>>And Angela, have you read Terry Eagleton's excellent book on
>>postmodernism?
>
>if I'm thinking of the same book, quite some time ago; if it's a more
>recent book, then no. I should take a look.
It was published in '96
>>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.
>of course it is. and I think derrida for instance would agree (see
>'Writing and Difference', p280 for example). does eagleton say that
>pomoistas do/don't think this; or would he say derrida is/isn't a
>pomo, I'm not sure?
I remember Eagleton argues "vulgar" pomoistas feel any meta-narrative is tyrannical. I'm not sure about Derrida.
[[snip]]
>no doubt we are in the shadow of defeats. but why an approach, or
>even a set of questions should not be posed after a defeat strikes me
>as not a very good historical approach. and nor would it be useful
>to make us think only of victories as some way of protecting
>ourselves. a lot of people came out of the experience of the
>sixties with what I think is an incredible and sometimes boundless
>enthusiasm (people like guattari), and one that often is not shared by
>those if us who grew up with neo-liberalism. but you're right that
>the upheavals of the 60s/70s was a defining moment, but didn't it
>affect everyone who is of a certain age? maybe he just doesn't like
>the questions/answers others give to this experience? is that what he
>means or something else?
As I understand it, he argues there was both a displacement and a deepening. So he feels some good work was done on the theoretical front. He's really arguing against the anti-marxist postmodernisms.