[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page

Re: Fw: Funny kritik stuff

As I replied to Stephen Katz six months ago - this position is in itself 
possible when writing theory for academia, yet serves little purpose when 
trying to find the path to the new millenia, to which he refers.  Yet 
there is a basic premise that underlies this paper that the new territory 
can appear frightening especially when the indivdual is asked to rely on 
their own faculties and experiences to determine solutions and views to 
their own personal/political problems.  When we can no longer rely on the 
"other" to solve our problems, it can be frightening.

I understand how this can appear funny - it just goes to show that even 
pomo can be funny.

Matt 
Cal State Chico 


On Sun, 9 Apr 1995, Jasmine Abdel-khalik wrote:

> Found this on NDT-L.  Enjoy
> 
> Peace and :-),
> 
> Jasmine Abdel-khalik
> Cornell University
>                  HOW TO SPEAK AND WRITE POSTMODERN
>                              by Stephen Katz
>                     Associate Professor of Sociology
>                             Trent University
>                        Petersborough, Ontario, CA
> 
> Postmodernism has been the buzzword in academia for the last decade.
> Books, journal articles, conference themes and university courses have
> resounded to the debates about postmodernism that focus on the
> uniqueness of our times, where computerization, the global economy and
> the media have irrevocably transformed all forms of social engagement.
> As a professor of sociology who teaches about culture, I include myself
> in this environment. Indeed, I have a great interest in postmodernism
> both as an intellectual movement and as a practical problem. In my
> experience there seems to be a gulf between those who see the postmodern
> turn as a neo-conservative reupholstering of the same old corporate
> trappings, and those who see it as a long overdue break with modernist
> doctrines in education, aesthetics, and politics. Of course there are
> all kinds of positions in between, depending on how one sorts out the
> optimum route into the next millenium.
> 
> However, I think the real gulf is not so much positional as linguistic.
> Posture can be as important as politics when it comes to the
> intelligentsia. In other words, it may be less important whether or not
> you like postmodernism than whether or not you can speak and write
> postmodernism. Perhaps you would like to join in conversation with your
> local mandarins of cultural theory and all-purpose deep thinking, but
> you don't know what to say. Or, when you do contribute something you
> consider relevant, even insightful, you get ignored or looked at with
> pity. Here is a quick guide, then, to speaking and writing postmodern.
> 
> 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 use 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, phallogocentrism
> (male-centredness combined with rationalistic forms of binary logic).
> Finally, "affects 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!
> 
> 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 in 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-. 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, once enunciated in a
> de/gendered-Baudrillardian discourse of granulated subjectivity." You
> should be able to hear a postindustrial pin drop on the retrocultural
> floor.
> 
> 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.
>
References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page