If we take a strong post-structuralist position, it seems to me the academic project is left adrift, at the mercy either capital(Derrida 1994) or a profitable segmented group based 'post-modern'pre-emptive warfare (Massumi 2007 Hicks 2006), for example any claims to be able to judge an argument fail as the reader is selection from an infinite number of interpretations the text offers (Barthes). And if we completely abandon meta narrative for exclusive closed autopoetic system of local discourse what of the inclusive commons whether physical, social, conceptual, spiritual ( does "communion" become reified onto various forms of consumption and their consumer groups eg alcohol))? what is left but the notoriously exclusive ghost of capital...? (Derrida 1994) with it's profitable sectarian disputes, and profitable control based replacements for an excluded common source of inherent, emergent harmony that exists before distinction destroys it.
I agree with those authors who see post-modernism as a dialectical step and that its critiques and insights must be synthesised with modernist thought in some way if the modernist project is to survive itself. (eg Jameson & Best)
I agree with those authors who see post-modernism as a dialectical step and that its critiques and insights must be synthesised with modernist thought in some way if the modernist project is to survive itself. (eg Jameson & Best)
Barthes Death of the Author
Derrida (1994) "What is Ideology" in Spectres of Marx
Hicks (2006) Postmodernism
Hicks (2006) Postmodernism
Massumi (2007) Potential Politics
No comments:
Post a Comment