On Wed, 12 Feb 1997, Chris Owen wrote:
> Ryan's whole article is a commentary on what he sees as a (continuing)
> crisis in education and is merely commenting on what he sees as a trend in
> intellectual circles to what would (very) loosely be called post-modernism.
i don't know anything about ryan, but the idea that postmodernism is
destroying education is part of (as i see it) an old trend in the
u.s. that goes back at least to the 60's? i may be oversimplifying
this, but i'd put conservative concern over anti-vietnam war
demonstrations on college campuses (kent i guess was the exemplar);
allan bloom's _the closing of the american mind_ in the 80's; and
charles murray's _the bell curve_ in the 90's all into the same
barrel - an effort to strike back at the perceived undermining of
time-honored institutions ("western", "classical", etc) by radical
liberals with dangerous ideas about cultural relativism, socialism,
and multiculturalism. the question for me is, dangerous to whom?
maybe ryan would say "to all of us", but i would say, if it all,
then mainly to those with an inordinate material interest in
maintaining a bulwark against change - especially in a situation
where classes and multiple cultures with different value systems exist
anyway, always have existed, regardless of whether or not one acknowledges
their claims or validity.
> Yes, Ryan's use of Foucault's work is perhaps flawed but his fundamental
> premise argues what are the *practical* implications of adopting these
> ideas. Reading some of these posts I tend to agree with him.
but that could be argued about plenty of philosophers. what would be
the practical implications of adopting plato's political ideas, for
instance? the change would be much more radical and dangerous. i'm
a total newcomer to foucault so i could be way off, but i see the
usefulness of his work (and of marxist theory) as not providing
practical "answers", but of asking important questions - of engaging
in a critique of power. most of the time words and questions are the
first (i'd hope not the only) way of taking on power structures that
have become so reified that people don't notice them anymore, and
therefore accept them w/o question. but just b/c you question
something, doesn't mean you take a torch to it. i'd hope no one
reads _discipline and punish_ and goes off and bombs the county jail.
but i'd also hope that reader would leave with a clearer idea of
how and why disciplinary institutions work (whether they are designed
that way or not) so that she can resist the idea that they are somehow
"just there" or "naturally occurring".
> Personally I'm
> not sure how linguistic posturing about what 'minorties' means or how
> someone uses the word helps anybody at all. That is, those with privelege
> (you and I, students, academics etc) talking about this as opposed to
> people in no position to do so. Maybe someone can help me out on this
> point.
well, i guess i wouldn't call it "linguistic posturing". ok, so maybe
anybody with enough time on her hands to decipher foucualt (especially
in translation!) must have a kind of privilege - time and leisure and an
internet account. but does that mean i am "in no position to do so" - ?
to do what? to be a minority? well, i'm ethnically one. to take
part in, to be an insider in, "real" political struggles, to be
"authentic"? well, why not? i've been involved with community work -
labor activism in nyc chinatown. our office was hit by arson last week
and there's no way to know who had it done, cuz our enemies include
just about everyone with access to gang "services" in chinatown - all
the old institutions of power. the family-business associations, the
restaurant association, the journalist association, - all organizations
and networks that foucault would have recognized immediately as being
engaged in the production and use of real-world power.
do all minorities agree? of course not. when we held a town meeting
for reps from the english-language newspapers (the times, the voice,
the news) on media representation of asian americans, the question of
who counts as "part of the community" was almost the first one to
come up - will the real asian americans stand up so their voices
can be heard. with us it was the difference between the chinese in
power in chinatown, and the chinese working for labor rights. but try
another "group" - try to get hold of "the feminist view" or "the black
view" or even "the marxist view" and you'll find lots of conflict which
stems from valid questions which can be dismissed or erased by simply
asserting that "all of the people in that group think alike".
by the way, i haven't read any derrida so i personally have no idea
how fair ryan was being in lumping derrida in with foucault, but i
do know that the last thing i'd call myself is a post-modernist.
the word has a certain charm, but to me it's come to sound like a
label for people to use against anyone seen as criticizing "truth" in
a way that they choose to find incomprehensible or "unrealistic".
peace.
Sigmund Shen
> Ryan's whole article is a commentary on what he sees as a (continuing)
> crisis in education and is merely commenting on what he sees as a trend in
> intellectual circles to what would (very) loosely be called post-modernism.
i don't know anything about ryan, but the idea that postmodernism is
destroying education is part of (as i see it) an old trend in the
u.s. that goes back at least to the 60's? i may be oversimplifying
this, but i'd put conservative concern over anti-vietnam war
demonstrations on college campuses (kent i guess was the exemplar);
allan bloom's _the closing of the american mind_ in the 80's; and
charles murray's _the bell curve_ in the 90's all into the same
barrel - an effort to strike back at the perceived undermining of
time-honored institutions ("western", "classical", etc) by radical
liberals with dangerous ideas about cultural relativism, socialism,
and multiculturalism. the question for me is, dangerous to whom?
maybe ryan would say "to all of us", but i would say, if it all,
then mainly to those with an inordinate material interest in
maintaining a bulwark against change - especially in a situation
where classes and multiple cultures with different value systems exist
anyway, always have existed, regardless of whether or not one acknowledges
their claims or validity.
> Yes, Ryan's use of Foucault's work is perhaps flawed but his fundamental
> premise argues what are the *practical* implications of adopting these
> ideas. Reading some of these posts I tend to agree with him.
but that could be argued about plenty of philosophers. what would be
the practical implications of adopting plato's political ideas, for
instance? the change would be much more radical and dangerous. i'm
a total newcomer to foucault so i could be way off, but i see the
usefulness of his work (and of marxist theory) as not providing
practical "answers", but of asking important questions - of engaging
in a critique of power. most of the time words and questions are the
first (i'd hope not the only) way of taking on power structures that
have become so reified that people don't notice them anymore, and
therefore accept them w/o question. but just b/c you question
something, doesn't mean you take a torch to it. i'd hope no one
reads _discipline and punish_ and goes off and bombs the county jail.
but i'd also hope that reader would leave with a clearer idea of
how and why disciplinary institutions work (whether they are designed
that way or not) so that she can resist the idea that they are somehow
"just there" or "naturally occurring".
> Personally I'm
> not sure how linguistic posturing about what 'minorties' means or how
> someone uses the word helps anybody at all. That is, those with privelege
> (you and I, students, academics etc) talking about this as opposed to
> people in no position to do so. Maybe someone can help me out on this
> point.
well, i guess i wouldn't call it "linguistic posturing". ok, so maybe
anybody with enough time on her hands to decipher foucualt (especially
in translation!) must have a kind of privilege - time and leisure and an
internet account. but does that mean i am "in no position to do so" - ?
to do what? to be a minority? well, i'm ethnically one. to take
part in, to be an insider in, "real" political struggles, to be
"authentic"? well, why not? i've been involved with community work -
labor activism in nyc chinatown. our office was hit by arson last week
and there's no way to know who had it done, cuz our enemies include
just about everyone with access to gang "services" in chinatown - all
the old institutions of power. the family-business associations, the
restaurant association, the journalist association, - all organizations
and networks that foucault would have recognized immediately as being
engaged in the production and use of real-world power.
do all minorities agree? of course not. when we held a town meeting
for reps from the english-language newspapers (the times, the voice,
the news) on media representation of asian americans, the question of
who counts as "part of the community" was almost the first one to
come up - will the real asian americans stand up so their voices
can be heard. with us it was the difference between the chinese in
power in chinatown, and the chinese working for labor rights. but try
another "group" - try to get hold of "the feminist view" or "the black
view" or even "the marxist view" and you'll find lots of conflict which
stems from valid questions which can be dismissed or erased by simply
asserting that "all of the people in that group think alike".
by the way, i haven't read any derrida so i personally have no idea
how fair ryan was being in lumping derrida in with foucault, but i
do know that the last thing i'd call myself is a post-modernist.
the word has a certain charm, but to me it's come to sound like a
label for people to use against anyone seen as criticizing "truth" in
a way that they choose to find incomprehensible or "unrealistic".
peace.
Sigmund Shen