> Really, do people still do that stuff at colleges? No, honestly, I mean
> are there still people reading Althusser and Foucault? Why not Lysenko, or
> Bergson, while you are at it, or Sabbatai Zevi. If ever there were an
> historical dead end, it would surely be post-structuralism. In all
> seriousness, what worthwhile idea or text did post-structuralism ever put
> before us? The best would have to be Orientalism, and it has long since
> been shown to be historically wrong. Or there is Madness and Civilisation
> (again, wrong, derivative and unscholarly). But even those are painfully
> otiose, and not really worth the effort of mastering the neurotic word
> games that cramp their meaning. Donna Harraway - playful maybe, but not
> one iota of understanding advanced. Levi Strauss? One good story about
> apprentices in a workshop, and for the rest, anal meanderings. Vladimir
> Propp? A funny idea, as a parody of scholarship, but not really worth the
> effort of tabulating all those fairy stories (and di!
> d he even do it, or just make it up?). Does Derrida still have any
> readers, do we remember the creed a' derrida?
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>