Hello,
I am new to this list and while I understand that some of you
may not be aware of these different postmodern psychotherapies it
seems all of you are aware of Foucault I would like to know what
you think of the question in this post as to whether there is some
misreading of Foucault as well as if any of you can give me some
additional information about Lyotard as mentioned in the question
at the end of this.
Thank You,
Laura L
"Pomo" is short for "postmodern".
Through a long process I have come to believe there are
two brands of postmodernism. One we might call "political
postmodernism" and the other let me call "paralogical
postmodernism." However both call themselves simply
"postmodern" and the listener has to figure out which
school is claiming the term. To make matters even more
confusing, each group uses the terms, it seems to me, in
slightly different ways. Until one learns to hear the
difference there is considerable confusion with one group
saying "This is what postmodernism is," and the other
group saying "No, this is what it is."
Of course, any distinction like this is somewhat of a
simplification (both groups would agree), but still to
someone new to the concept of pomo I think it is useful to
keep in mind. Perhaps, after pondering these differences
for a long time, I think I might be able to talk about
this distinction in terms of certain guidelines that
someone new to postmodernism might find useful - for
otherwise there is bound to be considerable confusion. At
any rate, I feel like writing a bit about this distinction
in order to afford myself the opportunity of drafting some
notes on a topic I have been thinking about for quite a
while now.
Both groups talk of deconstruction, decentering and local
knowledges. They mean something a bit different, but not
entirely different by these terms, so these terms do not
distinguish them. Both groups also differentiate between
the premodern, modern and postmodern by referring to
historical periods that are much the same.
However, political postoderns are more likely to use the
word "political" to mean something like the word "values"
in ordinary language. A political postmodern might well
say, "Everything is political." A paralogical postmodern
would wonder what that meant and not find much inclination
to repeat it. And political postmoderns are more likely
to talk of "marginalized people" and "oppression." I
think Foucault is the major inspiration for political
postmoderns although I question whether or not this is a
misinterpretation of Foucault's writing. I suppose it
does not matter. From what I can tell, Narrative Therapy
is based on a political postmodernism, or, at the very
least, many who feel inspired by Narrative Therapy are
also inspired by a political postmodernism.
A paralogical postmodern would be more likely to talk of
"marginalized voices" or simply of "voices," when this
term does not refer to voices we project to someone else's
ears so much as "voices in your head," (like the echo of
your mother's voice you might sometimes hear in your
head), or, sometimes "collections of people saying and
echoing each other's ideas." Paralogical postmoderns are
also more likely to speak of differAnce (that which is out
of focus), and, of course, "paralogy." Paralogy is that
drift in understanding that occurs in dialogue when each
side influences to create a collaborative improvement in
our ideas about things. Lyotard, who popularized this
notion of paralogy, would say that it is what is most
cherished by the postmodern. Also, you should know, that
Lyotard is a Wittgensteinian. I see the philosophers
Wittgenstein and Derrida to also be important founders of
paralogical postmodernism. I think CLS (which I believe
is communicative langauge systems, a form of therapy
introduced by Harry Goolishian and Harlene Anderson, which
has a number of representatives on this list) is a form of
paralogical postmodernism. I am unsure about SFT
(Solution Focused Therapy, a form of therapy introduced by
Steve deShazer and his group) but since it is influenced
by Wittgenstein I think it is probably more inclined
towards the paralogical. I am also inclined to include
the work of Fred Newman and Lois Holtzman (whose work is
represented on this list by Joyce Datner) in this
paralogical variety. I think Sallyann's version of the
Communicaiton Project might well fit more in the
paralogical than the political. I think the postmodern
movement in psychoanalysis (of which I feel I am a part)
is also divided into a political postmodernism
(represented especially by the feminist psychoanalysts)
and a paralogical (represented, it seems to me, by the 2
person theorists who argue that the analyst is not
objective and neutral).
These are just thought I had this morning as I tried to
sift out a distinction that has been formulating in my
mind slowly over about a year. I'm not sure I'm finished
with it. Does anyone here who has pondered the issues of
postmodernism have other thoughts on this? I would
especially like to invite SFT and the Fred Newman group to
situate themselves within the provisional distinction I
have proffered in this note.
On reflection, it seems to me, that you and Hans (and
probably others here) may know considerably more about
what I am calling political postmodernism than I do. It
might be interesting for you to know that Lyotard was also
involved in some of the postcolonial struggles but that he
abandoned this with his disillusionment with communism.
Are you familiar with this issue? And the controversy
prevalent among postmoderns around the topic of whether
postmodernism is, or can be, political?
-
I am new to this list and while I understand that some of you
may not be aware of these different postmodern psychotherapies it
seems all of you are aware of Foucault I would like to know what
you think of the question in this post as to whether there is some
misreading of Foucault as well as if any of you can give me some
additional information about Lyotard as mentioned in the question
at the end of this.
Thank You,
Laura L
"Pomo" is short for "postmodern".
Through a long process I have come to believe there are
two brands of postmodernism. One we might call "political
postmodernism" and the other let me call "paralogical
postmodernism." However both call themselves simply
"postmodern" and the listener has to figure out which
school is claiming the term. To make matters even more
confusing, each group uses the terms, it seems to me, in
slightly different ways. Until one learns to hear the
difference there is considerable confusion with one group
saying "This is what postmodernism is," and the other
group saying "No, this is what it is."
Of course, any distinction like this is somewhat of a
simplification (both groups would agree), but still to
someone new to the concept of pomo I think it is useful to
keep in mind. Perhaps, after pondering these differences
for a long time, I think I might be able to talk about
this distinction in terms of certain guidelines that
someone new to postmodernism might find useful - for
otherwise there is bound to be considerable confusion. At
any rate, I feel like writing a bit about this distinction
in order to afford myself the opportunity of drafting some
notes on a topic I have been thinking about for quite a
while now.
Both groups talk of deconstruction, decentering and local
knowledges. They mean something a bit different, but not
entirely different by these terms, so these terms do not
distinguish them. Both groups also differentiate between
the premodern, modern and postmodern by referring to
historical periods that are much the same.
However, political postoderns are more likely to use the
word "political" to mean something like the word "values"
in ordinary language. A political postmodern might well
say, "Everything is political." A paralogical postmodern
would wonder what that meant and not find much inclination
to repeat it. And political postmoderns are more likely
to talk of "marginalized people" and "oppression." I
think Foucault is the major inspiration for political
postmoderns although I question whether or not this is a
misinterpretation of Foucault's writing. I suppose it
does not matter. From what I can tell, Narrative Therapy
is based on a political postmodernism, or, at the very
least, many who feel inspired by Narrative Therapy are
also inspired by a political postmodernism.
A paralogical postmodern would be more likely to talk of
"marginalized voices" or simply of "voices," when this
term does not refer to voices we project to someone else's
ears so much as "voices in your head," (like the echo of
your mother's voice you might sometimes hear in your
head), or, sometimes "collections of people saying and
echoing each other's ideas." Paralogical postmoderns are
also more likely to speak of differAnce (that which is out
of focus), and, of course, "paralogy." Paralogy is that
drift in understanding that occurs in dialogue when each
side influences to create a collaborative improvement in
our ideas about things. Lyotard, who popularized this
notion of paralogy, would say that it is what is most
cherished by the postmodern. Also, you should know, that
Lyotard is a Wittgensteinian. I see the philosophers
Wittgenstein and Derrida to also be important founders of
paralogical postmodernism. I think CLS (which I believe
is communicative langauge systems, a form of therapy
introduced by Harry Goolishian and Harlene Anderson, which
has a number of representatives on this list) is a form of
paralogical postmodernism. I am unsure about SFT
(Solution Focused Therapy, a form of therapy introduced by
Steve deShazer and his group) but since it is influenced
by Wittgenstein I think it is probably more inclined
towards the paralogical. I am also inclined to include
the work of Fred Newman and Lois Holtzman (whose work is
represented on this list by Joyce Datner) in this
paralogical variety. I think Sallyann's version of the
Communicaiton Project might well fit more in the
paralogical than the political. I think the postmodern
movement in psychoanalysis (of which I feel I am a part)
is also divided into a political postmodernism
(represented especially by the feminist psychoanalysts)
and a paralogical (represented, it seems to me, by the 2
person theorists who argue that the analyst is not
objective and neutral).
These are just thought I had this morning as I tried to
sift out a distinction that has been formulating in my
mind slowly over about a year. I'm not sure I'm finished
with it. Does anyone here who has pondered the issues of
postmodernism have other thoughts on this? I would
especially like to invite SFT and the Fred Newman group to
situate themselves within the provisional distinction I
have proffered in this note.
On reflection, it seems to me, that you and Hans (and
probably others here) may know considerably more about
what I am calling political postmodernism than I do. It
might be interesting for you to know that Lyotard was also
involved in some of the postcolonial struggles but that he
abandoned this with his disillusionment with communism.
Are you familiar with this issue? And the controversy
prevalent among postmoderns around the topic of whether
postmodernism is, or can be, political?
-