Theres been an interesting discussion going on below, and I thought Id bring it up to the blog and see if we cant take it further.
The subject is postmodernism and totalitarianism, and the main participants have been Terminus, Demosthenes, and myself
Terminus opens:
To the extent that history is nothing more than facts, than it could be truthfully written. But it would be of little historical interest. The “meat” of history is the interpretation, and you’ll never get truth that way, because there is no independent standard of ultimate judgement. That’s the trouble: if you want to say anything that any kind of real meaning or relevance, you must sacrifice the absolute certainty that only comes with simple recitations of fact.
I reply:
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.
He replies:
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?
Me again:
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…
Him again:
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.
Amac (a civilian i.e. non-blogger, as far as I can tell):
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.
Demosthenes weighs in:
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”.
Demosthenes again:
By the way, AMac: they won’t acknowledge the connection because they don’t believe one exists. That is a difference of opinion, not willful denial. The difference between those two things is precisely what postmodernism is about.
Terminus:
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.
And, finally, me:
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.
OK, next Ill cook up a reply to Demosthenes and Terminus. Probably wont be up for a few hours (I have to go to a meeting), but should be here by evening.
Date: 07/24/2002 00:00:00 AM
Jeff: buttressing the idea of interpretation being at the core of this whole thing, I guess. Still, not really aimed at you or your arguments.
Date: 07/21/2002 00:00:00 AM
Yep, Philippe, that’s pretty much my conclusion too. In fact, my experience has been that what a person thinks about the metaphysical grounding (or lack of same) of belief in general has no effect at all on either the content of his own beliefs or the fervor with which they’re held. I believe this is a point Fish has also made now and again.
Date: 07/21/2002 00:00:00 AM
Demosthenes writes, “Jeff: it’s worth noting that modernism and its universals has also been used to support despotism and was one of the foundations of colonialism, which wreaked havok around the globe and whose fallout we’re still crawling out from under.”Jeff responds, “why are you directing this to me exactly?”
Date: 07/21/2002 00:00:00 AM
Hmm… and it’s worthwhile to remember that one has to agree on what “car” means, what “red” means, what “ugly” means, etc. While those words are pretty easy, I’ve been having a hell of a time with the definitions of the words “legitimate” and “sovereign”. Even points of basic definition can trip you up, which is why I tend to be a proscriptionist rather than a descriptionist when it comes to the English language… if there isn’t some sort of common agreement on what a word means, communication is impossible.
Date: 07/20/2002 00:00:00 AM
The hard part of convincing someone that 2+2=5 is overcoming his existing belief that it =4. Getting him to accept that “2 is merely an invention” helps this negative half of the argument at the same time it undermines the positive half. Looks like a wash to me.
Date: 07/20/2002 00:00:00 AM
True.So how would a totalitarian dictator accomplish the 2+2=5?With a gun, not pomo theory.
Date: 07/18/2002 00:00:00 AM
Jeff,On the power advantage of the totalitarian: absolutely, no question about it. But the stereotypical totalitarian tends to employ vague universals as justification. The Nazis did, as did the Soviets. It seems to me that postmodernism is especially good at tackling these kinds of things, and could easily be a philosophical thorn in the side of any dictator. This isn’t to suggest that some kooky professor could single-handedly bring down an entire regime, but, postmodernism seems to me to be a natural antagonist to totalitarian power (or, perhaps, to political power in general). On the helpfulness of an understanding of postmodernism: yes, I suppose your right. It could come in handy, but I stick by that it isn’t necessary.As for the whole freedom being attack thing… I’m not sure. I’m basing my attempt at a Fishean analysis on his analysis of the idea of a War on Terrorism. He claims that terrorism is a methodology, and that it would be much more useful to see it as a war on the ideology to which that methodology is being put. By the same token, I’m arguing that it would be far more useful to craft a response to something that actually happened, rather than an attack on freedom (which would be what, exactly?). But I could be way off base here. I don’t claim to be an expert in all of this stuff.
Date: 07/19/2002 00:00:00 AM
I don’t see how any totalitarian dictator could have any use for some “post-factual philosophy.” After all, what totalitarian philosophy would rely on some philosophy that says, well, everything is malleable and truth is subjective. How could you convince somebody that 2+2=5 while admitting that 2 is merely an invention?Certainly Islamo-Fascists don’t rely on any post-modern philosophy. How could they? Don’t they believe Islam is universal?And haven’t there been plenty of murderous dictators throughout world history that pre-date Foucault and Derrida. Didn’t Spartans battle Persians in the name of Greek freedom while at the same time basing their entire society on the slavery of other Greeks? And wasn’t Sparta then reduced to impotence by Thebans who fought in the name of Greek freedom? And didn’t Alexander the Great’s father kill countless Greeks in the name of Greek unity?”Post-modernism,” it seems to me, states a rather obvious fact. And it can’t help but be anti-totalitarian for everyone to notice it. Totalitarian states work by on the on hand taking advantage of the subjectivity of truth, while at the same time effectively promoting an objective truth. I can’t help thinking that a widespread belief in the subjectivity of truth is anti-totalitarian. Some people are fond of pointing out how capitalist countries, or Christian countries are heavily democratic and free. I won’t get tired of noticing that the countries where evil theories about the subjectivity of truth have most currency also happen to be the same countries. What used to be called the West is as “post-modern” as can be. I will admit, however, that perhaps post-modernism is not too useful when in a clash of civilizations-it may merely weaken resolve. Of course, as Samuel Huntington might point out, we might be better off in the long run by avoiding such clashes in the first place.
Date: 07/19/2002 00:00:00 AM
I don’t quite understand the disjunction between “fact” and “interpretation” in this context. To explain any historical phenomenon, you start not with the “facts” but with a specific set of facts that, in your opinion, support your interpretation. (Are there, for example, a finite set of facts concerning the Holocaust that we can arrive at and agree on? Failing this, even “facts” become subjective.) I also don’t understand why people who want to discuss the relativism of truth go to Fish when they could, with far more intellectual profit, go to Nietzsche. To start with, Nietzsche never denied the implications of his theories and never regarded them as forming the basis for an academic game that had no implication for the wider world.
Date: 07/18/2002 00:00:00 AM
How can post-modernism ever be intellectually rigorous? If “there can be no independent standard for determining which of many rival interpretations of an event is the true one” then all we are left with is competing subjectivities (“intricate, socially constructed belief system[s]”). There can be no rational discourse without at least some level of common ground, and if that common ground is lacking, i.e. if your subjectivity is completely different from mine, then there is truly nothing for us to discuss.
Date: 07/18/2002 00:00:00 AM
A was meaning to wait for A.L. to get back and post before firing off another comment, but a thought just struck me (it only happens now and then, so, I take advantage…). Isn’t there a sense in which postmodernism is a problem for totalitarianism? Let’s take the USA right now as an example. [No, I’m not saying America is totalitarian… bear with me.] There is clearly a particular narrative that the President has tried to establish in the post-9/11 world. Consider his first public statement: “Freedom itself was attacked today.” That was the beginning of a narrative, and as time went by, he added pieces to it, and so did others. It looks to me like one of the reasons bloggers get so enraged at Fish is that he has undermined the validity of that narrative constantly. Consider again that line about freedom being attacked. When I heard that, I thought it was a pretty good rhetorical flourish, a nice metaphor that conveyed the gravity of the situation. Looking at it from a Fishean perspective, it is laughably absurd, clearly not true, and actually stands in the way of helpful understanding of events. I can only imagine a Stanley Fish type character operating out of basement printing and distributing an illegal pamphlet trying to undermine Stalin, or whomever.Whereas a totalitarian dictator would have a strong self-interest in taking advantage of the flexibility of truth in order to impose his own self-serving worldview on his followers, the idea that truth is flexible (i.e., that it would admit of other, possibly-contradictory worldviews as well) would undermine him terribly. Wouldn’t it? Moreover, it’s obviously not necessary, or even helpful, for a dictator himself to understand these postmodernist concepts, so I can’t see any role for it to play in the establishment, or the maintenance, of a totalitarian state. But, as I said, I do see a role for it as enemy of such a state.
Date: 07/18/2002 00:00:00 AM
Terminus–I think your hypothetical totalitarian — given his power and position of influence — would be able to marshal all sorts of “evidence” in support of his narrative that those offering alternative narratives would not be able to marshal in support of their own. Power has its privileges.You write, “Moreover, it’s obviously not necessary, or even helpful, for a dictator himself to understand these postmodernist concepts.” Why is that? You’re right that it’s not necessary — you can be a totalitarian without knowing Foucault or Derrida from a stick of gum, say — but I should think that an understanding of postmodernism could be put to great use. (One critique of our own media, for instance, has been that it has too often accepted the Palestinian narrative of victimhood and occupation as a way to frame the middle east conflict — unsurprising, given that Ed Said’s importance to pomo thinking.)To go back to my previous points, though, there’s no reason why a given totalitarian ruler would benefit more from the philosophy of postmodernism — or less, in your example — because of something inherent to the philosophy itself. Also, from a Fishean perspective, Bush’s trope about freedom being attacked would be judged on its success in articulating the position of the U.S. Stanley Fish himself might try to deconstruct that trope, but from a Fishean perspective — if said trope aids in the understanding and support of what a particular belief system assumes to be true, then the trope doesn’t stand in the way of anything, necessarily (except perhaps for some competing trope).
Date: 07/18/2002 00:00:00 AM
A.L.–You write, “[…]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.”Agreed, but only in a weak sense. Fish’s postmodernism simply posits that that “there can be no independent standard for determining which of many rival interpretations of an event is the true one” — which does nothing more than reposition the “proof” for rival versions of some truth beyond an appeal to a set of unassailable universals. In other words, truth is not troubled by postmodernism; defending truth by appealing to something beyond an intricate, socially constructed belief system is.Postmodernism certainly allows for a totalitarian control of narrative. But then, so do other philosophies with different kernel appeals. You’re right to guard against abuses — for instance, those who teach postmodernism as a form of easy relativism in order to confound intellectual rigor should be regularly challenged — but misapplication of the ideas are not the fault of the philosophy itself, I don’t think.
This comment was also posted in the fish vs Orwell section. I sort of missed this. Some of the content might be superfluous. I hope it is helpful.
There is a set of essays that I found online at http://www.naturalism.org/anti-fou.htm that I think will help to resolve this dispute over post-modernism and totalitarianism (or demonstrate why the arguments can’t be resolved…). The essays defend humanism, which may piss some of you off, but it is grounded in relativism and anti-foundationalism, which may piss some of you off….
A run down of the ideas behind the the essays:
Disagreements can’t always be settled by reason because all arguments depend on a set of pre-rational set of propositions that are assumed to be true. While it might seem obvious to the average liberal that the “truth” science provides is much more truthful than religious “truth,” the average fundamentalist might accept a holy book as the only source of truth.
Also, naturalism/humanism (the author tends to mix the terms) logically progresses to relativism and a set of debate oriented existentialist ideals (democracy, “natural rights,” etc.)
That was a pretty crappy summary of the essays, but I think those ideas can be applied to the current argument. Post-modernist relativism is not a foundation for totalitarianism. Perhaps an explanation, but not a rationale. Totalitarianism states that there is a truth and that the dictator is the source of it. Relativism states that there is no objective truth. I myself have mixed feelings about Postmodernism. On the one hand, I think that the poststructuralist/antifoundationalist ideas it is founded upon are absolutely brilliant, but at the same time I have the sneaking suspicion that postmodernism was founded by a bunch of assholes who couldn’t get past drawing soup cans. I really loved that scene in Cryptonomicon with the info-superhighway (as well as randy’s girlfriend’s superfemenist thesis on beards). Anyhow, I hope you find the time to read