Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 19:06:44 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Postmodernism


On Fri, 24 May 1996, Hugh Rodwell wrote:

> >Can somebody give a good, philosophical explanation of postmodernism?  I
> >have a generall understanding, but I must admit I don't know enough.
> 
> I think you'd be well advised to read through Rosemary Hennessy's book,
> Materialist Feminism and the Politics of Discourse, Routledge (sorry,
> remove all the caps!), 1993. It'll give you a good idea of where the
> various protagonists are at.

Interesting you should mention this.  A pal of mine has written an essay 
criticizing this book precisely along one of the lines Sokal uses in his 
argument against Ross et. al.--that it is top heavy with names and 
quotations, trying to do the "theory thing" in a pretty clumsy and 
intimidating way.

What she (my pal) argues, however, is, rather than that this indicates that 
Hennessey should be "horsewhipped" (as Ralph puts it), that this shows 
the structure of a particular field and the way in which women, in 
particular, are forced into an over-vulgar parody (almost) of a style in 
order to gain some form of academic legitimation.

No doubt Sokal's piece can also be read in this light, and in terms of 
the greater cultural capital accorded to (particular versions of) 
humanities discourse as opposed to scientific (and what are seen as 
vulgarly ideological) discourses.

Self-conscious parodies and unconscious parodies alike seem to demand 
such more sociological and less judgmental assessments, or so it seems to me.
 
> Of course, this might be what you call 'a general understanding', but even
> then, the book is a very useful reference source for deeper dipping.

At the same time, an effect of the way in which Hennessey seems almost 
forced to write this book is that it ends up seen precisely as an 
encyclopediac "primer" rather than the contribution to "Theory" she might 
wish it to be.
 
> Hugh sorry hugh
> 
> ps I almost forgot to add, there is no good philosophical explanation of
> postmodernism on its own terms.

And I almost forgot to add myself, this is simply not true.  Read 
Lyotard's (incidentally very accessible) _The Postmodern Condition_, 
perhaps in conjunction also with his _Just Gaming_.  In my opinion, his 
book and Jameson's article "Postmodernism, or the Cultural Logic of Late 
Capitalism" (not a philosophical explanation but more a sociological 
critique) are the obvious places to start in trying to understand why 
people want to talk about postmodernism.

> pps By the way, talking about good explanations, I wonder how many of you
> literature freaks are aware of Robert Weimann's (professor of English in
> the ex-GDR) book New Criticism? Great stuff. (He's good on Shakespeare
> too.)

Well, I wouldn't call myself a literature freak, but I have read (and did 
like) his books on Shakespeare.  Could you explain what is great about 
his _New Criticism_?

Take care

Jon

Jon Beasley-Murray
Literature Program
Duke University
jpb8-AT-acpub.duke.edu
http://jefferson.village.virginia.edu/~spoons


     --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---