I am now a double drop-out

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I first ran into Postmodernism in the late 1980s studying, believe it or not, organizational communication. Lyotard, Foucault, Jameson -- all of the "heroes" of '68. I found myself enthralled by the power of that critique -- deconstruction yielding insights into embedded structure/power dynamics, etc. I also found myself appalled that the postmodernists seemed to have nothing to DO with the theory in terms of developing anything -- just some musings about empowering the individual in some kind of "it will all be so freeing" anarcho-socialism. From what Horetore summarizes in the OP, there apparently hasn't been a lot of movement forward. I presume that most of them got tenure writing a deconstruction of things, got comfortable with the coffee-house life and worshipful grad students, and went into lather, rinse, repeat mode. Understandable that Horetore should retreat from educators who have become intellectually moribund.

Intellectually, I think there is a lot more promise in Habermas and his decades long arguments with Derrida. Both accept the idea of a discursive reality and the value of deconstruction in uncovering deep structure/power dynamics, but taken together it is clear that both view the need to enact something better in the public sphere is worthwhile. I also enjoy Habermas' frequent efforts to center the discussion of discourse on the everyday interaction of people living their lives and NOT on an exclusive focus on the hidden power of the bourgeoisie.

As to individual rights, I myself have long been a Lockean -- Life, Liberty, Property -- and (as did Locke) view these as deriving from our spiritual connection to a higher power (still a practicing Catholic me). For those who reject the existence/relevance of such a higher power, however, there really is no other source for these rights than the basic social contract of society itself. Nevertheless, I believe that such rights are so integral to an effective society that I deem any social contract that does not promote them to be, on some level, flawed.

Academe can embody all of the greatness that is the quest for knowledge and all of the self-enacted irrelevance that is its downfall. I am an academic -- sheepskin from the University of Texas to prove it -- but not enamored of the ivory tower for its own sake. I have also mediated in a small claims court and sold life insurance on commission -- and I assure you that those experiences of having to go out and do were vital to making the theory I teach to students relevant (and allowing me to call bull excrement where the call is warranted).

[Andres]

I first ran into Postmodernism in the late 1980s studying, believe it or not, organizational communication. Lyotard, Foucault, Jameson -- all of the "heroes" of '68. I found myself enthralled by the power of that critique -- deconstruction yielding insights into embedded structure/power dynamics, etc. I also found myself appalled that the postmodernists seemed to have nothing to DO with the theory in terms of developing anything -- just some musings about empowering the individual in some kind of "it will all be so freeing" anarcho-socialism. From what Horetore summarizes in the OP, there apparently hasn't been a lot of movement forward. I presume that most of them got tenure writing a deconstruction of things, got comfortable with the coffee-house life and worshipful grad students, and went into lather, rinse, repeat mode. Understandable that Horetore should retreat from educators who have become intellectually moribund.

Intellectually, I think there is a lot more promise in Habermas and his decades long arguments with Derrida. Both accept the idea of a discursive reality and the value of deconstruction in uncovering deep structure/power dynamics, but taken together it is clear that both view the need to enact something better in the public sphere is worthwhile. I also enjoy Habermas' frequent efforts to center the discussion of discourse on the everyday interaction of people living their lives and NOT on an exclusive focus on the hidden power of the bourgeoisie.

As to individual rights, I myself have long been a Lockean -- Life, Liberty, Property -- and (as did Locke) view these as deriving from our spiritual connection to a higher power (still a practicing Catholic me). For those who reject the existence/relevance of such a higher power, however, there really is no other source for these rights than the basic social contract of society itself. Nevertheless, I believe that such rights are so integral to an effective society that I deem any social contract that does not promote them to be, on some level, flawed.

Academe can embody all of the greatness that is the quest for knowledge and all of the self-enacted irrelevance that is its downfall. I am an academic -- sheepskin from the University of Texas to prove it -- but not enamored of the ivory tower for its own sake. I have also mediated in a small claims court and sold life insurance on commission -- and I assure you that those experiences of having to go out and do were vital to making the theory I teach to students relevant (and allowing me to call bull excrement where the call is warranted).

The social contract is an interesting thought experiment, but it can't be a justification for living under the rule of a government.

In fact, imo, there's nothing "contract" about a large group of people living under the rule of a small ruling class.

To illustrate how absurd the idea is that being ruled by a government is the result of some sort of agreement between all parties involved, I'll just quote Proudhon:

To be governed is to be kept in sight, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right, nor the wisdom, nor the virtue to do so.... To be governed is to be at every operation, at every transaction, noted, registered, enrolled, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under the pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be placed under contribution, trained, ransomed, exploited, monopolized, extorted, squeezed, mystified, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, despised, harassed, tracked, abused, clubbed, disarmed, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and, to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality. And to think that there are democrats among us who pretend that there is any good in government; Socialists who support this ignominy, in the name of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity; proletarians who proclaim their candidacy for the Presidency of the Republic! Hypocrisy! ...

I'm not saying that I'm anti-government, I'm just saying that it is absurd that at some set point in time, we all agreed to be ruled by somebody else.

[Fragony]

Post-modernism doesn't mean the same thing in literature, post-modernism is a period politically speaking. In literature it's a departure from 'classical' literature that owed it's legitimacy to the it's throwback on classical literature, the sctructure and themes changed. Modernism is a confusing word as it has nothing to do with anything we consider te be modern. Basicly, ancient style in everything, building styles, literatere, poetry, it all grasped back. Post-modernism is a departure from that. There are people that will absolutily disagree with this and link the period to the artstyle (all) and be mean to me. This is just one of the many viewpoints.

@Greyblades. Hope it helps.

[HoreTore]

I'm not saying that I'm anti-government, I'm just saying that it is absurd that at some set point in time, we all agreed to be ruled by somebody else.

Why? Hierarchies are completely natural for our species(and many others).

Why is it any more absurd for us to have a government, than for the dominant male to lead a pack of wild animals?

[Andres]

Why? Hierarchies are completely natural for our species(and many others).

Why is it any more absurd for us to have a government, than for the dominant male to lead a pack of wild animals?

It is not absurd that there exists a ruling class. But it is absurd to state that we all agreed to be ruled. The ruling class just grabbed the power and governs the rest of us. Nobody ever aksed me if I agreed to be ruled and nobody ever asked my ancestors for their agreement neither.

We just happen to be ruled. There is no contract.

[HoreTore]

It is not absurd that there exists a ruling class. But it is absurd to state that we all agreed to be ruled. The ruling class just grabbed the power and governs the rest of us. Nobody ever aksed me if I agreed to be ruled and nobody ever asked my ancestors for their agreement neither.

We just happen to be ruled. There is no contract.

How is that different to a dominant male in the wild?

Is it absurd that we are forced to eat as well?

[Andres]

How is that different to a dominant male in the wild?

We humans are a bit more complicated and there are a myriad of levels of powers and people or bodies exercising it, but in the end, there's not much difference.

[HoreTore]

We humans are a bit more complicated and there are a myriad of levels of powers and people or bodies exercising it, but in the end, there's not much difference.

So then, do you find it absurd that the dominant female lion leads the hunt?

[Montmorency]

The best way to ensure your representation, then, would of course be to seize the reins of power, destroy all traces of democracy, and rule as absolute dictator.

[Andres]

The best way to ensure your representation, then, would of course be to seize the reins of power, destroy all traces of democracy, and rule as absolute dictator.

In an ideal world, we would govern ourselves in mutual agreement.

But there will always be people who can't govern themselves and there will always be some who want to play boss. The worst people are those who belong in both those categories simultaneously.

Unfortunately, the majority of us hasn't evolved far enough to be able to live without somebody else telling them how, when, where and what to do, which makes lives sometimes unbearable for those indeed capable of living without government.