4 ms·

I'd say I disagree with almost all of: "(1) an elevation of text and language as the fundamental phenomena of existence, (2) the application of literary analysi

by api 7y ago

I'd say I disagree with almost all of: "(1) an elevation of text and language as the fundamental phenomena of existence, (2) the application of literary analysis to all phenomena, (3) a questioning of reality and representation, (4) a critique of metanarratives, (5) an argument against method and evaluation, (6) a focus upon power relations and hegemony, and (7) a general critique of Western institutions and knowledge (Kuznar 2008:78)". I would say: (1) That's "flat Earth" silly. (2) Also very silly and oddly chauvinist. (3) Not sure how to interpret this. If the claim is that there is metaphysically no objective reality, then all claims are false including the claim that all claims are false. If it's interpreted as an encouragement to question our model of reality, then it's a non-point since that's what all intellectuals and scientists do already. (4) This has merit but is by no means unique to postmodern thought. (5) This is silly. How then can you criticize Western culture? Doesn't that take a method and imply some kind of evaluation? (6) I agree completely, but this is also not unique to postmodern thought. In fact I would argue that challenges to power as a rationale or argument for truth is a central feature of enlightenment thought, which is why virtually all modern progress in social justice was made prior to pomo coming into vogue. The only exception is gay rights, and that was on the inertia of the civil rights movement and using the same narratives and arguments. (7) What were the enlightenment and the Protestant reformation if not major criticisms of central aspects of Western culture by members of that culture? From what I've seen most intellectuals in most cultures primarily criticize their own culture since that's what they know and is what is most relevant to them. If the point instead is to argue that only Western culture can be criticized, that insane. There are two possibilities here: either this is as asinine as it appears, or there are good ideas but they are being communicated very poorly to the point that they are incomprehensible. Both are failure modes for any school of thought. Furthermore I would add that if you follow these sorts of ideas to their logical endpoint you end up a reactionary, not a progressive. The primary argument of the reactionaries is and always has been the futility of human knowledge and reason. It's so obvious that I've even wondered if Derrida et. al. weren't crypto-reactionaries attempting to Trojan horse academia with reactionary metaphysical premises, though this verges dangerously close to oddball conspiracy theory territory. It's more likely that they were either crackpots or were misunderstood by essentially everyone. Maybe something was totally botched in the French-English translation of their ideas and the badly translated version stuck.

AlotOfReading 7y ago
It's a student guide written for other undergrad anthropology students, so we should read it in that light and make affordances for imprecise language and a lack of generality. In that light, what is it describing postmodernism for? Simply put, it's a [set of] frameworks through which to analyze the kinds of things anthropologists work with. This an important because many of the issues you're seeing are the direct result of trying to extrapolate beyond this academic heritage. So from an academic anthropology standpoint: 1. Is definitely not flat earth silly. To give some context, prior to PM in the 70s, anthropologists were doing silly things like measuring the amount of food on the table every day and how many knives were in the cupboard. That's nice quantitative data, but it doesn't really tell you much about culture or human behavior. Thinking of language and text as fundamental aspects of culture and behavior is much better, though I personally have some quibbles with that focus. 2. Specific to anthropology and a bit of academic vogue here. 3. Remember that this is an academic framework for analyzing academic things. In anthropology, sometimes people all see the same physically impossible thing, or see different things despite observing bthe same physical events, etc. To deal with this, sometimes it's useful just to view things as if people are in different realities and observing different things. It's not a claim on the real underlying epistemology. 4. Virtually everything academic from the last 40-50 years has been influenced in some way by post modernism. Bit of a Seinfeld effect here. 5. They have a section later about methodologies of postmodernism. Yes, it's a bit ironic. 6. Same as 4, but you're right that it's not unique. Doesn't have to be. 7. This is specific to academia, which was (and largely still is) made up of very much Western derived institutions. Specifically, this is about things like "maybe the structure of our institutions leads us to certain types of research design and valuing certain types of information over others" and "maybe other ways of organizing academia / research / knowledge might also lead to useful results". It's not to suggest the only target for criticism should be Western institutions, merely that they're not the only way to do things and might be improved. As for whether the ideas of PM are being miscommunicated, sure, I'm open to the idea. But there are also millions of people in academia who do get it. Since we all know academics can be remarkably stupid, it's not an intelligence gap. Maybe it's just something that doesn't make sense without practical experience in the kinds of problems it's designed to help?
- 7y ago

by api 7y ago

AlotOfReading 7y ago

It's a student guide written for other undergrad anthropology students, so we should read it in that light and make affordances for imprecise language and a lack of generality. In that light, what is it describing postmodernism for? Simply put, it's a [set of] frameworks through which to analyze the kinds of things anthropologists work with. This an important because many of the issues you're seeing are the direct result of trying to extrapolate beyond this academic heritage. So from an academic anthropology standpoint: 1. Is definitely not flat earth silly. To give some context, prior to PM in the 70s, anthropologists were doing silly things like measuring the amount of food on the table every day and how many knives were in the cupboard. That's nice quantitative data, but it doesn't really tell you much about culture or human behavior. Thinking of language and text as fundamental aspects of culture and behavior is much better, though I personally have some quibbles with that focus. 2. Specific to anthropology and a bit of academic vogue here. 3. Remember that this is an academic framework for analyzing academic things. In anthropology, sometimes people all see the same physically impossible thing, or see different things despite observing bthe same physical events, etc. To deal with this, sometimes it's useful just to view things as if people are in different realities and observing different things. It's not a claim on the real underlying epistemology. 4. Virtually everything academic from the last 40-50 years has been influenced in some way by post modernism. Bit of a Seinfeld effect here. 5. They have a section later about methodologies of postmodernism. Yes, it's a bit ironic. 6. Same as 4, but you're right that it's not unique. Doesn't have to be. 7. This is specific to academia, which was (and largely still is) made up of very much Western derived institutions. Specifically, this is about things like "maybe the structure of our institutions leads us to certain types of research design and valuing certain types of information over others" and "maybe other ways of organizing academia / research / knowledge might also lead to useful results". It's not to suggest the only target for criticism should be Western institutions, merely that they're not the only way to do things and might be improved. As for whether the ideas of PM are being miscommunicated, sure, I'm open to the idea. But there are also millions of people in academia who do get it. Since we all know academics can be remarkably stupid, it's not an intelligence gap. Maybe it's just something that doesn't make sense without practical experience in the kinds of problems it's designed to help?

7y ago