postmodernity

Jonathan Laidlow · 17 Dec 1999, 11:28 · from urth-v0028.mbox · original

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: "Jonathan Laidlow" <LAIDLOJM at hhs.bham.ac.uk>
Subject: (urth) postmodernity
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 11:28:30 GMT
Message-ID: <urth-v0028-0637 at digest.urth.net>
X-Urthmirror-Source: http://www.urth.net/urth/archives/v0028/0637.shtml
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Jeremy wrote:
"While I'm looking at Jim, I have to disagree with this wretched label"post=
modernity"=20
again and always, I think certainly Fouc. would have aproblem with that lab=
el, as do I.=20
According to Perry Anderson (the Thunderbirds guy, no not really) the first=
 idea of a=20
postmodernism arose inthe 1930s in Hispanic America (Federico de Onis; Borg=
es was=20
an "ultramodernismo"), and has had many incarnations since then, none of wh=
ichhave=20
ever circulated around F. I can handle poststructuralist since that's at le=
ast historically=20
accurate. (Bit tetchy about this as just came fromweekend meeting in downto=
wn DC=20
where all sorts of critical theory wastarred and dismissed as bugaboo pomo.=
)"
I dunno  - sounds a bit reactionary just to dismiss the whole shebang. I th=
ink its worth=20
remembering the root of the phrase: post-modernity, and recognising its roo=
ts as a=20
reaction against modernism. And then to recall that there is a difference b=
etween=20
Modernism (capital 'M') and modernism. The former describes a specific type=
 of artistic=20
production mostly in the first half of the century which presented itself a=
s a reaction=20
against prior forms of representation. The latter is similar except we are =
allowed to have=20
multiple modernisms - all of them reactions against  the old and finding a =
way of=20
representing something 'new' in our culture. I know there was one around th=
e beginning=20
of the eighteenth century (probably more).

I think Foucault feeds into post-modernist thought, but that post-modernist=
 thought too=20
often descends into plurality and indecision. P/m does, after all, tend to =
describe certain=20
aspects of late 20th century life rather well. I like Jameson on changes in=
 art based on=20
changes in late capitalism, Baudrillard is wordy but interesting on simulat=
ions and changes=20
in the nature of what we define as 'real' and how we represent it. Note tha=
t I'm not trying=20
to follow the argument that reality itself has changed in some ineffable wa=
y, but that our=20
methods of representing it have.  The most important theme for me is the wa=
y that p/m=20
allows plurality, and for repressed discourses to have their own space and =
identity. Many=20
would doubtless disagree with me.

Fave excellent post-modern novel: Don Delillo, White Noise. Read it.

Not likely to suggest that Wolfe is post-modern. But William Gibson is.

Jonathan
Visit Ultan's Library - A Gene Wolfe web resource
http://members.tripod.co.uk/laidlow/index.htm
Jonathan Laidlow
University of Birmingham, UK

*More Wolfe info & archive of this list at http://www.urth.net/urth/

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net