Re: R: postmodernism and liberalism

Rokeach talked about this. What you're seeing is a kind of us and them
thinking which lumps all the different kinds of "them" together by
ignoring the distinctions which seem important to "them" but not to
"us". This is also what Derrida called ignoring the difference inside
We can't provide "a more adequate ground for this discussion"
because Pithouse et al will resist(in Freudian terms) any attempt to
shift the discussion to that more adequate ground as tenaciously as a
racist will resist any information which would, if acknowledged, make
it harder to defend blanket statements about everyone darker than Tony
Orlando. You can't explain to him that Sammy Davis Jr. is not James
Brown or that Foucault is not Lyotard because he does not want to
know. Because his belief system is both a mechanism for adjusting him
to reality and a filter protecting him from aspects of reality which
are threatening: Both a mechanism which structurally couples his
behavior to reality and a mechanism of denial protecting him from
Let's put it country simple. Let's take the bull by the tail and
face squarely into an unpleasent situation. This Pithouse fellow is
NAS in spirit if not in fact. The best way to treat anything that
comes out of his mouth is as symptom. Don't even ask if what he is
saying is true; just try to trace the etiology of the outburst back to
whatever bruising encounter with the Lacanian real generated it
As both Adorno and Reich knew, you want to discredit this type
early through clear and appropriate labeling of the actual contents.
You want to tell the world before the world learns through the bitter
experience of the gas oven or the gulag. Only in this way does the
anguished cry of "never again" become a promise we have some slight
chance of keeping.
Country simple folks. In the animal world, the rule is eat or be
eaten. In the human world, the rule is define or be defined,
marginalize or be marginalized, rape or be raped. Let's mob this guy
and peck him to death like a flock of black birds going after some
fool that shows up painted purple. Let's be Jews taking retro-active
revenge on a Good German just because we know who he really is, what
he really wants and what he would really do given real power.

---sjpri1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Just a thought,
> is there a way of providing a more adequate ground for this
> discussion?
> Perhaps it would be useful to be clear about what or who is referred
> to by the term 'postmodernism'. Criticisms of postmodernism and post-
> structuralism often assumes some homogenous position or theory which
> connects thinkers as diverse as Deleuze, Derrida and Baudrillard.
> While connections and similarities can no doubt be made, conflating
> these 'positions'- or indeed postmodernism and post-structuralism- is
> not at all helpful. I agree that there is some bad scholarship out
> there that names itself postmodern or post-structuralist and draws on
> thinkers such as Foucault, Derrida etc- however, there is plenty of
> bad thinking going on under the name of 'Marxism', 'Marx' and so-
> called 'real struggles' for 'the people'- plenty of rich, complacent
> Marxists occupying seats in the academy. Personally, I believe that
> Foucault raises significant questions and provides important
> correctives to 'Marxism'- but it would be useful to discuss the
> 'pros' and 'cons' of such an intervention rather than attacking a
> 'straw man'. It seems to me that anti-post-structuralism and anti-
> postmodernism is just as likely to reject ideas and theories and thus
> shut down dialogue and refuse to address the specific terms of
> engagement as any (bad) post-structuralist or postmodernist rejection
> of Marxism. It often is the case the attacks on Foucault, Lyotard and
> Derrida appear to mask an anxiety and concern on the part of
> the critic- concerns about a challenge to 'tradition'- 'the canon'-
> 'status quo'- the'establishment' etc- and such a attack often
> presents itself as another excuse not to read the works of these
> thinkers themselves. THis is not to say that such criticism is not
> helpful- clearly it is very important.
> However, how often do such critiques use secondary sources
> rather than the primary texts? Perhaps we should be more clear about
> what and who we are discussing.
> regards,
> Stephen
> =============================================================
> Stephen Pritchard
> PhD Candidate
> Centre for Comparative Literature & Cultural Studies
> Monash University
> Melbourne

"I am no doubt not the only one who writes in order to have no face. Do not ask me who I am and do not ask me to remain the same: leave it to our bureaucrats and our police to see that our papers are in order." Michel Foucault

Get your free address at

Partial thread listing: