Dear Stephen, >To Doug H., Anders S., Jim D., and others who are on the attack against pomo, > >As I've read your various posts I find myself alternately wanting to >respond, but also at times being angry at the dismissive comments (they're >just incompetent), hostile interpretation of motives (because it's new!), >and puerile alliterative juxtapositions (eg, Derrida from dogfood) and >wonder what might be gained from any possible response. OK, let's call a truce on the name-calling. >What is most frustrating is the generality of the attack. It would be >useful for all, wouldn't it, if the critics of pomo could be a bit more >precise with their critiques and refer to some specific paper or book by >some particular author(s) so we can be on the same page. We might then >have a useful conversation. I have a suggestion given people's concern >about Marx and Derrida. What's wrong, good, obtuse, insightful, troubling, >about Derrida's _Specters of Marx_? A not completely innocent choice I >must confess. Rather than using texts to make sure we're on the same page, why don't we use a specific political example? I think many of us gave up on pomo because we didn't see how it gave us a better understanding of the world that's useful for politcal action. I'd be delighted if you could convince me otherwise; it's a nasty world out there, and we can use all the tools we can get. So, can you give a concrete example of a current economic issue where you think a pomo approach will give us a better understanding of the issue and of how to tackle it politically than a non-pomo marxist/feminist/anti-racist approach would? If you could explain it using relatively simple, straightforward language, I'd appreciate it; that way we can make sure that everybody can play (those who chimes in on the anti-pomo side have to play by the same rules: anybody who uses terms like "fetishism" or "commodity production" will be fined). Anders Schneiderman Progressive Communications
