I read Harpers, although Im unlikely to renew as Im finding little recently that evokes more than vague interest.
Last month, they had a noxious and self-exculpating essay by Stanley Fish; Ive been trying unsuccessfully to think up something to say about it, then last night I picked up something to read from one of the many open boxes. George Orwell: a collection of essays. And in it, a brilliant essay called Looking Back on the Spanish War. He said, clearly and brilliantly, what Ive been struggling to articulate to myself:
I know it is the fashion to say that recorded history is lies anyway. I am willing to believe that history is for the most part inaccurate and biased, but what is particular to our own age is the abandonment of the idea that history could be truthfully written. In the past, people deliberately lied, or they unconsciously coloured what they wrote, or they struggled after the truth, well knowing that they must make many mistakes; but in each case, they believed that the facts existed and were more or less discoverable. And in practice there was always a substantial body of fact which would have been agreed to by almost everyone. If you look up the history of the last war in, for instance, the Encyclopaedia Brittanica, you will find that a respectable amount of material is drawn from German sources. A British and a German historian would disagree deeply on many things, even on fundamentals, but there would always be that body of, as it were, neutral fact on which neither would seriously challenge the other. It is just this common basis of agreement, with its implication that human beings are all one species of animal, that totalitarianism destroys. Nazi theory indeed specifically denies that such a thing as the truth exists. There is, for instance, no such thing as Science. There is only German Science, Jewish Science, etc. The implied objective of this line of thought is a nightmare world in which the Leader, or some ruling clique, controls not only the future but the past. If the Leader says of such and such an event, It never happenedwell, it never happened. If he says that two and two are five well, two and two are five. This prospect frightens me much more than bombs and after our experiences of the last few years that is not a frivolous statement.
I heard Fish lecture once, and while Ive always thought that the Derrida-istas were primarily an academic joke, when I saw him I got a faint whiff of evil.
Then I realized that he really reminded me of the antagonist in a funny academic novel called Satan, His Psychotherapy and Cure by the Unfortunate Dr. Kessler, J.S.P.S., a smug department head in league with the Devil. Hmmm….not a bad description, even for someone like me who doesn’t believe in brimstone.
Date: 07/18/2002 00:00:00 AM
[An aside: Fish actually was the inspiration for a novel character — Professor Morris Zapp in David Lodge’s Small World: An Academic Romance.]
Date: 07/20/2002 00:00:00 AM
As long as we are recommending novels….neal Stephenson’s Cryptonomicon has a withering sendup of pomo academia, as well as being a great read for many other reasons.
Date: 07/21/2002 00:00:00 AM
I have a special weakness for Cryptonomicon…my dad was a crypto in Asia in WWII……and he not only nails pomo academia, but the startup world as well…A.L.
Date: 07/18/2002 00:00:00 AM
There is, of course, a difference between out-and-out hiding of facts and history and the inevitable differences in interpretation. There is a false comparison being made here (and by many others) between discussions of the two. Personally, I found Fish’s thesis in-and-of-itself mostly benign, and have been wondering why the Blogosphere has been foaming at the mouth over it, accusing it of all manner of evils which the essay simply doesn’t support. He wasn’t defending totalitarianism, relativism, or anything of that sort… he was simply noting that while we may know in our hearts something is true, we cannot convince others of these things, and have no way of reliably doing so. This isn’t totalitarianism, it’s simple common sense. (It also arguably isn’t postmodernism… he’s left behind the textual elements). Remember that the term “post-modernism” is entirely a reaction to “modernism”… which is the idea that things are universal and can be understood through reason, which is entirely benign and morally righteous itself. While the evils of post-modernism are shadowy (if not wholly made up by those who can’t bear to think that someone might reasonably disagree with them), the evils of modernism are well known and well documented. In any case, there are also political philosophers and fiction writers besides Orwell… while an intelligent and capable writer, I’ve certainly read better dystopian fiction than 1984, and it’s worthy to remember that in many respects that novel was a more polished version of the old Russian proto-SF story “We”.
Date: 07/18/2002 00:00:00 AM
The preceding dialog between Terminus and A.L. is great to see. Terminus is intelligent, articulate, obviously educated, and so quite capable of grasping Orwell’s point about facts and totalitarianism. Yet s/he won’t acknowledge the connection, in general or specific (Jenin, airburshed May Day photos) terms. This way of looking at the world seems currently to be most enthusiastically embraced by the academic left. To some of us outside the Academy, what makes “post-modern” ways of thinking fascinating and scary is precisely the intelligence and articulateness of its practitioners.
Date: 07/18/2002 00:00:00 AM
Terminus says:It’s like your saying “Totalitarianism denies basic facts, it looks like postmodernism is moving disturbingly in that direction, therefore postmodernism promotes totalitarianism.” You can’t actually be saying that, being that’s ridiculous, so I’m still missing something.No, that’s exactly what I’m saying. I’m not convinced that the connection is causal or direct…that because Derrida was a Fascist apologist he arrived at his philosophy or vice versa. But I do believe in the power of ideas and philosophy, and that Fish’s ironic post-factual philosophy absolutely lays the groundwork for totalitarian despots.A.L.
Date: 07/18/2002 00:00:00 AM
Thanks for the kind comments, AMac. I am, for the record, a he. [The name Terminus is an affectation, not an attempt at anonymity, btw… anyone so inclined would not find it difficult to determine my true identity from my blog.] Anyway, I see the connection you mention in the sense that they are similar. But it’s not valid to argue that postmodernism is bad because it is, in this sense, similar to totalitarianism, which is bad. That is simply not a valid argument structure. However, if there is some link which I do not grasp that demonstrates how these academic notions somehow promote or lead to totalitarianism, then I’d like to hear them (and I say that without sarcasm).Well said, Demosthenes.
Date: 07/17/2002 00:00:00 AM
Well, Orwell suggests that in totalitarian states, ‘basic facts’ are up for grabs. We’ve seen this ourselves, most recently in Jenin, where the ‘facts’ of the ‘massacre’ made political news long after the verifiable information disproved them.Think of all the airbrushed May Day pictures during Stalin’s time…
Date: 07/18/2002 00:00:00 AM
Facts and interpretation — look at the Crusades — the interpretation has changed a few times over the years. The facts have remained fairly stable.We can’t help but interpret history in light of our current circumstances. I now see the Crusades as a defensive action, but even just a year ago, I think you would have a hard time getting me to see it that way.
Date: 07/18/2002 00:00:00 AM
Jenin is a bad example because it’s a political, not an historical issue. The fact are the facts, they are to some extent known, and the will be more or less agreed to in the fullness of time. Let’s check back in 2050 (that how long this shit can take). Ok, I understand that in totalitarian states, basic facts are up for grabs. This is a necessary component of successfully running a totalitarian state: you must control the flow and the content of information. I don’t see how believing that interpretations of facts cannot be judged objectively contributes either to a) the denial of facts, or b) the imposition of totalitarianism. It’s like your saying “Totalitarianism denies basic facts, it looks like postmodernism is moving disturbingly in that direction, therefore postmodernism promotes totalitarianism.” You can’t actually be saying that, being that’s ridiculous, so I’m still missing something.
Date: 07/17/2002 00:00:00 AM
No, this is exactly what I’m getting at. How does this logical progression work? You start with:1). There are facts, and there are interpretations.2). Facts are at least in theory objectively veriable, interpretations are absolutely not.This, I think, is pretty firm, pertty solid, and pretty non-controversial. So where does “denial of the most basic facts” enter into it? Which facts, denied by whom, for what reason?How does that follow?
Date: 07/17/2002 00:00:00 AM
I think you’re missing Orwell’s and my point; he clearly acknowledges and I believe that the facts are just an armature on which we hang understanding. But without that armature, what are we trying to understand?And the post-modern, ironic acknowledgement that our selves color our world suddenly becomes justification for denial of the most basic facts, and leaves us with a world in which claims strongly stated have a validity equal to any kind of evidence.A.L.