Defining Post-modern, was Re: Post-modern film
Landis Duffett
ez01...@othello.ucdavis.edu writes:
>Landis Duffett (duf...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu) wrote:
>
>: First of all, you claim that any attempt to attribute a concrete
>: definition, a concrete characterization to the concept "Post-Modernism"
>: is "antithetical" to the *idea* of Post-Modernism.
>: Therefore, by claiming to know what IS and what is NOT antithetical to
>: this idea, you are claiming to know exactly what Post-Modernism is (or
>: else how would you know what to exclude and what to include) and you
thus
>: do precisely the same thing which you take the original poster to task
>: for: namely, attribute an essence to Post-Modernism.
>
>I was not claiming to know EXACTLY what PM is. It is possible to say
that
>something runs contrary to a given ideology without attributing a
>complete, normative definition to that ideology
So, what you're saying is that you DO think it's possible to list
characteristics of PM but it is not possible to group this list of
characteristics (and the list would not be arbitrary, since as you claim
we CAN know what is and what is not characteristic of something without
having to posit a definition) under the HEADING "definition"? In other
words, what I am asking is: what is a list of essential characteristics
(which excludes non-essential characteristics) but a "definition"? If
not, what exactly DEFINES the word "definition"? How is one able to
distinguish between when a list of characteristics can be called a
definition and when it cannot? (The answer? By knowing the essence.)
You've merely moved the problem from a referential to a metalinguistic
realm, but the problem and the paradox remains. My argument is that yes
we obviously CAN posit a definition of Post-Modernism. How? Because, as
you and I seem to agree, we CAN know the characteristics of something.
Thus, if we can know this then we can also know what to exclude: this is
all anyone needs to know to posit an accurate definition of something.
Look at how words are defined in any reputable dictionary: words are
defined as the intersection of their social meanings and a single
definition is oftentimes a list of characteristics which has been
cleverly fitted into a single sentence or phrase. In this respect,
Post-Modernism is definable, and if PM is not definable in this respect,
then NOTHING is. Again, I hope I've underscored to you the metalinguistic
nature of our argument, which is not to say that it is trivial, but it is
to say that we both need to be aware of what we disagree on before we go
any further.
>(see, for instance,
>Wittgenstein's idea of family resemblances: we cannot define "game" but
>we can attribute certain characterstics to it, and we can state that
>certain characteristics do not fit within the category).
See above.
> : In other words, if, as you say, Post-Modernism has no concrete
>: definition, then why can't this poster attribute any definition he
wants
>: to to it? Who's going to know?
>
>To repeat, just because something cannot be concretely defined, does not
>mean that we have no idea about it. Another example, "tragedy" is not a
>concretely definable term (a definition can be constructed, but it will
>be largely arbitrary.) However, it is still possible to say "A
>Midsummer's Night Dream" is not a tragedy.
Just because something cannot be concretely defined, does not mean that
we have no idea about it? It's quite ironic that you're using "we" and
"have an idea about it" in the same sentence. I will grant the
possibility that an individual may have an intuition or emotion which
actually exists but which cannot be put into words. I will not (now or
ever) grant that society, or even two or more people, could share an
exact same intuition or emotion which could not be put into words. This
possbility requires a code which in turn implies the definability
(granted, within the same code) of said intuition or notion. In other
words, I believe that the word PM refers to a particular and definable
essence which exists in the realm of language, not individual language,
but social language, which, at least all that I am familiar with, exists
among more than one person. It must be definable in the code which those
two people share. And that is not any kind of metaphysical statement, to
claim that a code exists between the two people, because we know that it
does; it exists as a code, nothing more, nothing less. This is what I'm
saying: in this respect, the word Post-Modernism is definable.
>: The point is this: Post-Modernism is not the first (nor will it be the
>: last) ideological school which has, as a tenet of its ideological
>: position, the claim to be outside the realm of definability and
>: expressibility. This is a trope (on a discursive as well as
>: meta-discursive level) which goes back several centuries further than
the
>: word "Post-Modernism." The word "Post-Modernism" does not define some
>: kind of "unique" and "never before seen" and "unable to be defined"
stage
>: of cultural history. Obviously, we CAN concretely define
>: "Post-Modernism," something which you and other posters on this list
have
>: been doing all along: namely, expressing what you understand by the
>: notion. That's how any ideologically unifying and reifying device can
be
>: defined.
>Perhaps you could be more specific. What other discourses have suggested
>that they are resistive to metanarrational definition?
Taoism ("the way that can be spoken of is not the constant way"),
Theosophy, Anthroposophy, Jewish mysticism, all of these dicourses which
may, as in the case of Theosophy or mysticism, attribute a special
function to the word, nonetheless ultimately proclaim the inability of
language to define the essence of something, themselves and their beliefs
included. It's actually a pretty frequent phenomenon among the World's
religions.
>What you call
>"concrete definition" I would call an attribution of features. We CAN
NOT
>come up with an absolute, complete definition of postmodernism. Perhaps
I
>should say "I can not," and any other theorist I have read has not.
See above.
>: If we really want to better understand "Post-Modernism" then we would
do
>: well to quit believing in its claim to some priviliged transcendental
>: position outside of language and history and realize that this very
>: claim, by the very fact that it depends upon, even requires language to
>: be expressed and understood, is no more or less unique than any other
>: claim made in the past, which likewise depended upon language (and its
>: locatability in history) to be understood.
>
>Here we agree. I do not accept PM's claim to exist outside of a
>culturally defined discursive space. All language is situated within an
>ideology, and PM cannot escape that. However, PM's recognition of this
>situation allows for the exploration of new discursive areas. Of course,
>this recognition is not unique to PM (unless you choose to "define" all
>works which contain such a consciousness PM)
Well, I guess we'd have to have a working definition of Post-Modern to
know whether or not to call it such, which I am claiming is possible;
this would exclude some of these self-conscious works and exclude others.
You grant that the recognition is not unique, but somehow the "discursive
areas" are new? I detect a tautology here. Again, you seem to be trying
to attribute to Post-Modernism a privileged position which it has no
legitmate claim to.
>: The attempt to "pigeonhole" the term Post-Modernism is not going to be
>: any more or any less facile than the attempt to pigeonhole any other
term
>: whose function is to create a false sense of unity and purpose (which
is
>: precisely what PM does, believe it or not). On the other hand, what IS
>: facile is the mystical belief in PM as a transcendental realm.
>Again, I agree. Any complicated discourse will resist definition.
>However, many discourses can be descriptively, retrospectively defined.
>Since PM is a contemporary discourse, it is impossible to concretely
>define it.
Pretty slick, but not slick enough. You jump from my statement "The
attempt to 'pigeonhole' the term PM is not going to be any more or any
less facile than the attempt to pigeonhole any other term whose function
it is to create a false sense of unity and purpose" to your statement
"Again, I agree," then to a distorted restatement of what you claim my
agreeable statement was but now cast in line with your own argumentation:
"Any complicated discourse will resist definition." Or to put it more
simply: I never said that.
And as for your unproven assertion at the end "Since PM is a contemporary
discourse, it is impossible to concretely define it," I'm not sure where
its validity came from; I hope you're not going to claim from the
sentence which preceded it, which would be a grave logical fallacy,
namely: 'if some A's are B's (some past discourses are definable), then
not A-->not B(PM, which is not a past discourse, cannot be defined);
apart from the difficulty of determining whether a discourse has been
around long enough for us to retrospectively define it, apart from that,
your logic is flawed. Please inform me that I've misread you and that the
conclusion you reached in the last sentence came from somewhere else,
because I don't see it.
Landis Duffett
Internet: duf...@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu
AOL: gregr...@aol.com
"I like USA Today. It's the only newspaper that's not afraid to tell the
truth--that everything is just fine!"
--Homer Simpson
Scott Fischbein
: Just because something cannot be concretely defined, does not mean that
: we have no idea about it? It's quite ironic that you're using "we" and
: "have an idea about it" in the same sentence. I will grant the
: possibility that an individual may have an intuition or emotion which
: actually exists but which cannot be put into words. I will not (now or
: ever) grant that society, or even two or more people, could share an
: exact same intuition or emotion which could not be put into words. This
: possbility requires a code which in turn implies the definability
: (granted, within the same code) of said intuition or notion. In other
: words, I believe that the word PM refers to a particular and definable
: essence which exists in the realm of language, not individual language,
: but social language, which, at least all that I am familiar with, exists
: among more than one person. It must be definable in the code which those
: two people share. And that is not any kind of metaphysical statement, to
: claim that a code exists between the two people, because we know that it
: does; it exists as a code, nothing more, nothing less. This is what I'm
: saying: in this respect, the word Post-Modernism is definable.
Before continuing this discussion, I think I will pause and try to
understand your statements a bit more thoroughly. How does PM exist as an
essence in language? Is that essence only present in language? If so, how
do we know that the essence will be interpreted equivalently by two
different users of that language? If I may be so bold as to anticipate
your answer: "Because the linguistic code is a social one, not an
individual one." Perhaps you could expand upon those ideas of
linguistic/metaphysical essence.
To attempt to avoid all this semantic difficulty (esp. surrounding the
word "definition"), I will attempt to restate my position, and perhaps if
this social linguistic code that we supposedly share actually exists, we
may understand each other...
I believe that it is not possible to have a concrete, complete
understanding of what postmodernism is (along with many other things). I
might make a list of certain salient features of PM, and I might be able
to say "That film is rather postmodern," and even tell you why. However,
if someone asked me to explain to them exactly what postmodernism is, in
the way that they might ask me to explain what a dog is, I would be
unable to do so. Perhaps this is because of my lack of intellectual
sophistication, or my lack of familiarity with PM. However, I choose to
believe (maybe for no other reason than to avoid self deprecation) that
this lack of ability to adequately categorize PM is due to the lack of an
essence of PM. I will repeat that I do not believe that this is at all
unique to PM. I would have the same difficulty in adequately explaining
tragedy (as have many others from Aristotle onwards.) To my interlocutor,
I would suggest that PM is not something that can be defined. One can
read a lot about it, absorb different descriptions of it, and come to an
understanding of its salient features. Perhaps you will call this
definition, I will not.
Finally, if you insist on the possibility of defining PM, please do so.
If you choose not to define PM, I would accept a definition of tragedy,
comedy, modernism, or realism in its place.
: >Perhaps you could be more specific. What other discourses have suggested
: >that they are resistive to metanarrational definition?
: Taoism ("the way that can be spoken of is not the constant way"),
: Theosophy, Anthroposophy, Jewish mysticism, all of these dicourses which
: may, as in the case of Theosophy or mysticism, attribute a special
: function to the word, nonetheless ultimately proclaim the inability of
: language to define the essence of something, themselves and their beliefs
: included. It's actually a pretty frequent phenomenon among the World's
: religions.
Thank you, I am unfamiliar with all of those areas, aside from an
undergrad survey course in comparative religion, wherein one hour was
devoted to Taoism. Eventually, I hope I will have the time to expand my
education in those areas, perhaps you could provide some more specific
references (email would suffice...thanks)
: And as for your unproven assertion at the end "Since PM is a contemporary
: discourse, it is impossible to concretely define it," I'm not sure where
: its validity came from; I hope you're not going to claim from the
: sentence which preceded it, which would be a grave logical fallacy,
: namely: 'if some A's are B's (some past discourses are definable), then
: not A-->not B(PM, which is not a past discourse, cannot be defined);
: apart from the difficulty of determining whether a discourse has been
: around long enough for us to retrospectively define it, apart from that,
: your logic is flawed. Please inform me that I've misread you and that the
: conclusion you reached in the last sentence came from somewhere else,
: because I don't see it.
As you point out, my logic may well be flawed, but my point was this: It
is possible to descriptively attribute features to a past discourse. In
other words, we can look at Shakespearean drama and say "Well, it has
this, this and this." (Sorry, I'm too lazy to fill in the blanks). This
descriptive definition merely lists the attributes which are to be found
in a certain discourse. This does not work for PM because there is
nothing extant that we can point to and say, ok what features does that
have.
I look forward to finding out all of the weaknesses in the foregoing
arguments.
--
==========================================================
Scott Fischbein-- sfisc...@bullwinkle.ucdavis.edu
"Ein Mensch ist in einem Zimmer gefangen, wenn die Tuer unversperrt ist,
sich nach innen oeffnet; er aber nicht auf die Idee kommt zu ziehen, statt
gegen sie zu druecken"- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Vermischte Bemerkungen
christopher arthur
--
Christopher Arthur
amad...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
UT-Austin.