What it means to be a postmodernist
This is, of course, more debate with Amy, but at least I'm on my own blog this time.
Alright, when I say that I'm a post modernist what I suppose I mean is that my area of specialty is post modern literature, and that my critical analysis is generally on the motifs thereof. The merits of that direction of critical analysis are perhaps a subject for another blog. Suffice to say, I am concerned, generally, with establishing verisimilitude outside the scope of realistic depiction--that is, does the fantasy say more about what's real than a realistic portrayal might or possibly can. It is on this condition that I see post modern literature defining itself away from other forms of literature, though not completely. Most literature has motifs working along these lines though they may not address these concerns directly. So, that said.
I don't know what sort of grand debate we are to have on this subject. I find that the post modern critics should at best be ignored, at worst they should die. What, too soon? I've read them. They fall very short of the mark. I think the fiction of this movement has the best example of the way these critics fail. We are told that language is insidiously void of meaning, then Pynchon shows us a world where that seems true, and then shows us how such a world falls apart, or at the very least leaves us morally lost. So, no. I do not truck with those sorts of people.
But I do recognize that there are a large number of people who do truck with those people, and not for the reason that one should. They may say they believe that Derrida is right, but what they really mean is that he supports there argument. No, I do not think that the canon as it stands now represents some sort of objective quality. I think it's arbitrary, but nonetheless, I see no reason to replace one arbitrary system for another, especially since the first has proven its worth by working for two thousand years. And let us not forget that in-roads have been made, and are continuing to be made. I am all for forming the canon correctly. I am aghast at the arguments for re-forming the canon as it has been part of our cultural heritage, or whatever, for, in some cases, thousands of years. If these people need something to work with, why not work with literature from 1950 until now? There's a lot of lee way in there. The canon is still malleable. Shakespeare has set already.
But I'm digressing, because I think we are in agreement on most of the points we are arguing. The main focus of your blog entry was that academic fetishization of subjectivity endorses a similar move in society at large and that this is dangerous because, once we consider right and wrong to be subjective position they cease to exist at all, and then there is no moral code in which to judge or restrain the new move towards colonialism, globalization, and totalitarianism. What I'm saying is that, as long as canon reformation is seen in terms of sweeping ideological shifts, such language will be the argot of the academy. There's no getting away from that. Those who argue for a feminine canon, or a multi-cultural canon, or a canon based on Afro-Caribbean coming out narratives rely on the inability of the academy to place the stamp of objectivity on the importance of the current canon of literature. They want these arguments, they've read their Foucalt so they're well versed in how to make these arguments, and if they understand that the employing of such methods give credence to a world of uncertainty, then they do not care so long as we read Harriet Prescott Spofford instead of Nathaniel Hawthorne.
I think if the academy is to survive this (and oh yes, they are in danger), they had better find a way to end these arguments. My thought is that we shouldn't care about the stamp of objective "goodness" because no one is going to get that stamp. We simply say that certain texts are good for what we hope that texts will do. We will read them until someone points out a text that is better than one we are currently reading for what we hope that text will do for its readers. Until then the canon remains.
Alright, when I say that I'm a post modernist what I suppose I mean is that my area of specialty is post modern literature, and that my critical analysis is generally on the motifs thereof. The merits of that direction of critical analysis are perhaps a subject for another blog. Suffice to say, I am concerned, generally, with establishing verisimilitude outside the scope of realistic depiction--that is, does the fantasy say more about what's real than a realistic portrayal might or possibly can. It is on this condition that I see post modern literature defining itself away from other forms of literature, though not completely. Most literature has motifs working along these lines though they may not address these concerns directly. So, that said.
I don't know what sort of grand debate we are to have on this subject. I find that the post modern critics should at best be ignored, at worst they should die. What, too soon? I've read them. They fall very short of the mark. I think the fiction of this movement has the best example of the way these critics fail. We are told that language is insidiously void of meaning, then Pynchon shows us a world where that seems true, and then shows us how such a world falls apart, or at the very least leaves us morally lost. So, no. I do not truck with those sorts of people.
But I do recognize that there are a large number of people who do truck with those people, and not for the reason that one should. They may say they believe that Derrida is right, but what they really mean is that he supports there argument. No, I do not think that the canon as it stands now represents some sort of objective quality. I think it's arbitrary, but nonetheless, I see no reason to replace one arbitrary system for another, especially since the first has proven its worth by working for two thousand years. And let us not forget that in-roads have been made, and are continuing to be made. I am all for forming the canon correctly. I am aghast at the arguments for re-forming the canon as it has been part of our cultural heritage, or whatever, for, in some cases, thousands of years. If these people need something to work with, why not work with literature from 1950 until now? There's a lot of lee way in there. The canon is still malleable. Shakespeare has set already.
But I'm digressing, because I think we are in agreement on most of the points we are arguing. The main focus of your blog entry was that academic fetishization of subjectivity endorses a similar move in society at large and that this is dangerous because, once we consider right and wrong to be subjective position they cease to exist at all, and then there is no moral code in which to judge or restrain the new move towards colonialism, globalization, and totalitarianism. What I'm saying is that, as long as canon reformation is seen in terms of sweeping ideological shifts, such language will be the argot of the academy. There's no getting away from that. Those who argue for a feminine canon, or a multi-cultural canon, or a canon based on Afro-Caribbean coming out narratives rely on the inability of the academy to place the stamp of objectivity on the importance of the current canon of literature. They want these arguments, they've read their Foucalt so they're well versed in how to make these arguments, and if they understand that the employing of such methods give credence to a world of uncertainty, then they do not care so long as we read Harriet Prescott Spofford instead of Nathaniel Hawthorne.
I think if the academy is to survive this (and oh yes, they are in danger), they had better find a way to end these arguments. My thought is that we shouldn't care about the stamp of objective "goodness" because no one is going to get that stamp. We simply say that certain texts are good for what we hope that texts will do. We will read them until someone points out a text that is better than one we are currently reading for what we hope that text will do for its readers. Until then the canon remains.