Attention Anachronologists
Stephen Schwartz
> : > : > The term postmodernism has been in use since the late 19th
century, even
> : > : > though not with the kind of prominence you require.
Me:
> : > : Care to give me a reference? I don't believe you.
> : >
> : > Boohoo.
>
> : I notice that you did not provide a reference. Is it safe to assume you
> : were talking out of your ass?
>
> It's safe to assume that if you act like a rude little boy you will be
> treated like one. Why don't you get your own ass to the next library and
> open a general reference book? Get back to us.
Ok, let me explain how this particular little game works. Your job is to
make statements that are preposterous on their face (e.g., the first use
of the term "postmodern" dates from the 19th century). My job is then to
challenge you on them. Now the burden of proof is on you: time to put up
or shut up. It is not an acceptable answer to say: "I know that the first
use dates from the 19th century" and then, when challenged as to how you
know this, to respond "I'm not telling" or "boohoo." Indeed, that
behavior is infantile. As for your rather half-assed attempt at smug
condescension, I did in fact go to the Bibliothèque Nationale today and,
while I was there I took a brief moment out from my own research to do a
little of your
own homework for you. The Oxford English Dictionary provides the first
use of "postmodern" in English as dating from 1949, where it was used,
predictably enough, in the field of architectural criticism. Last time I
checked 1949 was not a date in the 19th century, but I could be wrong
about this as I'm not totally up to date on the latest research in
anachronology.
"Ah," you say, "but Adorno and Benjamin were German! What about
19th-century German uses?" Sorry, there weren't any. According to the
1989 edition of the _Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie_, the
earliest use of the term "postmoderne" (which, interestingly, is modeled
on the French word even though the word "postmoderne" in French isn't even
in the 1985 edition of the Grand Robert and doubtless gained currency in
philosophical circles only in the late 1970s) dates from 1917 in a book by
a certain R. Pannwitz. I realize that you've thoroughly deconstructed the
vulgar notion of chronology, but tell me: is 1917 a date in the 19th
century?
"AHA!" I can hear you nevertheless triumphantly exclaiming, "so you see,
Adorno and Benjamin could have heard the term 'postmodern'!" Fair enough,
they could have. But you'll have to tell me if you think the following
use (which is a citation of Pannwitz) is what you have in mind when you
talk about "postmodernism." It's certainly a possibility that I cannot
discount. Pannwitz writes that "der sportlich gestahlte nationalistisch
bewusste militärisch erzogene religiös erregte postmoderne Mensch ist ein
überkrustetes Weichtier ein Juste-milieu von décadent und barbar." Is
that what you think Adorno and Benjamin were "not hostile" to?
Interesting hypothesis. In any case, it's a view of postmodernism that is
not without its merits.
Perhaps you think that what Adorno and Benjamin would not be hostile to
was the era in Spanish poetry running from 1905-1914 described by F. de
Oniz in his seminal _Antologia de la Poesia Española e Hispanoamericana_
(1934) as "el postmodernismo" and which was preceded by "el modernismo"
(1896-1905) and succeeded by "el ultramodernismo" (1914-32)? That's
another interesting hypothesis.
There are also mentions of uses in the 40s by Toynbee's editor and in the
50s by Toynbee himself to refer to some kind of budding internationalism
as opposed to modernist nationalism. You see how prescient that view
was. And there are a few uses by literary critics like Irving Howe and
Leslie Fiedler in the late 1960s in opposition to what they called
"classical" modernism. But unless Adorno was reading _Playboy_ magazine
in 1969 he probably missed out on Fiedler's contribution. My guess is he
let his subscription lapse around that time since he was fairly busy
dying.
In any case, the author of the article in the _Historisches Wörterbuch_
makes it clear that the word "postmodern" in its current
acceptation--except in the field of architecture--dates from, at the
earliest, the late 1960s and that it would really be more accurate to date
it from the mid-to-late 1970s and more than sporadic use from the early
1980s.
So, in fact, it's exactly wrong to say that Adorno and Benjamin could have
had familarity with the concept of postmodernity if not the word. They in
fact could have had familiarity with the word but not the concept as it is
used (as a bludgeon) in this newsgroup. But what interests me in your
responses, indeed what strikes me as not particularly postmodern (heaven
forfend), is this insistence on separating word from concept. Which is
what I was alluding to in the following exchange.
> : > : > Moggin clearly was referring to what can be thought of as those
elements
> : > : > in postmodernism that are critiques of modernity when he said
that B and
> : > : > A weren't hostile to them. Which is even an understatement.
> : >
> : > : Oh, so you mean that it isn't the *word* postmodernism that they
wouldn't
> : > : be hostile to, but rather the thing to which the word refers? How
very .
> : >
> : > Yeah?
>
> : Well, it was supposed to say "How very postmodern." But I kind of like
> : "How very."
>
> But your point was that you can only be hostile to things once you have
> named them in accordance with 90s usage, right?
My point was that, for people who like to yammer on and on about how
reference is necessarily defective, how semeiosis is unlimited, people for
whom the phrase "il n'y a pas de hors-texte" is an article of faith
(albeit one they never manage to cite correctly; but you know what they
mean, right?), it never ceases to amaze me how quick you all are to go
running for the cover of the word/concept distinction when the going gets
even the tiniest bit rough. The word (and the concept) for this
particular behavior is "intellectual dishonesty."
That said, you can only be hostile to ideas when you know what they refer
to, since any sentence with the verb phrase "to be hostile to" will
require an object with a referent. But let's suppose that we're no longer
talking about an idea but a cultural phenomenon that has roots going back
to when Adorno (leaving Benjamin aside given that he died in 1940) was
writing in the 1960s. Did he have a favorable view of the then-nascent
elements of contemporary culture that we now call "postmodern"? If you
think he did, I suggest you read this obscure text that he and Max
Horkheimer wrote called "The Culture Industry." In it you will find that
he had many fascinating and quite vitriolic things to say about the
intrusion of market forces, merchandising, and mechanical modes of
production into the cultural realm, an intrusion which is arguably the
hallmark of what you people revel in under the name "postmodernism." And
if you read what he had to say and you think it's "not hostile" I suggest
you re-read the sentences in there about (if memory serves) Donald Duck
being whacked around on screen so that the proletariat will learn to
endure its punishment quietly or about radio as the voice of the Führer.
And if you still think he was "not hostile," then I suggest that either
you think "voice of the Führer" is an expression of praise, or you have a
definition of "postmodern" so protean as to be useless.
Good day!
Steve
Omar Haneef '96
> "AHA!" I can hear you nevertheless triumphantly exclaiming, "so you see,
> Adorno and Benjamin could have heard the term 'postmodern'!" Fair enough,
> they could have. But you'll have to tell me if you think the following
> use (which is a citation of Pannwitz) is what you have in mind when you
> talk about "postmodernism." It's certainly a possibility that I cannot
> discount. Pannwitz writes that "der sportlich gestahlte nationalistisch
> bewusste militärisch erzogene religiös erregte postmoderne Mensch ist ein
> überkrustetes Weichtier ein Juste-milieu von décadent und barbar." Is
> that what you think Adorno and Benjamin were "not hostile" to?
> Interesting hypothesis. In any case, it's a view of postmodernism that is
> not without its merits.
>
technically titanic thinkers: a translation?
Thanks
-Omar
Omar Haneef '96
> Retrieving some politesse credits, here goes:
> "the sportively steeled nationalistically conscious militaristically
> educated religiously stimulated postmodern human is a crusted-over
> softshell-animal [?] [,] a juste-milieu of decadent and barbarian."
>
You really are a translator! (How long will it take to catch up? I'm aiming
for two years of German including summers.)
and, uh, thanks.
> It's nice, reminds me of Nordau, quite a bit. What's most fascinating
> about Nordau, btw., is how closely his prose mirrors what he hates the
> most. I wrote a paper on self-hating decadents once -- perhaps it's time
> for a thread on self-hating pomos?
>
And here's my justification for responding: Not only do people on this
newsgroup, for the most part, not hate themselves, but WE AREN'T
POSTMODERNISTS. Thats why its always bizarre to hear people assume someone
here is an give us a "yeah, well of course you pomos don't believe in truth
so you [expletive]"! I mean, our periodic jabs at definition aside, what is
a pomo? There is no such thing as a postmodernist, only postmodern theorists
i.e. people who believe in such a thing and spend some time defining it.
-Omar
moggin
[Quite a lot -- I'm deleting most of it to get at the main issues.]
>In any case, the author of the article in the _Historisches
>Wvrterbuch_ makes it clear that the word "postmodern" in its current
>acceptation--except in the field of architecture--dates from, at the
>1980s.
The author is mistaken -- Lyotard's _The Postmodern Condition_
dates from 1979, and he says right at the beginning that "The word
[postmodern] is in current use on the American continent among
sociologists and critics," citing Hassan's _The Dismemberment of
Orpheus: Toward a Post-Modern Literature_," which dates from 1971
(xxiii). And Jameson mentions, in his forward, that post-modernism
was already a "fashionable theme" before Lyotard addressed it (vii).
>You can only be hostile to ideas when you know what they refer to,
>since any sentence with the verb phrase "to be hostile to" will
>require an object with a referent. But let's suppose that we're no
>longer talking about an idea but a cultural phenomenon that has roots
>going back to when Adorno (leaving Benjamin aside given that he died
>in 1940) was writing in the 1960s. Did he have a favorable view of
>the then-nascent elements of contemporary culture that we now call
>"postmodern"?
I've explained this twice by now, but I'll give it another shot:
you must know that Adorno and Benjamin are highly sympathetic to the
"cultural phenomonon" called "modernism." And many of "the elements
of contemporary culture that we now call 'postmodern'" are important
parts of what's called "modernism." To put it another way, "modern"
and "post-modern" often refer to the same thing. Margaret Rose goes
so far as to say that post-modernism "does not appear to add anything
very new to the trends which others have characterized as typical of
modernity or modernism in the past" (_The post-modern and the post
industrial_ 51). (She means Hassan's depiction of the post-modern, in
particular, but I think it's fair to generalize.) Conversely, "many
of the early uses of the term post-modern and post-modernism...have
become outdated now because that which was for them post-modern has
come to be seen in more recent years as part of a now historical
modern period" (20).
Maybe an example would help. Take Sam Beckett, one of Adorno's
favorites, and also a canonized post-modernist. Adorno defended him
(and other modernists, like Kafka) against charges identical to the
ones Eagleton brings against post-modernism: that his writing was
negative, skeptical, and pessimistic, when any responsible author
would produce only wholesome, life-affirming works promoting
family^H^H^H^H^H^H socialist values.
-- moggin
Gordon Fitch
| > Retrieving some politesse credits, here goes:
| > "the sportively steeled nationalistically conscious militaristically
| > educated religiously stimulated postmodern human is a crusted-over
| > softshell-animal [?] [,] a juste-milieu of decadent and barbarian."
My dictionary says "mollusc." The mix of decadent and
barbarian reminds us of the remark that "America is the
first country to become decadent without ever having been
civilized." To me, glorious if true, but unfortunately
not true.
han...@engin.swarthmore.edu (Omar Haneef '96):
| You really are a translator! (How long will it take to catch up? I'm aiming
| for two years of German including summers.)
|
| and, uh, thanks.
Silke-Maria Weineck (wein...@mail2.sas.upenn.edu) wrote:
| > It's nice, reminds me of Nordau, quite a bit. What's most fascinating
| > about Nordau, btw., is how closely his prose mirrors what he hates the
| > most. I wrote a paper on self-hating decadents once -- perhaps it's time
| > for a thread on self-hating pomos?
If you can find some.
han...@engin.swarthmore.edu (Omar Haneef '96):
| And here's my justification for responding: Not only do people on this
| newsgroup, for the most part, not hate themselves, but WE AREN'T
| POSTMODERNISTS. Thats why its always bizarre to hear people assume someone
| here is an give us a "yeah, well of course you pomos don't believe in truth
| so you [expletive]"! I mean, our periodic jabs at definition aside, what is
| a pomo? There is no such thing as a postmodernist, only postmodern theorists
| i.e. people who believe in such a thing and spend some time defining it.
Another part of Net culture, closely related to the boring
truculence I've already panned, is the boring formation of
packs or teams and the construal of other sets of people
into teams. It's odd that a medium which is distributed so
broadly would be dominated by high-school jock or gang
style.
--
}"{ Gordon Fitch }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
Lee Rudolph
>My dictionary says "mollusc." The mix of decadent and
>barbarian reminds us of the remark that "America is the
>first country to become decadent without ever having been
>civilized." To me, glorious if true, but unfortunately
>not true.
Half-decadent would be (cf. that dictionary) lustrous.
Sort of like mother-of-pearl?
Lee Rudolph
Gordon Fitch
| >My dictionary says "mollusc." The mix of decadent and
| >barbarian reminds us of the remark that "America is the
| >first country to become decadent without ever having been
| >civilized." To me, glorious if true, but unfortunately
| >not true.
lrud...@panix.com (Lee Rudolph):
| Half-decadent would be (cf. that dictionary) lustrous.
| Sort of like mother-of-pearl?
There's a lot to be said for molluscs, constructing their
little paradises inside artificial stone, hidden away until
the starfish come. But isn't that more like a transcription
of the 1950s than postmodernity?
--
}"{ Gordon Fitch }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
Brian Dell
: ... a canonized post-modernist.
I've been looking for one of these. To date I've had to make do
with merely beatified post-modernists.
--
Brian Dell
http://www.ualberta.ca/~dellb/
moggin
>: moggin:
>: ... a canonized post-modernist.
>I've been looking for one of these. To date I've had to make do
>with merely beatified post-modernists.
What's the difference, anyhow? At the religious school I was
forced to attend, they taught us about making the desert bloom (on the
theory, I guess, that if the suburbs suddenly dried up, we could offer
our parents advice on reconstituting the front lawn), but this kind of
subtlety never came up.
Anyway, a good place to look would be Edith Wyschogrod's book,
_Saints and Postmodernism_. You might also be interested in an essay
of hers comparing Derrida and Quine. I haven't seen it, but it could
be interesting.
-- moggin
moggin
>: moggin:
>: ... a canonized post-modernist.
>I've been looking for one of these. To date I've had to make do with
>merely beatified post-modernists.
What's the difference, anyhow? At the religious school I was
forced to attend, they taught us about making the desert bloom (on the
theory, I guess, that if the suburbs suddenly dried up, we could offer
our parents advice on reconstituting the front lawn), but this kind of
subtlety never came up.
Anyway, a good place to look would be Edith Wyschogrod's book,
_Saints and Postmodernism_. She also has an an essay comparing Quine
and Derrida -- I haven't seen it, but it sounds interesting.
-- moggin