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
