Date: Thu, 5 May 1994 17:53:35 -0700
Sender: pen-l@ecst.csuchico.edu
From: scullen@ucrac1.ucr.edu (Steve Cullenberg)
Subject: Re: PoMo in the 90'ies
 
I find Gil's concern that deconstruction and postmodernism are simply forms
of critique, puzzling.  First, I think he is basically right as a
characterization, but since when is critique not also an affirmative (and
political) move as well (I am thinking of critique here not simply as a
statement like "I don't like it", but as an unpacking, a fundamental
challenge, a juxtaposition).  After all, Gil, the many comments you have
made on general equilibrium theory are nothing if not critique in this
sense.  Certainly, you are not describing the world, or offering an
alternative set of policies, but imploring us to think in a certain way and
not in another.  Again, if this is not critique (and valuable critique),
then I don't know what is.
 
Deconstruction is a way of reading texts (written and otherwise) which in
part seeks to find binary oppositions and show how they are structured
hierarchically, and then to explode this hierarchy (a method of reading, as
Antonio Callari pointed out, not far from Marx's injunction to criticize
everything).  Or take Derrida's concept of "differance."  Derrida uses this
concept to deconstruct Western philosphy with its logocentrism in which
methaphysical notions of center, origin, and essence are determined in
relation to an ontological center, which represses absence and difference
for the sake metaphysical stability (and dominance).  Perhaps there is not
a proactive, detailed agenda here, but in the battle of "how to think", and
what is accepted as "good arguemnt", I think the political import of this
"critique" should be clear, no?
 
Steve Cullenberg
 
 
>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.
 
Steve Cullenberg
Department of Economics
University of California
Riverside, CA 92521