Marxism
mailing list archive
[ Other Periods  | Other mailing lists  | Search  ]
Date:  [ Previous  | Next  ]      Thread:  [ Previous  | Next  ]      Index:  [ Author  | Date  | Thread  ]

Re: [Marxism] On language

Ian,
I agree with the substance of your post but need to take issue with some of the particulars. Foucault did not speak of dominant discourses as a source of 'legitimation' (instead, he argued that ideological legitimation of power was no longer needed precisely because reactionary discourses, even some institutional discourses -- reactionary by definition -- that were once radical or subversive, like psychoanalysis, now serve effectively to offset the question of alternatives (unlike Habermas, who took issue with Foucault, in part, around the question of ideological legitimation.) Foucault argues that dominant discourses -- or, in his language 'regimes of discourse' -- are an aspect of the phenomena 'of power' in question, not external, e.g., that ordinary people now think Freudian thoughts, even have Freudian dreams, not only that psychoanalysis justifies capitalism, patriarchy, etc. My own take on Foucault is that he's a more provocative and interesting writer than Habermas and almost everyone else in the anti-postmodernist crowd, i.e., the pseudo Marxists whose careers have been built on endless attacks on the fantom of post-modernism, rather than anything else -- including people like Norman Geras (a permanent reactionary), Ellen Wood (whose work on Latin America, as opposed to anything written by her in a theoretical vein or about theory, deserves reading), David Harvey (whom I like reading when he, a geographer, deals with geography), etc. etc. I think that if Foucault is to be labeled (who cares, really?) he should be deemed a structuralist. Definitely not 'post' structuralist (of which there are really few -- I say thanks God -- though there are many anti-structuralists, beginning with Nietzsche, and even Marx in a certain vein -- the vein that Gramsci picks up, for instance, in his take on Marxism as a 'theory of praxis', rather than simply a practical theory, or objective knowledge, etc.
Louis

On Jun 1, 2006, at 10:58 AM, Ian Pace wrote:

From: <wrobert@xxxxxxx>


Ian, I am a bit confused with the word "postmodernism." It's a word that,
I confess, has never made much sense to me as that it seems to reify a
whole series of arguments and discussions into a rather confusing
amorphous object. (aka Rawls, Derrida, Foucault, et al all somehow manage
to have the same opinion on everything under this rubric.) So I have a
couple questions. 1. What is the 'postmodernist' position on language?
and 2. When you state this, who are you citing?

I wouldn't describe either Derrida or Foucault as 'postmodern'; my definition comes from Lyotard in intellectual terms, and from postmodern architecture (Venturi, Jencks, et al) in cultural terms. Simply as an ideology that rejects the notion that there is some underlying essence that can be explained by one or more metanarratives, and sees only surfaces. A postmodern view of language is a type of fundamentalist application of a narrow interpretation of structuralist and post-structuralist thought. Both schools draw attention to the role of language and discourse in shaping perceptions of reality, rather than simply reflecting them. Those are very important matters, but postmodernism takes it to a different level, denying that there is any reality beyond language, or at least there are no underlying patterns other than those we impose upon reality. Thus terms like truth, justice, equality, oppression, whatever are made simply into language games. Foucault rightly pointed out the role of discourse in legitimating certain social and economic conditions and the interests of those in power; however, the difference between this view and that dissolves any especial value to any discourse is fundamental. This is where I profoundly disagree with the postmodernists and find their ideology massively reactionary - there is a qualitative difference between discourses that attempt to describe systems of oppression (or even that simply hold onto notions like oppression) and those which retort that oppression per se is simply one discourse amongst many with no special value. Oppression is real, discrimination is real, misogyny is real, third world poverty is real, Auschwitz was real, they aren't simply discourses. How they are perceived is of course shaped by discursive practices, but that doesn't make the phenomena themselves purely a discourse.

Lyotard is often held up as the enthusiastic propagator of post- modernism, but his views were deeper than that. The following is one of his most famous quotes (the first sentence) - the latter sentences are much more penetrating about the reality of a post- modern world.

'Eclecticism is the degree zero of contemporary general culture: one listens to reggae, watches a western, eats McDonald's food for lunch and local cuisine for dinner, wears Paris perfume in Tokyo and "retro" clothes in Hong Kong; knowledge is a matter for TV games. It is easy to find a public for eclectic works. By becoming kitsch, art panders to the confusion which reigns in the "taste" of the patrons. Artists, gallery owners, critics, and public wallow together in the "anything goes," and the epoch is one of slackening. But this realism of the "anything goes" is in fact that of money; in the absence of aesthetic criteria, it remains possible and useful to assess the value of works of art according to the profits they yield. Such realism accommodates all tendencies, just as capital accommodates all "needs", providing that the tendencies and needs have purchasing power. As for taste, there is no need to be delicate when one speculates or entertains oneself.'



Jean-François Lyotard - The Postmodern Condtion: A Report on Knowledge, translated Geoff Bennington and Brian Massumi (University of Minnesota Press: Minnesota, 1984 (original text, 1979)), p. 78



There are obviously more important issues for Marxists than culture; nonetheless Lyotard identifies how post-modern entails the totalising effect of the commodity principle over culture.



Solidarity,

Ian



________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/ marxism


________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism

[ Other Periods  | Other mailing lists  | Search  ]