[lbo-talk] Terry Eagleton and the Gospels

[C. G. Estabrook]

Assuming it's "After Theory" we're talking about, I'd suggest it's quite 
worth a look.  It's a survey of cultural studies (and "theory," of 
course) in the last half of the 20th century, in an explicitly political 
context.  It's an intervention in the philosophical/literary/political 
debate that I understand this list originally set out to join with 
reflection on economics.  (At least, that's what I subscribed for.) It 
bears comparison with Perry Anderson's "Postmodernism" and Jameson's 
discussion (both of which are quoted).  --CGE

Jeffrey Fisher wrote:
> On 12/22/07, Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Jeffrey Fisher wrote:
>>> On 12/22/07, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Dec 22, 2007, at 1:58 PM, Jeffrey Fisher wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> the straw men he knocked down in that book,
>>>>> particularly wrt postmodernism
>>>> Yeah, and there was that whole book on postmodernism in which he - by
>>>> design! - didn't quote a single text. It was all about an ethos, you
>>>> see.
>>>>
>>> Heh. Say what you want about postmodernists, but we are always quoting
>>> texts. lol. :)
>> I haven't read the book, but as Doug describes it, Eagleton was correct
>> not to quote texts, because there are no "postmodern texts" to quote.
>> There are structuralist texts. There are deconstructive texts. There are
>> dialogical texts. There are . . . . texts, but they are all postmodern
>> texts, includding Doug's text, Jeffrey's text, and the text I am writing
>> now. Postmodern describes the ethos (AND the counter-ethos) of the
>> period.
> 
> 
> 
> i haven't read the book, either, so i'll stop with saying that postmodernism
> as a position and the postmodern as the period (both of which involve a
> variety of not-always-compatible positionalities) are different things, but
> that doesn't let one of the hook for pointing to whatever it is one is
> talking about. if it's an ethos, that's fine, but it helps to talk about
> specific examples instead of some "thing" floating around in the air.
> otherwise, it's a little bit like saying the era is an era of terrorism, but
> we're not going to talk about specific terrorist groups or acts, because
> they are so diverse, but instead talk about terrorism, which is a coherent,
> cohesive ethos independently of any specific examples of terrorism or
> terrorist groups. that doesn't seem very helpful or very intellectually
> responsible.
> 
> personally, i've found kevin hart's _postmodernism_ very good on just this
> point, and i've used it for teaching.
> 
> ymmv.
> 
> 
> 
> j
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk