Post-modernism
Larry Trask
Roz writes:
> Hi Larry,
> I'm back. Just a couple comments which respond to yours that appear
> in the following text. But first, I would just like to say that it
> would appear that you have been very busy over the past 15 years and
> have entirely missed the debate on "modernism" and "modernity" (yes,
> I know you called dscussions of postmodernism "drivel" and referred
> to today's standard terminology in cultural studies as "lingo").
A couple of minor corrections. I have not "missed" these discussions;
I have largely taken pains to avoid them. And it's not discussions of
post-modernism I've called "drivel"; it's some of the ideas advanced
by practitioners -- most particularly, though not exclusively, the
attempts at criticizing scientific work.
As for the standard terminology of cultural studies, well. I'm
surprised that anybody can bring herself to utter the phrase "cultural
studies" in public after the Sokal fiasco.
For readers not acquainted with the story, the CUNY physicist Alan
Sokal last year pulled off a magnificent hoax which, in the eyes of
unlettered and outdated modernists like me, demonstrated conclusively
that cultural studies, or at least a very large chunk of it, was
nothing but an ignorant fraud, a hopeless farrago of buzzwords and
politically correct opinions lacking any basis in scholarship.
Details available upon request.
> Nonetheless, your comments below, taken globally, reveal you as an
> unfailing ally of "modernity" [and "progress"] and what is sad to
> me, is that you don't seem to understand what that statement
> means. If you did, for example, you would understand the
> philospohical complexity of the references that Jose made to
> "linear" and "circular" thinking, key terms in the today's
> discussions of the fundamntal questions being asked concerning
> ontological and epistemological issues as they have been constituted
> by western thought. See below.
Look, I plead guilty to not being au fait with contemporary fashions.
But I make no apologies. All I care about is whether I can think
clearly and evaluate evidence. If I'm satisfied I can do that, I'll
sleep soundly. I will not be persuaded that these are yesterday's
virtues.
> >[jmo]
> >> They tell us, your past is gone and forgotten, you cannot recover
> >> it. These people's thinking is linear, but keeping in mind that more
> >> cultures than not understand universe and life itself as a circular
> >> phenomenon, may-be not all is lost.
> [lt]>
> >A great deal of the past is indeed gone and forgotten. All the
> >historical disciplines are devoted to recovering whatever information
> >can possibly be recovered, but most of our past is gone forever, and
> >we will never be able to recover it. That's a fact of life. And I
> >have no idea what you mean by "linear" thinking, or by your final
> >comment.
> The following clips I believe show an interesting form of another
> type of circularity (in reasoning).
> [jmo]
> >>> The literate cultures who have defined what is and what isn't
> >> historical truth (like the church used to) are telling us that
> >> without their kind of evidence, we are lost in darkness.
> >"Like the church"? Eh? Are you seriously suggesting that religious
> >dogmas (which constitute an excellent example of the pernicious use of
> >stories) are in any way comparable to the conclusions of serious
> >scholars? If you are, you are hopelessly wrong. The whole business
> >of scholarship is to escape from arbitrary declarations and to seek
> >out as much truth as can be found.
> [jmo]
> >>> Do you know why Basques did not write? Because all or most of their
> >> historical enemies were literate and "used" writing to their advantage.
> >> Ask the Native Americans.
> [lt]
> >Nonsense. Forgive me, but this is an unsubstantiated fantasy.
> [clip]
> [lt]
> The Texans believe that their ancestors fought and died at the
> >Alamo in order to defend liberty against Mexican tyrants. Few of them
> >are aware that what those ancestors were fighting for was largely the
> >right to own slaves -- slavery was illegal in Mexico. It's thanks to
> >professional historians who ignored the popular stories in favor of
> >examining the documentary evidence that some of us now know the truth.>>
> {lt}>
> >> We have heard often that literature is about the only source of
> >> reliable historical information, and while I do not dispute the
> >> merits of written documentation, I am well aware that "history" is
> >> full of myths because simply by repeating them, finally they have
> >> become "true."
> [lt]>
> >But surely the business of professional historians is very largely to
> >expose such widespread myths and to replace them with better
> >conclusions based upon scrutiny of the evidence? Are you suggesting
> >that historians should believe something merely because it has been
> >repeatedly asserted? Count me out.
> Larry, please! The "popular stories" that surround the Alamo were
> part and parcel of the hegemonic discource emanating from the White
> House at that point in time. It was the OFFICIAL VERSION of
> events. And those who have been nearly unanimously considered
> "serious historians" have repeated it over and over in the U.S. It
> regularly appeared (and appears) in history books and classroom
> textbooks of U.S. history. In fact, even today there is quite a
> polemic surrounding the monument and the one-sided view of events
> that it gives. Of course, historians in the U.S. have believed this
> "popular" version of events, but not "merely because it has been
> repeatedly asserted" but because of the fact that there were
> apparatuses of power, the U.S. State Department, the President(s) of
> the U.S., etc. who were intent on making this version of events
> become and remain the official one; until quite recently it has
> formed part of U.S./Mexican foreign policy (and was a thorn in their
> side when U.S. politicians were trying to negotiate NAFTA).
> Historians repeated it because it was the "story to tell" (and then
> there was the Viet Nam, Granada, Panama, Somalia, the Gulf War,
> et. al.).... In my opinion, the current version which emphasizes the
> good guys/bad guys in the pelicula (good guys in the U.S. Congress
> didn't want slavery introduced but the bad guys in Congress did)
> still misses the point or seems to have forgotten about the Monroe
> Doctrine. Did those nasty guys send the U.S. navy to Veracruz and
> invade Mexico just because of the Slavery Question??? Did the
> U.S. end up with half of Mexico's territory because our leaders were
> on the wrong side of a moral issue (one with economic ramifications,
> of course)?
Yes, I am aware of most of these facts (though not all, and I thank
you for the additional ones). But so what? The White House and
others told lies to serve their own ends. Nothing new there, and
nothing that needs fancy terminology to explain it. A lot of
professional historians fell down on the job and disgraced themselves
by going along with lies, instead of doing what they were supposed to
be doing. None of this surprises me, and none of it will surprise
anybody who has a little experience of public events and the behavior
of governments and their lackeys. But exactly how do we profit from
inventing phrases like "hegemonic discourse" to label official lies?
> Whose "historical truth" would you like concerning what happened at
> the Alamo and why? That of the Yaki indians who were caught in the
> midst; that of the Mescalero Apaches? Or maybe that of of Rudy Anaya
> as documented in his widely read history of the U.S. (I mean read in
> certain circles not those of Newt Gingerich and friends) entitled
> _Occupied America_? Or perhaps you would prefer the one found in
> Mexican history books of the Cardenas presidency or the ones
> incorporated last week into the border corridos (songs) of
> Brownsville --whoops, those would fall into that "oral" category.
Not sure just what point you're making. If you're merely suggesting
that historical truth is very complex and difficult to unravel, then I
simply agree with you. If you're suggesting that what we may regard
as a single event may in fact have complex and far-reaching
ramifications, then again I agree with you. (Gad -- I've just agreed
with you twice in one paragraph -- I think.)
> Earlir you spoke of your distain for "postmodernism" which
> supposedly argues that all is relative (actually that is what has
> been called the neoconservative position).
I don't think I used the phrase "all is relative". Anyway, if I've
got the labels wrong, I apologize: the views I have seen to which I
take exception have usually been labeled, if at all, "post-modernist".
> The neoconservatives would have us believe that borders are falling
> away, everything is becoming "field" with no "ground", and that
> conflicts are being erased in this new wonderland of multilateral
> cultural exchanges.
I am quite sure this is *not* the set of views I was taking exception
to. Here's a concrete example of what I *was* taking exception to.
According to several reports which have reached me from apparently
reliable sources, there exist living, breathing anthropologists who
argue as follows: those peoples who believe that the moon is a glowing
ball about the size of a pumpkin, perched just above tree level, are
expressing a point of view which as *every bit as valid* as what they
believe at NASA. Perhaps you can tell me what label I ought to apply
to this kind of thing. I have a few suggestions of my own, but they
are not printable.
> There should be no problems of identity for anyone other than those
> presented by choices such as Nikes or Rebock? Which generation will
> be yours" Pepsi's, of course. We're all supposed to be willing
> Citizens in the Global Village prepared for us by the members of New
> World Order. Flamenco in Tokyo, la Macarena en Atlanta. It doesn't
> matter, right?
Stirring stuff, Roz, but what point are you making? And how does it
relate to my declared position?
> But there is another darker side to this postmodern discussion which
> argues for a very different scenario, for the rejection of
> simplistic Euro-centric narratives of history, for the questioning
> of all those notions praised because of their "universal" nature,
> the ones that when you look them over carefully always end up
> wearing the same label, Made in the West.
I have a great deal of sympathy for your point here, in general, and I
can honestly say that I myself have on occasion defended exactly the
same position *in some contexts*. But scientific inquiry is an
exception, and a big one. It may be true that science developed in
the west, but that's a historical accident (for present purposes).
What matters now is that we've got it, and we should not let it go.
If you want to argue that oral traditions, or mysticism, or religion,
or anything else is a viable alternative to the rational inquiry we
call science, then I simply reply that you are wrong. Science is not
good because it is western; it is good because it is the best way we
have ever found of questioning the universe and of investigating our
own past.
[I have snipped a sizeable chunk here because I could not see how it
had any bearing on any point I have made. -- LT]
> [lt]
> >Writing is a late invention in human affairs, and it was invented on
> >very few occasions. As far as Europe is concerned, writing was
> >invented in the Middle East around 5000 years ago and spread out from
> >there only very slowly. It reached the Balkans early and then
> >disappeared there. In the second millennium BC, it reached Greece via
> >Crete and then died out again. In the first millennium BC, it once
> >again reached Greece from the Levant; this time it spread west to
> >Italy. Around the same time, the Phoenicians introduced writing to
> >north Africa, from where it seems to have spread to the Mediterranean
> >coast of Spain and (marginally) France. It only reached the Basque
> >Country when the Romans arrived in the first century BC. Before then,
> >the Basques didn't write because, in all likelihood, they had no
> >knowledge of writing.
> Larry, aren't you being a bit narrow in your definition of
> "writing"? Aren't you talking exclusively about symbol systems used
> to record "speech" in an "alphabetic" fashion.
No; certainly not. I am using the term in its recognized and
conventional sense. Writing need not be alphabetic; many
non-alphabetic writing systems have been used in the past, and a few
are still in use today -- for example, in China and in Japan.
To qualify as a writing system, a notation system needs to meet two
requirements:
(1) It must represent a language by marks on a more-or-less permanent
medium;
(2) It must be capable of representing anything that can be said in
that language.
Anything that falls short of these requirements is, at best, a
precursor to writing, and of course there have been very many of
these.
> There is, as I believe you know, a vast body of literature on symbol
> systems that were not/are not alphabetic in nature. Martin Leinhard
> in _La Voz y la Huella_ (Casa de las Americas) has made an
> interesting comment about the rise of symbol systems intended to
> reproduce "word for word" the message of another. He argues that
> only when there is concern that the "message" in question be
> transmitted "verbatim" does the need arise for such a system; only
> when one is dealing with "hegemonic" speech; privileged speech that
> the "messenger" cannot "retell/reproduce" in "his/her" own words,
> does it become necessary to invent such a system. The words of the
> "speaker" must be transmitted without any intervention by
> others. Think of the royal signet rings, etc. He (and other
> theorists) have argued that in hierarchically ordered city-states
> (agriculturally based ones like in the Middle East, for example)
> these needs arise and that concomittently there is a change in the
> perception of meaning and the power relations embodied in these
> types of "speech acts" themselves.
I haven't read Leinhard. But I must say I am getting a little tired
of this word `hegemonic'. I suspect that the motivations for
introducing writing are more complex and varied than a simple desire
to be hegemonic. And I believe it is perfectly clear that one of the
most important motivations is nothing more than the need to keep
accurate records -- essential in a society of a certain degree of
complexity. I suspect that accountants, businessmen and tax
collectors had more to do with the introduction of writing, in many
cases at least, than the hegemonic requirements of kings and priests.
Of course, the kings and priests were not slow to see the value of the
new toy, but that's another matter.
> Furthermore, that the symbols we use for "letters" were originally
> "numerical" in nature (not phonological) should also make us ask
> questions concerning the way in which "writing" spread.
I don't understand this, and at first blush it sounds a bit daft.
> Michael Hudson has written some amazingly good things on this topic
> and especially the relationship of numbers, alphabet and centralized
> authority in the "development" of city-states in the Near East.
Haven't read him. But I am becoming increasingly edgy about this
constant harping on how everything of consequence results from the
requirements of centralized authority. I do not believe that this is
true.
> In short, the absence of a written tradition when it was readily
> available, raises many questions.
Yes, but I think that, more often than not, there are some very simple
answers available.
Larry Trask
COGS
University of Sussex
Brighton BN1 9QH
UK