202. msivorytower - Feb. 5, 1999 - 8:19 AM PT
Thank you TabouliJ. I return the compliment.
203. cllrdr - Feb. 5, 1999 - 8:22 AM PT
No I haven't, Tabouli. "The Hanging Garen" is quite interesting.
I love Canadians. I'm a Glenn Gould fanatic, and have a large collection of SCTV on tape.
204. TabouliJones - Feb. 5, 1999 - 11:10 AM PT
In several posts I have alluded to the positive flip side of deconstruction, so I should probably elaborate. Deconstruction is generally conceived as an entirely negative exercise. You subvert one text and then move on to the next target ad infinitum and ad nauseam. However, deconstructivists like Derrida are adamant that there is a positive or constructive side to every deconstruction. Every deconstruction of a text involves the assertion of a distinct meaning(s) in opposition to the putative meaning of the text in issue. So, every deconstruction involves the simultaneous subversion and implantation of meaning. Hence Derrida's alternative name for deconstruction: dissemination. How is dissemination positive? Derrida maintains that dissemination is a good because it forces us to continually rethink the world. That is, dissemination is posited as an antidote to ideological chauvinism. Alternatively, deconstruction can be described as a simple celebration of difference. Hence Derrida's references to deconstruction as play: the playful demonstration of play (or give) that is intrinsic to all texts.
So there you have it. The positive and fun side to deconstruction. Many PoMo types describe deconstruction as a counteragent against the “entropy” of human discourse – i.e. they see it as an antidote to the tendency towards inertia that is characteristic of all discourse. Interesting? No? Anyone with any thoughts on this?
*****Pedantry Disclaimer: I am fully aware that postmodern types tend to use the term entropy in an unscientific and incomplete manner.
P.S Cellar,
On behalf of all Canadians, I thank you for your kind words.
205. Pseudoerasmus - Feb. 5, 1999 - 11:27 AM PT
I'll work up some comments eventually on two things -- Tabouli's Foucault question, and the advent of PoMo in "science studies", where I get the most passionate.
206. TabouliJones - Feb. 5, 1999 - 11:39 AM PT
PE,
Cool. I will check in Monday to see what you have to say. I assume it will be illuminating.
207. copans - Feb. 5, 1999 - 1:02 PM PT
Pseudo,
While you're preparing the "science studies" article, keep an eye open for the name Robert Markley, an long lost grad school friend of mine. The only time I've ever seen him quoted was on the social context of scientific knowledge or something equally risible. I've lost the exact reference and would like find it again. Thanks.
208. cllrdr - Feb. 5, 1999 - 2:27 PM PT
"I assume it will be illuminating."
If not illuminating, at least contentious.
I saw Foucault lecture once (no, not at The Barracks) and he didn't impress me at all. Much of his writing does, however.
209. pellenilsson - Feb. 7, 1999 - 10:33 PM PT
Why not start the week with an illuminating quote from Focault:
"Dismiss every theory and all forms of general discourse. The need of a theory is part of the system we reject."
Unfortunately I don't have a reference.
210. TabouliJones - Feb. 9, 1999 - 10:27 AM PT
Pellenilsson,
I didn't recognize the quotation from Foucault but, it does seem to be consistent with everything that I have read from or about him.
I have gleaned two important insights from my reading of Foucault.
One:
He argues that discourse is never a wholly "top down" function; it is not dictated by the hegemony of a single source or dominant voice. Instead, it proceeds like an activity of perpetual crystallization. Discourse is, in reality, a multiplicity of discourses -- discourses which mesh, conflict, mutate, and otherwise splinter off of one another from multiple points of penetration and along multiple axes. A theorist might isolate an originating seed, or catalyst, but it would be pointless to extrapolate a comprehensive "etymology" from this source; given the seeming randomness and multiplicity of the crystallization process.
Two(and, for me, the more important insight):
Every single discourse, in the complex of discourses, carries with it a corresponding "will to power" that drives much of its activity. Every single discourse thus determines relationships of power and submission among its participants. In turn, these discursive power relationships intersect with other such relationships and some mesh, some conflict, and some mutate as a consequence of this interaction. According to Foucault, then, it is misleading to tackle hegemony issues by positing one overriding "Power" that imposes its will in a "top down" fashion. Instead, one must look to the myriad of inter-related power relationships scattered throughout the fields of human discourse.
IMHO, it is important to keep these insights in mind if one wants to garner a subtle and penetrating understanding of how the world works.
211. cllrdr - Feb. 9, 1999 - 12:06 PM PT
Sounds about right to me. Over to you, Pseudo.
212. Pseudoerasmus - Feb. 9, 1999 - 12:33 PM PT
I haven't abandoned this thread. But this week I can't really do more than one thread at a time. I'm still looking for an article written by Derrida on the "centre" that is very relevant to PoMo science studies.
213. cllrdr - Feb. 9, 1999 - 12:39 PM PT
Could you be a bit more specific about what you're looking for, Psuedo? I've got a shelf full of Derrida at arm's reach.
214. cllrdr - Feb. 9, 1999 - 12:53 PM PT
On reflection,Pseudo, I *think* what you're looking for can be found in the essay "Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences," in "Writing and Difference" (Chicago, 1978)
215. Pseudoerasmus - Feb. 9, 1999 - 12:58 PM PT
Yes, I know that.
216. cllrdr - Feb. 9, 1999 - 2:32 PM PT
Was that what you wanted, or can I offer you another Derrida?
217. TabouliJones - Feb. 10, 1999 - 12:14 PM PT
Well, it is that time again. Time for me to continue my one man dialogue on the nature of postmodernism.
So far I have spewed forth on the subversive and constructive sides of the deconstructivist mandate, especially as it relates to Derrida. Now, for my own amusement, I'd like to give my “final” assessment of Derrida's theory of deconstruction.
1) On an intellectual level I comprehend the constructive flip side of deconstruction – dissemination, jouissance, the play of discourse, etc. – but, I suspect that it is an empty theoretical construct. I was extremely (and I mean extremely) pleased with myself when I figured out the hefty string of puns that Derrida used to forward his argument in “Aporias” . However, philosophy and literature shouldn't be all about giddy self-congratulation. It should be about meaty real life STUFF and deconstruction is sadly failing in this regard. It lacks what might be called a heuristic function; it doesn't seem to provide any way of trying out different strategies for coping with real life problems. Ultimately, deconstruction seems to offer little more than a smug “that's not it” and an endless string of enervating aporias.
2) The theory underlying the deconstructivist mandate presents itself as an explanation of what philosophy and discourse in general are all about and, in this regard, it is startling in its consistency and internal logic -- (cf. Rodolphe Gasche's “The Tain of the Mirror). However, the underlying idea – that all discourse is an endlessly mutating mass of errant signifiers – is remarkably useless when it comes to explaining basic discursive phenomena. If every text says everything and nothing at the same time, how do you explain, for example, the occurrence of an in-joke, when a meaning is *immediately* and *simultaneously* grasped and riffed upon by those who are “in” on the joke. The Fray notwithstanding, discourse is as much abo
218. TabouliJones - Feb. 10, 1999 - 12:16 PM PT
. . .The Fray notwithstanding, discourse is as much about communication as it is about miscommunication. Derrida's theory of deconstruction ignores this fact and its value must be reduced accordingly.
3) Many of Derrida's insights are nowhere near as radical as he would like them to be – same goes for postmodernism in general.
So there you have my critique of deconstruction. I should point out, however, that wrt postmodernism I am like one of those people who has read reams of literary criticism but never picked up a piece of literature. I have read a lot of theory about what postmodernism is about but, I have read little in the way of “applied postmodernism.” My exposure to pomo literature has been restricted to my reading of Cohen's “Beautiful Losers”, two Umberto Eco novels, Julian Barnes' “Flaubert's Parrot”, and a bunch of Thomas Pynchon – and most of this is probably not truly postmodernist. As for appplied postmodernism, I have read Rem Koolhaus and gawked at some Philip Johnson architecture during a bender in NYC.
P.S. If anyone is interested, I'd love it if this thread morphed into a discussion of any of the books or people mentioned above. I can only talk to myself for so long.
219. DanDillon - Feb. 10, 1999 - 12:33 PM PT
TJ,
Nice posts. But I thought you might like to know that the comma goes *before* the coordinating conjunction.
220. TabouliJones - Feb. 10, 1999 - 12:42 PM PT
DanD.
I know. I make that mistake all the time. Old habits die hard. My punctuation has always been horrid. Gadamer once said that good writing doesn't require punctuation . . . alas.
What are your thoughts on postmodernism?
221. Msivorytower - Feb. 10, 1999 - 8:20 PM PT
TabouliJ
I liked this last series of posts, very interesting commentary. I'm not much up to date on postmodernism, and your discussion reacquaints me with what I remember.
I also followed your discussion over in Race, the comments you made were sophisticated and complex. A pleasure to read.
I do hope you continue posting in a similar vein.
222. aldavis - Feb. 10, 1999 - 10:02 PM PT
Dan
I think it really was a a case of misspelling. the word was butt, i truly believe directed at you and should indeed have been enclosed in commas.
223. davidmeyer - Feb. 11, 1999 - 12:41 AM PT
Wow. Interesting discussions going on. I'll try to add a bit.
First, I have a slightly different take on the meaning of the term "deconstruction." An interpretation I have always been partial to is in a 1988 Feminist Studies article by Joan Scott:
"Deconstruction...consists of two related steps: the reversal and displacement off binary oppositions. This double process reveals the interdependence of seemingly dichotomous terms and their meaning relative to a particular history. It shows them not to be natural but constructed oppositions, constructed for particular purposes in particular concepts."
From the article's footnotes, quoting Elizabeth Gross:
"Taken together, reversal and its useful displacement show the necessary but unfounded function of these terms in Western thought. One must both reverse the dichotomy and the values attached to the two terms, as well as displace the excluded term, placing it beyond its oppositional role, as the internal condition of the dominant term. This move makes clear the violence of hierarchies and the debt the dominant terms typically owe to the subordinate ones. It also demonstrates that there are other ways of conceiving these terms than dichotomously. If these terms were only or necessarily dichotomies, the process of displacement would not be possible. Although historically necessary, the terms are not logically necessary."
224. davidmeyer - Feb. 11, 1999 - 12:58 AM PT
Gross is quoted again:
"What Derrida attempts to show is that within these binary couples, the primary or dominant term derives its privilege from a curtailment or suppression of its opposite. Sameness or identity, presence, speech, the origin, mind, etc. are all privileged in relation to their opposites, which are regarded as debased, impure variants of the primary term. Difference, for example, is the lack of identity or sameness; absence is the lack of presence; writing is the supplement of speech, and so on."
Second, I am quite willing to engage in a discussion of critical race theory.
In response to ChristiPeters' Message #124, critical race theory is the collective writings of self-described members of a modern legal movement. It draws on radical feminism, marxism, critical legal studies, and postmodern theory in an attempt to develop alternative policies for dealing with what it views to be the interminable and significant problems associated with a eurocentric legal system.
It is not entirely a postmodern movement, though it draws heavily on Foucault and Derida.
Its primary areas of focus have been hate speech regulation, curriculum development, and faculty and student application standards (the infamous critique of merit).
225. TabouliJones - Feb. 11, 1999 - 7:19 AM PT
c
davidmeyer,
Great quotes from Scott and Gross. Like all pomo stuff, they are incredibly opaque, but I read them two or three times and think that I understand what the authors are getting at. They are alluding to a very interesting part of Derrida's philosophy: his take on the movement of philosophy going from Kant to Hegel to Heidegger and then all the way back to Aristotle. I'd try to unpack the quotes you offered and try to relate them to this aspect of Derrida, but YIKES. If you are interested, Rodolphe Gasche's book "The Tain of the Mirror" does a great job of situating Derrida within larger philosophical debates.
I know nothing about critical race theory, but I would love to hear what you have to say about it. However, if you've lurked in the racism thread you probably know that any discussion of race is likely to be derailed for all sorts of reasons. Alternatively, I'd also love to see a discussion of critical legal theory and the general pomo take
on legal issues such as free speech, hate speech, and statutory interpretation. My knowledge is limited wrt these matters, but I think I could contribute to such a discussion or, at least, gain by reading it. I once navigated the thickets of an article entitled, "Chix, Nix, Bundle of Sticks: A Post-Lacanian Feminist Analysis of American Property Law". So bring it on. I'm ready.
226. cllrdr - Feb. 11, 1999 - 11:30 AM PT
Sorry you've been left out to dry, Tabouli. I was caught up in "Racism and Sterotypes," and rather fierce discussion with a couple of Log Cabinette types over in "Table Talk" who seem to think that Andrew Sullivan (aka. Winky Dink) is the greatest thing that's happened to homosexuality since Tom of Finland. The "No, that's not it," is only part of the problem with Derrida. At best he offers a critical technique -- not a philosophical idea. Moreover, he is so insanely prolific, I hesitate to characterize his work as a whole. I've been reading him for some thirty years now, and there've been many highs (eg. "The Post Card") and lows (the DeMann business.) Again -- I believe I've posted this earlier -- I think the PoMo label creates more problems than it solves in that the writers in question have more differences than they do similarities.
227. TabouliJones - Feb. 11, 1999 - 11:41 AM PT
Cellar,
No need to apologize. I myself got caught up in the "Racism and Stereotypes" thread, although I am now thoroughly weary with that particular whirligig of reiteration and hair splitting. I hope you keep coming back to this thread, because I am confident that it could lead to all kinds of illuminating discussion.
I have checked out some of the "Table Talk" threads in the last few days. Where do you contribute when you are in there?
228. cllrdr - Feb. 11, 1999 - 5:20 PM PT
I've been in "Gay Politics," and all the gay "Private Life" threads. Also "Harry Shearer," "Gore Vidal," and "Proust" in the book threads. Oh -- and "Christopher Hitchens," in "Politics." I've met some mean bitches in my time, and they were all gay. Hitchens (painfully heterosexual) has every one of them beat by a country mile. He's managed to redfine friendship in a way I haven't seen since Anne Baxter talked conspired with Celeste Holm in the power room scene in "All About Eve."
229. msgreer - Feb. 11, 1999 - 5:31 PM PT
cllrdr...where do you see the Hitchens-Blumenthal thing going? Hasn't Hitchens said he would not testify against Sid? i don't understand that, he already put in an affidavit... somewhere i read he wanted to *take it all back*
what is hitchens story, beside being a publicity seeker?
he certainly is no friend.
hey, tomorrow, on the today show *an exclusive with linda tripp*, then again on msnbc tomorrow night.
but the event will be her larry king live appearance next monday. the promo's say *larry king live, an hour with linda tripp, taking your calls*
i asked early, with no answer, but maybe you will know. who is *handling linda* now? look at her, new clothes, makeup, hairstyle, yada yada yada.
what can she hope to say that will make her the girl one wants to have as a *friend*?
230. cllrdr - Feb. 11, 1999 - 5:40 PM PT
The Hitchens thing was in "Politics" over in "Table Talk" in "Salon."
I thought of bringing it up here, but the impeachment finale is coming and I'm sure several of us want to brush up on our bongo-playing.
Linda-the-Tripp-wire is the media's last chance at playing this sucker. After all, millions of Americans want to know what she's "really like."
Ha! As if.
I don't know why Barbara Walters wants to bother with monica now. She's Yesterday's Bimbo.
On the other hand she's a perfect subject for PoMo contemplation and study. As is Flytrap itself.
"It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is."
Now how Derridian can you get?
231. TabouliJones - Feb. 12, 1999 - 5:43 AM PT
Cellar,
Funny thing is, I remember reading a huge chunk of Heidegger that actually dwelt on the metaphysical implications of the word "is". The piece was called something like "On the Meaning of the Copula" and I seem to recall someone else writing at length about the obvious pun: copula > copulate. Maybe that sly fox Clinton is indeed the ultimate postmodernist.
232. Pseudoerasmus - Feb. 12, 1999 - 5:49 AM PT
I don't think that counts as a pun.
By the way, philosophers don't take Derrida seriously. Can you imagine Derrida having a conversation with, say, Antony Flew or Hilary Putnam?
233. cllrdr - Feb. 12, 1999 - 6:54 AM PT
There's no reason for philosophers to take him seriously, Pseudo. He's not a philospher.
Tabouli -- "The Supplement of the Coupla: Philosphy Before Linguistics" is one of the essays in Derrida's "Margins of Philosphy" (Chicago, 1982)
234. SaraBand - Feb. 13, 1999 - 2:09 AM PT
TabouliJones:
In spite of what you say Derrida doesn't say, I can envision myself reading him. In fact, I can actually see myself feeling compelled to do so. The question is, would I then be able to speak about the experience?
Personally, and with all modesty, I'd have to say, "Don't hold your breath."
235. cllrdr - Feb. 13, 1999 - 7:46 AM PT
Hey Sara -- come on in, the Derridian waters are fine. I reccomend "Writing and Difference" (Chicago, 1978) and "Dissemination" (Chicago, 1981) for starters. He won't bite, you know. Also, see if you can track down the film "Ghost Dance" (British, mid-1980's, I forget the name of the director -- Ken something) in which Derrida co-stars with Pascale Ogier and Leonie Mellinger.
236. SaraBand - Feb. 13, 1999 - 9:49 AM PT
Gee, Clldr, that's too bad you can't remember the last name of the director of "Ghost Dance." That's certainly where I'd have started looking for information.
237. CoralReef - Feb. 13, 1999 - 9:53 AM PT
http://www.imdb.com will tell you who the director is.
238. SaraBand - Feb. 13, 1999 - 10:15 AM PT
Good Show.
239. pellenilsson - Feb. 14, 1999 - 12:23 PM PT
In any case isn't PoMo practically dead?. I'm doing some part-time studies (history and the history of ideas) at the Stockholm University. Back in 1990 there were lots of papers on Derrida, Focault and the others. Now there's only a trickle. And what has PoMo and deconstruction done for us? What will be its legacy? (To PoMos the question would be meaningless, of course)
240. SaraBand - Feb. 14, 1999 - 1:34 PM PT
Appendix A
If anybody comes looking for me, tell him I'm up the river with Colonel Kurtz.
241. CoralReef - Feb. 14, 1999 - 1:53 PM PT
Postmodernist Ihab Hassan explains some of the differences between modernism and postmodernism:
modernism---postmodernism
Form (conjuntive closed)---Anti-form (discjuntive/open)
Purpose---Play
Design---Chance
Hierarchy---Anarchy
Art Object/Finished Work---Process/Performance/Happening
Presence---Absence
Centering---Dispersal
Genre/Boundary---Text/Intertext
Root/Depth---Rhizome/Surface
242. jkuzmak - Feb. 14, 1999 - 5:26 PM PT
Door:
I like Hitchens and I think I know where he is coming from. Liked his Party of One in a recent Nation. I made atleast one posting this evening that has Hitchean and Karpian colorings. Hitchens writes for Harper's and I can see the effect that Karp has had on him. I'm not imagining things am I?
243. jkuzmak - Feb. 14, 1999 - 5:50 PM PT
Clinton's State of the Union address was more than ever like one of those orations to the twenty-ninth All-Union Congress in some sweltering People's Democracy. The Dear Leader doesn't "do" press conferences anymore, or attend any forum where he can be asked questions. All of last year, he avoided press conferences unless another Dear Leader like Tony Blair was visiting, or unless he himself was visiting a Dear Leader like Boris Yeltsin............................................................................................................I can understand the motives of those who profit by this game of three-card monte, but I can't for the life of me understand the dopes who cluster under the balcony and applaud it.-----Hitchens
244. cllrdr - Feb. 14, 1999 - 6:06 PM PT
I wish I knew where Hitchens was coming from Jkuzmak. I thought I did. But apparently there are a lot of personal issues at play in this sudden outburst. If Blumenthal was pushing this story as Hitchens claims, why didn't he say anything back in April? Curiouser and curiouser.
pellinilsson -- This isn't a popularity contest. Derrida, Foucault and Baudrillard aren't Hootie and the Blowfish.
245. jkuzmak - Feb. 14, 1999 - 6:12 PM PT
I don't know about the personal stuff, Door. I like Hitchen's writing. Ofcourse, Seguine has called Hitchens abysmal. I just don't know what to think.
246. cllrdr - Feb. 14, 1999 - 6:26 PM PT
Well this story is far from over, J. So hang on and wait for the next episode.
Actually it might serve as a replacement for Impeachment-O-Rama on MSNBC and Fox.
"Chris or Sid: Which Side Are You On?"
Of course this might not work for Arianna. They're both straight.
(rim shot)
G'night folks!
247. pellenilsson - Feb. 15, 1999 - 3:36 AM PT
cllrdr
"This isn't a popularity contest." Cheap shot!
248. TabouliJones - Feb. 15, 1999 - 5:33 AM PT
SaraBand,
If you are going to wade into the Derridean waters, I would recommend starting with a little book called "Aporias." In it, Derrida gives an overview of his approach, but does so within the context of a discussion on the meaning of death. It is quite fascinating. It is also rather short, so you can get a sense of Derrrida rather quickly, before attacking some of his meatier works. Rodolphe Gasche's "The Tain of the Mirror" gives an excellent analysis of Derrida, and he does a terrific job of situating him within larger philosohpical and literary debates.
249. SaraBand - Feb. 15, 1999 - 5:46 AM PT
Tabouli:
What makes you think I have to walk in the water?
250. cllrdr - Feb. 15, 1999 - 7:40 AM PT
Because the Fray is like a Pina Bausch dance piece, Sara.