I'm not entirely sure how exactly postmodernism destroys cultures or
ethnicities, however my own reading of Foucault as well as authors deemed
"postmodern", especially Edward Said refutes your assertion of the
destruction of so-called Third World hiearchies.
Scholars such as Edward Said and Gayatri Spivak, to name a notable few, are
able to use a "postmodern" framework to analyze how the status quo in fact
inhibits self-representation by those deemed Third World. Said explains this
how the imperialism of the status quo does not let the third world speak for
itself. It is this imperialistic mentality and academic discipline called
"Orientalism" that is contained within the instituions, discourses, and
structures of the imperialistic status quo.
However I think Foucault's own work is indispensable and vital to
understanding agency, especially in the realm of ethnicity. In her article
Feminism, Foucault, and "Subjects" of Power and Freedom, Jana Sawicki
discusses how Foucault "opens a space for the resistance of those who have
yet to be defined in the traditional political spectrum: women, homosexuals,
lesbians, queers, mental patients, the imprisoned, postcolonial subjects and
so forth." Sawicki continues, "he [Foucault] believed it was possible to
alter particular normalizing practices and thereby make particular lives
more tolerable."
Sawicki goes on in her article to discuss the benefits of negative criticism
that does not point to specific remedies or alternatives. She eloquently
writes "Foucault hoped to open the space necessary for resistances by
freeing us from uncritical adherence to particular disciplines and
identities."
Where i think there is cause for debate and speculation is at this point.
Many critics of Pomo and Foucault might suddeny chime that it is this
negative criticism that destroys ethinic identies, however I do not think
this the case at all. Foucault states that everything is dangerous, meaning
that we should not be complicit in indifference but at the same time we
should not be paranoid in activism.
I believe it is Foucault's analysis of discourse that becomes even more
helpful in understanding the true intent of postmodern types of analysis of
ethnicities. Foucault describes his analysis of discourse in his lecture
"Poltics and the study of discourse" which can be found in the book "The
Foucault Effect."
1.) The limits of the sayable. What is possible to speak of? What is the
constituted domain of discourse?
2.) The limits and forms for conservation. What utterances are disappear
without trace?
3.) The limits and forms of memory. Which utterances appear as valid,
debatable, or invalid?
4.) The limits and forms of reactivation. Among the discourses of past
epochs and foreign cultures, which are valued, retained?
5.) The limits and forms of appropriation. What groups, individuals, classes
have access to a particular kind of discourse? How is the relationship
instituionalized between the discourse, speakers, and its destined audience?
How is it defined? How is the struggle for control of discourses conducted
between classes, nations, linguistic, cultural, or ethnic collectivities?
[Note: these points are paraphrased, the full context can be found in The
Foucault Effect]
I believe these 5 points only prove the potential for pomo to be a benefit
to ethnicities. It is indeed this analysis of discourse by Foucault that
benefits authors like Said. As a person of "third-world" origin, I strongly
beleive pomo in fact aids ethnicities in resistign imperialism. I hope this
has helped, and i enjoy any feedback and comments.
Hrishikesh P. Desai
----- Original Message -----
From: Todd Comer <comertod@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2000 11:27 AM
Subject: postmodernism and agency
> In the last week a post stated that we should ask not what posmodernism
is,
> but what it does, that is, postmodernism is an integral weapon against
> western colonization/imperialism--I believe this is approximate with the
> post.
>
> While I understand how this works as far as the elimination of
hierarchies,
> I'm uncertain that postmodernism does not do as much harm as good: 1)
> postmodernism originates in the West and therefore can be seen as another
> form of imperialism. 2) It seems to me that the central tenets of
> postmodernism, while questioning Western imperialism, also question any
> third world culture's own hierarchies. Postmodernism may free the
colonized,
> but it also destroys one of the basic ingredients of any culture,
> ethnocentrism. In the face of Hollywood's takeover of the world, shouldn't
> we be more interested in preserving cultural difference?
>
> I'd appreciate any thoughts on this off list or otherwise. Thanks,
>
> Todd Comer
>
>
ethnicities, however my own reading of Foucault as well as authors deemed
"postmodern", especially Edward Said refutes your assertion of the
destruction of so-called Third World hiearchies.
Scholars such as Edward Said and Gayatri Spivak, to name a notable few, are
able to use a "postmodern" framework to analyze how the status quo in fact
inhibits self-representation by those deemed Third World. Said explains this
how the imperialism of the status quo does not let the third world speak for
itself. It is this imperialistic mentality and academic discipline called
"Orientalism" that is contained within the instituions, discourses, and
structures of the imperialistic status quo.
However I think Foucault's own work is indispensable and vital to
understanding agency, especially in the realm of ethnicity. In her article
Feminism, Foucault, and "Subjects" of Power and Freedom, Jana Sawicki
discusses how Foucault "opens a space for the resistance of those who have
yet to be defined in the traditional political spectrum: women, homosexuals,
lesbians, queers, mental patients, the imprisoned, postcolonial subjects and
so forth." Sawicki continues, "he [Foucault] believed it was possible to
alter particular normalizing practices and thereby make particular lives
more tolerable."
Sawicki goes on in her article to discuss the benefits of negative criticism
that does not point to specific remedies or alternatives. She eloquently
writes "Foucault hoped to open the space necessary for resistances by
freeing us from uncritical adherence to particular disciplines and
identities."
Where i think there is cause for debate and speculation is at this point.
Many critics of Pomo and Foucault might suddeny chime that it is this
negative criticism that destroys ethinic identies, however I do not think
this the case at all. Foucault states that everything is dangerous, meaning
that we should not be complicit in indifference but at the same time we
should not be paranoid in activism.
I believe it is Foucault's analysis of discourse that becomes even more
helpful in understanding the true intent of postmodern types of analysis of
ethnicities. Foucault describes his analysis of discourse in his lecture
"Poltics and the study of discourse" which can be found in the book "The
Foucault Effect."
1.) The limits of the sayable. What is possible to speak of? What is the
constituted domain of discourse?
2.) The limits and forms for conservation. What utterances are disappear
without trace?
3.) The limits and forms of memory. Which utterances appear as valid,
debatable, or invalid?
4.) The limits and forms of reactivation. Among the discourses of past
epochs and foreign cultures, which are valued, retained?
5.) The limits and forms of appropriation. What groups, individuals, classes
have access to a particular kind of discourse? How is the relationship
instituionalized between the discourse, speakers, and its destined audience?
How is it defined? How is the struggle for control of discourses conducted
between classes, nations, linguistic, cultural, or ethnic collectivities?
[Note: these points are paraphrased, the full context can be found in The
Foucault Effect]
I believe these 5 points only prove the potential for pomo to be a benefit
to ethnicities. It is indeed this analysis of discourse by Foucault that
benefits authors like Said. As a person of "third-world" origin, I strongly
beleive pomo in fact aids ethnicities in resistign imperialism. I hope this
has helped, and i enjoy any feedback and comments.
Hrishikesh P. Desai
----- Original Message -----
From: Todd Comer <comertod@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2000 11:27 AM
Subject: postmodernism and agency
> In the last week a post stated that we should ask not what posmodernism
is,
> but what it does, that is, postmodernism is an integral weapon against
> western colonization/imperialism--I believe this is approximate with the
> post.
>
> While I understand how this works as far as the elimination of
hierarchies,
> I'm uncertain that postmodernism does not do as much harm as good: 1)
> postmodernism originates in the West and therefore can be seen as another
> form of imperialism. 2) It seems to me that the central tenets of
> postmodernism, while questioning Western imperialism, also question any
> third world culture's own hierarchies. Postmodernism may free the
colonized,
> but it also destroys one of the basic ingredients of any culture,
> ethnocentrism. In the face of Hollywood's takeover of the world, shouldn't
> we be more interested in preserving cultural difference?
>
> I'd appreciate any thoughts on this off list or otherwise. Thanks,
>
> Todd Comer
>
>