AKMA’s Random Thoughts

Pomo — No?

I’ve been distracted with trying to keep my composure through an increasingly ugly political drama at our parish church, and have had a hard time concentrating or working productively. Somehow, I managed to go two or three days without noticing the conflagration occurring among some of my blog-colleagues about postmodernism, Queer Theory, and so on.

Before I get to specifics, I’m going to oversimplify to the point of falsifying. Postmodernism, in one of its most important manifestations, a refusal to take anything for granted — that’s all.

So Queer Theory starts from the observation that most people most of the time take their own perspective on gender and sexuality to be natural, given, unquestionable, common sense, so obvious as not to merit further consideration. A Queer Theorist may begin by noting that matters of sexuality (aye, and of gender also) frequently seem natural and given within a particular culture, but may seem off-kilter and perverse from the perspective of another culture. If Pennsylvanians think J ideas of sexuality are natural and given, but West Virginians think K ideas are natural and given, what does that indicate about sexuality (and about our reasoning about sexuality)? The more closely one examines concepts that carry a lot of ideological weight (sexuality, patriotism, reason, human nature, to suggest a few), the more readily one may attain the conviction that these matters aren’t as clear-cut as common sense seems to dictate. Or one may insist all the more loudly that commons sense holds true, and that the Queer Theorist is simply splitting hairs, counting angels, wasting taxpayers’ precious money.

I give thanks that people devote time to thinking critically about such topics, even when their deliberations appear outre to me at first glance. At the very least, such study prepares people to think harder and more intensely, a practice that has stood homo sapiens moderately well over the years, and of which there is no superabundance.

One great stream of modern thought rested on the premise that race, gender, sexual difference, and other characteristics were irrelevant to Universal Human Nature, the noblest examples of which were straight(-acting), white, slave-holding men who kept wives (wives who couldn’t attend institutions of higher education or vote). I’d be willing to on record as saying that something’s wrong with that picture, but on the other hand there’s a long history of the humanist defenders of Universal Human Nature resisting the voices of abolitionists, feminists, and advocates for lesbian and gay people.

That really does oversimplify to the point of falsification, so no one should construe it as “what AKMA really thinks about postmodernism”; sometimes, though, some oversimplification serves the needs of communication. Besides, I’m sad and weary.

So, on to Krista (more here) and Frank and Jeff and Mike.

I’m all in favor of studying dead white guys, including Foucault. Not everyone need study or accept what we read in Queer Theory or postmodern philosophy courses, but someone who wants to bury postmodern thought had better equip himself (or herself) to argue the case, not just snipe at straw targets (“Hey, Bungalow Bill — what postmodern theorist did you kill?”). And as long as snipe-hunting passes for intellectual disconfirmation of postmodern arguments, well, looks like we’ve got some more ’splaining to do — much as I hate to think that we need more introductory books about postmodernism.

Frank apologizes for possibly coming across as having intended to denounce Krista and Jeff personally, so I’m not trying to restart a fight that Frank’s trying to wind down. On the other hand, a young scholar at the Digital Genres conference — he must have been awfully brilliant, since he stated his position with neither uncertainty nor humility — blamed “postmodernism” for the election of George Bush and the growth of the Ashcroftian Security State. When such superficial claptrap persistently represents itself as refutation, one ought not be surprised to hear serious students of postmodern thought respond peevishly when somebody doubts, casually if not outright flippantly, the legitimacy of their area of interest.

Posted by AKMA at June 11, 2003 10:56 PM | TrackBack