Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 17:29:48 +0300 (EET DST)
Subject: post-modernism?


Jeff and Keith have raised a question concerning the useful
traits in post-marxism, - modernism, and -structuralism.
Here's my first draft concerning that question.

Bought one book yesterday:

Nicholson, Linda & Seidman, Steven <eds>: "Social
postmodernism: beyond identity politics."  [Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press 1995, 397 pp.]

In a matter of fact I wouldn't have bought it if I only had
time to look at it properly: Published by Cambridge UP, but
wholly US-American (only exception is good old Ali
Rattansi?) - concentrates on American experiences and
problems. Therefore not much relevance for European reader?
Don't know yet...

Editors tell in introduction their own stories how they got
involved in postmodern trend.  Sympathetic stories, but
disturbingly subjectivist and psychologizing - 'my Oedipal
rebellion led me into marxism at first intance' sort of
reasoning.

It seems that writers in the volume tend to concentrate on
relating linguistic or discoursive dimension of the social
to dimension of institutions, politics and the like. And
they do realise problems inherent in postmodernism: "It is
difficult to focus on the interrelation of social patterns
when one is fixed on avoiding totalizing or essentializing
analyses." So very very true.  Also they understand that (in
postmodern writings) "the social was collapsed into the
textual, and critique often meant 'deconstructing' texts or
exposing the instability of those foundational categories
and binaries which structured texts and which were said to
be carriers of ideological meanings."

So are we going to get neo-essentialist or neo-totalizing
post-postmodernism? No way!  Writers try to stick to their
non-totalizing and anti-essentialist principles.

Interestingly the editors keep telling that problem with
modernist theorizing was and is that there's tendency to
subsume elements of that which is critized. But then - how
it is that it seems to be the same with postmodern
theorizing? Difference and before mentioned individualism as
subjectivism (so beloved to post-al theory)  seem to me to
be quite central elements of capitalism: thanks for division
of labour and wage labour Individual and Differences
(especially between individuals?) have evolved into one kind
of ideological and political cornerstones of 'western
countries'. That is to say: theoretically and
methodologically this insistence (on difference and
individual - btw: I'm not denying the general and real
importance of them) mainly hinders the possibility of
grasping general social processes. It's another question,
for example, how some changes affect the daily lives of
different individuals.  But leaving 'macro actors' (as
sociologists say) - such as corporations, state or
governmental policies, parties etc. - out of sight simply
ignores one crucial dimension of social action.

Now what might be the central problem concerning social
analysis? Answer is identity: "how do we generate ways of
understanding identity as central to personal and group
formation while avoiding essentialism?" Well, I'm afraid you
don't. At 'individual' level it seems to be, at least when
listening post-lacanians such as (don't laugh!)  mr. Zizek,
that there is some sort of 'essence' to every person. But
surely this isn't the anti-essentialist target? BTW, I'n not
sure what is meant with 'essence' in this context: is it
'substance', if not, what are their relation, etc?

However, I'm afraid that the whole discourse have changed
the terms of question upside down: According to several
post-al discourses, first comes language and with it
(personal)  narratives whereby we construct our identities?
And then discourse analyst comes and analyses how media and
other public discourses come and interfere our private
narratives providing ideological elements to confuse us? Or,
according to stronger version, that media and other
discourses construct us? But what about all those psychic
processes before language learning, and 'beneath' language
and consciousness - the ones psychoanalysts refer as
'libidinal' (and you don't have to take that as granted; I'm
just referring in general to all those nice little
happenings that aren't linguistic)?

Couple of days ago I had to check some older film or media
theory. And because I happen to have several volumes by Bill
Nichols I decided to rely on Nichols and his "Ideology and
image.  Social representation in the cinema and other media"
(from 1981). I was so amazed that I had to read first
chapter - theoretical change since early eighties is so huge
that I couldn't believe it at first sight. Nichols used
several diferent disciplines and theories - ranging from
Gestalt psychology and phenomenological sociology to
psychoanalysis and semiotics - to show the reader how
important it is to grasp that on a basic, 'non-linguistic'
level of perception there already is such a culture-bound
fundamental structuring process that it simply is impossible
to consider either any perception as 'natural' (because of
cultural 'determination') or 'discoursive' (because of
unconsciouss nature of that continuing structuration of
perception). Then he went on to see the films (not
particularly convincing anymore, I guess). But the broad
scale he used to relate different disciplines in order to
show what several traits should be taken seriously in order
to understand what's going on with ideological processes was
convincing. Far from reducing everything into language.

I remembered that it's exactly because of such formative
experiences as reading books like that one by Nichols that
I've been quite reluctant to post-al theories, despite my
sympathies to efforts of creating new theories. (Sorry for
that psychologism - I just couldn't resist..) What happened
in the eighties was that, say, theoretical gaze became
narrower than earlier. 'All became subsumed under language.'
Sorry this sidestep - I tried to concretize the shift from
'modernist' to 'postmodernist' theory.

I would continue for awhile but I have some duties now. But
I'd like to say that the problem with postmodernism isn't,
for example, concentration on language, discourses,
narratives and the like. It's the way it's done. Reminds me
of good old idealism in a sense. But the importance of
question of language and discourses - that I won't deny. It
is one dimension of social action. In a sense post-al theory
could be seen as a reminder that social activities aren't
only physical or 'muscular' activities. (That's how I've
tried to understand it, I guess.)

Yours, Jukka




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