Postmodernism actionable?
Jane Quin
December 21, 1997 week-in-review op-ed
Geraldo, Eat Your Avant-Pop Heart Out
By MARK LEYNER
[H] OBOKEN, N.J. -- J ENNY JONES: Boy, we have a show
for you today!
Recently, the University of Virginia philosopher Richard
Rorty made the stunning declaration that nobody has "the
foggiest idea" what postmodernism means. "It would be
nice to get rid of it," he said. "It isn't exactly an
idea; it's a word that pretends to stand for an idea."
This shocking admission that there is no such thing as
postmodernism has produced a firestorm of protest around
the country. Thousands of authors, critics and graduate
students who'd considered themselves postmodernists are
outraged at the betrayal.
Today we have with us a writer -- a recovering
postmodernist -- who believes that his literary career
and personal life have been irreparably damaged by the
theory, and who feels defrauded by the academics who
promulgated it. He wishes to remain anonymous, so we'll
call him "Alex."
Alex, as an adolescent, before you began experimenting
with postmodernism, you considered yourself -- what?
Close shot of ALEX.
An electronic blob obscures his face. Words appear at
bottom of screen: "Says he was traumatized by
postmodernism and blames academics."
ALEX (his voice electronically altered): A high
modernist. Y'know, Pound, Eliot, Georges Braque, Wallace
Stevens, Arnold Schönberg, Mies van der Rohe. I had all
of Schönberg's 78's.
JENNY JONES: And then you started reading people like
Jean-François Lyotard and Jean Baudrillard -- how did
that change your feelings about your modernist heroes?
ALEX: I suddenly felt that they were, like, stifling and
canonical.
JENNY JONES: Stifling and canonical? That is so sad,
such a waste. How old were you when you first read
Fredric Jameson?
ALEX: Nine, I think.
The AUDIENCE gasps.
JENNY JONES: We have some pictures of young Alex. ...
We see snapshots of 14-year-old ALEX reading Gilles
Deleuze and Felix Guattari's "Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism
and Schizophrenia." The AUDIENCE oohs and ahs.
ALEX: We used to go to a friend's house after school --
y'know, his parents were never home -- and we'd read,
like, Paul Virilio and Julia Kristeva.
JENNY JONES: So you're only 14, and you're already
skeptical toward the "grand narratives" of modernity,
you're questioning any belief system that claims
universality or transcendence. Why?
ALEX: I guess -- to be cool.
JENNY JONES: So, peer pressure?
ALEX: I guess.
JENNY JONES: And do you remember how you felt the very
first time you entertained the notion that you and your
universe are constituted by language -- that reality is
a cultural construct, a "text" whose meaning is
determined by infinite associations with other "texts"?
ALEX: Uh, it felt, like, good. I wanted to do it again.
The AUDIENCE groans. JENNY JONES: You were arrested at
about this time?
ALEX: For spray-painting "The Hermeneutics of
Indeterminacy" on an overpass.
JENNY JONES: You're the child of a mixed marriage -- is
that right?
ALEX: My father was a de Stijl Wittgensteinian and my
mom was a neo-pre-Raphaelite.
JENNY JONES: Do you think that growing up in a mixed
marriage made you more vulnerable to the siren song of
postmodernism?
ALEX: Absolutely. It's hard when you're a little kid not
to be able to just come right out and say (sniffles),
y'know, I'm an Imagist or I'm a phenomenologist or I'm a
post-painterly abstractionist. It's really hard --
especially around the holidays. (He cries.)
JENNY JONES: I hear you. Was your wife a postmodernist?
ALEX: Yes. She was raised avant-pop, which is a
fundamentalist offshoot of postmodernism.
JENNY JONES: How did she react to Rorty's admission that
postmodernism was essentially a hoax?
ALEX: She was devastated. I mean, she's got all the John
Zorn albums and the entire Semiotext(e) series. She was
crushed.
We see ALEX'S WIFE in the audience, weeping softly, her
hands covering her face.
JENNY JONES: And you were raising your daughter as a
postmodernist?
ALEX: Of course. That's what makes this particularly
tragic. I mean, how do you explain to a 5-year-old that
self-consciously recycling cultural detritus is suddenly
no longer a valid art form when, for her entire life,
she's been taught that it is?
JENNY JONES: Tell us how you think postmodernism
affected your career as a novelist.
ALEX: I disavowed writing that contained real ideas or
any real passion. My work became disjunctive, facetious
and nihilistic. It was all blank parody, irony enveloped
in more irony.
It merely recapitulated the pernicious banality of
television and advertising. I found myself
indiscriminately incorporating any and all kinds of pop
kitsch and shlock. (He begins to weep again.)
JENNY JONES: And this spilled over into your personal
life?
ALEX: It was impossible for me to experience life with
any emotional intensity. I couldn't control the irony
anymore. I perceived my own feelings as if they were in
quotes.
I italicized everything and everyone. It became
impossible for me to appraise the quality of anything.
To me everything was equivalent -- the Brandenburg
Concertos and the Lysol jingle had the same value. . . .
(He breaks down, sobbing.)
JENNY JONES: Now, you're involved in a lawsuit, aren't
you?
ALEX: Yes. I'm suing the Modern Language Association.
JENNY JONES: How confident are you about winning?
ALEX: We need to prove that, while they were actively
propounding it, academics knew all along that
postmodernism was a specious theory.
If we can unearth some intradepartmental memos --
y'know, a paper trail -- any corroboration that they
knew postmodernism was worthless cant at the same time
they were teaching it, then I think we have an excellent
shot at establishing liability.
JENNY JONES wades into audience and proffers microphone
to a woman.
WOMAN (with lateral head-bobbing): It's ironic that
Barry Scheck is representing the M.L.A. in this
litigation because Scheck is the postmodern attorney par
excellence. This is the guy who's made a career of
volatilizing truth in the simulacrum of exculpation!
VOICE FROM AUDIENCE: You go, girl!
WOMAN: Scheck is the guy who came up with the
quintessentially postmodern re-bleed defense for O. J.,
which claims that O. J. merely vigorously shook Ron and
Nicole, thereby re-aggravating pre-existing knife
wounds. I'd just like to say to any client of Barry
Scheck -- lose that zero and get a hero!
The AUDIENCE cheers wildly.
WOMAN: Uh, I forgot my question.
[D] issolve to message on screen: If you believe that
mathematician Andrew Wiles' proof of Fermat's last
theorem has caused you or a member of your family to
dress too provocatively, call (800) 555-9455.
Dissolve back to studio.In the audience, JENNY JONES
extends the microphone to a man in his mid-30's with a
scruffy beard and a bandana around his head.
MAN WITH BANDANA: I'd like to say that this "Alex" is
the single worst example of pointless irony in American
literature, and this whole heartfelt renunciation of
postmodernism is a ploy -- it's just more irony.
The AUDIENCE whistles and hoots.
ALEX: You think this is a ploy?! (He tears futilely at
the electronic blob.) This is my face!
The AUDIENCE recoils in horror.
ALEX: This is what can happen to people who naïvely
embrace postmodernism, to people who believe that the
individual -- the autonomous, individualist subject --
is dead. They become a palimpsest of media pastiche -- a
mask of metastatic irony.
JENNY JONES (biting lip and shaking her head): That is
so sad. Alex -- final words?
ALEX: I'd just like to say that self-consciousness and
irony seem like fun at first, but they can destroy your
life. I know. You gotta be earnest, be real. Real
feelings are important. Objective reality does exist.
AUDIENCE members whoop, stomp and pump fists in the air.
JENNY JONES: I'd like to thank Alex for having the
courage to come on today and share his experience with
us.
Join us for tomorrow's show, "The End of Manichean,
Bipolar Geopolitics Turned My Boyfriend Into an
Insatiable Sex Freak (and I Love It!)."
Mark Leyner is the author, most recently, of "The
Tetherballs of Bougainville.
Peter H.M. Brooks
jane...@usa.net "Jane Quin" writes:
>
> ALEX: I disavowed writing that contained real ideas or
> any real passion. My work became disjunctive, facetious
> and nihilistic. It was all blank parody, irony enveloped
> in more irony.
>
> It merely recapitulated the pernicious banality of
> television and advertising. I found myself
> indiscriminately incorporating any and all kinds of pop
> kitsch and shlock. (He begins to weep again.)
>
I think the interview is a little long, but it certainly made
me chuckle! I would certainly vote for its being a criminal offence
to expose young minds to this bullshit, if I did vote, that is.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
Be generous and liberal in your attitude to irrational creatures and to the
generality of material things, for you have reason and they have none
- Marcus Aurelius.
Lewis Mammel
> I think the interview is a little long, but it certainly made
> me chuckle! I would certainly vote for its being a criminal offence
> to expose young minds to this bullshit, if I did vote, that is.
cf. Judging Books by Their Covers in "Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman!"
in which Our Hero reviews textbooks for the California State Ccurriculum
Commision.
... Everything was written by somebody who didn't know what
the hell he was talking about, so it was a little bit wrong,
always! ... I don't know why, but the books are lousy,
UNIVERSALLY LOUSY!
... so chill.
Lew Mammel, Jr.
Peter H.M. Brooks
lhma...@ameritech.net "Lewis Mammel" writes:
>
> ... Everything was written by somebody who didn't know what
> the hell he was talking about, so it was a little bit wrong,
> always! ... I don't know why, but the books are lousy,
> UNIVERSALLY LOUSY!
>
I can easily believe this - particularly in California. I don't see the
relevance to the rather good piece on postmodernist bullshit though.
BK
bravo.
peace
---BK
===================================================================================
"Food is an important part of a balanced diet."
===================================================================================
http://home.earthlink.net/~bjking/
===================================================================================
ICQ # 4557591
Lewis Mammel
>
> In article <37B4BFAE...@ameritech.net>
> lhma...@ameritech.net "Lewis Mammel" writes:
>
> >
> > ... Everything was written by somebody who didn't know what
> > the hell he was talking about, so it was a little bit wrong,
> > always! ... I don't know why, but the books are lousy,
> > UNIVERSALLY LOUSY!
> >
> I can easily believe this - particularly in California. I don't see the
> relevance to the rather good piece on postmodernist bullshit though.
The point is that bullshit is all around us all the time. It's silly to worry
about exposing young minds to it.
>
> --
> Peter H.M. Brooks
> Be generous and liberal in your attitude to irrational creatures and to the
> generality of material things, for you have reason and they have none
> - Marcus Aurelius.
Never give a sucker an even break - Voltaire
Lew Mammel, Jr.
wrob
will not be discredited so easily.
The academic world seems convinced that we are moving
back into a time of modernist retrenchment when in fact
all that has happened is that Postmodernism has become
the dominant cultural discourse.
As long as we call what is really postmodernism
"modernity" we will see postmodern subtext everywhere.
An intellectual cold war founded on false dichotomies
that would eventually be "won" by the Postmodernists due
to the bad logic of the so called modernists.
These "modernists" are in reality either nostalgic postmodernists
that have labled themselves modernists because they don't
understand what modernism is about, or else paleo modernists
who have never even begun to grasp even a personal metanarrative
of postmodernism, much less understood it as a universal theory
or whatnot.
In any event, as long as the world is ruled by people who
call themselves Modernists, the Postmodernists will always
have the only valid popular critique, which is a shame, because
this critigue is wrong.
And not for the reasons the paleo modernists think it's wrong.
-BER
Peter H.M. Brooks
lhma...@ameritech.net "Lewis Mammel" writes:
> > I can easily believe this - particularly in California. I don't see the
> > relevance to the rather good piece on postmodernist bullshit though.
>
> The point is that bullshit is all around us all the time. It's silly to worry
> about exposing young minds to it.
>
I can see that. Actually there is an argument to exposing young minds to lots
of it, so it can work as an innoculation.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
To be in process of change is not an evil, any more than to be the
product of change is a good.
- Marcus Aurelius.
WinnerEJ
"Post-Moderns" who celebrate their supposed liberation from the past are only
pursuing more of the same failure in a different direction
The true discussion concerning post-modernity remains that of survival.- Winner
(PS, the original post was both amusing and overlong; as for Academic
"post-modernism", this appears to be no longer of consequence except to
generate tenure-driven journal blather and filler-remarks in Humanities
classes.)
Susan R Murray
actionable? by wr...@erols.com
> back into a time of modernist retrenchment
Really? Well I'm young and trapped in the academic
world right now and I don't get that feeling at all...
why do you think this? I think that a resurgence of
modernist spirit is just what we need. You have to
admit that even if they did have sort of one track
minds they did clean up in terms of making good work
when modernism failed it failed miserably... but when
it worked --- well let me tell you!
> In any event, as long as the world is ruled by people who
> call themselves Modernists, the Postmodernists will always
> have the only valid popular critique, which is a shame, because
> this critigue is wrong.
I'll be the first to ask -- how?
Brad McCormick, Ed.D.
>
> I love it, but I hope that the author realises Pomo
> will not be discredited so easily.
>
> all that has happened is that Postmodernism has become
> the dominant cultural discourse.
>
> As long as we call what is really postmodernism
> "modernity" we will see postmodern subtext everywhere.
> An intellectual cold war founded on false dichotomies
> that would eventually be "won" by the Postmodernists due
> to the bad logic of the so called modernists.
>
> These "modernists" are in reality either nostalgic postmodernists
> that have labled themselves modernists because they don't
> understand what modernism is about, or else paleo modernists
> who have never even begun to grasp even a personal metanarrative
> of postmodernism, much less understood it as a universal theory
> or whatnot.
>
> call themselves Modernists, the Postmodernists will always
> have the only valid popular critique, which is a shame, because
> this critigue is wrong.
>
>
This is very tantalizing. Sounds like you have solutions
to many of our serious real-life and theoretical
problems. Could you kindly provide brief indications
of why you think the postmodernist critique is
wrong, what modernism is about, etc.?
\brad mccormick
--
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21)
Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / bra...@cloud9.net
914.238.0788 / 27 Poillon Rd, Chappaqua, NY 10514-3403 USA
-------------------------------------------------------
<![%THINK;[XML]]> Visit my website: http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
Brad McCormick, Ed.D.
>
> We are post-moderns because modernity failed. the self-proclaimed
> "Post-Moderns" who celebrate their supposed liberation from the past are only
> pursuing more of the same failure in a different direction
> The true discussion concerning post-modernity remains that of survival.- Winner
Alas, it seems to me that, except for a few "at the top" the
synchrotron radiation of the all-consuming singularity?), the
simultaneously centrifugal (fragmenting life ever further) and
implosive (shortening decision and action cycles ever further)
process of contemporary global free-fall Capitalism does seem to be
leading in that direction.
Digression: There's a little known but exquisite film about
the end of civilization: Luc Besson's "Le Derniere Combat"
(it's available on VCR).
[snip]
wrob
*Can't Both be Right*.
Anyone who thinks they can has to be a Postmodernist.
It is quite possible to argue that this "anyone" believes in a
contradiction
in terms - that is, the Postmodernist believes they have subsumed
modernist discourse when they have only perverted it.
Postmodernism is the ideology that seeks to justify baroque modernist
excess. It has succeeded where dialectical materialism failed.
-BER
Susan R Murray wrote:
> Excerpts from netnews.alt.postmodern: 15-Aug-99 Re: Postmodernism
> actionable? by wr...@erols.com
> > The academic world seems convinced that we are moving
> > back into a time of modernist retrenchment
>
> Really? Well I'm young and trapped in the academic
> world right now and I don't get that feeling at all...
>
> why do you think this? I think that a resurgence of
> modernist spirit is just what we need. You have to
> admit that even if they did have sort of one track
> minds they did clean up in terms of making good work
> when modernism failed it failed miserably... but when
> it worked --- well let me tell you!
>
> > In any event, as long as the world is ruled by people who
> > call themselves Modernists, the Postmodernists will always
> > have the only valid popular critique, which is a shame, because
> > this critigue is wrong.
>
> I'll be the first to ask -- how?
>
wrob
Hey - don't sound so sarcastic... :-)
But yes, I believe that there are solutions. They can be arrived
at tangentially but they are essentially ineffable.
Modernism and postmodernism have taught us valuable lessons
but they have fatal flaws.
The reason I believe postmodernism has become more of
a common cultural glue than an actual theory is that changing
our views of postmodernism would necessarily lead to a change in
our cultural worldview.
One thing neither modernism nor postmodernism seems willing to
adress is that it is not in the least depressing to believe we are all
wrong to some degree or another. In order to believe one is wrong,
of course, one has to make a connection between discourse and reality.
-BER
"Brad McCormick, Ed.D." wrote:
> wrob wrote:
> >
> > I love it, but I hope that the author realises Pomo
> > will not be discredited so easily.
> >
> > The academic world seems convinced that we are moving
> > back into a time of modernist retrenchment when in fact
> > all that has happened is that Postmodernism has become
> > the dominant cultural discourse.
> >
> > As long as we call what is really postmodernism
> > "modernity" we will see postmodern subtext everywhere.
> > An intellectual cold war founded on false dichotomies
> > that would eventually be "won" by the Postmodernists due
> > to the bad logic of the so called modernists.
> >
> > These "modernists" are in reality either nostalgic postmodernists
> > that have labled themselves modernists because they don't
> > understand what modernism is about, or else paleo modernists
> > who have never even begun to grasp even a personal metanarrative
> > of postmodernism, much less understood it as a universal theory
> > or whatnot.
> >
> > In any event, as long as the world is ruled by people who
> > call themselves Modernists, the Postmodernists will always
> > have the only valid popular critique, which is a shame, because
> > this critigue is wrong.
> >
> > And not for the reasons the paleo modernists think it's wrong.
> >
> > -BER
>
> This is very tantalizing. Sounds like you have solutions
> to many of our serious real-life and theoretical
> problems. Could you kindly provide brief indications
> of why you think the postmodernist critique is
> wrong, what modernism is about, etc.?
>
G*rd*n
| Fellas - my point was precisely that Modernism and Postmodernism
But they can both be "wrong", fortunately for us.
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 8/14 }
wrob
And so it was that the falling-out stage among the
radical anti-postmodernist fringe began...
"Unlike my esteemed colleague, who believes that modernists
should be allowed to define the scope of their own ideology,
I believe that My definition of Modernism is Half Right and that
the Postmodernist definition of Modernism is all wrong!
And also, Marx was right but his theories were wrong.
Don't get me started on Heidegger!"
-BER
Andrea Chen
> > call themselves Modernists, the Postmodernists will always
> > have the only valid popular critique, which is a shame, because
> > this critigue is wrong.
How can the "valid" critique be wrong? I'm puzzled.
I don't think postmodernism is "popular." As a general rule the
philosophies and aesthetics of this type have limited effect. Millions
of college students may be briefly exposed to them; but the art and
world views which effect society tend to spread through different social
channels. Despite over a century of critiques and historical
observations, the scholary community (ranging from conservative to
radical) has had little effect in stopping the spread of the simplistic
ideology that "markets are good," "competition will save society etc."
SApplied in Russia this has proven tragic. In the western nations it
has engendered a utopian vision in which all problems will be solved
through remedies like tax cuts. This view isn't "modern," it is pre
Keynesian and almost a replay of the 19th century. It is powerful (and
"popular") in certain groups. 30 years ago it seemed obsolete, even the
majority of Republicans didn't hold it. Post modernism may have
resulted in impressive tomes while this ideolgical battle was waged, but
it was ineffectual. Similarly we have the rise of "Christian"
ideologies, far more popular than Po Mo along with the "ontologies" of
Beevis and Butthead and so much else all competing for the hearts and
minds of the people.
Post modernism and modernism (unless one includes things like Disney)
have no use for this popular struggle, to the (limited) extent that they
have any practical plans for influence it is to effect an elite which
will then use them to direct the functioning of institutions and
broadcast them to the masses. To the extent that this happens (to a
very limited degree in some universities) Po Mo becomes the
establishment and a natural target for those dissatisfied with the
system (eg. populists.)
wrob
> > > In any event, as long as the world is ruled by people who
> > > call themselves Modernists, the Postmodernists will always
> > > have the only valid popular critique, which is a shame, because
> > > this critigue is wrong.
>
> How can the "valid" critique be wrong? I'm puzzled.
I meant that its aims were valid, even if the means to the end is
not an enduring philosophical solution. Romanticism is another
good example.
> I don't think postmodernism is "popular." As a general rule the
> philosophies and aesthetics of this type have limited effect. Millions
> of college students may be briefly exposed to them; but the art and
> world views which effect society tend to spread through different social
> channels. Despite over a century of critiques and historical
> observations, the scholary community (ranging from conservative to
> radical) has had little effect in stopping the spread of the simplistic
> ideology that "markets are good," "competition will save society etc."
> SApplied in Russia this has proven tragic. In the western nations it
> has engendered a utopian vision in which all problems will be solved
> through remedies like tax cuts. This view isn't "modern," it is pre
> Keynesian and almost a replay of the 19th century. It is powerful (and
> "popular") in certain groups. 30 years ago it seemed obsolete, even the
> majority of Republicans didn't hold it. Post modernism may have
> resulted in impressive tomes while this ideolgical battle was waged, but
> it was ineffectual. Similarly we have the rise of "Christian"
> ideologies, far more popular than Po Mo along with the "ontologies" of
> Beevis and Butthead and so much else all competing for the hearts and
> minds of the people.
My chief perception is that postmodernism sets the tone for *educated critiques*
of popular discourse. Therefore our popular perceptions of our culture are
constrained by the boundaries of postmodern thought, much in the same way
tha mid-century philosophy was constrained by Freudianism, Behaviorism,
and Strucuralism. Even though most people had the foggiest notion of these
ideologies, their products were the only thing that filtered down into the
popular
conception of "progressive thinking." I guess I'm essentially talking about
Postmodernism as a meme, or as a dominant cultural myth.
-BER
WinnerEJ
>I don't think postmodernism is "popular." As a general rule the
>philosophies and aesthetics of this type have limited effect. Millions
>of college students may be briefly exposed to them; but the art and
>world views which effect society tend to spread through different social
>channels. Despite over a century of critiques and historical
>observations, the scholary community (ranging from conservative to
>radical) has had little effect in stopping the spread of the simplistic
>ideology that "markets are good," "competition will save society etc."
>resulted in impressive tomes while this ideolgical battle was waged, but
>it was ineffectual.
We need to clarify many different "post-modernities" here... the
global-capitalist utopia is a post-modern vision, because the modernists
envisioned their efforts as ultimately moving beyond the ethics of the
marketplace... Academic post-modernity is merely an attempt to impose order on
the chaos that has followed in the wake of the failure of modernity... Beavis
and Butthead are post-moden in their rejection of modernities emphasis on
reason and humanism... We are infavct surrounded with postmodernity of one kind
or other, the centralist-organization directed modernity on the contarary
leaves only decaying artifacts, half-understood texts, and the opportunity to
live without a "Christendom" hanging over one's head. (The Christian ideologies
Chen writes of are also post-modern in their rejection of an orderly
reason-based relationship between religion and the secular, which was a major
point of advocacy and contention among the Elighteners, the Romantics, and the
"high Moderns" (preWWII) per se.) - Winner
Vandelay
WinnerEJ wrote in message <19990820121005...@ng-fp1.aol.com>...
>>Andrea Chen:
>... Academic post-modernity is merely an attempt to impose order on
>the chaos that has followed in the wake of the failure of modernity>
An attempt to impose order? Wouldn't 'academic post-modernity' be a kind of
self-reflexive inquiry of the 'chaos' itself?
To 'impose order' is a trap in and of itself, I would think.
If you look at Prigogine, order emerges from chaos -- although there hasn't
been much scientific proof. But, if you look at the work of Lorenz or
Mandelbrot, then there is more of an emphasis on the ability of a chaotic
system to generate new information.
It all depends on how you're using the term 'chaos', I suppose.
-- vandelay
wrob
postmodern, a "Pop"ularization of religion that is perhaps the OLDEST
form of Postmodernism in America, going back to critiques by Mark Twain,
HL Menken and "Elmer Gantry" that all acknowlege the peculiar
mutated, *counter*modernist identity and "Americanness" of the phenomenon.
Also note that Fundamentalistm is the religious movement most associated
with "pop" psychology and marketing, numbers-based missions,
and *semantics-driven* argument from "faith alone" that often
*acknowledge* the principle of moral relativism, only to turn around
and say that Jesus hates people who don't share His morals.
It's also the form of religion *most commonly identified with Christianity*
by progressive, intellectuals, counterculturals and the like - folks used
to dealing in the postmodern idiom!
Perhaps the most Postmodern religion in the world, however, is Islam.
The first evangelical religion to be founded on a theological schism
"There is one God, and his name is..." -- the Signifier!!
"There is nothing outside the text" indeed!
And guess which two religious movements have made great strides?
-BER
Andrea Chen
> We need to clarify many different "post-modernities" here... the
> global-capitalist utopia is a post-modern vision, because the modernists
> envisioned their efforts as ultimately moving beyond the ethics of the
> marketplace... Academic post-modernity is merely an attempt to impose order on
> the chaos that has followed in the wake of the failure of modernity... Beavis
> and Butthead are post-moden in their rejection of modernities emphasis on
> reason and humanism...
This is typical academic imperialism. The term "post modernism" is
extended to include all sorts of things. The problem is that at this
point the term loses rigor. Those who advance the "global capitalist
utopia" don't define themselves as post modernists and many of their
assumptions do indeed differ from those who do. Same for B&B fans.
You might argue that such events fit within a Pomo model just as
capitalism fits into a Marxist model (which doesn't mean capitalists
are Marxists.)
As for "modernities emphasis on reason and humanism" the statement is
absurd. Surrealism stressed "reason?" I can think of many other
movements classified as part of the "modernist era" which don't fit
smoothly into that definition. Are you going to define pre modern
writers such as Blake as Pomo?
You can't fit an exceedingly complex and contradictory set of social
events into such simplistic molds. This was one of the basics of the
thought called "modern," the loss of simple unambiguous truths whether
in understanding society or physics.
Andrea Chen
> My chief perception is that postmodernism sets the tone for *educated critiques*
>
> of popular discourse. Therefore our popular perceptions of our culture are
> constrained by the boundaries of postmodern thought, much in the same way
> tha mid-century philosophy was constrained by Freudianism, Behaviorism,
> and Strucuralism. Even though most people had the foggiest notion of these
> ideologies, their products were the only thing that filtered down into the
> popular
> conception of "progressive thinking."
There is some truth in this last sentence. Postmodernism as one of the
cliches of the pointy headed intellectual is a possibility.
It seems to me much connection between the populace and "culture" came
to an end (with a whimper) in the early seventies . I feel that was the
time when the majority of middle brow people knew (the names at least)
of the people discussed by the high brow. It was probably in it's peak
from the twenties to fifties. In this later decade almost everyone had
some notion of Sarte, but how many have heard of Derrida? Nor do I find
much evidence of postmodernists effecting policy elites.
I find postmodernism to be too dissipated to have much "practical" as
opposed to theoretical definition. I find people taking words and
projecting into them whatever they want. On this group I've seen people
symbolically analyze a poem in a way nearly identical to my 10th grade
English teacher and call it "deconstruction."
I'm not sure of the direction of culture. Certainly there are many
individual artists of interests, some will have effect as they become
"cults." Others may be banal, but fascinating in the manipulation of
myths (Stephen King) and there is immense vitality, experimentation and
often social criticism in the collective creations of film and
animation. These I think are of greater value than post modernism when
it comes to defining and understanding our culture. I think most of the
academic community is (like intellectual institutional institutions in
the past) almost completely blind to the cultural forces effecting the
actual society. Unlike the academics of a century ago who purposefully
ignored the transforming novel, there is some token effort to examine
with things like TV and even the internet, but it seems far removed from
the actuality. Meanwhile the messages pound on.
To me postmodernism is a bit like Greek and Latin. It has value, but
for most it's irrelevant. Perhaps in some European countries it will be
of some importance just as the British continued shaping their
leadership with the "classics" until recently, but in the US it is a
safe backwater, especially attractive because it can claim that it does
address the world thus making one an activist without the risk.
It does suck away energies in the "progressively" inclined, but if in
fact a vision was created that could attract broad interest Pomo's
essential irrelevance would be clear. Right now a lot of the right has
an agenda, the left defends itself primarily through government,
academia, unions and other institutions despised once by the "new
left." Practical arguments which are essential "liberal" in a
keynesian, great society sort of sense. In terms of social ideology the
battle line is somewhere around the moderate Republicanism of a Gerald
Ford though on some issues animal rightists and others have placed them
pretty far out. Culturally the media and decentralized efforts have
created odd effects. Oprah, Jerry Springer, the Simpsoms etc. are (I
think) transforming (not necessarily in a good way.) The typical
response of the left is to denigrate them or find them impure which
means (to the extent that culture is politics) the players are players
who don't call themselves players, but pursue their agendas under less
lofty guises, except of course on the right which has used more
traditonal organization (which the left has failed in.)
We shall have to see if some "progressive" form emerges from this
chaos. Culturally the nation has shifted on such issues as woman and
gay rights. This has happened independantly from Pomo and the
mainstream leftism from which it draws it's power.
wrob
I don't find Pomo to be mainstream left. It seems bipartisan.
I would not identify it as a backwater to modern progress
but rather as heralding the end of the modernistic approach.
It is indeed a constricting ideology, especially in the US where
it never really was an academic movement, always a popular one.
Postmodernism is primarily fueled by the 60's generation,
both liberals and arch conservatives.
-BER
wrob
simple unambiguous truths! Which is precisely why even surrealism
could never be erected as a philosophical *movement* today - only
as a style. The fact that it constituted a belief system originally is what
made it modern.
It's very formal to say Pomo should stick to formulating models
and interpreting events - but they don't believe in that anymore.
They'd much prefer to identify allies. And you know what? They're
more often right than wrong. You can't say that about Modernist
efforts to claim people who reject modernism as their own.
-BER