Date: Thu, 5 May 1994 19:58:16 -0700
Sender: pen-l@ecst.csuchico.edu
From: "R. Anders Schneiderman" <anders@garnet.berkeley.edu>
Subject: RE: PoMo in the 90'ies
 
On Thu, May 5  1994 A_CALLARI@ACAD.FANDM.EDU wrote:
 
> which, for a variety of reasons, have not produced the result. If the left
> was not able to stop the Thatechers and the Reagans and their world
> counterparts, isn't it at least plausible to think that the theoretical
> tools at its disposal need to be reexamined [which is what Marx did after
> 1848, anyway]?
 
Yes, and since pomo was one of the major tools at the disposal of young
college-educated U.S. activists in the 80s, I don't think it's unfair to
ask how useful it was in their analysis and political action.
 
> As to whether postmodernism can contribute to the work of the left, I will
> respond, as I already indicate, more at length later [I hope I can keep my
> promise]; but here is an exampleof how even in literary studies (which have
> been a focus of criticism by those who have equated postmodernism with a
> reactionary dilettantism among literature students]: I think there has been
> a lot of work by people informed by postmodernism on native/indigenous
> literary traditions throught the third world, work which can give a sense
> of history to peoples whose identities were historically [BY FORCE]
> obliterated by the march of PROGRESS [POLITICAL COMMERCE]; one of the
> latest issues of the Journal BOUNDARY TWO, put out by Duke University
> Press, and edited by a progressive group of people in English and
> literature {Paul Bove, Joe Buttigieg, etc..} was devoted to postmodernism
> in latin america and its contributions to struggles of liberation there.
> [...]
> thing; but in the streets of La Paz (or in my own political work of forging
> an alliance of race and gender with class issues) it is an altogether
> different thing.
 
I look forward to your longer response.  What I would particularly
appreciate is a brief discussion of exactly how pomo analyses have led to
insights that a) were superior to what Marxism, non-pomo feminism, and
other non-pomo theories could easily provide and b) how these insights
helped guide political strategy.  I would also greatly appreciate it if
you could do so without the extensive use of jargon--pomo, Marxist, or
otherwise.  The reason I make this request is that often when pomos cite
pomo work which is politically useful, the work isn't that different (at
least as far as I can tell) from non-pomo analyses; it just uses slightly
different language.
 
I was also unclear from your post whether pomo analyses are being used in
the Third World by political movements (e.g., whether it's being used as a
way of thinking about political strategy by members of these movements).
My main problem with pomo isn't that I think it's inherently reactionary
but rather the particular way it shaped the political thinking of the
college-educated part of my generation in the 1980s.  My experience was
that it did much more harm than good.
 
Anders Schneiderman
Center for Community Economic Research
UC Berkeley