Postmodernism & Philosophy

[Eric]

I have translated three postmodernist novels from the Estonian, a hands-on activity where you have to understand every sentence. But I'm afraid I simply can't follow the thread of what you, Englebert, I trying to say. This discussion has wandered from the Bible and the existence or otherwise of God to homosexuality and whether God snuffs out gays 'cos he doesn't like them (or maybe he does). But it would be nice if you define what you mean by postmodernism and how it dovetails with various philosophical ways of thinking.

In the latest postings, you appear to have forgotten all about postmodernism, defining it and discussing it, but have wandered away to other things. If you give an open discussion a title, you can't then say it's a private one in a Humpty Dumpty sort of way.

[Liam]

Well, to be fair, I was the one who gave this thread its title because I think our little discussion went too far on the Algerian Cavalcade thread (with which it had nothing to do), so if anybody has a better title in mind than Postmodernism & Philosophy, I'm all ears. How about Solipsism & Faggotry?

[Liam]

A rather fickle, capricious or wicked deity who allows some his grace, and some the burden of empirical limitation

Geneticists will tell you that we all carry a certain DND gene for belief--there have been recent books, by professional scientists, devoted to the subject. So it's already IN you. You cannot say, God makes me disbelieve, no, YOU do.

God does not pick and choose among believers and nonbelievers (although this was what the early Calvinists DID believe--election by grace, limited number of those belonging to the covenant of the "chosen," everybody else doomed to Hell, etc). We are, rather, granted the freedom of choice to do one thing rather than the other, but not both at the same time.

I suggest you read two parables in the New Testament: the one about the lost sheep, and the other about the prodigal son. In either case, the shephard/father is not responsible for the loss or the straying away of the "sinner" (if you will)--the responsibility lies squarely on the shoulders of the said sinner; but Father/God waits, and hopes, and searches, and gives you signs, so that your "return" becomes a thing of greater joy than the presence of those "sheep" that never strayed away from the rest of the flock, and were never lost.

In my late teens, just as I was finishing High School, I went through a period of intense, militant, angry atheism, which only made me miserable. It is not in my nature to be an atheist because I am a natural believer, but metaphorically speaking, I did abandon God, and did stray, and did lose myself in other things. My return into the fold of the Church came from within, nobody made me, or demanded it of me, or threatened me; it was an entirely autonomous decision on my part, and the joy of rediscovery had been--still is--so much more powerful than the stable faith of those of my relatives who never questioned, and never went away and, hence, never "returned." They were the proverbial good sheep.

[Engleberton Crabferry]

haha. Good call Liam!

I was about to explain this as well, but you got there first! Eric, the thread did not start as Postmodernism & Philosophy and I have said nothing about it being a private discussion at all (I don't where you got that from?)... I think I used the adjective "Personal" to justify my frequent use of the word "I" (after having been criticized by you for solipsism), but anyway, I think I can look past that now, as it seems we have something else to talk about!

Ironically, your facetious allegory of the Humpty Dumpty is rather a fitting one in terms of a discussion on postmodern form. Humpty's fragments might be seen to represent the fragmented self as it is conceived and foregrounded linguistically in the likes of Beckett (arguably an early "postmodernist"), Borges (an author cited as “postmodern” in John Barthes essay The Literature of Exhaustion), whilst the King's men (representing authority, institution and ideology) fail miserably in their attempts to reconstruct the self (in an age of lost innocence...)...

There are many accounts of postmodernity, indeed; the “age of lost innocence” bringing me neatly to one highly prevalent in postmodern punditry today; a definition offered by Umberto Eco in his Reflections on The Name of the Rose (worth quoting in full):

“The postmodern reply to the modern consists of recognizing that the past, since it cannot really be destroyed, because its destruction leads to silence, must be revisited: but with irony, not innocently. I think of the postmodern attitude as that of a man who loves a very cultivated woman and knows that he cannot say to her ‘I love you madly’, because he knows that she knows (and that she knows he knows) that these words have already been written by Barbara Cartland. Still, there is a solution. He can say ‘As Barbara Cartland would put it, I love you madly’. At this point, having avoided false innocence, having said clearly that it is no longer possible to speak innocently, he will nevertheless have said what he wanted to say to the woman: that he loves her in an age of lost innocence. If the woman goes along with this, she will have received a declaration of love all the same. Neither of the two speakers will feel innocent, both will have accepted the challenge of the past, of the already said, which cannot be eliminated; both will consciously and with pleasure play the game of irony… But both will have succeeded, once again, in speaking of love.”

Another popular, nutshell definition of postmodernity is promulgated by Jean-Francois Lyotard in his essay What is Postmodernism; wherein he claims that anything displaying an “incredulity towards metanarratives” befits the category.

For greater clarity, Lyotard distinguishes between Modernity and Postmodernity as follows:

‘Modern aesthetics is an aesthetic of the sublime, though a nostalgic one’. He says, it allows the unpresentable to be put forward, whilst the work’s form remains consistent; ‘continues to offer to the reader [...] matter for solace and pleasure’.

‘The postmodern would be that which, in the modern, puts forward the unpresentable in presentation itself; that which denies itself the solace of good forms [...] that which searches for new forms, not in order to enjoy them but in order to impart a stronger sense of the unpresentable’.

For Lyotard, postmodernity cannot be confined to an epoch in human history, but rather exhibits itself symbolically; a thematic focus on the impossibility of presence and the sublime in literature…

Conversely, Frederick Jameson defines Postmodernity as “The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism”. His essay of the same name seeks to illustrate how in late-capitalist society the frequency of literatures indulging in disconnectedness as a theme; on futility and fragmentation, the so-called arbitrariness and the free “play” of language, is merely a commodity fetish of the literati, resultantly imbued in them by the alienating structures of the late-capitalist economy.

I find Jameson’s conception a little too rigid, dismissive of deconstructive theory in favour of a kind of elaborate post-Marxism (itself befitting of the type of metanarratorial quality Lyotard tends to oppose)…

But when we get to Derrida, things are rather more complicated, in that definitions of either “Modernity” or “Postmodernity” are already things edging towards the realm of teleology, or absolutism. As a rigorous post-structuralist thinker, one cannot conceivably delineate such a paradigm; cannot “define”, as it were, due to the fact that words are themselves heterogeneous; their significance forever deferred and thus un-apprehensible. One’s consciousness of Différance similarly requires of one’s use of language a sense of irony, for one inevitably communicates in a kind of arbitrary or doomed sort of medium.

I suppose I enjoy the Deconstructionist view most of all, and see that definitions of either genre inevitably fail to contain certain works; are too rigid, if perhaps useful for pedagogical purposes, in the lower rungs. If you are asking specifically for my definition of postmodernity, then I’m afraid I do not have one. I find it to be a combination of these and yet none of these entirely, and sometimes not any of them. No doubt this non-committal stance will infuriate. But that is precisely the manoeuvre of the “postmodern” tends to offer; investigation, subversion, flux, openness, “play”, chance, anarchy, exhaustion, silence, dispersal, schizophrenia and idiolect (amongst other things)…

When I am working through a discussion (such as the one Liam and I were having above) I try to think both deconstructively as well as contextually, hence it may appear that I am making ideological adjustments. “Homosexuality in religion” is, for me, already immensely ideological. Religion is ideological. Homosexual politics are ideological. Deconstructively speaking, there is no inherent sense to the metanarratives of theology, but if homosexuals wish to assimilate herein, they are necessarily doing so within the construct of the theological metanarrative. It is therefore contextual and must be spoken of as such. If I say one minute that religion is senseless, but then seemingly u-turn to say that I accept another’s belief, it is because I am accepting that ideology exists for that other person; that that person is not a deconstuctionist thinker. Deconstruction does not purport to know anything at all. It merely seeks to question the legitimacy of existing ideologies…

I hope this helps…

[Engleberton Crabferry]

Yes, I think the geneticist argument is quite compelling. There probably is a gene for "belief". But this is more or less the Freudian argument, as well, in the sense that human beings naturally tend to conceive of a God in their image; a manner of metaphysical projection! The gene to "believe" does not require that the thing conceived is "true", it merely connotes an inevitability in the endeavour to conceive...

Your "straying" from God and subsequent "return" is reminiscent of many other stories I have heard (of people such as Dostoevsky, in literature; but friends of mine, also). It makes perfect sense that it would appear or feel more profoundly religious having left and come back. In a way I envy your certainty, as - like you say - during atheistic thinking it is often an intensely difficult, depressive mode of thought that tends to thwart one's progress in human relations and happiness. However, for me, it is a case of the "truth", and what I conceive as the limits of human comprehension. It goes without saying now that (for me) this does not include a celestial realm at all... It is not to say that if definitely does not exist (where the likes of Hitchens and Dawkins are a little hard to swallow, think!), but that it cannot be known epistemologically, or communicated in scripture...

[Engleberton Crabferry]

Also Eric, what about the novels you translated did you think was postmodern? You must have a pretty clear conception of it yourself to've labelled them thus?

[Eric]

I shall quietly drop out of this discussion; it is leading nowhere for me. I can't cope with all this verbiage and name-dropping. You sound like the postgrads in the lounge bar that I experienced forty years ago.

[Engleberton Crabferry]

Oh dear Eric. Too much for you? You asked me what it is, and I have been very specific. If I don't provide names (such as on the John Berryman thread), you complain. I provide names (here), and you complain some more. Postmodernism is not something I can provide for you on a platter. My (above) definitions are about as succinct as it gets. I was about to say, in fact, that I have grossly simplified ALL of those theories, for the sake of having a discussion with you about it... Nevermind. Sooner or later we'll meet on a thread where you want to discuss something seriously, and I will relish the occasion! Until then...

[Liam]

Eric, dear, you sound really cross. Everything OK? I hope all is well with you at the moment!

[Dante Amaral]

"Do you feel oppressed? Do you want democracy, instead?"

I'm a Chinese and currently living in China. I feel incumbent to address to this question.
Yes, we do feel oppressed. Oppressed, in the sense that we have no total freedom of speech (even our constitution endows it), we have only one government with news agencies as its loudspeakers, and we cannot log on twitter.
Do we want democracy? Nope. For one thing, democracy 'may work' when there are two parties taking turns to rule the country. It asks for a split of power, which, for China, would mean a revolution to overthrow the one central government, which has been proven to be impossible by George Orwell, because the fall of a tyranny (or an empire) always follows with the rise of another, driven by the thirst for power and repeating the massive slaughter all over again. For another, see if this communist dream roughly resembles what democracy is supposed to mean by your terms--the ultimate communist dream where property is shared by everyone and we can sleep at night with our doors wide open. Almost all the Chinese (not those officials, of course, but they know it for sure) will tell you that that dream is essentially a dream that will have no chance of coming true. Chinese history has been a history of succession of empires with one central government, and it is also a history of social upheavals and unrests. We yearn for peace (because of a historical traumatic experence?). Very often you might see a small-eyed wrinkle-faced Chinese government official appealing for peace. Well, he is speaking the truth. Chinese people know that revolution means the death of themselves, and when our physical existence is endangered, we find other ways of survival. Many Chinese, especially the younger generation, know what the government is doing in oppressing them. Thus, we read our newspapers as pieces of jokes, watch TV reports as comedies, and take the government officials when delivering the speeches as stand-up comedies, because they are lying their asses off. We are aware. (I can go on and on, but shall stop here)

I'm not sure if I have made myself clear. See if this analogy works:
Democracy is one half-cooked turkey. The Chinese agree with you that turkey is Beautiful, Intelligent and Delicious. You have a holiday prepared for this slaugtered-roasted turkey. The Chinese will ask how are you sure that the turkey is fully cooked and proper for the dinner table. The Chinese will then show you A Bite of China.

the Chinese people are approximately content with the system of government currently in place

No, we are not content with it. We seek revisions and compromises. And we criticize the government more than you think.



(Spivak is out of the joint of reality. The 'subaltern' can speak.)

[Dante Amaral]

Buddhism and Hinduism, strictly speaking, are not religion. They are more like teachings of how to live in the mundane world and how to transcend out of it.

I grew up with a lot of Buddhist scriptures lying around. My grandma read them, but she is not a buddhist who shaves her head, lives in a temple and strikes poisson de bois (a fish knocker). Those scriptures teach nothing of our service to the gods, but how to cope with your desires, worldly temptations and evil inclination. They all have a notion of Good rather than God. And one thing I remembered clearly from them is, to translate it roughly, Life is but a dream and we only slumber here for once.

[Heteronym]

the "regular" Chinese person's reaction to the question: "Do you feel oppressed? Do you want democracy, instead?" - Besides the obvious, imperialistic connotations of such a line of questioning (i.e. "I am from the West and we have a discovered a mode of political life superior to you own. Why on Earth would you not like to adopt it?"), the frequency of answers in the dumbfounded negative would suggest (to him) that the Chinese people are approximately content with the system of government currently in place. Of course, this is highly subjective, and of course there are various dissidents and artists who oppose...

But China is living under a communist regime, an invention communist Chinese exported from Europe in the 1940s, strangely enforcing a neoliberal capitalist economy. Their political and economic models are completely Western. But I don't doubt they're happy with their government. After all, the Foxcon media controversy was bigger in the West, where inhuman labor practices are abhorred, than in China. In any event, the Chinese are practically Westerners and they want Western goods; they'll even sell their own kidneys for an iPad.

Perhaps another example of a non-Western country that is happy with its non-Western-style government is necessary

[Eric]

I think Hetero is being a bit cynical. Luckily. We don't want a load of Chinese "advisers" over here in the People's Republic of Europe. So Engelbert and Dante will have to think out their strategy all over again. I've never read such a load of logorrhoea.

[Leonid]

OK, but beware. I might "turn" you Catholic. Or gay. Or both, .

Do I have to be a homosexualist to participate in this site? Obviously the Roman Catholic Church is a pedophile cult, but is that a prerequisite for discussing literature? I "intuit" that something is wrong here. You probably don't see.

[Galatea92]

a homosexualist

What century are you living in? I haven't heard that word outside 19th century Victorian court cases.

[Leonid]

What century are you living in? I haven't heard that word outside 19th century Victorian court cases.

I live in eternity.

[Galatea92]

I live in eternity.

Glad to hear it. Give my love to the Romans.

[Engleberton Crabferry]

I had almost forgotten about this thread! Thanks Dante and Heteronym for responding to what i was saying. I think perhaps I expressed my self badly before, however, as I actually know almost nothing about Chinese politics, and what I said was recounted to me by a friend who lives there now. I was merely using the story to illustrate how I think political ideology and high-theory function, or filter down, perhaps "originating" (though this is a problematic term, too) in the pedagogic commitments of a given society, and subsequently, obliquely informing the cultural practices of the "everyday man/woman" (whomever he or she might be!)... I suppose what I would say, is that I believe SOMETHING LIKE liberal ideology (or perhaps even deconstructive commentary) more-often-than-not enables a distillation of the type of oppressive state-apparatus you both speak of (regardless of origin or realital incarnation!)...

[ralfy]

My sense is that postmodernism applied only amid growing economic prosperity and factors related to that, ranging from transmigration to virtual reality, as well as the various "isms" that are related to political correctness, etc. But with what is likely a permanent global economic crisis, peak oil, and long-term effects of global warming and environmental damage, this view of art and philosophizing appears to be increasingly irrelevant.

[Engleberton Crabferry]

Sounds interesting Ralfy. I think your understanding of postmodernism fits pretty neatly with the Frederic Jameson/David Harvey school; a kind of neo-Marxian conception of the historical epoch of Postmodernity (as opposed to a discursive proclivity for semantic/metafictional skepticism). Harvey's book (as well as much of Jameson's works) position the fetishistic - sometimes pathological - pre-occupations of a postmodern public as those resulting directly from the bewildering facets of the late-capitalist economy. Harvey's book is called the "Condition of Postmodernity", and likewise, in much of this type of writing, the postmodern subject is regarded as having undergone some kind of trauma, exhibiting some kind of symptom or psychic malaise... If THIS is what postmodernism is then, yes, I probably agree that it is no longer in vogue... but i think that is inevitable! I think then also some of the truisms (of poststructuralism/deconstruction) will inevitably always be there in the background, admittedly no longer constituting "postmodernism" (but then that is a category any self-respecting author would attempt to distance himself from anyway!)... I guess the question to ask then, is - if postmodernism is no longer prevalent in academic discourse - what could legitimately replace postmodernism without falling prey to the metanarratorial impetus for control? What kind of system of thought, or aesthetic practise, could possibly now galvanise any rigorously minded thinker to action?