IS POST-MODERNISM A META-NARRATIVE?
IMARXIST
that individual choice is paramount, is not POMO a meta-narrative itself,
seemingly falsifying it's own hypothesis.
if not, what the hell is it then?
Ben Wolfson
As long as that "seemingly" is there, the answer to the second part of
your disguised question is probably "yes", because, judging from the way
the semi-question is phrased, postmodernism does seem to falsify its own
hypothesis, at least to you. Whether or not it DOES is another matter,
as is the unqualified question of whether or not it is a meta-narrative.
Barnabas T. Rumjuggler
Elaine Smith
"...it is hard to see how it can come to the aid of anyone. The argument is
self-undermining ... deconstruction has nothing more to say for the view
that intellectual standards are masks for the will to power that it too
reflects the will to power for deconstructionists. But why then bother with
intellectual life at all, which is not the fastest, surest, or even most
satisfying path to political power, if it is political power that one is
really after."
It is certainly true that pomo sets itself up in an interesting position. It
is a powerful descriptive tool (to analyse power relations, knowledge,etc.)
but how can it even attempt to be prescriptive?
- D.
IMARXIST <jo...@ferris100.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7ipva4$dq3$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
Jim Humphreys
news:n1043.781$ls.2...@news.itd.umich.edu...
> IMARXIST <jo...@ferris100.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> : in arguing that mata-narratives are insufficient to explain the world,
and
> : that individual choice is paramount, is not POMO a meta-narrative
itself,
> : seemingly falsifying it's own hypothesis.
>
> prescribing a one-ingredient pasta sauce.
>
But its prescribing a sauce with more than one ingredient -
to that extent , as the original poster maintains, it is a grand
narrative contradicting its own central thesis.
Jim Humphreys
Au fond de l' Inconnu pour trouver du nouveau.
Baudelaire, Le Voyage.
Jim Humphreys
Silke-Maria Weineck <sm...@umich.edu> wrote
>:>in arguing that mata-narratives are insufficient to explain the world,
>:>and that individual choice is paramount, is not POMO a meta-narrative
>:>itself, seemingly falsifying it's own hypothesis.
>:>[smw] Only if saying that pasta sauce needs more than one
>:> ingredient is prescribing a one-ingredient pasta sauce.
>:>
> : But its prescribing a sauce with more than one ingredient -
> : to that extent , as the original poster maintains, it is a grand
> : narrative contradicting its own central thesis.
>
>[smw] No. "No single narrative will suffice to organize all the little
ones" is
> not a narrative. It's a statement, but post-modernism doesn't really have
> any beef with statements. "It's raining" still works fine, as well.
>
I don't think that this reply is at all adequate. The above
is very plainly a metanarrative in that it is a story which
subordinates lesser narratives: in other words the story
that "no single narrative will suffice to organize all
the little ones" subordinates those single narratives which
purport to organize lesser narratives.
Jim Humphreys
Gerry Quinn
>This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>--------------287D2ACE1A47E72EBB029DB0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>_________________________tinman
>start_______________________
>How about:
>
>Post Modernism "is an anarchists dream"
>
Anarchy is an anarchist's dream.
- Gerry Quinn
Yip Weng
there is a meta-narrative, we don't knoe the limits of its bounds. And this
is a meta-narrative.
silence...
BE*LIE*VE
Paul David Lanier
On Sun, 30 May 1999, Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
> IMARXIST <jo...@ferris100.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> : in arguing that mata-narratives are insufficient to explain the world, and
> : that individual choice is paramount, is not POMO a meta-narrative itself,
> : seemingly falsifying it's own hypothesis.
>
> Only if saying that pasta sauce needs more than one ingredient is
> prescribing a one-ingredient pasta sauce.
>
> smw
>
You're begging the question, silke. Of course postmodern pasta sauce has
only one ingredient- the correct misreading.
Paul
Paul David Lanier
On Wed, 2 Jun 1999, Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
> Paul David Lanier <lan...@email.uah.edu> wrote:
> Yawn. And did you ever hear the one about the nun and
>
> nevermind
>
>
>
Quite understood. But silke, why is it that postmodernism is always stuck
in one theme, that the author's text establishes and questions its
authority... however the details of the particular view of the text and/or
author fall?
Paul Lanier
Jim Humphreys
Yip Weng wrote in message <3755f3a7...@news.nottingham.ac.uk>...
>Postmodernism is a paradox. It is has no meta-narrative structure, but if
>is a meta-narrative.
I don't quite follow this. Firstly you are claiming to be able
to identify an object 'postmodernism' which you then assert
has no meta-narrative structure. What is this object, and
what is its structure , then? What does it mean to go on to say
that "if there is a metanarrative ....this is a metanarrative"?
A tautology surely.
Jim Humphreys
Ben Wolfson
>
> in arguing that mata-narratives are insufficient to explain the world, and
> that individual choice is paramount, is not POMO a meta-narrative itself,
> seemingly falsifying it's own hypothesis.
>
It seems to me (and this could be totally wrong) that postmodernism
isn't a metanarrative, because "metanarrative" implies "narrative of
narratives" and if postmodernism states that the little narratives never
form a larger narrative, then it can't be a metanarrative. It is a rule
that applies to narratives in that it disbars them from forming a
greater narrative than they individually are, but it doesn't itself form
them into larger narratives.
--
Barnabas T. Rumjuggler
Paul David Lanier
But that imposes a certain rule, a certain narrative, on the whole array
of the plural narratives, that none gets the meta-narrative position...
the contradiction being the rule, the deconstruction, or the postmodern
denial is itself the master narrative. Its a logical puzzle pomos just
do not escape.
Paul Lanier
Paul David Lanier
On Fri, 4 Jun 1999, Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
> Paul David Lanier <lan...@email.uah.edu> wrote:
> Perhaps you want to tell us what exactly you mean by "narrative"?
>
> smw
And ruin your fun?
Very well, the narrative here is the deconstrution analysis of the text
examined. Above that I suppose you could posit the literary theory
and philosophy (or anti-philosophy) of deconstruction. But really, that
is not a particularly fun and communal way of thinking about it, no?
Paul Lanier
>
Ben Wolfson
>
> Paul David Lanier <lan...@email.uah.edu> wrote:
> : On Thu, 3 Jun 1999, Ben Wolfson wrote:
> :> IMARXIST wrote:
> :> >
> :> > in arguing that mata-narratives are insufficient to explain the world, and
> :> > that individual choice is paramount, is not POMO a meta-narrative itself,
> :> > seemingly falsifying it's own hypothesis.
> :> >
> :> > if not, what the hell is it then?
> :>
> :> It seems to me (and this could be totally wrong) that postmodernism
> :> isn't a metanarrative, because "metanarrative" implies "narrative of
> :> narratives" and if postmodernism states that the little narratives never
> :> form a larger narrative, then it can't be a metanarrative. It is a rule
> :> that applies to narratives in that it disbars them from forming a
> :> greater narrative than they individually are, but it doesn't itself form
> :> them into larger narratives.
> :>
> :> --
> :> Barnabas T. Rumjuggler
> :>
> :>
>
> : But that imposes a certain rule, a certain narrative, on the whole array
> : of the plural narratives, that none gets the meta-narrative position...
> : the contradiction being the rule, the deconstruction, or the postmodern
> : denial is itself the master narrative. Its a logical puzzle pomos just
> : do not escape.
>
> Perhaps you want to tell us what exactly you mean by "narrative"?
More or less, what I meant by "narrative" was some kind of organizing
scheme which puts its component parts into a given place. If the parts
are arranged randomly, then there is no narrative, just a jumble of
stuff.
--
Barnabas T. Rumjuggler
Jim Humphreys
Paul David Lanier wrote in message ...
>On Thu, 3 Jun 1999, Ben Wolfson wrote:
>> >
>> > in arguing that mata-narratives are insufficient to explain the world,
and
>> > that individual choice is paramount, is not POMO a meta-narrative
itself,
>> > seemingly falsifying it's own hypothesis.
>> >
>> > if not, what the hell is it then?
>>
>> It seems to me (and this could be totally wrong) that postmodernism
>> isn't a metanarrative, because "metanarrative" implies "narrative of
>> narratives" and if postmodernism states that the little narratives never
>> form a larger narrative, then it can't be a metanarrative.
Actually this doesn't follow. If a metanarrative is defined as
a "narrative of [about] narratives" then p, which states that "the little
narratives never form a larger narrative" is a narrative.
> It is a rule
>> that applies to narratives in that it disbars them from forming a
>> greater narrative than they individually are, but it doesn't itself form
>> them into larger narratives.
>>
But "Little narratives never form a larger narrative" doesn't disbar/
forbid the formation of anything - it is simply a narrative about
other narratives.
>
>But that imposes a certain rule, a certain narrative, on the whole array
>of the plural narratives, that none gets the meta-narrative position...
>the contradiction being the rule,
Yes, its paradoxical.
Jim Humphreys
Jim Humphreys
Silke-Maria Weineck wrote in message ...>: On Fri, 4 Jun 1999, Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
>No, no, Paul, what _is_ a narrative? Is any text a narrative? Is "The king
>died" a narrative?
A metanarrative may be defined as a story which underpins the
legitimacy of a commitment or activity [ Penguin Dictionary
of Philosophy]. This definition would include "The little narratives
never form a larger narrative" as cited by the previous poster.
The commitment in this case would be to postmodernism.
I suspect that you would like to define 'statement' or suchlike
in a manner which allows you to exclude "The little narratives...."
from the category of matanarratives - but very plainly , using
if you wish Lyotard's own definition of metanarrative, it *is*
a metanarrative.
Jim Humphreys
Ben Wolfson
>
> Ben Wolfson <rumju...@home.com> wrote:
> : Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
> :>
> :> Paul David Lanier <lan...@email.uah.edu> wrote:
> :> : On Thu, 3 Jun 1999, Ben Wolfson wrote:
> :> :> IMARXIST wrote:
> :> :> >
> :> :> > in arguing that mata-narratives are insufficient to explain the world, and
> :> :> > that individual choice is paramount, is not POMO a meta-narrative itself,
> :> :> > seemingly falsifying it's own hypothesis.
> :> :> >
> :> :> > if not, what the hell is it then?
> :> :>
> :> :> It seems to me (and this could be totally wrong) that postmodernism
> :> :> isn't a metanarrative, because "metanarrative" implies "narrative of
> :> :> form a larger narrative, then it can't be a metanarrative. It is a rule
> :> :> that applies to narratives in that it disbars them from forming a
> :> :> greater narrative than they individually are, but it doesn't itself form
> :> :> them into larger narratives.
> :> :> --
> :> :> Barnabas T. Rumjuggler
> :> :>
> :> :>
> :>
> :> : But that imposes a certain rule, a certain narrative, on the whole array
> :> : of the plural narratives, that none gets the meta-narrative position...
> :> : denial is itself the master narrative. Its a logical puzzle pomos just
> :> : do not escape.
> :>
> :> Perhaps you want to tell us what exactly you mean by "narrative"?
>
> : More or less, what I meant by "narrative" was some kind of organizing
> : scheme which puts its component parts into a given place.
>
Whoops--that, I suppose, is what not having had any education in such
matters will get you. Or me, at any rate.
--
Barnabas T. Rumjuggler
Paul David Lanier
On Fri, 4 Jun 1999, Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
> Jim Humphreys <jimh...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
>
> : Silke-Maria Weineck wrote in message ...
> :>Paul David Lanier <lan...@email.uah.edu> wrote:
> :>: On Fri, 4 Jun 1999, Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
>
>
> :>No, no, Paul, what _is_ a narrative? Is any text a narrative? Is "The king
> :>died" a narrative?
>
>
> : A metanarrative may be defined as a story which underpins the
> : legitimacy of a commitment or activity [ Penguin Dictionary
> : of Philosophy]. This definition would include "The little narratives
> : never form a larger narrative" as cited by the previous poster.
> : The commitment in this case would be to postmodernism.
> : I suspect that you would like to define 'statement' or suchlike
> : in a manner which allows you to exclude "The little narratives...."
> : from the category of matanarratives - but very plainly , using
> : if you wish Lyotard's own definition of metanarrative, it *is*
> : a metanarrative.
>
> Actually, I suspect that people like Lyotard base their use of 'narrative'
> on the work done in narratology, be it by Genette etc. over there or by
> Prince etc. over here. In other words, what is called 'narrative' here
> strikes me as so low in narrativity that I'm simply not sure it applies.
>
> smw
>
>
Lady Huntress, you seem puzzled by that which you cannot escape.
The low degree of narrativity does not make the narrativity inapplicalbe.
If you mean that there is no narrative, then I respectfully disagree.
Paul Lanier
Paul David Lanier
On Fri, 4 Jun 1999, Jim Humphreys wrote:
>
> Paul David Lanier wrote in message ...
>
> >On Thu, 3 Jun 1999, Ben Wolfson wrote:
> >> >
> >> > in arguing that mata-narratives are insufficient to explain the world,
> and
> >> > that individual choice is paramount, is not POMO a meta-narrative
> itself,
> >> > seemingly falsifying it's own hypothesis.
> >> >
> >> > if not, what the hell is it then?
> >>
> >> It seems to me (and this could be totally wrong) that postmodernism
> >> isn't a metanarrative, because "metanarrative" implies "narrative of
> >> narratives" and if postmodernism states that the little narratives never
> >> form a larger narrative, then it can't be a metanarrative.
>
> Actually this doesn't follow. If a metanarrative is defined as
> a "narrative of [about] narratives" then p, which states that "the little
> narratives never form a larger narrative" is a narrative.
>
> > It is a rule
> >> that applies to narratives in that it disbars them from forming a
> >> greater narrative than they individually are, but it doesn't itself form
> >> them into larger narratives.
> >>
>
> But "Little narratives never form a larger narrative" doesn't disbar/
> forbid the formation of anything - it is simply a narrative about
> other narratives.
>
> >
> >But that imposes a certain rule, a certain narrative, on the whole array
> >of the plural narratives, that none gets the meta-narrative position...
> >the contradiction being the rule,
>
> Yes, its paradoxical.
>
> Jim Humphreys
>
>
>
>
Jim, you see the puzzle clearly . :)
Paul Lanier
Paul David Lanier
On Fri, 4 Jun 1999, Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
> Paul David Lanier <lan...@email.uah.edu> wrote:
> : On Fri, 4 Jun 1999, Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
> [...]:>
> :> Perhaps you want to tell us what exactly you mean by "narrative"?
> :>
> :> smw
>
> : And
> ruin your fun?
> : Very well, the narrative here is
>
> No, no, Paul, what _is_ a narrative? Is any text a narrative? Is "The king
> died" a narrative?
>
> the deconstrution analysis of the text
> : examined.
>
> Is _The Postmodern Condition_ deconstruction?
>
> smw
>
>
>
Is philosphy or or literary ciriticism not a narrative?
Be careful Lady Huntress in your answer. I am thinking of derrida's
attitue towards philosophy.
Cheers,
Paul Lanier
Paul David Lanier
On Fri, 4 Jun 1999, Ben Wolfson wrote:
> Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
> >
> > Paul David Lanier <lan...@email.uah.edu> wrote:
> > : On Thu, 3 Jun 1999, Ben Wolfson wrote:
> > :> IMARXIST wrote:
> > :> >
> > :> > in arguing that mata-narratives are insufficient to explain the world, and
> > :> > that individual choice is paramount, is not POMO a meta-narrative itself,
> > :> > seemingly falsifying it's own hypothesis.
> > :> >
> > :> > if not, what the hell is it then?
> > :>
> > :> It seems to me (and this could be totally wrong) that postmodernism
> > :> isn't a metanarrative, because "metanarrative" implies "narrative of
> > :> narratives" and if postmodernism states that the little narratives never
> > :> form a larger narrative, then it can't be a metanarrative. It is a rule
> > :> that applies to narratives in that it disbars them from forming a
> > :> greater narrative than they individually are, but it doesn't itself form
> > :> them into larger narratives.
> > :>
> > :> --
> > :> Barnabas T. Rumjuggler
> > :>
> > :>
> >
> > : But that imposes a certain rule, a certain narrative, on the whole array
> > : of the plural narratives, that none gets the meta-narrative position...
> > : the contradiction being the rule, the deconstruction, or the postmodern
> > : denial is itself the master narrative. Its a logical puzzle pomos just
> > : do not escape.
> >
> > Perhaps you want to tell us what exactly you mean by "narrative"?
>
> More or less, what I meant by "narrative" was some kind of organizing
> scheme which puts its component parts into a given place. If the parts
> are arranged randomly, then there is no narrative, just a jumble of
> stuff.
>
> --
> Barnabas T. Rumjuggler
>
>
Hmmm seems to be a lot of structure in this universe: Stars, planets,
human beings, and of course various texts. What probably were you thinking
of?
Shalom and Grace,
Paul Lanier
Paul David Lanier
On Fri, 4 Jun 1999, Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
> Paul David Lanier <lan...@email.uah.edu> wrote:
> : On Fri, 4 Jun 1999, Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
> [...]:>
> :> Perhaps you want to tell us what exactly you mean by "narrative"?
> :>
> :> smw
>
> : And
> ruin your fun?
> : Very well, the narrative here is
>
> No, no, Paul, what _is_ a narrative? Is any text a narrative? Is "The king
> died" a narrative?
>
> the deconstrution analysis of the text
> : examined.
>
> Is _The Postmodern Condition_ deconstruction?
>
> smw
>
>
>
Don't think I've read the book _The Postmodern Condition_.Perhaps I
should. But I'm not unfamilair with deconstruction... if you read back a
few posts you'll see I recomended a certain Derria book, helpfully
Dorfman brought to mind the title _Arhive Fever_. But I'll reserve
judgement for what view _The Postmodern Condition_ conveys after I've
read it , not before.
Anyway, nice troll, but its really not the centre of this particular
thread's question... about the metanarrative of postmodernism or the
perceived lack of it..
Paul Lanier
Paul David Lanier
On Fri, 4 Jun 1999, Ben Wolfson wrote:
> Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
> >
> > Ben Wolfson <rumju...@home.com> wrote:
> > : Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
> > :>
> > :> Paul David Lanier <lan...@email.uah.edu> wrote:
> > :> : On Thu, 3 Jun 1999, Ben Wolfson wrote:
> > :> :> IMARXIST wrote:
> > :> :> >
> > :> :> > in arguing that mata-narratives are insufficient to explain the world, and
> > :> :> > that individual choice is paramount, is not POMO a meta-narrative itself,
> > :> :> > seemingly falsifying it's own hypothesis.
> > :> :> >
> > :> :> > if not, what the hell is it then?
> > :> :>
> > :> :> It seems to me (and this could be totally wrong) that postmodernism
> > :> :> isn't a metanarrative, because "metanarrative" implies "narrative of
> > :> :> narratives" and if postmodernism states that the little narratives never
> > :> :> form a larger narrative, then it can't be a metanarrative. It is a rule
> > :> :> that applies to narratives in that it disbars them from forming a
> > :> :> greater narrative than they individually are, but it doesn't itself form
> > :> :> them into larger narratives.
> > :> :>
> > :> :> --
> > :> :> Barnabas T. Rumjuggler
> > :> :>
> > :> :>
> > :>
> > :> : But that imposes a certain rule, a certain narrative, on the whole array
> > :> : of the plural narratives, that none gets the meta-narrative position...
> > :> : the contradiction being the rule, the deconstruction, or the postmodern
> > :> : denial is itself the master narrative. Its a logical puzzle pomos just
> > :> : do not escape.
> > :>
> > :> Perhaps you want to tell us what exactly you mean by "narrative"?
> >
> > : More or less, what I meant by "narrative" was some kind of organizing
> > : scheme which puts its component parts into a given place.
> >
> > That strikes me as a basic definition of structure, not narrative.
>
> Whoops--that, I suppose, is what not having had any education in such
> matters will get you. Or me, at any rate.
>
> --
> Barnabas T. Rumjuggler
>
>
The meta-structure?
Paul Lanier
jimhumph
>On Fri, 4 Jun 1999, Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
>
>> :>No, no, Paul, what _is_ a narrative? Is any text a narrative? Is "The
king
>> :>died" a narrative?
>>
>>
>> : A metanarrative may be defined as a story which underpins the
>> : legitimacy of a commitment or activity [ Penguin Dictionary
>> : of Philosophy]. This definition would include "The little narratives
>> : never form a larger narrative" as cited by the previous poster.
>> : The commitment in this case would be to postmodernism.
>> : I suspect that you would like to define 'statement' or suchlike
>> : in a manner which allows you to exclude "The little narratives...."
>> : from the category of matanarratives - but very plainly , using
>> : if you wish Lyotard's own definition of metanarrative, it *is*
>> : a metanarrative.
>>
>> Actually, I suspect that people like Lyotard base their use of
'narrative'
>> on the work done in narratology, be it by Genette etc. over there or by
>> Prince etc. over here. In other words, what is called 'narrative' here
>> strikes me as so low in narrativity that I'm simply not sure it applies.
>>
The question that I should ask you then is "What definition of
metanarrative can be formulated which will allow the exclusion of
'The little narratives....' from the category of metanarratives"?
Jim Humphreys
Richard Crew
: jimhumph <jimh...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
:
: Well, the first question is whether saying that something doesn't or
: didn't happen is a narrative, without any context to make it one. For
: instance, is "metanarratives aren't useful in explaining the world" a
: narrative? What would make it a narrative?
:
: What about "narratives apply in useful ways only locally"? It's
: meta, but it isn't a narrative as far as I can see.
:
: smw
Before we get too technical, it might be good to remember that the word
Lyotard tends to use is not "narrative" but "recit," as in "Le grand recit
a perdu sa credibilit'e" (opening of Ch. 10). And that "recit" is a
perfectly ordinary French word meaning "story" (my Petit Robert glosses it
as "oral or written account of real or imaginary facts"). So the
*grand recit* -- the "metanarrative" -- is just "the big story." In the
context of Lyotard's book it's clear what he's referring to, but the
question still remains as to why Lyotard's account isn't just another
"big story" intended to legitimize his own notion of postmodern
scholarship (i.e. "par paralogie").
--Rich
--
Better to toss a stone at random, then a word.
-Porphyry
jimhumph
Silke-Maria Weineck wrote in message ...
no reason to do this. It is a metanarrative, since it is a story which
underpins the legitimacy of a commitment or activity.
> What about "narratives apply in useful ways only locally"? It's
>meta, but it isn't a narrative as far as I can see.
>
Same comment as above applies. I'm not sure either what
you mean by saying that it is a metanarrative, but not
a narrative.
Jim Humphreys
jimhumph
Richard Crew wrote in message ...
> Before we get too technical, it might be good to remember that the word
> Lyotard tends to use is not "narrative" but "recit," as in "Le grand recit
> a perdu sa credibilit'e" (opening of Ch. 10). And that "recit" is a
> perfectly ordinary French word meaning "story" (my Petit Robert glosses it
> as "oral or written account of real or imaginary facts"). So the
> *grand recit* -- the "metanarrative" -- is just "the big story." In the
> context of Lyotard's book it's clear what he's referring to, but the
> question still remains as to why Lyotard's account isn't just another
> "big story" intended to legitimize his own notion of postmodern
> scholarship (i.e. "par paralogie").
>
Indeed. And its also suprising that Lyotard did not, apparently,
address the present criticism of his work ( that it involves
making a paradoxical claim) which must surely have been
known to him.
Jim Humphreys
jimhumph
Silke-Maria Weineck wrote in message ...
>......I still maintain that not every theory,
>statement, text is a recit, a narrative, a story.
>
The issue of whether *every* theory, statement etc
is a narrative is not relevant to the question at
hand - using Lyotard's own definition ( closely
approximated by the Penguin definition), his own
pronouncements on the collapse of metanarratives
themselves constitute a metanarrative.
Your comment above seem to betray a certain
essentialism, given that Lyotard's definition
and the other definitions of narrative are
stipulated ones: there is no 'essence of
narrative' to be captured. nor 'fact of the
matter' as to whether every statement etc
is a narrative to be established
independently of the various definitions.
Jim Humphreys
Paul David Lanier
On Sat, 5 Jun 1999, Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
> Paul David Lanier <lan...@email.uah.edu> wrote:
> : On Fri, 4 Jun 1999, Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
> :> Jim Humphreys <jimh...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
> :>
> :> : Silke-Maria Weineck wrote in message ...
> :> :>Paul David Lanier <lan...@email.uah.edu> wrote:
> :> :>: On Fri, 4 Jun 1999, Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
> :>
> :>
> :> :>No, no, Paul, what _is_ a narrative? Is any text a narrative? Is "The king
> :> :>died" a narrative?
> :>
> :>
> :> : A metanarrative may be defined as a story which underpins the
> :> : legitimacy of a commitment or activity [ Penguin Dictionary
> :> : of Philosophy]. This definition would include "The little narratives
> :> : never form a larger narrative" as cited by the previous poster.
> :> : The commitment in this case would be to postmodernism.
> :> : I suspect that you would like to define 'statement' or suchlike
> :> : in a manner which allows you to exclude "The little narratives...."
> :> : from the category of matanarratives - but very plainly , using
> :> : if you wish Lyotard's own definition of metanarrative, it *is*
> :> : a metanarrative.
> :>
> :> Actually, I suspect that people like Lyotard base their use of 'narrative'
> :> on the work done in narratology, be it by Genette etc. over there or by
> :> Prince etc. over here. In other words, what is called 'narrative' here
> :> strikes me as so low in narrativity that I'm simply not sure it applies.
> :>
> :> smw
> :>
> :>
>
>
> : Lady Huntress, you seem puzzled by that which you cannot escape.
> : The low degree of narrativity does not make the narrativity inapplicalbe.
> : If you mean that there is no narrative, then I respectfully disagree.
>
> So you acquired a definition of narrativity? Let's hear it
>
> smw
>
>
Do _you_ think that one could define "narrative"? Why or why not?
I reserve my thoughts on the definition of narrative for later. Meanwhile,
my examples will do nicely.
Paul Lanier
>
>
>
> --
>
>
Paul David Lanier
On Sat, 5 Jun 1999, Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
> Paul David Lanier <lan...@email.uah.edu> wrote:
> : On Fri, 4 Jun 1999, Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
> :> Paul David Lanier <lan...@email.uah.edu> wrote:
> :> : On Fri, 4 Jun 1999, Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
> :> [...]:>
> :> :> Perhaps you want to tell us what exactly you mean by "narrative"?
> :> :>
> :> :> smw
> :>
> :> : And
> :> ruin your fun?
> :> : Very well, the narrative here is
> :>
> :> No, no, Paul, what _is_ a narrative? Is any text a narrative? Is "The king
> :> died" a narrative?
> :>
> :> the deconstrution analysis of the text
> :> : examined.
> :>
> :> Is _The Postmodern Condition_ deconstruction?
> :>
> :> smw
> :>
> :>
> :>
> : Is philosphy or or literary ciriticism not a narrative?
>
> Which one?
>
> : Be careful Lady Huntress in your answer. I am thinking of derrida's
> : attitue towards philosophy.
>
> Which one?
>
> smw
>
>
>
Oh the one that makes literature and philsophy two artificial poles and
forgets (probably purposefully) to articdualte which one is which. So is
not philosophy and literary criticism thus narratives?
Paul Lanier
Paul David Lanier
On Sat, 5 Jun 1999, Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
> Paul David Lanier <lan...@email.uah.edu> wrote:
> : On Fri, 4 Jun 1999, Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
>
> :> Paul David Lanier <lan...@email.uah.edu> wrote:
> :> : On Fri, 4 Jun 1999, Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
> :> [...]:>
> :> :> Perhaps you want to tell us what exactly you mean by "narrative"?
> :> :>
> :> :> smw
> :>
> :> : And
> :> ruin your fun?
> :> : Very well, the narrative here is
> :>
> :> No, no, Paul, what _is_ a narrative? Is any text a narrative? Is "The king
> :> died" a narrative?
> :>
> :> the deconstrution analysis of the text
> :> : examined.
> :>
> :> Is _The Postmodern Condition_ deconstruction?
> :>
> :> smw
> :>
> :>
> :>
> : Don't think I've read the book _The Postmodern Condition_.Perhaps I
> : should.
>
> You probably should, since you're engaging in a thread centered on the
> concept of metanarrative introduced by Lyotard in _The Postmodern
> Condition._
Yes I agree with you that I should read the book _The Postmodern
Condtion_.
> >: But I'm not unfamilair with deconstruction... if you read back
> a : few posts you'll see I recomended a certain Derria book, helpfully
> : Dorfman brought to mind the title _Arhive Fever_. But I'll reserve
> : judgement for what view _The Postmodern Condition_ conveys after I've
> : read it , not before.
> : Anyway, nice troll, but its really not the centre of this particular
> : thread's question... about the metanarrative of postmodernism or the
> : perceived lack of it..
>
> This thread's question seems to concern the idea of metanarrative.
>
> smw
>
Ah, glad you consider my view of the thread's question. Much much work or
play can be done then.
Paul Lanier
jimhumph
Silke-Maria Weineck wrote in message ...
>:>statement, text is a recit, a narrative, a story.
>:>
>: The issue of whether *every* theory, statement etc
>: is a narrative is not relevant to the question at
>: hand - using Lyotard's own definition ( closely
>: approximated by the Penguin definition), his own
>: pronouncements on the collapse of metanarratives
>: themselves constitute a metanarrative.
>
>text is a narrative, you
>better be in a position to defend this claim.
Under consideration here is the definition of
metanarrative furnished by postmodernists of
the Lyotardian persuasion, which seems
to me to be quite clear, and to generate a paradox
as described. Whether or not *every* theory is
a narrative is besides the point, in that this
matter has no bearing on the present example
which *is* a metanarrative in terms of the
stipulated definition. Now you are at liberty
to stipulate an alternative definition, but this
you have not done - let me ask you directly:
what is the alternative definition that you wish
to propose? If you have none, then it
seems that you must concede that there is a
paradox.
>: Your comment above seem to betray a certain
>: essentialism, given that Lyotard's definition
>: and the other definitions of narrative are
>: stipulated ones: there is no 'essence of
>: narrative' to be captured. nor 'fact of the
>: matter' as to whether every statement etc
>: is a narrative to be established
>: independently of the various definitions.
>
>Why call anything narrative, then? Why not Schlumpf?
>
Certainly we can stipulate 'Schlumpf' as meaning
"A story etc about other narratives" provided that
we agree to use the term in that way. This,
as a stipulation (not a lexical definition), would
not be a 'correct' or 'incorrect' use of the term.
Jim Humphreys
jimhumph
>:>:>> :>No, no, Paul, what _is_ a narrative? Is any text a
>:>:>> :>narrative? Is "The king died" a narrative?
>:>:>>
>:>:>> : A metanarrative may be defined as a story which underpins the
>:>:>> : legitimacy of a commitment or activity [ Penguin Dictionary
>:>:>> : of Philosophy]. This definition would include "The little
narratives
>:>:>> : never form a larger narrative" as cited by the previous poster.
>:>:>> : The commitment in this case would be to postmodernism.
>:>:>> : I suspect that you would like to define 'statement' or suchlike
>:>:>> : in a manner which allows you to exclude "The little narratives...."
>:>:>> : from the category of matanarratives - but very plainly , using
>:>:>> : if you wish Lyotard's own definition of metanarrative, it *is*
>:>:>> : a metanarrative.
>:>:>>
>:>:>> Actually, I suspect that people like Lyotard base their use of
>:>: >>'narrative' on the work done in narratology, be it by Genette etc.
>:>: >> over there or by Prince etc. over here. In other words, what is
>:>: >>called 'narrative' here strikes me as so low in narrativity that
>:>: >>I'm simply not sure it applies.
>:>:>>
>:>: The question that I should ask you then is "What definition of
>:>: metanarrative can be formulated which will allow the exclusion of
>:>
>:>Well, the first question is whether saying that something doesn't or
>:>didn't happen is a narrative, without any context to make it one. For
>:>instance, is "metanarratives aren't useful in explaining the world" a
>:>narrative? What would make it a narrative?
>:>
>: But why make a special case of such an example ? There is really
>: underpins the legitimacy of a commitment or activity.
>
>How is it a story?
See definition below.
>
>:> What about "narratives apply in useful ways only locally"? It's
>:>meta, but it isn't a narrative as far as I can see.
>:>
>: Same comment as above applies. I'm not sure either what
>: you mean by saying that it is a metanarrative, but not
>: a narrative.
>
>I said it's meta in that it concerns narrative. My question is whether it
>is, itself, a narrative.
To acknowledge that "The little narratives never form a
larger narrative" is a metanarrative is really all tnat is
required for my argument - that is sufficient to generate
the paradox of a metanarrative which says that
metanarratives have collapsed. So the issue of
whether it is itself a narrative is irrelevant - of
course as a "big story" a metanarrative *is* itself,
a narrative (which we may define as a story, or
account of events).
Jim Humphreys
Richard Crew
: Richard Crew <ri...@hinthial.allison-house.org> wrote:
: : Silke-Maria Weineck <sm...@umich.edu> wrote:
: : : jimhumph <jimh...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
: : :
: : : :>On Fri, 4 Jun 1999, Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
<snip>
: : : :>> Actually, I suspect that people like Lyotard base their use of
: : : : 'narrative'
: : : :>> on the work done in narratology, be it by Genette etc. over there or by
: : : :>> Prince etc. over here. In other words, what is called 'narrative' here
: : : :>> strikes me as so low in narrativity that I'm simply not sure it applies.
: : : :>>
: : :
: : :
: : : : The question that I should ask you then is "What definition of
: : : : metanarrative can be formulated which will allow the exclusion of
: : : : 'The little narratives....' from the category of metanarratives"?
: : :
: : : Well, the first question is whether saying that something doesn't or
: : : didn't happen is a narrative, without any context to make it one. For
: : : instance, is "metanarratives aren't useful in explaining the world" a
: : : narrative? What would make it a narrative?
: : :
: : : What about "narratives apply in useful ways only locally"? It's
: : : meta, but it isn't a narrative as far as I can see.
: : :
: : : smw
:
:
: : Before we get too technical, it might be good to remember that the word
: : Lyotard tends to use is not "narrative" but "recit," as in "Le grand recit
: : a perdu sa credibilit'e" (opening of Ch. 10). And that "recit" is a
: : perfectly ordinary French word meaning "story" (my Petit Robert glosses it
: : as "oral or written account of real or imaginary facts").
:
: Sure, but "recit" is still a technical term within the intellectual
: tradition Lyotard writes from. "Narration" is a rather ordinary English
: term as well, after all. I still maintain that not every theory,
: statement, text is a recit, a narrative, a story.
I don't doubt that some French critics have used "recit" in a technical
sense, but that doesn't show that Lyotard is using the term in a
technical sense in *La Condition Postmoderne*. If he were, you'd think
that he'd indicate which sense he had in mind. He doesn't, so far as I
see. The book is rather heavily footnoted, but none of them give any
source for his particular use of *recit*. And it may be that he has someone's
particular theory or usage in mind, but whether Genette's or someone else's,
you shouldn't have to guess. And if there is some global, well-known
technical meaning of "recit" that differs from the dictionary definition,
then this is news to me.
Of course there's nothing wrong with his using the word non-technically,
which is what I believe he is doing. But there is a real issue here: if
you're going to use a word technically, you must either explain what you
mean, or give some reference so the reader can find out (unless the
context clearly requires a particular meaning, which isn't the case here,
or we wouldn't be having this discussion). The larger issue is that
any technical use of a word depends on some legwork of the author or of
his sources. It's not something that the reader can attempt to sort out
after the fact.
In particular, it won't do to sidestep difficulties by declaring a
given use of a word to be "technical," which is what you seem to be doing
in maintaining that "not every theory, statement, text is a recit..."
Lyotard discusses various *recits* as "The Class Struggle" or "Progress
through Science," but if these can be classed as *recits*, then I don't
see why the whole argument of his book can't be similarly described.
Maybe it's because of this that the whole discussion in this thread on
the distinction between "narrative" and "metanarrative" seems to me to
be particularly futile. You can't just declare them to be technical, and
then attempt to deduce what they mean. But if the usage is not technical,
then... don't we all know what "narrative" means?
Alan Rosiene
Jim Humphries wrote:
>To acknowledge that "The little narratives never form a
>larger narrative" is a metanarrative is really all tnat is
>required for my argument - that is sufficient to generate
> the paradox of a metanarrative which says that
> metanarratives have collapsed.
Lyotard is not unaware of this. In "The Postmodern Explained,"
for instance, he states the following:
The grand narratives have become scarcely credible.
One is then tempted to give credence to a grand
narrative of the decline of the grand narratives.
But as we know, the grand narrative of decadence
was already in place at the beginning of Western
thought, in Hesiod and Plato. It follows the narrative
of emancipation like a shadow... (29)
One can be suspicious of grand narratives, and note
their present collapsing, without being committed to
a universal statement about them once and for all.
--Alan
Paul David Lanier
On Sat, 5 Jun 1999, Paul David Lanier wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 5 Jun 1999, Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
>
> > Paul David Lanier <lan...@email.uah.edu> wrote:
> > : On Fri, 4 Jun 1999, Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
> > :> Paul David Lanier <lan...@email.uah.edu> wrote:
> > :> : On Fri, 4 Jun 1999, Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
> > :> [...]:>
> > :> :> Perhaps you want to tell us what exactly you mean by "narrative"?
> > :> :>
> > :> :> smw
> > :>
> > :> : And
> > :> ruin your fun?
> > :> : Very well, the narrative here is
> > :>
> > :> No, no, Paul, what _is_ a narrative? Is any text a narrative? Is "The king
> > :> died" a narrative?
> > :>
> > :> the deconstrution analysis of the text
> > :> : examined.
> > :>
> > :> Is _The Postmodern Condition_ deconstruction?
> > :>
> > :> smw
> > :>
> > :>
> > :>
> > : Is philosphy or or literary ciriticism not a narrative?
> >
> > Which one?
> >
> > : Be careful Lady Huntress in your answer. I am thinking of derrida's
> > : attitue towards philosophy.
> >
> > Which one?
> >
> > smw
> >
> >
> >
> Oh the one that makes literature and philsophy two artificial poles and
> forgets (probably purposefully) to articdualte which one is which. So is
> not philosophy and literary criticism thus narratives?
>
> Paul Lanier
>
>
Perhaps I should clarify that: the hierarchy is what Derrida says
is artificial between the poles of literature and philosophy. Unless
Lyotard is working with a different thesis, then I do not see that Lyotard
can escape from the puzzle of his critique being a metanarrative itself.
After all, literary theory cannot make itself prior to the narratives it
preposes to work out a critique for: and the puzzle starts here. How can
the critique or theory or philosophy not be outside the narratives that it
says no metanarratives governing the literature or texts or reality, when
it is a metanarrative itself...? I suppose, one can fall back on the
idea that there is overarching structure to the narratives, a
metanarrative being not ultimate but rather structure being ultimate. I
do not say that Lyotard thinks in this way or Derrida thinks in this way.
But as has been allegedly noted by the philosopher Habermas, the
deconstructionists cheat in using philosophizing and reason to defeat
philsophizing and reason. The arguments presented by the
deconstructionists do not appear to hold to me, partly because of the
puzzle of the structure and metanarrative... and the constant theme of
deconstruction itself. Now if you've a way to escape the puzzle, let me
hear it, please? I'm not against hearing out a different way of looking
at the matter.
Respectfully,
Cheers,
Paul Lanier
Paul David Lanier
On Sat, 5 Jun 1999, Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
> jimhumph <jimh...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
>
> : Silke-Maria Weineck wrote in message ...
> :>jimhumph <jimh...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
> :>
> :>:>On Fri, 4 Jun 1999, Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
> :>:>> :>No, no, Paul, what _is_ a narrative? Is any text a
> :>:>> :>narrative? Is "The king died" a narrative?
> :>:>>
> :>:>>
> :>:>> : A metanarrative may be defined as a story which underpins the
> :>:>> : legitimacy of a commitment or activity [ Penguin Dictionary
> :>:>> : of Philosophy]. This definition would include "The little narratives
> :>:>> : never form a larger narrative" as cited by the previous poster.
> :>:>> : The commitment in this case would be to postmodernism.
> :>:>> : I suspect that you would like to define 'statement' or suchlike
> :>:>> : in a manner which allows you to exclude "The little narratives...."
> :>:>> : from the category of matanarratives - but very plainly , using
> :>:>> : if you wish Lyotard's own definition of metanarrative, it *is*
> :>:>> : a metanarrative.
> :>:>>
> :>:>> Actually, I suspect that people like Lyotard base their use of
> :>: >>'narrative' on the work done in narratology, be it by Genette etc.
> :>: >> over there or by Prince etc. over here. In other words, what is
> :>: >>called 'narrative' here strikes me as so low in narrativity that
> :>: >>I'm simply not sure it applies.
> :>:>>
> :>
> :>: The question that I should ask you then is "What definition of
> :>: metanarrative can be formulated which will allow the exclusion of
> :>: 'The little narratives....' from the category of metanarratives"?
> :>
> :>Well, the first question is whether saying that something doesn't or
> :>didn't happen is a narrative, without any context to make it one. For
> :>instance, is "metanarratives aren't useful in explaining the world" a
> :>narrative? What would make it a narrative?
> :>
> : But why make a special case of such an example ? There is really
> : no reason to do this. It is a metanarrative, since it is a story which
> : underpins the legitimacy of a commitment or activity.
>
> How is it a story?
>
> :> What about "narratives apply in useful ways only locally"? It's
> :>meta, but it isn't a narrative as far as I can see.
> :>
> : Same comment as above applies. I'm not sure either what
> : you mean by saying that it is a metanarrative, but not
> : a narrative.
>
> I said it's meta in that it concerns narrative. My question is whether it
> is, itself, a narrative. I don't understand why y'all are so reluctant to
> define 'narrative' since it's a term you are all comfortable using, it
> seems.
>
> smw
>
>
I'm not uncomfortable defining "narrative", but I do have reservation
defining a concept when I sense that the other party does not even believe
in definitions themselves. I gave two fine examples ealier... the
literary criticism and theory that spells out the ways to understand a
text. I have given my reasoning for doing so: by the rules of
deconstruction (if there be rules) one cannot make a rigid distinction
between literature- which is what one often connects the notion of
narrative to- and philosophy- which is what one often connects literay
theory to. Certainly, also, history could be considered narrative. I
have a difficult time understanding why you wish to avoid the clearcut
meaning of the lack of hiearchy to literature/narrative and
philosphy/truth-seeking. Certainly Plato, the patriarch of philosphy, was
writing in dramatic form when he presented the argument styles of
rational thinking. I wonder how Socrates would go about the discussion
(as Plato's mouthpiece) trying to define "narrative"? Of course, Derrida
and a slew of others since Nietzche and Sartre would not wish to think
there is a "definition" that actually fits anything, no? It is clear that
Plato, et. al, did think one could get the truth of the matter, if not
always a complete definition, no? So are you as Lyotard's defender
arguing that there is no truth or that there is no truth that can cover
all that is in the text and all that is in the reality? Have I
oversimplied that matter or made it too complex, or missed the point, in
your view?
Cheers,
Paul Lanier
Paul David Lanier
On Sat, 5 Jun 1999, Silke-Maria Weineck wrote:
> Richard Crew <ri...@hinthial.allison-house.org> wrote:
> : Silke-Maria Weineck <sm...@umich.edu> wrote:
> : : What about "narratives apply in useful ways only locally"? It's
> : : meta, but it isn't a narrative as far as I can see.
> : :
> : : smw
>
>
> : Before we get too technical, it might be good to remember that the word
> : Lyotard tends to use is not "narrative" but "recit," as in "Le grand recit
> : a perdu sa credibilit'e" (opening of Ch. 10). And that "recit" is a
> : perfectly ordinary French word meaning "story" (my Petit Robert glosses it
> : as "oral or written account of real or imaginary facts").
>
> Sure, but "recit" is still a technical term within the intellectual
> tradition Lyotard writes from. "Narration" is a rather ordinary English
> term as well, after all. I still maintain that not every theory,
> statement, text is a recit, a narrative, a story.
>
> smw
So you disagree with Derrida that one cannot make such a hiearchy of
theory/narrative? Or do I misinterpret?
Paul Lanier
Paul David Lanier
Just to show I'm willing to be a good sport... which I fear sometimes my
sense of what's true and right and love of argument/debate may cloud, I
will give a definition as expressed in WEBSTERS 20th Century Dictionary of
the English Language, Unabridged (Cotton World: 1977) ed Jean L McKechnie
of "narrative" and some related words:
Narrative: a [L. narrativus , suitable for relation , from Narrare, to
relate, make known]
1. of, having the natur of , narration; in story form
2. occupied or concerned with narration (as a narrative poet)
Narrative: n.
1. a story; account; tale
2. the art or practice of relating stories or accounts; narration
Narratory: a. givng an account of events
Narrate: vt and vi; narrated, pt, pp. ;narratin ppr [L. narratis, pp of
narrare, to relate , make known]
1. to tell (a story) in writing or speech
2. to give an account of (happenings, etc)
I was curious by the way of the defintion of "account" and found some
enlightening meanings to the word.
Account:
5. narrative; relation; statement of facts; reciteal of particular
transactions and events; verbal or written, as an account of the
revolution in France
6. an assignment of reasons.... a report
9. a general statment in explanation of some event or phenomenon; as
in "no satisfactory account of the matter has yet been given."
I was also cruious about the definition of "story" so I give the relevant
meaning to the discussion (as story could also refer to the 21st story of
the skyscraper... and I'm not in the mood to do any defenestration at
present, being a nice guy).
Story n. ; pl. stories [ME storie; OFr estore; L historia, history]
1. telling of a happening or connected series of happenings, whether
true or fictitious; an account; narration
2. a fictitious literary composition in prose or poetry , shorter than a
novel; narrative tale
3. such tels, collectively as a form of literature
4. the plot of a novel , play ,etc.
5. a report or rumor
6. a falsehood; a fib
7. history
8. in journalism a) news artilce b) a person or event considered
newsworthy
No surprises to the meanings of the various words here. I note that if
one were inclined to stretch "narrative" to cover philosophy and
scientific theory which are after all accounts, there is precedent or
leeway to do so. of course, the normal meaning of narrative is more
closely associated with telling a story (whether the story is true or
false).
Once more I ask you Silke why so reluctant to allow the breakdown of
hiearchy between theory/philosphy and story/narrative/literature to enter
your thinking about "meta-narratives"?
Would such a puzzle as Jim Humphrey and I pose push the society as well as
its intellectuals out of the "postmodern" condition to see some holding
structure and "meta-narrative" possilbe, which you Silke are implacably
against happening? Or would you be willing to at least entertain the
thought that Lyotard and Derrida could be wrong on this point in their
respective disciplines?
I have at least entertained the possibiliyt they were right, and so far I
am still unconvinced of the coherence and accuracy of their argument
despite the acknowledged force of their view. ARe you able to persuade me
otherwise?
Cheers and Shalom,
Paul Lanier