This is nothing more than a typical semantic and bourgouis way of
approaching the issue. Again, let's talk about it. Let's theorise. Let's
define and set parameters. Resistance is not vaild if it is not rational.
This means that nobody outside of the established grouping of the educatesd
cannot critique it because they are just not smart enough. But, sorry, they
are. Secondly, maybe you missed the point in the article about the
heterogeneity of postmodernism and exactly why that makes it commodious to
liberalism.
PS. I find it interesting that many of you find the need to
monitor/review/critique your own opinions by rewriting them with footnotes
and the names of high-priests.
At 10:52 4/03/99 +1100, you 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
>
>
approaching the issue. Again, let's talk about it. Let's theorise. Let's
define and set parameters. Resistance is not vaild if it is not rational.
This means that nobody outside of the established grouping of the educatesd
cannot critique it because they are just not smart enough. But, sorry, they
are. Secondly, maybe you missed the point in the article about the
heterogeneity of postmodernism and exactly why that makes it commodious to
liberalism.
PS. I find it interesting that many of you find the need to
monitor/review/critique your own opinions by rewriting them with footnotes
and the names of high-priests.
At 10:52 4/03/99 +1100, you 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
>
>