I have evolved some theories connecting pomo to World War II, war guilt, and so forth, but that's all just so much hot air from me, since I haven't read nearly enough to really make a good case. Anybody else?
Incidently, in my more worthless hours I also subscribe to a list on feminist science fiction. And you know what? This same pro-pomo (pro-mo?) anti-pomo debate has happened there off and on for the last few months. It's less theorized, and there it really seems like 1. people haven't read the stuff, or even summaries. They've read pro- or con- analysis. 2. There, among the reg' lar folks, the pro-pomo types are the anti-sexist, pro-social change types. The antis are mainly (curiouser and curiouser) under the impression that we can't escape from power, that no real social change is possible, that human life always is a terrible, strong-over-weak triumph. To them, at least, pomo stands for something rather than is something.
Admiringly, Jane
>>> Catherine Driscoll <cdriscol at arts.adelaide.edu.au> 02/11 4:32 PM >>>
Steve Perry writes:
>I don't see any material reason to believe that Foucault et al. really
advanced these movements.
It depends who you ask, but a great many 'non-academic' people highly invested in changing the lives and contexts of gays and lesbians and other groups kept on the outer by ideas about heterosexual normality have found Foucault's own work and/or the work of people influenced by Foucault exceptionally useful. The same appears also to have been true of Butler. I am not sure on what grounds you are dismissing this.
Catherine