Review of Sokal & Bricmonts' _FASHIONABLE NONSENSE_ in NY Times Book Review

Jim heartfield jim at heartfield.demon.co.uk
Mon Nov 16 09:05:27 PST 1998


In message <199811161524.IAA01151 at smtp04.primenet.com>, Doyle Saylor <djsaylor at primenet.com> writes
>I have brought this up with Max Sawicky in the past. When someone starts
>talking about marginalization of some position which is what Jim Heartfield
>is trying to do with Post Modernists, they use language replete with
>anti-disabled metaphors of the margin. Pomos are "blinding", causing
>"idiocy", "hysterical", and finally "irrational". As before such terms are
>acceptable in polite company because they "aren't really" about disabled
>folks as the person who uses these terms practices using them, the terms
>don't really mean the person who says them is anti-disabled, they are just
>trying to find metaphors that adequately express their ideas.

Well clearly if one thinks that blindness is as good as sightedness, or that hysteria is as good as reason or that idiocy is as good as intelligence, or that irrationality is as good as rationality, then post-modernism will appeal to you. If thine eye offends thee, pluck it out.


>
>Doyle
>I really don't think this sort of attitude toward Post Modernist explains
>anything. In substance I agree with the criticism of Post Modernism I have
>seen in other contexts, and from what little I have read of their theories,
>but I have serious reservations concerning these attacks against Post
>Modernist.

Why? If they are wrong, shouldn't they be criticised. Hell, even if they are right they should be criticised. Criticism clarifies. An honestly held idea has nothing to fear from rigourous criticism.


> I don't see their threat as being any different than any other
>systemic or system like ideas. But the attacks upon Post Modernist have a
>quality of extremely strongly felt discounting and disrespect illustrated by
>the kind of characterization that Jim gives above, and I think this thinking
>is deeply in error itself.

On the contrary, I honour post-modernism in taking it seriously enough to criticise, as I have done on many occasions. My bookshelves groan under the volumes of Lyotard and Heidegger, precisely because I beleive these thinkers do reflect an important aspect of our times. If I did not take them seriously I would not bother to criticise them.


> It lacks at the very least a grasp of why the
>larger community takes certain views irrespective of the deep loathing it
>induces in people who seem committed to a scientific point of view.
>

If you really loath the scientific point of view, let me make a suggestion: turn of the computer, turn off the light, turn off the heating, burn the clothes, trash the car, throw away your contact lenses, unplug the phone, disconnect the electricity, abjure the supermarket and the newsagent, throw away the books, move to the hills, live off grubs and berries and live in a hut. My god! You're the Unabomber!

-- Jim heartfield



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list