NP - Poo-pooing PoMo, futility for the feeble minded

[Thomas Eckhardt]

Thank you, Matthew.

Trying to find some information on Jordan Peterson and reading this and 
that on identity politics and Postmodernism along the way, I found this 
recommendable article which criticises Postmodernism not from the right 
but in the name of the enlightenment:

https://areomagazine.com/2017/03/27/how-french-intellectuals-ruined-the-west-postmodernism-and-its-impact-explained/

"Postmodernism has become a Lyotardian metanarrative, a Foucauldian 
system of discursive power, and a Derridean oppressive hierarchy."

Nice.

There is a lot to be said for Pluckrose's view. I still think "The Order 
of Things" is a great book, however. I also do not believe that French 
intellectuals "ruined the West". They certainly did a lot of damage to 
the humanities, though... I remember reading the announcement for an 
introductory seminar in German Studies which offered a deconstructionist 
reading of Franz Kafka. Apart from the fact that I am generally wary of 
the application of theories from other fields to literature, some of the 
students at this stage still have difficulties to tell a metaphor from a 
simile or a sonnet from a limerick. It is complete madness to have them 
read Franz Kafka through the lens of the notoriously difficult Derrida. 
I have come to view this as a symptom of a larger malaise: At least in 
the study of literature, jargon and post-structuralist boilerplate often 
replace close reading and critical thinking.

Also, postmodernism should not be equated with post-structuralism. For 
literature, the high/low debate is far more relevant than 
post-structuralism.

Great reference to Liddy and Leary!



On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 11:47:46 +0200
  matthew cissell <mccissell at gmail.com> wrote:
> Ciao Leute,
> 
> I know this pertains to a recent thread that seems to 
>have run its course
> and therefore I arrive late to the conversation, but it 
>seems Prof.
> Peterson arrived when the party was already over.
> 
> Given the state of the world, I was a bit loath to 
>respond. Proto-fascistic
> posturing politicians and their corporate fellow 
>travellers throw democracy
> to the dogs and enable dictators and strongmen from N. 
>Korea to Venezuela
> and Brazil while ignoring the urgent UN environmental 
>report from last week
> and wrecking the future of coming generations, all for 
>their 30 pieces of
> silver.
> 
> And yet when I see Peterson position himself thus and 
>target the Humanities
> so broadly, I see it as a move to delegitimize those 
>academic agents that
> have long been under attack from the right and I feel 
>the need to respoond.
>For what it's worth.
> 
> Jordan Peterson seems to be unaware that his nemesis 
>received its post
> mortem reports some time ago. He is tilting at the 
>monsters of his mind;
> one step from arguing with evangelists proselytizing 
>outside the Uni.
> student union. Or Flat-earthers. (Not that surprising 
>since conservatives
> rarely have intellects of any real stature - not since 
>Edmund Burke, though
> some might add Buckley). Let me explain.
> 
> JP is late to the PoMo bashing game. Had he done some 
>research he would
> have found early reports of its passing. One of the 
>first came from John
>Frow in his essay "What Was Postmodernism" in 1990. 
>Almost 30 years ago.
> However, more recently some of the intellectual 
>architects that summoned up
> PoMo into the scholastic realm have declared it to be 
>past. See none other
> than Linda Hutcheon's "Postmodern Afterthoughts" (2002) 
>or even Andreas
> Huyssen's "After the High/ Low Debate" (1999).
> 
> Richard Rorty once said (more or less) that there can be 
>no end to
> philosophy, just to research paradigms. He's right. 
>When's the last time
> you heard someone employ the term elan vital while 
>citing Henri Bergson? Or
> what about Sartre who was widely cited in the 50's and 
>60's? Perhaps now we
> are seeing those mandarins of thought so oft cited in 
>the 80's and 90's
> being relegated to a different shelf.
> 
> I've never gone in for bashing postmodernism, in part 
>out of respect for
> those that are so heavily invested in this research 
>paradigm but also
> because I saw no need. My own trajectory brought me into 
>contact with
> thinkers that simply did not engage with the term in the 
>way that some
> thinkers or artists seemed to wrap themselves in the 
>banner of Pomo (think
> of Lyotard or Baudrillard in philosophy, John Barthes in 
>literature). Both
> Pierre Bourdieu and Roger Chartier managed to keep their 
>distance from the
> term in the work that they did. In fact, the whole 
>explosion of
> 'postmodernism' was always a greater phenomena in the US 
>than in Europe.
> 
> (If anyone is interested in looking anew at the issue - 
>the High/ Low
> debate as a base for the idea of modernity and 
>postmodernity -  but from
> the perspective of intellectual history, one would do 
>well to read
> Michaels North's "Reading 1922". He provides powerful 
>documentation and
> argumentation that seriously challenges Huyssen's claims 
>in "After the
> Great Divide".)
> 
> That said, is there a complaint to be made regarding the 
>academic ivory
> tower and its orders and proselytes and the rhetoric 
>they employ to
> communicate? Yes. All of us have heard or read what 
>amounts to jargony B.S.
> by those that have learned to mimic the use of certain 
>terms and concepts
> accompanied by a nice name sauce (add the usual Pomo 
>suspects); that is
> what made the Sokal hoax possible.
> 
> This is a disservice to the Human Sciences (humanities) 
>and more so to
> students who then learn to talk the talk. The effect is 
>that Administration
> sees these departments as less than serious or essential 
>to a University -
> so where have cuts been felt more deeply and for longer? 
>Not in the MB
> programs or STEM careers.
> 
> Obviously, I can't provide an answer in a post that is 
>already a bit too
> long, but I can say that I am partial to Gerald Graff's 
>idea of "teaching
> the controversy" (not to be mistaken with the 
>appropriated version used by
> creationists). As long as departments and faculty exist 
>in separate
> academic cantons it will be very difficult or even 
>impossible to move
> beyond talking past one another or worse throwing 
>academic insults over
> theoretical walls.
> 
> Hey, maybe Peterson and Zizek can go on the road like 
>Liddy and Leary back
> in the day. On second thought... maybe not.
> 
> ciao
> mc otis
> --
> Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l