View the h-history-and-theory Discussion Logs by month
View the Prior Message in h-history-and-theory's September 2001 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
View the Next Message in h-history-and-theory's September 2001 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
Visit the h-history-and-theory home page.
Michael Benjamin Pulsford wrore: "ah yes: bloody postmodernists. How comforting to discover that they all say the same things, & suffer from the same methodological and epistemological naivetes. who, exactly, are you talking about? whence these vast generalisations?" The post you were responding to contained enough allusions to answer your question; but those who know little about the subject, I suppose, can be pardoned for missing allusions. I'm assuming that you're yet another Enlightened One who has Learned To See Difference In All Things and Knows (with a capital K) that we are all disciplined by power-knowledge and always-already embedded in a web of language, and you're jumping up and down, fuming because us stick-in-the-muds obstinately refuse to acknowledge the truly vast differences between structuralism, poststructuralism, postmodernism, cultural criticism, etc. etc. If, however, you actually need a primer on this stuff, disregard my sarcasm and see Perez Zagorin's 1999 article in _History & Theory_ (the title has "Postmodernism Now" in it, but I don't recall the rest offhand) then for a more sympathetic view read the introduction to Judith Butler and Joan W. Scott (eds.), _Feminists Theorize the Political_. After that, start trudging through the principle texts of the theorists themselves. (the two articles I suggest will point you toward them.) Mike