Chip:
>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).
>>Jannuzi:
>> >>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.
Haven't read Empire yet and I'm not sure what is meant by postmodern here, but yeah, it's wrong to see any critique of modernism or any attack on globalized culture as progressive. Seems to be sort of a "my enemy's enemy is my friend" take on things. Like the modernist U.S. government sponsoring the "postmodern" fundamentalist guerrillas to take on the modernist Soviet Union in Afganistan, no? I wouldn't be surprised to see Alan Wolfe setting up a staw person here, though. The fact that Wolfe and the New Republic are attacking Empire provides new impetus to rush out and buy it.
Peter