Postmodern Theory and the radical left?

The only contact I've had with post-modernism has been through a couple of readings from Derrida and Judith Butler, so perhaps my exposure has been too limited to make a fair judgement of it, but I have to side with big Noam on this one.

To me it seems like a lot of posturing and arcane language to give off the appearance of being "deep". When it comes to Butler in particular, Martha Nussbaum nails it in her essay on her "The Professor of Parody":

http://www.akad.se/Nussbaum.pdf

As far as its effects on the radical left go, I would personally love to see much less of it, but, in my experience, its influence is so limited that I don't really bother combating it when it comes up amongst comrades (and it has) unless we've decided beforehand to discuss it.

Kropotkin had this piece where he said that anarchism will be a powerful moment when it is in the masses and not in academia, I feel so frustrated that I cant find it.

Anyway, “post-structuralist anarchism” seems to be existent only in academia. Chances are it will catch on with the anarchist movement the same way “analytic anarchism” did(an attempt of trying to get an out of fashion idea of 'Analytic Marxism' to serve anarchism). I am extremely skeptical than any academic movement will ever be revolutionary or create a popular movement.

From what I hear they insist that all past anarchist theorists are humanist and simply dismiss them. And in its place is an 'endless rebellion'/''categorical rebellion'/lifestyle-ist idea that seems to be more inspired from American popular culture than any historically informed conception of anarchism.

Brian Morris's book “Kropotkin and the rise of community” has a chapter defending kropotkin from such thinkers. There was another piece that I had read in a collection a while back that dealt with the claim of anarchism being a humanism, its name has escaped me.

I believe that it is essayist like Iain McKay(and others) that are the true successors of past anarchist theorists and the real champions of the anarchist movement today(most likely to be remembered by future generations), not a bunch of isolated individuals playing with an esoteric philosophy deep within the labyrinth of academia for a purpose that is divorced from the true goals of anarchism.(this is making them sound like the the aliens in the movie "dark city")

The last paragraph makes it sound like your objection isn't to intellectuals pontificating from a philosophical ghetto, but to intellectuals pontificating from the wrong kind of philosophical ghetto.

I agree with Ethos and others above. Alan Sokal's "Intellectual Impostures" is a fun (and funny) book which exposes the irrationality and posturing of philosophical postmodernism. There's an EPUB version here: http://libgen.info/view.php?id=818760

Its easy to slag 'postmodernism' whatever that term actually means. I think one has to be very critical of some of its positions, say rejection of the Enlightenment, and what that means for progressive politics. But on the other hand it has had a major influence on anarchism and the progressive trajectory of how one theorises gender, as seen in the recent shitstorm with the rad fems and the trans activists. But I think ultimately it is often a divisive and pessimistic set of analytical tools, that divide and atomise liberatory and progressive politics and does so in an incredibly elitist way.

I know some folks who are into this theory and anarchism, they've often recommended this book looking at some intersecting ideas there.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Political-Philosophy-Poststructuralist-Anarchism/dp/0271010460

I'm not super-well versed in this stuff, but from reading various communisation and autonomist and autonomist inspired texts, it seems pretty clear that there is not a small amount of ideological influence going on with certain camps writing what is put forward as some of the most cutting edge theory out there. (tiqqun, sic, and some of the queer theory in the foucaultdian/deleuzoguattarian/negrian influenced vein)

I agree with criticism about it's overly-academicized nature, and I know a lot of you all on here are highly critical of this same stuff, for these reasons. But I'd say for all its faults, there's no question there is an overlap with currents that people here also find interesting.

I think the influence of "postmodernism" on the theorization of gender has been utterly negative. As in all other fields, it has led to completely idealist conceptions of "bodies" being "created" by "discourses" etc., with dire political consequences (i.e. indulgence in useless symbolic actions in place of mass struggles).

Like it or not it has been the bedrock of queer activism. And that queer sensibility forged in academia has been the dominant discourse when it comes to gender and sexuality within contemporary anarchism.

So far this thread seems to be mostly people saying "I don't know much about it, but I know it's bad!" which is delightfully beyond parody.

Personally, I'm not an academic, but I find Foucault's lectures from the College de France ("Society Must be Defended", "Security, Territory, Population", etc) a way easier read than Capital vol II, and more fun for anyone with an interest in history and ideas. It's been years since I read it, but I also enjoyed Discipline and Punish. Deleuze and Guattari is admittedly more of an acquired taste, but years after going through A Thousand Plateaus with my old reading group, I still see the patterns and thematics from it in real life current affairs and debates. The attempt by Negri and his associates (Marazzi, Vercellone, Lazzarato et al) to form a post-autonomist/foucauldian/deleuzoguattarian synthesis I mostly find unconvincing in toto, but they contain occasional flashes of brilliance, and even disagreeing with people who make you think is far more productive than wading through the dreary reams of knee-jerk "automatic writing" that passes for much so-called radical left writings.

Yeah this x2:

My experience is generally anyone who identifies as a postmodernist or a poststructuralist is full of shit. But that's mainly because the founding fathers of postmodernism/poststructuralism do not agree with each other at all: Foucault, Lacan, Barthes, Derrida, Deleuze, Baudrillard. Personally I've never got the Deleuze thing, he just seems to be wrong about everything, I haven't read Derrida, but I've got a lot from Foucault, Lacan, Barthes and Baudrillard. Sure some of it is hard to read, Lacan is ridiculous. But so what, lots of things are hard to read.

The whole idea of postmodernism/poststructuralism as a theory seems slightly ridiculous. That's not to say that postmodernism/poststructuralism didn't happen as an intellectual movement, but that's a slightly different question. And there I think people make slightly ridiculous claims that get things backwards. Postmodernism/poststructuralism is an intellectual movement that emerges primarily in France and is marked by the defeat of '68, the loss of illusions in the PCF and the USSR, a rejection of 'totalitarian' theories, and the decline/breaking up of the working class subject. But then people move from that to blaming postmodernism/poststructuralism for acquiescence or even playing a causal role in the emergence and support of neoliberalism. I think this is completely getting things backwards, the left was defeated and a theoretical movement developed marked by its defeat, but it was not defeated because this movement developed. And if you look at many of the 'founding fathers' of this movement, they cannot blame them for defeat. People like Deleuze and Guattari might have been a lot of things but they were not defeatist. Of course there are others you can blame, like Laclau and Mouffe, or Stedman-Jones etc. etc. But for that look at Ellen Meiksins Woods' The Retreat from Class. So yeah, this movement is bad, but that is because its an intellectual movement marked by defeat and little else. Aside from this defeat, there is little that holds Foucault, Lacan, Barthes, Derrida, Deleuze, Baudrillard together. But this "I don't know much about it, but I know it's bad!" is, as ocelot says, "beyond parody".

How much do I have to read off this website before I can call it nonsense?

lol - crappest strawman of the week.

While I agree with George that the idea that there even is a coherent body of thought or worldview you could call "post-structuralism" is suspect, the one thing that is common to all the different figures identified with that label is that none of them were into creating religions - quite the opposite in fact, as you could say a lot of what motivated them was finding intellectual tools to figure out when someone or something (e.g. Stalinism) was trying to sell you a new religion.

Well lets take probably the most approachable and popular 'post structuralist' Foucault. He is undoudably a clever fella but where does his method lead us, or where did it lead him, it lead him to tacitly support Shia Islamism and the Ayatollah, rather than the left during the revolution in Iran in the late 70's, as it was a revolution that played out along different discourses that of the the use of historic dynamic between sunni and shia rather than a leftist and progressive type of political revolution.

It no coincidence that islamist scholars are influenced by western anti enlightenment philosophers, from Nietzsche, Heidegger to Foucault, because abeit often shoddy readings justify all sorts of nonsense.

Take Foucaults interest in the tradition of the Persian catamite and how they are classified in Iranian society. It had a profound effect on his later studies into homosexuality. This is all quite murky stuff. Remember the Ayatollah spoke at length about certain relationships between men and boys what were acceptable, but homosexuals were hung from lamp posts. He undoutably has some very interesting things to say about biopower, power/knowledge and the functioning of modern state, but then what? Where does that lead us, what set of analytical tools does him and his close brethren leave us with? That Stalinism was bad that the enlightenment lead to the gas chamber and the Bomb? Yes and...

I wasn't aware of your erudition in the matter of Islamic scholars. Could you give us the names of these Islamic scholars, which of Nietzsche, Heidegger or Foucault they take inspiration from and in which texts? I'm all ears...

Islamist scholars, and give us a sec I'll try and find some quotes...

I don't see how that's a strawman, ocelot. You seemed to be implying that the lack of knowledge on the subject denies someone the ability to make a value judgment regarding the subject (is this right? 'Cause if it isn't then I have strawmanned you). This is true in many instances, but obviously not always the case (as I tried to show with that example) and it seems that post-modernism, or at least Derrida and Butler, fall into that category (i.e., in which you don't need to write a dissertation on them to call shenanigans).

Foucault and the Iranian Revolution, page 14% on my kindle. Sorry not near my bookshelf being in Bangkok and all that.

Really? late Foucault was much inspired by early Christianity, gnosticism, a rather orientalist reading of eastern religions such as Zen. It deeply influenced his 'care of the self' thing. And his experience with Shia was perhaps the most significant event that led to his post dicipline and punish writings. He (and his method) completely lost the plot in not seeing the Islamist movement in Iran as anything other than clerical fascism. So your statement is clearly wrong.

Find some of this stuff pretty interesting - particularly the stuff to do with islamist scholars relationship with post-structuralism which i have never heard before.

I always thought Khomenis contributions to shisism was more situated within an islamic framework on the question of the role of the clergy in relationship to politics, redefining their role as custodians of sole interpreters of the hidden Imam away from political quietism towards a more active role in shaping constitutions and determining whether laws enacted by the legislative assembly was in line with an 'islamic' constitution. If i remember correctly, the post revolutionary set up borrowed a lot of its constitution from the French one but i never knew there were other french influences from that time (apart from Ali Shariati who got bits and bobs from marxism and existentialism but i dont think his ideas had much influence in the political direction of the post revolution iranian state)...

As for post structuralism in general - one of the things that annoys me of the distinction between analytic and continental philosophy is that in my courses have not had the opportunity to study those which fall into the other side of that line of demarcation. Like for instance, just did a module on the philosophy of language there, and didn't get anything from semiotics, desassaure etc, not even just to show if it was a lot of rubbish or not. For me personally i find it kinda frustraiting since it seems that there are a lot of studies going on into similiar areas and that if there are insights gained they are not really getting the opportunity to really cross fertilise and get better insights happening.

So just via where im situated at the moment, i have not read very little post structuralist stuff beyond 101 stuff. One thing though, i've read a little zizek and i do find his style of in one paragraph going from say kripke to heidegger, to lacan seems to be more like showing off how well read he is rather than developing some real insights, but again i accept that its probably just because i havent got much of a background in it to formulate a proper judgement.

Nevertheless that passage about butler ethos posted, pretty much resembles my initial thoughts re zizek when i read him:

Yeah just for clarification, in the time of the Iranian rev, there was as far as I know little influence of 'post structuralism' on islamist thinkers, rather what they were in part inspired by were an anti-enlightenment, anti-western continental philosophical tradition, was, for obvious reasons a rich seam to tap into.

And isnt the modus operandi of islamism the totalitarian control of both the political and the personal? Something that the Ayatollah and his cronies fitted nicely into?

Yes agreed re modus operandi of the ayatollahs.

This book (which i read years ago) painted an interesting potrayal of Khomeni as a populist which explained contradictorary utterances that he said to the effect of
a) islam is for the dispossed
b) islam is for the protection of private property
- depending on which audience he was reaching out towards.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Khomeinism-Islamic-Republic-Ervand-Abrahamian/dp/0520085035

another book by the same writer on the mojehidin el khalq was also illuminating on how Khomeni tried to tap into some of the islamic leftism as advanced by people like ali shariati when it suited him to gain some legitimacy (that is prior to taking power) for the clergy. Once they consolidated power all that islamic leftism got suppressed surprise surprise...

Ali Shariati was pretty anti ulama (loads of his writings are very explicit on that point) so despite maybe the clergy drawing on some of his ideas in their rhetoric to gain some legitimacy i dont think it was much integrated into the ideology and practice that they propagated.

Sharati was also pretty geared towards a classless society which is pretty at odds with the ulama.

Foucault is tolerable. As to the rest: I'm not going to be wasting my time with authors who use (what a mathematician has demonstrated to be) pseudo-mathematical and pseudo-physical gobbledygook to impress me.

Also it's a fact that this rubbish has led e.g. some feminists I know to believe that staging theatre plays is the summit of the struggle for women's liberation. I'm not saying "post-modernism is responsible for neo-liberalism", but it sure is reponsible for a lot of stupid ideas in people's heads.

For my part I was saying that I'm not especially well read on this theory, but that it's no doubt influential to lots of the radical left, by which I attempted to reply to the original poster and some of the above which was like, "nah, just a buncha academic hogwash..." Which, yeah I do agree with in part -- and that is, based on writings which I have read that have referenced these works. Excuse me, I could have been more clear and less equivocal.

Philosophy was a big interest for me in my younger years, and I liked Nietzsche and the existentialists as precursors to my radicalism, later on I got into the Situationists. I tried to read a Baudrillard once and that was about as far as I got into pomo theory. Some of Foucault and Negri is on my to-reads. Ok, so general comment about philosophy, this is just to say that I don't write it off altogether and I agree that there can be some useful tools of analysis in these ideas.

I would also say that I also have enjoyed some writings that draw from the post-structural/post-autonomist stuff, and there's people I respect intellectually which take these works very seriously, and that leads me to think some of this stuff should be read. One of these days I'll dust off my copies of Discipline and Punish and Empire, and maybe have something more interesting to say. In the meantime, I'm going to roll my eyes a bit when I come across some needless references to Deleuze or Lacan in some insurrectionary rag or blog.

I enjoyed the Sokal and Bricmont book as well, it sits on my bookshelf alongside the Foucault & D&G, etc. But maybe you should go back to your copy (or borrow it again from the library) because it doesn't say anything about the validity of the philosophy per se, and Sokal makes that clear in the introduction. As to the general principle of dismissing the works of any author who has mangled mathematics in the past, in a desire to impress the world with his "scientific" seriousness, one word - Marx.