what is postmodernism in the political sense?

[ichneumon]

Postmodern scholars argue that such a decentralized society inevitably creates responses/perceptions that are described as post-modern, such as the rejection of what are seen as the false, imposed unities of meta-narrative and hegemony; the breaking of traditional frames of genre, structure and stylistic unity; and the overthrowing of categories that are the result of logocentrism and other forms of artificially imposed order. Scholars who accept the division of post-modernity as a distinct period believe that society has collectively eschewed modern ideals and instead adopted ideas that are rooted in the reaction to the restrictions and limitations of those ideas, and that the present is therefore a new historical period. While the characteristics of postmodern life are sometimes difficult to grasp, most postmodern scholars point to concrete and visible technological and economic changes that they claim have brought about the new types of thinking.

this is what i mean by the term. "the center cannot hold". well, then what? postmodernism.


1) "Postmodernist fiction is defined by its temporal disorder, its disregard of linear narrative, its mingling of fictional forms and its experiments with language." - Barry Lewis, Kazuo Ishiguro
2) "Weird for the sake of weird." - Moe Szyslak, of The Simpsons

i *love* this. i rewrote my ethnicity - now i'm one of the RealPeople. i write poetry in classical japanese and listen to indian techno. i swim in it - how can a transhuman not be postmodern?


so, how is marxism not postmodern? the manifesto was written ~150 years ago, in an entirely different *age*. dragging marxism out and applying it to the information age, much less the biotech revolution, is purely postmodern.


Marxist critics argue that postmodernism is symptomatic of "late capitalism" and the decline of institutions, particularly the nation-state. The literary critic Fredric Jameson and the geographer David Harvey have also identified post-modernity with "late capitalism" or "flexible accumulation". This situation, called finance capitalism, is characterized by a high degree of mobility of labor and capital, and what Harvey called "time and space compression."

this makes no sense to me whatsoever, can someone please explain?

[Publius]

Postmodernism is meaningless. There, I've solved you issues.

[RNK]

Owned...? Nah.

[IcarusAngel]

Post-Modernism is steeped in confusing jargon meant to cover up their weak philosophical basis. They're one step above objectivists, if that.

Foucault had some interesting critiques of society, but when he started talking about human nature, science, etc., it's pretty bizarre.

[ichneumon]

Postmodernism is meaningless.

of course it is. that's the point. although, honestly, existentialism handled that idea better.

this means nothing to me. explain why it is bad to be postmodern, why the term is used as an insult in this BB.

[SPK]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 08:31 pm

Marxist critics argue that postmodernism is symptomatic of "late capitalism" and the decline of institutions, particularly the nation-state. The literary critic Fredric Jameson and the geographer David Harvey have also identified post-modernity with "late capitalism" or "flexible accumulation". This situation, called finance capitalism, is characterized by a high degree of mobility of labor and capital…"
This makes no sense to me whatsoever, can someone please explain?

Postmodernist theory tends to valorize and privilege things like marginality, transgression, difference, mutability, border or boundary crossing, change, upheaval, fissures, ruptures, antinomianism, and so forth. Simultaneously, postmodernist thought criticizes, or simply tries to write out of existence, opposing concepts or practices such as totality, identity, commonality, connections or linkages, unity, grand historical narratives, dialectics, and other kinds of holisms. There are positive facets to the postmodernist “condition” as it developed throughout the postwar era, including the building of political opposition and liberationist movements among previously voiceless peoples: the populations of colonized countries, who rose up and threw out the imperialists; oppressed nationalities in the usa, such as African-Americans, [email protected], and indigenous peoples; migrants; women; queers; and so on. These advances required a challenge to those dominant political ideologies that marginalized the experiences of these strata and had little understanding of their oppressions: the traditional communist movements, with an overriding emphasis on class oppression, certainly fell into that category (and many postmodernist thinkers were expressly responding to the hegemony, at certain points and in certain places, of Marxism).

Regarding your quote, Marxist critics have pointed out that the character of postmodernism can be viewed as an ideological, superstructural manifestation of capitalism itself. Under capitalism, profit margins trend downward over the long-term: older sectors of industry and the economy become commoditized over time, and profits decline, causing the bourgeoisie to incessantly seek out and create new opportunities in new sectors, where profit levels will at least be temporarily higher. This requires a constant expansion or intensification of capitalist economic relations, not just in terms of imperialist conquest of territories -- which is an old phenomena -- but also in terms of the transformation of spheres of everyday life not previously, or only incompletely, subject to commodification -- which is a relatively new phenomena and one on which capitalism in increasingly dependent. The latter include things like selling lifestyles and personal identities back to people: the absorption of youth counterculture in the sixties, the neutralization of punk since, well, forever :lol:, the turn in hop-hop towards bling and conspicuous consumption, the commercialization of the LGBTIQ community public sphere, etc. are obvious examples. This makes the creation of new identities (via “fissures”, “ruptures”, “boundary crossings”, and so on) seem less oppositional or benign in terms of its relation to capital. Though we should be careful about how this argument is applied, since it has potentially very negative, conservatizing effects politically – i.e. an equivalence being drawn between any form of social upheaval or change, on the one hand, and the perpetuation of the capitalist system, on the other.

This is just one element of Marxist critiques of postmodernism – there are many others.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by SPK
The latter include things like selling lifestyles and personal identities back to people: the absorption of youth counterculture in the sixties, the neutralization of punk since, well, forever laugh.gif, the turn in hop-hop towards bling and conspicuous consumption, the commercialization of the LGBTIQ community public sphere, etc. are obvious examples. This makes the creation of new identities (via “fissures”, “ruptures”, “boundary crossings”, and so on) seem less oppositional or benign in terms of its relation to capital.

Wouldn't a postmodernist POV dispute the validity/utility of these identities in the first place? Postmodernism is not only about the critiquing of hegemonic holisms, but as you said earlier 'identity, commonality, connections or linkages'; in this context, like the idea that there is something that can meaningfullybe termed the 'punk lifestyle' etc.? If so, how does postmodernism contribute to the commodification of social identities as you describe? (if as im suggesting; it in fact deconstructs them as a matter of course).

If anything i would have thought that a postmodernist would critique the very process you are attributing to postmodern influence!

Unless you're suggesting that this process of commodification is occurring because of the influence (or development?) of postmodernist thought on capitalism generally; and that this is something that is occuring a part from (in practice: in contradiction to) the actual critiques of individual postmodernists?

[SPK]

Originally posted by black [email protected] 12, 2007 07:52 am
Wouldn't a postmodernist POV dispute the validity/utility of these identities in the first place? Postmodernism is not only about the critiquing of hegemonic holisms, but as you said earlier 'identity, commonality, connections or linkages'; in this context, like the idea that there is something that can meaningfullybe termed the 'punk lifestyle' etc.? If so, how does postmodernism contribute to the commodification of social identities as you describe? (if as im suggesting; it in fact deconstructs them as a matter of course).

If anything i would have thought that a postmodernist would critique the very process you are attributing to postmodern influence!

Unless you're suggesting that this process of commodification is occurring because of the influence (or development?) of postmodernist thought on capitalism generally; and that this is something that is occuring a part from (in practice: in contradiction to) the actual critiques of individual postmodernists?

Well, postmodernism, at it is commonly interpreted and debated on the left, has at least two different facets. First, there is the ultra-mandarin high theory, i.e. the actual works and texts produced by big-shot postmodernist thinkers and their many acolytes. In the usa, it is overwhelmingly members of academia who are involved in this enterprise. Once upon a time, such theory had a stronger connection to actual, real political movements on the ground: that relation existed because of the dynamism of those mass struggles. When those movements went into decline, the intellectual work being done, mostly in academia, became increasingly decoupled from real-world necessities and drifted off into the ether. For that reason, this theory today tends towards extreme individualism and atomization, and has few positive implications politically. One characteristic idea, for example, is that social or personal identities can be endlessly deconstructed so as to reveal the supplement or difference which is essential to their constitution. Well, that may sound good on paper, in the abstract, but real, live human beings don’t endlessly deconstruct and change themselves in that way: social or personal identities are important in grounding people and providing the foundation for political organizing.

Marxists and other radical tendencies have criticized this type of postmodernism over the years, for many good reasons. However, I don’t find this question interesting right now. Ideas can and have been developed and taken up in different spheres, not just university, but currently debates around this kind of postmodernism (whether pro or con) are too sequestered in academia, which is irrelevant to most people.

The second aspect to pomo is more relevant, I think: how has it been manifested on the ground: concretely, practically, day-to-day, in the oppositional movements mentioned in my first post? Theory is one thing, but how it is applied in, or its relation to, real life can be rather different. (Marxist criticisms have addressed both facets.) In the usa, struggles by people of color and oppressed nationalities, women, queers, and so forth, traditionally called “identity politics”, have been frequently treated on the left as synonymous with postmodernism. My initial comments were directed more to this and its relation to capitalism.

You seem a bit skeptical of the Marxist criticisms I described, am I right?

[Publius]

A = A

Therefore, capitalism.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by SPK+--> (SPK)Well, postmodernism, at it is commonly interpreted and debated on the left, has at least two different facets. First, there is the ultra-mandarin high theory, i.e. the actual works and texts produced by big-shot postmodernist thinkers and their many acolytes. In the usa, it is overwhelmingly members of academia who are involved in this enterprise. Once upon a time, such theory had a stronger connection to actual, real political movements on the ground: that relation existed because of the dynamism of those mass struggles. When those movements went into decline, the intellectual work being done, mostly in academia, became increasingly decoupled from real-world necessities and drifted off into the ether. For that reason, this theory today tends towards extreme individualism and atomization, and has few positive implications politically. One characteristic idea, for example, is that social or personal identities can be endlessly deconstructed so as to reveal the supplement or difference which is essential to their constitution. Well, that may sound good on paper, in the abstract, but real, live human beings don’t endlessly deconstruct and change themselves in that way: social or personal identities are important in grounding people and providing the foundation for political organizing.

Marxists and other radical tendencies have criticized this type of postmodernism over the years, for many good reasons. However, I don’t find this question interesting right now. Ideas can and have been developed and taken up in different spheres, not just university, but currently debates around this kind of postmodernism (whether pro or con) are too sequestered in academia, which is irrelevant to most people.[/b]

I expressed essentially the same argument in our private conversation, so yes, i understand and agree with this part.

Now for the sticky bit:


Originally posted by SPK+--> (SPK)The second aspect to pomo is more relevant, I think: how has it been manifested on the ground: concretely, practically, day-to-day, in the oppositional movements mentioned in my first post? Theory is one thing, but how it is applied in, or its relation to, real life can be rather different. (Marxist criticisms have addressed both facets.) In the usa, struggles by people of color and oppressed nationalities, women, queers, and so forth, traditionally called “identity politics”, have been frequently treated on the left as synonymous with postmodernism. [/b]

So the theory came first (that seems logical!), so can you please explain the continunity (or perhaps progression) between pomo theory and these movements you are associating with pomo theory? Like i said in our convo before (and in my first post)... the two seem to me to be squarely contradictory... yet you arguing that they are essentially synonymous nowdays.

Key questions:

How is pomo theory being "applied in [real life]?"

How is its "relation to real life...rather different?"



[email protected]

My initial comments were directed more to this and its relation to capitalism.

Ok, but reading this post hasnt helped me understand your first post any better :P


SPK

You seem a bit skeptical of the Marxist criticisms I described, am I right?

Yes and no. I completely agree with the criticism you make in your first paragraph of this post; as i said this is a criticism i have made myself consisently - without reading marxists on the subject, as for the rest? I'm not skeptical as much as i dont understand what you're talking about... i thought you were gonna have a go at explaining yourself? (fibber!!!)

[Idola Mentis]

I use postmodernist and poststructuralist perspectives in my work, sticking mainly to the "classical" european thinkers in the thread. While I recognize these thoughts have political implications, to me that's not their main area of influence. Postmodernist thought is mainly theories of knowledge. Such theories have broad implications, but can't be transferred raw to become, say, a theory of politics or a theory of human nature, or an accurate description ofht ecurrent state of the world. Postmodernity and its scientific cousin poststructuralism is useful because they account for pre-judice in a rather neat manner. It is "gullible" to a ridiculous degree, analyzing statements as they come forward rather than trying to second-guess the author by holding him accountable to our own "real" perception.

As you see in this thread, there are a number of other postmodernities around. Which kinda figures, since postmodernity tends to fracture everything it touches, you can't expect it to not do the same to itself...

Postmodernity as the process and aftermath of the dissolution of modernity is real in most useful senses of that term. Modernity is a historical period, recognizeable by a number of interconnected trends, ideologies, lineages of thought. And it is coming to an end, as the major threads in its weave comes apart. There are still modernities, but no great and towering Modern World to look forward to. We have lost faith in the shining crystal towers of 20's and 30's science fiction. That doesn't mean modernity was false, evil, or that you couldn't rouse the old ***** again. But it seems no one wants to, or knows how.

Objectivism is useless in that it doesn't generate new understanding, only confirms what you want to know. Mor cult or religion than philosophy. Postmodernism can easily be lowered to that level, and has, but there is more potential there. That scholars sometimes find it necessary to use specialized and advanced concepts to express specialized and advanced thoughts should come as no surprise. I think the accusation of deliberate obfuscation stumbles in its own feet. It's the same thinking as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (no further comparision intended!), where you have to suppose some grand conspiracy, where *everyone* is in on it for the accusation to be true.

Sure, people sometimes try to obfuscate by using complicated language. Just because you can't see the difference doesn't mean the experts can't.

Postmodern theories are certainly geared toward looking at borders, edges and switches rather than the objects themselves. The edge of the balloon tells more about its shape and properties than the middle, I guess. That approach might lead to valorization. I don't think the "opposing" concepts SPK menations really are opposing. Those who think the validity of their ideologies rely on these concepts and their anchoring in modernity's absolute truth will of course oppose their deconstruction. But studying and showing the lack of anchor in such concepts doesn't mean they cease to exist. It just makes them objects of study rather than tools to further knowledge. Turning off the steam hammer and bringing in the laser cutter to see how the hammer was built, so to speak.

I think Foucault, at least in his later work on government, brought with him the excellent marxist realization that all human structures are built or appropriated to serve someone's interest. Postmodernity as description of the state of the world is certainly a result of and a servant of capitalism and other violent predecessors from modernity. The theories called postmodernism much less so. They offer a useful mode of knowledge-as-power, access to the nuts and bolts of the postmodern existence so that it might be changed for the better. If only it could be made accessible, worked on until it became applicable.

Oh, I see SPK in his last post preempted some of what I said. But I don't know enough about the "american mandarins" to comment much. European postmodernism has dug itself into a similar hole, I think. Though the situation isn't as bad as you seem to describe; scholars do publicize their findings, apply them to contemporary debate, and demand to be heard. They are heard too, but the complexity of their arguments tend to mean their voices get drowned out by loudmouths with simple solutions.

Reading Foucault led me to his brand of "aristocratic anarchism". But I've fallen out of the "man as island" atomism which seems to me to be a golem of capitalism. The society and culture I live in has made it impossible for me to think of human beings as autonomous creatures. Without other people, we just dry up and die. Thus I'm exploring the possiblities of left anarchism and socialism. I think my path of thinking somewhat mirrors that of many others. The old world doesn't believe in american "rugged individualism" anymore, and are implementing socialist democrat policies. Too bad they're doing it as desperate patching and damming measures with fantaics and fascists following in their trails, wrecking their makeshift work, rather than real, across the board reforms. Keeping things bad while sedating the revolution.

It seems real, direct application of these theories, as opposed to a tool for historical studies, would tend toward this aristocratic anarchism, where each individual is expected to develop itself and make it possible for others to do so. A socratic mirror of the marxist escape from false consciousness leading to an awareness of the discourses and power relations which shape the structures we live within. Thus expanding our potential for thought and action. Conditions of life improving as more people and groups of people stop trying to dominate or govern others, and work toward power relations characterized by negotiation on an equal footing.

Not going to happen the "aristocratic" way, of course. The dominant does not voluntarily relinquish the bonds.

[Tungsten]

Post-Modernism is steeped in confusing jargon meant to cover up their weak philosophical basis. They're one step above objectivists, if that.
I assume it's post modern art we're talking about. No one, not even the post modernists themselves seem to have bothered to define the term properly, so I'm afraid that'll have to do. It doesn't matter because the philosophical manifestations of postmodernism aren't worth discussing because most of it is gibberish. On the subject of objectivism, I don't agree that post modernism is superior. This (http://www.objectivistcenter.org/showcontent.aspx?ct=958&h=53) is an evaluation of post modern art by an objectivist. Although I too lean towards Aristotleanism, I disagree with objectivism on some fundamental points, particularly when it comes to art, but I think the majority of this article is right on the money:

There is the long-standing rule in modern art that one should never say anything kind about capitalism. From Andy Warhol's criticisms of mass-produced capitalist culture we can move easily to Jenny Holzer's Private Property Created Crime (1982). In the center of world capitalism—New York's Times Square—Holzer combined conceptualism with social commentary in an ironically clever manner by using capitalism's own media to subvert it. German artist Hans Haacke's Freedom is now simply going to be sponsored—out of petty cash (1991) is another monumental example. While the rest of the world was celebrating the end of brutality behind the Iron Curtain, Haacke erected a huge Mercedes-Benz logo atop a former East German guard tower. Men with guns previously occupied that tower—but Haacke suggests that all we are doing is replacing the rule of the Soviets with the equally heartless rule of the corporations.

Superstructural manifestation of capitalism my arse.
Idola Mentis

As you see in this thread, there are a number of other postmodernities around. Which kinda figures, since postmodernity tends to fracture everything it touches, you can't expect it to not do the same to itself...
The best one is Kuhn's "paradigm" theory. It goes something like this: We can dismiss the idea that the sun revolves around the earth because when we all believed that, it a different paradigm, therefore we can also dismiss the idea that the earth revolves around the sun because tomorrow there might be a different paradigm. i.e. there are no facts, only opinions, which in most cases is false.

But you're right, it is prone to self destruction- we can dismiss the paradigm theory because there might be a different paradigm tomorrow that dismisses it as false.

More proof to my theory that modern philosophy is bollocks and it's proponents are snake oil salesmen.

[Idola Mentis]

Don't know much about post modern art. Some of it seems completely unrelated to the philosophy. And rather uninteresting. But that might just be me.

I think you've got the wrong idea about Kuhn. He's not trying to say something about reality - he's analyzing how science works on reality. The fact that 4000 years worth of civilization violently insisted the earth was flat does need some sort of accounting for, don't you think?

We're probably right about the earth being a sphere. (Though, come to think of it, we've since found it's sort of flattened and rippling. Because of the spinning, varying density and gravity, and so on and so forth.) But that doesn't mean there isn't at least one crazy kid out there who'll try to convince you it's flat, or that it's round for a completely different reason than we thought. Kuhn's theories can tell us something about the hows and whys of that. And maybe tell us when it could pay to actually listen to the crazy kid.

Modern philosophy is complex. Complexity equals bollocks just as little as it equals deliberate obfuscation.

[SPK]

Originally posted by black rose+March 19, 2007 06:55 am--> (black rose @ March 19, 2007 06:55 am)
SPK
The second aspect to pomo is more relevant, I think: how has it been manifested on the ground: concretely, practically, day-to-day, in the oppositional movements mentioned in my first post? Theory is one thing, but how it is applied in, or its relation to, real life can be rather different. (Marxist criticisms have addressed both facets.) In the usa, struggles by people of color and oppressed nationalities, women, queers, and so forth, traditionally called “identity politics”, have been frequently treated on the left as synonymous with postmodernism.
So the theory came first (that seems logical!), so can you please explain the continuity (or perhaps progression) between pomo theory and these movements you are associating with pomo theory? Like i said in our convo before (and in my first post)... the two seem to me to be squarely contradictory... yet you arguing that they are essentially synonymous nowdays.

Key questions:

How is pomo theory being "applied in [real life]?"
How is its "relation to real life...rather different?"[/b]
Ok, if I understand you correctly (I hope I’ve got some of it right this time! :P), you’re asking a question about the real-life relation between postmodernist theory of different kinds and the political movements I mentioned above. Specifically, how could such theory ever have been a component of such struggles, when postmodernist ideas today basically undermine conceptual foundations required for the unity, identity, commonality, etc. of those social groups in struggle?

That is a good question, but you may find my answers to be maddeningly vague and general. Huge debates went on and on for at least a quarter century between postmodernists and their critics, Marxist or otherwise. I always thought those debates, from either side, were very abstract and exhibited little understanding of how these ideas were actually taken up by real political movements for their own purposes. So my thinking here is underdeveloped: there isn’t any, say, one book that you can go read to get an overview of the particular question you posed. One reason is that movements with a closer correlation to postmodern ideas – queer, AIDS, women’s, etc. – were displaced and marginalized in the late nineties by the newly-emergent anarchist and anti-authoritarian tendencies (which was a clear improvement in some respects, such as challenging capitalism in a direct way) and have yet to undergo a serious historical reevaluation.

One quick note: Postmodernism and identitarian politics are viewed as synonymous by many Marxists certainly. I don’t agree that such an equivalence is unproblematic, but that is nonetheless what many people still think – and that is a clue as to the stakes involved in these debates, even today.

Postmodern theory was one thing, but the way those concepts (or the similar, parallel concepts developed from within political movements themselves, versus, say, academia) were applied or taken up in concrete, material struggles was rather different. Sometimes there was a great divergence, with certain, key elements of postmodernism being essentially jettisoned or ignored altogether.

- The theory was very abstract and, if you paid heed to the exact positions taken in these texts, tended towards the extreme atomization, alienation, and individualism that I mentioned in an earlier post. For example, Judith Butler proposed in her early political writings that the feminist movements should remain essentially open in their definition, since any attempt to circumscribe its boundaries would always leave some segment of “women” (Butler would have viewed that terminology as problematic, of course) marginalized vis-à-vis the larger, dominant category of “women” – those margins being the supplement which is internally necessary for the constitution of the broader, hegemonic norm. Now, the actual movements were never going to take that position literally. To do so would have undercut the entire purpose of feminism and its moral, ethical, and political foundations -- it would ultimately lead to the importation of reactionary elements, i.e. people not dedicated to the freedom and liberation of women.

Instead, the way the movements applied or utilized these theories were more limited. Specifically they were used to inform and articulate certain political projects underway within feminism during the eighties and early nineties, i.e. the challenge within women’s struggles by lesbians, working class women, and women of color. The focus was on the particular dynamics of race, class, and sexuality in a movement that was paradigmatically white, middle-class, and heteronormative. The kind of open-ended, perpetual dissolution of all identities a la Butler, which would have ultimately led to theoretical efforts at deconstructing the “lesbian”, the “working class”, and “women of color”, was not on the agenda.

Think, for example, of a once-common method of critiquing identity politics. This type of critique basically argued that the various axes of oppression characteristic of a society should be exposed and challenged within a struggle: rather than simply understand feminism as being about women, some demanded that it be understood at a more granular level: as being about black women, or lesbian women, or disabled women, or a combination of those factors, etc. This is quite valid, but it is not at all equivalent to the basic critique of metaphysics of self-presence that much postmodern theory advances.

Postmodernism had a useful understanding of the dynamics of interior and exterior, of the ways that a dominant norm is never fully self-present but, instead, dependent upon its “other”. These ideas, which have their origin in literary criticism, were suggestive enough to influence theoretical developments in fields far removed from literary studies, even if this “suggestiveness” was initially only metaphorical. There is a notable parallel between, for example, these concepts and today’s understandings of the homo/hetero sexual binary (and these understandings are in no way timeless or universal – I think they are rather unique to the current period). The everyday, practical political struggles occurring on the ground took the overall framework of analyses by people like Butler and applied them in resolving contradictions specific to the historical conjuncture in question. However, the movements went no further than that, contrary to the concerns of many of postmodernism’s detractors. (Btw, I think Butler modified her position in her later works.)

- Another common objection to postmodernist theory is that it is based on an epistemological skepticism – a perspective which suggests there can never be any fully objective or actionable knowledge. Postmodernism did indeed challenge traditional, rationalist, enlightenment thought. But as I noted earlier, real-world political movements did not, and were never going to, take this to its final, logical conclusion and determine that nothing could ever be knowable. That would have contradicted the fundamental purpose of a struggle, which is to develop some understanding of the material world and then go out and change it based on that understanding. Those theories or hypothesis that are developed in struggle may not be completely true, may be incomplete or flawed, but what is important is their pragmatic or practical effect – how they facilitate changing the world around us.

Also important is the fact that most movements have, as an implicit principle, the idea that knowledge can be built incrementally or evolutionarily – that we can move in a linear way ever-closer towards a fuller, more complete, and more accurate truth. This would seem to be fundamental for any political struggle which believes that the world can progress through the efforts and undertakings of human beings.

This point, I think, explains how some postmodern works were assimilated by actual movements. They were used to build a more objective reading of the real, one which integrated previously marginalized or silenced subject positions – i.e. those historically ”othered” along axes of race, gender, or sexuality. Epistemological skepticism here was treated more provisionally, as a strategy, rather than as a overriding, general principle. In other words, it was a strategy to counter the prevailing white supremacy, male supremacy, and heteronormativity of western thought. Michel Foucault, for example, wrote The History of Sexuality Volume I, which was very influential in the queer communities. It had a significant impact on analyses of homophobia and heterosexism and on overall conceptions of sexual identity and practice, i.e. on understandings of the real. However, Foucault’s epistemological skepticism – which was a definite tendency in his works – could not, by definition, be assimilated into such a struggle.

- Yet another common critique of postmodernism is that it undermines possibilities for change by eliminating the moral or ethical basis for political practice, i.e. that it is “nihilistic”. Postmodernism is deeply anti-foundationalist, and these attacks get at a key characteristic of the theory. Without going too much into this question (personally, I think that ethical theory is not a requirement -- it is at best mostly a diversion and at worst quite reactionary), I’ll simply note that political struggles, by their nature, are inherently normative. There is always an implicit moral or ethical position being taken, even if this is not explicitly spelled out in a text somewhere. For example, I was with the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power -- ACT UP – during its heyday (Foucault and pomo was certainly an influence there). We successfully pressured pharmaceutical companies to reduce the price of HIV drugs, demanded greater funding for healthcare programs from the state, engaged in direct action and civil disobedience, tussled with the cops, etc. Whatever else someone may say about that, it was most definitely not a type of “nihilism” :lol:: it was politically normative and envisioned or imagined that the world should be a certain way, i.e. with greater justice and equality.

Hope this helped. :)

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by SPK+--> (SPK)Ok, if I understand you correctly (I hope I’ve got some of it right this time! tongue.gif), you’re asking a question about the real-life relation between postmodernist theory of different kinds and the political movements I mentioned above. Specifically, how could such theory ever have been a component of such struggles, when postmodernist ideas today basically undermine conceptual foundations required for the unity, identity, commonality, etc. of those social groups in struggle?
[/b]

Essentially, yes.


Originally posted by [email protected]

One quick note: Postmodernism and identitarian politics are viewed as synonymous by many Marxists certainly. I don’t agree that such an equivalence is unproblematic, but that is nonetheless what many people still think – and that is a clue as to the stakes involved in these debates, even today.

That is quite apparent from my time on this board; unfortunately i have yet to come across a marxist who can justify that association with reference to postmodernist theory. Rather the vast majority (i'd really like to say all, but that would be unfair... i spose) seem to make these sorts of associations/statements quite blankly, and merely (?) because it is normative for their ideological canon - 'this is what marxist-leninists say' - all without actually having any meaningful understand of pomo theory generally (nor is such knowledge desired).

Rather this apparent link is used a place-holder argument, often with heavily pejorative connotations, to swiftly dimiss some aspect of or queer/womens etc generally.

Also, reading your post you make a good argument against using pomo and social movements synonymously.

----------

As for the body of your post, i understand what you are saying and dont really disagree on anything in particular (thank you for taking the time to reply), now (perhaps with reference to what you've just said) we can get back to my original question?

Could you explain this paragraph to me please?


SPK
Regarding your quote, Marxist critics have pointed out that the character of postmodernism can be viewed as an ideological, superstructural manifestation of capitalism itself. Under capitalism, profit margins trend downward over the long-term: older sectors of industry and the economy become commoditized over time, and profits decline, causing the bourgeoisie to incessantly seek out and create new opportunities in new sectors, where profit levels will at least be temporarily higher. This requires a constant expansion or intensification of capitalist economic relations, not just in terms of imperialist conquest of territories -- which is an old phenomena -- but also in terms of the transformation of spheres of everyday life not previously, or only incompletely, subject to commodification -- which is a relatively new phenomena and one on which capitalism in increasingly dependent. The latter include things like selling lifestyles and personal identities back to people: the absorption of youth counterculture in the sixties, the neutralization of punk since, well, forever laugh.gif, the turn in hop-hop towards bling and conspicuous consumption, the commercialization of the LGBTIQ community public sphere, etc. are obvious examples. This makes the creation of new identities (via “fissures”, “ruptures”, “boundary crossings”, and so on) seem less oppositional or benign in terms of its relation to capital. Though we should be careful about how this argument is applied, since it has potentially very negative, conservatizing effects politically – i.e. an equivalence being drawn between any form of social upheaval or change, on the one hand, and the perpetuation of the capitalist system, on the other.

In the above you state that 'Marxist critics have pointed out that the character of postmodernism can be viewed as an ideological, superstructural manifestation of capitalism itself' and follow this with what i assume is your explaination of that statement... what i dont understand is how exactly what you're talking about in the above paragraph relates to either pomo theory or the application of pomo theory to social movements which you discussed in your last post - how are these social movements influenced by pomo (and applying in varying degrees) commodifying identities etc.? How is pomo a a direct ideological manifestation of capitalism?

[Idola Mentis]

Wow, thanks SPK. That's one chewy post. Lots to think about. I'm having real trouble expressing myself in english on this subject. Some of the terms you're using made the lights go on in my head :)

I don't think epistemological sceptisism should be as much of a problem as it seems to be. In fact, it should be an asset. It brings the realization that some people operate with fundamentally different assumptions, allowing us to adjust our expectations and strategies accordingly. Isn't there a chance it could also allow us to gain a deeper understanding of our own assumptons, using them as tools to get what we want rather than making ourselves tools to them? If you accept that all dogma are only constructed approximations of truth, you have to be careful to pick the one which will get you somewhere you want to go.

[SPK]

Originally posted by black rose+March 23, 2007 06:34 am--> (black rose @ March 23, 2007 06:34 am)[quote]SPK
In the above you state that 'Marxist critics have pointed out that the character of postmodernism can be viewed as an ideological, superstructural manifestation of capitalism itself' and follow this with what i assume is your explanation of that statement... what i don’t understand is how exactly what you're talking about in the above paragraph relates to either pomo theory or the application of pomo theory to social movements which you discussed in your last post - how are these social movements influenced by pomo (and applying in varying degrees) commodifying identities etc.? How is pomo a direct ideological manifestation of capitalism?
What I had in mind with that statement I made earlier was the more pejorative meaning that many Marxists attach to the term “postmodernism”, i.e. it was referring to identity-based political movements. There is also the more rigorous definition of “postmodernism”, which I believe you are using in this thread: i.e. the canonical writers and texts of poststructuralism, and so on. Marxists and others have many critiques of postmodernism in that second sense, as well, but I didn’t really want to comment too much on that, as I noted in my second post. I may never have explicitly stated this, but I think postmodernism in the latter, more rigorous definition has absolutely been argued to death – and given the peripheral position of those mandarin theorists today, I don’t quite understand the political valence or importance of such debates right now.

In any case, here is some more detail on what I meant (vis-à-vis identity-based political movements) when I said: “Marxist critics have pointed out that the character of postmodernism can be viewed as an ideological, superstructural manifestation of capitalism itself”.

- First of all, let me speak to some classic Marxist criticisms of identity politics that I think are preposterous bullshit, so I can get those out of the way. Different struggles around race, gender, sexuality, and so on have proposed epistemological frameworks that can help understand those particular axes of oppression. Some of those frameworks view such factors as primary, and others do not. In either case, many Marxists have argued that any epistemological foundation which does not resolutely and exclusively center class and the capitalist economic mode of production is, at best, a diversion. I.e., that it prevents people from grasping the true character of capitalism, the necessity of its overthrow, and how to make a revolution. This is ludicrous – as if such increased complexity would hinder people’s understanding of the world. :rolleyes: Some even-less temperate critics have classified these perspectives as essentially “nihilistic”. :rolleyes: Tellingly, the current downturn, in the usa, of traditional identity-based struggles has not led to any appreciable upsurge of “revolutionary” forces here. :lol:

- One of my original points was that there is a relation between these identities, on the one hand, and capitalist pursuit of higher levels, and new arenas, of profit on the other. This seems to me indisputable at certain levels. However:

o These identities that we are discussing and around which political movements have cohered are not specifically a product of capitalist efforts to create new consumer markets or new commodities to sell back to people. These identities, instead, are sometimes pre-existing or pre-given, or arise out of processes outside of the economic sphere: black pride would be one example. Other times, they are an unintended effect of capitalism’s different structural characteristics: queer communities are one case in which the ascendancy of the (nominally) free labor market allowed some (not all) workers to abandon traditional household-based economies – such as farms – and family dependencies; this meant they could live elsewhere in accordance with their desires and away from the constraining surveillance of a conservative society.

However, capitalism can certainly commodify those identities, once they have fully formed. It has a parasitic relation to these social developments.

o I doubt, despite left-wing currents which suggest otherwise, that such a commodification process truly inhibits the strengthening of political movements oriented around those identities. I view the political sphere as being independent and autonomous of whatever occurs in the consumer sphere, in mass media and advertising, and so forth – people just do not uncritically or mechanistically define themselves based on what they see on television or the internet or hear on the radio, etc. For example, African-American culture in the usa has been relentlessly commodified, not just today with hip-hop, but throughout the twentieth century. In the early decades, music like jazz, soul, rhythm and blues, and early rock and roll became products sold, not just back to black people, but white people as well. White youth in particular consumed a narrow idea of African-Americans as rebellious, and it was a foundation for different youth subcultures that arose – this wasn’t just a phenomenon in the fifties, but at other points, such as the twenties.

Despite this, resistance struggles, such as Black Liberation and the Civil Rights movement were spawned in the fifties and sixties. A putative cultural absorption by the capitalist economy did not hinder or prevent these initiatives.

o One illuminating exception to the above point concerns the queer movements. One of its primary political goals – and this applies to almost all of the different ideological tendencies, left or right – has been visibility and coming out of the closet. These concepts have always been rather vague. That lack of clarity created a big problem in the nineties, following the end of the last major phase of the militant community struggles here, roughly in 1993.

There was a significant increase in the open and explicit presence of LGBITQ people in the mass media. For example, major corporations became more willing to place advertisements on television and in journals – Volkswagen and Ikea were two notable early movers in this regard. Many queer people believed that simple exposure in the public sphere – whether on TV, in ads, or anywhere else that straight and / or homophobic types could see it – was an unproblematic good and constituted a form of political progress. It was, of course, nothing of the sort – virulent antigay reaction has coexisted for some time now with this intensified public presence in the corporate media (the vast majority of states in the usa now have constitutional or legislative bans on same-sex marriage, for example, and this has occurred mostly over the past five years or so). There is no necessary relation between “openness” and basic equal rights.

So, when a political movement has as its purpose a visibility that can be fulfilled or accomplished through the basic operations of the capitalist marketplace – as was the case with the queer struggles -- then it can be more easily neutralized via the classic commodification process.

I have more to say (more of my own criticism) about Marxist commentary on identitarian movements – including some rather nasty shit that Slavoj Zizek included in his introduction to a new edition of Mao’s On Practice and On Contradiction. But its my bedtime. -_-

[SPK]

Originally posted by Idola [email protected] 23, 2007 07:06 am
I don't think epistemological sceptisism should be as much of a problem as it seems to be. In fact, it should be an asset. It brings the realization that some people operate with fundamentally different assumptions, allowing us to adjust our expectations and strategies accordingly. Isn't there a chance it could also allow us to gain a deeper understanding of our own assumptons, using them as tools to get what we want rather than making ourselves tools to them? If you accept that all dogma are only constructed approximations of truth, you have to be careful to pick the one which will get you somewhere you want to go.
I agree. The political movements I discussed took the overall epistemological skepticism – the general philosophical position -- characteristic of theorists like Foucault and applied them in such a way that the dogmatic aspects and assumptions of dominant ideologies became apparent. And so that different political frameworks – ones that understood how oppressions around race, gender, or sexuality operated – could be developed.

Of course, these movements did indeed have “somewhere (they) wanted to go” – they had political goals towards which they were working. That kind of concrete, material, political practice cannot ultimately be founded on a pure epistemological skepticism, since it involves being able to understand the world, formulating a strategy for change based on that understanding, and then going out and actually changing reality.

So I would say that they did use certain elements of postmodernism as a tool – i.e. those aspects that were useful or had strategic utility. They did not, and could not, take up the entirety of postmodernism in an uncritical way, as that would have undercut the very notion of a political project in the first place.