|
I think, as someone mentioned above, Derrida is most often connected with literary theory, though, I have heard that it is mistaken to link him solely to literary theory.
I've come to Derrida, myself, through literary theory -- and I'm very interested in much of what people have extrapolated, from his work, toward the text.
The deconstruction of a text is fairly straightforward: you identify a binary, identify the binary-oppositional construct to which it belongs, and talk about the history, subtext, context, etc., of that binary-oppositional construct. It gets a little more detailed than that, and a discussion of the intricacies can certainly drag on, indefinitely -- but I've never been comfortable with all those concepts and terminologies: hermaneutics, contextual epistemologies, meta-narrative, etc.
I understand a little bit of it -- but, to me, it does not seem inane for him to say that he has not done his job if someone understands him -- I think it's funny, and that it's meant to be funny -- or, if it isn't meant to be funny, Derrida would say it doesn't matter what he meant.
As far as substance, I have a fondness for the postmodernists, and, of course, I'm aware of the big question that plagues postmodernism, i.e.-- if nothing means anything, then why the fuck are you boring me with all this postmodern shit? Aren't your theories just as meaningless as any other?
I have friends who have various answers or theories, as to that -- even ranging into the areas of quantum physics and Zeno's Paradox -- but, I, myself, am just kind of resigned to the paradox. I am kind of a postmodern nihilist, and can sort of accept that -- it's why I'm agnostic/athiest and a libertarian.
And that, my friend, to answer your question: is the Derrida stuff a sine qua non of neoliberalism?
Of COURSE it is -- sort of. Michael Foucault predicted the neocons. If I'm not mistaken, the gist of his schtick was that those in power control the language. What do you think he would have thought of this?:
In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.
The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''
- Ron Suskind "Without a Doubt"
I had a colleague who thought that he would just be like "ho hum, I'm not surprised, this is what I SAID was going to happen," -- but I think he would have shit his pants. This quote has around TWENTY THOUSAND HITS on Google, and, as far as political philsophy and postmodernism is concerned, is one of the most amazing quotes ever cited. I think, yeah, that Foucault knew what he was talking about -- but when you're a writer and a philosopher, you throw all kinds of shit out there -- and some of it is just to see what sticks. I think, to have his predictions/theories come out, in such full force, would have been truly amazing for him. Anyway -- that's an aside.
Liberalism, in terms of social democracy, liberalism, socialism, communism, etc., are all modern theories, and they're all authoritarian theories. Conservatism is often seen as a classical theory seen through a modern lens -- depending on to what degree that authority is involved in keepin the natural "order." Neoconservatism, in and of itself is not postmodern -- it takes equally from liberal authority and classical order, in practice -- but if the neocons TRULY believe that they create reality, then they, themselves, are postmodernists. Do they realize it? That's an interesting question: to what extent is it conscious? Whoever uttered the above quote seems fairly aware of his own postmodern consciousness.
Neo-liberalism is only postmodern insofar as it is not backed by state force. If it is assumed that there is an authority -- i.e. science, the rule of law, etc., that specifically makes claims on neoliberalism's behalf, and is willing to use that authority to enforce it -- it's more modern, than postmodern -- unless, again, of course, if it is aware that it is actively creating reality.
It's totally confusing, but anarchy (all forms, right and left) and libertarianism are postmodern insofar that they truly believe in individual autonomy, but not that there is an authority that demands individual autonomy. Because there, again, is the paradox -- is a specific belief in the autonomy of the individual a modern concept? Could not the idea that humans are slaves be an equally valid concept to the postmodernist?
I'm going to go let my head explode, now -- but here's some thinking out loud for you. Can neo-liberalism, or any other -ism be postmodern, if a person truly believes in it? Wouldn't a true postmodernist have to believe that all ideas are equally valid?
Most of the time, I think the literary theorists spend their time with micro-elements of this, dealing with the smaller elements, instead of really tackling the big questions. Why? The paradox always stops one from getting anywhere. Is it good for literature? I think so -- it encourages experimentation and emphasizes the fluidity of language. There was a lit critic, who, not too long ago, took the literary establishment to task for getting off on postmodernism, and ignoring Marxism. Can the artist be an authoritarian? For me, the answer is no. And I've undergone a radical change, which I haven't fully reconciled, because of it.
Head. Exploding.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(496 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
