Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 14:42:20 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: BHA: RM conference


Since I had to have my paper read for me at the RM conference (did it go
okay, Tobin and/or Hans?), I'm not speaking from the experience of the
conference, but rather picking up threads from the post-conf. discussion. 

1. As to "post-ism" being normal science.  In humanities departments, I
would say certainly.  I recently had to point out that poststructuralism
was not listed as a theoretical orientation in the description we are
preparing of our cultural studies program.  Not because I want to
emphasize it, but because to be truthful, it is probably the major
influence among the junior and about half the senior faculty. They so take
it for granted that it goes unmentioned, while marxism, of which I am
effectively the sole representative, does get listed!  Also, I see that
the applications for the contemporary literature job we advertised this year
are almost universally from post-toasties. 

Outside the academy, things are rather more complicated.  While obviously 
science continues to be done in certain very specific areas, one could 
argue that the prevailing attitude taken toward "things in general" is 
of po-mo character.  We have the ascendence of the play of surfaces in 
the culture at large.  Something like MTV is nothing but 
(or little but) the play of images bouncing off one another but 
going nowhere.  Po-mo is the "cultural dominant" even as a science kept 
on a short leash by its corporate masters continues to be done.  Indeed, 
isn't po-mo in this regard an important part of the short leash?  

2. As to post-ism being the new Left.  I share Colin's "say it ain't so,
Joe" sentiments, but "I'm afraid it is, kid."  But I think it goes
something like this: we have a classic theory/practice split.  Many
post-toasties are on an emotional level drawn toward the cause of "the
oppressed" (which often doesn't include the exploited) and some of them
even do valuable work in various causes/movements.  But they generally
hold to theories that cannot sustain their practice, or at least the
(universalist) values implicit in their practice. 

3. I would be wary of making too close a fit between Laclau/Mouffe's "no
necessary connection" thesis and CR.  While L/M are right that there is 
no automatic connection between social position and politics/ideology, 
they are wrong that there is no correlation.  (I admit that you can read 
L/M a number of different ways because the book is so badly written--or 
translated.)  But they are compelled to argue this second point because 
of the lack of depth in their model.  CR can trump L/M et al, but I don't 
think it can be a "friendly amendment" to it.

4. Would anyone be willing to host a CR conference in the U.S. along the 
lines of those held in the UK?  I mean sometime.... It's a thought.

5. I would find an exchange between Hans D. and Howie on the claims of the
positive and the negative interesting. 

Tim Dayton


     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---