Received: from cats.ucsc.edu (rumpleteazer.UCSC.EDU [128.114.129.45]) by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.7.6/8.7.3/CNS-4.0p) with ESMTP id KAA02499 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 1997 10:57:34 -0600 (MDT) Received: from cats-po-1 (root@cats-po-1.UCSC.EDU [128.114.129.22]) by cats.ucsc.edu (8.8.5/8.8.4.cats-athena) with SMTP id JAA09594 for ; Mon, 9 Jun 1997 09:57:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from harlowc.ucsc.edu by cats-po-1 (8.6.13/4.8) id JAA10754; Mon, 9 Jun 1997 09:57:24 -0700 Message-ID: <31BB017B.1627@cats.ucsc.edu> Date: Sun, 09 Jun 1996 09:53:16 -0700 From: Christian Harlow Reply-To: harlowc@cats.ucsc.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "socgrad@csf.colorado.edu" Subject: Postmodern Writing Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This is funny stuff: >> >> THE RULES >> >> >> 1. First, you need to remember that plainly expressed language >> is out of the question. It is too realist, modernist and obvious. >> Postmodern language requires that one uses play, parody and >> indeterminacy as critical techniques to point this out. Often this >> is quite a difficult requirement, so obscurity is a >> well-acknowledged substitute. >> >> For example, let's imagine you want to say something >> like, "We should listen to the views of people outside >> of Western society in order to learn about the cultural >> biases that affect us". This is honest but dull. Take >> the word "views." Postmodernspeak would change that to >> "voices," or better, "vocalities." or even better, >> "multivocalities." Add an adjective like "intertextual," >> and you're covered. "People outside" is also too plain. How >> about "postcolonial others"? >> >> To speak postmodern properly one must master a bevy of biases >> besides the familiar racism, sexism, ageism, etc. >> >> For example, phallogocentricism (male-centredness combined >> with rationalistic forms of binary logic). Finally "affect us" >> sounds like plaid pajamas. Use more obscure verbs and phrases, >> like "mediate our identities." >> >> So, the final statement should say, "We should listen to the >> intertextual, multivocalities of postcolonial others outside of >> Western culture in order to learn about the phallogocentric >> biases that mediate our identities." Now you're talking >> postmodern! >> >> 2. Sometimes you might be in a hurry and won't have the time to >> muster even the minimum number of postmodern synonyms and >> neologisms needed to avoid public disgrace. Remember, saying >> the wrong thing is acceptable if you say it the right way. >> >> This brings me to a second important strategy in speaking >> postmodern -- which is to use as many suffixes, prefixes, >> hyphens, slashes, underlinings and anything else your computer >> (an absolute must to write postmodern) can dish out. >> >> You can make a quick reference chart to avoid time delays. Make >> three columns. In column A put your prefixes: post-, hyper-, >> pre-, de-, dis-, re-, ex-, and counter-. In column B go your >> suffixes and related endings: -ism, -itis, -iality, -ation, >> -itivity, and -tricity. In column C add a series of >> well-respected names that make for impressive adjectives or >> schools of thought, for example, Barthes (Barthesian), Foucault >> (Foucauldian, Foucauldianism), Derrida (Derridean, >> Derrideanism). >> >> Now for the test. You want to say or write something like, >> "Contemporary buildings are alienating." This is a good >> thought, but, of course, a non-starter. You wouldn't >> even get offered a second round of crackers and cheese >> at a conference reception with such a line. In fact, >> after saying this, you might get asked to stay and >> clean >> up the crackers and cheese after the reception. >> >> Go to your three columns. >> >> First, the prefix. Pre- is useful, as is post-, or >> several prefixes at once is terrific. Rather than "contemporary >> buildings," be creative. "The Pre/post/spacialities of >> counter-architectural hyper-contemporaneity" is promising. You >> would have to drop the weak and dated term "alienating" with >> some well suffixed words from column B. How about >> "antisociality", or be more postmodern and introduce >> ambiguity with the linked phrase, >> "antisociality/seductivity." >> >> Now, go to column C and grab a few names whose work everyone >> will agree is important and hardly anyone has had the time or >> the inclination to read. Continental European theorists >> are best, when in doubt. I recommend the sociologist Jean >> Baudrillard since he has written a great deal of >> difficult material about postmodern space. Don't forget >> to make some mention of gender. >> Finally, add a few smoothing out words to tie the whole garbled >> mess together and don't forget to pack in the hyphens, slashes >> and parentheses. >> >> What do you get? "Pre/post/spacialities of counter-architectural >> hyper-contemporaneity (re)commits us to an ambivalent >> recurrentiality of antisociality/seductivity, one enunciated in >> a de/gendered-Baudrillardian discourse of granulated >> subjectivity." You should be able to hear a >> postindustrial pin drop on the retrocultural floor. >> >> 3. At some point someone may actually ask you what you're talking >> about. This risk faces all those who would speak postmodern and >> must be carefully avoided. You must always give the questioner >> the impression that they have missed the point, and so send >> another verbose salvo of postmodernspeak in their direction >> as a "simplification" or "clarification" of your original >> statement. >> >> If that doesn't work, you might be left with the terribly >> modernist thought of, "I don't know." Don't worry, just say, >> "The instability of your question leaves me with several >> contradictorily layered responses whose interconnectivity cannot >> express the logocentric coherency you seek. I can only say that >> reality is more uneven and its (mis)representations more >> untrustworthy than we have time here to explore." Any more >> questions? No, then pass the cheese and crackers.