Lynkurs i postmodernisme

Trond Andresen (Trond.Andresen@itk.ntnu.no)
Tue, 4 Feb 1997 11:32:00 +0100

Vedlagt et amerikansk lynkurs i postmoderne sjargong, tilsendt meg av
Alex Iversen <Alex.Iversen@media.uib.no> (takk, Alex). For å si det
med ham: "Det er opplysende, morsomt og nyttig for de av oss som aldri
helt har forstått hvorfor det obskure skal vere dypere en det klart
tenkte og klart formulerte".

Overlates gratis til Røssak med venner, slik at de kan utrette enda mer
avanserte ting på KKs kultursider.

Trond Andresen

*****************************************************

HOW TO SPEAK AND WRITE POSTMODERN
by Stephen Katz, Associate Professor, Sociology
Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario, Canada

Postmodernism has been the buzzword in academia for the last
decade. Books, journal articles, conference themes and university
courses have resounded to the debates about postmodernism that
focus on the uniqueness of our times, where computerization, the
global economy and the media have irrevocably transformed all
forms of social engagement. As a professor of sociology who
teaches about culture, I include myself in this environment.
Indeed, I have a great interest in postmodernism both as an
intellectual movement and as a practical problem. In my
experience there seems to be a gulf between those who see the
Postmodern turn as a neo-conservative reupholstering of the same
old corporate trappings, and those who see it as a long overdue
break with modernist doctrines in education, aesthetics and
politics. Of course there are all kinds of positions in between,
depending upon how one sorts out the optimum route into the next
millennium.

However, I think the real gulf is not so much positional as
linguistic. Posture can be as important as politics when it
comes to the intelligentsia. In other words, it may be less
important whether or not you like postmodernism than whether or
not you can speak and write postmodernism. Perhaps you would like
to join in conversation with your local mandarins of cultural
theory and all-purpose deep thinking, but you don't know what to
say. Or, when you do contribute something you consider relevant,
even insightful, you get ignored or looked at with pity. Here is
a quick guide, then, to speaking and writing postmodern.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

1. First, you need to remember that plainly expressed language
is out of the question. It is too realist, modernist and
obvious. Postmodern language requires that one uses play, parody
and indeterminacy as critical techniques to point this out.
Often this is quite a difficult requirement, so obscurity is a
well-acknowledged substitute.

For example, let's imagine you want to say something
like, "We should listen to the views of people outside
of Western society in order to learn about the cultural
biases that affect us". This is honest but dull. Take
the word "views." Postmodernspeak would change that to
"voices," or better, "vocalities." or even better,
"multivocalities." Add an adjective like
"intertextual," and you're covered. "People outside" is
also too plain. How about "postcolonial others"?

To speak postmodern properly one must master a bevy of biases
besides the familiar racism, sexism, ageism, etc.

For example, phallogocentricism (male-centredness
combined with rationalistic forms of binary logic).
Finally "affect us" sounds like plaid pajamas. Use
more obscure verbs and phrases, like "mediate our
identities."

So, the final statement should say, "We should listen to the
intertextual, multivocalities of postcolonial others outside of
Western culture in order to learn about the phallogocentric
biases that mediate our identities." Now you're talking
postmodern!

2. Sometimes you might be in a hurry and won't have the time to
muster even the minimum number of postmodern synonyms and
neologisms needed to avoid public disgrace. Remember, saying the
wrong thing is acceptable if you say it the right way.

This brings me to a second important strategy in speaking
postmodern -- which is to use as many suffixes, prefixes,
hyphens, slashes, underlinings and anything else your computer
(an absolute must to write postmodern) can dish out.

You can make a quick reference chart to avoid time
delays. Make three columns. In column A put your
prefixes: post-, hyper-, pre-, de-, dis-, re-, ex-, and
counter-. In column B go your suffixes and related
endings: -ism, -itis, -iality, -ation, -itivity, and
-tricity. In column C add a series of well-respected
names that make for impressive adjectives or schools of
thought, for example, Barthes (Barthesian), Foucault
(Foucauldian, Foucauldianism), Derrida (Derridean,
Derrideanism).

Now for the test. You want to say or write something like,
"Contemporary buildings are alienating." This is a good thought,
but, of course, a non-starter. You wouldn't even get offered a
second round of crackers and cheese at a conference reception
with such a line. In fact, after saying this, you might get
asked to stay and clean up the crackers and cheese after the
reception. Go to your three columns.

First, the prefix. Pre- is useful, as is post-, or
several prefixes at once is terrific. Rather than
"contemporary buildings," be creative. "The
Pre/post/spacialities of counter-architectural
hyper-contemporaneity" is promising. You would have to
drop the weak and dated term "alienating" with some
well suffixed words from column B. How about
"antisociality", or be more postmodern and introduce
ambiguity with the linked phrase,
"antisociality/seductivity."

Now, go to column C and grab a few names whose work everyone will
agree is important and hardly anyone has had the time or the
inclination to read. Continental European theorists are best
when in doubt. I recommend the sociologist Jean Baudrillard
since he has written a great deal of difficult material about
postmodern space. Don't forget to make some mention of gender.
Finally, add a few smoothing out words to tie the whole garbled
mess together and don't forget to pack in the hyphens, slashes
and parentheses.

What do you get? "Pre/post/spacialities of
counter-architectural hyper-contemporaneity (re)commits
us to an ambivalent recurrentiality of
antisociality/seductivity, one enunciated in a
de/gendered-Baudrillardian discourse of granulated
subjectivity." You should be able to hear a
postindustrial pin drop on the retrocultural floor.

3. At some point someone may actually ask you what you're
talking about. This risk faces all those who would speak
postmodern and must be carefully avoided. You must always give
the questioner the impression that they have missed the point,
and so send another verbose salvo of postmodernspeak in their
direction as a "simplification" or "clarification" of your
original statement. If that doesn't work, you might be left with
the terribly modernist thought of, "I don't know." Don't worry,
just say, "The instability of your question leaves me with
several contradictorily layered responses whose interconnectivity
cannot express the logocentric coherency you seek. I can only
say that reality is more uneven and its (mis)representations more
untrustworthy than we have time here to explore." Any more
questions? No, then pass the cheese and crackers.