Leggo my Pomo

[Craig Bleakley]

Hi.  My name's Craig and I'm a Postmodernist. [Choral response: Hello, Craig]

Of course, I didn't start out that way.  When I first entered grad school, I
thought all this pomo stuff was the 20th century equivalent of angels
dancing on pins. After all, if there are conflicting conceptions of Pomo,
not everyone can be right, right?  But I think one of the big Projects of
pomo is to question a lot of the assumptions we make about ideas being
mutually exclusive.  It's the philosophical equivalent of the Theory of
relativity in that it admits that the winners write history, that everything
is contingent, and that "master narratives" are to be distrusted.  As such,
I find it no more cynical or negatory than Einstein.  It just tries to deal
with multiple constructions of reality in all their complexity and
intermingling.  No mean feat.    

It's also the antidote to whatever social/philosophical residue exists of
the Great Chain of Being, which may be more pervasive than we think.

So the popular press do no favors for Pomo in their efforts to simplify that
whose goal is to complicate.  Some Pomo theorists do no favors for Pomo in
trying to further complicate the already complicated.  Frankly, I find
advanced calculus unfathomable, but that doesn't mean it's not useful.  I
think most pomo-folks go along with Ms. Larson's conception of these ideas
as tools in a toolbox, or a series of different lenses through which to
view.  Do infrared binoculars give a more truthful or accurate picture of
their field of view than would a microscope or telescope--or just a
different one?

As for M. Derrida, who I don't pretend to have read or to understand, I hear
that his project is to say that Western philosophy took "the wrong fork in
the road" with Plato--in other words, mighty early on.  But because this
wrong fork became a foundation, it's hard to even imagine other forks.

For my money, Pomo is all about re-recognizing wrong forks and excluded
middles--sound familiar?  What counts as "true" are simply ideas that have
achieved a certain critical mass.

One of the pithiest summaries of pomo I've ever heard comes from Murthy's
pal Leonard Cohen who writes/sings/coughs, "There is a crack in
everything/That's how the light gets in."

Joe Varo mentions the "---- For Beginners" series, which I find very uneven
(the "Marx" and "Ireland" titles were nice overviews, "Foucault" was
excellent, but I dinnit learn noffin from "Heidegger" and "Nietzsche").
There's also the comparable "Introducing --------" series (which allegedly
includes a "Lacan" title, Joe).  One of these is "Introducing
Postmodernism."  From the little I've skimmed of this volume whilst
malingering in bookstores, it might be useful.  For those of us who aren't
visual learners, there's always Terry Eagleton's "Literary Theory: An
Introduction," which I recommend, if you don't get too put off by his first
chapter that argues that, like pomo, there's also no concrete definition of
words like "art" and "literature" (I'd include "love").  The easiest
Frenchie is probably Lyotard's "The Postmodern Condition" (upon hearing the
title, a friend once noted, "I think you can get an ointment for that").

As a professor of mine once said, back in my angels-on-pins days, "You may
not be interested in postmodernism, but postmodernism is interested in you."
If you are grappling with the contradictions in your life (waxing
nostalgically about your wild pot-smoking days but mortified by the joint
you found in your son's sock drawer; are anti-pornography but enjoy gazing
at the shirtless movie star of the gender of your choice; if you think the
opposite gender is composed of pigs/bitches but nonetheless encourage their
flirty attentions; are anti-abortion but pro death penalty (Or
vice-versa))--postmodernism is interested in you, too.  

Or we could back the truck up and argue what it means to be "Modern."           

No quiz.  But resistance is futile.

Craig Bleakley