Postmodernism and Marxism

[amale]

How does Postmodernism critique all historical theories, while being one itself?
And in what ways is Marxism an example of historical theory?

[Dros]

"Postmodernism" exists in many forms and does many, contradictory things. It is not a cohesive system of thought but is usually viewed as a way of looking at the world (or perhaps more accurately, a way of looking at ways of looking at the world).

In terms of history, "Postmodernism" does not advocate one view of history so to speak of the postmodern interpretation of history makes little sense.

Marxism as an historical theory looks at human history as a product of class struggle as defined by dialectically changing objective and subjective conditions.

[black magick hustla]

There is no unifying definition of Postmodernism. My take on it is that it is an ideological manifestation of advanced, post-industrial capitalism. It is the logical conclusion of a mode of production that murdered God and is unable to hold a consistent, ideological grip in society like the old, feudal modes did. There is nothing mystical about commodity accumulation, so the ideological wrapper surrounding it is tenoous at best. Science and money are increasingly incompatible with God.

Becuase of this, you have a lot of moral relativism and nihilism.

[Dros]

There is no unifying definition of Postmodernism. My take on it is that it is an ideological manifestation of advanced, post-industrial capitalism. It is the logical conclusion of a mode of production that murdered God and is unable to hold a consistent, ideological grip in society like the old, feudal modes did. There is nothing mystical about commodity accumulation, so the ideological wrapper surrounding it is tenoous at best. Science and money are increasingly incompatible with God.

Becuase of this, you have a lot of moral relativism and nihilism.

I largely agree. Also important in the development of postmodern philosophy (but clearly not its origin) are the Holocaust and the development of nuclear weapons.

[Invader Zim]

The postmodern approach to history is a complex issue and there is no one post-modern approach to history, there are multiple post-modern theoretical models for the practise of history. Below I shall post part of a grossly simplistic summary of just what postmodernism is, in terms of history, which I wrote several years ago: -

Post-modernist views in regards to history, ethics and philosophy revolve around the ideal that there is no absolute truth. Post-modernists see history as a subject which no longer holds much in the way of value. This, post-modernists argue, is because ‘facts’ lack any true objective basis, thus pointing out the relativity of knowledge. In terms of history this is idea is supported by the position we, in the present, cannot go back and confirm what happened in the past. We, in the present, must rely upon the recollections, accounts and opinions of others regarding historical events. Post modernists argue that any such accounts are bias and any attempts at interpreting such events are also biased.

A significant portion of the criticism levelled at historians and the discipline of history is that historians can not be truly objective, despite any amount of effort. Post modernists argue that a historian’s cultural back ground, race, gender, political view, nationality, class and a host of other variables mould their interpretation of the past.[1] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/postmodernism-and-marxism-t71512/index.html#_ftn1) Of course individual examples of bias and even incorrect information are easily detected by fellow historians, however culturally wide biases are far harder to detect.[2] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/postmodernism-and-marxism-t71512/index.html#_ftn2) Posts modernists also argue that different historians take different interpretations from texts and evidence. This factor, post-modernists argue, means that one of the historians must be incorrect. As it is often impossible to establish which one is incorrect, the very attempt to establish the truth is impossible.[3] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/postmodernism-and-marxism-t71512/index.html#_ftn3)

Post-modernism places some historical methodology into a light which reveals inherent flaws. For example Jacques Derrida took issue with some historians supposed complacency and naïve empiricism, while others subjected historians to literary criticism.[4] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/postmodernism-and-marxism-t71512/index.html#_ftn4) This certainly encourages historians to be wary of such attitudes and to less trusting of sources. The term post-modernism is an umbrella label which encompasses, post structuralism, the linguistic turn and post-Marxism. The advantages, of post-Marxism for example, can be easily seen. Post-Marxism encompasses revisionary responses to Marxism, which include the feminist approach to Marxist historiography.[5] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/postmodernism-and-marxism-t71512/index.html#_ftn5) The resulting attempt to amend the flaws of Marxist historiography in that respect certainly can be argued to have had a beneficial impact upon the Marxist paradigms used to understand the past.

[1] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/postmodernism-and-marxism-t71512/index.html#_ftnref1) C. Behan McCullagh, The logic of History: Putting Postmodernism in Perspective, (New York, 2004), pp. 2-6.

[2] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/postmodernism-and-marxism-t71512/index.html#_ftnref2) Ibid, 30.

[3] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/postmodernism-and-marxism-t71512/index.html#_ftnref3) Ibid, pp. 2-6.

[4] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/postmodernism-and-marxism-t71512/index.html#_ftnref4) Matt Perry, Marxism and History, (Basingstoke, 2002), p. 129.

[5] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/postmodernism-and-marxism-t71512/index.html#_ftnref5) Ibid, p, 130.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Thanks for that IZ, but one might want to reflect on the irony of being given the absolute truth that there is no absolute truth...

[Invader Zim]

Thanks for that IZ, but one might want to reflect on the irony of being given the absolute truth that there is no absolute truth...

Yep, that is a point well worth considering, the utter self contradiction inherent to post-modernism really only makes it applicable as a paradigm; as a broad philosophy its a load of crap. I didn't include the part of the essay where I pointed that out, I wasn't sure if it was necessary to a discussion of what post-modernism actually is.

[Dros]

Thanks for that IZ, but one might want to reflect on the irony of being given the absolute truth that there is no absolute truth...

The thing about postmodernism is that it recognizes that it contradicts itself and doesn't care.

[Invader Zim]

The thing about postmodernism is that it recognizes that it contradicts itself and doesn't care.

I don't think taht is necessarily true, various post-modernists have contributed lengthy if incomprehensable defences of their views.

[Dros]

I don't think taht is necessarily true, various post-modernists have contributed lengthy if incomprehensable defences of their views.

But many have excepted the existance of contradictions. That is why it is silly to talk about "postmodernism" as a unified theory. It is not.

Many post modernists are concerned only with deconstruction (such as Derrida, especially early on) and aren't concerned with any kind of possitive construction which means that contradictions in their argument like the one Rosa pointed out, are irrelevant to their argument. In fact, many postmodernists will concede that their own argument falls victim to itself!

[black magick hustla]

There are very few "postmodernists" that call themselves like that.

I treat postmodernity more as a period, with a certain ideological trends, rather than analyzing a philosophy called "postmodernism". For example, identity politics may not be "postmodern" in as much as they dont call themselves like that, but they emerged in postmodernity, and do follow many postmodern trends, like relativism and subjectivity etc.

[Black Dagger]

I'm not sure why this keep coming up but...

Identity-politics are by their definition antithetical to post-modernism.

Please explain the links between subjectivity, relativism and identity politics.

One of the core concerns of post-modernism (is as Drosera said) deconstruction, but also the rejection of the modernist conception of an essential self (this is tied closely to deconstruction - i.e. the deconstruction of conceptions of self) - a core identity or essence (essentialism)- and this is the foundation upon which identity politics rest.

Essentialism is a reductive form of thinking that produces stereotypes, and has been used historically by ruling classes to justify oppression, imperialism etc.

Post-modernists would argue (and i would agree) all essentialist claims (the foundation of identity politics - groups representing 'women', 'queers' etc) are inherently fallacious; as they necessarily discount the heterogeneity of peoples/societies by homogenising them - in reality what constitutes a 'social identity' (or that of an individual) is in a constant state of flux (historically speaking) being constructed and re-constructed via discourse (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse) over time.

Moreover essentialist constructions of identity homogenise the oppressed - asserting that group X constitutes a unitary group with one set of interests (in reality experiences of 'oppression' differ depending on class, sex etc. and these should not be trivialised) - asserting a very specific (and basically unchanging or at least inflexible) understanding of the oppression we face has a tendency to produce exclusions (a fundamental consequence of essentialist logic) - people who do not fit the prescribed essence of the group, or whose interests or experiences remain absent from the dominant expressions...of what is being presented as the interests of a particular group.

Moreover, if one accepts that identities are constructed and re-constructed via discourse, than any attempt to assert an unchanging, unitary essence or 'core' identity will be doomed to irrelevance over time (though this probably the weakest segment of the argument).

So yeah - i dunno eh? I think the tendency to conflate identity politics with post-modernism probably stems from a general ignorance (or at least misunderstanding) about the nature of post-modernism; though this is not all that surprising given that much post-modernist and by extension post-structuralist writing is highly 'academic' and jargon-based... but some of this 'misunderstanding' may indeed be willful or at least ideologically motivate/produced.

After all, as the arch-critic of modernism (of which marxism is a product) there is an understandable hostility from many marxists (though not all - since Foucault among other french marxists are regarded as key theorists in post-structuralist thinking) towards post-modern and post-structuralist ideas - i don't think that this resentment is justified (i prefer when people engage with critiques rather than simply dismiss or otherwise trivialise them)- but i can understand why it exists.

Unfortunately many marxists seem to group identity politics and post-modernism together, maybe because they both represent new critiques marxism - despite the fact that they're intellectual incompatible.

[black magick hustla]

Again, there is no such thing as "postmodernism" as a unified theory. Besides, postmodern doesn't imply only something following "postmodernism" but something emerging specifically from "Postmodernity" and that follows the trends of such epoch.

Also very few intellectuals call themselves postmodern.

I tackle the adjective "postmodern" referring to Postmodernity as an epoch, and some trends that came with it.

New left identity politics are postmodern in so far that in a lot of the times they reject science, "objective truth" and instead resort to saying things like "science is patriarchal", or "science is white", etc. Postmodern "liberalism" also came with an extremely relativistic view of cultures, favoring artificial multiculutralism, and stupid ideas like "all opinions are the same" etc. Postmodern doesn't always mean ultrarelativistic nihilism, but things going to that tendency.

[Brownfist]

I think what is more interesting for Marxists is the relationship between post-modernism and Marxism which in itself is a long complicated one (and must be localized to its European and American variations, and different historical time periods). I think that we need to be clear that were few "post-modernist theorists" would actually identify with post-modernism per say, however, there can be some agreement that some of the central figures that influenced and/or were post-modernists included Michel Foucault, Jean Baudrillard and Jean-Francois Lyotard. What is interesting is that all 3 were either members of, or were in the orbit around, the French Communist Party. Many broke with the party due to the orthodoxy of the party in sociological and philosophical analysis and/or the conservatism of the party in various sections of its organizing. However, many remained Marxian till various stages in their careers. Foucault briefly flirted with Maoism, and subsequently the black power movement in the 1970's. Lyotard briefly was member of "Socialism or Barbarism" and Baudrillard wrote his dissertation under Marxist Humanist Henri Lefebvre and was involved in May 1968.

[Black Dagger]

Again, there is no such thing as "postmodernism" as a unified theory.

I didn't suggest that there was - merely that there are a wealth of postmodernist (or perhaps more accurately - post-structuralist - though the concepts are linked) critques relating to history, 'politics' and so forth (i.e. the topic of this thread).

And in relation to these areas there are common (identifiable) principals which can be applied in analysis.

So what is the point of closing down the discussion with comments like 'post-modernism is not a unified theory'? When in reality there are well-known post-modern and post-structuralist critiques available - indeed post-structuralism is in a sense a giant critical lense.



Besides, postmodern doesn't imply only something following "postmodernism" but something emerging specifically from "Postmodernity" and that follows the trends of such epoch.

Okay - but this is a definition that (i think) is largely irrelevant to this (specific) discussion.

We're not talking about 'postmodernity' - or the state of being 'postmodern' (in an historical sense) - the topic here is the relationship between post-modernism and marxism - i.e. the critique of the former of the latter.

This focus entails an emphasis on postmodernism as it exists as a critical perspective on modernism (marxism) - not a discussion of 'characteristics of the postmodern condition' or trends in a specific historical epoch - but a set of specific criticisms applied to a specific topic (marxism).

In short, i think the definition you're using for 'postmodernism' or 'postmodern' or whatever - is not relevant to this debate (though that doesn't make it incorrect - just not relevant in this context).



Also very few intellectuals call themselves postmodern.

True, but some do - and more many more people identify as post-structuralists - but i don't see the relevance of your point - we're talking about a postmodernist critique (of marxism, and in relation to my previous post - identity politics - since you attempted to link postmodernism with this phenomenon) - not who calls themselves what.



I tackle the adjective "postmodern" referring to Postmodernity as an epoch, and some trends that came with it.

Then perhaps you should leave this thread and start a discussion in an arts forum? Or a different topic in history?

This thread is not about what is 'postmodern?' - or about understanding 'trends that emerged in postmodernity' - it's about postmodernism (and its relation to marxism) - the critique presented by post-modernist and post-structuralists - this is not a discussion about the nature of the 'current' historical epoch - but rather:

" How does Postmodernism critique all historical theories, while being one itself?
And in what ways is Marxism an example of historical theory?"




New left identity politics are postmodern in so far that in a lot of the times they reject science, "objective truth" and instead resort to saying things like "science is patriarchal", or "science is white", etc.

Huh? This is a pretty strange argument.

Rejecting science (or even objective truth) does not make one a postmodernist (in many cases it merely means a person is religious - and most religion predate modernism - though there are certainly links between post-structuralist conceptions/critiques of self and some eastern religions)

Perhaps you can show evidence of these viewpoints? I've never read, seen or heard anyone engaged in identity politics make statements of this nature ("science is white") etc.- and certainly even if they do exist - somewhere- they are not representative of the rhetoric usually employed by identity-based groups.

Besides, critiquing the the practice of science, the scientific establishment etc. does not entail a rejection of science.

Further, identity politics did not emerge with the 'new left' - the suffragette movement is a form of identity politics for example.




Postmodern "liberalism"

There's no such thing.
Postmodern liberalism is like saying post-modern-modernism :confused: (liberalism is a modernist philosophy).



also came with an extremely relativistic view of cultures, favoring artificial multiculutralism, and stupid ideas like "all opinions are the same" etc. Postmodern doesn't always mean ultrarelativistic nihilism, but things going to that tendency.

Now you've got me confused.

On the one hand you go to great pains to avoid engaging with any of the points i raised in my previous post - on the basis that apparently you're talking about 'postmodernity' (the state of being or conditions of an historical epoch) and not postmodernism (as a identifiable critique of modernism) - but now you're referring to a 'postmodern' set of ideas (what you call 'trends')? 'extreme relativism', tendency towards 'ultrarelativistic nihilism' etc. - is this 'postmodernism' to you?

[bcbm]

Now you've got me confused.

What else should one expect when discussing postmodernism? ;)

[Black Dagger]

Also - i have to dispute your periodisation of history and ideas - on what basis are you declaring this is the 'post-modern' epoch?

When did this epoch begin?

Why?

What distinguishes it from the previous epoch? (which was what? Modernism?)

And how are concepts like nihilism (or 'ultrarelativistic nihilism' if you prefer - though they're basically the same thing) and relativism post-modern?

They certainly are not trends, that as you claim 'came with [postmodernity]'. Both concepts pre-date postmodernity; and besides, relativism/nihilism are hardly the dominant philosophies or approaches to life, the world, knowledge etc. at present anyway - so to assert that they are meaningful trends is i think exaggerating the influence of 'intellectuals' - clearly the world at present operates as if truth exists and is knowable and firmly within the bounds of modernist thinking - not the opposite - even if there is a trend amongst some (but by no means the majority) involved in the humanities to engage with concepts like relativism etc. in the form of post-structuralist and post-modernist critique.

Besides, on what basis are you declaring that they are trends of this epoch specifically? I just don't understand how you're managed to sift through the totality of ideas and discourse to determine precisely that these things are current and meaningful 'trends' as opposed to ideas with long-standing in human society which have had varying degrees of emphasis in intellectual culture (again this is hardly representative of a whole period of human life - 'an era') over time.


What else should one expect when discussing postmodernism?

Indeed! :D

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

As a wise-man once said: "Sisters and brothers, please have a listen, stick to your class and trash postmodernism."

This one issue on which Noam Chomsky has something of value to say: "... I would simply suggest that you ask those who tell you about the wonders of "theory" and "philosophy" to justify their claims --- to do what people in physics, math, biology, linguistics, and other fields are happy to do when someone asks them, seriously, what are the principles of their theories, on what evidence are they based, what do they explain that wasn't already obvious, etc. These are fair requests for anyone to make. If they can't be met, then I'd suggest recourse to Hume's advice in similar circumstances: to the flames. ... There are lots of things I don't understand -- say, the latest debates over whether neutrinos have mass or the way that Fermat's last theorem was (apparently) proven recently. But from 50 years in this game, I have learned two things: (1) I can ask friends who work in these areas to explain it to me at a level that I can understand, and they can do so, without particular difficulty; (2) if I'm interested, I can proceed to learn more so that I will come to understand it. Now Derrida, Lacan, Lyotard, Kristeva, etc. --- even Foucault, whom I knew and liked, and who was somewhat different from the rest --- write things that I also don't understand, but (1) and (2) don't hold: no one who says they do understand can explain it to me and I haven't a clue as to how to proceed to overcome my failures. That leaves one of two possibilities: (a) some new advance in intellectual life has been made, perhaps some sudden genetic mutation, which has created a form of "theory" that is beyond quantum theory, topology, etc., in depth and profundity; or (b) ... I won't spell it out."

[Hiero]

Originally Posted by bcbm
What else should one expect when discussing postmodernism


Indeed! :D

Are you being sarcastic or this really to be expected? As CDL points out, Noam Chomsky doesn't believe it can be understood or proved.

I have usually stuck with anthropology throughout uni, and alot of the time when it comes to anthropology in the developed world, they rely more on structuralist ideas. I am back at uni and doing a course called identity and culture, and I have just read my first article that deals specifically with post-modernist ideas regarding identity. It goes on with alot of what you said, essentialism, discursive approach, etc you get the idea. And I had hard time understanding it, having to go back over a few times, and when I did understand some parts, I found it very abstract and had to think a second time where I could see this ideas being relevent in society.

So I was just wondering, if post-modernism can be fully grapsed and understood, or at least to the point of Marxism where you can apply it and use it as a means to change the world.

[Black Dagger]

Are you being sarcastic or this really to be expected?

I was being sarcastic - though i do have a fairly good understanding of post-structuralism as it relates to the PS critique of history, feminism and 'politics' - beyond these areas of personal interest - i find post-structuralism rather abstract and clunky.



As CDL points out, Noam Chomsky doesn't believe it can be understood or proved.

I certainly agree that the work (particularly of french theorists) can be very dense (i.e. difficult to read) - some of this stems from the french-english translation of complex philosophy - some of it from their use of jargon - but one does not have to read lacan directly to understand the principals of post-structuralism or what have you.

I find the more readable (and worthwhile) sources are secondary ones - people analysing/commenting/engaging with post-structuralist ideas/analysis in regards to a specific area of study - say history.

An example is the book 'sceptical history' by an anarchist professor at UNSW - her books is essentially a (highly readable and informative) commentary on critical approaches to history and history writing (inc. post-structuralism, feminist - postcolonial and post-structural) and a guide to how to put these critical approaches into practice when writing history.

Another useful means to readable texts on post-modernist and post-structuralist philosophy are interviews with theorists like Foucault. There are many books consisting of transcripts of interviews etc. with Foucault and other post-structuralists - where ideas are explained in much simpler way - it's like having Foucault explain things to you in a conversation rather than a text written for consumption by academics etc.



I have usually stuck with anthropology throughout uni, and alot of the time when it comes to anthropology in the developed world, they rely more on structuralist ideas. I am back at uni and doing a course called identity and culture, and I have just read my first article that deals specifically with post-modernist ideas regarding identity. It goes on with alot of what you said, essentialism, discursive approach, etc you get the idea. And I had hard time understanding it, having to go back over a few times, and when I did understand some parts, I found it very abstract and had to think a second time where I could see this ideas being relevent in society.

Much of it is very abstract - and personally - i do have great difficulty reading works by lacan etc. unless they're combined with commentaries (which i think is a serious problem with some post-structuralist work - its' just no accessable enough). But I think critical thinking and analysis is always relevant to society - and certainly post-structuralism provides useful tools for critical analysis of all facets of life- and a critique which i think is valuable and worth understanding/engaging with.



So I was just wondering, if post-modernism can be fully grapsed and understood, or at least to the point of Marxism where you can apply it and use it as a means to change the world.I don't think you have to 'fully grasp' poststructuralism to learn or borrow from its critique or view point.

But IMO post-structuralism in and of itself does not set out to 'change' the world - but rather to understand it (which set its apart from philosophies like marxism)- the processes by which power, language, knowledge etc. are constituted/constructed/manifested/change over time to serve particular interests- and the relationship between these processes. It's a tool of analysis, a critical lense - it doesn't posit a direction or desire for human society - though many post-structuralists are also feminists, marxists, etc.

[bcbm]

which i think is a serious problem with some post-structuralist work - its' just no accessable enough

Depending, of course, on the purpose of the text, I don't think its too serious of a problem. Much of the work is coming from academics for the consumption/evaluation of other academics and so its very technical and inaccessible to those outside of that particular discipline. This isn't a problem in, say, genetics, so I don't see why its a major problem in areas of complex philosophy/theory, beyond that more people are trying to read it non-professionally. They shouldn't have to cater their work to us idiots. As you mentioned, secondary sources are much easier to understand and there are plenty of them. I'd rather just pick up the equivalent of the Cliff's Notes than try to slog through some bullshit I'll barely understand.

[Black Dagger]

Depending, of course, on the purpose of the text, I don't think its too serious of a problem. Much of the work is coming from academics for the consumption/evaluation of other academics and so its very technical and inaccessible to those outside of that particular discipline. This isn't a problem in, say, genetics, so I don't see why its a major problem in areas of complex philosophy/theory, beyond that more people are trying to read it non-professionally. They shouldn't have to cater their work to us idiots. As you mentioned, secondary sources are much easier to understand and there are plenty of them. I'd rather just pick up the equivalent of the Cliff's Notes than try to slog through some bullshit I'll barely understand.

Oh i totally agree!

But it is still nevertheless a problem for many 'non-professionals' etc. (particularly students of history and philosophy!) who want to read the primary sources - ya know?

I'm not sayin' academics should 'dumb down' their work or whatever - just acknowledging the difficulty many people face when trying to learn about post-structuralist theory and criticism. Thankfully, as i said (and you mentioned) there is an increasing number of secondary sources (like that book i mentioned) available to bridge this gap between the eggheads and us plebs.:D

[Invader Zim]

But it is still nevertheless a problem for many 'non-professionals' etc. (particularly students of history and philosophy!) who want to read the primary sources - ya know?

Reading the primary documents is a hell of a lot simpler than trying to read Keith Jenkins; take my word for it.

[black magick hustla]

Okay - but this is a definition that (i think) is largely irrelevant to this (specific) discussion.

We're not talking about 'postmodernity' - or the state of being 'postmodern' (in an historical sense) - the topic here is the relationship between post-modernism and marxism - i.e. the critique of the former of the latter.

This focus entails an emphasis on postmodernism as it exists as a critical perspective on modernism (marxism) - not a discussion of 'characteristics of the postmodern condition' or trends in a specific historical epoch - but a set of specific criticisms applied to a specific topic (marxism).

In short, i think the definition you're using for 'postmodernism' or 'postmodern' or whatever - is not relevant to this debate (though that doesn't make it incorrect - just not relevant in this context).

Yeah, I agree. I just find it more useful treating it like that, rather than engaging some critical theory I don't understand.




[QuotE]
Huh? This is a pretty strange argument.

Rejecting science (or even objective truth) does not make one a postmodernist (in many cases it merely means a person is religious - and most religion predate modernism - though there are certainly links between post-structuralist conceptions/critiques of self and some eastern religions

Religous people reject science because of a set of values handed down by the heavens. Postmodern trends reject science (in a sense) because they regard truth to be subjective and therefore, they think that somehow, Force= mass times acceleration is subjective too. :lol:



Perhaps you can show evidence of these viewpoints? I've never read, seen or heard anyone engaged in identity politics make statements of this nature ("science is white") etc.- and certainly even if they do exist - somewhere- they are not representative of the rhetoric usually employed by identity-based groups.

Besides, critiquing the the practice of science, the scientific establishment etc. does not entail a rejection of science.

I quickly googled "science is partiarchal" and this is what I got:

http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/85spp.html

lol.

Notice this is a unversity webpage!

Certainly there are some identity based groups more radical than others, but they do throw out many odd statements similar to the ones that I mentioned above. For example, making odd statements about how the word "woman" somewhat perpetuates patriarchy, and instead using the word womyn. Surely because women in Mexico are called "mujeres", which has nothing to do with the word "hombres", Mexico is not less patriarchal than europe, right? Or I also remember going to this lecture and this retarded gal thowing a fit because the guy who was giving a lecture kept refering animals as he. This statements are very similar to the ones saying "science is patriarchal".

My point is that all of this is characteristic of the postmodern epoch.



Further, identity politics did not emerge with the 'new left' - the suffragette movement is a form of identity politics for example.

True, but people practicing it are generally college kids or academics, and generally they expound that sort of nonsense.





There's no such thing.
Postmodern liberalism is like saying post-modern-modernism :confused: (liberalism is a modernist philosophy).
There are many "facets" of liberalism. Certainly the liberalism of Locke is not the same as the one of the "liberals" in academia. Liberalism today is characteristic of cultural relativism, fetish for multiculturalism, etc. "We should respect others beliefs", and all sorts of white-guilt ridden nonsense.






On the one hand you go to great pains to avoid engaging with any of the points i raised in my previous post - on the basis that apparently you're talking about 'postmodernity' (the state of being or conditions of an historical epoch) and not postmodernism (as a identifiable critique of modernism) - but now you're referring to a 'postmodern' set of ideas (what you call 'trends')? 'extreme relativism', tendency towards 'ultrarelativistic nihilism' etc. - is this 'postmodernism' to you?

I am refering to the postmodern condition. I have no desire to engage critical theory.

yeah, i derailed the thread

[bcbm]

Postmodern trends reject science (in a sense) because they regard truth to be subjective and therefore, they think that somehow, Force= mass times acceleration is subjective too.

That's a vast simplification, if not a complete misunderstanding, of the critiques that postmodernists have directed at science. They aren't really calling scientific laws in to question but, rather, the methodology used to reach them. A lot of it also occurs on a purely philosophical level, (ie, is anything truly knowable?) which is largely irrelevant to the actual practice of science.


I quickly googled "science is partiarchal" and this is what I got:

http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/85spp.html (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/85spp.html)

lol.

Notice this is a unversity webpage!

Saying "lol" doesn't make something wrong; it isn't an argument. The title is inflammatory but, skimming the article, I don't think all of the points it is trying to make are outlandish or absurd.


Liberalism today is characteristic of cultural relativism, fetish for multiculturalism, etc. "We should respect others beliefs", and all sorts of white-guilt ridden nonsense.

I'd be willing to bet you're misusing the term cultural relativism.

[black magick hustla]

Saying "lol" doesn't make something wrong; it isn't an argument. The title is inflammatory but, skimming the article, I don't think all of the points it is trying to make are outlandish or absurd.

I wasn't engaging the article, I just thought it was funny that Black Dagger didn't think people wrote articles like that. I wasn't arguing against the article at all.


That's a vast simplification, if not a complete misunderstanding, of the critiques that postmodernists have directed at science. They aren't really calling scientific laws in to question but, rather, the methodology used to reach them. A lot of it also occurs on a purely philosophical level, (ie, is anything truly knowable?) which is largely irrelevant to the actual practice of science.


To be honest, I have never spend enough time in reading all those hip theories. However, I did follow somewhat closely the battles lit crit professors had against science faculty, which I thought it was somewhat amusing (like the Sokal Affair). So maybe you are right, and I misunderstand the position.

Anyway, I wasn't engaging the positions, I was simply stating that that kind of relativism is a characteristic of the postmodern epoch.


I'd be willing to bet you're misusing the term cultural relativism.

Maybe, but I think we can all agree academia is full of white-guilt ridden liberals that go to great extents in "respecting" reactionary attitudes because the "culture" is different?


Amusing story: I went to some Islam lecture just for the kicks. The lecture was given by this arab studies professor. After listening to her, I asked a few questions, namely what she thought about the rise of islamic militancy, islamic conservatism, and Islamism as a political alternative. She thought Islamism was a viable political alternative (and she wasnt muslim). Anyway, I discussed with her the situation in Saudi Arabia, or with muslim youth around the middle east getting incresingly radicalized. She said that Saudi Arabia is often caricaturized by the west (which is true), However, what surprised me is that she said "who knows, maybe in some years women will be able to vote in Saudi Arabia?" That comment mind blown me, because she fucked up her argument of "Islamism as a political alternative" just in that comment.

[Black Dagger]

Yeah, I agree. I just find it more useful treating it like that, rather than engaging some critical theory I don't understand.

Well if you don't attempt to engage it you'll never understand it - it's really not that difficult to grasp.


My point is that all of this is characteristic of the postmodern epoch.



Anyway, I wasn't engaging the positions, I was simply stating that that kind of relativism is a characteristic of the postmodern epoch.

Ok - well then can you please address my previous post where i disputed your claim of a postmodern epoch?


True, but people practicing it are generally college kids or academics, and generally they expound that sort of nonsense.

I think identity politics covers a much broader range of activity than you're giving it credit for here (and i'm not convinced that college kids and academics would be a majority of this number) - but regardless - that this sort of politic is practiced in 2008 does not mean that it 'came with' the 'postmodern epoch' - which is your claim. I disputed that and gave an example to show how IP preceded the 'postmodern epoch' - i'm not sure how this sentence is a reply to that?

[Invader Zim]

Liberalism today is characteristic of cultural relativism, fetish for multiculturalism, etc. "We should respect others beliefs", and all sorts of white-guilt ridden nonsense.

Only if you have managed to utterly miss the point; which is that morality and ethics are social constructs; including our own. Understanding that is simply having a realistic handle on how things are, it is not necessarily "white-guilt ridden nonsense".