On 11/6/06, Anthony D'Costa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Doug's definition does not do justice to the label, although he is right. I don't like pomo. Basically pomo is what we call post structuralism. Social realities do not come in neat categories as in say the modernization process (traditional versus modern structures) but rather increasingly there is a recognition that compartmentalization of social realities (at least intellectually speaking) give way to a fluidity based on flows of (fill in the blanks). There is a greater degree of open-endedness, relativeness, and thus "overdetermination."
David Harvey suggests that post-modernism (as a particular school of philosophy and a label for cultural conditions) is a reflection of post-Fordist social reality. Distance in space has become compressed (due to cheaper fuels and advance in transportation), production is more decentralized, the informal sector (where working people's identities are often neither quite wage workers' nor petty producers') has grown, job security has increased (compelling people to re-invent themselves again and again), etc. On 11/6/06, Anthony D'Costa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
One of the best pomo books I have read is by Dorrine Kondo, a cultural anthropologist (Crafting Selves) on Japanese workplace identity, where it's concrete and perhaps more useful in its application.
In the context of workplace identity, though, how is Dorinne Kondo's application of post-structuralist theory different from, say, another anthropologist's application of Talcott Parson's theory? -- Yoshie <http://montages.blogspot.com/> <http://mrzine.org> <http://monthlyreview.org/>
