In response to this article, some readers have been discussing PoMo politics and its various “trickle-down” effects. Readers who’ve been following that discussion may be interested in some points made by Fabian Tassano over at his blog. Tassano addresses the broader subject of leftist bias in academia and the creeping censorship that follows:

“The larger part of academia has become obsessed with jargon and formalism, at the expense of meaningful content. An academic’s principal options in fields such as economics, psychology or sociology are now (1) become a number-cruncher (do tedious empirical research with plenty of highly technical statistical analysis, much of which is likely to be questionable), or (2) generate pseudo-theory of a kind which reproduces the currently fashionable terminology. In either case, taking care to say nothing that conflicts with received wisdom. In fields such as literature or philosophy, there is only option (2). The high level of technicality and referencing typically masks the triviality — or absence — of genuine content.

The purpose of academia has changed from producing real insights to generating reinforcement for the preferred world view… It should be obvious by now, to anyone who cares, that the principle of free speech is being gradually eroded in the West. Either by straightforward ditching, or — more subtly — by redefining it in ways designed to legitimise the prohibition of ideologically incorrect viewpoints. For example, not long ago an editor at the Index on Censorship admonished us for being too literalist about the issue: ‘People shouldn’t think that the Index is against censorship on principle. It may have been so in its radical youth, but it is now as concerned with fighting hate speech as protecting free speech.’ (Rohan Jayasekera, commenting about the murder of Theo van Gogh.)

…Where we get dissident research being done at all, it is — inevitably — funded by bodies with links to commerce and/or right wing politics, since those are the only organisations with an incentive to challenge the il-liberal consensus. This is used by the mainstream both (a) to prove that there isn’t a restriction on what research gets done, and (b) to discredit that research.”

The article can be read in full here. Tassano’s book, Mediocracy, may also be of interest.

The recent article on Carolyn Guertin and her postmodern ‘scholarship’ continues to attract some interesting comments, and the broader subject may be worth revisiting. Thanks to all those who’ve made contributions towards the upkeep of this site. Much appreciated. With luck, I’ll soon be penning this from a bejewelled armchair, in a castle made of gold. Meanwhile, a little more grim absurdity seems in order. Via Jawa, I stumbled across this clip of Jeff Dunham and Achmed. It made me laugh, quite a lot. I think it’s the eyebrows that did it. I do hope finding this funny doesn’t make me a bad person. Answers on a postcard, please.

And, for not dissimilar reasons, this may also amuse. 

The Atomic Cannon circa 1952. Fired first atomic artillery shell, range 7 miles. 20 were made, none used in battle. More here. Footage of Atomic Cannon in action here. // Great bus stops of the Soviet Union, photographed by Christopher Herwig. Not uniform and dreary, but quirky and bizarre. Though perhaps a little spartan. // Car Park time lapse. Oddly compelling. // Easy… Mind the, er… // First time landing. A little rough at the edges. // The Nintendo Museum. I still use one of these. // Rosie O’Donnell thinks fire melting steel “defies physics.” Steelworkers, welders, and makers of fine cutlery are, understandably, shocked by this news. Thankfully, the people at Popular Mechanics know more than Rosie does. About most things, I’d imagine. // George Monbiot flies, urges others not to. Going on holiday by plane is “morally unacceptable.” Hyperbole and hypocrisy still okay, apparently. // BBC avoids “alienating” its “anti-war” audience by cancelling drama based on real life soldier’s heroism. // Islamists and Communists link arms, regret founding of United States. Islamic Party of Britain would also like to murder gay people. Communist position on this unclear. // Islamist mob says “Our movement is peaceful.” Demands abolition of ‘vice’ or “thousands will retaliate with suicide attacks.” (H/T, B&W) // A bizarre vagina dentata solution to sexual assault. “Worn internally, its hollow interior is lined with 25 razor-sharp teeth.” More here. // Scott Wade, dust artist. Dirty car as canvas. (H/T, OnePlusOneEqualsThree) // Grand Canyon Skywalk. Can support 70 tons and withstand a magnitude 8 earthquake. Glass-bottomed, naturally. More here. // Alan Moore ponders smut, at length. “Our impulse towards pornography has been with us since thumbs were first opposable.” Discuss. // Yes, the spandex is snug, but clunky retro armour makes a fanboy tingle. // Chuck Norris Action Jeans! “Unique hidden gusset.” Only $19.95. // Panoramic vista from the top of Everest, as seen by roughly 1000 climbers. (Scroll right for full effect.) // Hexagonal clouds at Saturn’s northern pole. Clouds rotate, stay hexagonal. Cause unknown. // Saturn’s south pole is quite strange too. What with the giant Earth-sized vortex. // And finally, a stirring polka, courtesy of Cartman. You’ll feel better for it.

In light of recent posts, and various responses to them, I thought I’d highlight this article, The Philosopher and the Ayatollah, by Wesley Yang. Yang documents Michel Foucault’s dalliance with Islamist fanaticism and his enthusiasm for a “perfectly unified collective will.”

“Foucault never considers the rights of women in Islam until his very last disillusioned missive, in May 1979. When an Iranian woman living in exile in Paris wrote a letter… castigating Foucault for his uncritical support of [the Khomeini revolution], he airily dismissed her claims as anti-Muslim hate-mongering.”

The piece was published a couple of years ago, but it seems relevant and fairly symbolic of what’s been discussed here in the last couple of days. Not least because it conveys Foucault’s contrarian posturing, his bizarre lack of realism, and, above all, his stunted moral sense – attributes shared by many of his PoMo peers at the time and, currently, by much of the political left. As, for instance, when the Socialist Worker published a piece by Loretta Napoleoni, claiming jihadist terrorism is “the new anti-imperialist ideology” and fawning over Musab al-Zarqawi’s “kindness” and “determination.” For other examples of practised unrealism, see here, here, here and here.

Yang’s article is worth reading in full. I’m pretty sure one or two modern parallels can be drawn.

In responding to yesterday’s post on Carolyn Guertin, several commenters noted the contradictions that arise in various strands of PoMo theorising and its political connotations. These contradictions are often summarised as: “All cultures are equal in merit, but the West is uniquely oppressive, imperialist and corrupting. All values are subjective, but sexism, racism and imperialism are definitely evil and must be struggled against.” With these contradictions in mind, I thought I’d post a brief extract from an interview with Stephen Hicks, author of Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault:

“If all you want to do is destroy, it doesn’t matter to you if the words you use contradict each other… I sometimes think of an analogy here to a stereotypically unscrupulous lawyer who will use any argument, even one that contradicts one he’s already made, if he thinks it will be rhetorically useful in convincing a jury. If one is driven by anti-capitalism, then one knows that attacking technology harms capitalism and one knows that attacking unequal distribution harms capitalism. So who cares if those two arguments contradict each other? You’re harming capitalism!”

As most of the major figures in politicised postmodernism have favoured various forms of collectivism, anti-capitalism and deranged authoritarianism, it’s easy to see how the argument above might apply. Relativistic arguments may be used against the enemy – to flatten hierarchies, for instance – but they’re less readily applied to the collectivist or reactionary politics that PoMo enthusiasts so often advance. (Thus, sceptics among us might suspect the relativism is actually a ruse to further an absolutist agenda.)

If one’s ‘work’ is based on being oppositional – or being seen to be oppositional – against capitalism, racism, sexism, imperialism (real or imagined), white male patriarchy, etc, then liberties can, and probably will, be taken. Attempts to fathom truth, or to be consistent, meaningful and accurate, can, and probably will, be dispensed with in order to advance The Great Cause. (Or The Great Oppositional Posture, depending on one’s scepticism.) And it’s worth noting that in Criticism and Social Change, the left-wing theorist, Frank Lentricchia, announced that the postmodern movement “seeks not to find the foundation and conditions of truth, but to exercise power for the purpose of social change.” Achieved, one might suppose, even at the cost of truth.