I have been hesitant to get involved in the pomo debate, for fear of causing offense, and also because I have more mixed feelings than Doug does about the contribution of the whole trend to the academy, and by extension,to politics. IMHO, the pomos have made a major positive contribution by transforming a large part of the humanities' undergraduate curriculum, to the point where it is now common for freshman comp. courses to question such "myths" as American democracy, equality of opportunity, etc. On the other hand they have appropriated a terrible weakness for themselves, which spills over some to the rest of the left. This is the relativist epistemology that now prevails among graduate students in the humanities, and pomo circles generally. Doug argues that pomos "deny there's a physical reality independent of human observation," but I think it would be more accurate to say they deny that we can ever know anything about it. It is of course impossible to be consistent with this position, so for some pomos this is just a core belief (like a very abstract belief in God, for example) that does not affect their politics very much. They continue to make arguments, use logic and evidence, and argue for the "truth"-- with a small "t" as they are fond of saying-- of their positions, just as an ordinary, non-pomo leftist would. But others, especially when they are trying to be more consistent with their relativist epistemology, will say things that anyone who is not trained in this tradition can see as absurd, and this is a liablility. I can't tell you how many times I have heard pomo scholars assert such things as, e.g., we don't know any more about the physical universe than we did 5000 years ago. Needless to say, this undermines their credibility, and the credibility of the academic left in general, on more directly relevant political issues. To take a recent and less blatant example, there was an op-ed piece in the NYT not too long ago, attacking the national history standards from the right, for deviating from the official story. The argument the author chose to attack was the predominant, pomo-influenced argument-- i.e., American history looks different from the point of view of Native Americans, slaves, etc. I couldn't help feeling that the left was on more solid ground when we had revisionist historians like William Appleman Williams, or-- someone who continues in the non-pomo left tradition, Noam Chomsky-- making our case. These folks would (and do) argue that the traditional American history is false and distorted, and-- while fully appreciating the subtleties and difficulties in understanding any historical period or events-- put forward an alternative version which is not only more valid from the point of view of the oppressed, but is more consistent with principles and values that are nearly universally held to be true, even by our adversaries. These arguments are more difficult to dismiss. (It also helps that people like Chomsky avoid needless jargon, but that is another issue). Name: Mark Weisbrot E-mail: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Preamble Center for Public Policy 1737 21st Street NW Washington DC 20009 (202) 265-3263 (offc) (202) 333-6141 (home) fax: (202)265-3647