Doug Henwood asked: >What is distinctly modern about the idea of sustainable development? Doug's comment touches on what is wrong with the label postmodernism and the implied opposition "modernism/postmodernism". Blair Sandler had refered to "a *post-modern* analysis of the need for and possibilty of sustainable development", which seems to me to confuse an "oppositional" modernism with postmodernism. The idea of sustainable development is distinctly modern -- not postmodern -- if we may use Lyotard's critique of modernism as resting on the 'grand narratives' of scientific and historical progress. All that the idea of sustainable development does is substitute one version of the grand narrative for another. And suddenly there we are, back where we started. I suppose what happens is that people are quick to apply labels to their arguments as a way of demonstrating their "oppositional" credentials. "This is a *marxist* analysis." "This is a postmodern analysis." Etc. What they may not realize is how little their self-styled "subversion" differs from the official version in its basic narrative structure. Most postmodern writing doesn't sufficiently appreciate the treachery of its own ground (or "ungroundedness"). For example, it's easy to sneer at Marx's "essentialism" as Laclau and Mouffe did; it's much harder to establish a unequivocal position from which to do the sneering. To continue with Laclau and Mouffe as an example of bad postmodernism, the unparralled ugliness of their prose can easily be understood in terms of the contortions they had to go through to hurl critical rocks without shattering the fragile walls of their own glass house. And often when postmodernism does appreciate its own treachery, the result is the all too familiar cynicism -- endless, breathless celebrations of pop-culture rip-offs as "subversion" ad nauseum. After all, when nothing is "legitimate" anything goes, right? Nothing like a sophmoric nihilism to elevate the tone of intellectual discourse. The relationship between modernism and postmodernism has to be more subtle than this. Postmodernism *needs* the modernist grand narrative as a foil. Postmodernism is a crack in the smooth surface of the modernist urn. Yes, the urn leaks, but don't throw it out, yet. The crack, by itself, doesn't carry any water at all. I have a surprise. I think postmodernism makes a worthwhile contribution to analysis of political and economic issues and it makes this contribution best when it doesn't bother to flamboyantly announce and tediously insist upon its supposed postmodern credentials. Regards, Tom Walker, [EMAIL PROTECTED], (604) 669-3286 The TimeWork Web: http://mindlink.net/knowware/worksite.htm
