Tom Walker is on to something good in his analysis of pomo: there always have been pomo moments within modernism; and pomo does not exist without the reference point of modernism. That, at least, seems to be the beginning of a sane discussion. >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 Antonio Callari and/or Elisabeth King-Callari 939 Martha Ave Lancaster, PA 17601 Phone 717 397-3228 FAX 717 397-1790 e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
