17-May-91 15:23:25-GMT,1462;000000000001 Received: from porthos.rutgers.edu by klinzhai.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA18800; Fri, 17 May 91 11:23:24 EDT Received: by porthos.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA23443; Fri, 17 May 91 11:23:23 EDT Resent-Message-Id: <9105171523.AA23443@porthos.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA16357; Thu, 16 May 91 18:39:22 EDT Message-Id: <9105162239.AA16357@aramis.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with BSMTP id 4386; Thu, 16 May 91 18:37:48 EDT Received: from NCSUVM.BITNET by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 4751; Thu, 16 May 91 18:37:44 EDT Date: Thu, 16 May 91 18:35:35 EDT Reply-To: PMC-Talk Sender: PMC-Talk From: Editors of PMC Subject: Course in Everyday life To: Multiple recipients of list PMC-TALK Resent-To: mcgrew@klinzhai.rutgers.edu Resent-Date: Fri, 17 May 91 11:23:22 EDT Resent-From: Charles Mcgrew Date: Wed, 15 May 91 21:47 EDT From: Subject: RE: Course in Postmodernism Re: Aesthetics of Everyday Life. My course was recently written up in the Chronicle of Higher Education (April 12, 1991, A15,16) If you like what you see I'd be pleased to E-mail the syllabus-- it runs about 25 pages--and student topics. BKG 17-May-91 15:23:33-GMT,4228;000000000001 Received: from porthos.rutgers.edu by klinzhai.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA18806; Fri, 17 May 91 11:23:32 EDT Received: by porthos.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA23448; Fri, 17 May 91 11:23:30 EDT Resent-Message-Id: <9105171523.AA23448@porthos.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA16573; Thu, 16 May 91 18:42:04 EDT Message-Id: <9105162242.AA16573@aramis.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with BSMTP id 4388; Thu, 16 May 91 18:40:28 EDT Received: from NCSUVM.BITNET by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 4809; Thu, 16 May 91 18:40:20 EDT Date: Thu, 16 May 91 18:36:40 EDT Reply-To: PMC-Talk Sender: PMC-Talk From: Editors of PMC Subject: Art? To: Multiple recipients of list PMC-TALK Resent-To: mcgrew@klinzhai.rutgers.edu Resent-Date: Fri, 17 May 91 11:23:30 EDT Resent-From: Charles Mcgrew Date: Thu, 16 May 91 05:10:04 EDT From: Eliot Handelman Subject: Art!? >Date: Tue, 14 May 91 02:54 PDT >From: Jack Kolb >Subject: Misc. > > Literature and the other arts have always seemed >to me a means to enhance our petty existence. > With regard to >science/literature, I'll take science anytime. Jack Kolb now wants to know how I "define art," probably because I didn't accept someone's rendering of things Paglia wanted to bring to our attention (Elvis, Our Notorious Violence) as "the ceaseless production of art." So clearly I must think that some things are art and other things aren't. I'm not sure that my point came across. What I meant to say was "oh no, let's not start with annointments again." Why does Elvis have to be called "art"? Why isn't "Elvis" good enough? Why can't you just say, "yeah, Ginsburg is not so bad," why suddenly is this "art"? Here're some thoughts. It's not that I want to reserve the word "art" for privileged objects and activities, just rather that the word "art" is a stigmata, a type of social degeneracy, a failure to meet basic conditions of our economy, recourse into an ideology whose time has come, that we seem to be receding from forever. I'm saying: "good riddance." I don't remember what my point was when I prononounced postmodernism dead. I think it had something to do with a rash of postings about "mail art," and I got fed up. I don't want to do art here, I want to make the whole concept of art completely unacceptable. I want to think what will happen when we finally get rid of art. I don't have a simple answer to that, though I have some ideas. En bref, it is this: if there is anything to the enterprise of art, then I want its justification now. That which Kolb for instance gives, in his first quote above, is completely inadequate, is not even an adequate, though perhaps realistic, justification for watching TV. We want, somewhere deep down, to CORRECT our petty existences, and maybe Kolb sees something like that correction immanent in the enterprise of science. Art, similiarly, must be a means not of enhancement but of correction -- this is what I think Taruskin is saying in this bit, from the Times last Sunday: "I cannot help seeing a connection between the complaceny of of artists and art lovers who ignore or condemn all questions of social value and the debased role art now plays at the margins of our culture." There's a job of adequation lying ahead, otherwise art rots, but it's already rotted. This adequation can only come, I think, in appropriations and convolutions of power: science, as Ronell recently said, played out in the field of science fiction, music as neurotechnology, art as high fashion. This as that and everything that it's not, only never again l'art pour l'art. This is why I think the term "art" is abusive, because it tries to do service to an appropriation of power -- in this case, some notions of history that we've come to distrust -- that is clearly defunct, inoperative. Pushing up daisies. --eliot 20-May-91 17:09:20-GMT,8669;000000000001 Received: from porthos.rutgers.edu by klinzhai.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA04447; Mon, 20 May 91 13:09:19 EDT Received: by porthos.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA05853; Mon, 20 May 91 13:09:17 EDT Resent-Message-Id: <9105201709.AA05853@porthos.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA13925; Sat, 18 May 91 13:22:16 EDT Message-Id: <9105181722.AA13925@aramis.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with BSMTP id 6355; Sat, 18 May 91 13:21:10 EDT Received: from NCSUVM.BITNET by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 0028; Sat, 18 May 91 13:21:05 EDT Date: Sat, 18 May 91 13:17:50 EDT Reply-To: PMC-Talk Sender: PMC-Talk From: Editors of PMC Subject: Art? To: Multiple recipients of list PMC-TALK Resent-To: mcgrew@klinzhai.rutgers.edu Resent-Date: Mon, 20 May 91 13:09:16 EDT Resent-From: Charles Mcgrew 1) Advice for EH (Kessler) 2) postArtism (Chris Headington) 1)-------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 16 May 91 18:02 PDT From: KESSLER Subject: "art" and the Arts Dear EH: Shakespeare says in one of his sonnets, "Beauty, whose action is no stronger than a flower." Art has something to do with Beauty. Beauty can have something to do with music as neurophysiology, but the aspect of it that is art is what we are talking about. The term that you are trying to dispose of, Art, is just a word you happen to think is tied in with people whom you seem to hate intensely. God forbid it should be tied in with those who make the forms that you apprehend when you comprehend art. But, science fiction only? Are you serious ? The world of writing is far more interesting than only that subsection of the art of writing prose. You probably would dislike anything to do with Beauty as a term for contemporary use(fulness). Pity, if so. You are of course talking like a person who has only got the negative drift of Plato in THE REPUBLIC, and wants to run out and kill, with the mob, Cinna the poet for his bad verses, as in Julis Caesar. Dont be so upset with Paglia. Her article was rather idiotic too. Better you should read the poets, listen to the musicians, look at the artifacts of painting and sculpture, furniture and clothing, cars and jars, and not worry about the sales at Sotheby's (which has just posted a loss in revenue). Definitions are not important, except as terms for discussion among critics. better to listen and attend the makers. The makers. The makers. Forget the professors and the critics for a while. And Paglia too, whose name means "straw." Kessler 2)-------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 17 May 91 17:14:55 CDT From: "Corporeal (if nothing else)" Subject: Eliot's Harangue Actually, Eliot, you were referring to the "mewish analyses of the Gulf War" when you originally pronounced postmodernism dead and in the cold, cold ground, so I apologize for mislinking issues, at least superficially; however, the criticisms were very much akin in that you've been antagonizing l'art for some time, and it seemed that you were after these analyses in much the same way. Some questions, though: are the "arts" (whose arts? which arts? Paglia's? Kessler's? Princeton's Music Department's?) really so keen on self-assassination (posting of Nov. 12, 1990)? It seems plenty of them --perhaps not the ones embracing the grandiose scale of tradition in the University Presses (cf. Ronald Wallace's anthology _Vital Signs_ in terms of poesy), perhaps -- are making issues of what those (ideological) "de facto determinants of reality" could possibly be. On the other hand, you also assert that "Art wants to control", which would seem to imply a desire by Art to appear translucent in its functionality (your attack, oh these many long months ago, on "fun" in the left) while at the same time insidiously inserting itself at a special autonomous level outside of the economy (or attempting to, one can certainly run a decon program here) and the political systems. If this is the role Art sees for itself, whether it appeals to historical or to natural models, than, sure, hell, I agree, what's the point? Jamais l'art pour l'art. After all, we're all gonna die anyway, as Speed Metal Thrash will cheeringly remind us. On the other hand, _where_ is this being argued? You cited two shows, one in Italy and one in Germany, both dealing with aesthetic fascism, and equated them with postmodernism (or, to be fair, trying to demonstrate how it's inappropriate to equate postmodernism with the left ("It's about ideological failure.")). I was off the continent for these shows, sadly, and my LearJet was on the fritz, so I don't know how they were presented: naively? apologetically? with reverence for the dead? May I assume that you yourself see the appearances of an "open{ing} up {of} a dialog with conservatism and extreme rightism" as a bad, icky, evil, unpleasant sort of thing? Thus, as far as Art goes, its current postmodern manifestation, with a dialog emerging between itself and watercolors whose only significance (at least seemingly) are the notoriety of the nominal associations, results in the justification to murder Art entirely, and get on with it, do something else, etc. In the American case, where (at least seemingly) academia doesn't seem to be listening to the dialog which might be going on but rather trying to employ the terms of Art as an excuse for the idolatry of the mass object, innocently celebrates this insidiousness which, celebrated in Florence, becomes directly associated with Fascism (how this connection is made, Eliot, is not clear from any of your previous posts, and I have gone back aways...) In the American case, the admiration for preliteracy is as old as the overarching neurosis tied to that tiny but overpopulated Indo-European continent whence "we" (at least seemingly) came. It's an effective rhetorical tool whereby one can speak the true path of the nation and its violent origins in a pure bestial language and is a sure-fire way to open up that sanctified region (a la Paglia) where no academic intellectual has yet gone. On the other hand, Emerson's Poet is also an American Scholar, and wanders in the right arenas if only to be so utterly sickened by the hypocrisy that the only possible result is communion with nature. This attitude expresses nothing but disdain for the masses, the cows and sheep, the willing followers, the "they", etc., while joining together in a common tongue the paranoid understanding that they're on to the truth, alone, quietly. Celebrating the obvious. Thus, if the art lovers happily bemuse themselves in galleries, museums, and libraries (note that some of the most well-known Great Artistic Geniuses (GAGs), such as Whitman, Williams, and Smithson, have already shoveled out enough manure on these vestiges of higher living to make that part nothing new), "Art" remains happily, unobtrusively, "on the margins", except in its own eyes. To speak to specific claims, I'm not so certain that giving Art its proper memorial service isn't the worst thing in the world, except that, given its historical concretization, I don't think there's a damn thing in the world that could be accomplished. It's an institution, and artists check in, but they can't check out. As far as correction of petty existences, reauraticization may work, and so may LSD. Whatever gets your critical dandruff up. Please be clear on one thing: I'm not trying, in any way, shape, or form, to bring back the "is (post)modernism distinctly left or distinctly right in its political orientation" (please, Kessler, please) discussion where some of these discussions first took place. I'm very interested in your ideas about postArtism . You seem to be laboriously arguing against anything, calling itself Art, which (in the guise of e.g. fun) would leave the door open for complacency to sneak in and tie everyone to their comfy chairs. I worry, however, that detournement's capacities as a direct neurostimulating device are too easily purchased by the "corporate superego" of the culture industry (yr terms, or Adorno/Horkheimer's), resulting not so much in the aggressive anti-Art stimulus as in yet another product, violent and dangerous, but with the sharp pointy end aiming in the direction away from the emptor. 20-May-91 17:18:20-GMT,17476;000000000001 Received: from porthos.rutgers.edu by klinzhai.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA04519; Mon, 20 May 91 13:18:18 EDT Received: by porthos.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA05911; Mon, 20 May 91 13:18:16 EDT Resent-Message-Id: <9105201718.AA05911@porthos.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA14105; Sat, 18 May 91 13:26:55 EDT Message-Id: <9105181726.AA14105@aramis.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with BSMTP id 6357; Sat, 18 May 91 13:25:17 EDT Received: from NCSUVM.BITNET by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 0128; Sat, 18 May 91 13:24:53 EDT Date: Sat, 18 May 91 13:19:46 EDT Reply-To: PMC-Talk Sender: PMC-Talk From: Editors of PMC Subject: Text of Beat the Devil To: Multiple recipients of list PMC-TALK Resent-To: mcgrew@klinzhai.rutgers.edu Resent-Date: Mon, 20 May 91 13:18:15 EDT Resent-From: Charles Mcgrew Sender: rfrancis@milton.u.washington.edu Subject: Cockburn on PC (Nation 5-27-91) Date: Fri, 17 May 91 13:44:09 PDT What follows is the complete text from Alexander Cockburn's column "Beat the Devil" from _The Nation_, May 27, 1991. I think it is one of the best short pieces on PC (political correctness). Note that Cockburn was himself attacked because he didn't hold the "politically correct" views, and may be said to [have] a wider understanding of both sides. ____________________________________________________ ALEXANDER COCKBURN, "BEAT THE DEVIL," _THE NATION_, MAY 27, 1991 *Bush & P.C.--A Conspiracy So Immense . . .* Earlier on that alarming day, May 4, that his heart started to beat faster, President Bush visited the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor to give a commencement address and to attack "the notion of political correctness." Said notion, he explained, "declares certain topics off-limits, certain expressions off- limits." And "although the movement arises from the laudable desire to sweep away the debris of racism and sexism and hatred," it had led to intolerance. The man who campaigned on race hate in 1988 had the impudence to declare that "political extremists roam the land, abusing the privilege of free speech, setting citizens against one another on the basis of their class and race." With the presidential imprimatur, "political correctness" has come of age as a national bogy, following prolonged apprenticeship in the press with cover stories in _Newsweek_, _The Atlantic Monthly_, _New York_, plus fulsome accounts in _Time_, _Fortune_, _The New York Times_ and _The Wall Street Journal_--the last of these give P.C. the attention it once reserved for the snail darter, the RICO law and yellow rain. Not a bad showing for something that is largely imaginary, though in the minds of its foes it is all-pervasive, like that other exhalation of _fin de siecle_ American paranoia, child abuse in day-care schools. And indeed the uproar over P.C. and the destructive mania about "ritual abuse" and child abuse in day car (the subject of an excellent PBS _Frontline_ documentary on May 7) address similar terrors, about the theft of innocence, the intrusion of alien molesters into the natural rhythms of an American upbringing. The Satanists who coaxed children onto broomsticks and thence by rapid aerial locomotion to a lonely cemetery and unspeakable acts become, amongst the P.C. cohort, the heirs and assigns of St. Just or the Red Guards, tossing the Great Books of ancient wisdom on the pyres of the new intolerance. The same day that Bush spoke at Ann Arbor, I visited "The West As America" exhibition at the National Museum of American Art, part of the Smithsonian Institution in Washington. Billed as a reinterpretation of images of the frontier, 1820-1920, it was fairly decorous attempt to gloss the paintings and photographs of Bierstadt, Remington, Moran, Jackson and the others with commentary derived from the historical and moral concerns that got such a useful shove forward in the 1960s. Paragraphs adjacent to the images invited people to conceive of a march to the West more compromised than the art suggested. Some of these were a mite preachy, in the P.C. manner--the term "politically correct," after all, got its start among the left as a joke on those who took commitment to the far edge of self- righteousness--but the intent was good. At the end was a book available for visitors to inscribe their opinions. This was thick with recriminations and applause. "Where are the 'Buffalo Soldiers'? Again blacks have been left out," one entry ran. "A relentless sermon of condescension," wrote Simon Schama. "How very politically correct," another scrawled. One of the longer entries concluded, "I didn't need to be told that these pictures were propaganda. Fooey! I'm happy with the myth. I cried like a baby at Dancing with Wolves. I know the scholars and curators would have poo-pooed my red eyes. My great grandfather was a sheriff in Kansas in 1874." Thus did the battle rage about the propriety of pointing out in an exhibition at the Smithsonian in 1991 that the opening of the West involved the genocide of native peoples, and that painters and photographers were complicit in this genocide. The will to retain a useful historical amnesia lies at the heart of the fury about P.C. *Dangerous Diversions* My colleague Andrew Cohen recently navigated the great torrent of P.C. hysteria and proposed what follows as its core concerns. Much of the press has located the clearest representation of the P.C. impulse in restrictive speech codes imposed by colleges--inhibitions on students from speaking their minds freely, as the young love to do and as some fraternity "Crows" at Syracuse University recently demonstrated by wearing T-shirts with the words "Club Faggots Not Seals" and a cartoon of a crow wielding a spiked club above a prone and faceless figure. In February of this year Brown University expelled a student, Douglas Hann, under "hate speech" provisions after he shouted, "Fucking niggers . . . What are you, a faggot? . . . Fucking Jew"; he told a black woman, "My parents own your people," and had to be restrained from provoking a fight. Many universities have such "hate speech" codes, among them Stanford and Wisconsin, the latter of which had experienced a rash of racist incidents including a "slave auction." Foes of P.C. who see its adepts as being oversensitive to the ethnohustle of today's campuses skim over the actual violence there. In December 1987 some Asian-American women at the University of Connecticut were spat upon by football players shouting "Oriental Faggots." At the University of Massachusetts in 1986 a white mob of 3,000 chased and beat anyone in its path who happened to be black. The National Institute Against Prejudice and Violence reported racial incidents at 115 campuses in 1989, and its updates continue to catalogue abuses. Articles on restrictive speech codes mostly misconstrue these as the aim of the "politically correct." But as Jonathan Yardley noted in The Washington Post, "Universities are scared of lawsuits and demonstrations initiated by minority groups." A University of Maryland official explaining why the school tried to ban display of the American flag said, "We have a big population to be sensitive to. The university does not want our public spaces to show people's opinion." The P.C. barrage has also elided important initiatives from the story of campus sex and race relations. Wisconsin's speech codes and ethnic studies requirements have been mentioned frequently in the press, but the "Madison plan," significant because it budgets $4.7 million to double minority faculty and otherwise diversify at the fourth-largest school in the country, is mostly unnoticed. Dinesh D'Souza, the Ahab of the P.C. hunt, has attacked Duke University's "opportunities appointments" program, which mandates searches for qualified minority faculty by every academic department. He calls it "the victim' revolution," astounded at the discovery that this is what revolution used to be before Reaganites appropriated the word. Hampshire, Purdue and Williams have similar recruitment programs--attempts to create a critical mass of minority scholars who need not feel threatened or turned into tokens or obliged in some silly fashion to represent the "viewpoint" of their race. Bulking large in the bill of indictment against P.C. is the claim that it undermines "qualifications." An article by D'Souza in _The New Republic_ was interchangeable with the National Association of Scholars advertisement appearing on the opposite page. Both deplored "the admission of seriously underprepared students" to universities, conflating affirmative-action candidates with these same "seriously underprepared" at every turn. Conclusion: P.C. is out to undermine every measure of excellence, thus ushering in dreaded "relativism" and hence the downfall of all we hold dear. Shackled to "relativism" in the P.C. case file is "multiculturalism," honored in _The New Republic_ as "one of the most destructive and demeaning orthodoxies of our time." "Multiculturalism" here means race essentialism. Any reasonable person would object to essentialist doctrines, which propose race as the primary determinant of human behavior, but it is grotesque to see the demand for proportional hiring of minorities and curricular diversity as a "dogma of race and of a revolution." (On this note, at one point last year my brother Patrick was confabulating with a _New York Times_ reporter in the coffee shop of the Al-Rashid Hotel in Baghdad. The Times man commenced by denouncing Saddam Hussein at such a volume that Patrick squinted round nervously to see if any Iraqi security types were lurking nearby. This outburst concluded, the man leaned across the table and, after a furtive glance around, began to discuss ethnic hiring patterns at the _Times_ in a voice so low that Patrick could barely make out what he was saying over the clatter of coffee cups--something about the paper's editorial staff being now about 70 percent Jewish). My colleague Cohen reckons that the diversification of the academy has ushered in a long-postponed conflict between the explaining and the explained classes, with the P.C. conflict as part of the fallout. On _This Week With David Brinkley_ on May 5, for example, Stephan Thernstrom, a Harvard professor of history and an "expert" on poverty, related "political correctness" to what he decorously termed the "minority mismatch problem," a "degree of frustration on the part of many minority students who have been placed through affirmative action in institutions where they're not doing very well on average." What kind of atmosphere does it create in the classroom when a professor believes that minorities are "mismatched" to higher education? What sort of conflicts ensue when a culture-of- poverty adherent faces a classroom with people whose lived experience contradicts his expertise? As Professor Adolph Reed remarked, "You can't just pick out the narratives of people in charge and call it American history anymore." "The final charge of the new P.C. hysterics involves "politicization," what _The New Republic_ calls the distraction of "the university from its central task of open-ended disinterested inquiry." In accurate translation this means fashioning of minds sufficiently deadened to reason and history to allow the capitalist project to reproduce itself from generation to generation. This is the silliest part of the whole uproar. Part of the cry of "politicization" stems from the notion that there has been a slash-and-burn assault on core courses in Western civilization, allowing ideological critiques and non-Western canons to sprout and multiply. But Education Department figures show that from 1972 to '84 only about 20 percent of college students elected to take Western civilization courses in the first place. Amid the most vocal P.C. alarmists, such as those steering the National Association of Scholars, are as firmly lodged in academia as the sphinx next to the Great Pyramid, though this particular sphinx's right haunch did fall off a few years ago, which may be a hopeful augury. Academia is diversifying, albeit it at a glacial pace when it comes to faculty. In the early '60s ten of the top history departments in the country had 160 professors, all of them men, and 128 assistant professors, four of them women. Ten years later there were 272 professors, two of them women, and 317 assistants, 314 men. By the mid-1980s, 11.7 percent of all full professors in the country were women. Only 2.2 percent were black. So "glacial" is the word. *P.C./D.C. in Portland* The final twitch of P.C. %grand peur% has to do with the age-old fear of antinomian beastliness, lesbians holding deconstructionist black masses over copies of Derrida and so forth. This brings us back to the other big fear, about molestation of infants in day-care centers. A year ago I experienced an odd conflation of the two fears, having been invited to speak at Reed College on prospects for student action in the 1990s. The left in Portland tends to our definition of the P.C. side of the ledger, and not long before the date of my speech I got a call from one of the event's organizers saying there was an uproar about my analysis in these pages ["Beat the Devil," February 12, 1990] of the day-care hysteria that had landed several innocents in prison for child abuse for long periods. (The _Frontline_ program expounds the torments of some of these poor teachers in compelling detail, as they face an upcoming trial.) I was told that I had been insufficiently sensitive to "the reality of ritual abuse," which was certainly true since, re day care, I denied its existence. So the Reed folk said I could no longer make a speech, though I could partake in a panel in which I would face my accusers and be given a chance to defend myself. This sounded a bit like Dionysus inviting King Pentheus for a jolly picnic, so I declined. I did end up in Portland that weekend and found what it was like to be deemed politically incorrect. Even an invitation to sit on a panel discussing the victory of UNO in the Nicaraguan elections, which had occurred only days earlier, was countermanded by David Linder and associates "because of the controversy." As in other scares, P.C. becomes shorthand for many anxieties. We are nearing the point in the cyclical pattern of academic appointments at which some one-third of American professors will retire. Many of these, themselves tenured in the chill of the 1950s, see their values threatened by the younger cohort moving up in seniority. What could be simpler therefor than to detect and denounce the insidious menace of P.C. just as their forebears denounced the Red Menace forty years ago? And the P.C. horror is good soundbite politics, conflating every left cause imaginable, from Palestinian self-determination to vegetable rights, and justifying counterterror by the academic right, whose members have launched their own echo of the Vendee, swarming through the bookstore at Duke, calling for the removal of books with Marx in the title. There's an element of career opportunism involved too. Amid the %grand peur% all the usual suspects muster on the talk shows and Op-Ed pages--William Bennett, Roger Kimball, Donald Kagan. The younger right-wing high steppers, looking for preferment at the Heritage Foundation or on the editorial pages of _The Wall Street Journal_, lack issues. Communism is pretty much dead, and supply-side economics a shambles. The answer, as more than one high stepper like D'Souza has found, is race. So the enemies of P.C. can whack away at affirmative action, racial justice and civil rights while claiming as the President did last Saturday that they are speaking in the name of tolerance and free speech. Race, the core of all this fuss, is no doubt why George Bush, on the edge of his 1992 campaign, has turned his attention to P.C., with Willie Horton's equivalent in '92 being "extremists" eroding Western values with their multiculturalism and contempt for Great Books (though Brendan Gill was once at Bush's place in Kennebunkport and, insomniac, tried to find something to read, discovering after investigation of the entire mansion only _The Fart Book_). Who knows, perhaps the imminence of the fifth centenary of Columbus's voyage will continue to promote the anxieties so apparent in that comment book at "The West As America" exhibition. "Good grief! What should be celebrated here are the great achievements and collective glory that spurred the settlement of the West. The paintings tell this story. The commentary is forced and has no relation to the paintings. Merely a polemical tool for those who wish to stir dissension and hate. American art should never be a handmaiden to political propaganda." And near to this, "Columbus' vision of genocide continues today. P.S. Custer had it coming to him. Free Leonard Peltier!" [Editor's note: a copy of the preceding essay is being added to PMC-Talk's filelist as COCKBURN 05/27/91] 20-May-91 17:21:37-GMT,3042;000000000001 Received: from porthos.rutgers.edu by klinzhai.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA04552; Mon, 20 May 91 13:21:36 EDT Received: by porthos.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA06007; Mon, 20 May 91 13:21:33 EDT Resent-Message-Id: <9105201721.AA06007@porthos.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA24308; Sat, 18 May 91 16:04:59 EDT Message-Id: <9105182004.AA24308@aramis.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with BSMTP id 6413; Sat, 18 May 91 16:03:30 EDT Received: from NCSUVM.BITNET by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 0818; Sat, 18 May 91 16:03:24 EDT Date: Sat, 18 May 91 16:00:26 EDT Reply-To: PMC-Talk Sender: PMC-Talk From: Editors of PMC Subject: On-line Conference To: Multiple recipients of list PMC-TALK Resent-To: mcgrew@klinzhai.rutgers.edu Resent-Date: Mon, 20 May 91 13:21:30 EDT Resent-From: Charles Mcgrew 1) Timing of conference (Robert Beckett) 2) Getting the book (Tamsin Lorraine) 3) Rescheduling the conference (Eds.) 1)------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 17 May 91 09:32:52 CDT From: "Robert D. Beckett" Subject: Re: Buxton conference Your conference came at the same time as term papers and final exams. The topic sounds interesting, and I wish I had sought out the book, read it, and sent a comment--but the timing was unfortunate. Perhaps another time. -- Robert D. Beckett 2)-------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 17 May 91 18:52 EST From: Subject: Buxton Yes, remember, I live in Orlando, Florida now, not exactly the cultural capital of the U.S.A. It would take me more than two weeks to get ahold of something like Buxton's "From the Avengers to Miami Vice" It sounds very interesting. Maybe when I get up to Massachusetts for the summer? But then, I won't be hooked up to my normal VAX account. So....... Publisher information would be helpful (i.e., ordering information). I think it's a great idea! Tamsin Lorraine Rollins College Orlando, Fl ........That's right--Disney World!!!!! 3)-------------------------------------------------------------- Editor's note: Let's try to reschedule the on-line conference for a month from now (the third week in June). For those who still need to track down a copy of the book, it is David Buxton, _From The Avengers to Miami Vice: form and ideology in television series_ (New York: Manchester UP, 1990). Library of Congress catologing data: ISBN 0 7190 2994 5 (paperback) 0 7190 2993 7 (hardback PN1992.8.S4B89 1990 791.45'75-dc20 89-36672 British Library cataloging data: 302.2'345'0941 U.S. distribution of this book is handled by St. Martin's Press, 175 Fifth Ave., New York, NY 10010. 21-May-91 16:49:48-GMT,3089;000000000001 Received: from porthos.rutgers.edu by klinzhai.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA13116; Tue, 21 May 91 12:49:47 EDT Received: by porthos.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA21602; Tue, 21 May 91 12:49:45 EDT Resent-Message-Id: <9105211649.AA21602@porthos.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA28399; Mon, 20 May 91 15:24:59 EDT Message-Id: <9105201924.AA28399@aramis.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with BSMTP id 8064; Mon, 20 May 91 15:22:52 EDT Received: from NCSUVM.BITNET by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 2664; Mon, 20 May 91 15:22:48 EDT Date: Mon, 20 May 91 15:21:07 EDT Reply-To: PMC-Talk Sender: PMC-Talk From: Editors of PMC Subject: Course in Postmodernism To: Multiple recipients of list PMC-TALK Resent-To: mcgrew@klinzhai.rutgers.edu Resent-Date: Tue, 21 May 91 12:49:44 EDT Resent-From: Charles Mcgrew 1) Response to BKG re: "live material" (Jack Kolb) 2) Response to P. Davies re: "Can postmodernism be taught?" (Jack Kolb) 3) Response to Bob O'Hara re: postmodernism & science (Jack Kolb) 1)-------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 18 May 91 06:56 PDT From: Jack Kolb Subject: Course in Postmodernism I'm sorry, Barbara: I don't understand what you mean by "live material." Certainly my purpose in my modest, oldfashioned teaching is to get young Southern Californians to question their values--at least that's part of my purpose. Jack. 2)-------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 18 May 91 07:00 PDT From: Jack Kolb Subject: Course in Postmodernism > Date: Wed, 15 May 91 > Subject: Course in Postmodernism > 2) Can postmodernism be taught? (P. Davies) Mr. Davies, if this represents your pedagogical principles, why are you in the classroom at all? You should be outside, agitating against the entire structur e of "formal" education. And no one should be paying your salary. 3)-------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 18 May 91 07:23 PDT From: Jack Kolb Subject: Course in Postmodernism > Date: Wed, 15 May 91 > Subject: Course in Postmodernism > 3) Postmodernism & Science (Robert O'Hara) I'm a great admirer of Durrell too, Bob. But he would grant that science is an approximation of a quotidian reality--probably ultimately beyond human ken, but one that we face daily. Heisenberg's theories don't make a damn bit of difference, as modernists like Joyce recognized, in daily living. Or dying. Too readily these days subatomic flux become metaphoric excuse for laziness, the easy abandonment of any set of values. The universe indeed seems to have little to say to life, or humankind: hence we are on our own. 21-May-91 16:50:03-GMT,6598;000000000001 Received: from porthos.rutgers.edu by klinzhai.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA13125; Tue, 21 May 91 12:50:02 EDT Received: by porthos.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA21609; Tue, 21 May 91 12:49:59 EDT Resent-Message-Id: <9105211649.AA21609@porthos.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA00505; Mon, 20 May 91 15:37:41 EDT Message-Id: <9105201937.AA00505@aramis.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with BSMTP id 8093; Mon, 20 May 91 15:35:06 EDT Received: from NCSUVM.BITNET by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 3028; Mon, 20 May 91 15:34:52 EDT Date: Mon, 20 May 91 15:22:06 EDT Reply-To: PMC-Talk Sender: PMC-Talk From: Editors of PMC Subject: Cockburn's Column To: Multiple recipients of list PMC-TALK Resent-To: mcgrew@klinzhai.rutgers.edu Resent-Date: Tue, 21 May 91 12:49:58 EDT Resent-From: Charles Mcgrew 1) Cockburn (Kessler) 2) Cockburn (Jack Kolb) 1)-------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 18 May 91 16:59 PDT From: KESSLER Subject: Cockburn Dear PMC'ers: 1) I have spent what amounts to a year or two, over 17 years in countries like Hungary and Bulgaria (and published several prizewinning books of translations of Hungarian fiction and poetry) since 1974. I should like to point out to all our naive friends whose "project" is the Socialist project, that they had better remember some points: No one I ever met in those countries, and Bulgaria was tight tight tight, had anything but contempt for American Leftists, such as our Academy's naifs. Fools who believed the socialist project as it existed in all the countries of the Socialist camp, including China today, was anything but a gulag, terror-ridden, and utterly unfree, including Hungary! unfree to think, to speak, to protest, to vote, to hope, to struggle for social justice. I am talking about leaders and Communists, too. You have to recall that the Socialist, so-named, under Stalin called Social Democrats, who have an honorable history going back to LaSalle (who opposed Marx), were denounced as "objectively: Fascists." The principle of Leninism, extended with the logic of paranoia by Stalin was and remains, and is practiced by the politically correct (horrid term, correct according to whom, Navasky? Cockburn?), is and I see it at work in this generation of academicals, Who is not with us, is against us. The tactic that Red and Nazi terror propaganda always used, from the beginning was, They are hysterically attacking us progressives! the sky is falling on liberty! Pure jeering and mindless conformity, as is revealed in so slight a term of Cockburn's as the trendy "capitalist project." Which has an inbuilt connotation of scheme, plan, directed organization, etc. As if capitalists had wits and brains! But the Left is full of busy wits and brains, and there is indeed a socialist project. Anyway, Cockburn knows nothing about the Academy: he is a great polemicist and syndicated janissary for the bitter liars who are left with the shreds of their once terror-enforced ideology. Bullies, and as dishonest on the page, even worse, as such commentators as...you name them, Hilton Kramer? a clever conservative. Leave the idiot columnists out of it, the George Wills and his ilk. These are pundits. Cockburn is, as once fanatical Communist of Central Europe remarked to me a few years ago, a typical Red: viz., 'I used to wonder after the war if my professor of German lit was or was not giving orders in Auschwitz, or murdering guerrillas in the Pripet Marshes; I was sure he was lying about his past and the rest of it about 90% of the time. Later, when I grew up and graduated in 1948 or so, and the Communists began murdering everyone in sight who was not pure Stalinist, and many who were, like Slansky, etc., I left the Party for ever. One thing I can tell you, Nazis lie 90% of the time, but Communist s (who call themselves Socialists but are not) lie 100% of the time!" Take that as a reasonable guideline. Then read Cockburn over and see how slick a hysterical disinformer he is. What anyone who had wits and history could see and should be sure of: the Revolution was over in 1921-22. Period. The rest is nostalgia and the warping of emotions and ultimately ruled only by the gun. My friends in China can tell you so, too, and they have spent 20 years without books or paper or anything during and after the Cultural Revolution. PMC folk really should operate a better level than that of THE NATION, which has inherited the Stalinist mantle and technique of lying from Freda Kirchwey, who could not be dissuaded by those who knew and who had been there, after 1945, that the Socialist project, under those who represent it everywhere it rules, was dead ...these present day folks of the Nation for example would excuse the death of a Babel, a Mayakovsky, not to speak of people today. But...a Cockburn? where does he teach, and what? He has a pedigree, and is loyal to it; but I think him a slippery customer and dangerous liar. He would have excused 1948 in Prague, 1956 in Budapest, 1968 in Prague, and would never have asked what all those Bulgarian and East Germans were doing in Managua, in uniform, in control. No, this PC thing is a serious matter, and it is something to be treated seriously, from every point of view, and not guided by the likes of a Cockburn. Read him on Israel sometime, and you will see what sort of intellectual terrorist he really is, and by that I mean simply, like Navasky, a sentimental liar. Enough already from me? Yes. Kessler here still. And do ask for the Genovese review I sent up to PMC to be po sted; without it, I fear that we are not even beginning this academical chitchat properly. Okay? 2)-------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 19 May 91 05:40 PDT From: Jack Kolb Subject: Beat the Devil 'Twould be nice if Cockburn's piece were more restrained, because he makes many good points. These are the days of stratification: you be one with Georgie Porgie, the Dartmouth crew, and Bill Bennett; or you sit tearyeyed at the feet of Fish or Baker, obsequiously repenting the sins of your flesh. In any case, this debate reflects the unduly exalted opinion academics have regarding their impact upon society. Jack Kolb. 21-May-91 19:29:14-GMT,33644;000000000001 Received: from porthos.rutgers.edu by klinzhai.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA14129; Tue, 21 May 91 15:29:12 EDT Received: by porthos.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA24605; Tue, 21 May 91 15:29:10 EDT Resent-Message-Id: <9105211929.AA24605@porthos.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA04395; Mon, 20 May 91 16:08:26 EDT Message-Id: <9105202008.AA04395@aramis.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with BSMTP id 8097; Mon, 20 May 91 15:40:16 EDT Received: from NCSUVM.BITNET by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 3086; Mon, 20 May 91 15:40:02 EDT Date: Mon, 20 May 91 15:22:54 EDT Reply-To: PMC-Talk Sender: PMC-Talk From: Editors of PMC Subject: Genovese review of D'Souza To: Multiple recipients of list PMC-TALK Resent-To: mcgrew@klinzhai.rutgers.edu Resent-Date: Tue, 21 May 91 15:29:09 EDT Resent-From: Charles Mcgrew Date: Sun, 19 May 91 14:28 PDT From: KESSLER Subject: EDITORS I'VE NOTICED THAT MOST OF THE ATTACKERS OF D'SOUZA IN THE REVIEW PAGES AND IN DISCUSSION CALL HIM HYSTERICAL. I THINK THAT IS PROJECTION OF THE FEAR ON THE LEFT, AND DEMEANING, TOO, IMPLYING THAT LEFT IS MASCULINE BUT CONSERVATIVE FEMMES IN HYSTERIC SCREAMING AND YELLING. A KIND OF JEERING AND MOCKING THAT IS SUGGESTIVE.... HERESY, YES--SENSITIVITY, NO. -------------------------------------------- [The following was contributed by Jascha Kessler, and is available on PMC-Talk's filelist as GENOVESE REVIEW--eds.] AN ARGUMENT FOR COUNTERRORISM IN THE ACADEMY. BY EUGENE D. GENOVESE _Illiberal Education: The Politics of Race and Sex on Campus_ by Dinesh D'Souza (Free Press, 300 pp., $19.95) Were today's universities the places of higher education that they jocularly pretend to be, we would have had vigorous debate on the issues raised by Allan Bloom's _The Closing of the American Mind_. Instead, with some notable exceptions, the left settled for denunciations and the right for hosannas. Now we have another chance. Dinesh D'Souza's _Illiberal Education_ recounts, in a manner both responsible and chilling, the atrocities that ravage our campuses. Whatever your politics, read it. A domestic policy adviser in the Reagan White House and a frequent contributor to _National Review_ and other satanic organs, D'Souza speaks from the right. He also speaks for sanity, and, rare among right-wingers, he displays a deep appreciation of the travails of black students. Nothing comes through this powerful yet restrained book more clearly than its protest against the betrayal of black youth by the demagogues who claim to support them. D'Souza shows that blacks are paying the highest price for the degradation of our campuses and the prostitution of higher education. Thus he pointedly exposes what few right-wingers wish to notice: the increase in flagrantly racist assaults, physical and other, on black students. The atrocities documented here include the silencing of professors accused of "insensitivity" because they dare to ask students to read racist material in appropriate courses. (By extension, a professor ought not to assign Mein Kampf in a course on Nazi Germany since it might offend the sensibilities of Jewish students.) And they include the repression of professors and students who take unpopular stands against quotas, affirmative action, busing, abortion homosexuality, and much else. Clearly, they have no right to present views offensive to those who accept the reigning pieties in universities committed to "diversity. " D'Souza's account makes stomachturning reading. And I have a suspicion that he is pulling his punches, lest he be accused of exaggeration. As one who saw his professors fired during the McCarthy era, and who had to fight, as a pro-Communist Marxist, for his own right to teach, I fear that our conservative colleagues are today facing a new McCarthyism in some ways more effective and vicious than the old. Are conservatives only getting, then, a dose of their own medicine? In fact, they are not. The right did not rule our campuses during the McCarthy era. Most of the purges of those years were conducted by administrators and faculties who loudly proclaimed their own liberalism--by the same kind of people, that is, who are enforcing "political correctness" today. Yet few of the culprits were then, or are now, "liberals." The principled liberals on our campuses constitute about the same proportion of the center as principled people do of the left and the right. All political camps have principled people, careerists, and thugs. D'Souza seems to appreciate this distinction. He largely avoids liberal-bashing and appeals instead to honest people across the spectrum to stand up for the principles that they profess in common. He warns of the few who have a totalitarian agenda, but wisely he concentrates his fire on those who appease them. In these matters, as in others, Harvard, led by Derek Bok, strives mightily to be No. 1. Harvard seems determined to lead in high comedy, too, though Stephan Thernstrom and other members of its faculty who have been savaged for political incorrectness in the classroom may be forgiven if they do not appreciate the humor. To wit: dining hall workers held a "Back to the Fifties Party," and a dean denounced them for being nostalgic about a decade in which segregation still prevailed. A professor assigned a film in which a black maid appeared, and he was forced to cancel its screening, since blacks should not be shown in such jobs. A new president at Radcliffe declined to identify herself as a feminist, and local feminists, disgracing an admirable cause, denounced her for "doing violence to herself." The Harvard administration more or less upheld Thernstrom's academic freedom; it did not fire him for having introduced pro- slavery and racist documents in his course on "The Peopling of America," which he co-taught with the distinguished historian Bernard Bailyn. Significantly, the students who complained about Thernstrom's "racial insensitivity'' did not bother to confront him, as academic protocol, not to mention common courtesy, would require. Instead, they took their complaint to the administration and the press. In the event, the dean of the college, without mentioning Thernstrom by name, gravely announced his stern disapproval of "prejudice, harassment, and discrimination," and warned professors to watch their mouths, lest they offend the sensibilities of their students. In effect, the Harvard administration acknowledged Thernstrom's right to behave in a manner that embarrassed the university and ought to make him ashamed of himself. No doubt Bok and most of his deans disapprove of the excesses that accompany the struggle for diversity, sensitivity, and a radiant future for the peoples. They are merely doing their best to create an atmosphere in which professors who value their reputations and their perquisites learn to censor themselves. The manner in which some of the administrators of our universities choose to fight racial discrimination is marvelous to behold. Having decided that a democratic admissions policy required roughly proportionate representation of blacks, Hispanics, and whites, the University of California, Berkeley, coolly discriminated against Asians. Nearly 30 percent of the Asian high school graduates from California qualified for admission to Berkeley, compared with about 15 percent of the whites, 6 percent of the Hispanics, and 4 percent of the blacks. Yet according to Berkeley's own weighted index, blacks were admitted with scores of 4800 out of 8000, whereas whites needed at least 7000. Asians needed at least 7000 just to have a 50 percent chance of admission. But Asian students, as is well known, offend the sensibilities of true egalitarians and democrats by displaying a passion for hard work, and by having strong and supportive families. Could America have been built if it had relied on such perverse people? Or more precisely, it must have relied on such people, which would explain its emergence as a racist, sexist, homophobic, imperialist country with safer credentials. How could we demonstrate that Asians are no better motivated and self- disciplined than the rest of us if we let them demonstrate that they are? And if we let them demonstrate that they are better motivated, how could we ever be sure that they are not also smarter? The Asian community counterattacked and forced Berkeley to modify its policies. Still, three trifles must be noted. First, the administrators, with little or no protest from the faculty, repeatedly lied about their discriminatory policy until they were caught red-handed, and then they solemnly announced that they were shocked to learn of their own "insensitivity" to Asians. Second, nobody has yet explained how, if discrimination against Asians were necessary to fight white racism (never mind the blatant imbecility of the proposition), the university could eliminate such discrimination without succumbing to precisely that white racism. Third, how could the university now admit more Asians without further reducing the quota for white students, including deserving poor and workingclass white students? To right old wrongs, our leading universities are now trying to buy black students and professors, of whom there are demonstrably not enough qualified ones to go around, even in Afro-American history. In consequence, they accept some who could not compete on merit, but who might do well at a university of the second rank; and the universities of the second rank accept those who belong in universities of the third rank; and the universities of the third rank accept available warm bodies. At all levels, many black students who cannot compete receive passing grades while being treated with conttempt. And so frustration, resentment and anger build among them, and among the white students, too, who have been shunted aside to facilitate this charade. The dropout rate for black students would rank as a scandal, if anything any longer ranked as a scandal. At all levels, moreover, qualified black students and professors are made to look like charity cases. A number of blacks today rank among the finest American historians in the country, and many are honored for their achievements. But those well-deserved honors often stick in the craw of their recipients, who can never be sure that the honors are not merely awarded to fill quotas. And if mature and accomplished professors suffer from this outrage, how must gifted black students feel about their situation? Does affirmative action, then, undermine academic standards? Not necessarily, according to D'Souza, who sharply attacks its present form, and offers an alternative to which we shall return. Affirmative action cannot explain the decline in academic standards, which began well before it. The damning indictment of the long-practiced discrimination against women and blacks, moreover, properly focused on the lowering of academic standards made inevitable by a talent pool restricted to white males. By insisting that qualified women and blacks be given due consideration affirmative action properly implemented ought to replace mediocre professors with superior ones. Unfortunately D'Souza sidesteps this larger issue. Still, it will emerge quickly if his book receives the attention it deserves. The decline in academic standards has proceeded in tandem with the radical egalitarian conviction that everyone is fit for, and has a right to, a college education. As a consequence of this conviction, even our finest colleges have had to struggle constantly to do more than teach at a high school level, since most of their students are certainly unprepared and probably unqualified. We have transformed our colleges from places of higher learning into places for the technical training of poorly prepared young men and women who need a degree to get a job in a college-crazy society. An example: the "democratization" of the history curriculum has led to the abolition of required courses in Western civilization and, in American history, of the introductory courses that serve as prerequisites for ostensibly advanced courses on, say, the Civil War. Which means that every such course must be reduced to an introductory course, since the professor cannot assume that his students know the difference between John C. Calhoun and Henry Clay, or know about Nullification and the Wilmot Proviso, or about anything else for that matter. D'Souza recognizes as ghastly the conditions that are keeping blacks off the fabled "level playing field," but he sensibly insists that universities cannot do much to correct those conditions without pointlessly ruining themselves. Still, D'Souza himself continues to preach "equality of opportunity," even though conservatives like Richard Weaver and M. E. Bradford, not to mention a few liberals, have exploded it as a cruel hoax. If, as should be obvious, some people, black or white, begin with less cultural advantage, less preparation, and less talent than others, "equality of opportunity" can only result in the perpetuation of the initial levels of inequality. The problems posed by D'Souza range well beyond the horror stories and lead directly to the essential purposes of liberal education, and to the alarming assault on Western civilization-- on the civilization, not just on the courses on the civilization. D'Souza, a man of color born in India, is no mindless celebrant of Western virtues and values. He advocates a curriculum that includes attention to the rest of the world And he argues well that those who denigrate the Western also denigrate the non- Western: they have no interest in teaching the Analects, the Ramayana, or the Koran, but prefer instead to peddle what usually turns out to be little more than recent non-Western versions of their favorite radical Western ideologies. The point deserves pausing over. It is almost always the case that those who denigrate Western civilization do not tolerate those who teach the entire truth about Asia and Africa, about Hinduism and Islam, which have also had a history of racism, sexism, class exploitation, imperialism, and murderous violence. It does not occur to them (or does it?) that they thereby rob their Asian and African American students of a chance to learn the specifics, and the complexities, of the history of their own forebears. They leave their Asian and African American students bereft of a full appreciation of the glory and the shame, the virtue and the vice, that go into the making of everything human. The campaign for "political correctness" invites ugly tactics that could never be sustained, however, without the complicity of the very administrators and the very faculty members at whom they are directed. At Stanford, students seized the office of President Donald Kennedy, making demands, some constructive and some preposterous. Kennedy bravely announced: "The university will not negotiate on issues of substance in response to unlawful coercion." The next day, under unlawful coercion, he entered into negotiations, and he caved in to the demands. (Come to think of it, did he mean that he might negotiate on issues of procedure under unlawful coercion? Did he mean to endorse lawful coercion? Never mind: we don't expect university presidents to speak English these days.) Administrators capitulate to terrorists primarily because they are damage control experts obsessed with the smart move. When terrorists threaten to trash them as racists, sexists, homophobes, and enemies of the people, the smart move is to capitulate, for the administrators have nothing to lose save honor; and since the poststructuralists on their faculties have nicely deconstructed honor, they need pay it no mind. Who could blame administrators for not wanting to face demonstrators who denounce them as criminals? Besides, the national academic establishments and most of the media will commend them for their statesmanship in defusing confrontation, for opening new lines of communication, for showing compassion and sensitivity. A university president who negotiates with storm troopers who have occupied any part of his campus, much less his own office, should be fired. But first we must do our best to save all such quivering time-servers from themselves. To that end, I offer the Law of Liberation through Counterterror: In every such political struggle, honorable men and women can defeat terrorism only by unleashing counterterrorism against cowardly administrators and their complicit faculty. Of course, we must obey this law in a humane spirit, for the purpose of liberating these benighted souls to realize their own inner wills. Like loving parents, we must accept the disagreeable duty to inflict excruciating pain on ourselves by whipping our errant children for their own good. After all, our campus heroes do not wish to face demonstrators of another kind: those who, closer to the truth, trash them as front men for a new McCarthyism, as hypocrites who preach diversity and practice totalitarianism, as cowards, whores, and rogues. Let us, then, drive into their brains the terrifying recognition that counterterrorists will (figuratively) draw their blood for every concession made to terrorists; that administrators who deftly avoid calls for their ouster from the one side will face such calls from the other side; that, whatever they do, they will suffer hard blows; and that, despite every smart move known to God and man, they will find no place to hide from any war that the terrorists unleash. All, again, for their own good. By raising the price of sleaziness as high as the price of a staunch defense of their campuses, we shall liberate administrators to stand on their own professed principles, secure in the knowledge that they have nothing left to lose. The surrender of the administrators is not hard to understand, at least in one respect. Who wants to be accused of insensitivity? The answer is, those who recognize "sensitivy" as a code word for the promulgation of a demagogic political program. At Brooklyn College, which I attended in the late 1940s, everyone took for granted that students ought to challenge their professors and each other. Professors acted as if they were paid to assault their students' sensibilities, to offend their most cherished values. The classroom was an ideological war zone. And self- respecting students returned the blows. In this way we had a chance to acquire a first-rate education, that is, to learn to sustain ourselves in combat against dedicated but overworked professors who lacked the time and the "tolerance" to worry about our "feelings." I learned my lessons well, and so I routinely assign books that contradict the point of view presented in my own classroom. I insist only that students challenge my point of view in accordance with the canons of (Southern) courtesy, and in obedience to a rule: lay down plausible premises, argue logically, appeal to evidence. If they say things that offend others, the offended ones are invited to reply, fiercely but in accordance with the same courtesy and in obedience to the same rule. I know no other way to show students, white or black, male or female, the respect that ought to be shown in a place of intellectual and ideological contention. Thus I submit the First Law of College Teaching: Any professor who, subject to the restraints of common sense and common decency, does not seize every opportunity to offend the sensibilities of his students is insulting and cheating them, and is no college professor at all. _Illiberal Education_ pays much less attention to gender than to race, and displays less knowledge of the issues, the personalities, and the circumstances of women's studies in this country. Yet a larger problem affects D'Souza's treatment of both race and gender: he falls into the trap of condemning black studies and women's studies programs out of hand. D'Souza simply ignores the record of the best of those programs in enriching the college curriculum. He acknowledges excellent scholarship in black studies, but he wrongly asserts that it emanates from scholars in traditional departments. His assertion is anyway beside the point. The demand for separate programs arose because the traditional departments were ignoring, and even condemning, significant subject matter. In this respect, the history of these programs does not differ markedly from the history of area studies, religious studies, Jewish studies, or film studies, some of which also arose in response to political pressures In principle, we should emphatically welcome black studies and women's studies programs or departments as a legitimate means of promoting scholarship about valuable subjects long and stupidly ignored. In practice, moreover, some of these programs have functioned admirably, as have such centers for the promotion of scholarship such as the Carter Woodson Center at the University of Virginia, which offers scholars in black studies an opportunity to pursue their research in an institution that upholds high standards and is open to diverse viewpoints I very much doubt that D'Souza's blanket condemnation of these academic innovations would apply, after careful investigation, to the women's studies program at Emory University, say, or to a number of other black studies and women's studies programs. If many such programs have little intellectual merit and are principally engaged in political indoctrination, there are exceptions, and they prove that the result is not fated. D'Souza is right to charge that the culpable programs arose from the cynicism (not to mention the racism and the sexism) of administrations and faculties that refused to hold them to proper academic standards. As a result, large numbers of excellent professors in black studies programs and women's studies programs have been left to the mercies of campus politicians who are uninterested in academic standards and hostile to academic freedom. I know of no women's studies program that has a conservative or anti-feminist faculty member, although I know of at least one such program that would like to. The problem is not only that many programs are run by professors who, supported by administrators, apply ideological standards in the recruitment of faculty. The problem is also that professors of a more conservative disposition whose work includes subject matter appropriate to women's studies normalIy want nothing to do with programs that they view as inescapably political. Accepting exclusion, they do not fight for their right to participate and to teach from their own point of view. When has a conservative or an antifeminist professor applied for a job in a women's studies program? Such an applicant would be rejected in most places. But if that is the case, then the issue of "discrimination" ought to bejoined precisely on grounds of a commitment to "diversity" No university should tolerate a program or a department of any kind that applies political and ideological criteria in hiring and promotions (as many history departments now do). I do not underestimate the magnitude of the task that faces those who would fight this battle. Still, if principled liberals and leftists do inhabit our campuses, as we must hope that they do, then surely they can be rallied to the defense of the academic freedom of their conservative colleagues. In discussing present trends, D'Souza presents two explanations that, while not mutually exclusive, coexist uneasily. He excoriates administrators for succumbing to pressure from those who have sectarian agendas, but he also argues that administrators are imposing their own ideological agendas. He shows that "a revolution from above" is occurring at such leading universities as Harvard, Berkeley, Stanford, and Wisconsin, and that it is spreading; but the burden of his evidence suggests that the greater problem remains the general capitulation to destructive political pressures. The capitulation has some high-minded alibis. D'Souza mentions them, but he does not probe adequately. The principal alibi stresses the moral imperative of submission to the will of "the community," which is necessary, it is claimed, for the maintenance of a democratic society. The university, this song goes, has no right to exist as an ivory tower, oblivious to the needs and the aspirations of a democratic people. None can object, of course, when the choice is posed so starkly, though it might be recalled that Southern universities long justified segregation as an accommodation to the prevailing sentiments of their communities. To pose it so starkly, however, is to talk nonsense. Intellectual work in general, and higher education in particular, depend upon academic freedom, which depends upon a wide swath of autonomy, of detachment, for the university. The university must be ready, therefore, to stand against the community, and to protect those who challenge the attitudes and the sensibilities that prevail in the community. Neither academic freedom nor the autonomy of the university should be defended as absolutes. Some measure of accommodation to the larger society is always necessary and proper, and the gray area will always be a battleground. Still, a university worthy of the name must, so far as practicable, recognize its duty to protect those who defy the political consensus of the moment. That is, it must recognize itself as an institution in constant and principled tension with the community in which it resides. When the New Left of the 1960s demanded that the universities become responsive to the community, it ironically advanced the work begun by its Establishment enemies. Long before the hysterical response to Sputnik, the universities had been under pressure to serve the interests of communities attuned to the government and big business. All that the New Left did was to define "community" to suit its own ideas and interests. Like its enemies, it insisted on an engaged academy and poured contempt on the ideal of the university as an autonomous institution. D'Souza's book contains telling quotations from campus zealots on the problem of "politicization." The universities have always been political, they argue. Indeed, everything has a political dimension, and so the only issue is what kind of politics are to be imposed. There is a grain of truth here, but carried to its logical conclusion it would transform every institution into an instrument of political correctness. And that, to speak precisely, is totalitarianism. D'Souza makes too many concessions to democratic and egalitarian dogmas for my taste. He responds to these arguments weakly, by arguing that the politicization of the universities is leading to their domination by coalitions of ideological minorities. No doubt it is. But the danger would be even greater if the universities were to succumb to an ideological majority. The hard truth is that academic freedom--the real work of scholarship--requires a willingness to set limits to the claims of democracy. It requires a strong dose of hierarchical authority within institutions that must be able to defy a democratic consensus. Sooner or later we shall have to face this fact, or be defeated by those who seek the total politicization of our campuses. D'Souza ends his book constructively, with three proposals to promote academic standards and academic freedom and simultaneously to do justice to genuinely disadvantaged youth. His first, and most significant, is his call for "non-racial affirmative action." With this idea, he risks the ire of many on the right. He notes that the rising tide of white racism among students is being fueled by discrimination against qualified white students in favor of less qualified black students who receive financial support despite coming from affluent families. Recognizing that most qualified black students, like many qualified white students, need financial support, he proposes to subsidize according to a combination of demonstrated merit and need. An advocate of "individualism," D'Souza insists that his program promotes "equality of opportunity" and rejects categorization by group. Surely he jests. For his program implies a collectivism that merely replaces "race" with "class." At least it promises to attack racial injustice, since the correlation of race and lower class among blacks is, as he takes pains to show, strikingly high. His second proposal is for "choice without separation." It's not exactly dear what this slogan means. It originates in a critique of black separatism that I find sadly wrongheaded. D'Souza, fearful of ghettoization and the institutionalization of racial oppression in a new form, seems alarmed at the very idea of separate black professional and extracurricular organizations. He lashes out, therefore, at everything that hints of black separatism, of any kind of separatism. But he is uncritically assimilating the black experience in America to the general "ethnic" experience, and he is thereby missing its uniqueness. Blacks did not bring a distinct culture from Africa as, say, Italian-Americans or Polish-Americans did from their homelands; they forged a new and powerful culture of their own. Afro- American culture has grown out of a forced emigration from Africa, out of resistance to slavery, and out of enforced segregation, and for those reasons it has imnparted to many black people a sense of being "a nation within a nation," to invoke a term that dates from early colonial times and was popularized by W. E. B. DuBois. The attendant problems of analysis, not to mention politics, are extraordinarily complex. And for just that reason they ought long ago to have been made the center of discussion on our campuses, in and out of black studies programs. D'Souza's third proposal offers an intriguing curriculum reform that would expose students "to the basic issues of equality and human difference, through a carefully chosen set of classic texts that deal powerfully with those issues." Briefly, he aims at grounding American students in the Western experience that has constituted the foundation of our society and culture, but in a way that promotes comparison and contrast with the civilizations of the rest of the world and appreciates their contribution to our own national development. This proposal is unobjectionable, but it is not very original. In fact, an increasing number of principled professors are in fact promoting "World Civilization" in the manner D'Souza recommends--that is, by introducing African, Asian, and Latin American cultural studies without denigrating Western civilization. _Illiberal Education_ invites cooperation in a common effort in defense of the campus. Occasionally D'Souza descends into biased and irritating attacks on the left and center, with sweeping and one-sided characterizations of Marxism and Marxists, liberalism and liberals. (He does not do justice to the literary critic Henry Louis Gates Jr. or the historian Linda Kerber, among others.) Yet on the whole he makes a good effort to be fair, to focus on issues, to avoid %ad hominem% attacks, and to check his own political passions. He acknowledges, however grudgingly, the commitment of certain Marxists, feminists, proponents of black studies, and others to academic freedom and to scholarly integrity. This book could open a salutary national debate. But the cause it champions will go down, unless it is supported by a substantial portion of the left and the center. For this is not an issue only of the right, not least for a practical reason: there are not nearly enough conservatives on our campuses to do more than fight a rearguard action. Indeed, the predicament of the right should give many on the left a sense of deja vu, and a good laugh. Opposition to campus atrocities attracts two kinds of right-wingers: those who defend academic freedom and academic standards on principle, and those interested in using the issue as a "transmission belt" for recruitment into their "movement." The former, I mean the principled defenders of the academy, understand that they must cooperate with those whom they oppose on other issues. The latter, I mean the sectarians, do everything possible to identify the academic cause with their own partisan politics and slander all liberals and leftists as complicit in the new wave of campus barbarism. Looking beyond the immediate struggle, they fear nothing so much as the dissolution of the reigning isms, and the redrawing of political lines in a manner that brings together the healthiest elements of long-warring political camps. The sectarians are correct to fear the consecration of the campuses to a vigorous political debate under conditions of real mutual respect and genuine academic freedom. Such a debate would undermine all the sectarianisms. It would encourage new political formations to meet the challenges of a new era. And so it should: the defense of academic freedom requires an all-out counterattack by a coalition that cuts across all the lines of politics, race, and gender. It is time to close ranks. 21-May-91 19:29:19-GMT,2007;000000000001 Received: from porthos.rutgers.edu by klinzhai.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA14135; Tue, 21 May 91 15:29:17 EDT Received: by porthos.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA24610; Tue, 21 May 91 15:29:15 EDT Resent-Message-Id: <9105211929.AA24610@porthos.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA04514; Mon, 20 May 91 16:09:23 EDT Message-Id: <9105202009.AA04514@aramis.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with BSMTP id 8109; Mon, 20 May 91 15:43:19 EDT Received: from NCSUVM.BITNET by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 3159; Mon, 20 May 91 15:43:15 EDT Date: Mon, 20 May 91 15:24:53 EDT Reply-To: PMC-Talk Sender: PMC-Talk From: Editors of PMC Subject: Art? To: Multiple recipients of list PMC-TALK Resent-To: mcgrew@klinzhai.rutgers.edu Resent-Date: Tue, 21 May 91 15:29:14 EDT Resent-From: Charles Mcgrew 1) Response to E. Handelman (Jack Kolb) 2) Response to C. Headington (Kessler) 1)-------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 18 May 91 07:46 PDT From: Jack Kolb Subject: Art? How about Pater's "Conclusion" to The Renaisance? That seems to me a pretty good modern exultation of art. Jack. 2)-------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 18 May 91 17:08 PDT From: KESSLER Subject: Art? Dear Headington: Here you mention my name again. Wherefor? Whyfor? So far as I can make out, EH seems to be talking about the talk about "Art." That is not the same thing as making things, performing things, etc. All that is criticism, and it seems to be involved with itself, not with the arts (Arts?), or artists ( Artists?) if you are talking about talking, not making, leave me out, plz.JK 21-May-91 19:29:25-GMT,36564;000000000001 Received: from porthos.rutgers.edu by klinzhai.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA14140; Tue, 21 May 91 15:29:22 EDT Received: by porthos.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA24615; Tue, 21 May 91 15:29:19 EDT Resent-Message-Id: <9105211929.AA24615@porthos.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA04549; Mon, 20 May 91 16:09:48 EDT Message-Id: <9105202009.AA04549@aramis.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with BSMTP id 8113; Mon, 20 May 91 15:45:14 EDT Received: from NCSUVM.BITNET by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 3213; Mon, 20 May 91 15:44:59 EDT Date: Mon, 20 May 91 15:25:35 EDT Reply-To: PMC-Talk Sender: PMC-Talk From: Editors of PMC Subject: Course in Everyday Life To: Multiple recipients of list PMC-TALK Resent-To: mcgrew@klinzhai.rutgers.edu Resent-Date: Tue, 21 May 91 15:29:18 EDT Resent-From: Charles Mcgrew 1) Request for syllabus (Jack Kolb) 2) Here it is (Barbara Kirshenblatt-Gimblett) 1)-------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 18 May 91 07:42 PDT From: Jack Kolb Subject: Course in Everyday life As I've suggested already, I'd love to see all the course material. E-mail is fine; I'd be glad to compensate for xeroxing and postage if you want to send it via US mail. Jack. 2)--------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 20 May 91 00:02 EDT From: Subject: Course in Everyday Life For all those who requested the syllabus, here it is. Suggestions and comments are welcome, as are syllabi for related courses. Thx, BKG. --------------------------- [The following will shortly be available from PMC-Talk's filelist as EVERYDAY SYLLABUS. Others are encouraged to contribute syllabi for posting on the filelist--eds.] AESTHETICS OF EVERYDAY LIFE Barbara Kirshenblatt-Gimblett H42.1040 Spring 1991 Department of Performance Studies Tisch School of the Arts New York University 721 Broadway, 6th floor New York, NY 10003 212-998-1620 Focussing on what Hegel called "the prose of the world," we will consider how the quotidian is constituted in the performances of everyday life. The taken-for-granted world is invisible except under special conditions--when boredom is induced by the sheer repetitiveness of the banal or when poesis transforms the utterly ordinary or when the shock of the sensational, spectacular, or exotic calls the taken-for-granted into question. Debates over the creative and emancipatory potential of vernacular culture will move us towards a critical theory of everyday life. A close reading of key thinkers such as Lefebvre, Blanchot, de Certeau, Bachelard, Schutz, Simmel, Benjamin, Adorno, Horkheimer, Williams, Hall, and Harvey will frame our fine-grained analyses of the urban mise-en-scene in New York City, its spatial and temporal organization, its concentrations of power and oppositional practices, its performative modes and values. We will examine the phantasmagoria of New York city streets and open spaces (Washington Square, Times Square); the vernacular imprint on the built environment (graffiti, sidewalk altars, casitas, vendors, Christmas lights); the festivalizing of the city (Chinese lion dancing, Easter Parade, and Hasidic Purim in Brooklyn); home and homelessness; the role of tourism, museums, and performance artists in constituting the quotidian. Where possible, fieldtrips will be organized to relevant events and parts of the city. ----------------------------------------------------------------- RESEARCH ESSAY Examine in depth a cultural setting or event in New York in terms of one of the issues raised in the course. Photography and video/sound recording are strongly encouraged. Essays must be based on fieldwork, though historical research using primary sources is also appropriate. Essays should combine thick description with analysis. Analysis should address theoretical issues raised in the course. Students are encouraged to use the essay assignment for the course as a pilot project for the masters thesis or doctoral dissertation. Research Essay Proposal The essay proposal should be about two pages, double-spaced. Demonstrate a good match between the case you will analyze and the conceptual focus and theoretical orientation you will use. Show how you will gain access to your subject. Indicate the relevant reading. Suggest a provisional outline for the paper. Or, alternatively, treat this proposal like you would the long abstract that you are asked to submit when you volunteer a paper for a conference. Oral Report We will devote the entire day (Saturday May 4) to a symposium during which each person will report orally on their research project. Research proposal due February 28 Research essay due May 2 Oral report due May 4 The grade is based on participation in class discussion, all written assignments (book review essay, fieldwork reports, research essay), and oral report. All assignments MUST be handed in on time. NO INCOMPLETES. ---------------------------------------------------------------- FIELDTRIPS Fieldtrips are planned in connection with Chinese New Year, Purim, St. Patrick's Day, Good Friday, and Easter Sunday, among others. The requirement for the course is that you attend at least TWO, write brief reports on each, and report orally to the class on ONE. Field Reports Submit a brief (3-5 page double-spaced) field report at the beginning of the class following each of the two fieldtrips you attend. Each report should be structured around an observational focus that you decide upon before the field trip, with the help of preparatory class discussion. Class Reports on Fieldtrips The class will be divided into small groups during the first session. Each group is responsible for one fieldtrip. Each group will agree on a way to focus and coordinate their observations and analysis. During the class immediately following the fieldtrip, selected groups will report to the class on the fieldtrip. The class presentations should set out issues for class discussion and encourage class participation. -------------------------------------------------------------- USING THE CITY'S RESOURCES The New-York Historical Society (170 Central Park West, 873-3400, ext 246) has organized an outstanding spring series of public programs directly relevant to the course, including films, live music, and lectures. "Art What Thou Eat," Exhibition of paintings on the subject of food at the NYHS thru March 22. Passes available from BKG. --------------------------------------------------------------- READINGS All the required texts and some of the recommended texts have been ordered at the NYU Book Center. Required texts are also on reserve at Bobst and in some cases the Performance Studies Archive. For complete citations, see the course bibliography, which is also available on line. A TEACHERTEXT packet can be made available at The Village Copier, 20 East 13th Street (924- 3456). WEEKLY READING ASSIGNMENTS Weekly reading assignments must be completed before the class for which they are assigned. You will be expected to relate ideas in the readings to class presentations and discussion. REVIEW ESSAY There is one written assignment on the readings--a review essay of at least THREE books on the list of required and (with my approval) recommended books, books from the course bibliography, books assigned on the syllabus, and others you may wish to suggest. You are encouraged to select books that are directly relevant to the essay you will write for the course. The review essay should be 6-8 pages double-spaced. The review essay should be modelled on examples from the New York Review of Books, American Anthropologist, American Ethnologist, etc. You are encouraged to write for publication. I will help those who wish to publish their review essays to revise and place them. If publication is of interest, chose the books you will write about with a specific venue in mind, select either new or recently reprinted books, or classics that bear reassessment at this time. Review essay due March 28 ---------------------------------------------------------------- REQUIRED TEXTS Bausinger, Folk Culture in a World of Technology Davis, Parades and Power Dorst, The Written Surburb Frykman, Culture Builders Harrison, Drawing a Circle in the Square Harvey, Urban Experience Orsi, The Madonna of 115th Street Pred, Lost Words and Lost Worlds Yale French Studies, Everyday Life Willis, Common Culture RECOMMENDED TEXTS Anderson, On Streets Attali, Noise Bachelard, Poetics of Space Cannetti, Crowds and Power Hebdige, Subculture Chambers, Popular Culture Cooper, Subway Art Courbin, The Foul and the Fragrant Davis, I Got the Word Falassi, Time Out of Time Finkelstein, Dining Out Frith, Sound Effects Frith, On Record Gmelch, Urban Life Goffman, Behavior in Public Places Boggs, The Apple Sliced Hannerz, Exploring the City Harris, Cultural Excursion Harvey, The Condition of Postmodernity Hiss, The Experience of Place Inglis, Popular Culture and Political Power Jameson, Postmodernism, or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism Leppart, Music and Society Lincoln, Discourse and the Construction of Society Lynch, What Time Is this Place TDR 1985, Processional Issue Posen and Miska, Making Brooklyn Home Mollenkopf, Power, Culture, and Place Oldenburg, The Great Good Place McRobbie, Zoot Suits and Second-Hand Dresses Tuan, Space and Place Tuan, Topophilia Wachs, Crime Victim Stories Waites, Popular Culture Whyte, The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces Zerubavel, Hidden Rhythms ----------------------------------------------------------------- SCHEDULE January 25 Introduction February 1 The Vernacular February 7 The Urban Part I: Urban Ceremonial February 14 Chinese New Year Fieldtrips--dates to be announced February 14-28? Chinese New Year February 18 Washington's Birthday February 21 Chinese New Year Field report due February 28 Purim Project Proposal due Fieldtrip to Hasidic Williamsburg and Boro Park March 7 Purim Field report due March 14 Spring Recess March 17 St. Patrick's Day March 21 Space/Time/Ceremony: The Urban Public Sphere March 24-31 Easter Week March 28 Easter Week Review essay due Fieldtrips--Good Friday and Easter Sunday March 29 Good Friday March 30-April 6 Passover March 31 Easter Parade April 4 Easter Week Field report due April 7 Orthodox Easter Part II: Urban Quotidian April 11 Site of Resistance I: Oppositional Subcultures April 18 Site of Resistance II: Home April 25 Music May 2 Distinction and Display Essay due May 4 Conference of Student Papers Oral Report due SYLLABUS January 25 INTRODUCTION Required Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, Barbara. 1983. The future of folklore studies in America: The urban frontier. Folklore Forum 16 (2):175-234. Recommended: Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, Barbara. 1988. Ordinary people/everyday life: Folk culture in New York City. In Urban life: readings in urban anthropology, ed. George Gmelch, and Walter P. Zenner, 403-11. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press. Miska, Maxine, and I. Sheldon Posen. 1983. Tradition and community in the urban neighborhood: Making Brooklyn home. Brooklyn: Brooklyn Rediscovery, Brooklyn Educational and Cultural Alliance. Boggs, Vernon, Gerald Handel, and Sylvia F. Fava, eds. 1984. The apple sliced: Sociological studies of New York City. New York: Praeger. Mollenkopf, John Hull, ed. 1989. Power, culture, and place. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. ----------------------------------------------------------------- February 1 THE VERNACULAR Required Beverley, John. 1990. The ideology of postmodern music and left politics. Postmodern culture 1 (1). Hall, Stuart. 1981. Notes on deconstructing the popular. In People's history and socialist theory, ed. Raphael Samuel, 227-42. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Limon, Jose. 1983. Western Marxism and folklore: A critical introduction. Journal of American Folklore 96 (379):34-52. Stewart, Susan. 1991. Notes on distressed genres. Journal of American Folklore 104 (411) (winter):5-31. Williams, Raymond. 1958. Culture is ordinary. In Convictions, ed. Norman Mackenzie, 74-92. London: MacGibbons and Gee. Willis, Paul E. 1990. Common culture. 1-29. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. Recommended Anderson, Walter Truett. 1990. Reality isn't what it used to be: theatrical politics, ready-to-wear religion, global myths, primitive chic, and other wonders of the postmodern world. San Francisco: Harper and Row. Bausinger, Hermann. 1990. Folk culture in a world of technology. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Collins, Jim. 1989. Uncommon cultures: popular culture and post-modernism. London: Routledge. Corbett, John. 1990. Free, single, and disengaged: listening pleasure and 1the popular music object. October 54:79-101. Crow, Thomas. 1991. I'll take the high road, you take the low road. Artforum 29 (5) (Jan.):104-7. Harris, Neil. 1990. Cultural excursions Marketing appetites and cultural tastes in modern America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Jameson, Fredric. 1990. Postmodernism or, the cultural logic of late capitalism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Levine, Laurence. 1988. Hihgbrow/Lowbrow. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. McRobbie, Angela. 1988. Settling accounts with subcultures: A feminist critique. In On record: Rock, pop, and the written word, ed. Simon Frith, and Andrew Goodwin, 66-80. Stern, Jane and Michael. 1990. The encyclopedia of bad taste. New York: HarperCollins. Varnedoe, Kirk, and Adam Gopnik. 1990. High & low: Popular culture and modern art. New York: Museum of Modern Art. ----------------------------------------------------------------- February 7 THE URBAN Required Buck-Morss, Susan. 1986. The flaneur, the sandwichman and the whore: The politics of loitering. New German Critique 39 (fall):99-141. Harrison, Sally. 1984. Drawing a circle in Washington Square Park. Studies in Visual Communication 10 (2):68-82. Lynch, Kevin. 1976a. A glossary of technique. In Managing a sense of a region, 88-120. Cambridge: MIT Press. Seamon, D. 1980. Body-subject, time-space routines, and place-ballets. In The human experience of space and place, 148- 165, ed. Anne Buttimer and David Seamon. New York: St. Martin's Press. Tschumi, Bernard. 1990. Text 5: Questions of space. London: Architectural Association. 31-35, 97-107 Recommended Bowler, Anne E., and Blaine McBurney. 1989. Gentrification and the avant-garde in New York's East Village: The good, the bad, and the ugly. REALM: The Working Paper Series (New York) (4) (Aug.):1-35. : New School for Social Research. Deutsche, Rosalyn, and Cara Gendel Ryan. 1984. The fine art of gentrification. October (31):91-111. Buck-Morss, Susan. 1989. The dialectics of seeing: Walter Benjamin and the Arcades Project. Cambridge: M.I.T. Courbin, Alain. 1986. The foul and the fragrant: Odor and the French social imagination. Cambridge: Harvard. Dargan, Amanda, and Steven Zeitlin. 1990. City play. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. Goffman, Erving. 1963. Behavior in public places: Notes on the social organization of gatherings. New York: Free Press. Hannerz, Ulf. 1980. Exploring the city: Inquiries toward an urban anthropology. New York: Columbia University Press. Harrison-Pepper, Sally. 1990. Drawing a circle in the square: Street performing in New York's washington square park. Jackson: University of Mississippi Press. Lofland, Lyn H. 1973. A World of strangers: Order and action in urban public space. New York: Basic Books. Lynch, Kevin. 1976. What time is this place? Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Oldenburg, Ray. 1989. The great good place: Cafes, coffee shops, community centers, beauty parlors, general stores, bars, hangouts, and how they get you through the day. New York: Paragon House. Schivelbusch, Wolfgang. 1987. The policing of street lighting. Yale French Studies 73: 61-74. Sennett, Richard., ed. 1969. Classic essays on the culture of cities. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Venturi, R., Denise Brown Scott, and Steven Izenour. 1972. Learning from Los Vegas: The forgotten symbolism of architectural form. Boston: MIT. Whyte, William H. 1980. The social life of small urban spaces. Washington, D.C.: The Conservation Foundation. -------------------------------------------------------------- URBAN CEREMONIAL The second part of the course is organized into three units, each one devoted to a major event on the ceremonial calendar--Chinese New Year, Hasidic Purim, the Easter/Passover complex. These events offer rich opportunities to observe firsthand the ways in which local cultures form, how they occupy public space, how parts of the city become ceremonial centers, the confrontation of differing conceptions of civic life, the multiple codings of the urban grid and built environment, the use of time to occupy space, and the role of performance in these processes. Each case is built around a field trip. We will prepare for the fieldtrip during the class preceding the event with the assistance of specialists in the topic. Everyone is expected to participate in at least two fieldtrips organized for these sessions. ***** The class will be divided into small groups, each of which will take responsibility for reporting to the class on ONE fieldtrip during the session that immediately follows it. The class presentations should stimulate discussion of the event in relation to issues raised in the readings. ***** Everyone will turn in a three-page (typed, double- spaced) field report at the beginning of the class after each of TWO field trips. ----------------------------------------------------------------- February 14-21 CHINESE NEW YEAR Fieldtrips: To be announced DUE February 21: Field report Required Slovenz, Madeline Anita. 1987. "The year is a wild animals": Lion dancing in Chinatown. TDR 31 (3):74-102. Marin, Louis. 1987. Notes on a semiotic approach to parade, cortege, and procession. In Time out of time, ed. Alessandro Falassi, 220-8. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Williams, Raymond. 1980. Base and superstructure in Marxist cultural theory. In Problems in materialism and culture. New York: Verso. Recommended Falassi, Alessandro, ed. 1987. Time out of time: Essays on the festival. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Foner, Nancy, ed. 0000. New immigrants in New York. Irvington, NY: Columbia University Press. MacAloon, John J, ed. 1984. Rite, drama, festival, spectacle: Rehearsals toward a theory of cultural performance. Philadelphia: Institute for the Study of human Issue. Mann, Shiah. 1981. Chinese New Year. New York: ARTS, Inc. McNamara, Brooks, and Barbara Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, eds. 1985. Processional performance. The Drama Review 29 (3). Reimers, David M. 1985. Still the golden door: The third world comes to America. New York: Columbia University Press. Turner, Victor, ed. 1982. Celebration: Studies in festivity and ritual. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. ----------------------------------------------------------------- February 28 PURIM March 7 DUE February 28: Project proposal DUE March 7: Field report Required Kugelmass, Jack. 1988. Between two worlds: notes on the celebration of Purim among New York Jews, March 1985" In Between two worlds: Ethnographic essays on American Jewry, ed. Jack Kugelmass, 33-51. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, Barbara. 1990. Performance of precepts/precepts of performance: Hasidic celebrations of Purim in Brooklyn. In By means of performance. ed. Richard Schechner and Willa Appel. 109-117. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Blum-Dobkin, Toby. 1979. The Landsberg carnival: Purim in a displaced person's center. In Purim: The face and the mask, ed. Shifra Epstein, 52-60. New York: Yeshiva University Museum. Recommended Bakhtin, Mihail. 1984. Rabelais and his world. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Leach, Edmund. 1966. Time and false noses. In Rethinking anthropology. New York: Humanities Press. Epstein, Shifra. 1979. The celebration of a contemporary Purim in the Bobover Hasidic community. Austin: PhD dissertation, University of Texas. ----------------------------------------------------------------- March 14 SPRING RECESS March 17 St. Patrick's Day Recommended Kelton, Jane. 1985a. The New York City St. Patrick's Day Parade: Invention of contention and consensus. TDR 29 (3):93-105. Ridge, John T. 1988. The St. Patrick's Day parade in New York. New York: AOH Publications. ----------------------------------------------------------------- March 21 SPACE/TIME/CEREMONY: THE URBAN PUBLIC SPHERE Required Davis, Susan. 1986. Parades and power: Street theatre in nineteenth-century Philadelphia. 1-48, 155-173. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Ozouf, Mona. 1988. Festivals and the French Revolution. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Pages to be assigned. Plattus, Alan J. 1981. Emblems of the city: Civic pageantry and the rhetoric of urbanism. Artforum, Sept., 48-52. Pred, Allan. 1990. Lost words and lost worlds: Modernity and the language of everday life in nineteenth-century stockholm. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Pages to be assigned. Tuan, Yi-Fu. 1977. Visibility: The creation of place. In Space and place: The perspective of experience, 161-78. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Recommended Cannetti, Elias. 1984. Crowds and power. Ed. New York. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Fernandez, James W. 1984. Conventional attitudes: The ironic play of tropes in an international Kayak festival in Northern Spain. In Text, play, and story: The construction of self and society, ed. Edward M. Bruner. Washington, Seattle: American Ethnological Society. Goodsell, Charles T. 1988. The social meaning of civic space: Studying political authority through architecture. Lawrence: University Press of Kansa. Gottdiener, M. 1985. The social production of urban space. Austin: University of Texas Press. Harvey, David. 1989. The urban experience. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Hobsbawm, Eric. 1984. Mass-Producing traditions: Europe, 1870-1914. In Invention of tradition, ed. Eric Hobsbawm, 263-307. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kasinitz, Philip, and Judith Freidenberg-Herbstein. 1987. The Puerto Rican parade and West Indian Carnival: Public Celebrations in New York City. In Carribean life in New York City: Sociocultural dimensions, ed. Constance R. Sutton, and Elsa M. Chany. New York: Center for Migration Studies of New York. Kluge, Alexander, and Oskar Negt. 1972. Offentlichkeit und Erfahrung. Frankfurt: Suhrkampf. Landes, David S. 1983. On the watch: Revolution in time. Clocks and the making of the modern world. Harvard University Press. Rosenzweig, Roy. 1977. Middle-Class parks and working-class play: The struggle over recreational space in Worcester, Massachusetts, 1870-1910. Radical History Review (21):31-46. Rosenzweig, Roy. 1983. Eight hours for what we will: workers and leisure in an industrial city, 1870-1920. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Stansell, Christine. 1982. Women, children, and the uses of the streets: Class and gender conflict in New York City, 1850-1860. Feminist Studies (8):309-35. Stone, Christopher. 1982. Vandalism, property and the rhetoric of crime in New York City, 1890-1920. Radical History 26:13-34. Taylor, Julie. 1982. The politics of aesthetic debate: The case of Brazilian carnival. Ethnology (21):301-11. Wachs, Eleanor. 1988. Crime victim stories: New York City's urban folklore. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press. Warner, Lloyd W. 1959. Yankee City Series. Vol. 5, The Living and the dead: A study of the symbolic life of Americans. New Haven: Yale University Press. Warner, Lloyd W. 1962. An American sacred ceremony. In American life: Dream and reality, 5-34. Chicago: Phoenix Books. Wiggins, William H. Jr. O freedom! Afro-American Emancipation Celebrations. Zerubavel, Eviatar. 1985. The seven-day circle. Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press. ----------------------------------------------------------------- March 28 EASTER WEEK April 4 DUE March 28: Book review essay Field trips: Good Friday (3/29) and Easter Sunday (3/31) DUE April 4: Field report Required Orsi, Robert Anthony. 1985. The madonna of 115th street: Faith and community in Italian Harlem, 1880-1950. xiii-13, 163-231. New Haven: Yale University Press. Peters, F.E. 1985. The procession that never was: The painful way in Jerusalem. TDR 29 (3 [T107]):31-41. Weinreich, Beatrice Silverman. 1960. The Americanization of passover. In Studies in biblical and Jewish folklore, ed. Frances Utley, Raphael Patai, and Dov Noy, 329-66. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Zerubavel, Eviatar. 1981. The calendar, sacred time and profane time. In Hidden rhythms: Schedules and calendars in social life, 70-100, 101-137. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Recommended Gurvitch, George. 1963. The spectrum of social time. Paris: Reidel. Caplow, Theodore, and Margaret Holmes Williamson. 1980. Decoding Middletown's Easter Bunny: A study in American iconography. Semiotica (32):221-32. Kasinitz, Philip, and Judith Freidenberg-Herbstein. 1987. The Puerto Rican parade and West Indian Carnival: Public Celebrations in New York City. In Carribean life in New York City: Sociocultural dimensions, ed. Constance R. Sutton, and Elsa M. Chany. New York: Center for Migration Studies of New York. Sciorra, Joseph. 1985. Religious processions in Italian Williamsburg. The Drama Review 29 (3 (T107)):65-81. Sommers, Laurie Kay. 1991. Inventing Latinismo: the creation of "Hispanic" panethnicity in the United States. Journal of American Folklore 104 (411) (winter):32-53. Turner, Kay. 1982. Mexican-American home altars: Towards their interpretation. Axtlan. . 12. Wynne, Peter. 1979. The Union City Passion Play. New York University: MA thesis, Department of Performance Studies. ----------------------------------------------------------------- URBAN QUOTIDIAN The third part of the course is devoted to the problem of the quotidian, how it is to be conceptualized for study, debates over the quotidian as the primary site of hegemony and/or contestation. We will focus on the special nature of the urban quotidian. April 11 QUOTIDIAN AS THE SITE OF RESISTANCE I: OPPOSITIONAL SUBCULTURES Film: Style Wars Required Banes, Sally. 1985. Breaking. In Fresh: Hip hop don't stop, 79-111. New York: Random House. Certeau, Michel de. 1985. The jabbering of social life. In On signs, ed. Marshall Blonsky, 146-53. Johns Hopkins University Press. McRobbie, Angela. 1990. Settling accounts with subcultures: A feminist critique. In On record: Rock, pop, and the written word, ed. Simon Frith and Andrew Goodwin, 66-80. New York: Pantheon Books. Hebdige, Dick. 1979. Subculture: The meaning of style. London: Methuen. Pages to be assigned. Kugelmass, Jack. 1981. I'd rather be a messenger. Natural History 90 (8):66-76. Recommended Brake, Michael. 1985. Comparative youth culture: The sociology of youth cultures and youth subcultures in America, Britain, and Canada. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Castleman, Craig. 1982. Getting up: Subway graffiti in New York. Cambridge: M.I.T. Certeau, Michel de. 1984. The practice of everyday life. Berkeley: University of California Press. Cooper, Martha, and Henry Chalfant. 1984. Subway art. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. deAk, Edit. 1983. Train as book. Artforum, May, 88-93. Foster, Hal. 1985. Graffiti. In Recodings: Art, spectacle, cultural politics, 48-52. Washington: Bat Press. Gablik, Suzi. 1984. Graffiti in well-lighted rooms. In Has modernism failed?, 103-13. New York: Thames and Hudson. Hall, Stuart, and Jefferson, eds. 1976. Resistance Through Rituals: Youth subcultures in post-war Britain. London: Hutchinson. Roy, Donald F. 1959-60. Banana time: Job satisfaction and informal interaction. Human organization (18):158-68. Schwartz, Gary. 0000. Beyond conformity or rebellion: Youth and authority in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Toop, David. 1984. Uptown throwdown. In The rap attack: African jive to New York hip hop, 56-76. Boston: South End Press. ----------------------------------------------------------------- April 18 QUOTIDIAN AS THE SITE OF RESISTANCE II: HOME Film: Clothesline Video: Kitchen Gadgets Required Ball, Edward. 1987. The great sideshow of the situationist international. Yale French Studies 73:21-37. Blanchot, Maurice. 1987. Everyday speech. Yale French Studies 73:12-20. Lefebvre, Henri. 1987. The everyday and everydayness. Yale French Studies 73:7-11. Miner, Horace. 1956. Body ritual among the Nacirema. American Anthropologist (58) (June):503-7. Frykman, Jonas, and Orvar Lofgren. 1987. Culture builders: A historical anthropology of middle-class life. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. Pages to be assigned. Farrell, Thomas, and Tamar Katriel. 1991. Scrapbooks as cultural texts: An American art of memory. Text and Performance Quarterly 2 (1) (Jan.):1-16. Przybysz, Jane. 1990. Quilts and the colonialization/colonization of the American "woman" New York: Unpublished essay. Recommended Aries, Philippe, and George Duby, eds. 1987. A history of private life. 4 vols. Bachelard, Gaston. 1969. The poetics of space. Boston: Beacon. Coleman, Roger. 1988. The art of work: An epitaph to skill. London: Pluto Press. Cooper, Patricia, and Norma Bradley Buferd. 1977. The quilters: Women and domestic art. Garden City, New York: Doubleday. Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly, and Eugene Rochberg-Halton. 1981. The meaning of things: Domestic symbols and the self. New York: Cambridge University Press. Ferrero, Pat, Elaine Hedges, and Julie Silber. 1987. Hearts and hands: The influence of women and quilts on American society. San Francisco: The Quilt Digest Press. Garson, Barbara. 1975. All the livelong day: The meaning and de-meaning of routine work. Garden City, New York: Doubleday. Greenfield, Verni. 1986. Making do or making art: A study of American recycling. Ann Arbor: UMI Research Press. Gullestad, Marianne. 1984. Kitchen-table society: a case study of the family life and friendships of young working-class mothers in urban Norway. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Hufford, Mary, Marjorie Hunt, and Steven Zeitlin. 1987. The Grand Generation. Memory, Mastery, Legacy. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. Jones, Michael Owen. 1980. A feeling for form, as illustrated by people at work. In Folklore on two continents, ed. Nikolai Burlakoff, 260-9. Bloomington, Indiana: Trickster Press. Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, Barbara. 1990. Kitchen Judaism. In Getting comfortable in New York: The Jewish home in America, 1880-1950. New York: The Jewish Museum. Lowe, David. 1982. History of bourgeois perception. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Martin, Charles P. 1982. Appalachian house beautiful. Natural History, Feb., 4-16. McCracken, Grant. 1989. "Homeyness: A cultural account of one constellation of consumer goods and meanings" In Interpretive consumer research. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research. Motz, Marilyn Ferris, and Pat Browne, eds. 1988. Making the American Home: Middle-Class women and domestic culture 1840-1940. Bowling Green, Ohio: Bowling Green State University Popular Press. Shapiro, Laura. 1986. Perfection salad: Women and cooking at the turn of the century. New York: Henry Holt and Company. Toelken, Barre. 1979. A matter of taste: Folk aesthetics. In The dynamics of folklore, 181-97. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. ----------------------------------------------------------------- April 25 MUSIC Required Turino, Thomas. 1990. Structure, context, and strategy in musical ethnography. Ethnomusicology 34 (3):399-412. Waterman, Christopher A. 1990. "Our tradition is a very modern tradition": Popular music and the construction of pan-Yoruba identity. Ethnomusicology 34 (3):367-80. Kisliuk, Michelle. 1988. "A special kind of courtesy": Action at a bluegrass festival jam session. TDR T119. Recommended Attali, Jacques. 1977. Noise: The political economy of music. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Beverley, John. 1990. The ideology of postmodern music and left politics. Postmodern culture 1 (1). Blum, Stephen. 1990. Commentary [Symposium on the Representation of Musical Practice and the Practice of Representation]. Ethnomusicology 34 (3):413-22. Corbett, John. 1990. Free, single, and disengaged: listening pleasure and 1the popular music object. October 54:79-101. Finnegan, Ruth. 1989. The practice of music. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Frith, Simon, and Andrew Goodwin, eds. 1990. On record: Rock, pop, and the written word. New York: Pantheon Books. Frith, Simon, ed. 1988. Facing the music. New York: Pantheon. Frith, Simon. 1981. Sound effects: You, leisure, and the politics of rock'n'roll. New York: Pantheon. Grenier, Line, and Jocelyne Guilbault. 1990. "Authority" revisited: The "other" in anthrology and popular music studies. Ethnomusicology 34 (3):381-98. Leppart, Richard, and Susan McClary, eds. 1987. Music and society. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Lieberman, Robbie, and . 1989. "My song is my weapon": People's songs, American communism, and the politics of culture, 1930-50. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. ----------------------------------------------------------------- May 2 DISTINCTION AND DISPLAY DUE: Research paper Required Bourdieu, Pierre. 1984. Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Pages to be assigned. Dorst, John. 1989. The written suburb: An American site, an ethnographic dilemma. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania. Pages to be assigned. Sapir, Edward. 1931. Fashion. In Encyclopedia of the social sciences, vol. 3, 139-44. New York: MacMillan. Stewart, Kathleen. 1988. Nostalgia--A polemic. Cultural Anthropology 3 (3) (Aug.):227-41. Recommended Danet, Brenda, and Tamar Katriel. 1989. No two alike: Play and aesthetics in collecting. Play and Culture (2):253-77. Dorfles, Gillo, ed. 1968. Kitsch: The world of bad taste. New York: Bell. Elias, Norbert. 1978. The history of manners. New York: Pantheon. Finkelstein, Joanne. 1989. Dining out: A sociology of modern manners. New York: New York University Press. Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, Barbara. 1991. Objects of ethnography. In Exhibiting cultures: the poetics and politics of museum display, ed. Ivan Karp, and Steven Lavine. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press. Levine, Laurence. 1988. Hihgbrow/Lowbrow. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Rosaldo, Renato. 1989. Imperialist nostalgia. In Culture and truth: the remaking of social analysis, 68-87. Boston: Beacon. Sekora, John. 1977. Luxury: The concept in western thought, Eden to Smollett. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Silverman, Deborah. 1984. "Living well is the best revenge": Bloomingdale's Diana Vreeland, and the aristocratic revival in America, 1980-1984. Sontag, Susan. 1966. Notes on "camp" In Against interpretation, 266-93. New York: Dell. Stern, Jane and Michael. 1990. The encyclopedia of bad taste. New York: HarperCollins. Stewart, Susan. 1984. On longing: Narratives of the miniature, the gigantic, the souvenir, the collection. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. ----------------------------------------------------------------- May 4 CONFERENCE of Student Papers DUE: Oral reports 21-May-91 19:29:33-GMT,1711;000000000001 Received: from porthos.rutgers.edu by klinzhai.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA14145; Tue, 21 May 91 15:29:32 EDT Received: by porthos.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA24624; Tue, 21 May 91 15:29:29 EDT Resent-Message-Id: <9105211929.AA24624@porthos.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA04657; Mon, 20 May 91 16:10:37 EDT Message-Id: <9105202010.AA04657@aramis.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with BSMTP id 8117; Mon, 20 May 91 15:50:11 EDT Received: from NCSUVM.BITNET by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 3264; Mon, 20 May 91 15:50:04 EDT Date: Mon, 20 May 91 15:26:36 EDT Reply-To: PMC-Talk Sender: PMC-Talk From: Editors of PMC Subject: Rorty Readings To: Multiple recipients of list PMC-TALK Resent-To: mcgrew@klinzhai.rutgers.edu Resent-Date: Tue, 21 May 91 15:29:28 EDT Resent-From: Charles Mcgrew Date: Sun, 19 May 91 18:34 EDT From: Subject: Richard Rorty [Summary of suggestions on introductory readings--ed.] _Contingency, Irony and Solidarity_ (good start). _Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature_ (major wk, harder). _Reading Rorty_ (essays about him and his responses--helpful). _Philosophical Papers_ I. Hollinger, ed. _Hermeneutics and Praxis_. I liked the last few essays in _Objectivity, Relativism, and Truth_ (_Philosophical Papers_ I). _Reading Rorty_ includes a guide to teaching him. Hollinger book is highly recommended (_Hermeneutics and Praxis_). BKG 23-May-91 18:20:55-GMT,4058;000000000001 Received: from porthos.rutgers.edu by klinzhai.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA15782; Thu, 23 May 91 14:20:54 EDT Received: by porthos.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA12349; Thu, 23 May 91 14:20:52 EDT Resent-Message-Id: <9105231820.AA12349@porthos.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA27925; Wed, 22 May 91 18:10:54 EDT Message-Id: <9105222210.AA27925@aramis.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with BSMTP id 1856; Wed, 22 May 91 18:08:48 EDT Received: from NCSUVM.BITNET by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 8906; Wed, 22 May 91 18:08:42 EDT Date: Wed, 22 May 91 18:03:37 EDT Reply-To: PMC-Talk Sender: PMC-Talk From: Editors of PMC Subject: Kessler & Eastern Europe To: Multiple recipients of list PMC-TALK Resent-To: mcgrew@klinzhai.rutgers.edu Resent-Date: Thu, 23 May 91 14:20:51 EDT Resent-From: Charles Mcgrew 1) No easy answers (Roy Bird) 2) We have faces (Peter Erdi) 1)-------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 20 May 91 17:58:00 -0900 From: "Roy Bird" Subject: Kessler In May 1988, taking a break from my two-year stint as a Fulbrighter in the twilight of Ceausescu's Romania, I happened to see the beginning of a May Day parade in front of the Vienna Opera House. I wanted to tell the young Communists who made up such a large percentage of the marcherthat they ought to spend a week or two a few hundred kilometers to the east before they continued on their way. (They could skip Hungary, which already was well on its way to Westernization.) Having said that, I can't resist commenting that what bothers me about Mr. Kessler is that he speaks with the same shrill tone of voice as the commies/leftists/whatevers he claims to be denouncing. Finally, that tone of voice worries me more than the "content" of what he says. Having recently spent a week in post-Ceausescu Transylvania, I can say with some assurance that Westernization of the region promises to be at least as painful as Stalinization. And I'm not just talking about selling babies. Or persecuting ethnic Hungarians. There just ain't easy answers. Making "p.c." (whatever that means, anyway) the latest Red Menace doesn't help either. Pardon me while I wander back into the Alaskan tundra before Wally Hickel and other red-blooded Americans get their chance to "develop" it in the name of our shining republic. 2)-------------------------------------------------------------- From: Erdi Peter Date: Wed, 22 May 91 15:33:00 Subject: KESSLER: vague associations from Hungary I guess I am among the very few (if not the only) East-European prescribers of PMC-Talk. As a natural scientist working on the fields of theoretical biology/ system theory started to be interested in "postmodern natural(?) sciences". As an assimilated Hungarian Jewish 'cosmopolitan' liberal intellectual can not resist to react Kessler' remarks. (By the way, I would eager to know the titles of some works you published). East-Europe of course is not a homogeneous continuum, but has structure, geography and history. People try to survive (however, suicide rate has traditionally been extremely high in Hungary in the last 100 (not only 40) years). Spending a lot of time in Hungary ( and of course in Bulgaria, as you mentioned) you certainly know that ideas of western liberal values have survived communism. Many of us (who we are?) try to be an emancipated member of western scientific, artistic etc. communities. I hope, you will acknowledge that even during the years of the repression we might preserve our human(-like) faces. (I shall be in the U.S. in the first half of July, mostly in the Boston area. It would be interesting to meet postmodern scientists.) Peter Erdi (some accent is missing) 23-May-91 18:21:34-GMT,2826;000000000001 Received: from porthos.rutgers.edu by klinzhai.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA15792; Thu, 23 May 91 14:21:33 EDT Received: by porthos.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA12409; Thu, 23 May 91 14:21:31 EDT Resent-Message-Id: <9105231821.AA12409@porthos.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA29129; Wed, 22 May 91 18:22:25 EDT Message-Id: <9105222222.AA29129@aramis.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with BSMTP id 1870; Wed, 22 May 91 18:20:31 EDT Received: from NCSUVM.BITNET by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 9077; Wed, 22 May 91 18:20:23 EDT Date: Wed, 22 May 91 18:05:47 EDT Reply-To: PMC-Talk Sender: PMC-Talk From: Editors of PMC Subject: Postmodernism & Science To: Multiple recipients of list PMC-TALK Resent-To: mcgrew@klinzhai.rutgers.edu Resent-Date: Thu, 23 May 91 14:21:29 EDT Resent-From: Charles Mcgrew Date: Tue, 21 May 91 13:19:57 EDT From: Robert O'Hara Subject: Postmodernism and science For Jack Kolb: I'm not sure whether we agree or disagree, Jack; we may just be talking past each other, which is not hard to imagine since the beginning of this thread is now lost in the ethereal flux. The question I was trying to address was the scope of the concept of postmodernism. It is possible to distinguish two contrasting "scientific" ways of apprehending the world, one based in mathematical determinism and laws of structure and behavior, the other based on statistical probability, indeterminism, and history. The first of these ways, the mathematical and deterministic way, has been ascendant since around the time of the so-called scientific revolution. The second mode of understanding, the historical and statistical mode, has been rising since the mid-19th century, however, and particularly within the last few years. This rise of historical thinking in science is what I want to associate with "postmodernism", in contrast to the "modern science" which I associate with the Newtonian era. I do not wish to say that rejection or deemphasis of the more purely mathematical approach to nature ("hard science") means that now our knowledge is hopelessly uncertain and relative; quite the contrary: now we have a richer understanding that is closer to the truth, because the universe and life are the products of history. "Fortunately earlier fears, that only a fixed Order of Nature could be intelligible, have proved groundless. In evolutionary terms, we understand the world not less, but more completely." (T&G) Bob O'Hara, MNHVZ028@SIVM.bitnet 23-May-91 18:21:41-GMT,8904;000000000001 Received: from porthos.rutgers.edu by klinzhai.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA15797; Thu, 23 May 91 14:21:39 EDT Received: by porthos.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA12415; Thu, 23 May 91 14:21:37 EDT Resent-Message-Id: <9105231821.AA12415@porthos.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA29421; Wed, 22 May 91 18:27:06 EDT Message-Id: <9105222227.AA29421@aramis.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with BSMTP id 1881; Wed, 22 May 91 18:24:26 EDT Received: from NCSUVM.BITNET by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 9147; Wed, 22 May 91 18:24:19 EDT Date: Wed, 22 May 91 18:06:17 EDT Reply-To: PMC-Talk Sender: PMC-Talk From: Editors of PMC Subject: Art? To: Multiple recipients of list PMC-TALK Resent-To: mcgrew@klinzhai.rutgers.edu Resent-Date: Thu, 23 May 91 14:21:34 EDT Resent-From: Charles Mcgrew Date: Tue, 21 May 91 05:35:39 EDT From: Eliot Handelman Subject: secret art >Date: Fri, 17 May 91 17:14:55 CDT >From: "Corporeal (if nothing else)" >On the other hand, >you also assert that "Art wants to control", which would seem to >imply a desire by Art to appear translucent in its functionality >(your attack, oh these many long months ago, on "fun" in the >left) while at the same time insidiously inserting itself at a >special autonomous level outside of the economy (or attempting >to, one can certainly run a decon program here) and the >political systems. >On the other hand, _where_ is this being argued? You cited two >shows, one in Italy and one in Germany, both dealing with >aesthetic fascism, and equated them with postmodernism (or, to be >fair, trying to demonstrate how it's inappropriate to equate >postmodernism with the left ("It's about ideological >failure.")). I don't know how they were presented: >naively? apologetically? with reverence for the dead? I didn't see either of the shows I mentioned. I wanted to see the Brekker show in Berlin, but it was cancelled a few days after it opened due to protest (this was in the early 80s, there were daily glass-smashing binges in Berlin). I had no interest in seeing the Hitler Show. On the other hand I was (and still am) curious about fascistic art. Except for some buildings and the legacy of people like Strauss or Gruendgens, there was (possibly still is) no trace of "liberal arts" activity in Germany during the 3rd Reich. The library books had been systematically expunged of nazi references. I once accidentally caught one that had eluded the censors -- it was a 4-hand arrangement of the Schumann symphonies -- and just one page bore the swastika, testimony of a horrific past that otherwise seems completely unreal, mythologized, disenfranchised and unacknowledged. This is simply a perversion of history. I've just read E. Ann Kaplan's book on MTV, and she seems strongly to believe, following Jameson as I suppose I do, that the absence of any unambiguous position is just one of those very postmodern things, with regards both to its lack of a critique of dominant culture, and to its (uncritical) ambiguization of history. I see this as implicitly rightist because I spent my formative years in Germany, where a historical critique of sorts is thoroughly worked into the dominant culture. In my day, the young German composers were going through a thing about the rejection of their own "modernisms" -- meaning Stockhausen et al: and were trying to come to terms with the older music -- Mahler et al, and the great, and much discussed, difficulty of asserting such influences is that they must be carried across a temporal discontinuity, an unknown past (I was going through a similar thing, which is how I happened on Germany). Essentially it boils down to the following recipe: you can bridge the past as long as you're unpositional, via an appropriate apologetic. But deconstruction is in this case just that apologetic (at least in the public eye, viz Le Cas de de Man). Kaplan, however, sees something more positive in this positionlessness: "The decentering of the spectator/reader then has the radical effect in releasing him/her from predictable, confining, signifieds ... [calling] into question moribund pieties of a now archaic humanism." [147-148] This doesn't seem to me to be an appropriate base from which to launch a critique of "serious" German music (I speak of Rihm, Bose, Schweinitz etc -- people who are stateside largely unknown, probably deservedly so), partly because it leaves uncritiqued the consumer/producer dichotomy, especially in its dimension as history, legacy, even "moribund piety" (however adequate or inadequate it may be for MTV). There was, in the early 80s, a great deal of talk about "winning back" the classical music audience, addressing a "publique trouve" not, significantly, about attracting a "new" audience. Recently a young up-n-coming composer revealed in interview (syndicated in a PA rag) that the secret of his success was that "most new orchestra music isn't good enough" to make the repertoire, to meet, without overt critique, the demands of the publique trouve who know their Rimsky. My point is that in some sense postmodern culture is concerned with undoing the alienating effects of modernism. I've said that before, and I'm not sure if anyone feels any opposition to that stance. However, to take this a bit further, I also think that postmodernism is concerned with undoing the alienating effects of "humanism," and that suggests a dialogue with, if not a move to, the right. Briefly, in what sense is humanism alienating? Answer: in its reception. What has come to represent humanistic interests? There was some discussion a while back about allowing the homeless to panhandle in the NYC subways, because this was their "freedom of speech" -- this is how they attract attention to their political cause, so it was argued. To your question: where is it being argued that "Art wants to control," or be "translucent in its functionality," "at the same time insidiously inserting itself at a special autonomous level outside of the economy and the political systems"? (Correction: I meant "either/or," not "at the same time".) This sounds like Moynihan's Op-ed piece into today's (Sunday) NYT about the CIA. Dean Acheson on the National Security Act of 1947: "neither [the president], the NSC nor anyone else would be in a position to know what [the CIA] was doing or to control it." Moynihan: "Because what it does is secret." Solution: end to secrecy, make the CIA play the game of free enterprise ("competition and free exchange of ideas") and exchanging the "C" for a "D" as in "decentralizing" (or decentering). However two things are at issue. An intelligence agency is in the business of knowing more, not less (though it's becoming increasingly unclear what it is that the CIA is supposed to know -- money laundering? environmental threats?) and this suggests empowerment. But we do not like Intelligence Agencies that forget who's the boss, and this suggests "functional translucence." So let's just generalize, and say that the political backdrop of postmodernism is made up of a desire for empowerment, and we get rid of the nastily fascistic by espousing translucence. Ok? "Art wants to control" is not a theory, it's simply one of many possible positions. Ned Rorem said in reply to Taruskin: "could I compose a piece that would make us march away from battle, I would devote my career to that, and to hell with art!" Of course Rorem doesn't know how to do this, so in fact he's reduced to the "intensification of our already held convictions," aka art (he says), no better example of a moribund piety of a now archaic humanism. So this has got to go. How serious is Rorem about this anyway? I don't think he's serious at all. He just doesn't want to think beyond his own convictions. So of course that gets turned into its own defense. >May I >assume that you yourself see the appearances of an "open{ing} up >{of} a dialog with conservatism and extreme rightism" as a bad, >icky, evil, unpleasant sort of thing? No, I regard that as a necessary sort of thing, the only sort of thing which now counts. In the Baudrillardesque universe of communication, remember, the faustian and promethean have given way to the generalized interface -- "contact, contiguity, feedback" -- no more vindications of humanism by solitary unknown geniuses, soldiers, workers or spectres of the past. Paglia's endorsement of preliteracy (if I'm reading her correctly) fits in here somewhere. My apologies if this seems more than usually disconnected, even for me. --eliot 24-May-91 19:16:21-GMT,5687;000000000001 Received: from porthos.rutgers.edu by klinzhai.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA27594; Fri, 24 May 91 15:16:15 EDT Received: by porthos.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA29914; Fri, 24 May 91 15:16:13 EDT Resent-Message-Id: <9105241916.AA29914@porthos.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA22243; Thu, 23 May 91 20:37:25 EDT Message-Id: <9105240037.AA22243@aramis.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with BSMTP id 4138; Thu, 23 May 91 20:35:29 EDT Received: from NCSUVM.BITNET by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 3142; Thu, 23 May 91 20:35:21 EDT Date: Thu, 23 May 91 20:32:13 EDT Reply-To: PMC-Talk Sender: PMC-Talk From: Editors of PMC Subject: Misc. To: Multiple recipients of list PMC-TALK Resent-To: mcgrew@klinzhai.rutgers.edu Resent-Date: Fri, 24 May 91 15:16:11 EDT Resent-From: Charles Mcgrew 1) Course in Everyday Life (Barbara Kirshenblatt-Gimblett) 2) Bergson (Lois Brynes) 3) Excerpts from _Village Voice_ review of D'Souza 4) Bad Taste (Chris Maeda) 1)-------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 22 May 91 23:11 EDT From: Subject: Course in Everyday Life I know Garfinkel and the ethnomethodologists well. That work shades off into ethnography of communication, sociolinguistics, etc., none of which are well represented in this version of the course, though they are very valuable. Actually, the foundations of ethnomethodology in phenomenology are at least signalled by the work of Schutz, which I do include, and Bachelard. Seems to me I need a whole course for the other stuff--it's rich. BKG 2)-------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 23 May 1991 05:05 EST From: Lois Brynes Subject: Bergson Bob O'Hara's query comment prodded the 'r' mode... Inetersting to give this one thought in relation to modernist mixes in/of discourse. eg. check out V. Woolf THE WAVES in relation to Bergson... as to continuation in "scientific discourse" I would suggest as a fine eg. C. Waddington's notion of chreods...as the phil. overview Science & the Modern WOrld... SO Bergy in a vital way contines in lines(sic) in lit, psyc, and phil-history of science. Hope this is vaguely clear. Lois Brynes Clark University & New England Science Center lbrynes@vax.clarku.edu 3)-------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 23 May 91 09:42:42 EDT From: Subject: more on D'Souza These excerpts are from the most recent issue of the Village Voice, NYC: ---------------------------------------------------------------- From the Village Voice, May 21, 1991 Useful Idiot Dinesh D'Souza's Reaction Time Aamir Mufti Review of Illiberal Education His book rehashes various right-wing cliches about race and gender, predictable theories about racial tensions on campus, and sanctimonious talk about the passing of the liberal university, all wrapped up in a dizzying display of "facts" and statistics. The main charge of the book is that there has been a "victim's revolution"in the American university. Admissions, faculty hiring, curriculum, and teaching, in fact all aspects of campus life, are now dictated by radical champions of minority, feminist and gay causes. The casualties are liberal notions of a disinterested scholarship, free discussion, and reward for merit. If it sounds familiar, that's only because you've heard it before. ...That a Third World native should voice this straight white male paranoia is not only bizarre and ironic, it is a sign of how insidious the attack on feminism and anti-racism has become. D'Souza's descriptions of certain academic trends are laughable, especially coming from someone concerned with seriousness. Structuralism is reduced to the proposition that a literary work is "nothing more that one long sentence." Several recent books have looked at the dilemmas of higher education seriously and with intelligence. _Masks of Conquest_ by the Indian critic Guari Viswanathan, puts the curriculum debate in an entirely new light. ...show(ing) that English literary studies were invented in colonial times with the self- conscious purpose of the pacification of the colonized through cultural means. D'Souza himself claims the is trying to "calm the storm" and encourage discussion.It is not clear to me how condescension toward minorities' and women's aspirations, and outright hostility to gays and lesbians, will calm any storms--except, perhaps,by instilling fear. His book left me with the feeling that now any opposition to racism, sexism, and homophobia in the university will be more easily denounced as radical and intolerant. 4)-------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Maeda Date: Thu, 23 May 91 15:53:45 EDT Subject: Bad Taste > Date: Tue, 21 May 91 21:17 EDT > From: > Subject: taste > Where did Kundera write that kitsch is the aesthetics of a > world that does not recognize shit? What's the best recent > stuff you've seen on the subject of (bad) taste? Or your > favorite writings on this topic (any vintage). Thx, BKG You're referring to The Unbearable Lightness of Being. This topic (kitsch, bad taste, and pop culture) is a recurring motif in the Zippy the Pinhead comic strip. 27-May-91 16:17:05-GMT,1904;000000000001 Received: from porthos.rutgers.edu by klinzhai.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA10106; Mon, 27 May 91 12:17:04 EDT Received: by porthos.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA12336; Mon, 27 May 91 12:17:02 EDT Resent-Message-Id: <9105271617.AA12336@porthos.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA12108; Fri, 24 May 91 22:18:26 EDT Message-Id: <9105250218.AA12108@aramis.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with BSMTP id 5805; Fri, 24 May 91 22:16:20 EDT Received: from NCSUVM.BITNET by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 4959; Fri, 24 May 91 22:16:10 EDT Date: Fri, 24 May 91 22:12:08 EDT Reply-To: PMC-Talk Sender: PMC-Talk From: Editors of PMC Subject: Bad Taste To: Multiple recipients of list PMC-TALK Resent-To: mcgrew@klinzhai.rutgers.edu Resent-Date: Mon, 27 May 91 12:17:02 EDT Resent-From: Charles Mcgrew 1) Bad taste (Kessler) 2) Bad taste (Roy Bird) 1)-------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 23 May 91 17:20 PDT From: KESSLER Subject: Bad Taste Kundera, I think, in THE UNBEARABLE LIGHTNESS OF BEING. His first remarkss on a esthetics, I think. On shit, perhaps you can start with Rabelais? and about that time, TILL EULENSPIEGEL. Kessler 2)-------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 24 May 91 15:52:54 -0900 From: "Roy Bird" Subject: Bad Taste (Kitsch/Shit) In case no one's answered that question, Kundera's discussion appears in _The Unbearable Lightness of Being_. Seems to me to be much to the point of the recent discussion of "bad taste," by the way. 27-May-91 16:17:54-GMT,3533;000000000001 Received: from porthos.rutgers.edu by klinzhai.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA10115; Mon, 27 May 91 12:17:53 EDT Received: by porthos.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA12345; Mon, 27 May 91 12:17:52 EDT Resent-Message-Id: <9105271617.AA12345@porthos.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA12619; Fri, 24 May 91 22:28:23 EDT Message-Id: <9105250228.AA12619@aramis.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with BSMTP id 5811; Fri, 24 May 91 22:25:46 EDT Received: from NCSUVM.BITNET by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 5067; Fri, 24 May 91 22:25:37 EDT Date: Fri, 24 May 91 22:13:38 EDT Reply-To: PMC-Talk Sender: PMC-Talk From: Editors of PMC Subject: Kessler & Eastern Europe To: Multiple recipients of list PMC-TALK Resent-To: mcgrew@klinzhai.rutgers.edu Resent-Date: Mon, 27 May 91 12:17:51 EDT Resent-From: Charles Mcgrew 1) To Peter Erdi (Kessler) 2) To Roy Bird (Kessler) 3) To Kessler (Cliff Staples) 1)-------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 23 May 91 17:32 PDT From: KESSLER Subject: Kessler & Eastern Europe To Peter Erdi: I am certainly in agreement that people of great decency are everywhere to be found in Hungary and Bulgaria, and etc. I referred mostly to such people in my remarks about thier contempt for the naivety of American Leftists and would be communists. 40 years under Leninism does a lot of damage, but the re is continuity. Even in the USSR there are people whose character is pre-X 2)-------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 23 May 91 17:36 PDT From: KESSLER Subject: Kessler & Eastern Europe Roy Bird: I hear no shrillness in my firmly-utter tone of voice. Dont call me shrill, because I speak with absolute (absolutely absolutist?) conviction about mushminds and mealymouths! I beg your pardon. But we are standing in blood that is about a mile high over hour heads. I am impatient, never shrill. I am contemptuous, but never shrill. You want decency and manners? Dont go to the NATION. 3)-------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 23 May 91 19:43:28 CDT From: cliff staples Subject: Kessler & Eastern Europe Kessler translation (regarding Cockburn and everyone else he's yet spoken about): Someone makes a contribution; Kessler tells us we're all stupid for even having considered reading this person; Kessler then proceeds to tell us that the person isn't worth reading because, well, he/she is who she is; Kessler then proceeds to tell us to read only what Kessler has to say because, well, he's Kessler. Kessler then makes a few more proclamations, personal attacks, and then signs off with a flourish. There isn't anything postmodern about this discourse. It isn't even modern. In fact, it's premodern... primitive actually. It's nothing but your typical male intellectual dominating pissing contest. I can see and hear it at the next ASA, APA, MLA, AAA, etc. meeting. All male dominated, aggressive, and abusive. Let's see who can be king of the Bulletin Board? Kessler, as my students say, get a life. Cliff Staples 27-May-91 16:32:12-GMT,3603;000000000001 Received: from porthos.rutgers.edu by klinzhai.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA10257; Mon, 27 May 91 12:32:11 EDT Received: by porthos.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA12521; Mon, 27 May 91 12:32:10 EDT Resent-Message-Id: <9105271632.AA12521@porthos.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA18138; Sun, 26 May 91 18:50:42 EDT Message-Id: <9105262250.AA18138@aramis.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with BSMTP id 6389; Sun, 26 May 91 18:49:24 EDT Received: from NCSUVM.BITNET by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 0600; Sun, 26 May 91 18:49:20 EDT Date: Sun, 26 May 91 18:48:11 EDT Reply-To: PMC-Talk Sender: PMC-Talk From: Editors of PMC Subject: Kessler & Eastern Europe To: Multiple recipients of list PMC-TALK Resent-To: mcgrew@klinzhai.rutgers.edu Resent-Date: Mon, 27 May 91 12:32:09 EDT Resent-From: Charles Mcgrew 1) Kessler to Peter Erdi 2) Kessler to Roy Bird 3) Kessler to Cliff Staples 4) Norman Miller to Cliff Staples 1)-------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 24 May 91 15:15 PDT From: KESSLER Subject: Kessler & Eastern Europe For Peter Erdi: OPIUM, stories by Geza Csath (Penguin Books), translated, Kessler; UNDER GEMINI, Selected Poetry of Miklos Radnoti (Ohio Univ Pr), trans Kessler; THE FACE OF CREATION: Contemporary Hungarian Poetry (23 poets) (COFFEE HOUSE PRESS, 1988) transl Kessler; CATULLAN GAMES, A booklength poem by Sandor Rakos (Marlboro Press 1989) trans. Kessler. Yrs, J Kessler 2)-------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 24 May 91 15:18 PDT From: KESSLER Subject: Kessler & Eastern Europe For Roy Bird: It is not our "Republic" that shines; it simply extends from"sea to shining sea." What has Hinkel & c. to do with PC? Dear Roy, you can vote the rascals out of office, you know. As for Ceaucescu, they had to shoot him dead. Today's papers have photo of Ethiopians toppling the statue of Lenin, the big state of VIL himself. Lenin in Africa! Israel airlifting 18,000 Falashas out now 3)-------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 25 May 91 15:19 PDT From: KESSLER Subject: Kessler & Eastern Europe All this IS about PM-ism. I am permitted, I think, to characterize writers and writing for what I think they are, and as they are. Read them, please! Alas, I do, in the papers every week, Cockburn and company. I'm pacific by nature, and do indeed have a life, two handfuls of it. Do students, poor things? Dont you like controversy? Or only mutual smirking about the "cons" neo and otherwise? K 4)--------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 26 May 91 13:37 EST From: Norman Miller Subject: postmodern/modern/premodern/primitive Cliff Staples complains that there isn't anything postmodern about this discourse, referring to Kessler on Cockburn and Eastern Europe. Well now. For those of us who are signed onto this list in the vain and getting vainer hope that some-one will explain what means postmodern, maybe Professor Staples will treat us to some pm words on such matters as Stalin's murders and even more the bloody complicity of most of the left in these events. Norman Miller 27-May-91 16:32:20-GMT,2888;000000000001 Received: from porthos.rutgers.edu by klinzhai.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA10262; Mon, 27 May 91 12:32:20 EDT Received: by porthos.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA12526; Mon, 27 May 91 12:32:18 EDT Resent-Message-Id: <9105271632.AA12526@porthos.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA18282; Sun, 26 May 91 18:53:06 EDT Message-Id: <9105262253.AA18282@aramis.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with BSMTP id 6390; Sun, 26 May 91 18:51:35 EDT Received: from NCSUVM.BITNET by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 0654; Sun, 26 May 91 18:50:59 EDT Date: Sun, 26 May 91 18:48:57 EDT Reply-To: PMC-Talk Sender: PMC-Talk From: Editors of PMC Subject: Genovese/Nation To: Multiple recipients of list PMC-TALK Resent-To: mcgrew@klinzhai.rutgers.edu Resent-Date: Mon, 27 May 91 12:32:17 EDT Resent-From: Charles Mcgrew Date: Sat, 25 May 91 21:42 PDT To: PMC-Talk From: KESSLER Subject: Source for Genovese? The Genovese review appeared in, of all places, The New Republic, 15 April, was it? As for hardline apologetics: they are far too subtle to be what they were in the late 40s and mid 50s; and these are sophisticated, educated folks too. Second and even third generation. Navasky is no street fighting Stalinist, as my father's peers were, for instance, going up against mere hired thugs of the bosses in the garment workers' and furriers' purlieus. These are Yalies, and such like. These dont sing along with the Guthries. These are the obverse side of the slick writers for Vanity Fair and Esquire, for Omni and Penthouse. These are not intellectuals, however, whom Lenin wished to have treated like vermin: exterminated. They are, a Cockburn and Navasky, smart enough, like a Lapham from the School of Ethical Culture, to be on the take from the liberal heirs of the MacArthur Foundation and Lannan Foundation daddies. Interesting enough people. And for a Genovese to appear in TNR? And to claim straight Marxian pedigree? He has a right to it, but also most political scientists would point out that his position and arguments for the past decade have been centrist...which is interesting too, since the Left today claims to be Left. So what can they argue about with a Genovese? I wish these were interesting times; they used to be. As the Chinese curse has it: May you live in "interesting times." But they are now I think rather decadent and fallen away from interest; rather degenerate and dishonest, which the Marxist tried not to be, in principle, at least, honest in the street debates. No more. Yours, JK 27-May-91 16:32:42-GMT,2628;000000000001 Received: from porthos.rutgers.edu by klinzhai.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA10268; Mon, 27 May 91 12:32:41 EDT Received: by porthos.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA12533; Mon, 27 May 91 12:32:39 EDT Resent-Message-Id: <9105271632.AA12533@porthos.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA18678; Sun, 26 May 91 18:57:15 EDT Message-Id: <9105262257.AA18678@aramis.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with BSMTP id 6396; Sun, 26 May 91 18:55:52 EDT Received: from NCSUVM.BITNET by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 0768; Sun, 26 May 91 18:55:47 EDT Date: Sun, 26 May 91 18:50:20 EDT Reply-To: PMC-Talk Sender: PMC-Talk From: Editors of PMC Subject: Course in Postmodernism To: Multiple recipients of list PMC-TALK Resent-To: mcgrew@klinzhai.rutgers.edu Resent-Date: Mon, 27 May 91 12:32:38 EDT Resent-From: Charles Mcgrew [Editor's note: posting of syllabi for courses in postmodernism are invited; evidently, some discussion of the meaning of the term "postmodernism is also in order. Participants may want to read the files POMO DEF-1 and KOEHLER TRANS, available from the PMC-Talk filelist.] 1) Ego in postmodernism (Jack Kolb) 2) Live material (Jack Kolb) 1)-------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 25 May 91 20:31 PDT From: Jack Kolb Subject: Course in Postmodernism Dear Mr. Davies, I don't have my response in front of me--nor indeed your initial comment. If I were intemperate, I apologize. Please explain your conception of post-modern reformulation: as a Victorian, I know I have much to learn. 2)-------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 25 May 91 20:27 PDT To: PMC-Talk From: Jack Kolb Subject: Course in Postmodernism Why wouldn't examining "live material"--or indeed dead material or any other sort of material--simply serve to ratify or reify students' values? Sit them down into an admitting room in local emergency ward in any major city, and they might well form racist attitudes about violence towards women and children. Let them hear only the rhetoric of Al Sharpton, and their attitudes might be very different. I won't draw the obvious analogies to the arts. But this is so evident that I think I'm missing your point, B. 28-May-91 14:49:50-GMT,13111;000000000001 Received: from porthos.rutgers.edu by klinzhai.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA15014; Tue, 28 May 91 10:49:37 EDT Received: by porthos.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA09515; Tue, 28 May 91 10:49:36 EDT Resent-Message-Id: <9105281449.AA09515@porthos.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA11916; Mon, 27 May 91 22:39:37 EDT Message-Id: <9105280239.AA11916@aramis.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with BSMTP id 7298; Mon, 27 May 91 22:37:51 EDT Received: from NCSUVM.BITNET by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 9852; Mon, 27 May 91 22:37:44 EDT Date: Mon, 27 May 91 22:01:01 EDT Reply-To: PMC-Talk Sender: PMC-Talk From: Editors of PMC Subject: Misc. To: Multiple recipients of list PMC-TALK Resent-To: mcgrew@klinzhai.rutgers.edu Resent-Date: Tue, 28 May 91 10:49:35 EDT Resent-From: Charles Mcgrew 1) _The Nation_ (Norman Miller) 2) D'Souza, the university (Cliff Staples) 3) Postmodernism, Stalinism (Cliff Staples) 4) Definition of Postmodernism (Istvan Csicsery-Ronay, Jr.) 5) Postmodernism & Science (Bob O'Hara) 1)-------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 27 May 91 11:00 EST From: NMILLER@trincc Subject: Genovese/Nation Jascha Kessler makes a distinction between today's Navaskys and their fathers. Fair enough, although I have at least one colleague who _does_ sing along with Pete Seeger. But he's in error (incorrect?) when he suggests that the daddies were in principle honest in the street debates. Not if they were Stalinists they weren't. If Navasky's pop was one of those then Editor Vic came by his character honestly. The difference lies only in this: Navasky Pere laughed at the Moscow subway joke, his sons (scan the logs of ACTIV-L if you think I lie) haven't a single reflexive bone in their bodies. Norman Miller 2)-------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 27 May 91 12:09:31 CDT From: cliff staples Subject: to Kessler We BBSers talk here about other texts (e.g. D'Souza, Cockburn) on the topic of PC in the university, problems of race, gender, class, etc. In doing this we construct "the university" as if it existed most concretely in those texts. Wrong, I think. Given that most of us are lodged (trapped? hiding?) IN the university, our discourse, here, on this board ABOUT the university is also DOING the university. Thus, our dialogue is a far more immediate and analyzable document of the university than anything we might conjure up from th texts of D'Souza et al. Another way of thinking about it is that all talk is a "doing," a perfomative utterance (See Austin; Garfinkel; Wittgenstein). This is the insight that opens up "everyday life" for sociological analysis (see the previous discussions/syllabi about such matters). What all this suggests is that adjudicating any debates about the alleged claims of D'Souza et al. requires us to examine, reflexively, who is doing what here on this BBS. My previous remarks, angry and annoyed though they were, were based on such an analysis, and some guess work. We, sitting here, having debates about the political correctness of the university, are doing the very thing that those who champion "diversity" and so forth are concerned about. The ratio of males to females on this board is probably 90% male to 10% female. The dialogue, in form not content, reflects the competitive, dominating, and posturing behavior that drives patriarchal male culture. It is also elitist, and probably racist. Assumptions about the social location of speakers and listeners are made and go unanalyzed. One example: discussions of educational "quality" and "standards" are invoked that rely upon assumptions that presume the speakers and listeners are concerened with, in Dorothy Smith's words, "relations of ruling." No one has yet raised the question, in any debate on the university, exactly WHO gets to decide what standards are and whoose interests they serve? What sort of educational requirements are required to maintain a racist, classist, and sexist society and the privileges of those who benefit from it? Simple? Mundane? Perhaps. But if you read the celebration of D'Souza you posted you will find the importation of assumptions about "quality" that presume those concerned with it share and would like to maintain positions of privilege from which they rule. All the discussions about educational "quality" take for granted dominant ideological notions about just what sort of society is worth living in. And, lo and behold, it turns out not to be a lot different from the one that elevates white, male culture over anyone else's. Controversy is fine. But it's a little foolish to be railing against those who challenge the dominance of the university by a race, class, and gendered elite within a discourse that is itself evidence of that problem. Yours, Cliff Staples 3)-------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 27 May 91 12:46:49 CDT From: cliff staples Subject: to Norman Miller Norman: Don't ask me what PM is--- that's what I signed on here to find out! Just like you. My point was that everything I've seen looks pretty damn familiar to me. If PM means that literary critics have discovered that texts don't exist in a social, cultural, or political vacuum, well, I 'm not too impressed. Anyone could have learned that my taking an introductory sociology class (or from having read MArx, Mannheim or the sociology of knowledge tradition). As for Stalin, the Left, and all that... well, I wasn't around-- not even close to being around then, so I sure as hell am not going to take on the burden of defending any of those thugs and their apologists. I know bad shit when I see it, but the Left has no monopoly on it. And I have no interest in debating the relative costs and benefits of totalitarians of the Right or Left. I think most of us need to pay more attention to the day to day violence (verbal, physical, spiritual) in our own lives and then maybe we'll be in a position to make proclamations about somebody else's violence. So far, I have found PM useful for my project of getting a handle on some aspects of the culture of late capitalism. It has, along with feminism, opened up some areas for analysis that were hidden to me heretofore. But I'm a sociologist, and I have my particular concerns. I therefore see PM, like other forms of knowledge, as a perspective that both reflects and interprets its social context. And that's the way I approach it. regards Cliff Staples 4)-------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 27 May 91 13:41 EST From: ICRONAY@DePauw.Bitnet Subject: A definition of PoMo? Since I joined this list some months ago, the discussion has become, for me, steadily more aimless and uninteresting, oscillating between the poles of Kessler-Kinbote and the Live at Leeds school. So I says to myself, it's time to put up or shut up; either drop the list or try to make it more interesting. Most of my dissatisfaction comes from the way the discussants are conflating current cultural-political concerns with long-term cultural/social/political trends. The former can change in the wink of an eye -- the case of the fall of socialism (which I witnessed inside Hungary occurring with panic speed), for example; let us not be surprised if an equally quick revival of some sort of anti-capitalist democratic socialism, and even the return of socialist parties to ascendancy, occurs in the self- same countries. A more long term theory of social trends, one would hope, would help to explain and predict those local- historical changes. In my own work I have been using the following, perhaps overly narrow, notion of the postmodern: it is a social and cultural condition attending the transformation of all social institutions and media of communication by the global technology of information storage, production and dissemination. Its provenance (as a matter of convenience?) is 1942-1950, with the application of state of the art technology to mass destruction (the twin basilisks of the Nazi death camps, i.e., the application of advanced industrial management techniques to genocide; and the Japanese A-bombs, the application of the most highly advanced physical science for mass extermination); and by the rapid development of computer-systems and television in the postwar era. The effect of these "phenomena" and their outgrowths has been to transform almost every area of study, to change both the practice of research and the constitution of objects of knowledge. It has effectively drawn previously separated and isolated societies so close together that the very concept of difference has become one of the most problematic ones of our time. It has effectively extended surveillance and data gathering technologies to ever corner of the world. It has undermined the categories dear to the Western cultural conservatives (indeed, all cultural conservatives), by removing information from the realm of knowledge and foundational texts; and it has similarly undermined the categories dear to the curriculum of the oppressed, by dissolving the essentialist notions of race, gender and human being. It has also reached such a level of sophistication in the reproduction and simulation of information that there is hardly a single concept once held to be transcendental or heteronomic that is not now imagined to be, at least theoretically, materializable. The creation of life (including even a Simulated life, the artificial vitality of A- Life), the destruction of the world, the creation of the double, immortality, infinite differentiation or complete de- differentiation, on and on, must all now be treated as potentially realizable capacities of human societies. I have been calling this "artificial immanence," or even "immanentization" -- the plausible conversion of all imaginary conceptions into material forms. This is for me the postmodern condition. It helps to analyze a very broad range of phenomena: from programmed trading, to science fiction, to the cultural effects of the introduction of a state of the art phone system in Hungary. It may appear rather "leftist" to some, in that it assumes that a social dialectics of technology is the "determiner in the last instance." I did not say that I was happy about what this view might lead to. In any case, I am offering it to my colleagues on this list as a way to get out of what I feel is short-sighted academic politics and into the question of what has actually changed so drastically in our world, whether we are conscious of it or not, that we are in a new age, a postmodern condition. Istvan Csicsery-Ronay, Jr. 5)-------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 27 May 91 15:05:15 EDT From: Robert O'Hara Subject: Re: Postmodernism & Science For Jack Kolb: Yes, Jack, it would appear we are using two different senses of the modernism/postmodernism distinction. There is an article by Koehler (I believe) on the PMC fileserver that discusses this as well. Briefly, there is what I will call long m/pm and short m/pm. When historians talk about "modern" history they usually mean a period beginning around 1600 (say), and "modern" science is the science that begins with Descartes and Newton. Under this reading (long m/pm), "postmodern" science begins maybe with Darwin, maybe with quantum physics, maybe even with historical geology in the early 1800s. The two domains are of course not sharply distinct; it's more a case of shifting emphases, from mechanism and determinism to history, statistics, and indeterminism. Now in literature (and architecture?) there is another distinction I believe: the short m/pm distinction. When I took a course on "modern" poetry as an undergraduate, "modern" meant the period beginning with Whitman and Dickinson, and reaching its zenith in Pound and Eliot. I suppose the short pm period begins sometime after that - maybe very recently. (I'm not much of a scholar of recent literature; perhaps someone who is could enlighten us on the nature of this more recent boundary.) The labels for these different periods don't particularly matter to me; if you want to call long m/pm something different, or short m/pm something different that's ok with me. Likewise, precise dates are not important; I'm interested in what I percieve to be fuzzy but general trends. I hope this clarifies my usage. Bob O'Hara, MNHVZ028@SIVM.bitnet National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution 29-May-91 14:16:21-GMT,2214;000000000001 Received: from porthos.rutgers.edu by klinzhai.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA27404; Wed, 29 May 91 10:16:20 EDT Received: by porthos.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA04225; Wed, 29 May 91 10:16:18 EDT Resent-Message-Id: <9105291416.AA04225@porthos.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA01895; Wed, 29 May 91 00:01:42 EDT Message-Id: <9105290401.AA01895@aramis.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with BSMTP id 9200; Tue, 28 May 91 23:59:05 EDT Received: from NCSUVM.BITNET by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 0291; Tue, 28 May 91 23:58:59 EDT Date: Tue, 28 May 91 23:57:25 EDT Reply-To: PMC-Talk Sender: PMC-Talk From: Editors of PMC Subject: Postmodernism & Science To: Multiple recipients of list PMC-TALK Resent-To: mcgrew@klinzhai.rutgers.edu Resent-Date: Wed, 29 May 91 10:16:17 EDT Resent-From: Charles Mcgrew 1) Self-definition (Jack Kolb) 2) Pascal & Postmodernism & Science (Robert Judd) 1)-------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 27 May 91 20:03 PDT From: Jack Kolb Subject: [Postmodernism & Science] Thanks for your clarification, Bob. I too, as I hope I've said often enough, I am more than a bit out of my element here, and am trying to learn what "post-modernism" purports to be. As is the case in my own fields of supposed "competence," Victorian and "modern" British literature, we all seem to be trying to define ourselves. 2)-------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 28 May 91 14:54:34 PDT From: FCMU01A@CALSTATE (Robert Judd) Subject: Postmodernism & Science >I think we're in very close agreement, Bob, acknowledging that >scientific theory is an approximation of reality. (Jack Kolb, 26 May) By coincidence I was reading the first seventy or so of Pascal's _Pensees_ last night, who echoes the same sentiment both frequently and eloquently. *Plus ca change*? 29-May-91 14:16:30-GMT,2608;000000000001 Received: from porthos.rutgers.edu by klinzhai.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA27410; Wed, 29 May 91 10:16:29 EDT Received: by porthos.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA04233; Wed, 29 May 91 10:16:28 EDT Resent-Message-Id: <9105291416.AA04233@porthos.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA03412; Wed, 29 May 91 00:09:15 EDT Message-Id: <9105290409.AA03412@aramis.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with BSMTP id 9207; Wed, 29 May 91 00:07:30 EDT Received: from NCSUVM.BITNET by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 0360; Wed, 29 May 91 00:07:24 EDT Date: Tue, 28 May 91 23:57:48 EDT Reply-To: PMC-Talk Sender: PMC-Talk From: Editors of PMC Subject: Polemics To: Multiple recipients of list PMC-TALK Resent-To: mcgrew@klinzhai.rutgers.edu Resent-Date: Wed, 29 May 91 10:16:27 EDT Resent-From: Charles Mcgrew Date: Tue, 28 May 91 14:23:43 PDT From: NELSON@USCVM Subject: Polemics I can read the recent polemics on this list as the ole debate between idealists (Kessler) and materialists (his attackers). Is postmodernism a materialist stance (as recently suggested here by references to PM's emphasis on the global force of technology) or does it include an idealist stance as well? I think of Lyotard's definition of PM as "an incredulity toward metanarratives" and Baudrillard's "ecstacy of communication" and wonder just what it is we are communicating with such jouissance if it is not ideas and ideals. But where anymore (Rorty's dilemma) do we find the grounds for faith, criticism, and decision? Anyway, I wanted to add a female voice. I haven't been offended or intimidated by any male academic posturing in evidence here (I think it's cute!); I just don't care a fig about politics. I would suggest, however, that it isn't simply Marxist ideals that have failed in Eastern Europe, but a lot of tractor parts as well. Lyotard says that information is the new global commodity. Do we believe that, here or in Eastern Europe? Were information networks Marx's fatal oversight, and are they inherently imbued with power, as Foucault asserts? If we all had access to all information (the global university), would that be liberation or surveillance? Would idealism be swamped by information overload or would the tractor parts at last arrive on time? Stephanie Nelson 29-May-91 14:17:03-GMT,1369;000000000001 Received: from porthos.rutgers.edu by klinzhai.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA27420; Wed, 29 May 91 10:17:02 EDT Received: by porthos.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA04254; Wed, 29 May 91 10:17:00 EDT Resent-Message-Id: <9105291417.AA04254@porthos.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA03883; Wed, 29 May 91 00:12:01 EDT Message-Id: <9105290412.AA03883@aramis.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with BSMTP id 9208; Wed, 29 May 91 00:10:11 EDT Received: from NCSUVM.BITNET by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 0410; Wed, 29 May 91 00:10:06 EDT Date: Tue, 28 May 91 23:58:25 EDT Reply-To: PMC-Talk Sender: PMC-Talk From: Editors of PMC Subject: Definition of postmodernism To: Multiple recipients of list PMC-TALK Resent-To: mcgrew@klinzhai.rutgers.edu Resent-Date: Wed, 29 May 91 10:17:00 EDT Resent-From: Charles Mcgrew Date: Tue, 28 May 91 05:37:40 EDT From: Eliot Handelman Subject: definition of pomo Hey Istvan, you left out of your analysis: "... and even with all this, life is still a bore." Boringly yours, --eliot 29-May-91 14:17:14-GMT,1970;000000000001 Received: from porthos.rutgers.edu by klinzhai.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA27426; Wed, 29 May 91 10:17:13 EDT Received: by porthos.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA04266; Wed, 29 May 91 10:17:11 EDT Resent-Message-Id: <9105291417.AA04266@porthos.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA04257; Wed, 29 May 91 00:14:56 EDT Message-Id: <9105290414.AA04257@aramis.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with BSMTP id 9211; Wed, 29 May 91 00:13:05 EDT Received: from NCSUVM.BITNET by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 0464; Wed, 29 May 91 00:12:57 EDT Date: Tue, 28 May 91 23:58:56 EDT Reply-To: PMC-Talk Sender: PMC-Talk From: Editors of PMC Subject: Courses To: Multiple recipients of list PMC-TALK Resent-To: mcgrew@klinzhai.rutgers.edu Resent-Date: Wed, 29 May 91 10:17:10 EDT Resent-From: Charles Mcgrew 1) Course in Everyday Life (response to Jack Kolb from Barbara Kirshenblatt-Gimblett) 2) Live material (response to Jack Kolb from BKG) 1)-------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 28 May 91 23:40 EDT From: Subject: Course in Everyday Life My hope is that they will read what I assigned and feed off the rest for years to come. Some build their qualifying exam reading lists on the basis of the syllabus. Others develop their own version of the course. BKG 2)-------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 28 May 91 23:43 EDT From: Subject: Course in Postmodernism I guess your initial point was not clear. Did you not suggest that studying live material would just ratify their values? Why? As opposed to what? BKG 2-Jun-91 15:36:50-GMT,14626;000000000001 Received: from porthos.rutgers.edu by klinzhai.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA02314; Sun, 2 Jun 91 11:36:37 EDT Received: by porthos.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA19127; Sun, 2 Jun 91 11:36:35 EDT Resent-Message-Id: <9106021536.AA19127@porthos.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA00185; Fri, 31 May 91 21:43:25 EDT Message-Id: <9106010143.AA00185@aramis.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with BSMTP id 4537; Fri, 31 May 91 21:34:15 EDT Received: from NCSUVM.BITNET by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 8786; Fri, 31 May 91 21:33:59 EDT Date: Fri, 31 May 91 15:13:47 EDT Reply-To: Editors of PMC Sender: Postmodern Culture From: Editors of PMC Subject: CONTENTS 591 (PMC 1.3) To: Multiple recipients of list PMC-LIST Resent-To: mcgrew@klinzhai.rutgers.edu Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Jun 91 11:36:35 EDT Resent-From: Charles Mcgrew POSTMODERNCULTUREPOSTMODERNCULTURE P RNCU REPO ODER E P O S T M O D E R N P TMOD RNCU U EP S ODER ULTU E C U L T U R E P RNCU UR OS ODER ULTURE P TMODERNCU UREPOS ODER ULTU E an electronic journal P TMODERNCU UREPOS ODER E of interdisciplinary POSTMODERNCULTUREPOSTMODERNCULTURE criticism ----------------------------------------------------------------- Volume 1, Number 3 (May, 1991) ISSN: 1053-1920 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Editors: John Unsworth, Issue Editor Eyal Amiran Book Review Editor: Elaine Orr Editorial Assistants: Gloria Maxwell Mina Javaher Editorial Board: Kathy Acker Phil Novak Sharon Bassett Patrick O'Donnell Michael Berube Susan Ohmer Marc Chenetier John Paine Greg Dawes Marjorie Perloff R. Serge Denisoff David Porush Robert Detweiler Mark Poster Jim English Carl Raschke Henry Louis Gates, Jr. Mike Reynolds Joe Gomez Avital Ronell Robert Hodge Andrew Ross bell hooks Jorge Ruffinelli Susan Howe Susan M. Schultz E. Ann Kaplan William Spanos Arthur Kroker Tony Stewart Neil Larsen Gary Lee Stonum Jerome J. McGann Chris Straayer Larysa Mykyta Paul Trembath Chimalum Nwankwo Greg Ulmer ----------------------------------------------------------------- CONTENTS AUTHOR & TITLE FN FT Masthead, Contents, Abstracts, CONTENTS 591 Instructions for retrieving files Eugenio D. Matibag, "Self-Consuming Fictions: MATIBAG 591 The Dialectics of Cannibalism in Modern Caribbean Narratives" Allison Fraiberg, "Of AIDS, Cyborgs, and Other FRAIBERG 591 Indiscretions: Resurfacing the Body in the Postmodern" David Porush's response to Allison Fraiberg's COMMENT 591 "Of AIDS, Cyborgs, and Other Indiscretions" and Fraiberg's reply to Porush Steven B. Katz, Three Poems KATZ 591 Stuart Moulthrop, "You Say You Want MOULTHROP 591 A Revolution: Hypertext and the Laws of Media" John R. Maier, "Two Moroccan Storytellers MAIER 591 in Paul Bowles' _Five Eyes_: Larbi Layachi and Achmed Yacoubi David Mikics, "Postmodernism, African- MIKICS-1 591 Americanism and Underground Revisionism MIKICS-2 591 in Ishmael Reed" Elizabeth A. Wheeler, "Bulldozing the Subject" WHEELER 591 POPULAR CULTURE COLUMN: Marcia Ian, "From Abject to Object" POP-CULT 591 REVIEWS: John Anderson, review of _The Many Lives of REVIEW-1 591 Batman: Critical Approaches to a Superhero and His Media_, ed. Roberta E. Pearson and William Uricchio. Jim English, review of _Postmodernism, Or REVIEW-2 591 The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism_, by Fredric Jameson. Greg Dawes, review of _Literature and REVIEW-3 591 politics in the Central American revolutions_, by John Beverley and Marc Zimmerman. M.E. Sokolik, review of _Forked Tongues: REVIEW-4 591 Speech, Writing, and Representation in North American Indian Texts_, ed. David Murray. The Editors, "Postface" POSTFACE 591 Announcements and Advertisements NOTICES 591 ----------------------------------------------------------------- ABSTRACTS Eugenio D. Matibag, "Self-Consuming Fictions: The Dialectics of Cannibalism in Modern Caribbean Narratives" ABSTRACT: Imputations of cannibalism by colonial discourse have identified the Caribbean and its peoples with the image of a barbaric other suitable for domination. In the effort to decolonize and construct a post-colonial subject, modern Caribbean narratives have variously redefined "cannibalism" and its ramifications by an affirmation of Caliban as a symbol of identity (Fernandez Retamar, Lamming, Glissant); by an ironic remembrance of the Caribs as possible ancestors (Carpentier, Rhys, Edgell, Harris); and by a reworking of "cannibalism" itself as a trope of incorporation and self-individuation (Cesaire, Lydia Cabrera, Garcia Ramis). In the process, the category of "the self" is deconstructed but then reconstituted in new and empowering articulations. --EDM Allison Fraiberg, "Of AIDS, Cyborgs, and Other Indiscretions: Resurfacing the Body in the Postmodern" ABSTRACT: This paper uses cyborg theory to situate on the same discursive field, albeit in very different places, both popular/mainstream AIDS coverage and some alternative AIDS writings/undertakings. Once resituated on this field, commentary by PLWA's and AIDS activists/strategists revises cyborg, and other postmodern, theories by articulating a certain resurfacing of the body. This resurfacing, a resurfacing that triggers a radically different notion of "discretion," opens up a space for contextualized versions of materialist agency. --AF Stuart Moulthrop, "You Say You Want A Revolution: Hypertext and the Laws of Media" ABSTRACT: New technologies of communication, such as hypertext and hypermedia, may catalyze radical changes in text and its related social structures. On the other hand, they might not: the postmodern moment seems anything but revolutionary. The outlook for electronic discourse structures is complex and ambiguous. This article explores some of these ambiguities by examining some of the political implications of hypertext through the lens or filter of Marshall McLuhan's "laws of media." --SM John R. Maier, "Two Moroccan Storytellers in Paul Bowles's _Five Eyes_: Larbi Layachi and Ahmed Yacoubi" ABSTRACT: Unusual hybrid texts are produced when American author Paul Bowles translates the oral narratives of nonliterate Moroccan storytellers. Two of these narratives, Ahmed Yacoubi's "The Night Before Thinking," full of magic, and Larbi Layachi's "The Half-brothers," rather like a Western realistic, autobiographical portrait, point up the extremes of Bowles's enterprise. The stories do not fit well into narrative categories familiar to the West, though they are available only to an English-reading audience. And they share none of the prestige Arabic literature has in the Middle East and North Africa, since they were performed in the regional (and unwritten) Maghrebi dialect of Arabic. The storytellers would be unable to read them even if the stories had been translated into Standard Arabic. Curiously, in the effacing of a Western and modernist construct of the "self," these odd texts, which Western observers have partly helped us to approach, contribute to a postmodern turn of narrative. --JRM David Mikics, "Postmodernism, Ethnicity and Underground Revisionism in Ishmael Reed" ABSTRACT: Jurgen Habermas has argued that an artistic practice must be based on the autonomous individual self desired by modernism in order to maintain a critical stance in relation to late capitalism. By contrast, Ishmael Reed attempts a criticism of capitalism's mass-cultural face %via% not the individual, but the subculture (African- American vodoun, which is enshrined in Reed as his aesthetic method of "neohoodooism"). With his emphasis on the subcultural, Reed not only invents an idiosyncratic brand of critical postmodernism; he also presents a critique of versions of black culture that, fixated on authenticity, refuse to acknowledge that African-American life is part of the postmodern world. --DM Elizabeth A. Wheeler, "Bulldozing the Subject" ABSTRACT: "Bulldozing the Subject" scans the practical effects of postmodernism on the urban landscape. When Baudrillard declares that "Los Angeles and the America surrounding it are no longer real," he masks the reality of L.A. police using bulldozers to corner homeless people. Postmodern gentrification displaces populations, while postmodern theory makes displacement seem unreal. This essay argues for a "messy, vital" postmodernism rooted in the art and experience of particular communities. --EAW ------------------------------------------------------------ TO RETRIEVE SINGLE ITEMS LISTED ABOVE, send a mail message to listserv@ncsuvm or listserv@ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu containing as its one and only line the command get [fn ft] pmc-list f=mail (replace [fn ft] with the filename and filetype, as listed in the table of contents, for the file you want to receive). There should be no blank lines, spaces, or other text preceding this line. TO RETRIEVE THE WHOLE ISSUE as a package, send a mail message to listserv@ncsuvm or listserv@ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu with the command get pmcv1n3 package pmc-list f=mail If you request the issue as a package, please make certain you have sufficient virtual disk space on your mainframe account to receive it (at least half a megabyte). More detailed instructions are available in the file NEWUSER PREFACE: to retrieve this file, send a mail message to listserv@ncsuvm or listserv@ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu with the command get newuser preface pmc-list f=mail If none of the above works for you, contact the editors. _Postmodern Culture_ uses only ASCII text (the character-code common to all personal computers): this means that readers can download the text of the journal from the mainframe (where mail is received) to any personal computer and import it into almost all word-processing programs. Text in the journal uses a 65- character line, so you should set your margins accordingly before importing journal files into a word-processing program. ----------------------------------------------------------------- _POSTMODERN CULTURE_ is published three times a year (January, May and September) using the Revised LISTSERV program ((c) Eric Thomas 1986, Ecole Centrale de Paris). It is distributed from an IBM mainframe at North Carolina State University, and is published with support from the NCSU Libraries, the NCSU Computing Center, the NCSU Office of Research Administration, and the NCSU Department of English. _Postmodern Culture_ currently has over 1,100 subscribers worldwide. ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUBSCRIPTION to the journal in its electronic-mail form is free. Each issue is available on disk and microfiche as well. Disk and fiche rates are $15/year for an individual and $30/year for an institution. For disks or fiche mailed to Canada add $3 postage; outside North America, add $7. Single issues are available for $6 (U.S.), $7 (Canada) or $8 (elsewhere). Postal correspondence, payment for subscription, and books for review should be sent to: Postmodern Culture Box 8105 NCSU Raleigh, NC 27695 Electronic-text submissions and requests for e-mail subscription can be sent to the journal's editorial address (pmc@ncsuvm or pmc@ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu). Using the same addresses, readers may also subscribe free of charge to PMC-Talk, an open discussion group for issues relating to the journal's contents, and to post- modernism in general. SUBMISSIONS to the journal can be made by electronic mail, on disk, or in hard copy; disk submissions should be in WordPerfect or ASCII format, but if this is not possible please indicate the program and operating system used. The current MLA format is recommended for documentation in essays; a list of the text- formatting conventions used by _Postmodern Culture_ for ASCII text is available on request. _________________________________________________________________ COPYRIGHT: Unless otherwise noted, copyrights for the texts which comprise this issue of _Postmodern Culture_ are held by their authors. The compilation as a whole is Copyright (c) 1991 by _Postmodern Culture_, all rights reserved. Items published by _Postmodern Culture_ may be freely shared among individuals, but they may not be republished in any medium without express written consent from the author(s) and advance notification of the editors. Issues of _Postmodern Culture_ may be archived for public use in electronic or other media, as long as each issue is archived in its entirety and no fee is charged to the user; any exception to this restriction requires the written consent of the editors of _Postmodern Culture_. -----------------END OF CONTENTS 591 FOR PMC 1.3----------------- 2-Jun-91 15:50:15-GMT,3320;000000000001 Received: from porthos.rutgers.edu by klinzhai.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA02363; Sun, 2 Jun 91 11:50:15 EDT Received: by porthos.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA19228; Sun, 2 Jun 91 11:50:13 EDT Resent-Message-Id: <9106021550.AA19228@porthos.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA27738; Sun, 2 Jun 91 02:43:53 EDT Message-Id: <9106020643.AA27738@aramis.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with BSMTP id 8842; Sun, 02 Jun 91 02:43:18 EDT Received: from NCSUVM.BITNET by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 1539; Sun, 02 Jun 91 02:43:13 EDT Date: Sun, 2 Jun 91 02:38:56 EDT Reply-To: PMC-Talk Sender: PMC-Talk From: Editors of PMC Subject: Postmodernism & Science To: Multiple recipients of list PMC-TALK Resent-To: mcgrew@klinzhai.rutgers.edu Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Jun 91 11:50:13 EDT Resent-From: Charles Mcgrew 1) Parallax view (Jack Kolb) 2) Newtonian vs. postmodern science (Gary Lee Stonum) 1)-------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 30 May 91 01:56 PDT From: Jack Kolb Subject: Postmodernism & Science I don't know of any scientists,and these days I trust 'em more than many "human ists," who would not agree with a "parallax" view of their provence. 2)-------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 1 Jun 91 11:15:40 -0400 From: gxs11@po.CWRU.Edu (Gary Stonum) Subject: postmodernism and science I've been mulling over Bob O'Hara's distinction between modern, Newtonian science and postmodern, historical and statistical science. If the whole thing turns on whether scientific truth is timeless and precisely computable, the relation with literary and art-historical and post-Hegelian philosophical notions of modern/postmodern seems strikingly inverse. Modern artistic endeavors (whether understood as arising in the 18th or 20th centuries) are obsessively historical, in that the meaning and significance of the work usually depends on its relation to a tradition it can't simply perpetuate or imitate. Although not the same as a Darwinian and hence historical biology, cultural historicism is thus at least analogous to it and also similarly opposed to, say, a neoclassical view that truth and value are measured by timeless standards. The analogy is probably too rough and vague to count as much more than idle speculation, without a heck of a lot more inquiry. But idle speculation being one of my favorite pastimes, let me add another, shaky thought to this shaky foundation. Among its other progenitors, modern art is born of an attempt to claim a place for itself in contrast to science. This is obviously true of poetry, viz, all the science vs poetry polemics, and it has some application to visual representations as well. So why is it that when science (here reified as a single enterprise) becomes increasingly historical and increasingly modifies its once powerful claims to timeless computable truth, poetry (here reified ditto) loses faith in the historical? Gary Stonum, CWRU 2-Jun-91 15:50:53-GMT,4202;000000000001 Received: from porthos.rutgers.edu by klinzhai.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA02368; Sun, 2 Jun 91 11:50:52 EDT Received: by porthos.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA19235; Sun, 2 Jun 91 11:50:51 EDT Resent-Message-Id: <9106021550.AA19235@porthos.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA27931; Sun, 2 Jun 91 02:48:29 EDT Message-Id: <9106020648.AA27931@aramis.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with BSMTP id 8844; Sun, 02 Jun 91 02:47:44 EDT Received: from NCSUVM.BITNET by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 1639; Sun, 02 Jun 91 02:46:27 EDT Date: Sun, 2 Jun 91 02:40:06 EDT Reply-To: PMC-Talk Sender: PMC-Talk From: Editors of PMC Subject: Kessler & Eastern Europe To: Multiple recipients of list PMC-TALK Resent-To: mcgrew@klinzhai.rutgers.edu Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Jun 91 11:50:50 EDT Resent-From: Charles Mcgrew 1) For Istvan C-R (Kessler) 2) For Miller (Kessler) 1)-------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 30 May 91 10:36 PDT From: KESSLER Subject: [Eastern Europe] For Istvan C-R, Jr. Yes, of course your general grounding or layout is a fine one, and your appeal for discussants to leave aside, or leave behind, the parochial and provincial outlook of mere academically-narrow querulousness is very much to the point. But then, for myself, I long ago assumed the principles of your principle argument: what is hard is to get the jargonistical presumptions and preassumptions of the younger generation of academics, mostly American, but with a few trendy Brits into it, up to speed, or up to casting their eyes upon the widest field of the world, the globe, not their own, usually innocent-of- technology-and-engineering-and-science-views, which belong only to MLA critical symposia, otiose and posturing and adolescent, in my way of regarding them, at least. Still, not to worry about "Leftist" tainting, because you take certain technological and material(istic) indices into your accounting. 2)-------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 30 May 91 10:45 PDT To: PMC-Talk From: KESSLER Subject: [Stalinists] For Miller: As for the old street-fighting Stalinists, I was giving them the benefit of the doubt: they would read SCIENCE AND SOCIETY, the really solid academic scientific dialectical- materialistic journal, the Partisan Review level of things, modeled on MLA in its dullness and solidity and believe the most arrant nonsense, from Lysenkoism to notions of psychology and history that were patently nonsense...but not to them! During the WAR (II), the tidal wave of amity with Stalin as against the Nazis engulfed all previous doubts, as from 1928 onwards, and even the Trials in Moscow. They did their best to forget such blips on the screen of their consciousness. I was being generous. They werent consciously dishonest, only "objectively" so. Take Ralph Ellison's masterpiece, INVISIBLE MAN. That book took ten years to write, and it chronicles the slow, patient analysis of the coming to disillusionment of a young, black believer, the narrator, Richard Wright probably never gave it up, only for Parisian Existentialism, and then he was Sartre's victim, that Sartre who condoned the most bloody hands, Les Sales Mains of postwar Stalinist tyranny. Ellison was one of the ten who contributed to the GOD THAT FAILED, you know. But many writers got off the boat in the congress of 1938, was it? in New York. Granville Hicks, Malcolm Cowley principally. As for Staples in all this: Staples writes that he is too young to have shared in these wars of the ideologues. Is he too young to listen to history and pick up its significance? I think this letter got truncated. I learned from elders, those who had been there. Not to, but to say, let us get on with our problems is to be a know nothing-ist. Kessler 2-Jun-91 15:51:00-GMT,3493;000000000001 Received: from porthos.rutgers.edu by klinzhai.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA02373; Sun, 2 Jun 91 11:50:59 EDT Received: by porthos.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA19240; Sun, 2 Jun 91 11:50:58 EDT Resent-Message-Id: <9106021550.AA19240@porthos.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA27987; Sun, 2 Jun 91 02:51:44 EDT Message-Id: <9106020651.AA27987@aramis.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with BSMTP id 8845; Sun, 02 Jun 91 02:50:06 EDT Received: from NCSUVM.BITNET by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 1689; Sun, 02 Jun 91 02:48:12 EDT Date: Sun, 2 Jun 91 02:40:43 EDT Reply-To: PMC-Talk Sender: PMC-Talk From: Editors of PMC Subject: Course in Postmodernism To: Multiple recipients of list PMC-TALK Resent-To: mcgrew@klinzhai.rutgers.edu Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Jun 91 11:50:58 EDT Resent-From: Charles Mcgrew 1) Ratification (Jack Kolb) 2) Postmodernism & teaching (Philip Davies) 1)-------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 30 May 91 02:13 PDT From: Jack Kolb Subject: Courses I guess I see what you apparently offer as merely ratification: telling your st udents that everything they believe upon entering your course is right and valid and confirms their values. At the least, this would seem to make what we have called education unnecessary, or at least change it into something not very d ifferent from political indoctrination. I'm not questioning your values: I'm q uestioning your methods. Without some exposure to alternative points of view, can you really be said to be educating (leading your students) to a truth which you clearly believe. It's been my experience that a freely chosen opinion, amo ng alternates, always has greater strength and basis of conviction. Or am I simply imposing my views upon you? 2)-------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 30 May 91 12:56:26 From: P.Davies Subject: Course in Postmodernism Dear Mr Kolb: Re the recent altercation between you and me about teaching postmodernism (It's a pity you can't recall the earlier statements, thus turning what might have been a conversation into a series of disjointed remarks -but that's PoMo for you!); I think some of the recent contributions to this discussion group have taken up what I was after - the concept of knowledge, tranmission thereof, etc. Surely postmodernism has reconstructed the notion of what the teaching process is, or ought to be, and not just the academic process but the political process. So a basic problem is: what is teaching anyway, and what is a syllabus. The notion of a syllabus is certainly questionable, and so the idea of a reading list. I wondered if any other participants were interested in questioning most of the components of University instruction in the light of postmodernism. That postmodernism itself bcomes an object of instruction is even more interesting, too. I can see the force of the practical objection that it needs to be taught, but I'm not exactly blown over by the blast. Or am I just way off base.....? Anyone else want to join in? Philip Davies University of Sheffield 2-Jun-91 15:51:39-GMT,3670;000000000001 Received: from porthos.rutgers.edu by klinzhai.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA02378; Sun, 2 Jun 91 11:51:38 EDT Received: by porthos.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA19250; Sun, 2 Jun 91 11:51:36 EDT Resent-Message-Id: <9106021551.AA19250@porthos.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA28128; Sun, 2 Jun 91 02:53:59 EDT Message-Id: <9106020653.AA28128@aramis.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with BSMTP id 8847; Sun, 02 Jun 91 02:53:33 EDT Received: from NCSUVM.BITNET by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 1789; Sun, 02 Jun 91 02:51:24 EDT Date: Sun, 2 Jun 91 02:41:42 EDT Reply-To: PMC-Talk Sender: PMC-Talk From: Editors of PMC Subject: Polemics To: Multiple recipients of list PMC-TALK Resent-To: mcgrew@klinzhai.rutgers.edu Resent-Date: Sun, 2 Jun 91 11:51:36 EDT Resent-From: Charles Mcgrew 1) Question (Jack Kolb) 2) Chickens & eggs (Kessler) 1)-------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 30 May 91 02:01 PDT From: Jack Kolb Subject: Polemics [from Stephanie Nelson] Inexperienced with many of the references you use, I can only ask--without any degree of irony--what is your point? A truly sincere question. Jack. 2)-------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 01 Jun 91 11:18 PDT To: PMC-Talk From: KESSLER Subject: Polemics FOR STEPHANIE NELSON: Well, the question is chicken and egg, perhaps, too. BECAUSE tractor parts fail, to use your figure, the ideals fall? But the manufactur e of tractor parts (the AK-47 is altogether TOO reliable a creation of the USSR military- industrial complex) fails because...non-engineers are engineering hum an souls, to use Stalin's favorite sobriquet for Marxist, the Engineers of the Soul...? Go back a little, to K Paustovsky's memoirs: this ardent young Bolshev ik (c.1918-1919) discusses the magnificent water and power system of Moscow, wh ich began immediately falling into chaos and remained so for the 1920's because the engineers were...cashiered? removed, shall we say, and replaced by ideologically correct engineers, so called. From thence it is a small step to Lysenkoist fraudulent giant tomatoes, and the attack on capitalist (sic) gene theory... and then to the famous steroid gold medals of East Germany...etc, and their fab ulous machine for taking Olympiads...not that steroids arent used universally, but not as State policy! for cash and glory, say, under the freemarket, as youn g horses, too young, are made to run, even bleeders at 2 and 3 years of age...a nyway... There is, I am thinking, no dichotomy between idealists (you denominat e Kessler) and materialists, not since quantum mechanics, anyway... those copnt roversies may be part of pre- modern, certainly part of pre-postmodern conceptua lities...? Just a murmur as a reply to your characterization. Kessler About your mention of Foucault: I once published a gl oomy essay in the Massachusetts Review, lead article, they would have it, calle d CHAOS OR CONTROL: Our No-Win Situation. IN the late 70's? early 80s? If I had it, I would upload it and bore you with it, but you might find it easily in a good university file of MRs. I think I brought those questions up then, and the piece had been written, I think, in the late 60s.... For your information. JK 3-Jun-91 14:23:26-GMT,1575;000000000001 Received: from porthos.rutgers.edu by klinzhai.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA09230; Mon, 3 Jun 91 10:23:24 EDT Received: by porthos.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA04019; Mon, 3 Jun 91 10:23:22 EDT Resent-Message-Id: <9106031423.AA04019@porthos.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA04875; Sun, 2 Jun 91 12:02:01 EDT Message-Id: <9106021602.AA04875@aramis.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with BSMTP id 8991; Sun, 02 Jun 91 11:59:02 EDT Received: from NCSUVM.BITNET by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 2868; Sun, 02 Jun 91 11:58:52 EDT Date: Sun, 2 Jun 91 11:48:30 EDT Reply-To: Editors of PMC Sender: Postmodern Culture From: Editors of PMC Subject: Correction to CONTENTS 591 To: Multiple recipients of list PMC-LIST Resent-To: mcgrew@klinzhai.rutgers.edu Resent-Date: Mon, 3 Jun 91 10:23:21 EDT Resent-From: Charles Mcgrew The filename for Stuart Moulthrop's essay "You Say You Want A Revolution: Hypertext and the Laws of Media," in CONTENTS 591 for PMC 1.3 should be MOULTHRO 591 not MOULTHROP 591 The error has been corrected in the table of contents on PMC's filelist; if you've tried to retrieve the file using the filename MOULTHROP, try again using MOULTHRO. Sorry for the inconvenience-- John Unsworth Co-editor, _Postmodern Culture_ 4-Jun-91 20:48:53-GMT,4148;000000000001 Received: from porthos.rutgers.edu by klinzhai.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA24475; Tue, 4 Jun 91 16:48:47 EDT Received: by porthos.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA01194; Tue, 4 Jun 91 16:48:45 EDT Resent-Message-Id: <9106042048.AA01194@porthos.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA03570; Tue, 4 Jun 91 14:01:25 EDT Message-Id: <9106041801.AA03570@aramis.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with BSMTP id 2476; Tue, 04 Jun 91 14:00:44 EDT Received: from NCSUVM.BITNET by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 5828; Tue, 04 Jun 91 14:00:37 EDT Date: Tue, 4 Jun 91 13:52:49 EDT Reply-To: PMC-Talk Sender: PMC-Talk From: Editors of PMC Subject: Boredom To: Multiple recipients of list PMC-TALK Resent-To: mcgrew@klinzhai.rutgers.edu Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Jun 91 16:48:44 EDT Resent-From: Charles Mcgrew Status: O 1) Hard times for boredom (Fiona Oceanstar) 2) Casanova, Flaubert, etc. 3) Boredom a la French Situationists (Barbara Kirshenblatt- Gimblett) 4) Boredom and predictability (Joe McMahon) 1)--------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 2 Jun 91 02:54:05 -0400 From: fi@grebyn.com (Fiona Oceanstar) Subject: Boredom Kessler's thoughts on boredom. Yes indeed. A subtle combination of flavors and spices you whipped up for us. I think Boredom has fallen on hard times. When the Modernists held sway, boredom had a lovely minimalist aesthetic to it. These days, it looks like a poor choice of frames of reference. I don't like to compromise my aesthetic space that way. --Fiona 2)--------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 02 Jun 91 08:51:47 CST From: Marcus Smith Subject: Boredom Casanova may be the starting point, but boredom descends into middle class experience with Madame Bovary. And wasn't it the case that in his boredom Flaubert transferred the issue to a woman, Emma? Another turn to his phrase, "MB, c'est moi." A definition? Boredom is corrupt leisure (and thus economically based) and is the awareness of empty duration. I am constantly amazed at the way boredom moves into younger and younger people. I am now accustomed to hearing middle class children of eight or nine complain (whine) "I'm bored." Often these children are merely asking for "something to do" when intellectuals are sitting around discussing things the kids don't care about--such as boredom. Kids also say "it's boring" when they are reading a difficult book. What they mean is "I don't want to read this book." Is there any work by the cultural historians on the subject of boredom? Finally, Walker Percy used to say you could never find anyone in despair (i.e. bored) when a hurricane was headed towards New Orleans. Too many concrete tasks to do: get batteries, fill up the car, tie things down, etc. But this would change if we had hurricanes every day. We had friends in Beirut during the trouble who said the worst part of incessant shelling was the terrible boredom in the midst of great tension. Marcus & Sarah Smith 3)--------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 2 Jun 91 23:09 EDT From: Subject: Boredom See Yale French Studies special issue on Everyday Life for good discussion of boredom a la the French situationists. BKG 4)--------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 03 Jun 91 12:14:04 EDT From: Joe McMahon Subject: Boredom In my experience, boredom seems to stem from predictability, rather than from repetition. Kessler's friend who seems to be frantically active may nonetheless be bored because he *knows* what he'll be doing today, and tomorrow, and the day after that... --- Joe M. 4-Jun-91 20:48:54-GMT,9574;000000000001 Received: from porthos.rutgers.edu by klinzhai.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA24486; Tue, 4 Jun 91 16:48:53 EDT Received: by porthos.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA01207; Tue, 4 Jun 91 16:48:52 EDT Resent-Message-Id: <9106042048.AA01207@porthos.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA04794; Tue, 4 Jun 91 14:08:58 EDT Message-Id: <9106041808.AA04794@aramis.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with BSMTP id 2497; Tue, 04 Jun 91 14:07:45 EDT Received: from NCSUVM.BITNET by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 6012; Tue, 04 Jun 91 14:07:34 EDT Date: Tue, 4 Jun 91 13:56:22 EDT Reply-To: PMC-Talk Sender: PMC-Talk From: Editors of PMC Subject: Course in Postmodernism To: Multiple recipients of list PMC-TALK Resent-To: mcgrew@klinzhai.rutgers.edu Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Jun 91 16:48:51 EDT Resent-From: Charles Mcgrew Status: O 1) Postmodern teaching (Russ Hunt) 2) Postmodern Pedagogy (Cliff Staples) 3) Postmodern curriculum? (Kessler) 1)-------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 02 Jun 91 11:05:47 ADT From: Russ Hunt Subject: postmodern teaching The continuing conversation about postmodernist teaching of postmodernism has finally rung my bell. Most talk about teaching (including that on this discussion list) is decidedly PRE- modernist, in that it focuses entirely on what gets "transmitted" and it rarely reflects on the way in which students and teachers go about "knowing." But if one if the hallmarks of postmodernism is reflexiveness, it seems to me what we should be talking about is how the process of learning/teaching works. Here's a postmodernist course for you (or what it seems to me, on the basis of this discussion, might count as a post- modernist course). No uniform texts, no lectures, none of the "class discussions" which are actually ways of getting someone else to say what the lecturer wants to say herself. You begin with a set of questions: how is, and has been, the field/subject/concept/area we've agreed to study constructed? What kinds of assumptions characterize the practitioners of this field? What counts as knowledge in this field? What are the questions agreed to be important among practitioners? What "knowledge" is assumed to be necessary among them? Then you organize your class as a collaborative to find out answers to those questions. Members of the class investigate different questions and report back. Answers are questioned, new questions are generated or old ones elaborated, and the cycle is repeated. You use the library, the world, other members of faculty and other students, complimentary copies of course textbooks, whatever you might use if you decided to learn about something. Your students (and you) construct the knowledge for yourselves, as part of a group of people engaged in the same process. You replicate the way knowledge is constructed in the "outside world." You learn (if it works) not to depend on a teacher, a textbook, or an encyclopedia to deliver "the truth"; you learn that knowing is active, and that knowledge is always constructed and always changing and always socially negotiated. The teacher's role is mainly facilitative and supportive: what she knows that's most relevant is how to learn. Her store of facts about the field is probably out of date anyway (it was by teaching a course in eighteenth century literature this way that I learned that there really were women writers who mattered in that period). Is that postmodern? -- Russ 2)-------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 02 Jun 91 12:00:30 CDT From: cliff staples Subject: Course in Postmodernism For P. Davies: Yes, PM and teaching. Good topic. I'm particularly interested in the form of the textbook and how, from publishers to students, it works in interesting ways to put instructors in foolish and uncomfortable positions. The adds I get from the publishers lately are indistinguisable from the coupon circulars that come in the Sunday paper. USA TODAY looks like one of the INTRO to SOCIOLOGY texts I used 3-4 years ago, and the new texts that come to me in the mail look like yesterday's USA TODAY. Textbook authors and publishers define the role of the instructor in the way the text is put together. They assume "we have to use some sort of text" because they are aware of pressures to publish, class sizes, etc. and so create a form within or around which we must fit. The fit isn't too good, at least not for me. Texts also seem to encourage the consummerist attitude rampant throughout the land. Students take text in hand and seem to say "contained within these covers is all I need to know." They apparently got the more important message of Gulf War coverage. I can't pretend to claim I have successfully addressed these disturbing tendencies (and many more I have not mentioned). I can only do what my limited time, energy, and talent permit. A week from Monday I will begin teaching a summer session course in the Sociology of the Family to about 25 people. Instead of using a textbook (I have 15 or 20 new ones sitting on my shelf, recently sent by publishers), students will be faced with the task, in groups of 4, of creating their own "Sociology of the Family" textbook. I want to use a form with which they are familiar, but change their relationship to it-- put them in a position of being authors, rather than consumers, of culture. The course is subtitled: "The Family" in Everyday Life. My goal is to investigate the social and cultural processes through which the taken-for-granted reality of "the family" is constructed as a cultural object. Data for the course (our "text" if you will) will be the pictures, portraits, accounts, tellings, stories, and renderings that produce or assume "the Family" as it comes to be used and talked about. I want to make this object available for analysis in ways that will allow us to see who has the power to author our taken-for-granted notions of "the family." I'd be very interested to hear what you or anyone else has to say about the pedogogy or politics of this approach (or the one I abandoned, or any other) vis a vis POMO. Do I, in this act (as Robin Williams did, by tearing up the text in DEAD POET'S SOCIETY, reconstitute myselfas author(ity)? Does it matter? Am I trafficing in meta-narratives (of "liberation"? of "critical thinking"?)? Does that matter? Anyway, I find myself thinking, daily, about the connection between the university, my position in it, and the reproduction of repressive and exploitive relationships in and out of the university. I'd love to talk with anyone with similar concerns. The people I know who have addressed these issues most often and most successfully have been those in and around Women's Studies. Well, time to go. I have to finish reviewing those 4 chapters of the new edition of the Social Psychology text for McGraw Hill................... Cliff Staples 3)-------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 02 Jun 91 16:54 PDT From: KESSLER Subject: Course in Postmodernism Okay, just this time only, I'll chip into the pot, and raise the ante. Syllabus as unnecessary, is suggested, as a consequence of the enlightened relativism of the PM Weltanschauung. Two examples to chew over: in the 60's we had a young asst prof in the English department, trained well and regarded well, in Medieval studies, "philology" &c. Came the Revolution. What did this charming fellow do? took his history of language students out on the grass, smoked pot with them in a circle, and "discussed" linguistics. No one got far; he sank into the usual pothead irritability and sloth, and never got tenure. He had been swamped, I guess, by the middle class pot/sloganeering/anti- Vietnam tidal wave. And yet, 25 years later, no pot, no Revolution in sight, and the latest Executive Committe of the UCLA English Department proposes to do away with the requirement for a few quarters' study, by graduate students in the language of our literature, for the Ph.D., of the History of the Language, including A-S, of course. This, not in the face of a lack of staff, when we have just tenured a brilliant Bulgarian woman in the History of English, one who has made a breakthrough on the schwa that has been looked for for nearly 150 years, and vowel shift and all that. So what we have is an attitude...and of course it means, no syllabus, no books, not literature. That brilliant fascist madman poet Ezra P., said that the history of a literature is the history of its masterpieces, of which of course there were but few, the ones he designated, and he was fairly correct,by and large in his choices, I think, as a writer, at least. Everytime I say how can we have graduate Ph.Ds without Chaucer (meaning Me French and Me Eng too), most of my colleagues look at me as though I were spitting into the wind, an idealist and fool. Well, it is worth all the years of Hist of Lang and ME just to parse Joyce, of course, a little, but go ask readers of Derrida about that! J Kessler 4-Jun-91 20:48:56-GMT,2959;000000000001 Received: from porthos.rutgers.edu by klinzhai.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA24481; Tue, 4 Jun 91 16:48:50 EDT Received: by porthos.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA01202; Tue, 4 Jun 91 16:48:48 EDT Resent-Message-Id: <9106042048.AA01202@porthos.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA04359; Tue, 4 Jun 91 14:05:59 EDT Message-Id: <9106041805.AA04359@aramis.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with BSMTP id 2492; Tue, 04 Jun 91 14:05:27 EDT Received: from NCSUVM.BITNET by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 5958; Tue, 04 Jun 91 14:05:21 EDT Date: Tue, 4 Jun 91 13:55:27 EDT Reply-To: PMC-Talk Sender: PMC-Talk From: Editors of PMC Subject: Postmodernism & Science To: Multiple recipients of list PMC-TALK Resent-To: mcgrew@klinzhai.rutgers.edu Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Jun 91 16:48:48 EDT Resent-From: Charles Mcgrew Status: O 1) _The Emperor's New Mind_ (Kessler) 2) The dance of science and poetry (Fiona Oceanstar) 1)-------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 02 Jun 91 16:59 PDT From: KESSLER Subject: Postmodernism & Science For Gary Stonum. Please, read through Roger Penrose's THE EMPEROR'S NEW MIND. Y ou will soon discover that physics and mathematics, especially the latter, do n ot at all say that "scientific truth" is precisely computable, or computable at all. This is simply a misunderstanding by the layman (my understanding of the lessons there), and the propaganda of science/technology. As usual, the Humanit ies are in a cultural lag of about 50 years, perhaps, per se. Artists are at le ast responding to the present, as they find it. J Kessler 2)-------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 4 Jun 91 09:48:11 -0400 From: fi@grebyn.com (Fiona Oceanstar) Subject: the dance of science and poetry Gary Stonum asks: >Why is it that when science >(here reified as a single enterprise) becomes increasingly >historical and increasingly modifies its once powerful claims to >timeless computable truth, poetry (here reified ditto) loses >faith in the historical? One possible answer is that modern poetry is/was not so much losing faith in the historical, as finding a new faith in the supposed objectivity (as in "objective correlative"?)--the supposed abstract value-less immutability of scientific law. Like Archibald MacLeish's "God the boiling point of water." Meanwhile, science as practiced by scientists, is/was moving into a new phase--a belated recognition of historical context. It is as if they each learn from the other, and then trade places, temporarily. --Fiona Oceanstar 4-Jun-91 20:48:57-GMT,1765;000000000001 Received: from porthos.rutgers.edu by klinzhai.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA24492; Tue, 4 Jun 91 16:48:57 EDT Received: by porthos.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA01212; Tue, 4 Jun 91 16:48:55 EDT Resent-Message-Id: <9106042048.AA01212@porthos.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA05158; Tue, 4 Jun 91 14:11:32 EDT Message-Id: <9106041811.AA05158@aramis.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with BSMTP id 2504; Tue, 04 Jun 91 14:11:00 EDT Received: from NCSUVM.BITNET by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 6083; Tue, 04 Jun 91 14:10:14 EDT Date: Tue, 4 Jun 91 13:56:59 EDT Reply-To: PMC-Talk Sender: PMC-Talk From: Editors of PMC Subject: Query To: Multiple recipients of list PMC-TALK Resent-To: mcgrew@klinzhai.rutgers.edu Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Jun 91 16:48:55 EDT Resent-From: Charles Mcgrew Status: O Date: Monday, 3 June 1991 10:12am CT From: EIFE413@UTXVM.BITNET Subject: Query ("Constructing the Latino") To PMC-Talk subscribers: A posting sometime during the past few weeks cited in a footnote an article called something like "Constructing the Latino" or "Inventing the Latino." From the context of the posting, I could glean that the cited article had to do with the creation of the category "latino" as part of current social/political polemics. Regrettably, I do not have copies of previous4 postings. If anyone out there knows the exact title and source of this article, I would be grateful to have it. Thanks. Chuck Rossman, U. of Texas 4-Jun-91 20:49:01-GMT,4229;000000000001 Received: from porthos.rutgers.edu by klinzhai.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA24497; Tue, 4 Jun 91 16:49:00 EDT Received: by porthos.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA01220; Tue, 4 Jun 91 16:48:59 EDT Resent-Message-Id: <9106042048.AA01220@porthos.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA05596; Tue, 4 Jun 91 14:14:36 EDT Message-Id: <9106041814.AA05596@aramis.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with BSMTP id 2510; Tue, 04 Jun 91 14:13:18 EDT Received: from NCSUVM.BITNET by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 6143; Tue, 04 Jun 91 14:12:29 EDT Date: Tue, 4 Jun 91 13:57:48 EDT Reply-To: PMC-Talk Sender: PMC-Talk From: Editors of PMC Subject: Polemics To: Multiple recipients of list PMC-TALK Resent-To: mcgrew@klinzhai.rutgers.edu Resent-Date: Tue, 4 Jun 91 16:48:58 EDT Resent-From: Charles Mcgrew Status: O Date: Mon, 03 Jun 91 14:55:15 PDT From: NELSON@USCVM Subject: Polemics Jack, my point about dichotomizing idealism and materialism was to highlight that the polemics on Eastern Europe on this list seemed to be about which has power to bring about social change-- ideas or technology? We were talking about the sincerity of idealist politicians on trains. I was thinking about Marx's base and superstructure and how ironic it is that we have idealized his words into a political superstructure which has toppled over, rotten at its techno-logical base. Kenneth Burke says that words are deeds (a predictable thing for a rhetorician to say). What then are bytes and megabytes of off/ons, 1/0s? What are information networks and their associated reproductive organs-- xerox, fax, scan? Think about how much faster information travels now from the days it went only as fast as politicians on trains. Think of parallel processing and fiber optics and hypercubes. I was wondering if ideologies are dead or short-lived now because we are swamped with too much information--so much that we can no longer shape infor-mation into forms with labels that tell us how to use it and who can use it. It's simply coming at us too fast and we are overwhelmed--too many shards of ideas, too many faces, voices, choices. Kessler is right that it's a chicken or egg situation between ideology and technology--ideas build things and things shape ideas. I think postmodern discourse emphasizes the power of things over the power of ideas, thus it is a "materialistic" discourse. I mentioned Foucault because he would have said that a struggle for information is a struggle for power. Information is a commodity; rights of access are bought, sold, or stolen. Think of Watergate and cyberpunks. Not very complicated, really. I'm really a simple-minded girl. I've been reading Donna Haraway's book about cyborgs and thinking about how poor Foucault succumbed to that postmodern malfunction of that postmodern construct called the immune system. I've been thinking that we need to immunize ourselves from too much information. In massive doses, it makes us dizzy and inert. I want to strike up a conversation about boredom, as Kessler suggested (I think the PM word for it is "ennui"). How does this play off of Eliot Handelman's nervousness about "fun"? Am I right, Eliot? I was at a resort this weekend where I kept hearing people telling one another that they were having "fun." I don't have many ideas about it; I personally am never bored (but tired). Fun though seems a modernist ideal (croquet, parlor games, fox hunts). I think it is different from rapture (sex, running, drugs, certain musics). What exactly is boredom? To me it seems like it might be a realization that there is somewhere else one would rather be. Stephanie Nelson PS Fiona, could you be a bit more specific about why you think not wanting to be like those dead British male romantics is postmodern? Who DO you want to be like?--that might be more to the question. 6-Jun-91 15:03:31-GMT,4975;000000000001 Received: from porthos.rutgers.edu by klinzhai.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA11871; Thu, 6 Jun 91 11:03:29 EDT Received: by porthos.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA10384; Thu, 6 Jun 91 11:03:27 EDT Resent-Message-Id: <9106061503.AA10384@porthos.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA14345; Wed, 5 Jun 91 20:48:07 EDT Message-Id: <9106060048.AA14345@aramis.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with BSMTP id 4941; Wed, 05 Jun 91 20:47:37 EDT Received: from NCSUVM.BITNET by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 2478; Wed, 05 Jun 91 20:47:29 EDT Date: Wed, 5 Jun 91 17:53:10 EDT Reply-To: PMC-Talk Sender: PMC-Talk From: Editors of PMC Subject: Boredom To: Multiple recipients of list PMC-TALK Resent-To: mcgrew@klinzhai.rutgers.edu Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Jun 91 11:03:26 EDT Resent-From: Charles Mcgrew Status: O 1) Response to McMahon (Kessler) 2) Response to Kessler & Nelson (Eliot Handelman) 3) The Ontological-Epistemological Vacuum Dialectic (David Porush) 4) References (Robert Judd) 1)-------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 04 Jun 91 14:29 PDT From: KESSLER Subject: Boredom FOR MCMAHON: I DONT THINK I SUGGESTED THAT MY FRIEND WAS BORED, PER SE; ONLY THAT HE WAS INTERESTED IN THE SUBJECT 15 YEARS AGO AND PLANNED TO STUDY IT IN RETIREMENT, BUT HASNT, ALHTOUGH HE IS WRITING DIFFICULT SOCIOLOGICAL STUFF NOW, AND IS NOT BORED HIMSELF. THERE IS ANOTHER COMPONENT: MY DAUGHTER, WHEN STILL AN ADOLESCENT (IN YEARS) USED TO SPEAK OF BOREDOM, IN THE MIDST OF A GREAT AND BUSY LIFE OF NOVELTIES...WE KNEW SHE MEANT "NERVES." THERE IS SOMETHING OF GREAT VARIETY COVERED BY THE TERM ITSELF AND THE MOOD. WERE THEY BORED IN SYBARIS? IN LOTUS LAND? I WAS STRUCK BY A STATISTIC OF THE 60S IN LA: PEOPLE CAME OUT NOT TO ENJOY LALA LAND, AND BE LOTOPHAGOI, BUT TO TAKE 2 JOBS. THE DEATH RATE FOR WOMEN WAS TOO HIGH, IN THEIR 50S, LONG BEFORE THE CITY GOT TO BE AS DIFFICULT AS IT IS NOW FOR TRAFFIC ETC, AND SMOG. PEOPLE WORKED VERY HARD, TOO HARD, UNNECESSARILY HARD, AND IT WASNT, APPARENTLY, JUST FOR THE MORTGAGE. BEFORE CRACK AND HIGH SPEED FAST TRACK LIVING. TOURING THE WESTERN STATES FOR THE NEH, IN THE 70S, WE DISCOVERED THAT THE SMALL TOWNS WE VISITED WITH A "CULTURAL"PROGRAM, TOWNS UNDER 25,000, WERE HARD PUT TO FIND A DAY AND A HALF FOR OUR "EQUIPE." IN FACT THEY WERE ALL BUSY EVERY NIGHT IN THE WEEK, CHURCHES, AND CRAFTS AND BOWLING AND GROUPS AND JUST FRANTIC NIGHT LIFE IN THE WILDS OF IDAHO AND ETC. L.A. LIFE SEEMED RATHER EASYGOING TO US, IN COMPARISON! I THINK THERE IS AN INTERESTING QUESTION HERE. ALSO, IF FLAUBERT WAS BORED, SEE OTHER RESPONDENT, THE QUESTION IS WHY? WHAT OF? IDLE, HE WASNT. BOURGEOIS GUILT AND LEISURE DIDNT BOTHER HIM. K. 2)-------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 4 Jun 91 18:43:35 EDT From: Eliot Handelman Subject: Boredom Dear Kessler, smart question. I lay last night on a bare mattress in a small dank bare room bereft of telecommunication devices nursing a lumbago exacerbated by having puked out a bad Baby Ruth, and tried to think of an answer, but came up with nothing. Dear Stephanie, "ennui" is anything but postmodernist. It`s related to our word "annoy," and has that edge in French: so it connotes something like quiescent anger, whereas the boredom I speak of is neither quiescent nor angry. Dear Fiona, minimalism is not the aesthetic of boredom: everybody knows that office is held by the Goetterdaemmerung, I don`t mean this derisively. --eliot 3)-------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 4 Jun 91 20:29:10 EDT From: David Porush Subject: Boredom What about the tension between boredom and knowing in Beckett, particularly in The Unnameable, but as a theme throughout his work. Perhaps we can dress it up a bit and characterize it as the Ontological-Epistemological Vacuum Dialectic. ... David Porush 4)-------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 04 Jun 91 21:28:38 PDT From: FCMU01A@CALSTATE (Robert Judd) Subject: boredom 1. "In Zen they say: if something is boring after two minutes, try it for four. If still boring, try it for eight, sixteen, thirty-two, and so on. Eventually one discovers that it's not boring at all but very interesting." (John Cage, _Silence_, p. 93) 2. "If a soldier, or labourer, complain of the hardship of his lot, set him to do nothing." (Pascal, _Pensees_, no. 130) 3. Is "ennui" really postmodern? Cf. chapter one of George Steiner, _In Bluebeard's Castle_ (1971), entitled "The Great 'Ennui.'" 6-Jun-91 15:03:39-GMT,6131;000000000001 Received: from porthos.rutgers.edu by klinzhai.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA11877; Thu, 6 Jun 91 11:03:38 EDT Received: by porthos.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA10389; Thu, 6 Jun 91 11:03:37 EDT Resent-Message-Id: <9106061503.AA10389@porthos.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA14731; Wed, 5 Jun 91 20:51:31 EDT Message-Id: <9106060051.AA14731@aramis.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with BSMTP id 4942; Wed, 05 Jun 91 20:50:07 EDT Received: from NCSUVM.BITNET by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 2528; Wed, 05 Jun 91 20:49:48 EDT Date: Wed, 5 Jun 91 17:53:34 EDT Reply-To: PMC-Talk Sender: PMC-Talk From: Editors of PMC Subject: Course in Postmodernism To: Multiple recipients of list PMC-TALK Resent-To: mcgrew@klinzhai.rutgers.edu Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Jun 91 11:03:35 EDT Resent-From: Charles Mcgrew Status: O 1) Textbooks (Russ Hunt) 2) Kessler's latest (Mark Shechner) 3) Dangers of teaching postmodernism (Tom Bridges) 1)-------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 04 Jun 91 16:39:15 ADT From: HUNT000 Subject: textbooks Cliff Staples' reflective description of a textless (textbookless) course raises some powerful issues. There has been some very interesting work recently on the role of textbooks in education. See Allan Luke's Literacy, Textbooks and Ideology: Postwar Literacy Instruction and the Mythology of Dick and Jane (London: Falmer Press, 1988), for example, or Michael Apple's "The Political Economy of Text Publishing" (Language, Authority and Criticism: Readings on the School Textbook, ed. Suzanne de Castell, Allan Luke and Carmen Luke [London: Falmer Press, 1989]). Staples notes that "Students take text in hand and seem to say 'contained within these covers is all I need to know'." Yep. I think one of the problems with their treatment of text (in general, not just textbooks) is that most of them have never really imagined writing or written language to be anything other than a repository of propositions (true or false, to be memorized for the test or not). Having the students create their own textbook sounds a great idea to me (I say that since it's what I do), for lots of reasons, a central one being that they can then begin to get some notion of how a text gets produced, and how its language can get twisted into the sort of fraudulent omniscience you hear in textbooks all the time (if students did it we'd call it plagiarism). There's a real danger, I think, that the teacher can "(as Robin Williams did, by tearing up the text in _Dead Poets Society_, reconstitute [her]self as author(ity)" -- but it's avoidable. You can import (and question) the authority of the community (there isn't any other), by focusing the course not on the teacher (or the text) but on the discourse about the subject out in the world. -- Russ Hunt 2)-------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 5 Jun 91 07:33 EDT From: Mark Shechner Subject: KESSLER'S LATEST Now I remember why I'm tuned into PMC-TALK; to stay in touch with the latest from Kessler. What fun! It recalls my own brief tour through the thickets of the Ph.D. program at UCLA 27 years ago when I found myself boning up on German and French while reading Chaucer aloud in seminars and taking the required courses in Old English and History of the Language. What a treat to hear that some things don't change. "Man," said Faulkner, "will endure," and so will the UCLA curriculum. And ah yes that wonderful logic whereby to imagine that that curriculum is no longer serviceable (as if it were 27 years ago) is tantamount to doing dope on the lawns of Westwood with your students and growing old and irritable as dope smokers do. The 300 or so (or whatever the number is) of Ph.D. programs in America in which the specific requirements of the UCLA program are not in force might want to take issue with you that what lies beyond Westwood is only smoke and mirrors. Ah, Kessler, Kessler. Do they still hand out clip-on ties at the door of the UCLA faculty club so that the scuzzy and tie less might gain elegibility for lunch out there on the banks of Pauley Pavilion? Mark Shechner 3)-------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 5 Jun 91 14:02:00 EST From: "THOMAS BRIDGES" Subject: Course in Postmodernism Regarding the questions raised by Philip Davies in his recent post. If we start from a fairly generic conception of postmodernism--say, postmodernism as defined by a rejection of the universalist epistemological claims of the Enlightenment, what are the consequences for our teaching? Rejection of those claims seems to require us to affirm (among other things) that distinctions between disciplines are contingent--that is, those distinctions cannot be justified by reference to "the way the world is" or by appeal to some methodology that alone gives access to an extra-linguistic subject matter. They are justified only by reference to the contingent fact that a group of people (those who belong to a particular community of inquiry) happen to be talking in certain way and only to one another. So what does that make teaching in general and the teaching of "postmodernism" in particular? It seems to me that the danger of teaching a course in postmodernism (or a course in a postmodernish subject like the "aesthetics of everyday life") is that postmodernism itself becomes captured by the Enlightenment cognitive ideal and becomes a new subject matter specialization or field of objective study, with its own reading list whose mastery might qualify graduate students as "experts" in Postmodern Culture. Tom Bridges bridges@apollo.montclair.edu 6-Jun-91 15:09:15-GMT,3556;000000000001 Received: from porthos.rutgers.edu by klinzhai.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA11903; Thu, 6 Jun 91 11:09:14 EDT Received: by porthos.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA10438; Thu, 6 Jun 91 11:09:12 EDT Resent-Message-Id: <9106061509.AA10438@porthos.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA15621; Wed, 5 Jun 91 20:56:55 EDT Message-Id: <9106060056.AA15621@aramis.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with BSMTP id 4949; Wed, 05 Jun 91 20:56:17 EDT Received: from NCSUVM.BITNET by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 2634; Wed, 05 Jun 91 20:55:28 EDT Date: Wed, 5 Jun 91 17:54:56 EDT Reply-To: PMC-Talk Sender: PMC-Talk From: Editors of PMC Subject: Moulthrop's essay To: Multiple recipients of list PMC-TALK Resent-To: mcgrew@klinzhai.rutgers.edu Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Jun 91 11:09:11 EDT Resent-From: Charles Mcgrew Status: O Date: Tue, 04 Jun 91 14:26:02 PDT From: FCMU01A@CALSTATE (Robert Judd) Subject: Moulthrop, _PMC_ v1n3 I'd like to make a small reticulation of my own regarding the most recent issue of _PMC_, especially with respect to Stuart Moulthrop's essay, thereby taking up the gauntlet thrown by John Unsworth in the "Postface." 1. Did the editors or any other readers join me in observing the striking resonance between Moulthrop and of all people Allan Bloom? Moulthrop [21]: >The text gestures toward openness--%what options can you >imagine?%--but then it forecloses: some options are >available but not others, and someone clearly has done the >defining. Bloom, _The Closing of the American Mind_ (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1987), 34: >Actually openness results in American conformism--out there >in the rest of the world is a drab diversity that teaches >only that values are relative, whereas here we can create all >the life-styles we want. Our openness means we do not need >others. Thus what is advertised as a great opening is a >great closing. It seems to me that opening and closing have a great deal in common, and so I tend to resist the undermining of binary distinction (Moulthrop [52], citing Hutcheon). An opening-up *necessarily* implies its opposite, an "enclosure," hence a "network," (the first of which was intended to enclose fish?) with all its implications. Witness the "Announcements" of the latest _PMC_, with advertisements of "DisClosure" and "Netweaver Notebook." Connections mean an opening-up, to be sure, but paradoxically when we are connected we are restricted, we create enclosed little systems. 2. It is highly ironic that one of the latest hypermedia releases from Warner New Media is entitled "Operation Desert Storm," apparently an attempt to bring the media output together on a CD for educational purposes (high school? I haven't looked at it). This seems striking in light of Moulthrop [49], [50], and his comments regarding the position of the military establishment with regard to the development of hypermedia. 3. By the end of Moulthrop, I found myself humming a little counterpoint to the Beatles, The Who's "meet the new boss, same as the old boss." If the programs produced by Warner New Media and Voyager is anything to judge by, there's a long way to go before hypermedia can be called truly revolutionary. Thanks for a stimulating and rewarding essay. 6-Jun-91 15:09:22-GMT,2832;000000000001 Received: from porthos.rutgers.edu by klinzhai.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA11910; Thu, 6 Jun 91 11:09:21 EDT Received: by porthos.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA10443; Thu, 6 Jun 91 11:09:19 EDT Resent-Message-Id: <9106061509.AA10443@porthos.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA16001; Wed, 5 Jun 91 20:59:24 EDT Message-Id: <9106060059.AA16001@aramis.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with BSMTP id 4950; Wed, 05 Jun 91 20:58:41 EDT Received: from NCSUVM.BITNET by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 2686; Wed, 05 Jun 91 20:57:56 EDT Date: Wed, 5 Jun 91 17:55:20 EDT Reply-To: PMC-Talk Sender: PMC-Talk From: Editors of PMC Subject: Postmodernism & Science To: Multiple recipients of list PMC-TALK Resent-To: mcgrew@klinzhai.rutgers.edu Resent-Date: Thu, 6 Jun 91 11:09:19 EDT Resent-From: Charles Mcgrew Status: O Date: Tue, 4 Jun 91 14:45:34 -0400 From: gxs11@po.CWRU.Edu (Gary Stonum) Subject: sciences and poetries Grouchy reply to Kessler: Yes, I have read Penrose's book; in fact I meant to be alluding to him when I used the word "computable," by which term I denoted Newtonian (would you prefer Laplacian?) science [which O'Hara designates rightly as modern]. And could you kindly back off from the more-learned-than-thou remarks? In this case the aspersion about humanists being 50 years behind the (scientific) times does not even much matter, as far as I can tell. If I understand O'Hara's remarks rightly, his constitutively historicizing postmodern science emerges in the mid 19th century--call Darwin a starting point-- and (here I am guessing; help us, Bob) reaches one sort of culmination with Goedel, another with quantum mechanics, and a third with the Shannon-Weaver theory of information. That is, though the phase presumably continues in such things as population genetics, ecology, and the mathematics of chaos, postmodern science is a thing preeminently of the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s. Not-at-all-grouchy reply to Fiona Oceanstar. Yeah, I suppose it could well be that science and poetry learn reciprocally from one another, so that each is regularly out of phase with the other. But thinking so ignores the flare-ups between them over authority and turn, viz the 17th century debates about figural language and the warfare that formalist poet/critics (Tate and Richards come to mind) waged against the limitations of a triumphant science in interbellum years. In other words, my worries concern their need to define themselves in opposition to the other. Gary Stonum, CWRU 8-Jun-91 17:26:28-GMT,4612;000000000001 Received: from porthos.rutgers.edu by klinzhai.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA20859; Sat, 8 Jun 91 13:26:26 EDT Received: by porthos.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA07105; Sat, 8 Jun 91 13:26:25 EDT Resent-Message-Id: <9106081726.AA07105@porthos.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA00455; Fri, 7 Jun 91 19:02:38 EDT Message-Id: <9106072302.AA00455@aramis.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with BSMTP id 8511; Fri, 07 Jun 91 19:01:28 EDT Received: from NCSUVM.BITNET by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 4275; Fri, 07 Jun 91 19:01:19 EDT Date: Fri, 7 Jun 91 18:57:46 EDT Reply-To: PMC-Talk Sender: PMC-Talk From: Editors of PMC Subject: Postmodernism & Science To: Multiple recipients of list PMC-TALK Resent-To: mcgrew@klinzhai.rutgers.edu Resent-Date: Sat, 8 Jun 91 13:26:24 EDT Resent-From: Charles Mcgrew Status: O 1) Postmodernism and evolutionary biology (Carolyn Miller) 2) To Gary Lee Stonum (Kessler) 3) To Gary Lee Stonum (Jack Kolb) 1)--------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 7 Jun 91 16:40:14 -0400 From: cm47@prism.gatech.edu (MILLER,CAROLYN R.) Subject: Postmodernism & Science I was struck, recently, by the similarities between a characterization of postmodernism that I ran across and evolutionary or historical science, as characterized by Ernst Mayr, as well as by Bob O'Hara, both on this list and in some private exchanges. In _Hiding in the Light_ (ch. 8) Dick Hebdige claims that "three negations" "bind the compound of postmodernism together": negations that argue against totalization, against teleology, against utopia. Mayr claims that one of the major insights of Darwinism was that diversity is biologically more important than typology, the population more important than the species--Darwinism prefers a kind of Heraclitean flux to Platonic essentialism (_Growth of Biological Thought_ 38 and elsewhere). He further claims (as do most other serious thinkers about evolution) that evolution is not teleological but rather selectionist or adaptive (although 19th-century evolutionists had difficulty with this aspect of Darwin's thought); that is, evolutionary change happens not because of any final goal toward which it is directed but rather because of immediate environmental pressures that favor one form of diversity over another at the moment (Mayr discusses teleology on pp. 47-51). And finally, Mayr and Stephen Jay Gould, among others, emphasize that selection does not produce perfectly adapted organisms but rather simply ones that can survive and reproduce; there is no perfection, no utopia in nature; the contingencies of history are such that any form could always have been otherwise. (Perhaps Bob will correct or elaborate my quick, amateur descriptions here.) I think this is an interesting confluence of descriptions, but I would not want to argue that evolutionary biology is the only "postmodern science." I do think that such characterizations emphasize that experimental, mathematical, physical science is not the paradigm for all science and that the operation of all sciences can be understood rhetorically. Carolyn Miller Georgia Tech/NC State Univ (after 6/12) 2)-------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 05 Jun 91 21:13 PDT From: KESSLER Subject: Postmodernism & Science Well, then Stonum, I must know the wrong Humanists. But, sorry to have left the impression of more learned than thou; I certainly dont mean any such thing. We are here to learn a few things from everyone else, on this network, anyhow. Perhaps my swift, post- vino correspondence is a bit too-unbuttoned, as they used to say in the 18th Century. I am sorry if it sounded full of side, or condescension. It wasnt meant personally, but in general. 40 years in English Departments, sheesh! and 5 conversations about books in all that time! You see how it goes. Or about poems, or about painting, or about anything. Yours, Kessler. 3)-------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 05 Jun 91 22:56 PDT From: Jack Kolb Subject: Postmodernism & Science Gary, that sounds suspiciously like a modernist question. Even the New Critics debated it. Beware of being cast as a reactionary. Jack. 8-Jun-91 17:26:36-GMT,4111;000000000001 Received: from porthos.rutgers.edu by klinzhai.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA20865; Sat, 8 Jun 91 13:26:35 EDT Received: by porthos.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA07110; Sat, 8 Jun 91 13:26:34 EDT Resent-Message-Id: <9106081726.AA07110@porthos.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA00912; Fri, 7 Jun 91 19:05:37 EDT Message-Id: <9106072305.AA00912@aramis.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with BSMTP id 8515; Fri, 07 Jun 91 19:04:55 EDT Received: from NCSUVM.BITNET by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 4331; Fri, 07 Jun 91 19:03:35 EDT Date: Fri, 7 Jun 91 18:58:21 EDT Reply-To: PMC-Talk Sender: PMC-Talk From: Editors of PMC Subject: Course in Postmodernism To: Multiple recipients of list PMC-TALK Resent-To: mcgrew@klinzhai.rutgers.edu Resent-Date: Sat, 8 Jun 91 13:26:34 EDT Resent-From: Charles Mcgrew Status: O 1) Espousing indoctrination (Jack Kolb) 2) For Russ Hunt (Cliff Staples) 1)-------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 05 Jun 91 23:16 PDT From: Jack Kolb Subject: Course in Postmodernism Ah, but you focus exactly upon my pedagogical issue, Mr. Davies. You admit that teaching is a fundamentally political act, teaching a set of dogma, in whatever disguise to your students. But then don't you fall prey to your own methodology? What gives you the right to assume that your political assumptions about the texts are more "correct" than those, say, of an equally adept political opponent? Then you are simply espousing the indoctrination, through literature, of a particular political dogma. Isn't that the case? Where's any opportunity for free discussion of the meaning of a text? If that's what you're advocating, I want you out of my profession altogether; gather your adherents without my having to pay your salary and support your academic privileges. But again, I may have miscontrused your position. 2)-------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 06 Jun 91 23:03:09 CDT From: cliff staples Subject: Course in Postmodernism For Russ Hunt: Thanks for the references and your thoghts. I would also add Ben Agger's _The Decline of Discourse_, and a book by Ira Shorr entitled _Critical Teaching and Everyday Life_, which owes a good deal to Friere's work. I have also found bell hooks _Yearning_ important, particularly the first few essays. I'm also going to use Natalie Goldberg's _Wild Mind_ again. It's pretty unusual to use it in a sociology class, and the shock value alone is probably worth it. What it also does, though, is create a space where students can discover how to "just say no" to life as a consumer of culture. It doesn't happen overnight, but it happens, eventually. Stepping out of the culture like that can be difficult for some (I'm thinking of Simmel's "The Stranger" or even _Nausea_) and sometimes provokes a crisis, and with it both danger and opportunity. I'm reminded of that wonderful passage from Ortega Y Gasset: "As this is the simple truth - that to live is to feel oneself lost - he who accepts it has already begun to find himself, to be on firm ground. Instinctively, as do the shipwrecked, he will look round for something to which to cling, and that tragic, ruthless glance, absolutely sincere, because it is a question of his salvation, will cause him to bring order into the chaos of his life. These are the only genuine ideas; the ideas of the shipwrecked." I first found this in Kurt Wolff's _Surrender and Catch: Experience and Inquiry Today_. A very interesting, puzzling, and enchanting book. It may even be postmodern. regards, Cliff 10-Jun-91 16:03:12-GMT,2410;000000000001 Received: from porthos.rutgers.edu by klinzhai.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA01211; Mon, 10 Jun 91 12:03:07 EDT Received: by porthos.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA26984; Mon, 10 Jun 91 12:03:04 EDT Resent-Message-Id: <9106101603.AA26984@porthos.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA20273; Mon, 10 Jun 91 09:15:50 EDT Message-Id: <9106101315.AA20273@aramis.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with BSMTP id 0739; Mon, 10 Jun 91 09:16:17 EDT Received: from NCSUVM.BITNET by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 4555; Mon, 10 Jun 91 09:16:12 EDT Date: Mon, 10 Jun 91 09:14:15 EDT Reply-To: PMC-Talk Sender: PMC-Talk From: Editors of PMC Subject: Course in Postmodernism To: Multiple recipients of list PMC-TALK Resent-To: mcgrew@klinzhai.rutgers.edu Resent-Date: Mon, 10 Jun 91 12:02:59 EDT Resent-From: Charles Mcgrew Status: O From: Chris Amirault Subject: Teaching and authority Date: Sun, 9 Jun 91 16:22:52 CDT Russ Hunt writes, I think, interestingly about authority in teaching, but he concerns me when he writes, "You can import (and question) the authority of the community (there isn't any other) by focusing the course not on the teacher (or the text) but on the discourse about the subject out in the world." This concerns me because it seems to move "out" into a world of discourse, implying that "in" the university the discourse of authority is less important or relevant. I'm being a bit polemical, I realize, but I think it's a crucial point. For my students, authority is structured primarily within the economy of the university; that discourse doesn't need to be imported. I find that revealing that discourse about authority, the one in which these students have literally invested something, in the classroom is an important part of my teaching, and it does a lot to reveal the structures of authority, mastery, and epistemology that play such a big role in their lives and in mine. Oh, and by the way: when you wrote "subject" in the last sentence I quoted above, exactly which subject did you mean? Or is that a silly question? chris amirault 13-Jun-91 21:16:11-GMT,4241;000000000001 Received: from porthos.rutgers.edu by klinzhai.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA17882; Thu, 13 Jun 91 17:16:09 EDT Received: by porthos.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA14364; Thu, 13 Jun 91 17:16:07 EDT Resent-Message-Id: <9106132116.AA14364@porthos.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA08295; Tue, 11 Jun 91 20:02:16 EDT Message-Id: <9106120002.AA08295@aramis.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with BSMTP id 3905; Tue, 11 Jun 91 20:01:11 EDT Received: from NCSUVM.BITNET by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 5702; Tue, 11 Jun 91 20:01:04 EDT Date: Tue, 11 Jun 91 19:51:28 EDT Reply-To: PMC-Talk Sender: PMC-Talk From: Editors of PMC Subject: Moulthrop essay To: Multiple recipients of list PMC-TALK Resent-To: mcgrew@klinzhai.rutgers.edu Resent-Date: Thu, 13 Jun 91 17:16:06 EDT Resent-From: Charles Mcgrew Date: Mon, 10 Jun 91 10:47 EDT From: Subject: Mouthrop Essay and Pomo Science In his note on Moulthrop's essay, Donald Judd notices a paradox which everywhere haunts postmodern thinking and is almost nowhere articulated in a useful form. The point is not that Bloom and Moulthrop are, as it were, saying the same thing. They are rather butting their heads against different sides of self-referentiality. Consider this proposition: All truths, including this one, are relative. I would suggest that Postmodernism began in ernest with Bertrand Russell's letter to Gottlob Frege concerning the set-theoretic paradoxes. Of course, versions of the problem had been around since classical times (in the liar's paradox and the arguments of Parmenides), but Cartesian-Newtonian Modernism found means by which to avoid, or at least ignore, them. It was first thought that this was a disaster for logic. Frege obviously felt it as such. However, we must now see that self-referentiality is not illogical, it is another feature of logic: certain kinds of distinctions involve oscillations. If self-referential statements are dynamic temporal unfoldings fixed patterns. This thought joins with another thread of recent PMC discussionthat is, the relationship between diversity and typology in evolutionary theory. Classical logic has no way of dealing with the origin of species. That is, the story of Adam naming the animals is a fundamental and unavoidable aspect of classical thought. (And something like Christian fundamentalism literally the only possible defense of that thought. In fact, if species are logical entities, rather than statistically reliable zones of flux, the notion of an "origin of species" must involve a fundamentalism; they cannot have historical origins.) The attempts to deal with this matter have been quite fumbling. We have had vigorous critiques of origin, of course, but population thinking (as opposed to species thinking) has been proven extremely difficult. Thus, paradoxes, such as Jordan notes are very puzzling. Of course, evolutionary theorists have made the point, but we hardly have a beginning of population thinking in other domains. In this connection, I would call attention to the remarkable work of George Spencer-Brown, Francisco Varela, and L.H. Kauffman. They offer a practical and relatively simple logic which allows a meaningful address to these problems. The relevant texts are Spencer-Brown, LAWS OF FORM; Varela, PRINCIPLES OF BIOLOGICAL AUTONOMY, and Kauffman's "Self-reference and Recursive Form" (JOURNAL OF SOCIAL AND BIOLOGICAL STRUCTURES, 10, 1987, pp.53-72). The Kauffman article is a wonderfully clear and profound address to the issue. The interesting work is a little fugitive. Gary Berkowitz, et.al., "An Approach to a Mathematics of Phenomena" (CYBERNETICS AND SYSTEMS, 19, 1988, 123,167) is both interesting in its own right and includes an extensive bibliography of research generated by LAWS OF FORM. Don Byrd State University of New York--Albany 17-Jun-91 14:05:05-GMT,2684;000000000001 Received: from porthos.rutgers.edu by klinzhai.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA04564; Mon, 17 Jun 91 10:04:59 EDT Received: by porthos.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA13065; Mon, 17 Jun 91 10:04:56 EDT Resent-Message-Id: <9106171404.AA13065@porthos.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA15082; Sat, 15 Jun 91 12:47:56 EDT Message-Id: <9106151647.AA15082@aramis.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with BSMTP id 9589; Sat, 15 Jun 91 12:48:05 EDT Received: from NCSUVM.BITNET by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 6944; Sat, 15 Jun 91 12:47:58 EDT Date: Sat, 15 Jun 91 12:05:34 EDT Reply-To: PMC-Talk Sender: PMC-Talk From: Editors of PMC Subject: Queries To: Multiple recipients of list PMC-TALK Resent-To: mcgrew@klinzhai.rutgers.edu Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Jun 91 10:04:55 EDT Resent-From: Charles Mcgrew 1) Pomo work on Shakespeare (Antony Arnove) 2) Undergraduate course material (Joe Natoli) 1)---------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 12 Jun 91 16:20 EST From: SAA9517@OBERLIN.BITNET Subject: Query RE: Shakespeare Perhaps this is not postmodernist enough, but I am seeking help for a project I am assisting, putting together a collection of recent (post-1970) essays on HAMLET, OTHELLO, and KING LEAR. I am specifically trying to identify literary criticism on these three plays that 1) would be interesting, accessible, and useful to undergraduates, and 2) draw on recent developments in literary theory (feminism, cultural materialism, hermeneutics, postcolonialism, postmodernism, others) Or anything you've read recently on these plays (in book or journal, or from a speech) that stands out in your mind. Please send responses to Anthony Arnove: SAA9517@oberlin.bitnet Thanks! anthony arnove oberlin college 2)---------------------------------------------------------- Date: Friday, 14 June 1991 9:41am ET From: "Coll.Dev" <20676CDV@MSU> Subject: PMC-TALK I'm interested in the titles of articles and chapters on postmodernism (including "what's wrong with postmodernism" items) that would be accessible to undergrads in core or integrated studies sequences. Besides readability (length is a factor) items should also be outstanding ("classic") representations of PM and film, literature, politics, art etc. What by Barthes, Derrida, Foucault, Lyotard, Baudrillard, White, Hutcheon etc should be selected? [Joe Natoli] 17-Jun-91 14:05:19-GMT,2422;000000000001 Received: from porthos.rutgers.edu by klinzhai.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA04570; Mon, 17 Jun 91 10:05:18 EDT Received: by porthos.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA13081; Mon, 17 Jun 91 10:05:17 EDT Resent-Message-Id: <9106171405.AA13081@porthos.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA15276; Sat, 15 Jun 91 12:53:02 EDT Message-Id: <9106151653.AA15276@aramis.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with BSMTP id 9592; Sat, 15 Jun 91 12:52:32 EDT Received: from NCSUVM.BITNET by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 7052; Sat, 15 Jun 91 12:51:53 EDT Date: Sat, 15 Jun 91 12:07:58 EDT Reply-To: PMC-Talk Sender: PMC-Talk From: Editors of PMC Subject: Postmodernism & Science To: Multiple recipients of list PMC-TALK Resent-To: mcgrew@klinzhai.rutgers.edu Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Jun 91 10:05:16 EDT Resent-From: Charles Mcgrew Date: Wed, 12 Jun 91 09:29:09 BST From: stephen clark Subject: classical logic On Tue, 11 Jun 91 19:51:28 EDT DJB85@ALBNYVMS said, amongst other, quite interesting things: > Classical logic has no way of dealing with the origin of >species. That is, the story of Adam naming the animals is a >fundamental and unavoidable aspect of classical thought. I don't think this is true. Aristotle, who founded the systematic study of logical form, did not hold to an essentialist view of animal kinds. See, amongst many other sources: Pierre Pellegrin *Aristotle's Classification of Animals*, tr.A.Preus (University of California Press 1986), and D.M.Balme Aristotle's Biology was not Essentialist, in Archiv fur Geschichte der Philosophie 62.1980. I do agree that there's a lot of work to be done disentangling essentialist and evolutionary accounts of apparent kinds, but I don't see that classical logic need be troubled by that. See also Elliot Sober on Evolution Population Thinking and Essentialism, Philosophy of Science 47, 1980. John Dupre Natural Kinds and Biological Taxa, Philosophical Review 90.1981. And one of mine, Is Humanity a Natural Kind, in Tim Ingold, ed., What is an Animal? (Unwin Hyman 1988). Stephen Clark Liverpool 17-Jun-91 14:05:31-GMT,1330;000000000001 Received: from porthos.rutgers.edu by klinzhai.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA04575; Mon, 17 Jun 91 10:05:30 EDT Received: by porthos.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA13086; Mon, 17 Jun 91 10:05:28 EDT Resent-Message-Id: <9106171405.AA13086@porthos.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA15493; Sat, 15 Jun 91 12:55:05 EDT Message-Id: <9106151655.AA15493@aramis.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with BSMTP id 9594; Sat, 15 Jun 91 12:55:01 EDT Received: from NCSUVM.BITNET by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 7106; Sat, 15 Jun 91 12:53:43 EDT Date: Sat, 15 Jun 91 12:08:46 EDT Reply-To: PMC-Talk Sender: PMC-Talk From: Editors of PMC Subject: Moulthrop essay To: Multiple recipients of list PMC-TALK Resent-To: mcgrew@klinzhai.rutgers.edu Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Jun 91 10:05:23 EDT Resent-From: Charles Mcgrew Date: Wed, 12 Jun 91 03:39 PDT To: PMC-Talk From: Jack Kolb Subject: Moulthrop essay Would this be the equivalent to a logician's "string-theory"? 18-Jun-91 19:28:54-GMT,12647;000000000001 Received: from porthos.rutgers.edu by klinzhai.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA04648; Tue, 18 Jun 91 15:28:51 EDT Received: by porthos.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA09716; Tue, 18 Jun 91 15:28:50 EDT Resent-Message-Id: <9106181928.AA09716@porthos.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA16034; Tue, 18 Jun 91 03:53:31 EDT Message-Id: <9106180753.AA16034@aramis.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with BSMTP id 1854; Tue, 18 Jun 91 03:52:44 EDT Received: from NCSUVM.BITNET by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 4947; Tue, 18 Jun 91 03:52:34 EDT Date: Tue, 18 Jun 91 03:46:05 EDT Reply-To: PMC-Talk Sender: PMC-Talk From: Editors of PMC Subject: Buxton Conference To: Multiple recipients of list PMC-TALK Resent-To: mcgrew@klinzhai.rutgers.edu Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Jun 91 15:28:48 EDT Resent-From: Charles Mcgrew From: gst@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (GSchmundt Thomas) Subject: buxton Date: Wed, 29 May 91 14:42:14 CDT Here is an early posting (I will be gone the third week of June, but don't want to miss the discussion) on Buxton's _From the Avengers to Miami Vice_. For starters, I found Buxton's introductory chapter rather fortuitous and somewhat of a red herring. By now structuralism has been criticized for such a long time and rather successfully that another attack is rather unnecessary. I cannot imagine that filmstudies is really all that far behind the general discourse of the humanities. Predictably enough, Buxton does not add anything new to the structuralist debate, he merely covers familiar ground. Furthermore, his formal, historical, and ideological concerns could have been introduced without recourse to structuralism. One does not need structuralism in order to argue for the existence of TV series in what Buxton calls assemblage, a set of narratives with a common narrative and ideological framework. Although Buxton makes good on his promise to trace "relations of determination [...] between a series and its social and economic context" (16) in many of his discussions, some of his analyses seem to lack stringency. While I liked the section on _Miami Vice_ particularly well -- "the two major pillars of Reaganian free market ideology have been condensed into its assemblage"J(142) PP I was rather disappointed by what he had to say on _Star Trek_ and the relation to its historical context. Beyond noting the rather general "displacement of what were current ideological tensions on to planets suitably designed for their resolution" (60), Buxton has little to say about the determination of the series by specific contemporary concerns. Moreover, I also think that _Star Trek_ constitutes something like a non-liberal or even right-wing critique of contemporary foreign policy, or more particularly, U.S. involvement in Vietnam. The pertinent episode is "Patterns of Force," first aired in February 1968. In that episode, the USS Enterprise tries to get in touch with the cultural observer of the Federation on the planet Ekon, Captain Kirk's former history professor at Starfleet Academy, John Gill. Beamed down, Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock find an indistinguishable replica of the Nazi state on Ekon, complete with Nazi uniforms, internecine squabbles between the Party, SS and Gestapo, and an ongoing racial war between the Ekonians and the radically pacifist and more advanced Zeons (a thinly veiled "Zion" and reference to the Jews, which is also played out in names like Davod, Abrom, Isak). They soon find out that the similarity is no coincidence when they learn that the Ekonian fuhrer is John Gill, who must have recreated the Nazi state for reasons of his own. Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock try to get access to John Gill, but for obvious reasons this climactic meeting has to be put off until the end of the episode. The inevitable trials and tribulations of the two include imprisonment and torture by the Gestapo, an escape from the prison, a linkup with members of the Zeonian underground (quite literally under ground in the sewer system), delayed communication with the Enterprise because of disassembled communicators, and the eventual infiltration of Party Headquarters, where John Gill is about to give a speech. Kirk and Spock find out that Gill's assistant Melakon has assumed power and that he merely keeps the professor as figurehead of the party. Gill is isolated from everybody else and apparently drugged or psychotic. With the help of Dr. McCoy, beamed down in the meantime, the group manages to wake John Gill, who then tells his story why, in spite of definite orders not to interfere in the alien culture, he replicated Nazi Germany on Ekon: Gill: Planet fragmented, divided, took lesson from Earth history. Kirk: But why Nazi Germany? You knew what the Nazis were. Gill: Most efficient state Earth ever knew. Spock: Quite true, captain. A tiny country, beaten, bankrupt, defeated, rose in a few years to stand only one step away from global domination. Kirk: It was brutal, perverted. Had to be destroyed at a terrible cost. Why that example? Spock: Perhaps Gill felt that such a state -- run benignly -- could accomplish his efficiency without sadism. Kirk: Why, Gill? Why? Gill: Worked. At first it worked. Then Melakon began takeover. Apparently, Gill had the same dream as General Cummings in Mailer's _The Naked and the Dead_, or for that matter, as Plato in the totalitarian utopia outlined in his _The Republic_, and could not resist the promise of efficiency of centralized and absolute authority. Of course, both Gill and Melakon die in the final showdown, but only after Gill has realized his mistake and in the last moment reverses his earlier call for total war against the Zeonians in another broadcast. Peace reestablished on Ekon and back on the Enterprise, Kirk sums up the moral and lesson of this episode for his lieutenants and the audience: Spock: How could a man as brilliant, a mind as logical as John Gill's have made such a fatal error? Kirk: He drew the wrong conclusion from history. The problem with the Nazis wasn't simply that their leaders were evil, psychotic men. They were. But the main problem, I think, was the leader principle. McCoy: What he's saying, Spock, is that when a man holds that much power, even with the best intentions he simply can't resist to play God. Obviously, the ill-fated Nazi experiment, both on Ekon and in Germany, provides the perfect contrast to the democratic virtues of the American-led science-fictional Federation in _Star Trek_ and serves to re-affirm those political values. But more importantly and more specifically, the episode also articulates a kind of republican critique of American overseas involvement and its adverse effects on the American body-politic. Cold War historian Thomas J. McCormick has pointed out that disaffection with the Vietnam war extended into the (conservative) political American elite. Faced with the potential alienation of a whole generation of middle class youth, corporate leaders as well as other traditionally non-liberal elites "to voice dissent from the Vietnam War effort and, more broadly, to question the proper relationship of means to ends in fulfilling America's hegemonic role" (McCormick 159). At the same time the emergence of a kind of wartime democracy raised troubling questions about the centralization of power and the dangers of what Arthur Schlesinger called the "imperial presidency," questions that would finally explode into prominence with the Watergate scandal. As Michael Hunt has shown, the question "whether domestic liberty could flourish alongside an ambitious and strongly assertive foreign policy" (Hunt 21) has determined American politics at least since the republican-federalist debate between Jefferson and Hamilton. While Jefferson militated against too much concentrated power and argued for a non- interventionist foreign policy, Hamilton advocated a strong central government in the hands of an elite and aggressive involvement abroad to defend American interests (cf. Hunt 21-28). The same conflict erupted over and over again, and also informed the struggle between isolationist and interventionist forces in American foreign policy in the 20th century before the emergence of the Cold War consensus and global American policing according to the Truman doctrine. The apparent failure of U.S. foreign policy in Southeast Asia yet again added fuel to the debate over the form of American involvement abroad and its effects on democracy at home. Hunt sums up that through the twentieth century foreign afairs has strengthened the financial resources, expertise, and discretion available to the executive branch. Congress has been overshadowed, the public left in the dark, and a cult of national security has flourished. These trends have undermined constitutional checks and balances, restricted the flow of information, impeded intelligent debate, and diminished the electoral accountability of policymakers -- all serious blows to the workings of a democratic political system. (Hunt 178) Or, in the words of Captain Kirk, "the main problem, I think, was the leader principle," the emergence of an imperial presidency. "Patterns of Force" thus articulates a kind of republican critique of U.S. foreign policy. Significantly enough, as Hunt also points out, the Vietnam War and later Watergate eroded "support, especially and most critically among well-informed, influential Americans, for the interventionism associated with previous Cold War policy" (Hunt 181). In a sense, Kirk and Spock's investigation of what has become of John Gill and what is happening on planet Ekon anticipates the fate of Richard Nixon, undone like the history professor by the undue accumulation of power. But more importantly, and in spite of the obvious imperialist undercurrents of _Star Trek_ and the intergalactic roaming and prospecting of new markets of the aptly named (Free) Enterprise, the series also champions a return to a kind of neo-Jeffersonian republicanism and criticizes what could be called the Hamiltonian politic al elitism, the concentration of centralized power and interventionist foreign policies. In best Jeffersonian fashion the common members of the crew are thus titled "yeoman," the solar system is organized into the Federation, and the Federation's foreign and cultural policy vis  vis new lifeforms is one of strict non-interference. Again, Buxton seems right if somewhat general when he notes that the process of "displacement of what were current ideological tensions on to planets suitably designed for their resolution" (60). And indeed the series' main rivalries between the Federation, the Klingon and the Romulan empires are easily recognized as the 1960's geopolitical distribution of power between America, China and the Russians. Yet, Buxton may be oversimplifying the ideological thrust of the series, or just denying it its due, when he claims that in _Star Trek_ "an optimistic version of a universal human nature (in its puritan American form) can be upheld while the problems of the twentieth century (in the first place, the Vietnam War) can be displaced on to others" (Buxton 60). True, Kirk and Spock only encounter their "Germany within," the totalitarian internal other of their transparently American culture on a strange and distant planet, but then it is one of their venerated teachers who is responsible for the political aberration in that world. Although displaced, the horror and the realization of the fragility of their democratic traditions and their cultural superiority hit close to home, and, with dying John Gill "Patterns of Force" seems to remind its audience that if teachers can err so fataly, how about the pupils? Works Cited Buxton, David, _From the Avengers to Miami Vice_. Manchester: Manchester University Press. 1990. Hunt, Michael H., _Ideology and U.S. Foreign Policy_. New Haven: Yale University Press. 1987. McCormick, Thomas J., _America's Half-Century_. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. 1989. "Patterns of Force." _Star Trek episode_ 52. Dir. Vince McEveety. (First broadcast 16 Feb. 1968.) Paramount Home Video. 1986. G. Schmundt-Thomas 18-Jun-91 19:29:05-GMT,2885;000000000001 Received: from porthos.rutgers.edu by klinzhai.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA04655; Tue, 18 Jun 91 15:29:04 EDT Received: by porthos.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA09724; Tue, 18 Jun 91 15:29:03 EDT Resent-Message-Id: <9106181929.AA09724@porthos.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA16987; Tue, 18 Jun 91 04:03:00 EDT Message-Id: <9106180803.AA16987@aramis.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with BSMTP id 1859; Tue, 18 Jun 91 04:02:54 EDT Received: from NCSUVM.BITNET by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 5110; Tue, 18 Jun 91 04:02:49 EDT Date: Tue, 18 Jun 91 03:58:53 EDT Reply-To: PMC-Talk Sender: PMC-Talk From: Editors of PMC Subject: Polemics To: Multiple recipients of list PMC-TALK Resent-To: mcgrew@klinzhai.rutgers.edu Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Jun 91 15:29:02 EDT Resent-From: Charles Mcgrew 1) Political dogmatism (Elizabeth Evasdaughter) 2) My problem (Stephanie Nelson) 1)-------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 16 Jun 91 10:45:27 EDT From: Elizabeth Evasdaughter Subject: Polemics To Jack Kolb: Your note to Stephanie put the finger on a question of mine. I was beginning to find the postings in PMC-Talk unreadable, and wondered if the style--the breathlessness of the long sentences-- was responsible. Your phrase "political dogmatism" explains both the breathlessness and the unreadability. Thank you kindly. 2)-------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 17 Jun 91 13:40:03 PDT From: NELSON@USCVM Subject: Polemics To Jack Kolb: You ask me what is my problem? My problem is that God is dead and we are locked in gravity's thrall to a dying ember of a star. My problem is that the plankton chain is reversing itself. My problem is that Einstein's theories were applied to Hiroshima. My problem is that the child may now be among us who will push the button--hungry, angry, greedy enough. My problem is that I know too much and there is too much to know. You say PoMo is not a "true discourse." There is no true discourse--that was a delusion of a certain few dead white european males. I am not a philosopher--that's over and done with too. I study the rhetoric of music, and very soon I am going to give up speaking entirely and resort to song. You might try reading Lyotard if you're really bored this summer, or you might try fly fishing. I can't really help you because I have a few silly conference papers to write. Maybe Kessler will take you to lunch and explain PM to you, or maybe not. Stephanie Nelson 24-Jun-91 18:11:13-GMT,2652;000000000001 Received: from porthos.rutgers.edu by klinzhai.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA01339; Mon, 24 Jun 91 14:11:11 EDT Received: by porthos.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA26654; Mon, 24 Jun 91 14:11:08 EDT Resent-Message-Id: <9106241811.AA26654@porthos.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA29296; Mon, 24 Jun 91 10:38:15 EDT Message-Id: <9106241438.AA29296@aramis.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with BSMTP id 9245; Mon, 24 Jun 91 10:37:58 EDT Received: from NCSUVM.BITNET by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 9143; Mon, 24 Jun 91 10:37:53 EDT Date: Mon, 24 Jun 91 10:36:23 EDT Reply-To: PMC-Talk Sender: PMC-Talk From: Editors of PMC Subject: Polemics To: Multiple recipients of list PMC-TALK Resent-To: mcgrew@klinzhai.rutgers.edu Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Jun 91 14:11:04 EDT Resent-From: Charles Mcgrew 1) Polemics (Jack Kolb) 2) Polemics or Ironics? (Chris Amirault) 1)-------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 18 Jun 91 05:04 PDT From: Jack Kolb Subject: Re: Polemics But then why, Ms. Nelson, in all due humility (I'm white, male, European--I suppose--and probably dead from the neck up), bother writing your papers? Why not go fly fishing, as you so aptly suggest? Or, to put it another way, why bother? "There needs no ghost ... come from the grave/To tell us this." Why not ditch the academy altogether? It's not very nice to your sex, as you testify: it doesn't pay very well, and it involves at least as much committee work as comparable professions. 2)-------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Polemics or Ironics? Date: Wed, 19 Jun 91 7:13:15 CDT From: amirault@CSD4.CSD.UWM.EDU To Stephanie Nelson: When you write that you are beyond discourse, that you know too much, and that soon you will stop speaking altogether and only sing: do you post to this list for a reason? Am I blinded by my classic notions of discourse, or does your participation on this list somehow implicate you in its discourse? What am I to make of your posting? Does that matter? And when you give up speaking, will you give up writing as well? Posting to the net? Or are all these questions of discourse and therefore irrelevant? Or were you being ironic? I, by the way, am not. I don't think. chris amirault amirault@csd4.csd.uwm.edu 24-Jun-91 18:11:21-GMT,1662;000000000001 Received: from porthos.rutgers.edu by klinzhai.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA01345; Mon, 24 Jun 91 14:11:21 EDT Received: by porthos.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA26661; Mon, 24 Jun 91 14:11:19 EDT Resent-Message-Id: <9106241811.AA26661@porthos.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA29569; Mon, 24 Jun 91 10:41:08 EDT Message-Id: <9106241441.AA29569@aramis.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with BSMTP id 9254; Mon, 24 Jun 91 10:40:48 EDT Received: from NCSUVM.BITNET by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 9222; Mon, 24 Jun 91 10:40:31 EDT Date: Mon, 24 Jun 91 10:36:59 EDT Reply-To: PMC-Talk Sender: PMC-Talk From: Editors of PMC Subject: New list on Derrida & deconstruction To: Multiple recipients of list PMC-TALK Resent-To: mcgrew@klinzhai.rutgers.edu Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Jun 91 14:11:17 EDT Resent-From: Charles Mcgrew Date: Fri, 21 Jun 91 16:06:42 GMT From: David L Erben X-Prolog: English Dept X-Prolog: University of South Florida Subject: New List devoted to Derrida and deconstruction A new list has begun which is devoted to a discussion of Jacques Derrida and deconstruction. To subscribe to the list, issue the following command: tell listserv at cfrvm sub derrida YOUR NAME David David L Erben BITNET: DQFACAA@CFRVM INTERNET: DQFACAA@CFRVM.CFR.USF.EDU 27-Jun-91 14:42:54-GMT,4427;000000000001 Received: from porthos.rutgers.edu by klinzhai.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA09688; Thu, 27 Jun 91 10:42:43 EDT Received: by porthos.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA21734; Thu, 27 Jun 91 10:42:39 EDT Resent-Message-Id: <9106271442.AA21734@porthos.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA09168; Wed, 26 Jun 91 16:51:07 EDT Message-Id: <9106262051.AA09168@aramis.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with BSMTP id 3336; Wed, 26 Jun 91 16:49:33 EDT Received: from NCSUVM.BITNET by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 0782; Wed, 26 Jun 91 16:49:20 EDT Date: Wed, 26 Jun 91 16:45:15 EDT Reply-To: PMC-Talk Sender: PMC-Talk From: Editors of PMC Subject: Digest 6/26/91 To: Multiple recipients of list PMC-TALK Resent-To: mcgrew@klinzhai.rutgers.edu Resent-Date: Thu, 27 Jun 91 10:42:34 EDT Resent-From: Charles Mcgrew Status: O PMC-TALK digest: postings for the period ending Wednesday, 26 Jun 1991 Editor: John Unsworth Topics: Polemics (Stephanie Nelson) Graduate programs in philosophy (Jonathan Kandell) Time (Wayne Draznin) ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Send messages intended for publication on PMC-TALK to internet: PMC-TALK@NCSUVM.CC.NCSU.EDU Bitnet: PMC-TALK@NCSUVM Send requests of an administrative nature (addition to, deletion from the distribution list, etc.) to internet: PMC@NCSUVM.CC.NCSU.EDU Bitnet: PMC@NCSUVM Send Listserv commands (GET [filename filetype], SET PMC-TALK NOMAIL FOR [user@node], SIGNOFF PMC-TALK, etc.) to internet: LISTSERV@NCSUVM.CC.NCSU.EDU Bitnet: LISTSERV@NCSUVM PMC-TALK is the discussion forum for the electronic journal _Postmodern Culture_ (PMC-LIST@NCSUVM.CC.NCSU.EDU or PMC-LIST@NCSUVM). ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 24 Jun 91 08:28:56 PDT From: NELSON@USCVM Subject: Re: Polemics To Jack Kolb and Chris Amirault: I am not an academic. When I finish my Ph.D. I will get a nice hefty raise here at NASA, where I work. Of course I wouldn't give up writing, this discourse or others. As Derrida says, thinking is writing. It's just that, yes, it doesn't matter. Not in this world now, I think. Not really. One of the questions postmodernism raises is are there other kinds of discourse we might use, other forms in which to couch our appeals? Music is my particular area of exploration. I suppose I was being ironic. More honestly, I was being a bit flip with Jack because he seems not to have read Karl Marx. Sorry. I was pleased to see that he ultimately resorted to poetry for his appeal to my senses. An other discourse. Very pomo. Stephanie Nelson ----------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 24 Jun 91 15:33 MST From: JONATHAN KANDELL Subject: Graduate programs in philosophy I need some advice on graduate philosophy departments. I am currently a graduate students at the University of Arizona. I will have my Masters soon. Arizona is possibly the most analytic department in the country. Unfortunately, I have decided I like continental philosophy. What are the best departments in the country in Continental philosophy? Where should I apply if I want to get a decent job when I get out? My interests are Habermas, Nietzsche, Hegel, Kiergegaard, Aesthetics, Culture.. Thank you very much for your help, in advance. Jonathan Kandell, Tucson Arizona ----------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 24 Jun 91 22:55 EDT From: Subject: time I'm looking for philosophical writings on the concept of "time," ie, Kubler _The Shape of Time_; Borges _New Refutation of Time_; etc. Any suggestions? As this is probably not of general interest, you can send to me directly: draznin@cwru.bitnet or ai182@cleveland.freenet.edu. Thanks much. Wayne Draznin ----------------------------------------------------------------- 8-Jul-91 15:47:12-GMT,18953;000000000001 Received: from porthos.rutgers.edu by klinzhai.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA20587; Mon, 8 Jul 91 11:47:05 EDT Received: by porthos.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA05128; Mon, 8 Jul 91 11:47:03 EDT Resent-Message-Id: <9107081547.AA05128@porthos.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA16993; Fri, 5 Jul 91 16:23:11 EDT Message-Id: <9107052023.AA16993@aramis.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with BSMTP id 4559; Fri, 05 Jul 91 16:21:31 EDT Received: from NCSUVM.BITNET by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 0506; Fri, 05 Jul 91 16:21:18 EDT Date: Fri, 5 Jul 91 16:13:01 EDT Reply-To: PMC-Talk Sender: PMC-Talk From: Editors of PMC Subject: Digest 7/5/91 To: Multiple recipients of list PMC-TALK Resent-To: mcgrew@klinzhai.rutgers.edu Resent-Date: Mon, 8 Jul 91 11:47:02 EDT Resent-From: Charles Mcgrew PMC-TALK digest: postings for the period ending Friday, 05 Jul 1991 Editor: John Unsworth Topics: Ethics Ethics Postmodernism and ethics Time Bibliography ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Send messages intended for publication on PMC-TALK to internet: PMC-TALK@NCSUVM.CC.NCSU.EDU Bitnet: PMC-TALK@NCSUVM Send requests of an administrative nature (addition to, deletion from the distribution list, etc.) to internet: PMC@NCSUVM.CC.NCSU.EDU Bitnet: PMC@NCSUVM Send Listserv commands (GET [filename filetype], SET PMC-TALK NOMAIL FOR [user@node], SIGNOFF PMC-TALK, etc.) to internet: LISTSERV@NCSUVM.CC.NCSU.EDU Bitnet: LISTSERV@NCSUVM PMC-TALK is the discussion forum for the electronic journal _Postmodern Culture_ (PMC-LIST@NCSUVM.CC.NCSU.EDU or PMC-LIST@NCSUVM). ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- From: gst@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (GSchmundt Thomas) Subject: Ethics Date: Wed, 3 Jul 91 17:38:27 CDT To Jonathan, although I couldn't agree more with you when you write that"we have to start looking at ethics *as it really functions sociologically* in society," I found some of the questions/theses you raised somewhat dubious. > 1. Suppose ethic's purpose is to make society hold together. Is > this necessarily a good thing? Doesn't this beg the question against the > view that people flourish better as individuals, as rebels, and so on? > It's a fine line between ethics making sure society is orderly and ethics > being an *ideology* (in the pejorative sense) that forces people to > conform. Certainly our american ethics fits a bit too nicely with > capitalism's needs to not take notice! Should we then "scrap" ethics? For starters, are you here talking about "an ethics" in general, as a concept, or about a specific ethics, probably in the sense of "Protestant work ethic" which indeed seems to fit very well with the needs of a capitalist society. Who says that people flourish better as individuals? Are you not romanticizing the notion of individual seperateness? Why is it that the classical rebel always has to "escape" into death as a final gesture of rebellion? Is it because evil society does not leave him/her any other possibility or because finally the very notion of independence as isolation implies death? Does ethics necessarily have to be described as a policing function, even if it admittedly provides coherence or even seems to enforce conformity? Every social organization has to be based on a set of rules; if you don't "conform" to some extent, you are simply not playing the game any more. Even if breaking the rules is part of the game to some extent, there is a point past which others will simply not put up with it any more. Why should they bother? > > 2. Is ethics an outlet for psychologically disfunctional people? > I've found that most people who are concerned with ethics tend > to be overly critical and judgemental. They tend to be those who are > overly concerned with theories and concepts, as opposed to emotion and > living. They tend to hide behind ethics, as a way of avoiding their > own problems. Think of the preacher or the political zealot or the > academic moralist. Isn't ethics really just a way to feel superior > because you can "place another" in a lower category? You seem to confuse ethics here with a specific "radical" discourse that invokes ethics. Admittedly, those zealots discredit the concept, but to reduce it to their practice seems to be a bit shortsighted. You can be moral even without buying into the thinking of the "Moral Majority." Does bible belt enthusiasm really totally discredit morality? Again, I can be disgusted by such religious fanaticks but still live by some moral precepts (the reason why I don't kill somebody). > 3. What function does ethics (i.e. labeling something 'right' or > 'wrong', 'just' or 'unjust') serve above-and-beyond saying "I don't > like" x, y or z? Isn't ethics a sham? I think it is because using > ethical language *implies there is some deep justification* for one's > positions. But there isn't any deep justification for ethical > statements. So why not be more honest and simply say "I don't like" > instead of "It's wrong," or "unjust"? In other words, isn't ethical > language a mask for power? Ethical language is a method of *stopping > debate* by appealing to a higher authority--either God or Rationality > or Law. Even if you concede that your own (ethical) positions are not absolute that does not mean that they are just "private" or individual notions. There may not be a transcendent justification for your ethical positions; to say there is no justification at all (deep or whatever) seems to be grossly overstating the case. An appeal to ethics serves as an appeal not to my private predilections, but to a "way of living," a world view or a discourse if you will. Indeed you appeal to a "higher authority," but perhaps precisely because you views are not private but shared and you are trying to establish whether you are in the same "universe of discourse." In that sense ethical discourse means empowerment, creation of a (discursive, experiential) community. Every act of (self-)articulation delineates a site of power; ethical language doesn't only and alwyas mask domination (I take it you mean domination when you write power) but defines innumerable possible positions within a discursive system.-- If you substitute meaning for ethics in your discussion, you get the old debate about the instability/nonexistence/indecideability of meaning. I am not saying that your position is just not fashionable any more, but that at least in that debate people have finally realized that even without the transcendental signifier communications functions well enough for all practical purposes, how it functions "sociologically," if you will. The same holds true for ethics, and except for the occasional Raskolnikov imitator who really wants to test the limits of the "post ethical," most people wouldn't agree that it is a sham. G. Schmundt-Thomas ----------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 03 Jul 91 20:46:17 PDT From: NELSON@USCVM Subject: Ethics Oooo, good question! Of course we have to look at ethics in the "real world"-- after God, universality, and virtue (MacIntyre) have been disEnlightened. Specifically: (1) I don't think the purpose of ethics is necessarily to make society hold together. Not this society, anyway. It's the 4th, Jon--remember that our founding fathers were very much hedonists. No, it's life, liberty, and the pursuit of the H word. The human freedom to be and unfold, and put in one's two cents (as Rorty would probably say) are also issues of ethics. (2) You are worried that ethics is an outlet for zealots and psychopaths with a nasty argumentative streak? Have you taken a philosophy course lately at any major university? Need you ask? (3) Is ethics a sham and can we definitively label something as "unjust?" Seems to me we all know how to "do the right thing," as Spike Lee would say. Are the questions of whether to wear fur, use disposable diapers, recycle cans, get a smog check, buy tuna, really a matter of personal taste? I mean, c'mom, Jon, when your mother told you it was wrong to push your baby sister off the swing did that squelch a debate? Can we say simply "I don't like it" when baby seals get clubbed to death? (4) Ah, Habermas, Rorty, MacIntyre. This reminds me of quals, where those sorts of philosophers we were discussing above sit on one side of the table, and I, properly attired for the occasion, sit on the other, and at their signal, I start spouting theory. When they are duly satisfied they take me out to lunch, I guess, and tell me what to do with the rest of my life, and I thank them. This will be good practice! Well, we can probably dismiss Habermas fairly quickly, since he is still (gasp) a Universalist, which doesn't sit too well in this era of multi- culturalism. He mumbles occasionally (though not lately) about universal audiences, admittedly fictional, but there in our minds. Well. But he has an idea that philosophy, eviscerated as it is by its inability to stand alone, can nonetheless serve as a mediator and translator for the hard sciences, which are soulless. Well. Perhaps just another philo- sopher afraid of his computer software. MacIntyre. A neo-Aristotelian if e'er there was. Wants to rescue us from relativism by returning us to our roots. Says things like "once again, Plato is right." Says philosophy is inherently political, but we can escape our particularisms by coming up with a "third language" (he might consider PM one, for all I know), that is "detached from those descriptions that, within some given and presupposed context defined by the beliefs of some particular community, uniquely identify person or place." With this language we can "construct representations that are independent of our own commitments." Right. Poor dead Foucault is kicking up some dust right about now. Rorty. Well, let's think of it this way; maybe it's time to apply an empirical test. Let's say we had an ethical question about a body--a construct that is being problematized by many PM thinkers. Who has the rights over whose body--what can/can't go in it, when is it intoxicated, when is it alive, when can it die, when can it be aborted, who can con- ceive it, carry it, parent it, what kind of punishments can be inflicted upon it, corporal or spatially restrictive, etc. If the question were euthanesia, Habermas would be on some talk show exhorting the medical world to be reasonable and kind, MacIntyre would be telling us what the Greeks would have done, or better yet, the Yanomamo, since the more distant, the better. Rorty would just keep talking about it until the patient died of sheer boredom. Truth, says Rorty, is just a nice thing to say about a sentence one likes, and has very limited efficacy anyway. Nevertheless, I like Rorty, for he has some nice things to say about the world that I think can be applied to ethics: (1) that a better world will be achieved by making, not finding, and (2) that the discovery of a self, one own or another's, is the endless task of love. He also says that physics is a way of trying to cope with one part of the world and ethics a way of trying to cope with another part, and math helps physics and art and literature help ethics. Nice thought, though anyone who knows a bit about how physics gets done would not draw the line so sharply. But why just those three, Jon, and why phrase it in terms of who among them "wins?" Wayne Booth comes to mind here, among others, but maybe in this PM world everyone is right for 15 minutes, just like (as Warhol said) everyone is gets one spot on the evening news. Again, nice question, and hope it sparks some more talk here. Thanks for the inspiration. Stephanie Nelson ----------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 04 Jul 91 12:48:25 EDT From: Robert O'Hara Subject: Postmodernism and ethics For Jonathan Kandell: I have no special training in ethics, but I do have a copy of a great book by Albert Jonsen & Stephen Toulmin called _The Abuse of Casuistry: a History of Moral Reasoning_ (Berkeley: U. Cal. Press, 1988). I'm a fan of Toulmin's work, and am always recommending it to people. _The Abuse of Casuistry_ examines the more-or-less lost tradition of case ethics and problems of individual conscience, and contrasts this tradition with what they characterize as a more 'modernist' approach that emphasizes the intellectual elaboration of absolute ethical rules. Perhaps you would find it interesting. I would be glad to hear from anyone else who is familiar with this book and has a more thorough grounding in ethics, also. Is the book well regarded by other ethical philosophers? Bob O'Hara, MNHVZ028@SIVM.bitnet National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution ----------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 4 Jul 91 17:38:53 -0400 From: ai182@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Wayne Draznin) Subject: Time Bibliography Many thanks to everyone who gave me leads on philosophical writings on the concept of time. Here is the resulting bibliography (nothing like a little lite beach reading for the summer...) Wayne Draznin, coordinator Computer Arts Program Cleveland Institute of Art draznin@cwru.bitnet ai182@po.cwru.edu [Editor's note: the following bibliography has been added to PMC-TALK's permanent filelist as TIME BIB] Albert Robatto, Matilde, _Borges, Buenos Aires y el Tiempo_ (Editorial Edil, 1972). _Aspects of Time_, ed. C. A. Patrides (Manchester: Manchester University Press; Buffalo, N.Y.: University of Toronto Press, c1976). Church, Margaret, _Time and Reality; studies in contemporary fiction_ (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1963) Coveney, Peter V., _The Arrow of Time: a voyage through science to solve time's greatest mystery_ (Ballantine Books, c1991). Doob, Leonard William, _Patterning of Time_ (New Haven: Yale Universty Press, 1971). Fraisse, Paul, _The Psychology of Time_ (New York: Harper & Row, 1963). Fraser, J. T., _The Genesis and Evolution of Time: a critique of interpretation in physics_ (University of Massachusetts Press, 1982). Fraser, J. T., _Of Time, Passion and Knowledge: reflections on the strategy of existence_ (G. Braziller, 1975). Fraser, J. T., _Time, the Familiar Stranger_ (University of Massachusetts Press, 1987). Fraser, J. T., _The Voices of Time: a cooperative survey of man's views of time as expressed by the sciences and by the humanities_ (G. Braziller, c1966). Freeman, Eugene, _Basic Issues in the Philosophy of Time_ (La Salle, Ill.: Open Court, c1971). Friedman, William J, _About Time: inventing the fourth dimension_ (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, c1990). Griscom, Chris, _Time is an Illusion_ (Simon & Schuster, c1988). Halpern, Paul, _Time Journeys: a search for cosmic destiny and meaning_ (McGraw-Hill, c1990). Hawking, Stephen W., _A Brief History of Time: from the big bang to black holes_ (Bantam Books, 1988). Heidegger, Martin, _Being and Time_ (Harper 1962). Helm, Bertrand P., _Time and Reality in American Philosophy_ (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1985). Holdheim, W. Wolfgang, _The Hermeneutic Mode: essays on time in literature and literary theory_ (Cornell University Press, c1984). Husserl, Edmund, _On the Phenomenology of the Consciousnes of Internal Time_ (Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1990). _Interdisciplinary Perspectives of Time_, ed.Roland Fischer (New York: Academy of Sciences, 1967). Kort, Wesley A., _Modern Fiction and Human Time: a study in narrative and belief_ (University of South Florida Press, c1965). Lynen, John F., _The Design of the Present: essays on time and form in American literature (Yale University Press, 1969). Macey, Samuel L., _The Dynamics of Progress: time, method, and measure (University of Georgia Press, c1989). Meyerhoff, Hans, _Time in Literature_ (University of California Press, c1955). Miller, Izchak, _Husserl, Perception, and Temporal Awareness_ (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, c1984). Morgenstern, Irvin, _The Dimensional Structure of Time: together with the drama and its timing_ (Philosophical Library, c1960). Ornstein, Robert Evans, _On the Experience of Time_ (Harmondsworth, Penguin, 1969). _Physics and the Ultimate Significance of Time_, ed. David Ray Griffin (Albany: SUNY Press, c1986). Poulet, Georges, _Studies in Human Time_ (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1956). Prigogine, Ilya and Isabelle Stegners, _Order Out of Chaos: Man's New Dialogue with Nature_ (New York: Bantam, 1984). Quinones, Ricardo J., _The Renaissance Discovery of Time_ (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1972). Rapaport, Herman, _Heidegger & Derrida: reflections on time and language_ (University of Nebraska Press, c1989.) Ricoeur, Paul, _Time and Narrative_ (University of Chicago Press, c1984). Rifkin, Jeremy, _Time Wars: the primary conflict in human history (H. Holt, c1987). Serres, Michel, "The Origin of Language: Biology, Information Theory, & Thermodynamics," ch. 7 in _Hermes: Literature, Science, Philosophy_, ed. Josue V. Harari and David F. Bell (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1982). _Time: a collection of prints_ (Quarry Press, c1988). _Time and Mind: interdisciplinary issues_ (International Universities Press, c1989). _Time in Science and Philosophy; an international study of some current problems_, ed. Jiri Zeman (Amsterdam, New York, Elsevier, 1971). Underwood, Benton J., _Temporal Codes for Memories: issues and problems_ (Hillsdale, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates, c1977). Whitrow, G. J., _Time in History: the evolution of our general awareness of time and temporal perspective_ (Oxford University Press, 1988). ----------------------------------------------------------------- 4-Jul-91 18:51:19-GMT,6489;000000000001 Received: from porthos.rutgers.edu by klinzhai.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA05792; Thu, 4 Jul 91 14:51:13 EDT Received: by porthos.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA21584; Thu, 4 Jul 91 14:51:11 EDT Resent-Message-Id: <9107041851.AA21584@porthos.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA12109; Wed, 3 Jul 91 17:24:07 EDT Message-Id: <9107032124.AA12109@aramis.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with BSMTP id 2631; Wed, 03 Jul 91 17:23:11 EDT Received: from NCSUVM.BITNET by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 6545; Wed, 03 Jul 91 17:23:05 EDT Date: Wed, 3 Jul 91 17:18:08 EDT Reply-To: PMC-Talk Sender: PMC-Talk From: Editors of PMC Subject: Digest ending 7/3/91 To: Multiple recipients of list PMC-TALK Resent-To: mcgrew@klinzhai.rutgers.edu Resent-Date: Thu, 4 Jul 91 14:51:11 EDT Resent-From: Charles Mcgrew PMC-TALK digest: postings for the period ending Wednesday, 03 Jul 1991 Editor: John Unsworth Topics: undergrad courses in postmodernism ethics after postmodernism Time Polemics NEW LIST: HUMEVO Human Evolutionary Research ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Send messages intended for publication on PMC-TALK to internet: PMC-TALK@NCSUVM.CC.NCSU.EDU Bitnet: PMC-TALK@NCSUVM Send requests of an administrative nature (addition to, deletion from the distribution list, etc.) to internet: PMC@NCSUVM.CC.NCSU.EDU Bitnet: PMC@NCSUVM Send Listserv commands (GET [filename filetype], SET PMC-TALK NOMAIL FOR [user@node], SIGNOFF PMC-TALK, etc.) to internet: LISTSERV@NCSUVM.CC.NCSU.EDU Bitnet: LISTSERV@NCSUVM PMC-TALK is the discussion forum for the electronic journal _Postmodern Culture_ (PMC-LIST@NCSUVM.CC.NCSU.EDU or PMC-LIST@NCSUVM). ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Monday, 1 July 1991 1:57pm ET From: "Coll.Dev" <20676CDV@MSU> Subject: undergrad courses in postmodernism If you teach an undergrad course in postmodernism could you send me your name and the name of your institution? You can send to 20676CDV@msu.edu Thank you. Joseph Natoli ----------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 1 Jul 91 13:39 MST From: JONATHAN KANDELL Subject: ethics after postmodernism What is left of ethics if we accept the premises of 'postmodernism'? Once we admit that ethics isn't justified in terms of truth, does it disappear? Once we take the non-transcendental turn, we have to stop looking at ethics in terms of its intellectual justification, and we have to start looking at ethics *as it really functions sociologically* in society. Let me raise several topics. 1. Suppose ethic's purpose is to make society hold together. Is this necessarily a good thing? Doesn't this beg the question against the view that people flourish better as individuals, as rebels, and so on? It's a fine line between ethics making sure society is orderly and ethics being an *ideology* (in the pejorative sense) that forces people to conform. Certainly our american ethics fits a bit too nicely with capitalism's needs to not take notice! Should we then "scrap" ethics? 2. Is ethics an outlet for psychologically disfunctional people? I've found that most people who are concerned with ethics tend to be overly critical and judgemental. They tend to be those who are overly concerned with theories and concepts, as opposed to emotion and living. They tend to hide behind ethics, as a way of avoiding their own problems. Think of the preacher or the political zealot or the academic moralist. Isn't ethics really just a way to feel superior because you can "place another" in a lower category? 3. What function does ethics (i.e. labeling something 'right' or 'wrong', 'just' or 'unjust') serve above-and-beyond saying "I don't like" x, y or z? Isn't ethics a sham? I think it is because using ethical language *implies there is some deep justification* for one's positions. But there isn't any deep justification for ethical statements. So why not be more honest and simply say "I don't like" instead of "It's wrong," or "unjust"? In other words, isn't ethical language a mask for power? Ethical language is a method of *stopping debate* by appealing to a higher authority--either God or Rationality or Law. It changes the tone from discourse to Truth, and once you claim to have Truth you lose intellectual humility. 4. Who wins the debate between Habermas, Rorty, MacIntyre? ----------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 03 Jul 91 00:27 PDT From: Jack Kolb Subject: Time Mr. Drazin: have you considered some physicists' treatment of the subject? Not just somewhat like Stephen Hawkins, though his work would be a start. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 03 Jul 91 00:14 PDT From: Jack Kolb Subject: Polemics To Ms. Nelson: Is it crucial that I should have read Marx? He strikes me as a product of his 19th-century frame of mind, not the liberating philosopher that those reactionaries against 19th-century nationalism were seeking. Is that what you mean? ----------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1991 14:12:20 CDT From: "Noel T. Boaz" Subject: NEW LIST: HUMEVO Human Evolutionary Research HUMEVO on LISTSERV@GWUVM Human Evolutionary Research Human Evolutionary Research, moderated by the International Institute for Human Evolutionary Research at George Washington University in Washington, DC, examines human biological evolution, adaptation, variation, and evolutionary medicine. Sub-areas include interactive newsletter, hotline, bulletin board, cooperation column, research, and education. Owner: Noel T. Boaz (BOAZ@GWUVM) ----------------------------------------------------------------- 11-Jul-91 20:48:04-GMT,2073;000000000001 Received: from porthos.rutgers.edu by klinzhai.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA23970; Thu, 11 Jul 91 16:47:57 EDT Received: by porthos.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA13429; Thu, 11 Jul 91 16:47:56 EDT Resent-Message-Id: <9107112047.AA13429@porthos.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA05811; Thu, 11 Jul 91 13:26:31 EDT Message-Id: <9107111726.AA05811@aramis.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with BSMTP id 2708; Thu, 11 Jul 91 13:25:29 EDT Received: from NCSUVM.BITNET by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 3934; Thu, 11 Jul 91 13:25:22 EDT Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1991 13:21:02 EDT Reply-To: PMC-Talk Sender: PMC-Talk From: Editors of PMC Subject: Time bib To: Multiple recipients of list PMC-TALK Resent-To: mcgrew@klinzhai.rutgers.edu Resent-Date: Thu, 11 Jul 91 16:47:54 EDT Resent-From: Charles Mcgrew Date: Fri, 5 Jul 91 16:40 EST From: "john p. jacob" Subject: time bibliography Wayne-- I must have missed your request for information. An exhibition titled "Clockwork" was held at the List Visual Arts Center at MIT from 12/16/88 - 2/12/89. The group exhibition was accompanied by a catalogue, with an essay by JT Fraser titled "Clockworks Beyond Themselves." (I see now that the subtitle of the ex- hibition was "Timepieces by Artists, Architects, and Industrial Designers".) The exhibition was reviewed in the NYTimes, but I can't find the review now to give you the date. The telephone number of the List is (617) 253-4400, and catalogues usually run about $7.50 (heavily subsidized by MIT). I was involved in the exhibition only insofar as I recommended the work of Rimma & Valeriy Gerlovin (which was included in the exhibition). John JPJacob@iubacs.bitnet ----------------------------------------------------------------- 26-Jul-91 15:24:12-GMT,2960;000000000001 Received: from porthos.rutgers.edu by klinzhai.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA05797; Fri, 26 Jul 91 11:23:53 EDT Received: by porthos.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA18874; Fri, 26 Jul 91 11:23:50 EDT Resent-Message-Id: <9107261523.AA18874@porthos.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA14499; Thu, 25 Jul 91 20:18:28 EDT Message-Id: <9107260018.AA14499@aramis.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with BSMTP id 2923; Thu, 25 Jul 91 19:58:01 EDT Received: from NCSUVM.BITNET by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 8281; Thu, 25 Jul 91 19:57:54 EDT Date: Thu, 25 Jul 1991 19:52:08 EDT Reply-To: PMC-Talk Sender: PMC-Talk From: Editors of PMC Subject: Course in Postmodernism To: Multiple recipients of list PMC-TALK Resent-To: mcgrew@klinzhai.rutgers.edu Resent-Date: Fri, 26 Jul 91 11:23:49 EDT Resent-From: Charles Mcgrew Date: Tue, 23 Jul 91 08:21 MST From: JONATHAN KANDELL Subject: Course in Postmodernism re Tom Bridges remarks that there is a "danger of teaching a course in postmodernism...that postmodernism itslef becomes captured by the Enlightenment cognitive ideal and become a new subject matter specialization or field of objective study, with its own reading list whose mastery might quality graduate students as 'experts' in Postmodern Culture." Yes! But in that sense Postmodernism is no different than other "radical" movements such as Marxism or Feminism that get stylized by academics. What could be done? One possibility is for universities to have interdiscip- linary postmodernism groups consisting of professors from different "disciplines" who share the post-enlightenment epistemological premises. Another possibility is to integrate this postmodern "group" with other groups outside the university. If the main claim of postmodernism is epistemological relativism, then isn't another possibility to grade relativistically? That is, to allow students to express themselves in a variety of ways, from within different paradigms. I taught a course on Philosophical Aspects of Popular Culture a few years ago and moved between traditional academic paradigms (analytic philosophy, art, sociology) and encouraged the students to do the same. Some students turned in papers, others did artwork, others did oral presentations. I find the dilemma of postmodernism to be slightly different than Tom Bridges' conception. Postmodern "truth" flows between the traditional Weberian spheres, requiring a scholar who knows everything and has the intuition to know what counts in the specific case at hand. But our academic training is more and more specialized, and our students are more and more narrow. 12-Aug-91 3:49:10-GMT,4053;000000000001 Received: from porthos.rutgers.edu by klinzhai.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA05042; Sun, 11 Aug 91 23:49:00 EDT Received: by porthos.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA05253; Sun, 11 Aug 91 23:48:58 EDT Resent-Message-Id: <9108120348.AA05253@porthos.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA22634; Sun, 11 Aug 91 19:25:26 EDT Message-Id: <9108112325.AA22634@aramis.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with BSMTP id 4473; Sun, 11 Aug 91 19:23:55 EDT Received: from NCSUVM.BITNET by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 0799; Sun, 11 Aug 91 19:23:47 EDT Date: Sun, 11 Aug 1991 19:22:35 EDT Reply-To: PMC-Talk Sender: PMC-Talk From: Editors of PMC Subject: Re: Postmodern War To: Multiple recipients of list PMC-TALK Resent-To: mcgrew@klinzhai.rutgers.edu Resent-Date: Sun, 11 Aug 91 23:48:58 EDT Resent-From: Charles Mcgrew PMC-TALK digest: postings for the period ending Sunday, 11 Aug 1991 PMC-Talk is the discussion group for the electronic journal _Postmodern Culture_. Topics: Re: Postmodern War ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 09 Aug 91 11:55:30 BST From: stephen clark Subject: Re: Postmodern War Chris Gray's paper on the Gulf War leaves me as baffled as before about the meaning of 'postmodern'. The management of the presentation of war to distant civilians has always been important, but Chris is living in a different world from me if he thinks that *only* pictures of 'surgically accurate strikes' came over in the media. I have distinct memories of pictures of charred bodies, and many learned commentaries on *inaccurate* bombing. Maybe things were different in the US, but the UK coverage was 'balanced' to a fault. One passing remark in the paper is redolent of a current liberal myth (myths of course can be true, but they aren't believed *because* they are true): namely that George Bush and the other allied leaders took enormous trouble to make sure the war happened. This is conjoined with the claim that the object was to restore the Emir of Kuwait to power. Please forgive me if I sound somewhat abrasive here: I suspect that these claims are pernicious nonsense. The war was forced on us all, and on the people of the region, to prevent what would otherwise have been the enormous increase in the power of Saddam Hussein, to the detriment of us all, and to signal yet again that - when we can - we will defend small nations against takeover. We may wish we could do that last more often. When we can do it, and can take steps to prevent the emergence of an unprincipled superpower, we should. We are likely always to be too late to be truly efficient because, rightly, we shrink from taking military action. But the cost of *never* doing that is to allow those less principled (?) to rule without check. Wars are not halted or prevented by sneering at those with the actual duty and opportunity to take action against tyrants. The main cause for shame that is felt over here in the UK is that we - or our leaders - were unable to complete the job. The Iraqi army that Gray pities survived to destroy Shi'a and Kurds and other Iraqi rebels. I don't know that I can sensibly blame Bush even for that: holding the coalition together, and retaining the tacit support of the US Senate, probably compelled him to call a halt before - strictly - he should have done. The blame, if there is any, must rest with those who 'pitied the plumage but forgot the dying bird'. I agree that John Glenn Gray's book (which is presumably the one I know as The Warriors) is excellent. Yours abrasively Stephen Clark ----------------------------------------------------------------- 13-Aug-91 20:37:40-GMT,10646;000000000001 Received: from porthos.rutgers.edu by klinzhai.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA19102; Tue, 13 Aug 91 16:37:34 EDT Received: by porthos.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA10093; Tue, 13 Aug 91 16:37:32 EDT Resent-Message-Id: <9108132037.AA10093@porthos.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA06466; Mon, 12 Aug 91 17:46:42 EDT Message-Id: <9108122146.AA06466@aramis.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with BSMTP id 1214; Mon, 12 Aug 91 17:43:23 EDT Received: from NCSUVM.BITNET by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 7947; Mon, 12 Aug 91 17:43:11 EDT Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1991 17:26:07 EDT Reply-To: PMC-Talk Sender: PMC-Talk From: Editors of PMC Subject: Re: Postmodern War To: Multiple recipients of list PMC-TALK Resent-To: mcgrew@klinzhai.rutgers.edu Resent-Date: Tue, 13 Aug 91 16:37:31 EDT Resent-From: Charles Mcgrew PMC-TALK digest: postings for the period ending Monday, 12 Aug 1991 PMC-Talk is the discussion group for the electronic journal _Postmodern Culture_. Topics: [Postmodern War] Postmodern War and Stephen Clark Postmodern War ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 12 August 91, 13:34:19 SLT From: Daud R. Matthews 1-467-5731 (off) 1-4 D03T005 at SAKSU00 RE: Postmodern war - Stephen Clark Stephen says he is posting abrasively but, personally, I find nothing of substance in his comments. In fact, he seems to omit many things purposely. For example, his claim that *we* were forced into the war before something worse happened like SH becoming more powerful misses the point as to whether the UN sanctions were applied for a long enough time. Of course there is a counter argument, (there always is) that, if the sanctions don't *bite* immediately, with time ways round them will be found. Then there are the comments from the US ambassador to SH where *apparently* the US seeking to learn from the Vietnam war claimed Kuwait was not a stategic ally!!! (Was she ever interviewed by CNN?) On the other hand, it would appear that the Afghan Mujihideen have been instrumental in causing the collapse of communism, yet, rather than help achieve a complete solution for Afghanistan both the US and the USSR are only interested in imposing their solution. Was it coincidence that General Zia was killed? Was it coincidence that Ms Bhutto came to power for such a short time? Was it coincidence that one news agency carried information concerning Russian troops crossing the border into Afghanistan and firing Scuds at the Mujihideen who had captured posts/towns on the Russian border, DURING the time of the G-7 talks in London? Now for the link between these two items: Does every one *know* 40% of the funding for the Mujihideen was from Kuwait? To continue, most people would have considered SH as Bush's man before the war, perhaps. Why did Bush pull the plug on General Schwatzkovs battle plans? Could it possibly to have been to keep SH alive? Why would he want to keep SH alive? Well, if SH was killed logically there would be three alternatives: 1) Shia's would come to power - unacceptable to US plans in the Middle East due to possible tie-up with Iran to form a super-power; also unacceptable to Saudi Arabia. 2) The Kurds would have come to power which was unacceptable to the US when they were supporting SH against Iran, remember the US was paying the Kurds to cause trouble to SH which could be escalated if SH looked like defeating Iran; also unacceptable to Turkey, Syria and USSR as this would have opened the door for the Kurds to unite and cause all sorts of problems for the hosts that have been forced on them. 3) With SH gone the Ba'ath party could still have been in power and now Bush et al would have to work with unknown people. Better to work with the devil you know than the one you don't know. Didn't Bush make a personal phone call to general S. regarding stopping the war? In other words was the General informed of Bush's plans? Leaving SH alive was the middle course. Question: How was it possible that the US had this huge force available, from Europe, just at the time it was needed? Weren't logistics involved which would have been time consuming or was there just a little bit of planning involved? Peace (in spite of Bush et al) Daud R. Matthews, Technical Support Manager, King Saud University, Riyadh, saudi Arabia. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 12 Aug 91 09:19 EDT From: Subject: Postmodern War and Stephen Clark Stephen Clark is badly misled if he thinks that the characterization of the Gulf War as "Bush's war" is merely a "liberal myth." The war was not "forced upon us all." It was a deliberate act of policy, chosen after some considerably, but to my mind insufficient, deliberation. One may accordingly debate the motives for the choice of war over other courses of action; it is not myth-making to take a position thereon. If Clark examined the chronology of events, moreover, he might find some reason for the claim he wishes to counter, though he still might be unconvinced. The United States -- or rather the Bush administration; let's be as clear as possible about the real actors in these affairs -- had already decided to send a force to "protect Saudi Arabia" by August 3 or 4 -- *before*, that is, they managed to convince the Saudis that they needed protecting. To that task, Secretary of State Baker devoted considerable of his prodigious energies in the first days of the crisis. More telling, Bush, his ratings at an all time low following the budget debacle in Congress and the November elections (preceding which several Republican candidates were embarassed to present the President on stage with themselves), took the unilateral choice to double the number of troops in Saudi Arabia and not rotate them -- a decision that effectively reduced his future options to just two: go to war or back out, both by February. Having backed the U.S. Congress into that corner, he could proceed freely to drum up Western support for military action, which is what he proceeded to do. The sanctions debate was dead in the water from that moment forward -- that is, well before the other Western nations had come aboard and well before the United Nations had been consulted. It may be that war was the best choice, though I do not happen to think so. But there seems little doubt that the decision for war was made in the White House well before the fateful moment. And the reasons for that decision scarcely appear to be of an exclusively "high diplomatic" cast. The notion that the war was ended "too soon" because of Congressional pressure hardly accords with the relative freedom of movement American presidents enjoy in these matters and rests on the dubious assumption that a later stopping point would have obviated the sort of messy situation we face today. The trouble with war as a solution is that the outcome is *always* unforseeable and *always* messy. The destruction of the Irqaqi infrastructure, with the enormous cost in human lives it has entailed, would not have been averted by continuing the war. The problem of factional strife in Iraq would not have been averted. The problem of Iraq's borders would not have been averted (a short clip in the New York Times two days ago noted that Turkish forces had pushed some miles into Iraq against Iraqi Kurdish rebels, an event that should have aroused enormous outrage but about which we hear scarcely a whisper. Why? Unless the chaos created by the war has become so overwhelming, the myth of allied unity against the common enemy so pervasive, that we are forced to overlook the enormous contradictions that persist in the "victorious" policy decisions of last November.) In short, it seems to me that Clark is the one who is marketing myths, and ones without even the slim empirical referents the Bush administration adduced when it began its campaign against the Iraqi aggression back in August. Michael Foley ----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Maeda Date: Mon, 12 Aug 91 15:29:56 EDT Subject: Postmodern War >From: stephen clark > >One passing remark in the paper is redolent of a current liberal myth (myths >of course can be true, but they aren't believed *because* they are true): >namely that George Bush and the other allied leaders took enormous trouble >to make sure the war happened. This is conjoined with the claim that the >object was to restore the Emir of Kuwait to power. Please forgive me if >I sound somewhat abrasive here: I suspect that these claims are pernicious >nonsense. There is quite a bit of circumstantial evidence to support the claim that the US government worked hard to bring about the war. A few days before the war, when the Iraqi military buildup on the Kuwaiti border was apparent, the Iraqi's spoke with representatives of the US State Department. The State Department representative, April Glaspie (perhaps she was the Ambassador, I can't remember), told them that the US had "no position" on their border dispute with Kuwait. Many people in this country find this tacit approval of the invasion suspicious when they consider the domestic situation in the US before the war; ie a faltering economy for which the administration was increasingly taking the blame. The preceeding decade had shown that US presidents could score quick political points and distract attention from domestic crises through quick and easy wars such as Grenada and Panama. Another issue to consider is that the Western powers are responsible for the size of the Iraqi military. The US Commerce Dept, in particular, continued to extend credit to the Iraqis to buy arms even after the US Congress began to call for an embargo. The European powers sold the Iraqi's chemical and nuclear plants. I think the question of whether there actually was a conspiracy to start this war is another matter. The confluence of factors may have been sufficient without a conscious plan. In other words, don't attribute to conspiracy what is explainable by greed, short sightedness, and stupidity. ----------------------------------------------------------------- 14-Aug-91 12:57:13-GMT,11311;000000000001 Received: from porthos.rutgers.edu by klinzhai.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA22927; Wed, 14 Aug 91 08:57:11 EDT Received: by porthos.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA24542; Wed, 14 Aug 91 08:57:08 EDT Resent-Message-Id: <9108141257.AA24542@porthos.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA06555; Tue, 13 Aug 91 21:35:08 EDT Message-Id: <9108140135.AA06555@aramis.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with BSMTP id 2797; Tue, 13 Aug 91 21:32:56 EDT Received: from NCSUVM.BITNET by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 1587; Tue, 13 Aug 91 21:32:49 EDT Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1991 21:24:11 EDT Reply-To: PMC-Talk Sender: PMC-Talk From: Editors of PMC Subject: Postmodern War To: Multiple recipients of list PMC-TALK Resent-To: mcgrew@klinzhai.rutgers.edu Resent-Date: Wed, 14 Aug 91 8:57:04 EDT Resent-From: Charles Mcgrew PMC-TALK digest: postings for the period ending Tuesday, 13 Aug 1991 PMC-Talk is the discussion group for the electronic journal _Postmodern Culture_. Topics: Postmodern War and Postmodern Discourse Postmodern War ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 12 Aug 91 22:11 EDT From: Subject: Postmodern War and Postmodern Discourse [POMO WAR}] A few comments on Chris Hables Gray's "Kuwait 1991: A Postmodern War" [Filename: POMO WAR] Though there is a great deal to ponder in "Kuwait 1991: A Postmodern War," I was struck by the degree to which Gray takes back, in the last few paragraphs, what he has tried to construct in the first several pages. War is, after all, about death and destruction -- however we "construct" those realities. It might be better, accordingly, to talk about the "postmodern *construc-tion* of war," though, clearly, new weapons and techniques for the use of those weapons and the manipulation of information and public opinion make some difference in how and when death and destruction get carried out. That argument aside, however, I wanted to comment on the dangers of the discourse of "postmodernity," or maybe its just the danger of culture critique in general. While it would be interesting and important to try to explicate the circumspect, and thoroughly positivist, Quincy Wright on the tendency of modern war "to be more about words than about things, and equally interesting to try to unravel the sense of the quotes that lead off the following passage, Gray's prose hardly meets the challenge: Do they? What "elements," precisely, increase the chance of war, and how? On the one hand, we are told that "in postmodern war discourse the best arguments are weapons." (Is this the discourse of the warriors or war-as-discourse?) On the other, war has become a conversation for everyone who is plugged in. It is not at all clear that weapons haven't trumped bodies for some time now. Nor is it altogether clear that the image at home hasn't always been as important as the reality on the field. Even the simultaneity of the two experiences -- a feature of this war that Gray does not really touch upon but which is surely a feature of some "new" electronic culture -- turns out to be false in much the same way older experiences of war "on the home front" were false: information is (and always has been) manipulated by the warriors. My complaint is less that the argument about "postmodernity" is wrong than that the play back and forth between talk-about-images and talk-about-reality allows writers to slide through difficult questions about the relationships between image and reality, the construction of reality (conscious and unconscious) on the part of users and manipulators of information and the referents for that construction. I am perfectly aware, in saying this, that there are those who would deny that such distinctions are useful or that we can legitimately get away with them. My answer is essentially Gray's: when we are dealing with death and destruction, the referents of discourse, however "squishy" at the edges, take on a reality we do not want to give anyone the right to deny. Epistemological scepticism cannot cripple our ability to use (and analyze as we use) everyday discourse to point to and discuss genuine human concerns. That said, I reiterate: insofar as the language of postmodernism encourages to slide over the distinction between the manipulated images of war and the death and destruction on the ground, it encourages sloppy thinking about what "postmodern war" is all about and what the consequences of its "postmodernity" might be. Michael Foley ----------------------------------------------------------------- From: gst@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (GSchmundt Thomas) Subject: [Postmodern War] Date: Tue, 13 Aug 91 16:22:33 CDT I followed with interest the recent discussion about pomo war. As a faithful subscriber to _Paranoid Systems of History_ I particularly enjoyed Daud Matthews' posting (by the way, the reason that the plans for quick intervention in the Gulf were all ready is very simple; Central Command had worked out contigency plans for a Soviet push to the Gulf in the wake of the Afghanistan invasion. The switch in enemy from Soviets to Iraqis didn't make all that much of a difference). Although the discussion about Chris Gray's article on Pomo war seems to develop into a general free for all about the Iraq war, I would like to ask a few specific questions about the piece. Perhaps the author may want to clarify. With Stephen Clar, I am also still as "baffled as before about the meaning of 'postmodern'" in postmodern war. It seems as if Gray simply brushes aside a methodical discussion of the properties of both postmodernism and postmodern war and simply states that the Iraq war was of the postmodern sort. Instead of starting with a specific definition of the postmodern temper and then showing how war fits the description, Gray assumes what he sets out to prove. As I read on, I also grew more and more frustrated because Grey repeatedly stops short in his alnalysis in order to rehearse commonplaces about the war in general and "Desert Storm" in particular. And how can Gray end the essay by pointing out "this was war like war has ben for thousands of years"; what happened to the "postmodern" war of the title? Gray points out that commentators have noted the changing nature of war, singling out theincreasing technologization and continuous mobilization in the wake of WWII. Both developments only seem new in _degree_, but not in quality. How is Cold War America different _in principle_ from 19th century Prussia, for instance, or all imperial powers that integrate social organization and politics at home and abroad with the military-industrial complex (extant long before being named by Eisenhower)? The labeling of the Iraq war as postmodern seems to warrant much more detailed and careful comparative historical analyses than Gray is willing or able to provide. When Gray claims both that war is now radically different from warfare in WWII and that the culture of war changed back then, I would like to see some examples, etc. Some of Gray's claims simply make no sense. In "the expansion of war" he states that "battle is three-dimensional now." Hasn't it been at least since WWI and the first military aircraft? What about balloons even before? In addition, the basic concepts of the seemingly new AirLand battle strategy evolved during WWII, cf. for instance the turnaround in the Ardennes offensive in early 1945, when the Allies effectively countered and destroyed a far superior German tank army with airpower. Similarly, to peddle the claim that "machines help people kill more enemies, not just physically but psychologically," as a profound insight is simply embarrassing. Seems to be true since the apes at the "dawn of humanity," depicted in "2001," picked up bones as tools -- and weapons. And again, the Northern Vietnamese did not win the war in their country primarily because they were willing to die for their cause more than their enemies were, but because the U.S. fighting a guerilla war as a conventional war. The same applies to the Soviets in Afghanistan. The aspect I understood least in Gray's essay was the strange yearning for (bodily) presence in warfare, a curious sentimentality about the good old days of presumably unalienated warfare. The Iraq war becomes "a technology-mediated experience with little danger for most" of the Allied soldiers. "Logistics became more important than leadership, and gunpowder more important than courage" with the emergence of modern war. So is war always pomo, or what is going on? Back in the desert, "Military machines such as tanks, planes, ships, missiles, guns, are more important than people." True of every military machine since time imemorial. "Battle now is beyond human scale." Give me a break. Was war ever on a human scale? "In postmodern war, the central role of human bodies in war is being eclipsed by the role of machines in general and weapons in particular." Well, the machines still kill people, as more primitive machines did since war was invented. "In the war of mechanical speed against human reactions bodies are the only real losers." Haven't they always been? Emotions about war are "replaced by emotions about machines." How about the mythical sword Excalibur and age-old weapons fetishism? And finally, war has become its representation, and "images and simulations are often much more important than actual events." Whatever happened to good old war; or did really something happen? I don't quite see it (yet). Either war is virtual and nobody dies -- game over -- or people get killed, but where's the difference then? - Finally, it seems that the Iraq war was precisely not a new kind of war, but rather a throwback on a -Cold-War form of it. With the Soviets out of it for all practical purposes (even on our side, as they had been in that other just war a half-century ago; also cf. the identification of SH with Hitler), the West could get into it without the fear of global escalation. Carefree war, so to speak. - G. Schmundt-Thomas ----------------------------------------------------------------- 16-Aug-91 18:06:30-GMT,8167;000000000001 Received: from porthos.rutgers.edu by klinzhai.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA10466; Fri, 16 Aug 91 14:06:27 EDT Received: by porthos.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA02014; Fri, 16 Aug 91 14:06:25 EDT Resent-Message-Id: <9108161806.AA02014@porthos.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA05252; Fri, 16 Aug 91 11:30:16 EDT Message-Id: <9108161530.AA05252@aramis.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with BSMTP id 6541; Fri, 16 Aug 91 11:21:43 EDT Received: from NCSUVM.BITNET by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 9952; Fri, 16 Aug 91 11:21:12 EDT Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1991 11:10:51 EDT Reply-To: Editors of PMC Sender: Postmodern Culture From: Editors of PMC Subject: BR Editor; books for review To: Multiple recipients of list PMC-LIST Resent-To: mcgrew@klinzhai.rutgers.edu Resent-Date: Fri, 16 Aug 91 14:06:23 EDT Resent-From: Charles Mcgrew _POSTMODERN CULTURE_ Announcement of new Book Review Editor and Call for Reviews _Postmodern Culture_ wants to expand its Book Review section in future issues. If you would like to propose a review of one or several books, please contact our new Book Review Editor, Jim English, directly at jfeng@conncoll.bitnet. Below is a list of books that may be of interest, but we will gladly consider reviews of other titles or of films, performances, and other cultural phenomena. Please be sure to include your name and a brief statement of your relevant experience and qualifications when submitting proposals to the Book Review Editor. If you have previously nominated yourself as a book reviewer and have not been selected, please feel free to contact us again; our first call for reviewers produced many more offers than we were able to take advantage of at the time. BOOKS FOR REVIEW: Agger, Ben. _The decline of discourse: reading, writing, and resistance in postmodern capitalism_. New York: Falmer Press, 1990. Boyne, Roy and Ali Rattansi eds. _Postmodernism and society_. New York: St. Martin's, 1990. Callinicos, Alex. _Against postmodernism: a Marxist critique_. New York: St. Martin's, 1990. Carty, Anthony, ed. _Post-modern law: enlightenment, revolution and the death of man_. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP, 1990. Caughie, Pamela. _Virginia Woolf and Postmodernism: Literature in Quest and Question of Itself_. Champaign: U of Illinois P, April 1991. Chambers, Iain. _Border dialogues: journeys in postmodernity_. New York: Routledge, 1990. Cooke, Philip N. _Back to the future_. Boston: Unwin Hyman, 1990. Docherty, Thomas. _After theory: postmodernism/postmarxism_. New York: Routledge, 1990. Eagleton, Terry, Fredric Jameson, and Edward W. Said. _Nationalism, Colonialism, and Literature_. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1990. Erickson, Glenn W. _Negative dialectics and the end of philosophy_. Wolfeboro, N.H.: Longwood Academic, 1990. Ferguson, Russell, ed. _Discourses: conversations in postmodern art and culture_. New York: New Museum of Contemporary Art; Cambridge, Mass.: MIT, 1990. Flax, Jane. _Thinking Fragments: Psychoanalysis, Feminism, and Postmodernism in the Contemporary West_. Berkeley: U of California P, 1990. Freedman, Barbara. _Staging the Gaze: Postmodernism, Psychoanalysis, and Shakespearean Comedy_. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1991. Gandelman, Claude. _Reading Pictures, Viewing Texts_. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1991. Giddens, Anthony. _The consequences of modernity_. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1990. Gilmour, John. _Fire on the earth: Anselm Kiefer and the postmodern world_. Philadelphia: Temple UP, 1990. Goldberg, David, ed. _Anatomy of Racism_. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1990. Griffin, David Ray, ed. _Sacred interconnections: postmodern spirituality, political economy, and art_. Albany: SUNY, 1990. Hekman, Susan J. _Gender and knowledge: elements of a postmodern feminism_. Boston: Northeastern UP, 1990. Hoesterey, Ingeborg ed. _Zeitgeist in Babel: the postmodernist controversy_. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1991. Jason, Philip K., ed. _Fourteen Landing Zones: approaches to Vietnam war literature_. Iowa City: U of Iowa P, 1991. Klossowski, Pierre. _Sade my Neighbor_. Trans. Alphonso Lingus. Evanston: Northwestern UP, 1991. Koelb, Clayton, ed. _Nietzsche as postmodernist: essays pro and contra_. Albany: SUNY, 1990. Kolb, David. _Postmodern sophistications: philosophy, architecture, and tradition_. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1990. Kolenda, Konstantin. _Rorty's humanistic pragmatism: philosophy democratized_. Tampa: U of South Florida P, 1990. Kreiswirth, Martin, and Mark A. Cheetham, eds. _Theory Between the Disciplines: Authority/Vision/Politics_. Ann Arbor: U Michigan P, 1990. Kroker, Arthur, Marilouise Kroker, and David Cook. _Panic Encyclopedia: the definitive guide to the postmodern scene_. New York: St. Martin's, 1989. Lash, Scott. _The Sociology of Postmodernism_. New York: Routledge, 1990. Martin, Randy. _Performance as political act: the embodied self_. New York: Bergin & Garvey, 1990. McGowan, John. _Postmodernism and Its Critics_. Ithaca: Cornell UP, April 1991. The Milan Women's Bookstore Collective. _Sexual Difference: A Theory of Social-Symbolic Practice_. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1990. Miller, J. Hillis. _Theory Now and Then_. Durham: Duke UP, 1991. ________. _Tropes, Parables, Performatives: Essays on Twentieth- Century Literature. Durham: Duke UP, 1991. ________. _Victorian Subjects_. Durham: Duke UP, 1991. Milner, Andrew, Philip Thomson and Chris Worth, eds. _Postmodern conditions_. New York: St. Martin's, 1990. Nicholson, Linda J., ed. _Feminism/postmodernism_. New York: Routledge, 1990. Nielsen, Kai. _Search for Community in a Withering Tradition: conversations between a Marxian atheist and a Calvinian Christian_. Lanham: UP of America, 1990. Norris, Christopher. _Spinoza and the Origins of Modern Critical Theory_. London: Basil Blackwell, 1991. ________. _What's Wrong with Postmodernism: Critical Theory and the Ends of Philosophy_. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1991. Olson, Alan M., Christopher Parr, and Debra Parr, eds. _Video Icons & Values_. Albany: State U of New York P, (no date on brochure). Pefanis, Julian. _Heterology and the Postmodern: Bataille, Baudrillard, and Lyotard_. Durham: Duke UP, 1991. Penley, Constance, Elisabeth Lyon, Lynn Spigel, and Janet Bergstrom, eds. _Close Encounters: Film, Feminism, and Science Fiction_. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, January 1991. Penley, Constance, and Andrew Ross, eds. _Technoculture_. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, May 1991. Risatti, Howard. ed. _Postmodern perspectives: issues in contemporary art_. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1990. Rowe, John Carlos, and Rick Berg. _The Vietnam War and American Culture. New York: Columbia UP, 1991. Schleifer, Ronald. _Rhetoric and Death: The Language of Modernism and Postmodern Discourse Theory_. Champaign: U of Illinois P, 1990. Shapiro, Gary, ed. _After the future: postmodern times and places_. Albany: SUNY, 1990. Silverman, Hugh J. ed. _Postmodernism: philosophy and the arts_. New York: Routledge, 1990. Spilka, Mark and Caroline McCracken-Flesher, eds. _Why the novel matters: a postmodern perplex_. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1990. Stratton, Jon. _Writing Sites: A Genealogy of the Postmodern World_. Ann Arbor: U Michigan P, 1990. Varsava, Jerry A. _Contingent Meanings: Postmodern Fiction, Mimesis, and the Reader_. Gainesville: Florida State UP, 1990. Wakefield, Neville. _Postmodernism: the twilight of the real_. Winchester, Mass.: Pluto, 1990. Wurzer, Wilhelm S. _Filming and judgment: between Heidegger and Adorno_. Atlantic Highlands, N.J.: Humanities Press International, 1990. Wyschogrod, Edith. _Saints and Postmodernism: Revisioning Moral Philosophy_. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1990. 20-Aug-91 0:44:30-GMT,3299;000000000001 Received: from porthos.rutgers.edu by klinzhai.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA28151; Mon, 19 Aug 91 20:44:28 EDT Received: by porthos.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA22873; Mon, 19 Aug 91 20:44:26 EDT Resent-Message-Id: <9108200044.AA22873@porthos.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA09199; Sat, 17 Aug 91 00:17:56 EDT Message-Id: <9108170417.AA09199@aramis.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with BSMTP id 7601; Sat, 17 Aug 91 00:15:09 EDT Received: from NCSUVM.BITNET by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 6584; Sat, 17 Aug 91 00:14:57 EDT Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1991 23:57:37 EDT Reply-To: PMC-Talk Sender: PMC-Talk From: Editors of PMC Subject: Postmodern War To: Multiple recipients of list PMC-TALK Resent-To: mcgrew@klinzhai.rutgers.edu Resent-Date: Mon, 19 Aug 91 20:44:25 EDT Resent-From: Charles Mcgrew PMC-TALK digest: postings for the period ending Friday, 16 Aug 1991 PMC-Talk is the discussion group for the electronic journal _Postmodern Culture_. Topics: Re: Postmodern War ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 14 Aug 91 10:12:55 BST From: stephen clark Subject: Re: Postmodern War This is not - so I had thought - a list about international politics and I hope that we are not about to endure yet another ill-informed debate about the rights and wrongs of the Gulf War. I responded very briefly to a long piece about Postmodern War (so-called) in which it was suggested that the war was arranged for some inscrutable reason by George Bush and co. I replied that I thought the propagation of this myth was pernicious nonsense. I am told, in return, that Bush halted the war because he wanted Hussein in power, that he had chosen the war option in August without wishing to see whether diplomacy + sanctions would control the situation without war, that the US ambassador had given Hussein the go-ahead before the invasion (a claim she flatly - and to my mind, plausibly - denied). Material about Afghanistan, Bhutto etc is entirely outside my knowledge, and I do not see its relevance. It is only sensible to invoke conspiracy theories (and especially incompetent conspiracy theories) to explain historical episodes when it is exceedingly difficult to see how people could have done what they did for the reasons they allege. I don't think it's at all difficult in this case. But I also think that neither I nor those who have upbraided or abraded my posting are doing much more than exchange prejudices which should not occupy any more space on this list. The substantive question that might be sensibly discussed here is: is there such a thing as Postmodern war or a Postmodern conception of war? I was not persuaded by the original paper that there were either of these things. It all sounds like the familiar human condition to me. Stephen Clark ----------------------------------------------------------------- 24-Aug-91 17:13:53-GMT,14292;000000000001 Received: from porthos.rutgers.edu by klinzhai.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA28612; Sat, 24 Aug 91 13:13:51 EDT Received: by porthos.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA26559; Sat, 24 Aug 91 13:13:49 EDT Resent-Message-Id: <9108241713.AA26559@porthos.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA07468; Fri, 23 Aug 91 18:15:19 EDT Message-Id: <9108232215.AA07468@aramis.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with BSMTP id 6794; Fri, 23 Aug 91 18:10:47 EDT Received: from NCSUVM.BITNET by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 3863; Fri, 23 Aug 91 18:10:35 EDT Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1991 18:04:51 EDT Reply-To: PMC-Talk Sender: PMC-Talk From: Editors of PMC Subject: Job Listing, Syllabus To: Multiple recipients of list PMC-TALK Status: O Resent-To: mcgrew@klinzhai.rutgers.edu Resent-Date: Sat, 24 Aug 91 13:13:48 EDT Resent-From: Charles Mcgrew PMC-TALK digest: postings for the period ending Friday, 23 Aug 1991 PMC-Talk is the discussion group for the electronic journal _Postmodern Culture_. Topics: Position at Ohio State University ... Syllabus for Course in Postmodernism ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 22 Aug 91 14:09:45 -0400 (EDT) From: Lili Velez Subject: Fwd: Position at Ohio State University ... Thought this was something you might find of interest: ---------- Forwarded message begins here ---------- Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1991 21:28:48 EDT Reply-To: Position announcements in Communication Studies Sender: Position announcements in Communication Studies From: Comserve Support Staff Subject: Position at Ohio State University ... To: Multiple recipients of list COMMJOBS Assistant professor position in Values, Science and Technology Program at the Ohio State University. The Division of Comparative Studies invites applications and nominations for a tenure-track position at the level of assistant professor in Values, Science, and Technology, to begin in September 1992. Research field open. Teaching duties may include courses on "Race, Gender and Science;" "Science and Technology in Global Perspective;" "Medicine and the Humanities;" as well as such graduate-level courses as "Politics of Knowledge;" "Tradition and Modernity;" and "Theory and Practice of Comparative Study." Participation in course and program development is also expected. The VST Program is located in an academic unit dedicated to the interdisciplinary and cross-cultural study of knowledge. Other components of the Division include Comparative Literature/Folklore and Religious Studies. There are regular opportunities for interaction with faculty from diverse field. Ph.D. and evidence of excellence in scholarship and teaching required. Women and minorities are encouraged to apply. Send letter of application and current vita to Chair, Division of Comparative Studies, The Ohio State University, 230 West 17th Avenue, Columbus OH 43210-1311. AA/EOE Employer. Deadline for applications: October 31, 1991. Jane M. Fraser, Associate Professor, Industrial and System Engineering, and member of search committee for VST faculty member. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 22 Aug 91 11:27:34 EST From: gary lee stonum [NOTE: this syllabus is available from the PMC-TALK filelist as POMO1 SYLLABUS] english 524, postmodernism, fall 1991 gary lee stonum [GUL 315, 368-3342 or 321-8751, gxs11@po.cwru.edu] Texts and Sources Primary (available in CWRU Bookstore, most also on reserve) Donald Barthelme, The Dead Father, Penguin [1975] Maxine Hong Kingston, The Woman Warrior, Vintage [1976] Joseph McElroy, PLUS, Carroll and Graf [1977] Vladimir Nabokov, Pale Fire, Vintage [1962] Thomas Pynchon, Gravity's Rainbow, Penguin [1973] Steven Connor, Postmodernist Culture, Basil Blackwell Frederic Jameson, Postmodernism, or The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism, Duke Hal Foster, ed., The Anti-Aesthetic: Essays on Postmodern Culture, Bay Press [contains required or recommended essays by Habermas, <"Modernity--An Incomplete Project", Frampton, Crimp, Jameson <"Postmodernism and Consumer Society", and Baudrillard <"The Ecstasy of Communication" Jean-Francois Lyotard, The Post-Modern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, Minnesota N. Katherine Hayles, Chaos Bound: Orderly Disorder in Contemporary Literature and Science, Cornell Linda Nicholson, ed., Feminism/Postmodernism, Routledge [contains required or recommended essays by Huyssen and Harraway] Jean Baudrillard, Simulations, Semiotext(e) [contains "The Precession of Simulacra" and "The Orders of Simulacra" Secondary: books on postmodern fiction for review assignment Brian McHale, Postmodern Fiction, Methuen Charles Caramello, Silverless Mirrors: Self and Postmodern American Fiction, Florida Linda Hutcheon, A Poetics of Postmodernism, Routledge Linda Hutcheon, The Politics of Postmodernism, Routledge Tom LeClair, The Art of Excess: Mastery in Contemporary American Fiction, Illinois Allen Thiher, Words in Reflection: Modern Language Theory and Postmodern Fiction, Chicago Alan Wilde, Horizons of Assent: Modernism, Postmodernism, and the Ironic Imagination, Johns Hopkins Secondary: library reserve and/or xerox John Barth, "The Literature of Exhaustion" in The Friday Book Paul de Man, "Literary History and Literary Modernity," in Blindness and Insight Rene Wellek, "Literary History" in R. Wellek and Austin Warren, Theory of Literature Hilton Kramer, "Postmodernism: Art and Culture in the 1980s" Steven Weisenburger, A Gravity's Rainbow Companion, Georgia Schedule of readings and assignments August 29 Organizational; the stakes of postmodernism Recommended: de Man, "Literary History and Literary Modernity" and Wellek, "Literary History" September 5 Introduction to ideas of the postmodern Connor: Postmodernist Culture, chapters 1-4, 6, 8-9 [Recommended: chapters 5, 7] Recommended: Huyssen: "Mapping the Postmodern" Roundtable entry due September 12 Parody and the Predicament of Late Modernism Nabokov, Pale Fire Recommended: John Barth, "The Literature of Exhaustion," September 19 Pale Fire (cont.) Roundtable entry due September 26 Theorists and Critics of Postmodernism Lyotard, The Postmodern Condition Baudrillard, "The Ecstasy of Communication" and "The Preces- sion of Simulacra" [Recommended: "The Orders of Simulacra"] Jameson, "Postmodernism and Consumer Society" Habermas, "Modernity--An Incomplete Project" October 3 Theorists (cont.) Jameson, Postmodernism, pp ix-66, 97-131, 297-418 [Reco- mmended: pp 67-97, 260-296] Recommended: Kramer, "Postmodern: Art and Culture in the 1980s," Frampton, "Towards a Critical Regionalism," and Crimp, "On the Museum's Ruins," [October 4 - 6 Optional: Society for Critical Exchange conference on Problems of Affirmation in Cultural Theory] October 10 Postmodern Reflexivity Barthelme, The Dead Father Roundtable entry due October 17 Pynchon, Gravity's Rainbow, pp 1-371 October 24 Gravity's Rainbow, pp 371-760 Hayles, Chaos Bound, pp 31-60, 175-209, 265-295 [Recommended: pp 1-28, 209-236] Roundtable entry due October 31 Gravity's Rainbow (cont.) Book reviews due November 7 Postcolonialism and Creolization Kingston, The Woman Warrior November 14 Woman Warrior (cont.) November 21 Systems Theory and Cybernetics McElroy, PLUS Roundtable entry due Topic for final paper due on roundtable December 5 PLUS (cont.) Harraway, "A Manifesto for Cyborgs" Draft of final paper due week of December 9 paper workshops December 16 Final paper due Roundtable entry due Aims and Organization This course examines some of the numerous, contested notions of postmodernism, primarily with reference to contemporary American novels and secondarily with reference to recent literary and cultural theory. Along the way we will also glance occasionally at other artistic and cultural forms. The plan is to plunge headfirst into the thickets of theory, with one novel by Nabokov as a reference and transition point. This part of the course breaks at The time of a scholarly conference to be held on campus, which conveniently will be addressing some though not all of our concerns. Then as each of you finishes working through a treatise on contemporary fiction, the class as a whole will begin examining four novels, which partly represent some types or Trends in postmodern literature. Each of you will write [and make available to the class] a review of the treatise, and each of you will also write a medium-length paper on one of the novels, theorists, or topics covered in the course. Along the way each of you will contribute regularly to a class roundtable maintained on the FreeNet community computing system. Oh, and maybe we'll think about a field trip or two, depending upon the interest in visual and performance arts and the luck of the draw with exhibitions, festivals, etc. Book review Select one of the listed books on contemporary fiction and write a 5-8 page review of it. Much of the review should consist of summary and explanation, for your main audience is other members of the class, but you may also evaluate and analyze the work. The books on the list treat a wide range of authors, many of whom we are not reading in the course, so in most cases your focus should be the critic's approach, overview. or general argument, rather than the details of interpreting this or that novel. Feel free to consult with one another in working on this assignment. If need be (and with my permission ahead of time), these reviews can be rewritten, in which case the revised version is due December 16. Final paper I recommend analytic or interpretive essays on (some aspect of) one of the novels read in the course, though you are free to write about a theoretical text or topic as well. The paper should be in the 8-10 page range, a customary size for contributions to a scholarly panel. In keeping with this, your target audience consists of reasonably knowledgeable specialists, you are obliged to make yourself an expert in the relevant secondary literature, but you do not have the space to lay out a fully detailed or wide-ranging argument and you do not have permission to write the definitive analysis of contemporary culture. Maybe next time. Paper workshops will take place the week after classes end. In them you will be asked to help your classmates extend and polish their work, and you will have the chance to benefit from their responses to your work. In order to allow the workshops to get set up, please select a paper topic by November 21, the last class before Thanksgiving, and post it on the roundtable. I will then divide the class into groups, ideally students working on similar topics, and let you know how many copies of your draft you will need to make. Drafts are due the last full class; copies will be needed for me and for each person in your workshop. Roundtable In addition to classroom discussions each student will contribute to the ongoing conversations of the course by posting messages to a computer roundtable. The primary aim is to provide another forum for thinking about and assimilating the course materials, so most of the messages are likely to be comments and questions about the books at hand, further thoughts about readings or topics addressed earlier in the course, remarks about subjects neglected or not yet taken up in class, and responses to what other students have had to say in class or on the roundtable. However, the content, format, tone, and stance of these messages is entirely up to you. (You will be graded on whether you contribute but not what.) Postings to the roundtable are due roughly every two to three weeks, but the six required postings should be considered a minimum. In addition to what you contribute to the roundtable, please try to read the postings about once a week, to keep up with what others are saying and thinking. Grading: The final grade for the course will be divided equally between the book review, the final paper, and a scholarly citizenship component deriving from your contributions to the roundtable and your participation in class and workshop. ----------------------------------------------------------------- 13-Sep-91 12:50:41-GMT,5510;000000000001 Received: from porthos.rutgers.edu by klinzhai.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA21524; Fri, 13 Sep 91 08:45:10 EDT Received: by porthos.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA15747; Fri, 13 Sep 91 08:45:08 EDT Resent-Message-Id: <9109131245.AA15747@porthos.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA06033; Thu, 12 Sep 91 00:14:50 EDT Message-Id: <9109120414.AA06033@aramis.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with BSMTP id 6975; Thu, 12 Sep 91 00:12:14 EDT Received: from NCSUVM.BITNET by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 5410; Thu, 12 Sep 91 00:12:05 EDT Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1991 23:36:10 EDT Reply-To: PMC-Talk Sender: PMC-Talk From: Editors of PMC Subject: new list; boredom; inactivity To: Multiple recipients of list PMC-TALK Resent-To: mcgrew@klinzhai.rutgers.edu Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Sep 91 8:45:06 EDT Resent-From: Charles Mcgrew PMC-TALK digest: postings for the period ending Wednesday, 11 Sep 1991 PMC-Talk is the discussion group for the electronic journal _Postmodern Culture_. Topics: NEW LIST: ArtNet boredom inactivity ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1991 13:33:16 CDT Sender: NEW-LIST - New List Announcements From: IAP@GOLD.LON.AC.UK Subject: NEW LIST: ArtNet ARTNET@UK.AC.NEWCASTLE The list is for anyone who has or who may have an interest in network; installation; project; communication; temporary; ad-hoc; transient; mobile; time-based; formless; de-centred art. Potential members include artists, art-administrators, writers, theorists, students, teachers. The aim of the list is to encourage contributions from all who have dipped a toe into these waters and found them congenial, but who know not where to turn next. The idea is that alliances will be formed, projects launched, funding gained, technology utilised, ideas launched and wild speculation indulged in. I hope that art projects will be instigated via this list. It is within my desire for the list that it evolves. The list encompasses: *Projects *New work *Events *Collaborations *Funding *Technology *Shows *Jobs *Conferences *Proposals *Organisations *Information *Publications *Education *Wild speculation ARTNET provides a forum for the discussion of ART that is concerned with: network; installation; project; communication; temporary; ad-hoc; transient; mobile; time-based; formless; de- centred. I call this PERIPATETIC art. I define peripatetic art thus: The art or action of creative endeavour with lack of fixed base. There is no fixed centre which claims to have 'the knowledge'. All projects involve some aspect of lack of enclosure; the promotion of action without centre. Peripatetic art tends towards the transient, the time based, the mobile. Peripatetology is as much about receiving the action, the project, as it is about initiating it. I am concerned with improving communication amongst those working in these and related areas. By its nature this kind of work often does not lend itself to easy documentation or definition. The concept mooted here, and encapsulated in the term 'peripatetic', has by its very nature a changeable agenda. I hope that in action we will create new ways of working alongside some very old human desires. To subscribe to ARTNET send the command subscribe artnet in a mail message to MAILBASE@NEWCASTLE.AC.UK To contact the list owner for help, advice, information, send mail to: ARTNET-REQUEST@NEWCASTLE.AC.UK If you need more information about MAILBASE you can send the commands: send mailbase overview ( for a general guide to Mailbase ) send mailbase userhelp ( for a User Guide) as a mail message to MAILBASE@NEWCASTLE.AC.UK (Janet UK.AC.NEWCASTLE) ----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Chris Amirault Subject: boredom Date: Thu, 5 Sep 91 16:22:11 CDT This might not be the right place for such a question, so feel free to submit suggestions for other lists. Does anyone know about interesting recent work on boredom? Thanks. chris amirault amirault@csd4.csd.uwm.edu ----------------------------------------------------------------- EDITORIAL NOTE: Sorry, Chris, to have taken so long to post your note--I was saving it up until there were more than a couple of messages to compile and send, but there's so little TRAFFIC on PMC-TALK these days, I finally had to send it off all by itself. Perhaps this _is_ the right place to ask about boredom. I have one tidbit for you: Andy Warhol's remark that the mood of our time is "bored but hyper" (_Interview_ magazine). So: what's new, all you? Is it time for something inflammatory? A parlor game? Perhaps we should begin at the beginning, with a postmodern alphabet? A is for anomie... John Unsworth 16-Sep-91 14:38:35-GMT,5501;000000000001 Received: from porthos.rutgers.edu by klinzhai.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA27488; Mon, 16 Sep 91 10:38:29 EDT Received: by porthos.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA29020; Mon, 16 Sep 91 10:38:27 EDT Resent-Message-Id: <9109161438.AA29020@porthos.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA27244; Sat, 14 Sep 91 16:45:58 EDT Message-Id: <9109142045.AA27244@aramis.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with BSMTP id 1317; Sat, 14 Sep 91 16:44:06 EDT Received: from NCSUVM.BITNET by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 8845; Sat, 14 Sep 91 16:44:01 EDT Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1991 16:27:21 EDT Reply-To: PMC-Talk Sender: PMC-Talk From: Editors of PMC Subject: digest for 9/14/91 To: Multiple recipients of list PMC-TALK Resent-To: mcgrew@klinzhai.rutgers.edu Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Sep 91 10:38:26 EDT Resent-From: Charles Mcgrew PMC-TALK digest: postings for the period ending Saturday, 14 Sep 1991 PMC-Talk is the discussion group for the electronic journal _Postmodern Culture_. Topics: pop culture of the road postmodern ideas of culture boredom boredom (editor's note) ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 12 Sep 91 08:35:44 -0400 From: fi@grebyn.com (Fiona Oceanstar) Subject: ok, here's a topic I just got back from a month-long trip (6578 miles!) by car all over the South, MidWest, and Northwest, during the course of which I assidu- ously collected not only a bunch of fascinating memories and tschotchkas from various pop-culture-of-the-road gift shops and truck stops, but also I saved candy wrappers, restaurant tickets, local-yokel newspapers, and other daily paraphenalia--all with the aim of writing an essay on the archeology of daily life on the road in America--or some such topic. I've seen that phrase--the archeology of the everyday, I think it goes-- on this list before. What can we say about it? Care to point me in the direction of background reading to put the intellectual substance behind my essay? If you were approaching such a project, how would you go about it? Being a physician who's very much a tyro in these po-mo matters, I could use some perspective from the scholars/pundits on the list. I *have* read Umbert Eco's _Travels_in_Hyper-Reality_ and Nabokov's _Lolita_ and an essay (forget the author's name) on "Adventures in Lolita-land"--an imaginative re-tracing of HH and L's journey--which influenced me in the direction of this project. --let's have some fun, Fiona Oceanstar ----------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 13 Sep 91 09:39:28 GMT From: "C. David Frankel 904-588-8395" X-Prolog: Assistant Professor of Theatre X-Prolog: Saint Leo College In re: inactivity and anomie -- being relatively new to this (antecedant left deliberately vague), I have yet to jump in, but here goes. I am interested in discussing postmodern (or pre-) definitions or notions of culture. What is it? Is the membrane of culture permeable, semi-permeable, or impermeable? To what degree, if any, does the notion of "cultural diversity" reflect postmodern concerns. Any thoughts would be appreciated. B is for bifurcate... BITNET: DFrankel@CFRVM INTERNET: DFrankel@CFRVM.CFR.USF.EDU ----------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1991 21:09 EDT From: BERLAND@Vax2.Concordia.CA Subject: Re: new list; boredom; inactivity Wasn't there some comment(s) a few months back here about boredom? I remember being struck by them at the time. Check it out. in the meantime, Larry Grossberg has written about boredom and terror as the dominants of post-war culture, if I can remember where: among other places, in an article in an (otherwise mainly awful) anthology entitled POPULAR MUSIC AND COMMUNICATION (or vise versa) edited by James Lull. But who WAS it that wrote about boredom in this very place? Jody Berland ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jody et al., Boredom was a hot topic in June of 1991 on PMC-TALK. Anyone who'd like to review that month's exchanges on the subject of boredom should send a GET request for the file PMC-TALK LOG9106, for example in a mail message addressed to LISTSERV@NCSUVM or LISTSERV@NCSUVM.CC.NCSU.EDU with the one and only line GET PMC-TALK LOG9106 F=MAIL as the text of the message (no blank lines, spaces, or other text before or after this line). Eliot Handelman started that conversation, Kessler, Barbara Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, Marcus Smith, Fiona Oceanstar, David Porush Stephanie Nelson, and others took part. Definitions surfaced ("boredom is corrupt leisure and the awareness of empty duration"), neologisms were produced (boredom as the Ontological-Epistemological Vacuum Dialectic), readings were suggested (Yale French Studies, an essay on boredom and the French Situationists), and references abounded (Casanova, Flaubert, Pascal, George Steiner, Walker Percy, Beckett, Zen, etc. etc.). Not boring at all, really. John Unsworth 16-Sep-91 14:39:13-GMT,8665;000000000001 Received: from porthos.rutgers.edu by klinzhai.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA27494; Mon, 16 Sep 91 10:39:12 EDT Received: by porthos.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA29031; Mon, 16 Sep 91 10:39:10 EDT Resent-Message-Id: <9109161439.AA29031@porthos.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA11896; Sun, 15 Sep 91 19:07:00 EDT Message-Id: <9109152307.AA11896@aramis.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with BSMTP id 1909; Sun, 15 Sep 91 19:04:11 EDT Received: from NCSUVM.BITNET by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 3551; Sun, 15 Sep 91 19:03:59 EDT Date: Sun, 15 Sep 1991 19:02:21 EDT Reply-To: PMC-Talk Sender: PMC-Talk From: Editors of PMC Subject: Writing Today To: Multiple recipients of list PMC-TALK Resent-To: mcgrew@klinzhai.rutgers.edu Resent-Date: Mon, 16 Sep 91 10:39:09 EDT Resent-From: Charles Mcgrew ONE REASON WRITING IS SO IMPORTANT TODAY BY CLIFFORD L. STAPLES Dept. of Sociology, University of North Dakota Copyright (c) 1991 by Clifford L. Staples, all rights reserved. This text may be freely shared among individuals, but it may not be republished in any medium without express written consent from the author. Distributed by PMC-TALK@NCSUVM / PMC-TALK@NCSUVM.CC.NCSU.EDU under the filename WRITING TODAY "The history of thought and culture is, as Hegel showed with great brilliance, a changing pattern of great liberating ideas which inevitably turn into suffocating straight- jackets, and so stimulate their own destruction by new emancipating, and at the same time, enslaving conceptions." Isaiah Berlin, 1962 [1] We live in a postmodern culture--the world that science has made. What sort of world is it? What impact does science, or the idea of science, have on people? How does a person use science to make her way through the world? These are the questions that haunt me these days--in my classroom and at my keyboard. I'm starting to believe that postmodern culture is, for many, a "suffocating straightjacket." But the real horror is watching as we strap ourselves into it. [2] I teach a class for juniors called "Sociological Research Methods." My job, as you can imagine, is to teach people how to do sociological research. The irony is, the most difficult problem I face teaching people how to do "social science" is countering the disempowering effects that growing up in a scientific culture seems to have on people. What's more, we in the social sciences have contributed as much as anyone to the creation of this culture--what Max Weber referred to in the early years of this century as the "iron cage" of rationality. Little did he know at the time that his intellectual heirs would be some of its best welders. [3] By disempowerment I mean, here, the tendency to distrust, deny, or otherwise fail to recognize one's own experience as a legitimate source of knowledge. Bombarded daily by a scientific rhetoric used to sell everything from toothpaste ("recent studies have shown that compared to another leading brand. . ." ) to war ("Defense Department studies showed that the number of Allied deaths are likely to be less than the number of Iraqi deaths . . ."), we have learned to distrust any claims that do not arrive under the banner of science. [4] This disempowerment has a devastating impact on the self. It alienates the self from everyday life in ways that go far beyond anything imagined by Marx. For example, my students often propose to research such topics as "the problems faced by children who grow up in divorced families." When I ask why she or he is interested in such a topic I routinely hear statements like "Because that's the kind of family I grew up in and I don't know anything about it." "Don't know anything?" However mysterious or troublesome our experiences have been, we are not ignorant of them. Only the postmodern self--the self that has learned that science is the only source of valid knowledge-- is capable of making such a statement. [5] The disempowered self is incapable of doing meaningful intellectual work. Meaningful human work, as Marx argued, requires an on-going connection between the self and the task. To make this connection, however, the self and its needs, desires, and experiences must be acknowledged. Marx's alienated workers had a big advantage over the postmodern worker. Working class culture provided the worker with a valued self, a self that could stand in opposition to the degradation of the capitalist workplace. As a consequence such workers at least knew they were alienated (at least they did in the 19th century). The postmodern worker isn't so lucky. Self-annihilation is a prerequisite to participation in the power/knowledge matrix of postmodernity. The postmodern self is the self that knows it knows nothing. [6] The results of this "alienated labor," to continue the analogy, objectifies the annihilation of self to which I have drawn our attention. The resulting "researcher paper," typically contains no reference to the student's own experiences, never mind any attempt to understand that experience or its connection to the world. What we get, instead, is a summary of research findings based on a computer-generated database search. This bureaucratically motivated cyber-text is devoid of self or human understanding. Nothing of value has been created. And, as we might expect, the author finds it impossible to feel good about any of it since the entire process and its outcome are meaningless. [7] Writing is one way to subvert this self-destruction. What I try to do in this class is create a "place" where we can begin to acknowledge, trust, and value our own selves and experiences as valid sources of knowledge. This "place" is what I call "the notebook." Writing in the notebook is an act of empowerment because it provides the self with a cultural and material foundation. By spending time inside and outside of class working with the notebooks we "write the self into existence." It seems that only after doing this are students ready to enter into a critical dialogue with any competing source of knowledge, be it the results of a computer-search, data collected from interviews, someone else's argument, or what have you. [8] Returning to my example, above, before anything else happens I would encourage the student to use his notebook to write about what it was like as a child to experience divorce. Only after doing this will he be able to find out what he knows or doesn't know about the problem, and only then will he be able to ask meaningful questions and begin the process of answering them in a systematic way. It might take a third or more of the semester to get this work done, but it is pointless to proceed until it is done. [9] My use of writing is not limited to this kind of "free writing," or notebooks, but those stories are for another time. I wrote about this particular problem because I have been struggling with it for some time; and I think others are too. Many of us, it seems to me, assume that students come equipped with an empowered self in the first place and are angry and disappointed when we don't find it. And then we blame the victim--or ourselves. Neither is necessary if we understand the world in which we now live. Postmodernity has disintegrated the self and our challenge now (or at least one challenge), as teachers, is to create the material and cultural conditions for its integration. What I have learned from my students is that the self--or at least the possibility of it--still exists, but it is hiding in the shadows of Weber's "iron cage." 18-Sep-91 17:04:57-GMT,6800;000000000001 Received: from porthos.rutgers.edu by klinzhai.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA04246; Wed, 18 Sep 91 13:04:53 EDT Received: by porthos.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA03755; Wed, 18 Sep 91 13:04:51 EDT Resent-Message-Id: <9109181704.AA03755@porthos.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA00706; Tue, 17 Sep 91 20:02:00 EDT Message-Id: <9109180002.AA00706@aramis.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with BSMTP id 6147; Tue, 17 Sep 91 19:59:30 EDT Received: from NCSUVM.BITNET by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 5389; Tue, 17 Sep 91 19:59:22 EDT Date: Tue, 17 Sep 1991 19:56:48 EDT Reply-To: PMC-Talk Sender: PMC-Talk From: Editors of PMC Subject: Digest for 9/17/91 To: Multiple recipients of list PMC-TALK Resent-To: mcgrew@klinzhai.rutgers.edu Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Sep 91 13:04:50 EDT Resent-From: Charles Mcgrew Status: O PMC-TALK digest: postings for the period ending Tuesday, 17 Sep 1991 PMC-Talk is the discussion group for the electronic journal _Postmodern Culture_. Topics: Press coverage archaeology of the everday; boredom Response to Clifford Staples' essay ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 14 Sep 91 19:08:37 EDT From: Birds Inventory Subject: Press coverage Hey! PMC is one of several e-journals discussed at length in this week's issue of The Chronicle of Higher Education, featuring also a photo of John Unsworth (you look too young to be an editor, John). :) Congratulations to our hard-working editors and list managers; all of us out here appreciate your efforts. Bob O'Hara ----------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 17 Sep 91 08:12:27 EDT From: CJ Stivale Subject: Re: digest for 9/14/91 In reply Fiona Oceanstar re the "archeology of the everyday" as well as the query from Jody Berland re the Grossberg note on "boredom," the follow- ing references might be of use: Michel de Certeau, _The Practice of Everyday Life_ (Berkeley: U California Press, 1984), trans. of _L'invention du quotidien 1. arts de faire_ (Paris: UGE, 1980; Gallimard, 1990). -- Specifically for Fiona, this has an opening part entitled "A Very Ordinary Culture," followed by a theoretical part on "the art of practice," with other sections on "Spatial Practices," "Uses of Language," and "Ways of Believing." The Lawrence Grossberg references of interest, on boredom as well as on particular popular, everyday practices, are: "Another Boring Day in Paradise: Rock & Roll & the Empowerment of Every- day Life," _Popular Music_ 4 (1984): 225-258. "I'd Rather Feel Bad than Not Feel Anything at All: Rock & Roll, Pleasure & Power," _enclitic_ 8 (1984): 94-111. "The In-difference of Television," _Screen_ 28 (Spring 1987): 28-45. "Postmodernity & Affect: All Dressed Up with No Place To Go," _Communica- tions_ 10 (1988): 271-293. More for Fiona: I want to give more thought to the question of approaches and then send something detailed to e-mail address later. -- Charles J. Stivale ----------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 17 Sep 91 10:19:52 EDT From: David Porush Subject: Response to Clifford Staples' essay Just wanted to applaud Staples' essay and draw some lines to postmodern lit and its study. Your essay reminds me of Julia Kristeva's quip that the function of postmodern fiction is to expand the domain of the human. I believe that this is not idle cant, but rather a fundamental insight into one of the most trenchant aspects of literature and literary study. It's a war. The battleground is the cognitive domain... our own minds and bragging rights over who is to determine what it means to be human. The antagonists are the hypertrophic cyborgized culture of computation and feedback control loops////////////// and //////////////// a small, powerful, self-marginalizing, guerrilla wordsmiths and imagemakers, meaningmakers, metepahoristas. Their Che is Wm Burroughs. Their hideout is not really at the margins of the culture --though they are statistically less read than other authors (though more persistent, perhaps). They reside at the omphalos wombcenter of the culture, its radioactive core, resisting with their own anti-rational techniques: metaphor, silence, irrationality, cut-up and cut-out, slipstream transcendence, and the trick of programming the machine with the loopy message: "DISMANTLE THYSELF." I don't focus on the "disenfranchisement" and "disempowering of the self" by science and the hyperscientific cyberspatial culture when I speak to my students and colleagues. It's too demoralizing; and I think it's fundamentally untrue. A patent rhetorical line of chat that promotes the common self as victim. Rather, I try to make heroes of the writers we read and make them accessible, with the same end in mind as Pynchon, Coover, Acker, Delillo (to a lesser extent), McElroy, Marianne Hauser..make your own list.....when they write and publish--not out of desperation but with the sure power of their mission: TO EXPAND THE DOMAIN OF THE HUMAN inside out, rippling and eddying with fractal influence in the real trickle-doxxxxxxd tide of our times from the center of the real. There, the academic concerns over E P I S T E M O L O G Y and O N T O L O G Y c o l l a p s e i n t o T R A N S C E N D E N C E It's amazing how many of my students--engineers most of them-- get the idea, catch on to the tail of this tiger and ride it for what it's worth. The Self-marginalizing is a pose, and we should drop- it too, among each other, anyway. When dealing with the Shoguns, it has its functional subversiveness as applied irony. But among ourselves...c'mon. For our students' sake. Let's stop pretending we're powerless. ////////David Porush ///////Co-Director, AUTOPOEISIS/The Story Generation Project //////Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute /////Troy NY 12180 /////e-mail: porush@rpi.edu.com ----------------------------------------------------------------- 30-Sep-91 15:35:50-GMT,3981;000000000001 Received: from porthos.rutgers.edu by klinzhai.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA15743; Mon, 30 Sep 91 11:35:46 EDT Received: by porthos.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA02310; Mon, 30 Sep 91 11:35:44 EDT Resent-Message-Id: <9109301535.AA02310@porthos.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA07681; Sat, 28 Sep 91 20:19:21 EDT Message-Id: <9109290019.AA07681@aramis.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with BSMTP id 5260; Sat, 28 Sep 91 20:16:57 EDT Received: from NCSUVM.BITNET by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 6699; Sat, 28 Sep 91 20:16:51 EDT Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1991 20:07:36 EDT Reply-To: PMC-Talk Sender: PMC-Talk From: Editors of PMC Subject: Digest for 9/28/91 To: Multiple recipients of list PMC-TALK Resent-To: mcgrew@klinzhai.rutgers.edu Resent-Date: Mon, 30 Sep 91 11:35:44 EDT Resent-From: Charles Mcgrew PMC-TALK digest: postings for the period ending Saturday, 28 Sep 1991 PMC-Talk is the discussion group for the electronic journal _Postmodern Culture_. Topics: NEO-LINEARITY AND THE CHALLENGE TO POST-MODERNISM query ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 18 Sep 91 18:15 EST From: MMARTIN@trincc Subject: NEO-LINEARITY AND THE CHALLENGE TO POST-MODERNISM Postmodern disease is stalking this nation. What is Post-modern disease? It is no more and no less than the desire to desire something. It is perpetrated by over-intellectual college students and grad-school dropouts who've done too much bad acid and looked at "THE BRIDE STRIPPED BARE BY HER Batchelors, even" one too many times. It shows up in the flaccid and incipid palladian windows that dot our downtown areas like boils. People too over-satuarated with art history and groovy ideas to come up with any of their own. Postmo dern disease shows a weariness with the world. Underlying it is the assumption that everything has been done. Classical art was art about the world, real or imagined. Modernist art was about art itself, exploring the bounderies of what could be done with paint and canvas, glass and steel. But Art reached its limits with AD Reinhards and Sol Lewitt, and other neo zen masters of stage, screen and canvas. Post-modern art is about... what? Rather than creating motifs as a by-product of exploration, it plays with motifs themselves. Instead of searching for objectivity, it assumes soft subjectivity. The viewer's prejuduices and assumptions and references are as much a part of the work as the material side of the work. And so on. self-reference, self-indulgence, and ultimately laziness and lack of pity. We've discovered zen twice in this century: the first time bedecked in love beads and dripping with pretentious psychedellica; the second time as fly-fishing yuppie corporate scum who come home to the SHARPER IMAGE catalogue, a bony wife and need something to chill them out and put them in touch with their woodstock days. Zen's not about self-reference loops. Zen's about discipline and patience and true, true feeling. Will there ever be a multiprocessing computer that has true AI? I'm really quite curious. Put me on your mailing list, despite my semi-bitter neo-prep-school angst and my abysmal spelling skills. dig it heavy. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1991 13:30 MST From: Tenney Nathanson Subject: query I'm trying to track down a Pierre Bourdieu quotation (for a friend [sure, sure]). "No one escapes the game of culture." Is it from THE LOGIC OF PRACTICE? (Or) where? ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1-Oct-91 15:32:25-GMT,16584;000000000001 Received: from porthos.rutgers.edu by klinzhai.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA28798; Tue, 1 Oct 91 11:32:23 EDT Received: by porthos.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA26212; Tue, 1 Oct 91 11:32:21 EDT Resent-Message-Id: <9110011532.AA26212@porthos.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA22198; Mon, 30 Sep 91 18:23:29 EDT Message-Id: <9109302223.AA22198@aramis.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with BSMTP id 7771; Mon, 30 Sep 91 18:03:17 EDT Received: from NCSUVM.BITNET by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 8311; Mon, 30 Sep 91 18:02:26 EDT Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1991 17:50:22 EDT Reply-To: Editors of PMC Sender: Postmodern Culture From: Editors of PMC Subject: CONTENTS 991 To: Multiple recipients of list PMC-LIST Resent-To: mcgrew@klinzhai.rutgers.edu Resent-Date: Tue, 1 Oct 91 11:32:20 EDT Resent-From: Charles Mcgrew POSTMODERNCULTUREPOSTMODERNCULTURE P RNCU REPO ODER E P O S T M O D E R N P TMOD RNCU U EP S ODER ULTU E C U L T U R E P RNCU UR OS ODER ULTURE P TMODERNCU UREPOS ODER ULTU E an electronic journal P TMODERNCU UREPOS ODER E of interdisciplinary POSTMODERNCULTUREPOSTMODERNCULTURE criticism ----------------------------------------------------------------- Volume 2, Number 1 (September, 1991) ISSN: 1053-1920 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Editors: Eyal Amiran, Issue Editor John Unsworth Book Review Editor: Jim English Managing Editor: Nancy Cooke Editorial Board: Kathy Acker Patrick O'Donnell Sharon Bassett Elaine Orr Michael Berube John Paine Marc Chenetier Marjorie Perloff Greg Dawes David Porush R. Serge Denisoff Mark Poster Robert Detweiler Carl Raschke Henry Louis Gates, Jr. Mike Reynolds Joe Gomez Avital Ronell Robert Hodge Andrew Ross bell hooks Jorge Ruffinelli Susan Howe Susan M. Schultz E. Ann Kaplan William Spanos Arthur Kroker Tony Stewart Neil Larsen Gary Lee Stonum Jerome J. McGann Chris Straayer Larysa Mykyta Paul Trembath Chimalum Nwankwo Greg Ulmer Phil Novak ----------------------------------------------------------------- CONTENTS AUTHOR & TITLE FN FT Masthead, Contents, Abstracts, CONTENTS 991 Instructions for retrieving files Daniel R. White, "Literary Ecology and WHITE-1 991 Postmodernity in Thomas Sanchez's _Mile Zero_ WHITE-2 991 and Thomas Pynchon's _Vineland_" Bob Perelman, "The Marginalization of Poetry" PERELMAN 991 (a poem) Michael Joyce, "Notes Toward an Unwritten Non- JOYCE 991 Linear Electronic Text, 'The Ends of Print Culture'" (a work in progress) Rei Terada, "Derek Walcott and the Poetics of TERADA 991 'Transport'" Bernard Duyfhuizen, "'A Suspension Forever at DUYFHU-1 991 the Hinge of Doubt': The Reader-Trap of DUYFHU-2 991 Bianca in _Gravity's Rainbow_" Georg Mannejc, Anne Mack, J.J. Rome, Joanne MCGANN-1 991 McGrem, Jerome McGann, "A Dialogue on MCGANN-2 991 Dialogue" POPULAR CULTURE COLUMN: Charles Bernstein, "Play It Again, Pac-Man" POP-CULT 991 REVIEWS: Bill Hsu, review of SPEW, the first queer punk REVIEW-1 991 fanzine convention. May 25 1991. Randolph Street Gallery, Chicago. Gerry O'Sullivan, review of _Heidegger's REVIEW-2 991 Confrontation with Modernity: Technology, Politics, Art_, by Michael Zimmerman. Dan Miller, review of _Musical Elaborations_, by REVIEW-3 991 Edward W. Said. Charles Stivale, review of _Engendering Men: REVIEW-4 991 The Question of Male Feminist Criticism_, by Joseph A. Boone and Michael Cadden, eds., and of _Out of Bounds: Male Writers and Gender(ed) Criticism_, by Laura Claridge and Elizabeth Langland, eds. Announcements and Advertisements NOTICES 991 ----------------------------------------------------------------- ABSTRACTS Daniel R. White, "Literary Ecology and Postmodernity in Thomas Sanchez's _Mile Zero_ and Thomas Pynchon's _Vineland_" ABSTRACT: This paper argues that the postmodern challenge to the premises of modernism has recently been augmented by a new literary genre: literary ecology. Literary ecology challenges the Cartesian technological paradigm, stemming from the Renaissance, which sees the human subject or %cogito% as the sole possessor of mind in nature, and the domination of nature as the human project. In place of the Cartesian model literary ecologists evoke a %paranoetic% or _schizophrenic_ mind in which the consciousness of man fragments and merges with the _mental ecology_ which is arguably immanent in the biosphere; they propose adaptation to natural diversity rather than its reduction to human purposes. Thus there is a convergence between certain postmodern concepts such a "rhizomic" or "schizophrenic" or "doubly coded" discourse, on the one hand, and the "ecologic" of the ecological mind, on the other. Literary ecology makes this convergence evident by innovative textual strategies and constitutes a new form of discourse in which %poesis% becomes a creative extension of morphogenesis and counsel of ecological wisdom. Just as importantly, literary ecology interweaves deep ecological concerns with those of socialist ecology and ecological feminism. --DRW Michael Joyce, "Toward An Unwritten Non-Linear Electronic Text, 'The Ends of Print Culture'" ABSTRACT: In what Jay Bolter calls "the late age of print," the topography of the text is subverted and reading is design-enacted. The choices a text presents depend upon the complicity of the reader in creating and shaping meaning and narrative. As more people buy and do not read more books than have ever been published before, often with higher advances than ever before, the book is merely a fleeting, momentarily marketable, physical instantiation of the network. Readers face the task of re-embodying reading as movement, as an action rather than a thing--network out of book. Hyperfiction writers confront the topographic (sensual) organization of the text and ask how it might present readers with reciprocal choices that constitute and transform the current state of the text. Multiple fiction (hyperfiction) is the first instance of the true electronic text, what we will come to conceive as the natural form of multimodal, multi-sensual writing; it is not the transitional electronic analogue of a printed text. Multiple fictions can neither be conceived nor experienced in any other way. They are imagined and composed within their own idiom and electronic environment, not cobbled together from pre-ordained texts like a hypertextual encyclopedia on a CD. Multiple fictions are instances of what Jane Yellowlees Douglas terms "the genuine post-modern text rejecting the objective paradigm of reality as the great 'either/or' and embracing, instead, the 'and/and/and'." The issues at hand are not technological but aesthetic, not what and where we shall read but how and why. --MJ Rei Terada, "Derek Walcott and the Poetics of 'Transport'" ABSTRACT: Critical consideration of Derek Walcott's poetry has focused upon the problematic relation of his formal traditionalism to his postcolonial themes. Although Walcott's postmodernity has not been discussed, the difficult relation of rhetoric to principle in Walcott's work points up limitations in definitions of postmodernism which themselves conflate rhetoric with principle, form with content. Walcott feels no need to emphasize or estrange rhetoric as some other postmodern poets do, but only because rhetorical estrangement can be taken for granted in all language. Walcott's late lyric "The Light of the World" explores both the consequences and the boundaries of poetic "transport" (in the senses both of lyric rapture and of metaphor). In this poem Walcott seeks the relation of poetic figuration to ordinary speech, and finds that the former persistently inhabits the latter. We should see Walcott's poetic style not as rhetorical conventionality, but as an outgrowth of this quite characteristically postmodern discovery. --RT Bernard Duyfhuizen, "A Suspension Forever at the Hinge of Doubt: The Reader-Trap of Bianca in _Gravity's Rainbow_" ABSTRACT: Readers of Thomas Pynchon's _Gravity's Rainbow_ often find themselves either lost in a textual maze or making seemingly authoritative decisions about the text's representations. Closer scrutiny of these representations, however, reveals these decisions to be the product of Pynchon's postmodern narrative technique that traps the reader into questionable teleological judgments. A case in point is the character of Bianca, one of the shadow children of the Zone and one of Slothrop's sexual partners. Conventional readings of Bianca (and necessarily of Slothrop's relationship with her) base themselves on a misperception of her age and on a need to specify her death within the textual universe. In showing how these readings are both produced and misguided, this essay uncovers a more significant layer of reading problematics, focusing on the production of textual representation and on the function of gender and reading in _Gravity's Rainbow_. Through this reading of the semiotic matrix encoding "Bianca," the essay attempts to show how a poststructuralist strategy of reading, one that remains open to textual uncertainty and the play of textual %differance%, must be engaged to avoid a premature foreclosure of narrativity and to allow the text's other levels of representation to emerge. --BD Georg Mannejc, Anne Mack, J.J. Rome, Joanne McGrem, and Jerome McGann, "A Dialogue on Dialogue" ABSTRACT: In a sense this text has no message that could be separated out from its medium. The text is an illustration of itself, of the operation of dialogue as a form of masquerade. As such, it may also be read as a kind of parody of itself--how serious a parody would be a matter of dispute. The dialogue features four, five, or eight "notional" characters (the number depends on how one counts), as well as one (apparently) "real" character. There are (is?) as well "Footnotes," which appear to function as yet another (in this case unnamed) "voice." "Footnotes" distinguishes the following critical positions on the dialogue form: interpretation is dialogue (Mannejc); critique is dialogic (Rome); poetry is dialogic (Mack); dialogue is poetry (McGrem). Other views (Footnotes', McGann's, ABC's) might be defined as well. The entire exercise seems intended as an interrogation (or display, or send-up) of dialogical imagination, a critical idea (or ideology) that has exercised great authority in contemporary critical practice. --JJM ---------------------------------------------------------------- TO RETRIEVE SINGLE ITEMS LISTED ABOVE, send a mail message to listserv@ncsuvm or listserv@ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu containing as its one and only line the command get [fn ft] pmc-list f=mail (replace [fn ft] with the filename and filetype, as listed in the table of contents, for the file you want to receive). There should be no blank lines, spaces, or other text preceding this line. TO RETRIEVE THE WHOLE ISSUE as a package, send a mail message to listserv@ncsuvm or listserv@ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu with the command get pmcv2n1 package pmc-list f=mail If you request the issue as a package, please make certain you have sufficient virtual disk space on your mainframe account to receive it (at least half a megabyte). More detailed instructions are available in the file NEWUSER PREFACE: to retrieve this file, send a mail message to listserv@ncsuvm or listserv@ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu with the command get newuser preface pmc-list f=mail If none of the above works for you, contact the editors. _Postmodern Culture_ uses only ASCII text (the character-code common to all personal computers): this means that readers can download the text of the journal from the mainframe (where mail is received) to any personal computer and import it into almost all word-processing programs. Text in the journal uses a 65- character line, so you should set your margins accordingly before importing journal files into a word-processing program. ----------------------------------------------------------------- _POSTMODERN CULTURE_ is published three times a year (September, January, and May) using the Revised LISTSERV program ((c) Eric Thomas 1986, Ecole Centrale de Paris). It is distributed from an IBM mainframe at North Carolina State University, and is published with support from the NCSU Libraries, the NCSU Computing Center, and the NCSU Department of English. _Postmodern Culture_ currently has over 1,300 subscribers worldwide. ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUBSCRIPTION to the journal in its electronic-mail form is free. Each issue is available on disk and microfiche as well. Disk and fiche rates are $15/year for an individual and $30/year for an institution. For disks or fiche mailed to Canada add $3 postage; outside North America, add $7. Single issues are available for $6 (U.S.), $7 (Canada) or $8 (elsewhere). Postal correspondence, payment for subscription, and books for review should be sent to: Postmodern Culture Box 8105 NCSU Raleigh, NC 27695-8105 Electronic-text submissions and requests for e-mail subscription can be sent to the journal's editorial address (pmc@ncsuvm or pmc@ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu). Using the same addresses, readers may also subscribe free of charge to PMC-Talk, an open discussion group for issues relating to the journal's contents, and to post- modernism in general. SUBMISSIONS to the journal can be made by electronic mail, on disk, or in hard copy; disk submissions should be in WordPerfect or ASCII format, but if this is not possible please indicate the program and operating system used. The current MLA format is recommended for documentation in essays; a list of the text- formatting conventions used by _Postmodern Culture_ for ASCII text is available on request. _________________________________________________________________ COPYRIGHT: Unless otherwise noted, copyrights for the texts which comprise this issue of _Postmodern Culture_ are held by their authors. The compilation as a whole is Copyright (c) 1991 by _Postmodern Culture_, all rights reserved. Items published by _Postmodern Culture_ may be freely shared among individuals, but they may not be republished in any medium without express written consent from the author(s) and advance notification of the editors. Issues of _Postmodern Culture_ may be archived for public use in electronic or other media, as long as each issue is archived in its entirety and no fee is charged to the user; any exception to this restriction requires the written consent of the editors of _Postmodern Culture_. -----------------END OF CONTENTS 991 FOR PMC 2.1----------------- 7-Oct-91 14:48:31-GMT,16815;000000000001 Received: from porthos.rutgers.edu by klinzhai.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA08778; Mon, 7 Oct 91 10:48:24 EDT Received: by porthos.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA00613; Mon, 7 Oct 91 10:48:23 EDT Resent-Message-Id: <9110071448.AA00613@porthos.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA27051; Sat, 5 Oct 91 10:45:44 EDT Message-Id: <9110051445.AA27051@aramis.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with BSMTP id 8401; Sat, 05 Oct 91 10:42:43 EDT Received: from NCSUVM.BITNET by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 3721; Sat, 05 Oct 91 10:42:37 EDT Date: Sat, 5 Oct 1991 10:40:38 EDT Reply-To: PMC-Talk Sender: PMC-Talk From: Editors of PMC Subject: Extract of essay available from PMC-Talk To: Multiple recipients of list PMC-TALK Resent-To: mcgrew@klinzhai.rutgers.edu Resent-Date: Mon, 7 Oct 91 10:48:22 EDT Resent-From: Charles Mcgrew There have been several recent postings touching on the discouragement or bitterness which some aspects of post-modern ideas seem to bring out in people. As a counter, I would like to put up something of an old-time sermon on the topic. A larger extract, with more of the so-called argument, is posted separately on the file-server [available from PMC-TALK as BROWNSON ESSAY] RAYMOND SEBOND AGAIN: REGARDING THEOPHILE GAUTIER [being a manifesto, extracted from the book so called] by Charles Brownson Humanities Co-ordinator, Collection Development Arizona State University Libraries Tempe, Arizona 85287 iaccwb@asuacad (asuvm.inre.edu) All honest explanations are personal and contingent. All honest lives are humble, messy (or at least I find it convenient to think so). There is no spiritual peace except in self-deception. I'm not finding myself here. There's nothing to look for, nothing worth finding. Perhaps Boccaccio would have been a better model: a heap of amusing stories surrounded by the plague. I did write something like that once, following the plan of Burton's introduction to The Anatomy Of Melancholy, but it didn't hold up. What then? Why do I still demand of history, of poetry--the marks, the struggle to articulate a view, to impose a structure-- more grand, more breathless, when I know the struggle is doomed, as doomed as I myself am, with my pitiful list of groceries, of things to do before I die--Why all this tacky clinging to Modernist inventions, to these illusions? What do I want to write about Theophile Gautier for? What do I want to bother you for, busy dying in obscurity? How, honestly? Signs of panic here. The origins of my interest in Gautier are typical, admit it. Comic books enjoyed as a child, a wistful desire to travel, a little snobbery and a taste for abasement kept in check by mere laziness (no Luther I), a need to stabilize and externalize these contradictions, to lose them, like fat, by some kind of spiritual aerobics--Admit it. Your own enterprises spring from similar broken rock, similar geological faults. Admit it: your own enterprises have as little to do with their ostensible subject as this one appears to, are only a hunt for a long enough stick to reach the itch with. Admit it: you are as weak and egotistical and self-indulgent as I am, locked in samsara, unenlightened. And what of it? Does not humanity, courage, greatness consist of carrying on anyway? What does it matter the excuse to turn outward, to let in some air? The Sixth Patriarch went out to cut bamboo. I don't suppose he did a market analysis first. Besides, this tack can be used only once, as a manifesto. It is amusing, slightly dada, to pick up a fat essay on Sebond and find Montaigne instead, a come-on which Montaigne can justify with his views on knowledge and human behavior. Tristram Shandy is similar: a giant digression, a refusal to come to the point. But doing it again is not principled. It's a trick, a quirk, a mannerism. In any case, however much I borrow from Montaigne, the struggle between faith and reason, the conclusion that reason cannot be used as a tool to substantiate faith, the shortcomings of knowledge, the very essay form, which in my hands becomes a kind of thinking for thinking's sake, a zen exercise, a kind of zazen, serving the same psychological purpose as Michel's (and Blaise's) rejection of samsara for the Tao-- Poor Theo, reduced to a koan. Appropriated, by an amateur monk. Well, the Sixth Patriarch was illiterate it is said, and there are an infinite number of possible koans, and it is written on the back of my box of breakfast cereal we all could use more exercise, and who knows? Maybe this time the chemistry will be just right and your candle will go out and leave you in final darkness. ART A discussion which, I see, I've already begun--neat divisions are not characteristic of the poetics I'm reaching for. Resisting the urge to impose an argumentative structure on these scribblings, a set of conclusions toward which it was tending all along, insights which justify the work you put in--a resistance made easier because it wasn't tending, in fact, and sprang from a mind by nature jumbled, tangled, indirect--craggy, we say of faces which we wish to compliment. I have put forward some claims: that one's relation to external reality (samsara) is a kind of history; that to plunge into samsara to escape the self (a plunge of which travel is emblematic) leads inevitably back to the self; that meditation on Theo and Theoana suggests a working relationship to the world which is personal, particular, non-ideological, unsystematic, sensual, not precluding intelligence (affinities, views, commitments, politics) but always partial, unfinished; that, holding such views, I might write something after all, have made a trial of expository writing in fact, a sample which could have, had I wished, been expanded indefinitely with more discoveries, elucidations, proposals, empathies, echoes, readings, words leading to ever more remote destinations, associations--and what about Art? That is: aesthetics, criticism, story-telling? A poetics to go with a hermeneutics? Or am I just repeating James's futile duality of style and substance, form and content? Better to use Wittgenstein's modus of family resemblances. Or, still more homily, lumps in the sauce. Knots of stuff more or less organized, of items bearing a family resemblance: words, paragraphs, skin cells, villages, grains of tapioca. I myself, after all, am nothing more than a momentary thick spot in the stuff, repeated on ever larger scales until the pudding, finally smooth, is too cold to eat. A salad instead, perhaps? With hard, dialectical peas and carrots, dressed in immiscible oil and vinegar? Cardiovascularly more edible, but-- You see how I fight it, resist the new looser, baggier fashion. This is what comes of learning to write in graduate school, in MFA programs. This is what the great poets maudit stand against--Bukowski, Spicer--or are thought to stand against by neo-Romantic advocates of guts (as in spilling of, beer, instinctual grasp of chthonic modes, and so forth)--against Modernism: Eliot and the rest of that classicising, intellectualizing, rule-crying fascist crowd. Still, I don't deny some good stuff came out of that. Ulysses, one of Hemingway's, Ford Ford, Absalom Absalom--but then I read also in the dead languages of Ouida, Dickens, Defoe, Sterne. What was wrong with Modernism was its depersonalizing, distancing, instrumentalizing, ironizing way. Appropriate for the times, perhaps. Psychologically intelligible. Get you killed, nowadays. Alienation and angst are still with us but really, is there enough oat bran in the world to stand it? Something has to be done. With eleven billion people there are fewer and fewer high places to withdraw to. I've heard it said that zen is the religion of the future because, of the world's creeds (if zen could be called a creed), zen is the only one to offer salvation on the spot. We can no longer afford heaven-pointing, world-denying religions. We need to be enlightened now, just as we are, in dirty hands and work clothes. We need to all go on, not just those few who have mastered the way of free indirect discourse. How to change one's poetics? Like changing religions, I suspect it requires practice, a time of insincerity while one acquires new habits of belief. But really, does it matter which god one follows? Why all this fuss, when I've already repudiated historicist doctrines of progress in the arts? If the Way is neither true nor better, but simply different? Modernist doctrine taught me to distrust sentimentalism and cliche as manipulative--well maybe it wasn't cliched and sentimental at the time, but fresh and new; I'm not trying to reconstruct a lost mentality--but I didn't learn that mistrust from art, I learned it as a piece of street wisdom to survive conditions which are, if anything, more so. Semiotic fencing. More insidious, more intrusive, more ambitious--to which the reply is not a superior Modernist smile. But what is? What am I to practice at? At not, was the characteristic Modernist reply. That won't do. . . . . . . . . . . . . HUMANISM AGAIN Humanism, eh? That old idea. Doddering, senile idea... Well, what about it, then--Humanism? And what have Michel and Raymond got to do with all this? Actually, it's difficult for a modern to project, to live into, a belief system which is not human-centered, so far has this idea spread since the days of the Original Essayist. The situation is exactly reversed in fact. Environmentalism, perhaps. See the difficulty of getting our fellow inhabitants to think in terms of skunks first, or (harder yet) the tenets of some intellectual creed involving the mutual salvation of interdependent life forms. Michel could not have imagined, as his essay on Sebond shows, the possibility that a real, hard-core humanism could appeal to anyone, much less become common. That is, that we should live fully and entirely as humans, as beings consisting of matter temporarily animated by forces of nature: electricity and chemistry, that exchange of electrons which has gone on continually since there were electrons, a fraction of a second after the big bang, skunks or no skunks, mind or no-mind. Horrifying idea. Reminds me of Mrs. Moore's experience in the Marabar Caves. Say anything you like, she discovered, but it all turns to boum in the end. Some kind of overcooked mush, boum, that primitive people eat with their fingers. Couldn't go on after finding that out. Is it possible to live by, to make art out of, such a view? The two are the same: it isn't possible to make art out of something you can't live and the ability to make art of it proves you can live by it if you can find out how to. Setting aside the obvious importance of zen to the arts of Japan, and Buddhism to the East generally--Buddhism especially has an afterlife component, of course you would have to have that, several cracks at the problem because no one is born an arhat the first time, especially in these latter days when the first times around are all used up, people would get discouraged otherwise. Me, I mean. Michel would have said not. Did say not. It's a consequence of the famous Que scay-je? But then there weren't eleven billion of us in Michel's time, either. He could afford to be humble and stupid, whereas we have no choice. We have our two projects, Michel and I, of enlightenment. Michel's has since been capitalized. . . . . . . . . . . . Why write, when it will all be lost in the coming crash? Why live, when it will all be eaten by worms? Why go on, when it's all boum? We've made heroes of authors by our collecting and saving, by canonization, but where is the Hero who will lead us out of the Modernist desert in which we have wandered these forty years? The Great Man who will destroy History and Art? The appeal of virtuosity is that of the Hero, the person who commands absolutely. The Navahos who weave mistakes into their blankets are on to something I could profit by. Heroism, virtue, history, hope, craftsmanship, art--all illusion, the consequence of desire. "What is it for?" is not germane. Nor is it merely an objet d'art: the distinction between public and private art is not germane; it is a distinction. Amateur products are neither public nor private; they are not for anything but neither are they merely. Careerism, professionalism, spring from the desire for a particular outcome, are for something, in their worst manifestations for oneself. The great problem, the problem for me, here among us as I am, is how to be serious without being professional, how to take myself seriously without being serious, how to do art without taking myself seriously, how to live without art. . . . . . . . . . . Violence and irrationality are common elements of contemporary life. A woman standing in line at the bank drops her purse, the gun inside goes off and kills an innocent by-stander. Children are raped because someone's attention is caught by a pink dress. The acceptance of irrationality and unpredictability in daily life has been common in the past (the pre-Enlightened past). One task of a successful, lived-into post-modernism will be to find and analyze the positive aspect of drive-by shootings. This is not as perverse as it sounds. The ironical detachment of Modernism which I so deplore, so like a primitive defense mechanism, yet released an unprecedented power of analysis of human character and interaction in such artists as Ford, Woolf, and Forster. These documents will not be superseded even though the circumstances which gave them rise have dried up and blown away. They have added to our stock of tools thereby. Our task is to make an equivalent contribution. However, the real advances, the real discovery of how to live into a successor to Modernism, will not come from people like me who have to think themselves into alien points of view from positions of security. The real discoveries will come from people who just live that way, as Henry Miller and William Burroughs did, whatever way. Past instances can be found too, cases of irruption of new ways: Anne Bronte, Courbet perhaps. Then afterwards people like me come along to codify, analyze, give common possession. What am I doing here now? Cezanne-like, the best I can hope for is an opportunity to struggle with the mountain, to struggle with integrity and to the end. Art is not for anything. In this Theo and I are not quite in agreement, for he would have said it was for art and would probably have limited the stricture to art in any case, whereas it isn't so easy to see that history isn't for anything either, even history. Attempts to explain what Theophile Gautier has to do with this will all come to naught. He is just a thing in the world, and my (your) relation to him is an example of my (your) relation to the world, and it to me (you). We are all simply there. Art is an illusory product of desire, like all of life, into which it fits like a tea ceremony. It is an aid to living well, to living for the sake of living, which is after all not for anything either. It is well to be reminded of this, that we make art for the same reason that we get up in the morning, because that it what we do, and there is no need to encumber it with more baggage, clinging to art as if it could save me from the worms. Instead, a poetics should facilitate living, facilitate going on; should be humble, world-embracing, personal, unsystematic, incomplete, moving through its material without resistance, as one with it as I am with the tao, the selfless no-mind. What kind of writing might that be? None would be best. Failing that I prefer photography for the immediacy of its contact with the world and its resistance to explanation. Failing that, to write commentaries on real or imaginary photographs perhaps, like haiku. Failing that, the model of natural discourse, of casual talk about interesting things, in whatever language and style seem effective, without trying to make points, without theoretical justification. What comes next doesn't need justification. Its nextness is sufficient. Some people find it hard to go on from one thing to the next, like Mrs. Moore after her experience in the Marabar caves. But I, going nowhere, go on easily until the end, when I stop. 7-Oct-91 14:51:16-GMT,3411;000000000001 Received: from porthos.rutgers.edu by klinzhai.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA08804; Mon, 7 Oct 91 10:51:15 EDT Received: by porthos.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA00672; Mon, 7 Oct 91 10:51:14 EDT Resent-Message-Id: <9110071451.AA00672@porthos.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA17109; Sun, 6 Oct 91 13:33:01 EDT Message-Id: <9110061733.AA17109@aramis.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with BSMTP id 8983; Sun, 06 Oct 91 13:30:35 EDT Received: from NCSUVM.BITNET by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 9126; Sun, 06 Oct 91 13:30:30 EDT Date: Sun, 6 Oct 1991 13:28:25 EDT Reply-To: PMC-Talk Sender: PMC-Talk From: Editors of PMC Subject: Call for Papers To: Multiple recipients of list PMC-TALK Resent-To: mcgrew@klinzhai.rutgers.edu Resent-Date: Mon, 7 Oct 91 10:51:13 EDT Resent-From: Charles Mcgrew CALL FOR PAPERS on SCIENCE, KNOWLEDGE, AND TECHNOLOGY for the SOUTHWESTERN SOCIAL SCIENCE ANNUAL MEETINGS in AUSTIN, TEXAS MARCH 27-31, 1992. DEADLINE: Late October, 1991 (October 20th?) CONTACT: Raymond Eve ****PLEASE FORWARD TO ANYONE WHO MIGHT BE INTERESTED**** I would like to mention to you (somewhat belatedly, I fear), the upcoming section on "Science, Knowledge, and Technology" to be held at the Southwestern Social Science Association Annual Meetings in Austin, Texas. Dates for the meeting's paper sessions will be March 27 - 31, 1992. The S,K, and T paper sessions will probably be scheduled on Thursday and/or Friday of that week. Unfortunately, the SWSA forgot to include the listing of the "Science, Knowledge, and Technology" section (and a section organizer -- yours truly) in the initial call for papers. This was an oversight, and you may be sure that the section will exist again in '92. The section has only existed for two previous years, but the response has been truly outstanding, and interestingly, excellent papers of common interest were given by scholars as diverse as sociologists, arts and literature faculty, anthropologists, and physical science faculty. If you (or someone you know) would like to participate, I should tell you that I need to send in a list of participants by late October. Consequently, if interested, I would encourage you to call me or FAX a copy of an abstract to me at our earliest opportunity. My phone numbers are: (Home) 817-488-7784 (Office) 817-273-3764 (FAX) 817-794-5008--be sure to put my name and "SOCIOLOGY DEPARTMENT" on any faxed material). I would also like to take this opportunity to draw your attention to a "Workshop for the Disciplines" session I've been asked to organize on Friday morning at 10 a.m. of the meetings. It will be entitled "Postmodern Culture: Convenient Myth or Imperative Paradigm?". This session has several very well known people scheduled for it, and their disciplines include: literature, architecture, political science, and sociology. We should have on hand many individuals interested in most postmodern theory and in chaos theory, as well as many other interesting S, K, and T topics. Hope we will see you in Austin in the spring! 8-Oct-91 15:22:48-GMT,6235;000000000001 Received: from porthos.rutgers.edu by klinzhai.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA15629; Tue, 8 Oct 91 11:22:46 EDT Received: by porthos.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA22386; Tue, 8 Oct 91 11:22:44 EDT Resent-Message-Id: <9110081522.AA22386@porthos.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA00374; Mon, 7 Oct 91 21:00:18 EDT Message-Id: <9110080100.AA00374@aramis.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with BSMTP id 1452; Mon, 07 Oct 91 20:57:00 EDT Received: from NCSUVM.BITNET by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 5968; Mon, 07 Oct 91 20:56:52 EDT Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1991 20:54:44 EDT Reply-To: PMC-Talk Sender: PMC-Talk From: Editors of PMC Subject: Digest for 10/7/91 To: Multiple recipients of list PMC-TALK Resent-To: mcgrew@klinzhai.rutgers.edu Resent-Date: Tue, 8 Oct 91 11:22:43 EDT Resent-From: Charles Mcgrew PMC-TALK digest: postings for the period ending Monday, 07 Oct 1991 PMC-Talk is the discussion group for the electronic journal _Postmodern Culture_. Topics: Announcing Science-Fiction Studies #55 Call for Papers: Cultural Politics in the 90's ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1991 12:40 EST From: ICRONAY@DEPAUW.BITNET Subject: Announcing Science-Fiction Studies #55 Announcing SCIENCE-FICTION STUDIES #55 (Volume 18, number 3 = November 1991) POSTMODERNISM AND SCIENCE FICTION Editorial Introduction: Postmodernism's SF/SF's Postmodernism (ICR) Jean Baudrillard. Two Essays 1. Simulations and Science Fiction 2. Ballard's _Crash_ In Response to Jean Baudrillard (N. Katherine Hayles, David Porush, Brooks Landon, Vivian Sobchack) and to the Invitation to Respond (J.G. Ballard) Christopher Palmer: The Birth of the Author in Philip K. Dick's _Valis_ Scott Bukatman: Postcards from the Posthuman Solar System Roger Luckhurst: Border Policing: Postmodernism and Science Fiction David Porush: Prigogine, Chaos, and Contemporary Science Fiction Istvan Csicsery-Ronay, Jr. The SF of Theory: Baudrillard and Haraway Review Articles: Roy Arthur Swanson. Postmodernist Criticism of Pynchon Peter Ohlin. SF Film Criticism and the Debris of Postmodernism Istvan Csicsery-Ronay, Jr. The McCaffery Interviews Chaos and Culture Gane's Baudrillard New subscribers for 1992 (## 56,57, 58) will receive #55 gratis. RATES: USA $14.00 (institutions $21.00); Canada, CAN$ 15.50 (institutions CAN$ 2400). UK and elsewhere overseas, $16.50 in U.S. funds or L 11.00 sterling (institutions $24.50 in US funds or L 16.50 sterling); for airmail add $6.50 in US funds or L 4.50 sterling. Checks or money orders should be made payable to SF-TH Inc. ADDRESS: SF-TH Inc c/o Arthur B. Evans, East College, DePauw University, Greencastle, IN 46135-0037 USA ----------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 7 Oct 91 17:20 EDT From: "Tom Benson 814-865-4201" Subject: Call for Papers: Cultural Politics in the 90's ***************************************************************** * PLEASE POST PLEASE DISTRIBUTE PLEASE POST * ***************************************************************** CALL FOR CONFERENCE PAPERS MAINSTREAM(S) AND MARGINS: CULTURAL POLITICS IN THE 90'S The Center for the Study of Communication of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst is organizing a conference on "Mainstream(s) and Margins" to be held on APRIL 3, 1992. The purpose of the conference is to link academic case studies and center-margin theoretical debates from a variety of disciplinary perspectives. Research and session topics will include (but are not limited to): * Post-Colonial Theories * Marginalization in the global context * Critical Ethnographies * Nationalism/New Social Movements * Feminist Studies * Pedagogy * North-South/East-West controversies * Methodological issues related to the study of marginalization * New Technologies * Cinema Studies * Cultural Industries The deadline for submission of abstracts (150-300 words) is DECEMBER 1, 1991. Final papers for selected participants will be due in February 1992. Along with the abstract, please indicate your institutional affiliation and status (e.g., faculty or graduate student) and whether you will require audio-visual equipment for your presentation. The day-long conference will be organized as a series of seminars involving scholars, students and researchers from a variety of social disciplines. An edited volume of selected research papers demonstrating the interdisciplinary possibilities of the center- margin discourse is planned. Conference Organizers: * Shakuntala Rao and Susan Leggett Sponsors: * The Center for the Study of Communication, UMass/Amherst - Michael Morgan, Director * The Department of Communication, UMass/Amherst - Jarice Hanson, Chair * Dreamworlds, Inc.: The Foundation for Media Education and Research - Sut Jhally, Director PLEASE SEND ABSTRACTS AND INQUIRIES TO: Mainstream(s) and Margins The Center for the Study of Communication Department of Communication, Machmer Hall University of Massachusetts Amherst, MA 01003 USA Internet : CSC@COMM.UMass.EDU Fax : (413) 545-6399 VoiceMail : (413) 545-2341 (E-mail submissions are encouraged but not required.) ----------------------------------------------------------------- 9-Oct-91 14:34:34-GMT,5282;000000000001 Received: from porthos.rutgers.edu by klinzhai.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA22979; Wed, 9 Oct 91 10:34:25 EDT Received: by porthos.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA19244; Wed, 9 Oct 91 10:34:23 EDT Resent-Message-Id: <9110091434.AA19244@porthos.rutgers.edu> Received: from RUTGERS.EDU by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA29372; Wed, 9 Oct 91 10:02:09 EDT Received: from arthur.cs.purdue.edu by rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA23488; Wed, 9 Oct 91 10:01:58 EDT Received: from Princeton.EDU by arthur.cs.purdue.edu (5.65c/PURDUE_CS-1.2) id ; Wed, 9 Oct 1991 09:01:37 -0500 Received: from clarity.Princeton.EDU by Princeton.EDU (5.65b/2.83/princeton) id AA24405; Wed, 9 Oct 91 10:01:32 -0400 Received: by clarity.Princeton.EDU (4.1/1.110) id AA15947; Wed, 9 Oct 91 10:04:52 EDT Date: Wed, 9 Oct 91 10:04:52 EDT From: Stevan Harnad Message-Id: <9110091404.AA15947@clarity.Princeton.EDU> To: @vm.cc.purdue.edu:lstown-l@indycms.BITNET (Bitnet List Owners), moderators@cs.purdue.edu Subject: Refereed Electronic Journals: Priorities Resent-To: mcgrew@klinzhai.rutgers.edu Resent-Date: Wed, 9 Oct 91 10:34:22 EDT Resent-From: Charles Mcgrew Because there is a continuum from moderated electronic lists to refereed electronic journals, I am reposting this to the Usenet and Bitnet listowners. (There is a minor revision from the draft originally posted on arachnet and aesj-l in that "high profile" replaces "major commercial," which may not have been technically the correct descriptor. -- Stevan Harnad ------ -- Date: Tue, 8 Oct 91 21:02:39 EDT -- From: Stevan Harnad -- To: PACS-L%UHUPVM1.BITNET@UACSC2.ALBANY.EDU -- Subject: Refereed Electronic Journals: Priorities... -- Cc: AESJ-L@ALBNYVM1.BITNET (Assoc El Sch Jnls), -- arachnet@uottawa.bitnet (Arachnet, EJ list) -- > Comments: Originally-From: "D. A. Thomas" > Subject: Library managment of online journal > > A message [from AAAS] appeared in PACS-L on Sept. 25, concerning the > upcoming "Online Journal of Current Clinical Trials", to be released in > April 1992. > > True, there are other online journals, but seemingly none of the > scope of the aforementioned. In an article in "The New York > Times", Wednesday, September 25, 1991, Lawrence K. Altman states, > "Unlike other electronic communications, this will be the first > whose contributions will be screened by fellow experts before > appearing on the computer screen." > ... [passages deleted] > 1. The library may, of course, subscribe at $110 per year. > ... > Has anyone else asked, "What are the implications of this online > publication?" I'm curious to read your comments. > > --D. A. Thomas > Director of Education/Reference Librarian > Archie Dykes Library > University of Kansas Medical Center > Kansas City, Kansas 66103 The implications of refereed electronic journals are (at least in my view) nothing short of revolutionary. I fervently hope that the revolution will be hastened, not retarded, by the fact that the first high profile venture in this domain has chosen to regard the early days of the new medium as a "race" (as described in the recent Chronicle of Higher Education article), and one in which they were the first, when in reality other peer-reviewed electronic journals have pre-dated both that AAAS journal and the (inconsequentially) earlier, likewise peer-reviewed electronic journal, PSYCOLOQUY, co-edited by Perry London and myself, sponsored by the APA (American Psychological Association), and available to libraries and individuals for free. As a start on the literature about the scholarly implications, priorities and precursors of the new medium, you might try: Harnad S. (1991, forthcoming) Interactive Publication: Extending the American Physical Society's Discipline-Specific Model for Electronic Publishing. Serials Review (Special Issue on Economic Models for Electronic Publishing). Harnad, S. (1991) Post-Gutenberg Galaxy: The Fourth Revolution in the Means of Production of Knowledge. Public-Access Computer Systems (PACS) Review 2 (1) Special Section on "Electronic Serials on Bitnet." Harnad, S. (1990) Scholarly Skywriting and the Prepublication Continuum of Scientific Inquiry. Psychological Science 1: 342 - 343. Harnad, S. (1986) Reviewing the Reviewers. Review of S. Lock, A difficult balance: Peer review in biomedical publication, Nature. Harnad, S. (1985) Rational disgreement in peer review. Science, Technology and Human Values 10: 55 - 62. Harnad, S. (1984) Commentary on Garfield: Anthropology journals: What they cite and what cites them. Current Anthropology 25: 521 - 522. Harnad, S. (1984) Commentaries, opinions and the growth of scientific knowledge. American Psychologist 39: 1497 - 1498. Harnad, S. (ed.) (1982) Peer commentary on peer review: A case study in scientific quality control. New York: Cambridge University Press. Harnad, S. (1979) Creative disagreement. The Sciences. 19: 18 - 20. ---------------------------------------------- Stevan Harnad Behavioral & Brain Sciences 20 Nassau Street, Rm 240 Princeton NJ 08542 9-Oct-91 17:35:38-GMT,1770;000000000001 Received: from porthos.rutgers.edu by klinzhai.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA24157; Wed, 9 Oct 91 13:35:35 EDT Received: by porthos.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA21652; Wed, 9 Oct 91 13:35:32 EDT Resent-Message-Id: <9110091735.AA21652@porthos.rutgers.edu> Received: from RUTGERS.EDU by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA06951; Wed, 9 Oct 91 11:10:49 EDT Received: from arthur.cs.purdue.edu by rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA01844; Wed, 9 Oct 91 11:10:39 EDT Received: from STI.COM by arthur.cs.purdue.edu (5.65c/PURDUE_CS-1.2) id ; Wed, 9 Oct 1991 10:10:24 -0500 Received: by sti.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA17564; Wed, 9 Oct 91 08:06:40 PDT Message-Id: <9110091506.AA17564@sti.com> From: dgreen@sti.com Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1991 08:06:39 -0700 In-Reply-To: Stevan Harnad "Refereed Electronic Journals: Priorities" (Oct 9, 10:04am) X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.2 4/12/91) To: Stevan Harnad , moderators@cs.purdue.edu Subject: Re: Refereed Electronic Journals: Priorities Resent-To: mcgrew@klinzhai.rutgers.edu Resent-Date: Wed, 9 Oct 91 13:35:31 EDT Resent-From: Charles Mcgrew Stevan Harnad wrote: | As a start on the literature about the scholarly implications, | priorities and precursors of the new medium, you might try: | [Harnad refs] Or: D.R. Greening and A.D. Wexelblat, "Experiences with Cooperative Moderation of a USENET Newsgroup,~ Proceedings of the 1989 ACM/IEEE Workshop on Applied Computing, 1989. -- ____ \ /Dan Greening Software Transformation 1601 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd, #100 \/dgreen@sti.com (408) 973-8081 x313 Cupertino, CA 95014 9-Oct-91 23:05:42-GMT,4218;000000000001 Received: from porthos.rutgers.edu by klinzhai.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA27648; Wed, 9 Oct 91 19:05:36 EDT Received: by porthos.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA25561; Wed, 9 Oct 91 19:05:35 EDT Resent-Message-Id: <9110092305.AA25561@porthos.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA24753; Wed, 9 Oct 91 16:59:20 EDT Message-Id: <9110092059.AA24753@aramis.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with BSMTP id 5634; Wed, 09 Oct 91 16:54:52 EDT Received: from NCSUVM.BITNET by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 6193; Wed, 09 Oct 91 16:54:38 EDT Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1991 16:49:24 EDT Reply-To: PMC-Talk Sender: PMC-Talk From: Editors of PMC Subject: Abstracts for three essays available from PMC-TALK To: Multiple recipients of list PMC-TALK Resent-To: mcgrew@klinzhai.rutgers.edu Resent-Date: Wed, 9 Oct 91 19:05:34 EDT Resent-From: Charles Mcgrew The following are abstracts for three essays by Tom Bridges (Dept. of Philosophy and Religious Studies, Montclair State), now available from PMC-TALK. The filename and filetype for each essay is given in uppercase letters before the title of the essay. To retrieve any of the essays, send a mail message to LISTSERV@NCSUVM (Bitnet) or LISTSERV@NCSUVM.CC.NCSU.EDU (internet) with the text GET [filename filetype] PMC-TALK F=MAIL Note that there should be no blank lines or spaces before this text, and no other text (except other GET requests, each on a separate line) after it. If you have problems retrieving the files you want, let us know. Thanks very much to Tom Bridges for making these essays available; we hope you will read them and respond. --John Unsworth * * * * * * * * * * BRIDGES ESSAY1: Multiculturalism as a Postmodernist Project Multiculturalism means many different things to many different people. Among the various interpretations of multiculturalism are those that see it as part of a postmodernist cultural agenda. What precisely is the relationship between multiculturalism and postmodernism? This essay attempts to define that relationship. It argues that the logic of multiculturalism carries us beyond Enlightenment liberal conceptions of cultural pluralism toward a postmodern redefinition and reconstruction of the cultural boundaries of the public sphere. BRIDGES ESSAY2: Modern Political Theory and the Multivocity of Postmodern Critical Discourses This essay denies the claim advanced by Christopher Norris and others that radical criticism of the economic and political status quo requires appeal to Enlightenment conceptions of reason and truth. I argue that the totalizing character of political theory based upon those modernist conceptions now tends to nullify the effect of critical political discourse rather than enhance it. Totalizing political theories claiming privileged cognitive status are now too culturally congruent with totalizing cultural and political institutions that must be criticized. To counter those totalizing institutions, critical political discourse today must be multifaceted and multivocal. This entails the abandonment of totalizing conceptions of political theory that appeal to Enlightenment conceptions of reason and truth. BRIDGES ESSAY3: Objectivity, Nihilism and Civic Rationality This essay addresses three concerns often expressed about the implications of postmodern culture: (1) its apparent denial of objective truth, (2) its apparent embrace of a nihilistic skepticism about moral values and (3) its damaging effect on the coherence and integrity of the college curriculum. I argue that the phenomena these concerns have as their focus are produced not by postmodernist cultural developments, but rather by the inherent logic of modernist culture. In each case, postmodernism represents the first steps toward a positive response to the problem rather than its cause. 25-Oct-91 2:30:04-GMT,11642;000000000001 Received: from porthos.rutgers.edu by klinzhai.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA27605; Thu, 24 Oct 91 22:30:01 EDT Received: by porthos.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA03344; Thu, 24 Oct 91 22:30:00 EDT Resent-Message-Id: <9110250230.AA03344@porthos.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA15670; Thu, 24 Oct 91 19:58:36 EDT Message-Id: <9110242358.AA15670@aramis.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with BSMTP id 5297; Thu, 24 Oct 91 19:54:12 EDT Received: from NCSUVM.BITNET by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 4958; Thu, 24 Oct 91 19:54:04 EDT Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1991 19:30:15 EDT Reply-To: PMC-Talk Sender: PMC-Talk From: Editors of PMC Subject: Digest ending 10/24/91 To: Multiple recipients of list PMC-TALK Resent-To: mcgrew@klinzhai.rutgers.edu Resent-Date: Thu, 24 Oct 91 22:29:58 EDT Resent-From: Charles Mcgrew PMC-TALK digest: postings for the period ending Thursday, 24 Oct 1991 PMC-Talk is the discussion group for the electronic journal _Postmodern Culture_. Topics: Call for Graduate Student Papers Call for papers: NYIT Fifth-Annual Computer Conference Digest for 9/28/91 (re: Tenney) AM I ON THE LIST OR WHAT? ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 18 Oct 91 00:50:32 EDT From: matsuba@Writer.YorkU.CA Subject: Call for Graduate Student Papers 00000000000000000000000000 RD: Graduate Research in the Arts 00000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000 A CALL FOR PAPERS AND READERS 00000000000000000000000000 00000000:::::::::::0000000 RD: GRADUATE RESEARCH IN THE ARTS is a refereed 000000: DDDDD:000000 journal dedicated to publishing the work of 0000: DDDDDDD:0000 graduate scholars in the Arts. It provides an 000: RRRRR D DD:000 appropriate forum for their scholarly work and a 00: R R D DDDD DD:00 collective voice for their issues and interests. 0: RRRRR D DDDDD DD:0 0: R R D DDDDD DD:0 Papers for RD are now being solicited from 00: R R D DDDD D:000 graduate students in the Arts, Fine Arts, and 000: R R D DD:000 Humanities in any of the following areas: 0000: DDDDDDD:0000 * language, literature and other 00000::: DDDD:::00000 artifacts/artefacts 0000000::::::::::::0000000 * constructions of the self, gender, 00000000000000000000000000 class and race 00000000000000000000000000 * the academy itself and its institutional 00000000000000000000000000 imperatives. 00000000000000000000000000 Multidisciplinary and collaborative work is encouraged. Address two copies of each paper to the editors with a SASE and proof of current enrollment in a graduate programme (for instance, photocopy of a student card or letter from the programme). Submissions can also be sent on disk (DOS or Macintosh format) or by e-mail. If you intend to send papers by e-mail, please contact the editors to receive guidelines for indicating foreign or special characters and italics. All submissions should conform to the _MLA Style Manual_. RD is also presently accepting applications from graduate students to act as readers of papers. Volunteers should include a CV, or a brief summary of their scholarly work and publications. DEADLINES: Submissions for RD 1 (Spring 1992) must be postmarked by 15 December 1991. Submissions for RD 2 (Fall 1992) will be accepted until 31 August 1992. SUBSCRIPTIONS: 1 Year 2 Years Student $16.00 $30.00 Individual/Institution $24.00 $44.00 Please add 7% for GST. Made checks payable to RD. Individuals who have access to e-mail can receive electronic versions of the journal free of charge by sending their name, status (student, faculty, other) and e-mail address to the editors. ADDRESS: Editors, RD York University c/o Graduate Programme in English 215 Stong College 4700 Keele Street North York, Ontario CANADA M3J 1P3 bitnet: RD@WRITER YORKU.CA EDITORS: Stephen N. Matsuba Rod Lohin EDITORIAL BOARD: Clint Burnham Cecily Devereux Mark Dineen Gayle Irwin Sherry Rowley Glenn Stillar Scott Wright =============================================================================== ******SUBSCRIPTION FORM****** RD: Graduate Research in the Art RD will be published twice per year (Spring and Fall), beginning in 1992. Subscriptions: One Year Two Year Student __$16.00 __$30.00 Individual or Institution __$24.00 __$44.00 Number of copies __1 __2 ___ Please add 7% for GST in Canada; other countries pay in US Funds. Name:__________________________________________________________________ Address:_______________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ City:_________________________________ Province/State:________________ Country:______________________________ Postal/Zip Code:________________ Cheque enclosed $________________________________ Bill me:____________ ----------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1991 07:15:26 EDT From: BITNET%"R0MILL01@ULKYVX.BITNET" Robert Royar (C&CD Moderator) Subject: Call for papers: NYIT Fifth-Annual Computer Conference Organization: Department of English, New York Institute of Technology Please Post and Circulate _____________________________________________________________________________ | CALL FOR PAPERS | | | | LITERATURE, COMPUTERS AND WRITING: | | | | FORGING CONNECTIONS IN THE HIGH SCHOOL | | | | AND COLLEGE ENGLISH CLASSROOMS | | | | April 3, 1992 | |_____________________________________________________________________________| The fifth annual Computers and English Conference for high school and college teachers of writing. Sponsored by the Program in English New York Institute of Technology The conference has two primary themes: o how computers and specifically computer networks can be used to ally high school and college teachers of English, and o how computers are changing the way literature is created, taught, understood and written about. You are invited to propose presentations and panel discussions that stimulate thinking about the many ways literature, computers and writing can be related in and between high school and college English classrooms. Please forward a brief abstract of either a demonstration of exercises (no longer than five minutes) or an argument (ten to fifteen minutes long). Along with your name, school affiliation, address, and daytime phone number, be sure to specify any equipment your presentation requires (number and kind of computers, type of software, etc.) Possible Topics o Computer access in a muliticultural environment o Computers and the changing definitions of literacy o Growing interest in desktop publishing for students and faculty o Teleconferencing and distance learning o Classroom uses of on-line databases and searches o Classroom uses of hypertext and hypermedia o Computer discussion groups for students and/or teachers o Varied features of personal contact in an electronic environment o Computers and the learning-disabled student o Continuing teacher education and telecommunications o Demonstrations of software programs you have designed o Effects of computers on testing and assessing individually or collaboratively composed writing The submission deadline is January 15, 1992. Notification of acceptance is February 7, 1992. Send proposals and requests for information to Department of English New York Institute of Technology Old Westbury, New York 11568 Att: Ann McLaughlin (516) 686-7557. O / \ / =========================== X ================================================ / \ O \ Conference Fee: $50.00 (prior to conference date) $35.00 for matriculated graduate students. Fee includes coffee and buffet luncheon. Hotel accomodations available near campus at East Norwich Inn (East Norwich, NY). _____________________________________________________________________________ |Pre-Registration Form | | | | Please register me for the Fifth-Annual NYIT Computers and Writing | | Conference: | | | | Name: ______________________________________________________________ | | Address: ______________________________________________________________ | | ______________________________________________________________ | | ______________________________________________________________ | | E-Mail: ______________________________________________________________ | | School: ______________________________________________________________ | | Amount Enclosed: $ ___.___ | | Mail completed form to | | Department of English | | New York Institute of Technology | | Old Westbury, New York 11568 | | Att: Ann McLaughlin (516) 686-7557. | |_____________________________________________________________________________| ------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 21 Oct 1991 20:29 EST From: KIRSHENBLATT@NYUACF.BITNET Subject: Re: Digest for 9/28/91 To Tenney: try Bourdieu's Distinction. Just a guess. BKG ----------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 24 Oct 91 12:08:09 EST From: JIM OSPENSON Subject: AM I ON THE LIST OR WHAT? I WOULD LIKE TO ENGAGE IN DISCOURSE WITH THE LIST MEMBERS. THOUGH EPHEMERAL, I WOULD LIKE TO MEET MY NEIGHBORS BEFORE THE APARTMENT HOUSE BURNS DOWN. ----------------------------------------------------------------- 7-Nov-91 16:53:50-GMT,8529;000000000001 Received: from porthos.rutgers.edu by klinzhai.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA22970; Thu, 7 Nov 91 11:53:46 EST Received: by porthos.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA07086; Thu, 7 Nov 91 11:53:42 EST Resent-Message-Id: <9111071653.AA07086@porthos.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA01381; Wed, 6 Nov 91 23:01:45 EST Message-Id: <9111070401.AA01381@aramis.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with BSMTP id 4094; Wed, 06 Nov 91 22:59:31 EST Received: from NCSUVM.BITNET by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 1535; Wed, 06 Nov 91 22:59:21 EST Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1991 22:56:57 EST Reply-To: PMC-Talk Sender: PMC-Talk From: Editors of PMC Subject: Digest ending 11/6/91 To: Multiple recipients of list PMC-TALK Resent-To: mcgrew@klinzhai.rutgers.edu Resent-Date: Thu, 7 Nov 91 11:53:41 EST Resent-From: Charles Mcgrew PMC-TALK digest: postings for the period ending Wednesday, 06 Nov 1991 PMC-Talk is the discussion group for the electronic journal _Postmodern Culture_. Topics: Pseudonymns on PMC-TALK Defining "culture" re: the "end" of Pomo practicing politcs 900 NUMBERS AND TV SHOWS ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 3 Nov 91 21:20:46 EST From: Eric.Rabkin@um.cc.umich.edu I'm sure our colleague/editors, in whose debt I genuinely believe us to be, thought long and hard about the decision to allow people, including "designated instigators," to use pseudonyms. In my view, however, they have come to the wrong conclusion. I may not know who Mx. A. B. is, but I like to know that I can find Mx. A. B. if I wish to, that Mx. A. B. has a whole life and is not just some disconnected persona created for the purpose of playing games on PMC. On the ground that my time is too valuable to waste with all the incoming clutter in the world, I often use return addresses as a guide. If I see mail coming from someone selling renter's insurance, since I don't rent, I chuck it unread. If I find unsigned blurbs in my campus mailbox, on the ground that this blurb forestalls honest interchange and hence violates one of my principles as a member of the university community, I don't give it my reading time. I realize that everyone has always had the ability to register on PMC with a pseudonym, but people also have the ability to lie through their teeth. In neither case would I want that encouraged. In our Post Modern Culture, it's often hard enough for some people to keep a firm grip on one identity. Why ask for trouble? I hope the editors will reverse their decision and I hope that other subscribers will let the editors and the rest of us know, one way or the other, how they feel about encouraging pseudonymous participation. Eric Rabkin esrabkin@umichum.bitnet Department of English esrabkin@um.cc.umich.edu University of Michigan office: 313-764-2553 Ann Arbor MI 48109-1045 dept : 313-764-6330 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 4 Nov 91 09:47:30 GMT From: "C. David Frankel 904-588-8395" Subject: Digest ending 11/1/91 Would anyone care to argue the point the the use of the term "culture" in such contexts as "dominant culture," "Western culture," "minority or ethnic (fill inwith your favorite) culture," and so on needs definition, in particular an undestanding of the historical development of the concept? In these times of raging debates about "cultural diversity," shouldn't some time be spent on first principles? (And I hope no one will suggest that to ask such questions is, in itself, the maunderings of a not-quite DWEM). Yours postmo-dernly. | BITNET: D7BAIAD@CFRVM INTERNET: D7BAIAD@CFRVM.CFR.USF.EDU ----------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 05 Nov 91 11:27:20 ET From: "a. walters" Subject: Re: Digest ending 11/1/91 dear mf, if we are at our end, we must assume linear time. do other times have be ginnings and ends? maybe we are at a particular point in a cycle (that is if w e are organic time fans.) or perhaps we are at some level in a conceptual time -construct. (that is for the structuralists among us.) what options do we have other than beginnings and ends? daria says time is circular, not cyclical. t he difference eludes me. it cannot be over if has never begun. perhaps postmo dernism is a response that has now been responded-to. yes. but that does not necessarily indicate that the dialogue is over. response? P.s. daria says it is not cyclical because it is whole. arw. p.p.s. where is foley from? ----------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 06 Nov 91 12:48:14 ET From: "a. walters" Subject: practicing politcs dear other, it occurs to me that we postmodern enthusiasts might enjoy a discussion of political practice. call it the post-election reflection. is it possible for postmodern theory to be practiced in the governmenal ar ena? is the idea of liberty a capitalist ideology designed to subjugate the ma sses or is it a valuable political principle? if we "degenerate" into anarchy , have we "degenerated?" it dawns on me that the "problem" with the current situation is not that w e need new laws to straighten out our world, but that we have too many laws. w e have so many laws that they have lost their meaning in a quagmire of tangled discourses. we are so legislated, so regulated that we have no way to digest o r make meaning of it all. people are numb under the burden of endless rules. what do you think? arw ----------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 06 Nov 91 13:27:42 EST From: JIM OSPENSON Subject: 900 NUMBERS AND TV SHOWS I'm doing some research on TV shows built around 900 numbers, and the use of 9 00 numbers with tv shows. I'm interested in 'dating' shows in which the audien ce can call and leave messages for the 'contestants', more starighhtforrward se x-talk shows, (on the east coast at least, Jessica Hahn is a superstar), and th e more mundane uses in which viewers can 'vote' on issues such as the most popu lar rock star, or whether cnn viewers agree/disgree with a particular question. This is for a course in _Communication Aesthetics_ at Temple Univ, and I am a g rad student (MFA) in film and Tv. I intend to do a close reading of a tv text of one of these shows, using Richard Ohmann, "History & literary History" in Na remore & Brantlinger, eds. MODERNITY & MASS CULTURE, as a model. Other readin g which have interested me are Hebdige, HIDING IN THE LIGHT, and Ewen, ALL CONS UMING IMAGES, especially the sections on the motorscooter, and Form Follows Val ue/Power. These are quite good on problematizing the difference between production & consumption, and the insubstantialiity of products in an informati on economy, and the regimentation of the body and corprate identity. Also, I' ve found Peter Wollens article 'Cinema/Americanism/the Robot" also in MODERNITY & MASS CULTURE very helpful. I am interested in the problems of this kind of consumption: with respect to v oting on the most popular, is this a form of democracy? What is being consumed here, exactly? Is the caller of suuch a program exhibiting the kind of schizo phrenia F. Jameson describes in 'Post-Modernism and Consumer Society' in H. Fos ters' THE ANTI-AESTHETIC? Such a caller is giving away a double pay ment of information and the n.nn dollars a minute, since the receivers of such calls routinely use caller id to determine the calling phone number, and can ea sily cross reference name, address, zip, and perhaps begin to develop a kind of purchasing signature that makes future marketing efforts easier (cf Toffler, PO WERSHIFT), etc, etc, etc. FINALLY, I am looking for critical resources to such an endeavor. Could people send me private e-mail, or post it on the list if its appropriate ? thanks very, JIM OSPENSON ----------------------------------------------------------------- 7-Nov-91 19:43:15-GMT,3721;000000000001 Received: from porthos.rutgers.edu by klinzhai.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA25611; Thu, 7 Nov 91 14:43:13 EST Received: by porthos.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA09484; Thu, 7 Nov 91 14:43:10 EST Resent-Message-Id: <9111071943.AA09484@porthos.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA21893; Thu, 7 Nov 91 01:47:13 EST Message-Id: <9111070647.AA21893@aramis.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with BSMTP id 4225; Thu, 07 Nov 91 01:38:55 EST Received: from NCSUVM.BITNET by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 2681; Thu, 07 Nov 91 01:38:20 EST Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1991 01:25:09 EST Reply-To: Editors of PMC Sender: Postmodern Culture From: Editors of PMC Subject: announcing: PMC Electronic Text Award To: Multiple recipients of list PMC-LIST Resent-To: mcgrew@klinzhai.rutgers.edu Resent-Date: Thu, 7 Nov 91 14:43:02 EST Resent-From: Charles Mcgrew Please redistribute. --The Editors ______________________________________________________________ | | | PMC ELECTRONIC TEXT AWARD | | | | $500 | | | | _Postmodern Culture_ is happy to announce the first annual | | PMC Electronic Text Award. Each year the editorial board | | of _Postmodern Culture_ will choose an outstanding critical | | and/or creative work published in the journal. The author | | of this work will receive $500. | | | | _Postmodern Culture_ offers this prize to encourage | | new work in the field of postmodernism and to promote the | | use of electronic media in scholarly and literary | | publishing. | | | | Essays and creative work may be submitted to the journal | | in print, on disk, or by electronic mail. Submissions | | sent by postal mail should be addressed to: | | | | The Editors | | _Postmodern Culture_ | | Box 8105 | | NCSU | | Raleigh, NC 27695-8105 | | | | Submissions by electronic mail should be addressed to: | | | | PMC@NCSUVM (Bitnet) | | PMC@NCSUVM.CC.NCSU.EDU (Internet) | | | | If you know writers who are doing interesting critical or | | creative work in the area of postmodernism but who do not | | subscribe to _Postmodern Culture_ and/or do not use | | electronic mail, please encourage them to send work for | | consideration in whatever format is most convenient. | | | -------------------------------------------------------------- 8-Nov-91 14:43:55-GMT,6582;000000000001 Received: from porthos.rutgers.edu by klinzhai.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA05816; Fri, 8 Nov 91 14:43:53 EST Received: by porthos.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA26464; Fri, 8 Nov 91 14:43:45 EST Resent-Message-Id: <9111081943.AA26464@porthos.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA27326; Thu, 7 Nov 91 21:42:42 EST Message-Id: <9111080242.AA27326@aramis.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with BSMTP id 6886; Thu, 07 Nov 91 21:41:17 EST Received: from NCSUVM.BITNET by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 4215; Thu, 07 Nov 91 21:41:10 EST Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1991 21:36:49 EST Reply-To: PMC-Talk Sender: PMC-Talk From: Editors of PMC Subject: Digest ending 11/7/91 To: Multiple recipients of list PMC-TALK Resent-To: mcgrew@klinzhai.rutgers.edu Resent-Date: Fri, 8 Nov 91 14:43:44 EST Resent-From: Charles Mcgrew PMC-TALK digest: postings for the period ending Thursday, 07 Nov 1991 PMC-Talk is the discussion group for the electronic journal _Postmodern Culture_. Topics: Re: pseudonymns on PMC-TALK oops Re: defining "culture" Re: Pseudonymns on PMC-Talk ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 6 Nov 91 20:58 PST From: abosse@reed.edu (Arno Bosse) Subject: Re: Digest ending 11/6/91 I agree with Eric Rabkin re: his comments on psuedonyms. I suspect that the motivation behind the use of a psuedonym has less to do with a wish for anonymity, than a desire to draw attention to an assumed personage through the use of an invented name. Its not that difficult to find out more about a person's login via the 'finger' command (and nslookup..) so I can't see how it can be a case of protecting someones identity. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 6 Nov 91 21:01 PST From: abosse@reed.edu (Arno Bosse) Subject: Re: Digest ending 11/6/91 ....somewhat ironically, I forgot to add my name to my last (incomplete) message. Now what does that tell you? with apologies, Arno Bosse Reed College, Portland, OR 97202 abosse@reed.edu ----------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 07 Nov 91 10:03 PST From: Kirshenblatt-Gimblett 213-458-9811 Subject: Re: Digest ending 11/6/91 RE: David Frankel's query about the use of the term culture. There's lots of good material to work with for the purposes of refreshing the discussion--where to start? Kroeber and Kluckhohn's collection of definitions in their book (the title escapes me--"Culture"?), Raymond Williams (starting but by no means ending with "Keywords"), the whole and heated debate in Europe and the USA during the interwar years and then the Cold War on mass culture--and the spinoff concepts (see the Partisan Review, the anthology of articles from the journal, and the reader "Mass Culture), as well as the reexamination of these debates of late by Andrew Ross ("No Respect"), and in the pages of what are now many journals interest ed in such problems and moving in a direction loosely defined as Cultural Studies as well as periodicals in established fields: Public Culture; Social Text; Cultural Studies; Media, Culture, and Society; Representations, Journal of American Folklore, Cultural Anthropology, October, Critical Inquiry, and the artmags, specially Artforum. Sorry for the "run-on" sentence, if that is what it is. BKG ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1991 From: Editors of PMC Subject: Pseudonymns on PMC-TALK I appreciate the reasons that Messrs. Rabkin and Bosse have given for objecting to the use of pseudonymns on PMC-Talk, and I don't think that Eyal and I are committed to this, but I would like to explain what our reasoning was in making the proposal. First, we thought that it might be interesting to have someone take the role of D.I., on a rotating basis: the purpose of this part of the proposal was simply to liven up discussion on the list. I suppose we're still not used to the ebb and flow of network discussion lists--in the last couple of days, several new threads have been introduced here, and I hope to see things pick up again. M. Foley to the contrary, there is plenty to talk about in the area of postmodernism, and we have several hundred people on this list who are interested in the subject, so we thought that perhaps what we needed was a conversational host. Rather than dominate that position ourselves, we felt it might be a good idea to have list members do the honors. As for the proposal that the D.I. be an optionally anonymous position, we felt that list members might be inhibited by not knowing who would be _reading_ their messages: this list has a largely academic audience, and it might be somewhat threatening for a D.I. (or any other list member, for that matter) to take a provocative role or, on the other hand, to ask questions--however genuine--which betray ignorance. Up to now, subscribers have *not* been allowed to subscribe under pseudonymns, but we thought that if the D.I. were to be given this right, others should be as well. We did include in the original notice a caveat about flame-control, but that doesn't address Eric Rabkin's concerns. Mr. Rabkin is afraid that this new policy will encourage game-playing; I'm not sure that would happen, but I suppose we can't know in advance. He also prefers mail with return addresses so he can evaluate its relevance to him (cf the renter's insurance example)--I'm not sure that return addresses actually fulfill that function, for me at least, in the e-mail environment: I can't tell whether a message will be of interest based on who sent it. I do sometimes want to track down the author of a posting, and for that reason the return address and real name is useful, but readers of PMC-Talk would be able to go through us to reach the D.I. privately. I'll admit that I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea of anonymous users on the list, though, and I'd like to hear from PMC-Talk subscribers on this issue; I'd also like to hear any other comments, criticisms, or ideas about the way the list is run. John Unsworth ----------------------------------------------------------------- 11-Nov-91 17:29:41-GMT,8251;000000000001 Received: from porthos.rutgers.edu by klinzhai.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA04917; Mon, 11 Nov 91 12:29:30 EST Received: by porthos.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA05839; Mon, 11 Nov 91 12:29:27 EST Resent-Message-Id: <9111111729.AA05839@porthos.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA04108; Fri, 8 Nov 91 19:37:28 EST Message-Id: <9111090037.AA04108@aramis.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with BSMTP id 9314; Fri, 08 Nov 91 19:35:52 EST Received: from NCSUVM.BITNET by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 2492; Fri, 08 Nov 91 19:35:43 EST Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1991 19:33:25 EST Reply-To: PMC-Talk Sender: PMC-Talk From: Editors of PMC Subject: Digest ending 11/8/91 To: Multiple recipients of list PMC-TALK Status: O Resent-To: mcgrew@klinzhai.rutgers.edu Resent-Date: Mon, 11 Nov 91 12:29:26 EST Resent-From: Charles Mcgrew PMC-TALK digest: postings for the period ending Friday, 08 Nov 1991 PMC-Talk is the discussion group for the electronic journal _Postmodern Culture_. Topics: Pseudonymns Pseudonymns Pseudonymns seeking Center for Text and Technology Postmodernism and absolute truth ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 07 Nov 91 20:46 PST From: Kirshenblatt-Gimblett 213-458-9811 Subject: Re: Digest ending 11/7/91 John: On pseudonym question. I would be happier with pen names. That is, a combination of the persona afforded by a "pseudonym" and the person indicated by the actual name. I am not happy with secrecy, concealed identities, etc., particularly on the part of a provocateur, and in an electronic context where it is hard enough as it is to flesh out the E-mailID. So let's know who's who while at the same time allowing those who wish to do so create a persona for the purposes of a role like Designated Instigator. That persona does not require that the person's identity be concealed. If concealment is the purpose, I am against it. BKG ----------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 8 November 91, 00:12:40 EST From: R12040 at UQAM After reading the notes from Rabkin and Bosse, followed by an explanation from our editor Unsworth, on the matter of using pseudonyms, I have the impression that there is a wide range of ideas (pro/con opinions, implications, conclusions, assumptions, justifications, etc.) about pseudonyms, ideas which surely go well beyond the matter of e-mail logins. Perhaps there are others who find this topic of interest? Broadly, I can imagine those who, taking a Hobbesian point of view, assume that use of a pseudonym presupposes a nefarious intent. Or possibly, there is a Rousseauian perspective, to wit, a pseudonym is a device that allows the natural or nobler part to express itself. Or pseudonyms could be alter egos which are ordinarily masked by one's given names. Whatever one thinks of pseudonyms, it can be defended that names play a central role in language, cognition and culture. They arouse emotions as easily as quickly as they arouse memories. I suspect that because names are so important to us, pseudonyms carry the same linguistic, cognitive and cultural baggage. I have more thoughts on this topic but I would first like to find out if others on the list share my interest. (laissez vide pour un nom de plume) ----------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 8 Nov 91 11:52 EST From: Subject: Re: Digest ending 11/6/91 I understand Eric Rabkin's concerns about promoting the use of pseudonyms on PM C-TALK. Why should people feel the need to hide behind false names if they tak e at all seriously what they have to say? Psuedonyms may just encourage people to use PMC-TALK as a float any random idea that passes through their heads, a p rospect that would make me less interested in reading PMC-TALK. There are plen ty of bulletin boards available for those who want the freedom to say anything. Why should PMC-TALK become another forum for nonsense? Pseudonymity bespeaks a fear of retaliation, a condition I would hope all subscribers to PMC-TALK wou ld like to minimize, rather than encourage. I'd suggest that a dialogue instig ator be designated off the system (by phone or mail). The DI would not be kno wn to other subscribers to PMC-TALK, who would then respond to the DI's ideas o r not. If there is little response, then the ideas aren't working. If there i s great response, fine. Though pseudonymity may encourage freedom and uninhibi tedness, I think the more likely result is that it will encourage the proliferation of random fantasies, paranoid rambli ngs, and items whose sole purpose is to fill up the screen. Despite post-moder nism's attack on the idea of the unified self, there is merit in the idea of ag ents being connected with actions. Pseudonymity promotes their disconnection. Should PMC-TALK promote such disconnection? I do not think so, but am willing to listen to arguments on the other side. Perhaps the very suggestion to have a DI is already fulfilling the function of a DI? Perhaps the Editors should t hemselves be the DI, every now and then raising an issue like that of a DI in o rder to spark discussion about the political ramifications of PMC-TALk's proced ures, and those of other Bulletin boards. Tom Smith TRS8 at PSUVM. BITNET TRS8 at psuvm.psu.edu (Internet) ----------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 08 Nov 91 12:33:36 ET From: "a. walters" Subject: seeking dear other, daria says the critical question is, "whom do we seek?" a. walters ----------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1991 13:56 EST From: Jim Wilderotter -- Georgetown Center for Text and Technology Subject: Center for Text and Technology Electronic Text Project Catalogue Since April 1989, the Center for Text and Technology of the Academic Computer Center at Georgetown University has been compiling information about projects in electronic text in the humanities. Currently we have details on over 300 projects in 27 countries. Because this information is constantly being updated, any printing would be obsolescent. Consequently, we have created an on-line Catalogue that is searchable through Internet and dial-in access. Thus far, response has been gratifying; last month we logged over 100 inquiries. An illustrated User's Guide to the Catalogue of Projects in Electronic Text is available free of charge through surface mail. In addition, a public-domain version of KERMIT and a keyboard- mapping program can be obtained through file transfer protocol (ftp). For further information, please contact me personally at the address below, rather than sending to the list. James A. Wilderotter II Project Assistant Center for Text and Technology Academic Computer Center Reiss Science Building, Room 238 Georgetown University Washington, DC 20057 Tel. (202) 687-6096 BITNET: Wilder@Guvax Internet: Edu%"Wilder@Guvax.Georgetown.Edu" ----------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 8 Nov 91 16:38:46 EST From: sasefj@dev.sas.com I am reading an article which states: "A society enters the postmodern age when it loses faith in absolute truth--even the attempt to discover absolute truth. The great systems of thought like religions, ideologies, and philosophies come to be regarded as 'social constructions of reality.'" (_The Family Therapy Networker_, Sept/Oct 1991) Is the loss of faith in absolute truth the correct test for determining whether a society has entered the post- modern era? edie ----------------------------------------------------------------- 18-Nov-91 2:10:43-GMT,3617;000000000001 Received: from porthos.rutgers.edu by klinzhai.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA02615; Sun, 17 Nov 91 21:10:37 EST Received: by porthos.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA10384; Sun, 17 Nov 91 21:10:36 EST Resent-Message-Id: <9111180210.AA10384@porthos.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA24696; Thu, 14 Nov 91 20:11:06 EST Message-Id: <9111150111.AA24696@aramis.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with BSMTP id 1347; Thu, 14 Nov 91 20:09:29 EST Received: from NCSUVM.BITNET by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 2806; Thu, 14 Nov 91 20:09:24 EST Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1991 20:06:34 EST Reply-To: PMC-Talk Sender: PMC-Talk From: Editors of PMC Subject: Digest ending 11/14/91 To: Multiple recipients of list PMC-TALK Resent-To: mcgrew@klinzhai.rutgers.edu Resent-Date: Sun, 17 Nov 91 21:10:35 EST Resent-From: Charles Mcgrew PMC-TALK digest: postings for the period ending Thursday, 14 Nov 1991 PMC-TALK is the discussion group for the electronic journal _Postmodern Culture_ (PMC-LIST). Subscription to PMC-TALK is independent of subscription to PMC-LIST; if you are not subscribed to the journal itself, and would like to be, send your first and last name and a request for subscription to PMC@NCSUVM (Bitnet) or PMC@NCSUVM.CC.NCSU.EDU (internet). Today's Topics: Truth? TRUTH Zarathustra and Postmodernism ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 13 Nov 91 16:29:48 PST From: Geoffrey Hargreaves Subject: Digest ending 11/12/91 Chris, it seems odd to hear you say, in the context of postmodernism, that the success of scientific work is guaged by its conformity to reality. I thought that one of the distinguishing marks of postmodernism was its rejection of a correspondence theory of truth. Geoff H. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 13 Nov 91 18:36:24 PST From: Geoffrey Hargreaves Subject: TRUTH My understanding of the postmodern attitude to TRUTH is that there is no such thing in the traditional sense of the term. However this is not a self-refuting position as it is not saying: The TRUTH (traditional meaning) is that there is no TRUTH (traditional meaning) but rather "As far as we can gather at the moment, our OPINION is that there is no such thing as TRUTH. Hence there is no TRUTH about Postmodernism, only contingent opinions. Geoff ----------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 14 Nov 91 12:07 CST From: Doug Thomas Subject: Re: Digest ending 11/12/91 Zarathustra and post-modernity seems to also revolve around questions of Being and becomming. It seems that the lesson of Zarathustra is one of constant becomming versus Being. I am particularly interested in the dynamic developed between speech (rhetoric) and song (poetics) as they related to themes of Being/becomming. Especially Zarathustra's comment "Rede ich bin ganz" (or something in that general direction). Perhaps Derrida's discussion of the _pharmakon_ could play a role here? Any interest? Doug Thomas DTHOMAS@VX.ACS.UMN.EDU University of Minnesota ----------------------------------------------------------------- 18-Nov-91 15:51:02-GMT,6413;000000000001 Received: from porthos.rutgers.edu by klinzhai.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA05510; Mon, 18 Nov 91 10:50:57 EST Received: by porthos.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA20755; Mon, 18 Nov 91 10:50:53 EST Resent-Message-Id: <9111181550.AA20755@porthos.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA09456; Mon, 18 Nov 91 00:19:12 EST Message-Id: <9111180519.AA09456@aramis.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with BSMTP id 6109; Mon, 18 Nov 91 00:17:26 EST Received: from NCSUVM.BITNET by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 7611; Mon, 18 Nov 91 00:17:21 EST Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1991 00:15:26 EST Reply-To: PMC-Talk Sender: PMC-Talk From: Editors of PMC Subject: Digest ending 11/17/91 To: Multiple recipients of list PMC-TALK Resent-To: mcgrew@klinzhai.rutgers.edu Resent-Date: Mon, 18 Nov 91 10:50:50 EST Resent-From: Charles Mcgrew PMC-TALK digest: postings for the period ending Monday, 18 Nov 1991 PMC-TALK is the discussion group for the electronic journal _Postmodern Culture_ (PMC-LIST). Subscription to PMC-TALK is independent of subscription to PMC-LIST; if you are not subscribed to the journal itself, and would like to be, send your first and last name and a request for subscription to PMC@NCSUVM (Bitnet) or PMC@NCSUVM.CC.NCSU.EDU (internet). Today's Topics: C'est quoi la culture? Truth ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 14 Nov 91 20:52:13 EST From: Richard Philip Hayes Subject: C'est quoi la culture? Living in a place like Quebec provides a splendid opportunity to witness the power that completely vacuous concepts have to drive people into various states of excitement. In Quebec the barren notion that best demonstrates this principle is that of culture. Culture is that nonentity for the preservation of which otherwise intelligent people work themselves into mindless frenzies. It is for the sake of retaining that hopeless nebulosity that numerous Quebecois, among the most ardent of whom are intellectuals, would seek separate status as a nation. There is no doubt that the traditional culture of Quebec is not merely on the verge (here I am using the English word "verge", not the French term "la verge") of annihilation but is already quite dead. La societe distincte, the dream of an earlier generation of nationalists such as Lionel Groulx, was based on maintaining the difference between a predominately Roman Catholic francophone society and a predominately Protestant anglophone society. But in a post-religious world the traditional values and modi operandi of Roman Catholic Quebec are no more and no less dead than those of Anglican and Presbyterian English Canada. Very few actually mourn these dead institutions, and yet one incessantly hears the cries of preserving culture. But what on earth do they mean by this gibberish? The tribulations of Quebec are uninteresting except as another tedious example of a phenomenon that seems to be happening worldwide: the resurgence of zeal for the hollow abstractions on which nationalism, patriotism, and racism are based. I can't help thinking that the malaise of those who manipulate public sentiments could be cured by a strong antidote of postmodernist thinking. Or do I misunderstand everything? It has been suggested that an achievement of postmodern thinking has been the recognition of what an insidious idea individuality is. An equally important achievement is arguably a recognition of what an insidious notion culture is. More and more people now realize that people are not individuals (indivisible units of being who have an identity separate from other such units of being) but collections of fragmented and incoherent bits of randomly assembled assumptions and dogmas. Similarly, more and more people now realize that collections of persons are even less coherent than the people who make them up. Frenchness, Englishness, aboriginality, negritude, whiteness, masculinity, femininity -- careful thinkers seem to be increasingly suspicious of attempts to build personal identities upon such frangible foundations. Is there any chance at all that the world at large will follow the lead of careful thinkers? Do any of you postmodernists have any thoughts on this subject. Just curious, Richard Hayes, Religious Studies, McGill University ----------------------------------------------------------------- From: Christopher Maeda Date: Sun, 17 Nov 91 21:21:55 EST Subject: Truth > Date: Wed, 13 Nov 91 16:29:48 PST > From: Geoffrey Hargreaves > Subject: Digest ending 11/12/91 > > Chris, it seems odd to hear you say, in the context of postmodernism, > that the success of scientific work is guaged by its conformity to reality. > I thought that one of the distinguishing marks of postmodernism was its > rejection of a correspondence theory of truth. Sorry. I was speaking with my scientist's hat on. In physical sciences and engineering, "conformance to reality" is a useful model. (Remember that we scientists and engineers are a bunch of positivists at heart.) In operational terms, this means your theory will do a good job of predicting the measurements you get from your instruments. In some ways, this is a bit circular since your theory often (if not always) influences the designs of said instruments. In postmodernist terms, I probably should have used "performativity" (cf Lyotard) instead of "conformance to reality". So to restate my basic point, since evaluating performativity is problematic in humanistic disciplines, I conjecture that other factors such as conformance to a dominant ideology will be given greater weight in the evaluation of work in such disciplines. I think this touches on a lot of current problems in the (American?) Academy. Anyone else interested in this topic? -- Chris Maeda, Grad Student and RetroGrouch "Yow! Do I hate everything yet?" ----------------------------------------------------------------- 12-Nov-91 11:33:18-GMT,9143;000000000001 Received: from porthos.rutgers.edu by klinzhai.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA14508; Tue, 12 Nov 91 11:33:12 EST Received: by porthos.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA22160; Tue, 12 Nov 91 11:33:10 EST Resent-Message-Id: <9111121633.AA22160@porthos.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA23577; Mon, 11 Nov 91 20:30:14 EST Message-Id: <9111120130.AA23577@aramis.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with BSMTP id 3251; Mon, 11 Nov 91 20:27:55 EST Received: from NCSUVM.BITNET by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 2849; Mon, 11 Nov 91 20:27:46 EST Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1991 20:24:46 EST Reply-To: PMC-Talk Sender: PMC-Talk From: Editors of PMC Subject: Digest ending 11/11/91 To: Multiple recipients of list PMC-TALK Resent-To: mcgrew@klinzhai.rutgers.edu Resent-Date: Tue, 12 Nov 91 11:33:10 EST Resent-From: Charles Mcgrew PMC-TALK digest: postings for the period ending Monday, 11 Nov 1991 PMC-Talk is the discussion group for the electronic journal _Postmodern Culture_. Topics: How Do We Test for Post-Modernism? test for postmodernism test for postmodernism test for postmodernism ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 8 Nov 91 20:44:26 EST From: Eric Rabkin Subject: How Do We Test for Post-Modernism? Edie asked, "Is the loss of faith in absolute truth the correct test for determining whether a society has entered the post-modern era?" This question was sparked, apparently, by an article making such a claim. I think the claim reveals a blindness on the part of the claimant. (Am I being a D.I. here? AI only knows!) "Post-modernism" obviously defines itself primarily as having gone past and/or beyond "modernism." As a term that clearly has political vitality for its users, "post-modernism" implies some presumed (although not necessarily real) consensus about "modernism." Having just taught Woolf's wonderful and too little studied *Orlando*, I'll venture that "modernism" implies (for that hypothetical consensus group) the multiplicity of individual identity, the social construction of social roles, the formative significance of language as medium for our lives, and a certain vigorous pleasure in experimentation. Now one could say that the "modernists" held these notions as "absolute truths" and then, in some sense, "post-modernists" would either see these as false or see them as true but contingent. The claimant above has, in my view, simply ignored the possibility that one could take the modernists' truths as false. But if one did, one could be post-modern in many ways. One could, for example, have other truths that included the modernists' truths, e.g., that individual identity is multiple only because all phenomena are multiple and individual identity is in no ontological sense different from history or gastronomy. Since in fact that more inclusive truth seems to fit with many of the views expressed by many self-identified post-modernists, I conclude the claimant is wrong. Post-modernism can have its own absolute truths. Taking these premises in another direction, post-modernism might take the modernists' truth as false not in the sense of being hyperspecific but in the sense of being absolutely false. A committed religious fundamentalist who saw him/her- self achieving that position in reaction to the modernists' truth would then also be post-modern, and again the claimant would be mistaken. That we can entertain the claim at all, and that we can ignore the etiology of the current resurgence of fundamentalisms of many sorts in all corners of the ideological universe, suggests to me that too much post-modern talk is really more a matter of defining one's club than a matter of seeking deep cultural understanding. In my view, this needs correction. Which is why I am glad that Edie questioned the claim to begin with. Eric Rabkin esrabkin@umichum.bitnet Department of English esrabkin@um.cc.umich.edu University of Michigan office: 313-764-2553 Ann Arbor MI 48109-1045 dept : 313-764-6330 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 9 Nov 91 17:45 EST From: "Tom Benson 814-865-4201" Subject: Re: Digest ending 11/8/91 >Date: Fri, 8 Nov 91 16:38:46 EST >From: sasefj@dev.sas.com >I am reading an article which states: > "A society enters the postmodern age when it loses faith > in absolute truth--even the attempt to discover absolute > truth. The great systems of thought like religions, > ideologies, and philosophies come to be regarded as > 'social constructions of reality.'" (_The Family Therapy > Networker_, Sept/Oct 1991) >Is the loss of faith in absolute truth the correct test >for determining whether a society has entered the post- >modern era? >edie In which case, the pre-Socratic sophists were the first postmodernists. Sounds okay to me. Tom Benson Penn State ----------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 09 Nov 91 21:39:46 EST From: Richard Philip Hayes Subject: Criterion Someone styled edie asked: > I am reading an article which states: > > "A society enters the postmodern age when it loses faith > in absolute truth--even the attempt to discover absolute > truth. The great systems of thought like religions, > ideologies, and philosophies come to be regarded as > 'social constructions of reality.'" (_The Family Therapy > Networker_, Sept/Oct 1991) > > Is the loss of faith in absolute truth the correct test > for determining whether a society has entered the post- > modern era? The criterion itself as stated here sounds very much like the doctrine of two truths within Indian Buddhist philosophy, whereby a distinction is made between socially mediated beliefs and beliefs that are founded upon an appreciation of things as they really are; all Indian Buddhists accepted this distinction in principle, but some were of the view that all beliefs that are expressible in language are socially mediated. This means in effect that virtually no beliefs are anything by socially mediated constructions. Very similar ideas were of course common among the Skeptics who emerged during the Hellenistic period and among some early Chinese philosophers writing in the 4th century BCE. Throughout human history there have always been people aware of the limitations of the methods and even the very notion of verification; such people are naturally critical of claims of absolute truth. Claims to absolute truth, incidentally, are far less commonly encountered in the history of philosophy than most polemicists would lead one to believe. The question about whether the loss of faith in absolute truth is a test for a society's having entered the postmodern era is probably beyond answering, simply because societies are not the sorts of things that have and lose faith in the first place. It is individual people that have faith, and every society that I have ever studied has been made up of a collection of individual people who held a great diversity of opinions. At any given time in any given society in human history there are a few people who make claims of absoluteness, a few people who question those claims, and a vast majority of people who really don't give a damn one way or the other. Richard Hayes (Not a pseudonym; just a social convention) Religious Studies, McGill University ----------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 11 Nov 91 13:10:27 ET From: "a. walters" Subject: test for postmodernism This correspondence is in response to the issue brought up by Edie - can the re jection of absolute truth serve as a test for postmodernism? If this is a test for postmodernism, let us examine some of the figures it would apply to. Firs t, the Sophists. Can we consider Protagoras postmodern? Second (and more like ly), Nietzsche could be considered postmodern. Another angle to consider: what do we do when we apply tests? It occurs to me that tests are the very sort of invasive procedures that postmodernism seeks to subvert. When we "test" are w e not actually attempting to "capture" and "tame" postmodernism? Postmodernis t thought occupies those interstices left where language has slipped. It does not lend itself so easily to "tests." Put another way, what impulses are we fo llowing when we try to "frame" postmodernism vis a vis absolute truth? (My gue ss: structuralist impulses.) Perhaps we perform a disservice to postmodernism by framing it IN TERMS OF an idea so Platonic as absolute truth. ----------------------------------------------------------------- 13-Nov-91 14:13:27-GMT,7060;000000000001 Received: from porthos.rutgers.edu by klinzhai.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA26958; Wed, 13 Nov 91 14:13:25 EST Received: by porthos.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA11839; Wed, 13 Nov 91 14:13:23 EST Resent-Message-Id: <9111131913.AA11839@porthos.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA26336; Tue, 12 Nov 91 23:30:43 EST Message-Id: <9111130430.AA26336@aramis.rutgers.edu> Received: from ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with BSMTP id 6550; Tue, 12 Nov 91 23:29:05 EST Received: from NCSUVM.BITNET by ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 5751; Tue, 12 Nov 91 23:28:50 EST Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1991 23:24:52 EST Reply-To: PMC-Talk Sender: PMC-Talk From: Editors of PMC Subject: Digest ending 11/12/91 To: Multiple recipients of list PMC-TALK Resent-To: mcgrew@klinzhai.rutgers.edu Resent-Date: Wed, 13 Nov 91 14:13:21 EST Resent-From: Charles Mcgrew PMC-TALK digest: postings for the period ending Tuesday, 12 Nov 1991 PMC-TALK is the discussion group for the electronic journal _Postmodern Culture_ (PMC-LIST). Subscription to PMC-TALK is independent of subscription to PMC-LIST; if you are not subscribed to the journal itself, and would like to be, send your first and last name and a request for subscription to PMC@NCSUVM (Bitnet) or PMC@NCSUVM.CC.NCSU.EDU (internet). Today's Topics: Was Zarathustra postmodern? Harry Goolishian is dead PMC talk Criteria, Post-Modernism, Science ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 11 Nov 91 18:45:28 PST From: Geoffrey Hargreaves Subject: Was Zarathustra postmodern? The answer to the question seems to revolve around whether one considers Zarathustra as (i) the spokesman for Nietzsche or (ii) a dramatic presentation of a point of view, not necessarily Nietzsche's own. There seems good reason to incline to (ii), as Zarathustra has to withdraw from the world like a Desert Father. Geoff H. ----------------------------------------------------------------- From: syusim@bcm.tmc.edu (Solomon Yusim) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1991 22:51:07 CST Subject: Harry Goolishian is dead Harold A. Goolishian, Ph.D., one of the subscribers to this list, died on November 10, 1991, at the age of 67. Harry, a brilliant theoretician and clinician, back in the 50s, was among the founders of the field of family therapy. In the last 10 years, he had been a driving