Angela wrote:
>which raises in another context some of the stuff i was alluding to in
>the previous post. namely, are there occassions when a cynical ironic
>detachment is conducive to making people form attachments to
>conservative agendas?
[snip]
>to put it another way: there is a sense in which we assume that a
>meta-narrative is crucial for critique and oppositionality, and that
>this would serve as a criticism of a postmodernist refusal of
>meta-narratives. (i've already talked about why i think a
>meta-narrative is unavoidable, and that there is no one position on
>meta-narratives amongst any set of writers cast as pomos, so i won't
>go into that again)
>what
>however of the ways in which a meta-narrative is actually in the
>service of a suspension of critique, an injunction to enjoy 'in good
>conscience' what are either conservative narratives or horrendous
>policies?
Doug raises an excellent point about some conservative's "winking detachment." I've witnessed conservatives playing that game a number of times and in a sense it's heartening. I mean, they have to or else bare their social darwinist true selves. Take P.J. O'Rourke for example.
And Angela, have you read Terry Eagleton's excellent book on postmodernism? You'd probably agree with what he has to say. A basic point is the idea that there are no meta-narratives is a meta-narrative. Maybe you could expand on your point about certain meta-narratives being in the service of a suspension of critique?
Cynical detachment and irony is often tied to powerlessness. This goes to the point of Reagan and the alienated masses. (there was also his contradictory don't worry, be happy attitude) Eagleton's theory is in part that the reason critical theory and postmodernism has spread like some sort of virulent, mutating virus is the left's stunning defeat right after the 60's. The 60's didn't pan out from an anti-capitalist perspective.
Conservatives do tend to play the three card monte game where they constantly switch the subject. When they say big government is bad, they really mean social services are bad. Mad Max Sawicky made some excellent points about the congressional budget caps and it now appears the bipartisan consensus is to raise them in accordance with inflation otherwise distrastic cuts to both the military and social services will be necessary. Plus, I bet they'll need more money to bail out international investors some more. I don't think Rubin et. al. have learned the lessons of the Asian crisis.