> In my last post, I tried to do just that -- putting/stating my perception
> that the bugaboo or "problem" with postmodernism is that it has not found
> a way to acknowledge "the given" (i.e., the spiritual dimension of humans,
> our ties to our planet, our we-ness and wee-ness, etc.).
A few thoughts: Since the early 1970s, we have been witnessing the age of
"empowerment." The term was first popularized during that time as a form
of spirituality/agency rather than a authoritarian or legalistic deferal
of authority (e.g. He was empowered by his boss to award constuction
contracts). I mentioned this point a while back in a critique of the term,
but it occurs to me now that Bob may be looking for sprirituality in the
wrong places. Seems to me that self-empowerment and empowering others is
pomo spirituality, not in a theoretical or religious sense, but in
day-to-day practice. The term is used with a sense of awe, of
self-enlightenment, of inner strength. And, tied as it is to educational
discourse (a la Paulo Freire, Ira Shor, Henry Giroux etc.), it is also a
discourse of "democracy" and of nationalism, both secularly spiritual
concepts. In this age of the centerless subject, agency seems to be a
form of spirituality.
I haven't thought through the implications of this secular
spirituality in light of the discussion on ethics, but it might suggest
that ethics, as a discursive field, is no longer stable, that it is tied
to personal achievement and control of one's destiny. Ooo, this is
getting messy. I better get back to other things.
cheers,
jrg
On Tue, 29 Oct 1996, Bob King wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Oct 1996, Annie Armentrout wrote:
>
> > >On Fri, 18 Oct 1996, Bob King wrote:
> > < S N I P >
> > >> Some of this "play" is not encouraging to me, and I do think it speaks of
> > >> serious misunderstandings of the situation we're all in (a situation not
> > >> well described by cereal-box or common sense versions of postmodernism).
>
> > And just what situation is it that we're all in? How is it being
> > misunderstood? And what do you mean 'we'?
>
> Annie, I'm playing/working with the idea that the situation
> we're all in is one in which we are very suspicious of statements like
> "the situation we're all in," very suspicious of the idea that
> "misunderstandings" are still possible even in conditions of pluralism,
> and very suspicious that there is in any sense a "we!"
>
> In other words I'm interested in how an era may be defined by its
> questions rather than its answers -- particularly an era (our own time in
> history) which lays claim to the paradoxical "answer" that there are no
> answers. So, knowing I'm out on a limb, the "we" I refer to is the we
> that seems to easily and naturally generate questions about the invalidity
> of the category of "we." I realize I'm presenting my own point of view on
> this. I also realize it may not be a topic others are all that interested
> in! -- and in part I'm interested because I looked pretty hard at the
> topic of ethics and pomo (being a product of my times, you know) when I
> wrote doctoral exams, so I drift into "authorial voice," (another category
> of suspicion!) at times.
>
> By all means (in reference to your following words), I do think we should
> talk and debate these things (i.e., is there a "we?"), and I do think
> the debate can be done in common sense language. In my last post, I tried
> to do just that -- putting/stating my perception that the bugaboo or
> "problem" with postmodernism is that it has not found a way to acknowledge
> "the given" (i.e., the spiritual dimension of humans, our ties to our
> planet, our we-ness and wee-ness, etc.). Although the last I heard
> Derrida was reading and talking about the Bible (a friend of mine was
> lucky enough to be in a seminar he did a few years back at UC Irvine),
> for the most part I don't associate postmodern theory with anything other
> than the idea that we construct our world from scratch, in some sense.
> Maybe others have read some passages in pomo theory about spirituality or
> what not. I haven't.
>
> I have, however, seen much of such discussion in feminist theory (i.e.,
> eco-feminism), so in part I'm also wondering why (me being suspicious) the
> attention to postmodern theorists more than feminist theorists (part of
> the much noted backlash? -- I'm not sure, but I'm curious).
>
> > Moreover, if that situation is
> > such that it can't be/shouldn't be talked about/explained/debated in clear,
> > concise and coherent language and have some tie to common sense (which can
> > be damnably uncommon), then doesn't that exempt a great many of us from
> > that 'we'?
>
> I agree with what you are saying/asking here. I am seeking ordinary
> conversation, coherent language use, and common sense about our present!
> I'll look forward to reading what you think. I'm trying to be disciplined
> because I (obviously) like the topic -- this is my email time allotment
> for the next couple of days as far as writing goes! :)
>
> Bob
>
\
\ Jeffrey R. Galin
_/ Department of English
o// California State Univ. San Bernardino
/-/ 5500 University Parkway, 92407-2397
/\/
|/ (412) 521-1472 (H)
// Galin+@pitt.edu
o |\ http://www.pitt.edu/~jrgst7/homepage.html
|< \ WebRights-L@list.pitt.edu (print/digital publishing)
_____/_\__/ Majordomo@list.pitt.edu (subscribe WebRights-L <name>)
_/ \___________________________________________________ . . .