Date: Fri, 6 May 1994 19:00:18 -0700
Sender: pen-l@ecst.csuchico.edu
From: GSKILLMAN@wesleyan.edu
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.
 
I certainly didn't mean to imply that I have a problem with
criticism!  And certainly in offering comparative assessments of
methodologies I don't _only_ have the idea of offering "an
alternative set of policies", though they are there, and winnowing
out methodological differences I see as tactical clearing ground for
developing the theory that might promote those policies, or shall I
say reconstructions (of property rights).  However, as far as the
program lying behind the facade of postmodernist criticism, I just
don't know.  In particular when Steve concludes...
 
>....I think the political import of this  "critique" should be
>clear, no?
 
 I respond, in shame, alas, ....no.  What exactly is its political
import?  Gil