Reign yourselves in
twoply
Only Built 4 Manzanita Links 2,915 Posts
is getting way overused right off the bat. Mike is a genius, let's not make his work pedestrian. 
twoply
Only Built 4 Manzanita Links 2,915 Posts
is getting way overused right off the bat. Mike is a genius, let's not make his work pedestrian.
Comments
Dude, I totally used it correctly whilst deconstructing gender in the transvestite thread.
Actually, if you were deconstructing in terms of Derrida's use of the term, then that's poststructuaralism, not postmodernism!
Actually, "Post-structuralism and deconstruction can be seen as the theoretical formulations of the post-modern condition."
I'm not really into labels, though.
NERDS, NERDS, NERDS!!!!!!!!
I totally agree that this is the case on this message board, but to divorce Derrida's work completely from post-modernism and pigeonholing his ideas exclusively within the framework of post-structuralism is short-sighted, and undermines its relevance in how we think about post-modernism beyond its linguistic influence.
I agree but was anyone really saying the two things are separate? You can't really get to post-structuralism without first accepting the basic tenents of post-modernism. Anyone who suggests otherwise is most definitely
But I agree with the initial post. I'm sure people are throwing around
To all you vocab abusers -
Odub, does GR still sell those shirts? I still wear mine on weekends, but it's at least six years old and poor Bruce's face is completely worn off.
Look, there are obvious and dstinct similarities between poststructuralism (Derrida, Foucault, and the other guy who's name escapes me, beginning with L), and postmodernism. But what often happens, in non-philosophical talk, is that people confuse one with the other, or use them as synonymns, which they most certainly are not.
Related yes, the same thing - no.
That's pretty much all I was trying to say.
Kinetic, no doubt. I think me and T**** are just having fun being uber-fucking-theory-nerded -out.
And I think you're talking about Lacan. Ugh, I hated trying to read that dude. Derrida can get the dils too. Foucault isn't that much easier to read but I like his ideas better.
That said, I'd much rather read Stuart Hall's analysis of all these dudes (plus Gramsci).
I was thinking about you as I was typing; I'm about five years removed from any heavy duty cultural studies analysis and I know they didn't give you that Playa Hater Degree for nothin'...;)
Anyway, I understood Kinetic's post to mean that the way I was using "deconstruct" included post-structuralism but excluded post-modernism. That's the issue I was trying to contest.
And to your point, some might argue the other way around: that is, you must embrace the basic tenets of post-structuralism to get to post-modernism (although I'm not in that school of thought).
Edited to say: Okay, I posted that too late and I'm also guilty as charged with nerddom.
Yeah, Lacan is the guy I was thinking of. I read Derrida and Foucault but didn't get much into Lacan because at the time psychoanalysis wasn't an interest of mine.
For sure, you can't begin to understand these guys (and these ideas) by reading the original texts; even for my honours thesis i relied pretty heavily on readers about these guys in order to best utilise their ideas. It's some heavy shit.
And just to clarrify: as I understand it, postmodernism and poststructuralism are two separate (albeit related) schools of thought, deconstruction forming part of the later. I'll give aquick example: postmodernist thinking tends to value any and all opinions and perspectives as having roughly equivilent value, but poststructuralism basically shits on experience and would suggest that it is the meaning you make with experience that matters, rather than the experience itself.
Ok, I'm officially all nerded out now.
You guys should know that I really do wear glasses, though ironically, I don't need them for reading!
I think RD needs a "Shut the fuck up, Timmy" graemlin.
I can accept that. I'm a little too linear in my thinking (modern, not post) so I think of how schools of thought developed chronologically and I always think of post-modernism preceding post-structuralism but I hear what you're saying. In order to believe in a post-modern condition, you have to accept some of the basic tenets of post-structuralism since I suppose one would argue that you can't conceive of the world without language to describe it in to begin with.
*laugh* This is a big reason why I found myself becoming less and less enamored with cultural studies while in grad school and ended up cozying back up to ethnography and sociological analysis. It's not like I think PM and PS is pure bullshit, but at the end of the day, they just feel too distanced from the material world for me to have the passion to really pursue a methodology built on 'em. I mean, no disrespect to literary criticism scholars but I just don't get what about that discipline gets people up in the morning.
True dat. Its bound to be overused.
Way to Lyotard these folls. But yo, the X is more of a modernism thang.
Very true. Or a black power thing.
But really, wouldn't a metagraemlin be the absence of a graemlin?
it could be the graemlin in our collective mind.......
Im done with this, there's some blood dripping out of my ear.