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

[David Morris]

>From an art/architecture POV, PoMo (mid/late 70's) was an indulgence, often
making nostalgic cartoon/pastiche follies, making pretend.  The more
serious artists flaunted both knowledge and willful breaking of classical &
modernist rules.  Back then I thought of us as neo-mannerists.  Skillful
jokesters.

David Morris

On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 6:00 PM Thomas Eckhardt <thomas.eckhardt at uni-bonn.de>
wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
> --
> Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
>