Entering the fray here, and will return to my shell immediately after this
post. Apologies in advance to any who feel that it is not appropriate to
de-lurk and then lurk again so swiftly.
On the pomo thread, there are at least fifteen different points of debate
floating around, so let me take up just a few.
A: IT'S TOO FILLED WITH JARGON AND IS SIMPLY INCOMPREHENSIBLE:
Fair enough. HOWEVER, I must also confess, as one who stumbled
into Marxism by accident, that I pretty much started to read pomo and Marx
simultaneously--AND POMO MADE SENSE FIRST! Today, I identify myself as a
MARXIST who finds postmodernist insights useful and not as a postmodernist
who occasionally finds Marx interesting. The primary commitment is to Marx
and class politics. BUT, this was not easy or automatic for me, and
definitely not because Marx's insights were "intellectually transparent".
So yes, pomo is not easy to read, and has a terminology that seems
"off-putting" and "dense." This is true of LOTS of traditions that have
developed a lexicon of terminology over time, and takes some intellectual
work to comprehend. I would not assume, as the debate so far has, that
Marxist thought is "obvious/easy" while post-modernism is "jargony,
obscure, difficult." This may be true for some, perhaps even for the
MAJORITY on THIS list, but it is not UNIVERSALLY the case. Over and over,
I have found that my students find it easier to comprehend
post-structuralist feminism, while Marx/Engels sounds like gibberish to
them. I have, over the years, found that the best strategy in my feminist
theory classes is to start with the post-structuralist feminist stuff, and
then slowly make them see the connections between that set of ideas and the
Marxist contributions to feminism. THEN they get it and become
radicalized. But if I START with Marx/Engels, the majority feel they are
in over their heads, this makes no sense, what is all this jargon, etc. and
are lost for good.
B: POMO IS OLD HAT AND REALLY, IT'S BEEN DONE BEFORE, AND MUCH MORE SIMPLY
AT THAT:
In some sense, yes. But let us examine the "old-hattitude" more
carefully. Here there are TWO related points:
a) In some sense, one can claim Marx to be irrelevant old hat too:
Dialectics? Old hat: Hegel, much Buddhist scholarship, quite a bit of
Hindu philosophy, have all had dialectics at their heart. Class? Old
hat--there have always been theories of social distinction and class before
this. What MAY be seen as new is exploitation: Even here Gandhi in his
work in India provided a theory of the material social organization of work
and of labor surplus whose sources are not Marxist (Caste, after all, is
precisely about the extraction of some people's labor for the benefit of
others--and the morality of this process have always been discussed,
disputed, upheld, etc. within Indic philosophy). Materialist
Ideologies--old Hat (Lokayata school goes back at LEAST to the 12-13 C);
LTV? Old hat--Locke, Ricardo, Malthus, all had recourse to the LTV.
Fetishism? Old hat--See theories of Maya in India.
But it would scarcely DO to thus dismiss Marxist scholarship: What WAS
new, and genuinely a breakthrough was that Marx took each of these concepts
and put them together to generate something completely NEW. In doing so,
he ALSO changes profoundly what the concepts themselves came to MEAN and
what it was they REVEALED about society and social history in a
wide-ranging arena of life. Definitely, the totality of Marx's works
implies a radical change in the meaning of each of the terms above and a
completely new theory of society and social relationships coming from the
way these terms are defined and put together.
In many ways, I see postmodernism as managing to do just that--to take a
set of ideas and issues that have been debated, disputed, raised in a
variety of ways in MANY places, both in and out of Marxism. AND, to then
put them together in ways that make us SEE things differently. THAT is a
significant contribution to our comprehension of the mechanisms of ideology
(not just that ideology EXISTS, but something about how it may OPERATE).
b) If it's been said before, what exactly is it's NEW contribution to
POLITICS? Well, quite a few things:
It's been said, yes, but just because something has been said ONCE, there
is really no reason to STOP saying it unless the first time one said it,
there was response/change that was ADEQUATE, AND in the direction one
wished. So, yes, for e.g., Racism is bad--been there, done that, been said
for more than a hundred years. We don't STOP saying that do we? I
figure--if for all this business about it having been said before, the
desired CHANGES have not emerged, then all the MORE reason to say it AGAIN,
and AGAIN, and AGAIN. More importantly, if the FIRST/SECOND/TENTH time of
saying did not seem to have much of an impact, then isn't that a SIGNAL to
those who care that perhaps a DIFFERENT way of saying this is necessary?
OR, even more importantly, perhaps there was something MISSING in the
earlier telling, some crucial dimension of comprehension, and we are going
to HAVE to get after that if we want to make a difference. If we resist
doing this because it is too much work, because it is difficult, then I
think we're lost.
I personally HAVE found that this set of insights about altereity,
subalterneity, difference, have made me more politically aware AND more
capable of undertaking activist politics for change across a wide-ranging
set of social locations. Instead of recounting my own perspective,
however, I can offer something much better for PEN-L on the question of
politics--a reading that can MORE than pass the "15 minute test," the "No
Jargon test," the "activist politics tests," all in one. It is just three
pages, and has for me been the clearest statement of what the contributions
of pomo to left politics may be: Bernice Johnson Regan's speech:
COALITION POLITICS: TURNING THE CENTURY. Interested folks can find it in
the Gloria Anzaldua and Cherrie Moraga eds. book "This Bridge Called my
Back."
C: MANY POMO-TYPES ARE APOLITICAL, ANTI-MARXIST, RIGHT WING, REACTIONARY,
PIGS (not raised on this forum, thanks to the genuinely committed and
honestly concerned politics of those on pen-l--but I have seen this point
made over and over in the past, and sometimes it has come up with folks on
pen-l in personal exchanges off-net):
Yes, they are. Paul de Man is an example most frequently cited. In
the area of LDC literature, many folks (primarily U.S. I may add) went around
scratching their heads in wonder that the wonderful (now-deceased)
Argentinean writer (whose literary essays I love and whose politics I find
deplorable) Borges was such an utter conservative.
But not ALL are. And if you want to see the DANGER of dismissing the
ENTIRETY of postmodern scholarship because SOME practitioners are less that
savory, I invite all PEN-L participants to visit the sister-net for
progressive economics, Femecon, to see the current debates about the
possible role/contributions of Marx and Marxism for Feminist Economics.
(BTW, special thanks to Steve Cullenberg, under attack here on the issue of
pomo, for being one of the FEW Pen-L folks who took it upon themselves to
defend Marxist thought in the arena of gender. Others on this list have
participated in the debate on femecon as well--Ken Hanly and Maggie Coleman
come to mind. Maggie is not currently participating on this specific
thread on pomo. Ken, who HAS participated in this thread--I found all that
you said in defense of Marx on the Femecon thread most useful for thinking
about pomo-insights and their usefulness for Marxism).
D: POMO IS INTRINSICALLY RELATIVIST AND APOLITICAL:
This is, to put it baldly, sheer garbage and is very unfair. It
sounds a lot to me like the millions of conversations I have had with folks
who assure me that Marxism is about: totalitarianism, against democracy,
against freedom, against...
Instead of joining in with the careful analytical discussions which other
participants of this debate have so eloquently undertaken, let me ask
simply this--out of this large body of literature, which spans
post-structuralism, post-colonialism, Cultural Studies and postmodernism,
are the following (to name but a handful of writers) deemed to be
irrelevant, apolitical, relativist?
Edward Said, Homi Bhabha, Cornel West, bell hooks, Patricia Hill Collins,
Ramachandra Guha, Gyan Pandey, Ranajit Guha, Trinh Minha, Chandra Mohanty,
Sumit Sarkar, Tanika Sarkar, Radha Kumar, Ajit Chowdhuri, Eve Sedgwick,
Judith Butler, Stuart Hall, Partha Chatterjee, Amrita Chhachhi, Kwame
Anthony Appaiah, Lata Mani, Amrita Basu, Radhakrishnan, Mary Russo, Sara
Suleri, Leila Ahmed, Ketu Katrak, Gloria Anzaldua...
I HAVE noticed, to my chagrin and dismay, that when the charge of
relativist, navel gazing, jargon-filled irrelevance is posited against
postmodernist/poststructuralist writers, the most important
post-colonial/cultural studies/feminist/race-relations scholarship in this
field is completely left out. AND, this is a vast body of literature that
places politics at the CENTER of interrogation, and squarely acknowledges
debts to the post-modern/post-structuralist tradition while carefully
picking out what is/is not useful from the insights provided there.
Where does this consistent omission come from? Does it happen
accidentally? Unconsciously? Why exactly IS it that a left-wing group
committed to "internationalism" and to "taking issues of race/gender
seriously"--enough so to have a "no U.S. day" and periodically have
plaintive discussions about the lack of women participating on
Pen-l--proceeds in discussions as if it is completely unaware of this set
of writers? They are not obscure or unknown, they publish in English, the
presses that carry their works are well-known, and the books are easy
enough to find anywhere and well-known within the lexicon of pomo.
So, to those who deem postmodernism/post-structuralism/cultural
studies/post-colonial studies etc. to be politically bankrupt and
irrelevant, obscurantist, and not capable of throwing up ANY useful gems
for politics, instead of arguing in generalities, I would prefer it if I
was told what EXACTLY it is about the authors above that fails some
"political usefulness/relevance/insight" test, and why. OR, if the answer
is that THESE are not whom I meant, then instead of going after
"postmodernism" why not be specific about WHOM EXACTLY you ARE going after
and for what SPECIFIC issues raised in what particular page/text of their
work?
E: MOVING ON:
Over and over again, Pen-l sees someone make off-hand attacks which then
generate yet another burst of debate about pomo, always around the SAME
questions, and NEVER with each round does the reading-set discussed ever
seem to expand or show any comprehension of exactly how vast the literature
out there is. Why this burning DESIRE/NECESSITY to go AFTER postmodern
traditions in such a manner over and over again? What's going on here and
why do folks seem to feel so threatened by ideas and works that they claim
not have read/comprehended/understood/found relevant? NO ONE here has read
or found useful ANY of the authors listed above?
I am troubled, since I find the approach to the issues raised by
post-modernist/post-structuralist/post-colonial writers on Pen-l, who are
diverse, is not unlike the approach taken by the mainstream towards the
Marxist tradition (never understood exploitation, silly idea, we all know
that this commodity fetishism thing makes no sense--what's all this when
I've shown you it is simply about choice, etc.). And of all people, one
would think, it would be the Marxists who understand how dangerous and
divisive and hurtful of political change this mode of proceeding is, no?
If the discussion is NOT going to move beyond generalities, and get to the
specifics of the contributions of distinct authors like Said, Scott,
Appaiah and West, of people who are self-avowedly Marxist like Guha and
Chatterjee, then why do we bother to KEEP having these tired debates? If
not on Pen-l, then WHERE is such specific and concrete exploration to take
place, and if not now, when exactly is the question of culture, language,
identity, and its link to economy and Marxist politics be put on the table?
So, I second Steve Cullenberg's Joe Medley's and Tony Callari's call to
move from the repetitions of the generalized accusations of jargon, of
old-hattitude, of apolitical relativism, etc. Steve, Joe and Tony have
been patient, careful, polite, responded via engaged debate--and have done
so EVERY time this debate has come up on Pen-l. But I must ask of the
nay-sayers: Breslin's "pomo-debates" archive is now HOW old? Why do we
KEEP returning to the SAME debate with NO extension of the material
read/discussed by all those who raise this issue in the interim? Instead
of the same go-around, why not focus on the literature more concretely and
expand the set of readings deemed worthy of being interrogated each time
aorund? Unsure where to start? Well there are the authors mentioned
above, in addition to Wolff and Resnick (I often wonder why it is that
despite the "Amherst School's" OWN consistent reference to and
acknowledgement of the debts owed to the VAST body of literature in the
postmodernist TRADITION, folks prefer to gloss over this large literature
and concentrate on generalities and caricatures).
I would find a discussion about what it would take to incorporate some of
these ideas/issues into Marxist economics and political activism much more
fruitful than the current repeats of the generic and not very useful
attacks. If the AESA/Resnick and Wolff scholarship in this direction is
not seen as adequate, then fine--what alternative method of proceeding do
various pen-l-ers propose to take up the questions raised about
culture/language/identity/difference and consciousness by this large group
of VERY political writers?
In Solidarity,
Charu.
*******************************************************************
* * *
* S. Charusheela * PH: (O) (717)-291-3936 *
* Economics Dept. * (H) (717) 390-8906 *
* Franklin & Marshall College * FAX: (717) 291-4369 *
* Lancaster PA 17604 * email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *
* * *
*******************************************************************
