must
> deprive them of the intellectual prestige of being sophisticated and of
> the credibility with this public that this produces. We must deprive
> liberal academics of their status as privileged arbiters of our culture.
> This really is a battle we can win if we will but make it an issue.
>
> Robert Locke resides in New York City. You can e-mail him at
> locke...@hotmail.com. Others of his articles may be found on
> vdare.com and robertlocke.com.
GDWepoche
>Pc, one might say, was a prism through which to view the mechanism of
>conditioning, a mechanism to look at language, culture and history. A means
>by
>which to question our slavery to the binds of tradition.
I have to strongly disagree with you. I don't care what sort of concept formed
the kernel of Political Correctness. What formed around that kernel is a big,
ugly tumor. The proponents of PC aren't out to question their own
conditioning, but to impose it on everyone else. They want to put discourse
into a strait-jacket, in which their own beliefs are ASSUMED and cannot be
questioned. With PC, it's always the other guy who is corrupted by
extra-rational "conditioning". PC is at once elitist and anti-intellectual.
It's also profoundly dishonest --- after all, nobody really DEFENDS it, do
they? But if anyone attacks it, then the howls of "sexism" and "racism" are
sounded. That's the whole point of PC --- you don't have to take
responsibility for it. It's an externalized thing, scattered all over the
culture like broken glass (or maybe, like nasty little booby-traps).
I don't suppose it would help to point out that PC has made a laughing-stock of
the academy. The people who like PC don't care about this, because they belong
to an elitist and anti-democratic faction of the left. Everybody outside of
the groves of academe is a sort of barbarian, so they don't care what they
think. You know what? They should.
So maybe they don't care (but if you don't care about democracy, you shouldn't
expect your opinions to be taken seriously in a democratic society). What they
should care about is the anti-intellectual and stultifying effect that PC has
had on the academy itself.
GDWepoche
>To
>call Deconstructivism leftist is to say there is no place for those that
>question
>motives or consequences, we should do the other thing and simply accept.
>
>In my opinion that is not healthy. Its not healthy to have any mechanism
>proceed
A couple of points:
1) Decon is of interest mainly (but not exclusively) to the left, especially
the radical left. Be offended all you want, but don't expect other people to
ignore this obvious fact. You yourself compared it to PC --- which I think is
kind of unfair to Decon, but that's a pretty clear indicator of the environment
we're talking about.
2) Decon, IMO, is not an INHERENTLY LEFTIST concept. Any number of ideologies
could make use of it. It happens to be in vogue on the left (but certainly not
ALL of the left) and I think there's a good reason for that. But a gun can be
pointed in any number of directions.
3) Is Decon inherently political (though not necessarily leftist)? Some of its
leading lights say yes, some say no, others seem to stand mute. Critics
likewise. In my opinion (not an expert one, mind you) Decon is political, and
inescapably so. I think the notion of a perfectly "neutral" Decon should go to
the philosophical graveyard. Bury it right alongside Logical Positivism. Read
a few passages of Nietzsche over the casket, deconstruct a few old German
hymns, and then let's all go home and get on with our lives.
4) You say that if we do away with Decon, we can no longer question motives.
Wrong, wrong! Where did we get the idea that the founders of Decon INVENTED
the notion of reading between the lines? They're simply pushing that notion to
its limits --- too far for my taste, but what the hell, it's a free country.
5) You say it's not healthy to have any mechanism proceed under its own
momentum without a countering argument. I agree 100%, but that formula applies
to Decon, too. You can't shelter it by dismissing all criticism of it as
politically motivated, and then expect Decon to develop into anything but
another collection of cheap political buzzwords and empty-headed fetishes that
are used as a substitute for thought.
Steve Harris
> One of the sad things about deconstructionism as a philosophy is that,
> to their credit, America's actual philosophy departments in the
> universities aren't very interested in it and tend not to teach it.
> Deconstructionism is big in English, anthropology, and anything else
> that studies culture, but not in philosophy itself. (You can verify this
> in the online course catalogue of your local college.)
True enough, but it's not even all anthropology which has been perverted,
but mainly "cultural anthropology," which was taken over by the "culture and
nurture is everything in humans" Franz Boas leftist Jewish types (think
Ashley Montague and Stephen J. Gould) at eastern universities, early in this
century. Physical anthropology hasn't been so politicized, and still has one
foot in science. This has led to the splitting of anthroplogy departments in
more than one university.
SBH
--
I welcome email from any being clever enough to fix my address. It's open
book. A prize to the first spambot that passes my Turing test.
Scott D. Erb
"John H. McCloskey" wrote:
>
> I thank you for sparing your time, but naturally I'm going to respond and try
> to waste even more of it.
You'll have limited success because I think we're basically on
the same page here.
> Postmodernism casts little light on the academic study of international
> relations? Not a surprise to me. I'd as soon expect it to lead to a brilliant
> new school of chess strategy. Or a better mousetrap.
> We basically agree, probably. I am not a PoMo myself, you understand, only a
> fellow traveller, an anti-anti-PoMo.
>
> "Still, the post-modern scholars out there are usually brilliant"
>
> That's not my impression, exactly, but maybe your view is congruent with mine.
> An interesting article by Barbara Ehrenreich from a couple years back confirmed
> me in the nasty suspicion that most of 'em don't even begin to understand their
> own stuff, let alone believe in it. They pretend to be ravening and
> fashionable PoMos, but really they are only very tame liberals dressed up in
> wolf's clothing.
I'm going only on the people I've known who use it for
international relations, and most of them are quite bright. But
few of those are really the kind of post-modern Derrida types
that take it to an extreme, so while I think the people I've been
acquainted with understand their own stuff, I also think that
they have moved to see themselves less as "post modern" and more
as "post-positivist." Ronald Inglehart, who does statistical
work in a very 'mainstream' sense has a new book out about how
society is moving to become post-modern (it's title is something
like post-modernism vs. modernity). But his use of the term is
different than that of the kind of deconstructionist
post-modernism talked about here. He's talking more about
putting quality of life issues and questions of values and human
rights ahead of traditional economic bread and butter issues,
arguing that research shows that a generational change has taken
place since the early seventies whereby society's values have
changed -- hence changing politics. He calls those post-modern
or post-industrial, but...
Do you ever wonder what would happen if academia banned the use
of "post" and "neo" as a way to categorize something?
> PoMo is genuinely difficult to think and believe, quite apart from almost all
> the texts being written in French and/or graduate-school gibberish. About 99%
> of what a hostile boob like Mr. Robert Locke would call PoMo is really only
> pseudo-Postmodernism. The other 1% is brilliant. (But then, isn't the top 1%
> of every other cultural pyramid brilliant too?)
Agreed.
> A curious and untraditional sect indeed, where either you are a High Priest or
> else you are "objectively" an unbeliever. Who would sign on to be a Papist, if
> the true dogma were generally known to be that only Popes can be saved?
>
> That is to ask, what the devil do the other 99% think they are doing?
>
> Not a hard question. What they are mostly doing is writing Ph.D.
> dissertations. Pseudo-PoMo's affiliation to the former Marxism is politically
> rather tricky to trace, but academically the link is obvious.
Yes, especially in the crowd forty or over, who needed somewhere
to go after Communism collapsed. Younger folk who dabble with it
seem less touched by Marxism and more by a kind of alternative
dissatisfaction with the mainstream, it seems to me. The
strength in post-modernism is that it recognizes that POLITICS is
improtant, and that the way humans act politically cannot
necessarily be discerned from the laws of nature. But they end
up on the opposite extreme from pure behavioralism. A colleague
of mine would snidely add 'also it's easier to just deconstruct
than to construct -- essentially saying that post-modernism in
poli-sci at least is essentially tearing apart discourses or
texts, which is easier to do than developing ones own theory.
That assessment doesn't seem quite fair; for one thing critique
is an essential part of scholarship. Doing it well is an
important contribution. Some works that mix good historiography
with discourse analysis, such as David Spurr's Rhetoric of Empire
are extremely well done. You can take some insights from
post-modernist thought without falling into the deadend that pure
deconstructionism tends to bring.
>Both systems
> offer a very abstract theory (plus of course an esoteric vocabulary) that can
> be applied to almost anything -- "applied" about like paint can be applied to
> furniture, externally and mindlessly. ("Hey, has anybody ever explored the
> feminist angle of the Westphalia Treaties?")
> Inside the academy, pseudo-PoMo is possibly a major menace to first-rate
> research work,
Yeah, but going that route at least in social science is a lot
harder to getting a good statistical program, finding a data
base, and coming up with something that looks like precise
scienced but really says little. Mediocore and bad mainstream
research is as much a bane to social science as post-modernism.
>but Whitewater Country is more interested in politics than in
> the advancement of learning. Politically, PoMo (1% brilliant or 99% pseudo)
> simply doesn't exist at all.
True
>It gets hollered at from the residual socialist
> left about that all the time, as of course you know.
>
> Yet here I sit scribbling about PoMo precisely because Onion Square and Mr.
> Robert Locke want to politicize it from the right. Up to what are they?
>
> Happy days.
> --JHM
Well, they can't really brand the left all as commies any more,
because that doesn't really excite people or create some fear
about the stability of society. So if you can convince people
that the other side is a bunch of nihilists wanting to destroy
values and find some outlandish comments from the most radical of
radical scholars, then you can try to construct an image of the
other side that arouses fear and dislike. Good old fashioned
politics!
OK, you did get me to spend a bit of time on my answer :)
John H. McCloskey
doesn't really excite people or create some fear about the stability of
society. So if you can convince people that the other side is a bunch of
nihilists wanting to destroy values and find some outlandish comments from the
most radical of radical scholars, then you can try to construct an image of the
=======
In general we agree well enough, and more specifically I rejoice that you
notice the opportunist cherry-picking or "outlandish comments" aspect of the
High Conservative opposition. BUT...
... but is this after all only "good, old-fashioned politics"? Is there no
apocalyptic or Armageddon ingredient involved here at all that might make some
timorous folks worry about "the stability of society" without them being simply
_eo ipso_ kooks and boobs?
We good guys are more comprehensive than they bad guys are, are we not?
Wouldn't it maybe become us better to suggest what the forever infinitely
regrettable and eternally America-embarrassing Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft ought
to do _in hoc discrimine rerum_, rather than stick with only "good
old-fashioned politics"?
Do you really perceive no URGENCY, then?
I suppose you probably don't and I suppose myself that you're probably quite
right. Cooler -- and above all, non-self-anointed -- heads must and shall
eventually prevail at last. But that will be then, whereas now is only now.
Do you really perceive no urgency about all these recent very exciting human
events?
Happy days.
--JHM
Martin McPhillips
Just a few corrections here: "Fabian socialism" is not a "Central
European"
concept, unless the UK has been loaded onto a van and moved to the Czech
Republic, or thereabouts. I've never thought of Italy (the homeland of
Gramsci, the Marxist cultural hegemony theorist) as "Central Europe"
either, but rather as part of Western Europe.
The use of "Fabian socialism" is nothing more than a reference to
the gradualism (some would not call it gradual at all) implementation
of evermore socialist control of the American economy (see Milton
Friedman
on this subject).
"Cultural counter-hegemony" captures in a phrase the pure hostility of
the New Left (now fully integrated into the mainstream Democratic Party)
toward American/Western traditions through the vanguard operations of
radical
feminism, various assaults on religion, attacks on the traditional
family,
etc.
The Democratic Party through its ideological Left "Liberal" wing (it's
not real liberalism at all, but why try to save the term at this point
except that it is used in the broad term "liberal democracy" and one
wouldn't want to automatically equate the meaning of that term with
American liberalism) is in fact a Fabian socialist operation merged
into a cultural counter-hegemony operation. It seeks government
solutions for every problem it can find and when it can't find a
problem it invents one and locates a government solution for it. It
is decidedly anti-freedom as it howls about civil liberties. It is
a promoter of identity politics. And it hides most of this agressive
and fundamentally Marxist program in perfumed euphemism.
Thus, enthusiastically cheering on the killing of 35 million unborn
children -- effectively two entire generations -- is called
"reproductive
rights," in virtually the same breath that the right to self-defense
embodied in the 2nd Amendment is mitigated for, among other things,
the children. Cutting taxes on citizens is called "spending the surplus"
in a bit of reverse logic. And taxes that are taken directly from
paychecks without anyone asking if the taxpayer wants them taken
are called "contributions."
Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. Medicare is welfare program for
all seniors whether they need the help or not (their children and
grandchildren pick up the sterilized tab). And the "great dream"
of socialized medicine still burns brightly in the hearts of
all good American "liberals." A merger of big medicine and big
government, they say, will be so healthy.
I'd die laughing if this comedy were not so tragic.
xofpi
>
>alan jones wrote:
>>Pc, one might say, was a prism through which to view the mechanism of
>>conditioning, a mechanism to look at language, culture and history. A means
>>by
>>which to question our slavery to the binds of tradition.
>
>I have to strongly disagree with you. I don't care what sort of concept formed
>the kernel of Political Correctness. What formed around that kernel is a big,
>ugly tumor. The proponents of PC aren't out to question their own
>conditioning, but to impose it on everyone else. They want to put discourse
>into a strait-jacket, in which their own beliefs are ASSUMED and cannot be
>questioned.
Academic PC is a reaction to identity politics and a means of legal ass-covering
by administrations that don't want to be sued by groups who are sensitive about
how administrations look out for their interests. But since 9-11, there is a
new, more insidious kind of PC, promulgated by the right, in particular, as
exemplified by the list of academics who have made "anti-war" or less than
full-throated pro-American statements. I hope you're as disturbed by this kind
of PC as you were by the other.
With PC, it's always the other guy who is corrupted by
>extra-rational "conditioning". PC is at once elitist and anti-intellectual.
>It's also profoundly dishonest --- after all, nobody really DEFENDS it, do
>they? But if anyone attacks it, then the howls of "sexism" and "racism" are
>sounded.
Or "anti-Americanism," right?
That's the whole point of PC --- you don't have to take
>responsibility for it. It's an externalized thing, scattered all over the
>culture like broken glass (or maybe, like nasty little booby-traps).
>
>I don't suppose it would help to point out that PC has made a laughing-stock of
>the academy. The people who like PC don't care about this, because they belong
>to an elitist and anti-democratic faction of the left. Everybody outside of
>the groves of academe is a sort of barbarian, so they don't care what they
>think. You know what? They should.
How do you support this point of view? Is this based on a survey of academic
opinions?
>So maybe they don't care (but if you don't care about democracy, you shouldn't
>expect your opinions to be taken seriously in a democratic society).
The PC word going around is that this is not a democracy. It's a constitutional
republic.
What they
>should care about is the anti-intellectual and stultifying effect that PC has
>had on the academy itself.
You think the academy is monoilithic on this?
Scott D. Erb
ideals of free speech and free thought. Attempts to brand types
of speech as 'unacceptable' (either as xofpi points out because
it's considered anti-american, or because it might offend some
person or group) is contrary the ideals of academia. The claims
made by GDWepoche are simply wrong, he/she obviously does not
talk much with academics if he/she thinks they are supportive of
"PC," are anti-Democratic, etc. That just aint the way things
are.
Oh, and of course this is a democracy. It is also a
constitutional republic. The terms are not contradictory, and
many schools of democratic theory argue that a republic is
necessary for a functioning democracy. Some people apparently
want to try to change the meaning of democracy as it is
standardly used and try to replace it with a meaning that usually
is reserved for "crude majoritarian democracy," meaning the
majority rules no matter what. That isn't how the word is used
in common parlance, in politics, in political science, or in
democratic theory. Those trying to say this isn't a democracy
are simply using non-standard definitions, probably relating back
to Aristotle.
GDWepoche
>But since 9-11, there is a
>new, more insidious kind of PC, promulgated by the right, in particular, as
>exemplified by the list of academics who have made "anti-war" or less than
>full-throated pro-American statements. I hope you're as disturbed by this
>kind
>of PC as you were by the other.
>
More insidious? Give me a break. And characterizing their yawps as "less than
full-throated pro-American statements" is typical of the kind of courage that
these academics muster when confronted with opposition. Praising a murderous
attack on the Pentagon is something more than that. If they want to shoot
their mouths off, they can grow some guts when people talk back to them.
But I'll take your point --- I wouldn't support anyone being fired from their
job for making a foolish remark in a class, no matter who was offended by it.
But I won't go along with giving them immunity from criticism. I'll defend
their right to say it --- but not their "right" to pretend they DIDN'T say it.
They want to stir up some controversy? Then they'd better learn to stomach
controversy when it boomerangs on them.
GDWepoche
>The claims
>made by GDWepoche are simply wrong, he/she obviously does not
>talk much with academics if he/she thinks they are supportive of
>"PC," are anti-Democratic, etc.
I happen to know a lot of academics, and I know for a fact that the GREAT
MAJORITY of them do not support PC, and in fact despise it. My comments apply
to the obvious exceptions. PC is probably more common among students. But for
those whom the shoe fits, yes --- I do insist that PC is anti-democratic in the
common sense of being elitist.
My objection was to the statement that PC is "a means by which to question our
slavery to the binds [bonds was meant, I assume] of tradition." Gosh, who
could object to something as mild as that, if it were a true characterization?
I nowhere said that everybody in the groves was PC, though I think I've twice
been accused of saying it. I do think that the great majority who oppose it
have been backward in speaking out against it, and have found it easier to
accommodate themselves to it. Hence the "stultifying" effect.
Scott D. Erb
including those of us who are critical about the war against
Afghanistan. If someone is going to praise the attack on the
Pentagon then, yeah, they *definitely* should be criticized. If
someone is going to make ethnic slurs or sexist remarks, then
they should be criticized. Controversy boomerangs to all folk who
make controversial statements, that is how it should be, and
criticism is the essence of of what universities are all about.
However, I recall reading of attacks on folk like Paul Kennedy,
who hardly praised attacking the Pentagon, but who with others
asked pointed questions such as whether or not American policy
has helped create this problem. Certainly that is a debatable
point and there are good arguments on all sides, but when
university adminstrators or politicians suggest that we should
watch what we say and even hint that people should not discuss
some issues, then that sends a warning flag: PC from the Right is
just as bad (not worse, mind you) as PC from the Left. Many
critiques of US policy are not praise of evil acts by terrorists,
but moral and practical questions about US policy and its means
and goals. Such questioning, even if misguided, is essential to
a functioning democracy. That is why we are more likely to avoid
something like the Third Reich than non-democratic states, we
have a curious and free thinking public who will ask hard
questions, not just believe what the elites in government tell us
to believe, and be willing to speak out when we disagree.
Surely that is something both the Left and the Right not only
should be allowed to do, but should see it as their duty to do.
Isn't it?
Scott D. Erb
GDWepoche
>PC from the Right is
>just as bad (not worse, mind you) as PC from the Left.
You're right, insofar as the principle is the same.
But in practice, consider trying one of these experiments:
A) Get up in front of a typical campus gathering and call Bush an illegitimate
usurper who stole the election. Say that the war on terrorism is racist.
Demand the immediate overthrow of Western Civilization.
B) Get up in front of a typical campus gathering and suggest that Alice Walker
might just be full of crap.
Want to try one of those and let me know how it goes?
Scott D. Erb
Actually, I think the first would arouse a more angry reaction
than the second (and most students would say 'who is Alice
Walker?'). I think each would be subject to extreme criticism
because each statement lacks academic content and is a rather
aggressive assertion without evidence or explanation. In all
campuses I've been associated there have been vocal folk on the
left and the right, and most inbetween tolerate each just fine.
Academic types are a lot more pragmatic and mainstream than their
reputation, at least from my experience. Most are more 'liberal'
than, in many other professions, but few are radical or "PC."
Scott D. Erb
Well, I am spending some time on all this, but so far limiting
myself to only the threads on deconstructionism and my hello and
(premature) goodbye (and ignoring other interesting headers along
the way).
An interesting question. I guess part of the answer is that I've
learned to be somewhat detached, that's the only way for an
idealistic person to avoid becoming cynical. Looking at the
world around me, I've resigned myself to the recognition that we
are still in a very early point of human development, a point
where war, poverty, hate, etc., are still exceedingly common.
Step by step we can move above that, but it'll take generations
and the 'bad guys' will try to push back now and then and may
succeed (hopefully not permanently). Also, I focus on what I can
do. My job is very satisfying because I feel like I'm doing
something to try to go against ignorance, step by step. One
poster who says she reads my posts but doesn't contribute much
also has kept me looking back here and contributing some,
figuring that this medium may matter, people are here looking at
arguments and comparing issues, it's not just the verbose ones on
one side doing battle with the verbose on the other side.
Urgency? Sometimes when I read Otto Friedrich's "Before the
Deluge" about 1920's Berlin, I get a little ansy. Bad economic
times, fear, and a little bit of demogoguery can lead down into a
pit rather quickly. But still, I think US democracy is strong
enough to last and self-improve. But...democracy rests on an
ability to compromise, respect the opposition as legitimate, and
engage in free and open debate. Some
events of recent years show a degrading of those traditions, and
that is worrisome. I think the Whitewater newsgroup draws a
very small section of some rather, uh, interesting and extreme
views that really don't resonate too much outside a very small
community.
Bottom line: I don't know.
Billy Beck
"Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>...respect the opposition as legitimate,...
Eat shit and drop dead, you sick little fraud.
Billy
VRWC Fronteer
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/
xofpi
> Erb wrote:
> >PC from the Right is
> >just as bad (not worse, mind you) as PC from the Left.
>
> You're right, insofar as the principle is the same.
The principle is actually different. One seeks to protect minority
rights; the other seeks to suppress minority views.
> But in practice, consider trying one of these experiments:
>
> A) Get up in front of a typical campus gathering and call Bush an illegitimate
> usurper who stole the election. Say that the war on terrorism is racist.
> Demand the immediate overthrow of Western Civilization.
>
> B) Get up in front of a typical campus gathering and suggest that Alice Walker
> might just be full of crap.
>
> Want to try one of those and let me know how it goes?
So you're saying most college students have leftist views? I never
thought of that. Interesting.
xofpi
>
>xofpi wrote:
>>But since 9-11, there is a
>>new, more insidious kind of PC, promulgated by the right, in particular, as
>>exemplified by the list of academics who have made "anti-war" or less than
>>full-throated pro-American statements. I hope you're as disturbed by this
>>kind
>>of PC as you were by the other.
>>
>
>More insidious? Give me a break. And characterizing their yawps as "less than
>full-throated pro-American statements" is typical of the kind of courage that
>these academics muster when confronted with opposition. Praising a murderous
>attack on the Pentagon is something more than that. If they want to shoot
>their mouths off, they can grow some guts when people talk back to them.
Who praised the murderous attack on the Pentagon? Care to name names?
>But I'll take your point --- I wouldn't support anyone being fired from their
>job for making a foolish remark in a class, no matter who was offended by it.
>But I won't go along with giving them immunity from criticism. I'll defend
>their right to say it --- but not their "right" to pretend they DIDN'T say it.
>They want to stir up some controversy? Then they'd better learn to stomach
>controversy when it boomerangs on them.
No one should be immune from criticism, I agree. But they should be immune from
an organized attack against them based on a misreading of their meaning.
Martin McPhillips
>
> I think the Whitewater newsgroup draws a
> very small section of some rather, uh, interesting and extreme
> views that really don't resonate too much outside a very small
> community.
That's true. Things like "anti-statist socialism" (to be
achieved through something called "radical democracy") probably
don't resonate with anyone who understand what those terms
mean. Of course, we've also seen any number of different
defintions of socialism (from the same person). Likewise,
we see people who claim to support the decentralization
of political power (fearing its concentration) but turn
around on a dime and wax euphoric about the coming
European superstate.
Gandalf Grey
Billy Beck <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3c0ce5fc...@news.mindspring.com...
>
> "Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >...respect the opposition as legitimate,...
>
> Eat shit and drop dead, you sick little fraud.
Shut the fuck up, you pathetic tax-dodger.
Gandalf Grey
Scott D. Erb <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3C0CCA00...@worldnet.att.net...
> Urgency? Sometimes when I read Otto Friedrich's "Before the
> Deluge" about 1920's Berlin, I get a little ansy. Bad economic
> times, fear, and a little bit of demogoguery can lead down into a
> pit rather quickly. But still, I think US democracy is strong
> enough to last and self-improve. But...democracy rests on an
> ability to compromise, respect the opposition as legitimate, and
> engage in free and open debate. Some
> events of recent years show a degrading of those traditions, and
> that is worrisome. I think the Whitewater newsgroup draws a
> very small section of some rather, uh, interesting and extreme
> views that really don't resonate too much outside a very small
> community.
True enough. It's both populated by extremists AND the way the forum is
handled leads to extremist responses.
All the more reason why we need the sober reflections of people like
yourself and John McCloskey, et. al.
Wayne Mann
<scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> I think the Whitewater newsgroup draws a
>very small section of some rather, uh, interesting and extreme
>views that really don't resonate too much outside a very small
>community.
That just demonstrates your ignorance, and stupidity. It
also draws stupid, ignorant LIARS like you, Erb. Consider suicide NOW!
Kangas is waiting for you!
Billy Beck
Richard "Flackson" Hanson <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>Billy Beck <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote...
>>
>> "Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >...respect the opposition as legitimate,...
>>
>> Eat shit and drop dead, you sick little fraud.
>
>Shut the fuck up, you pathetic tax-dodger.
In your dreams, river-boy.
GDWepoche
>The principle is actually different. One seeks to protect minority
>rights; the other seeks to suppress minority views.
Wrong, and no copy of the home game for you. The principle is free speech,
including the right to make dumbass remarks (whether your remarks list to the
left or the right). I happen to believe in free speech. Do you?
GDWepoche
>Who praised the murderous attack on the Pentagon? Care to name names?
Here is one rendition of the story, which was widely-reported (as a "dog bites
man" story"):
>>Richard Berthold, a tenured University of New Mexico history professor, told
a freshman class, "Anyone who can blow up the Pentagon has my vote."
The statement, which he later apologized for saying, upset students and caused
state Rep. William Fuller, R-Albuquerque, to suggest that the university fire
Berthold. Berthold said that any attempt to fire him would violate his freedom
of speech.
"I was a jerk," he told The Santa Fe New Mexican. "But the First Amendment
protects my right to be a jerk."<<
And I agree with that last sentiment ... but what am I doing providing cites to
you? You're the one who brought up "right-wing" PC --- why don't you cite your
own examples? I'm not here to do your homework, you know.
xofpi
There is a distinction, whether or not you personally can see shades
of gray, and it's the one I outline. But despite what I believe to be
good intentions on one side and bad on the other, I also believe in
free speech and don't believe it should be curtailed by anything other
than an opponent's right to criticize it.
xofpi
> xofpi wrote:
> >Who praised the murderous attack on the Pentagon? Care to name names?
>
> Here is one rendition of the story, which was widely-reported (as a "dog bites
> man" story"):
>
> >>Richard Berthold, a tenured University of New Mexico history professor, told
> a freshman class, "Anyone who can blow up the Pentagon has my vote."
>
> The statement, which he later apologized for saying, upset students and caused
> state Rep. William Fuller, R-Albuquerque, to suggest that the university fire
> Berthold. Berthold said that any attempt to fire him would violate his freedom
> of speech.
>
> "I was a jerk," he told The Santa Fe New Mexican. "But the First Amendment
> protects my right to be a jerk."<<
>
> And I agree with that last sentiment
And so do I.
... but what am I doing providing cites to
> you? You're the one who brought up "right-wing" PC --- why don't you cite your
> own examples? I'm not here to do your homework, you know.
You're the one who cited the "praise for the murderous attack on the
Pentagon. It made sense to me to ask you for a cite, since you
apparently had one. Thanks for sharing.