At 04:38 PM 11/16/98 EST, you wrote:
>Doug Henwood's need to comment on and police my "moralism" is an old story,
>running back through at least three incarnations of Spoons Marxism lists
where
>he defended his version of orthodox Marxism against the radical democratic
>politics I advocated.
I has suspected these posts -- including this one -- had a history based in
other lists. Please let's leave it in the dustbin, and drop all the
bullshit about orthodoxy, nihilism, etc. Have to say, though, that based
on what Ive seen or read from comrade Henwood, and unless "orthodox" means
intelligent and lucid, this charge is itself stupid.
As for:
>By contrast, when the theories dumped into this residual category
>of 'post-modernism' are developed to provide some insight into the nature and
>parameters of those resistance struggles, then there might be good reason for
>these same folks to intellectually engage them.
>
>Leo Casey
It is clear that any discussion about "postmodernism" -- if it is to be
substantial -- has to begin with somehow defining what one means by it.
Following Fredric Jameson, I htink the term can be a useful heuristic, if
an only if one provides it with some socio-historical, if not economic,
content. To simply equate "pomo" with theory wriiten in France since the
60s is rather sloppy. Someone correct me if I am wrong, but precisely none
of the Big Frenchmen -- least of all Foucault -- called themselves
"postmodernist." Guattari had especially vicious things to say about the
term. Baudrillard himself rejects it, and even Lyotard always gave it a
historical spin.
You can still call them that, of course, but the burden of proof is thus on
you.
If anything, they all strike me as "anti-modern," if you need such a term.
As for who might provide "insight into resistance struggles," clearly
Foucault has quite properly been seen as potential source. Ask anyone who
works within Queer Theory, or moreover someone involved in Act Up or
related activism. But what about the work of Ernesto Laclau and/or Chantal
Mouffe? If anyone has attempted to bring post-structuralist theory -- and
the Foucault of the Archeology of Knowledge (on discourse and
anti-epistemology) is a big source for them -- it is them. So if you or
anyone else is actually interested in discussing the postmodern question,
vis a vis Foucault-thought, then perhaps that is one place to begin?
best,
Dan
Daniel Vukovich
English; The Unit for Criticism
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign