The error here--seeing any critique of modernism as "valid"-- is also circulating in other left circles where some postmodern pundits see any attack on globalized culture as progressive. I am growing my beard in rapt anticipation... (not).
This also explains why Nader works with business nationalists such as Buchanan, Milliken, and Schlafly.
Critiques of this idiocy include:
Antonio, Robert. (2000). “After Postmodernism: Reactionary Tribalism.” American Journal of Sociology, vol. 106, no. 1, pp. 40–87.
Rupert, Mark. (1997). “Globalization and the Reconstruction of Common Sense in the US.” In Stephen Gill and James H. Mittelman (Eds.), Innovation and Transformation in International Studies. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Scatamburlo, Valerie L. (1998). Soldiers of Misfortune: The New Right’s Culture War and the Politics of Political Correctness. Counterpoints series, Vol. 25. New York: Peter Lang.
This is why we put up the Sucker Punch pages:
http://www.publiceye.org/Sucker_Punch/Clueless.html
Including a link to Rupert's article at:
http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/maxpages/faculty/merupert/Research/COX.HTM
-Chip
----- Original Message ----- From: "Charles Jannuzi" <jannuzi at edu00.f-edu.fukui-u.ac.jp> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 1:42 AM Subject: Re: National Review on Empire
> >>As Alan Wolfe shows in a
> > devastating review in next week's issue, Hardt and Negri reject the notion
> > that Islamic fundamentalism is backward-looking, arguing instead that,
> like
> > the anti-globalization movement, it is 'postmodern.<<
>
> If I remember correctly from reading the book, they do argue that Islamic,
> Christian and other fundamentalisms are part of the post-modern episteme.
> This idea may well have been around before. I think I may have seen
> something like that in something written by Guattari, too.
>
> So I guess the real reactionaries are the Bushes trying to take America back
> to its modernist core.
>
> Charles Jannuzi
>