Spluuuh, whaaaaaaa? I have never, ever, EVER met a postmodernist who was a Libertarian. The central philosophical tenets of postmodernist philosophy -- relativism, post-structuralism, and neo-pragmatism -- are totally incompatible with Libertarianism and Objectivism, which both claim that there's such a thing as 'natural' law and objective, determinate and universal truth, something that postmodernism totally rejects. Not to mention the fact that every big-time libertarian I can think of, from Ayn Rand to Robert Nozick to Milton Friedman to Murray Rothbard, is/was an implacable foe of postmodernism, relativism, and structuralism.

I don't understand this at all.


Edited at 2008-05-08 03:17 am (UTC)

(Reply to this) (Thread)

First off, we're not talking about postmodernism, but specifically Foucault and his social constructionist theories. Also she's not saying that Libertarianism and the historical and queer theories of Foucault are necessarily something that go hand-in-hand, but that they both share a common trait that makes them vulnerable to criticism: projecting internalized thoughts and obsessions as paradigms that can be universally applied to external evidence (personally I think this is something that can be laid at the doorstep of many modern* philosophers, from Freud to Derrida, as well, but it isn't an inherent trait of postmodernism itself). If anything, we're saying that both Foucault's theories and Libertarianism spring from modern concepts of individualism, but that doesn't at all infer that they're both concepts that sit easily next to each other (much like how Leninism and American capitalism, despite their obvious oppositions, both draw from Hegelian ideas of positivism and a progressive history).

*And I mean "modern" in the historical sense, not in an intellectual categorization sense.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

projecting internalized thoughts and obsessions as paradigms that can be universally applied to external evidence

At some level, I'm pretty sure this is what's called "thinking."

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

I strongly disagree. True, we all have our biases and blinders, but there's a wide gulf between that and attempting to force any and all evidence you come across to fit extremely narrow paradigms. The goal of scholarship, after all, is to assess the evidence and then devise a theory, not the other way around, which was Foucault's approach. That is a form of "thinking", but it begs adjectives like "sloppy" and "laughable."

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

On the other hand, aren't our notions of what evidence even is influenced in some ways by our internalized thoughts and obsessions--what Bacon called The Idols of the Cave?

I think the real flaw in what Lauren has to say is that, by this same way of thinking, Abstract Expressionism and Schoenberg's atonalism are also to blame for Objectivism etc., not to mention P-Funk. But, if she's joking, it's absolutely hilarious and I need her to write for the 'village.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

On the other hand, aren't our notions of what evidence even is influenced in some ways by our internalized thoughts and obsessions

I think that's overthinking the case, especially now that, at least in the field of history, our ideas of what constitutes evidence are far more broad and considered than they were when, say, modern historicism was being crafted. Besides, becoming too obsessed with one's own subjectivity or the unreliability of the sources, even if the bits and pieces can be taken out of them to construct a clear image, leads one to Aristotle's state of infinite regress. And that way lies madness, long boring books no one but the choir reads, and finally the same rejection of rationalism that gives rise to phenomena such as Creationism.

And of course, at least in my corner of the field of history, there have been documented cases of evidence trumping subjective biases. The most notorious case is John Boswell, who was obsessed with proving that homophobia was only a late medieval invention. His work is now widely dismissed (although the depth of his research is respected and he's still occasionally cited). In my own case, I would like for my Secret Project to collaborate Foucault's assertion that same-sex relations were unproblematic to pre-Christian Western civilization, but that is not at all the case. External evidence and careful analysis has trumped my own inclinations, expectations, and biases.

I think the real flaw in what Lauren has to say is that, by this same way of thinking, Abstract Expressionism and Schoenberg's atonalism are also to blame for Objectivism etc., not to mention P-Funk.

I don't think she's saying that at all. We're just pointing out a shared (and unpleasant) trait between two modern modes of thought. You can say that there is a common swamp of modernity from which all these things arise, but I don't think that's a bold assertion at all.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

I'm speaking more generally--which is to say that what we accept as evidence is the result of some type of bias. This is not to say that we shouldn't try to overcome those biases or compensate for them. We have to; it's sort of all we have, after all. "Evidence" and how we define it may very well be flawed, but to do away with it, as you say, leads to the sorts of absurdism that allows Creationist "theories" to make sense.

I'm not throwing the proverbial baby out with the empirical bathwater here, just admitting that what we count as evidence must necessarily be as subject to revision as anything else. Think about it this way: evidence of the lives of women at one point would not have been considered significant evidence of larger historical trends. Now we'd feel silly dismissing them. Or, to put it another way, what was considered evidence in physics before the idea of quantum mechanics is different than after. There's nothing wrong with this at all, just like there's nothing wrong with saying something is relative; that makes it no less real.

As far as those being shared traits of Modernism (note the big "M") I'd say they both are products of the same era but of diametrically opposed ways of thinking that came to resemble one another in the same way that the tyrannical systems of state communism and fascism came to resemble one another. Continually placing yourself in opposition turns your ideology into a mirror image of that which you oppose. That doesn't mean you're coming from the same intellectual place as that which you oppose.

Or maybe I just feel the need to defend avant-garde jazz.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Now that I think about it, I believe you're supporting my critique of Foucault and the philosophes. I've said it before, but reading Foucault and some of his peers is the intellectual equivalent of seeing a toddler try to fit the square-shaped peg through the star-shaped hole. Inventing your paradigms before you approach the evidence is only a good strategy as long as people are impressed by the trendiness of your views (or, in Foucault's case, as long as you make scholars feel better by assuring them that those icky, weird homos didn't really "exist" before the present day, but that's yet another anti-Foucault rant entirely).

I do think there is something to the postmodern critique of presentism and the tendency to place certain categories of evidence beyond criticism. I can never accept Derrida's sola scriptura approach. How can you read, for just one example, Plato's "Laws" without considering how he had been previously embittered by his experiences in Syracuse? But maybe I'm going a bit too far afield...

Anyway, I also have to disagree with your theory on Communism and Fascism (and in the interest of disclosure I admit I'm one of those pesky historians who doesn't believe in modernity), although it is an interesting one. Both relied on the idea that an ideal society could be constructed through use of law and ideology, among other things, and I think therein lies the key to understanding their appeal.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

But Alan Greenspan was at one time a jazz musician--and a good one. Granted, he was a be-bop guy . . .

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Oops, my mistake, she does mention postmodernism.

Still, I think the point still stands, since the discussion is primarily about Foucault (and the comment was inspired by more of my endless Foucault-bashing). Plus, as she pointed out to me in private discussion, hasn't Bush's approach to justifying the war in Iraq and certain far-right projects, like Creationism, had a postmodern taste?

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)