jf noonan wrote:
> Michael, I think I know where you're going with this, but that's not
> quite the point I was or would be making
>
> The homogenization and the erasing of any *actual* differences to
> leave only manufactured, faux, image based differences, is what I
> was railing against.
>
No, no you're quite right. Necessary to rail against the alleged postmodernism and the alleged postmoder*ists* with all of its and their erasing of differences. I never know what the hell they're talking about anyway.
But, for the sake of argument lets say indeed that that erasing is the "cultural logic" of this late stage. Or the "symbolic order" has indeed usurped our very imaginations and libidos.
We would be well put to then mark some differences *within* this historical totality. Again, for the sake of argument.
Lets say that indeed from 1973 to, say, 1992 (or 1989) there was a "Classical" period of postmodernism where one would indeed could find authenticity, or realness, in, say Budwieser, the particular triumph of style over substance.
But post '92, or '89 we have a new sub-epoch. Often confused with the *end* of the 'classical period', or the end of that cultural logic, variously recorded as the return of the real or the august reassertion of the dialectal operations of history.
But let us say that the home-brew and micro-brew or that wheat beer or that special malt, or that wispy hops is rather something else.
Not just more style triumphalism. Rather, speculatively, the totality of the 'cultural logic' can now allow in the real real.
We can call this zooification to distinguish it from comodification. Nature is allowed its bracketed habitat.
Maybe we can designate this the medieval period of postmodernism (we don't want progressive histories)
Besides the boys up here aren't interested in the fancy suds, its all about malt liquor. 40s.
mc