I'm sorry if I fell into a bad habit of using "post-modern" as
an epithet. There are lots of different kinds of post-modernisms
just as there are several different types of Marxisms and communisms.
The kind of post-modernism that I was knocking was a kind of
intellectual nihilism that says that there is no way we can
say that one factor is more important than any other in explaining
a historical event; this kind of post-modernism also rejects
any kind of objectivity or any kind of notion of progress.
It tends to treat the whole world as a object for literary
criticism (all the world is a text). Rejecting any notion of
getting a handle on the reality outside of our perception of
that reality, this kind of post-modernism overdoes epistemology
and rejects ontology and any kind of methodological realism.
It tends to veer toward classical idealism.
But if there are postmodernisms that don't fit into that
description (which I guess there are, given the quotes from
Derrida), then my criticism was way off base as far as
they are concerned.
I think that new ways of looking at old questions can be
very productive. IMHO, general equilibrium theory didn't
live up to its advertisements.
Game theory, on the other hand, seems to have
made major contributions. Whether post-modern "deconstruction"
has contributed or will contribute to our knowledge of the
world and even to the success of our political practice is
beyond me, since I don't know that much about post-modernism
or deconstruction.
in pen-l solidarity,
Jim Devine BITNET: jndf@lmuacad INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ., Los Angeles, CA 90045-2699 USA
310/338-2948 (off); 310/202-6546 (hm); FAX: 310/338-1950
if bitnet address fails, try [EMAIL PROTECTED]
