Michael Pereleman has asked for a time-out on this discussion on postmodernism, and I think that is a good thing. In the last few days it seemed ever clearer to me that there were at least two issues at stake and I just want to state them and let it rest for a further time, I guess. Here are the two issues: 1. What exactly is meant by postmodernism, deconstruction, poststructuralism, what have you? How, as an animating way of thinking, does it suggest new questions and/or imply new approaches to analysis? And, what are the specific contributions of certain authors, like Derrida in _Specters of Marx_? Or, as I also wanted to suggest Judith Butler in _Gender Trouble_. I thought S. Charusheela's long, informative post was excellent in laying the groundwork for such a discussion. This set of questions would sometimes flow into another, which made the discussion difficult at times. 2. Why does postmodernism have to be written in a difficult language, which only the cogniscenti seem to understand, and maybe they don't even either? How can we explain postmodersnim to people on the street, doing everyday (meaning nonacademic) politics? I think both sets of questions are important ones, but separable ones. For the second, as someone pointed out, the issue of difficult language and specialized knowledge, is certainly not unique to postmodernism, as every discipline has its hare of arcane knowledge. In economics, just ask a multi-equilibrium, sunspot, general equlibrium macroeconomist to try to communicate with such a nearby-kindred spirit as a sub-game perfect game theorist, and you can see easily how hard it is to communicate across specialized areas of research. How much should we be doing specialized theory and how much should we be talking more generally is an open question, but I certainly think both are needed. Finally, on a slightly different note, I just want to make very clear given the recent spate of personal attacks on mostly colleagues who are not on this list, that my defense of Resnick and Wolff on a personal level (in response to Rhon Baiman's original post), does not imply in any form a critique of any other faculty member at UMass or any other place. I have learned from many people at UMass and elsewhere, not the least from those I disagreed with most, and I have always appreciated that. Steve Cullenberg *********************************************** Stephen Cullenberg office: (909) 787-5037, ext. 1573 Department of Economics fax: (909) 787-5685 University of California [EMAIL PROTECTED] Riverside, CA 92521
