Justin, Bill, Jim F, Carl, Rob,
Justin wrote:
> Oh, knock it off, guys. I have read too much pomo and
> postructuralism.
Gee, Justin, if you care to recall, the poster who initially claimed that you hadn't read much 'pomo' was, wait for it ... you! ...unless someone else got a hold of your email account and has been regaling us with Baudrillard citations and the like -- simultaneous with posting on 'responsibility'. So, perhaps you (or you) can knock it off.
Ok, so now you say you've read "too much". But, and here's the thing: what I fail to see is how you can read Irigaray, Derrida, Fraser, Lacan, Rorty, Deleuze, Guattari, Butler, Laclau et Mouffe, Kristeva, Spivak, et al and possibly arrive at any kind of statement which might include 'those pomos do X', or even include all of these people in something called 'postmodernism'. All that brings them together is your reaction to them; though no small amount of credit should go to the translatlantic translation/publishing machinery which seems to have constructed a 'postmodernist canon', largely as a creation of US marketting and disciplinary preoccupations, into which various books and writers were inserted. From over here, none of that seems self-evident to me in the least.
> Now, have _you_ worked through _my_ canon with anything like the effort I
gave to yours?<
Let's talk about responsibility, canons, and effort some more:
If I was preoccupied with posting endlessly about 'those dastardly neopragmatists'; then some effort would in fact be required to show not only that I've read them, but understand them. If I don't understand them; how can I know 'they're dastardly'? Why is asking ruled out? If I do understand them; then I would have to both show that I do and show why they are so dastardly as to warrant such a preoccupation. Anything that might be commensurate with the gigabytes and publishing mills churned in the name of fighting the good fight against 'them'?
Of course, neopragmatists, for all that we might distinguish one writer from another, or one book from another, would still confine themselves to a basic set of premises to be explored even if they don't give the same answer. That's not at all evident amongst the list of writers you cite as 'postmodernist and poststructuralist'. Which, in case Bill F has missed it, means that it's not quite possible to read a little in order to determine whether or not "they can make an argument" since few writers could stand up as illustrative of something to be abbreviated as the 'pomo canon', as "they".
Second, in order to make an argument about whether or not someone else is "making an argument", this might also include some discussion or reference-point to what "making an argument" might mean, and whether or not one might "make an argument" at all times for all occassions. Does "making an argument" consist of the summation of positions leading to conclusions? If so, then does writing always have to consist of "making an argument", or making an argument in this way? Might there not be a difference between 'a mode of exposition' and 'making an argument' such that certain tasks or matters are considered amenable to the former but not the latter? All questions which go to the core of theoretical practice I would think, and not at all to be presupposed as a universal criterion of whether "making an argument" in a certain way is always to be expected whenever you read or whenever it comes to deciding whether something might be worth reading.
Canons: I never engage in top-10 book lists; nor do I insist that people read A or B unless they're already arguing or hinting that they already know (usually by smelling their own armpits) what A or B says. And there's no reason to presuppose that because I do the latter I even like or would defend those writers or books in anything that might resemble a more thorough possibility for discussion -- that is, the kind of discussion that would move beyond the rhetorical use of 'those pomos' as the favoured and hidden means to build and/or protect existing, apparently self-evident canons into something that might resemble, oh, I don't know, thought. I've no canon to speak of, though I obviously make an effort with some writers and not with others, not always determined by whether or not I agree with them; but I do take exception to the implicit and ongoing canonical exercise that begins with 'those pomos', as well as the institutional context and political boundary-constructions which make it seem obvious to think in terms of canons in the first place.
Finally, I don't care if you read any of those writers you cited; nor do I care whether you understand them. I don't assume there's a universal language (idiom, etc) that might be universally comprehended, and anyone who doesn't is perforce a drongo. Note to Rob: How many times I gotta say this until you stop with the 'i must be such an idiot' thing which always seems to accompany your derisions of 'pomo', Rob? Doesn't your incomprehension suggest to you anything other than a derision of your intellect that might require that kind of reflexive strike? Or, is it because you assume that language is a universal human attribute and therefore incomprehension would be synonymous with a slight against one's 'humanity'?
PS. Note to Jim: Who were those nasty pomos on the list who 'have illusions about US imperialism'? I really want to know.
PPS. Note to Carl: I think if you're serious about wanting to be done with the interminable 'those pomos' discussions, you ought to speak to those who do a brisk trade in establishing the boundaries of the list (or rather, what a permissible kind of marxism may be) by way of the constant use of 'those pomos'. I'll gladly set aside the effort responding to that this has entailed.
Angela