Here’s the thing. I am a postmodernist. To write it makes it so. Sure, it’s a little late in the game to be marking myself as something– and the (intangible) tenets of postmodernism would likely amass together into a personified being and piss on me for presuming that I am anything but a boob– but there it is. I’ve been called one in the past and, unlike other things I’ve been called, this moniker makes me happy.
So there it is.
Now, it might be a good jumping off point to begin this (my confessions; I’ll get to those in a minute) by outlining where this postmodern identification comes from. Last night, I was reading Rosemarie Tong’s Feminist Thought (3rd ed) and Tong established her reading of postmodern feminism by citing Jane Flax’s rundown of modernist thought. I’d like to do the same (see, postmodernist co-ops other writers!). So here are the main tenets of modernism, as collected by Jane Flax via Rosemarie Tong:
- There is a “stable, coherent self” that can know how and why it thinks the way it does.
- Through its rational powers (reason), the self can gain ‘objective, reliable, and universal knowledge.’
- The knowledge that reason aquires is true; that is, it ‘represent[s] something real and unchanging (universal) about our minds and the structure of the natural world.’
- Reason has ‘transcendental and universal qualities’; that is, somehow reason exists independently of us viewed as historical beings situated in specific times and places.
- Reason, freedom, and autonomy are interconnected in very complex ways. For example, if I am fully free, I will voluntarily obey the laws reason imposes on me. I will not rebel against the laws that bind me and all rational beings.
- Power does not trump reason. On the contrary. Claims to power (authority) are grounded in reason. Therefore, when truth conflicts with power, reason steps in and decides the controversy in favor of truth.
- The exemplar for all true knowledge is science understood as the ‘right use of reason.’ Science is neutral and objective in its methodology, and because this is so, it can utilize the laws of nature for our benefit.
- Language, the tool we use to communicate the knowledge science produces, represents the real world that our rational minds observe. There is an isomorphic correspondence between word and thing. For example, the word ‘dog’ corresponds to the entity, dog. Objects are not constructed by means of words or social conventions. Once perceived by our rational minds, objects are simply acknowledged by us through words.
Tong’s response is a little more useful: “Enlightment (modern) thought as summarized [above] remains the kind of thought that is still operative in most people’s everyday lives. But, as postmodernists see it, most people are living in a state of denial. The ‘Enlightenment world’ is a figment of people’s imagination. There is neither a stable self nor rational powers capable of yielding universal knowledge. Truth is whatever power proclaims it to be. Freedom is the power to do as one pleases, however irrational or nonbeneficial one’s actions may be judged. Science is no more objective than politics or ethics, both of which are subjective, contextual, historical, contingent, and almost always deployed to serve self-interest. And language does not represent reality, because there is no reality for it signify. On the contrary, language constructs reality– a reality that depends on words for its existence” (273-4).
So there it is.
Actually, I’ll add this: Take a look at “All Hail The Aporia,” a long rambling post I published in April of 2008 over on my mirror site. (I’m going to move it over here soon…) Both Tong’s clarification of modern v. postmodern thought and my ramblings should give enough evidence of my membership in the club. Let’s move on.
Confessions
For almost a year now, I’ve been dreaming of this. Looking back through my past marginalia, I am struck by something very shocking: Most of my commentary– furious and deeply engaged at the time– lacks context to unlock the state of my mind amidst the drink of others’ ideas. Sure a “Bingo!” here and a “Yar!” there speak mostly excitement– and by rereading, I can recapture the furor and remind myself of what first sparked my interest. But is that enough? Not anymore, really. It has to be more if I’m going to make a project of my life and work.
So, for a while now I’ve been meaning to catalog my reading experiences in a more effective and restorative way. The idea is this: I read, I mark scribble engage the text(s) as I have always done. Then, I go back and pull out the ideas and comments and ‘make sense of them’ in a narrative way. As such, not only will I better retain the information in the now, but I will leave legible marks for future recall or edible crumbs for like-minded freaks who stumble into my aporia.
Here it is then. As a subset of posts to my main digs, this area will be my well of ideas and interactions with others’ ideas. Enjoy.
—
Tong, Rosemarie. Feminist Thought: A More Comprehensive Introduction. 3rd Edition. Boulder: Westview, 2009.
