Date: Thu, 5 May 1994 16:02:45 -0700
Sender: pen-l@ecst.csuchico.edu
From: GSKILLMAN@wesleyan.edu
Subject: Re: PoMo in the 90'ies
 
 
> > For all the bashing and assertions of nihlism, 'postmodern social theory'
> > has not resulted in one gulag, in one vanguardist party, etc. So,
> > those who hold a 'post-modernist'/boutgeois false consciousness
> > may indeed be less of a threat to workers than the 'real' revolutionaries.
>
> It also hasn't led to one union, one community-organization fighting for
> basic social services or any mobilization to stop a war.
>
> It is exactly the sanctimonious "my hands are clean" reactionary
> passivity that makes postmodern theory so reprehensible.
>
> --Nathan Newman
 
A partial, but less emphatic, corroboration of Nathan's point based
on my own experience.  I've found that those immersed in the post-
modern framework are great at deconstruction but fairly useless at
[re]construction.  They offer what are often remarkably insightful
criticisms of whatever mode of analysis might be offered--in the
context of my experience, mainstream, neo-institutionalist, or
Marxian--but when they are then asked, "Okay, what do *you*
think we should do?", they have absolutely nothing coherent to say.
 
I say this confessing my ignorance about the two "branches" of
postmodernism identified in an earlier PEN post.  Does the
"progressive" branch avoid such stasis?   Gil
[gskillman@eagle.wesleyan.edu]