Last exit fascism

[Dave Monroe]

... well, now, that's a bit different from claiming that "deconstructors" (who they?)
"are hopeless reactionaries," isn't it?  But if "the continuing possibilty of
dialectics" involved something on the order of "the continuing possibility of the
aufhebung, sublation, whatever of thesis/antithesis into synthesis," well, no, yr
"deconstructionists" certainly are NOT all about that, that's for sure.  On the other
hand, nor are "they" much about closure, either.  Terms in a binary put into play,
unsetteled, rather than synthesized, elided; repressed terms shown to be the condition
of possibility of prvileged ones; differences not erased, traces thereof foregrounded
....  Seems like I just missed this response before I left for the day, which is
unfortunate, because I might have come better prepared to address it.  On the other hand
(...), perhaps I might get a little clarification about what you might mean by "the
continuing possibility of dialectics," and how you think decnostruction might foreclose
that.  But I would caution against conflating "postmodernism" with "poststructuralism,"
just as I would about conflating various "marxi(ani)sms," I suppose, not to mention
various "poststructuralisms."  One of thsoe sitauations, like, say, existentialism,
where everybody seems to have a vague idea of at least what the themes at hand might be
and who might be involved, except anyone so named might well deny any involvement
whatsoever.   Or like Christianity, where there must be a certain basis for, range of,
whatever, agreement, in order that one might argue over ennumerating angels on
pinheads.  Or Marxism, or surrealism, or ....  And I would also caution about
conflating, say, "not privileging any given ideology" with "claiming all are equally
justifiable."  Not really the same thing there, are they?   Seems to me more a matter of
pragmatic, reasonable, even, caution that some sort of irresponsibility, nihilism (which
aren't necessarily the same thing, either), whatever.  Perhaps one problem--here,
elsewhere, everywhere--is that arguments with "postmodernism" or "poststructuralism"
don't necesarily seem to be arguments with any given "postmodernist" or
"poststructuralist" author/statement/text/whatever.  For starters ...

... but if by "thesis/antithesis" you mean something on the order of "A/not-A," well,
yeah, that's pretty much the structure in question here, "Presence/absence," or, perhaps
more specifically, "Presence/absence-of-Presence"--and I believe that's what
"logocentrism" is specifically referring to, the valorization of that "Presence," that
term coded as connoting "presence"--which is to foreground the question, against what
background, within what context, does any given binary emerge?  Or, rather, backgrounds,
contexts, as any given binary can only emerge as such in a specific, if not always
specified, context, against a certain background.  For example, say "White/black."
Questions of, say, connotations of color, race, morality, whatever, aside, note that
both terms are--refer to the--for starters, qualitatitve, abstract.  Some sort of
similarity seems to be necessary in order to posit the alleged, perhaps allegedly
absolute, dissimilarity, of the terms in any such binary, no?   That mutual
determination, the "absence" being the condition of possibilty for the emergence of
"presnce," the "presence" thus bearing ineluctibly, indelibly the trace of "absence,"
but without necessarily eliding the difference betwixt the two terms, either, that, I
think, is the problem deconstruction poses for dialectics, that foot in the closing door
of Aufhebung, sublation, synthesis, whatever ...  anyway, let me know ...

Paul Mackin wrote:

> On Fri, 4 Aug 2000, Dave Monroe wrote:
>
> > "Hopeless reactionaries"?  How so?  On or off the list, gloves or bare
>  knuckles ...
> > no, just curious why you'd say so, is all ...
>
> It was related to my question about the continuing possibility of
> dialectics when the whole thing of binary opposition has been so thrown
> into question leaving everybody vigilant against logocentricsm and all.
> Thesis and antithesis can be thought of as the biggest binary opposites of
> them all. Anyway Maxists have to view postmodernism and poststructuralism
> with alarm though possiblities for subversion are also evidently
> present there. Postmodernism arguably pulls the rug out from under
> Marxism. If there are no priviledged ideologies, all are equally
> justifiable, what claim can Marxism possibly have.
>
> What I'm outlining very crudely here is not an argument for or against
> postmodernism with its progressive or reactionary possibilities but a huge
> dilemma which a few years ago people were arguing well into the
> night over. People like Jameson and Eagleton.  Don't know what's going on
> today.
>
>                         P.