Despite its length and sometimes overwrought writing style, this article does not quite manage to “explain” postmodernism, so much as caricature its worst manifestations and developments. We’re all aware that these developments exist, but treating them as if they were the only product of the aforementioned ‘French intellectuals’ that might be worthy of notice strikes me as quite counterproductive! To take just one example from the beginning, the article claims that Nietzsche and Heidegger espoused “anti-realism and[] rejection of the concept of the unified and coherent individual”… I mean, really? Says who? (Is the author even aware that Heidegger lived in a hut in the woods most of his life? Does he think that this should tell us nothing about what he was actually trying to say, if not always with the greatest clarity?) And that’s just the first issue I spotted here—to take another, if you think postmodernism can be described as “decidedly left wing”, you’re clearly unfamiliar with the rather nuanced stances of many of its proponents.
And that’s just the first issue I spotted here—to take another, if you think postmodernism can be described as “decidedly left wing”, you’re clearly unfamiliar with the rather nuanced stances of many of its proponents.
It’s less about the personal stances of some of its proponents and more about its apparent rejection of “meta-narratives.” Marxism (in perhaps its most original form) is a meta-narrative and so in one sense, if you define left-wing as to be closer to Marxism, then postmodernism probably can’t be called “decidedly left-wing”. But on the other hand, if you define “left-wing” as being more towards egalitarianism in general, then postmodernism is decidedly left-wing in that it apparently places most points of view and ideologies on equal footing, and rejects any claims of superiority of one over another.
I think that’s right and it’s a bit of a strawman. I don’t think pomo originally threw out epistemology but it provides tools that, while useful for general societal critique, are also easy to shoot your foot off with. So, pomo allows for some good things but also seems to have enabled identity politics as well as right wing fake news hysteria.
Is the author even aware that Heidegger lived in a hut in the woods most of his life?
Who is this relevant?
if you think postmodernism can be described as “decidedly left wing”, you’re clearly unfamiliar with the rather nuanced stances of many of its proponents.
Do you actual think this kind of blatant lie is going to fool anyone? Or have you adopted the post-moderists’ selective attitude towards objective reality?
The neo-reactionary movement and the “dark enlightenment” seem very much in the post-modernist context yet not decidedly left wing. They disagree on values with most people who adopt post-modernist thinking, sure, but they utilize the same general stances towards epistemology, identity, and society as post-modernists, especially the structuralists.
Despite its length and sometimes overwrought writing style, this article does not quite manage to “explain” postmodernism, so much as caricature its worst manifestations and developments. We’re all aware that these developments exist, but treating them as if they were the only product of the aforementioned ‘French intellectuals’ that might be worthy of notice strikes me as quite counterproductive! To take just one example from the beginning, the article claims that Nietzsche and Heidegger espoused “anti-realism and[] rejection of the concept of the unified and coherent individual”… I mean, really? Says who? (Is the author even aware that Heidegger lived in a hut in the woods most of his life? Does he think that this should tell us nothing about what he was actually trying to say, if not always with the greatest clarity?) And that’s just the first issue I spotted here—to take another, if you think postmodernism can be described as “decidedly left wing”, you’re clearly unfamiliar with the rather nuanced stances of many of its proponents.
It’s less about the personal stances of some of its proponents and more about its apparent rejection of “meta-narratives.” Marxism (in perhaps its most original form) is a meta-narrative and so in one sense, if you define left-wing as to be closer to Marxism, then postmodernism probably can’t be called “decidedly left-wing”. But on the other hand, if you define “left-wing” as being more towards egalitarianism in general, then postmodernism is decidedly left-wing in that it apparently places most points of view and ideologies on equal footing, and rejects any claims of superiority of one over another.
I think that’s right and it’s a bit of a strawman. I don’t think pomo originally threw out epistemology but it provides tools that, while useful for general societal critique, are also easy to shoot your foot off with. So, pomo allows for some good things but also seems to have enabled identity politics as well as right wing fake news hysteria.
Who is this relevant?
Do you actual think this kind of blatant lie is going to fool anyone? Or have you adopted the post-moderists’ selective attitude towards objective reality?
Is it?
The neo-reactionary movement and the “dark enlightenment” seem very much in the post-modernist context yet not decidedly left wing. They disagree on values with most people who adopt post-modernist thinking, sure, but they utilize the same general stances towards epistemology, identity, and society as post-modernists, especially the structuralists.