We read a chapter of Sarah Maza's book, Thinking About History, in order to better understand the development, manifestation, and critical response to postmodernist thought in academia. Maza explains that the search for historical "truth" is grounded in Western modes of suppression that benefit a sexist, racist, and elitist system. As such, postmodern theory came under attack by conservative historians who claimed that such theories would debase their purely emperical (and purely white, male, Anglo-Saxon, and Protestant) field. I can understand why conservative theorists would be hesitant to accept postmodernist and poststructuralist ideas about historical inquiry, though I was most surprised to learn that leftist scholars also have their qualms about postmodernism. I was especially interested to read that many feminist scholars, such as Laura Lee Downs, believe postmodernism actually suppresses more than it frees.
I read Laura Lee Down's landmark article, "If Woman Is an Empty Category, Then Why Am I Afraid to Walk Alone at Night?" in order to better understand the feminist critique of postmodernism. Responding to Joan Scott, a prominent postmodernist theorist, Downs argues that postmodern and post-structural ideas about the formation of idenity serve only to isolate demographic groups while denying any form of historical understanding outside each human's individualized experience. Rather than expanding the bounds of historical rhetoric, Downs and other leftist feminist scholars see postmodernism as another means of dividing marginalized groups, which ultimately benefits the very oppressors that postmodernism aimed to discredit. This further marginalization rests on the empirical notion of "truth" -- "the unchanging and eternal giver of categories; and of the self-enclosed, self-reflecting subject."
Additionally, Downs writes that postmodernism is unhelpful for social change because it "diverts our attention from the operation of power in the social sphere and fixes our gaze upon its metaphorical manifestations in the text." She believes that postmodernism's focus on textuality and the inherent subjectivity of texts confuses real socio-political relationships and patterns. Downs' critique of postmodernist historical approaches may be valid, though I think her work misses the vital distinction between events and texts. Even Hayden White pointedly reminds readers in Tropics of Discourse of the inherent difference between "observable or perceivable" historical events and "imagined, hypothetical, or invented" fictionalizations. On a more basic level, Downs also forgets that postmodernism is explicitly grounded in textuality and it would be foolish to critique such a movement for its emphasis on text when the whole idea literally revolves around the rethinking and reimagining of text.
Despite the contradictions between these varying perspectives, I would argue that all are neccesary to produce a full picture of the world we inhabit. Postmodernist history does not exist to marginalize but to expand the boundaries of thought and allow stories to be shared outside of hegemonic and colonialist norms.
I read Laura Lee Down's landmark article, "If Woman Is an Empty Category, Then Why Am I Afraid to Walk Alone at Night?" in order to better understand the feminist critique of postmodernism. Responding to Joan Scott, a prominent postmodernist theorist, Downs argues that postmodern and post-structural ideas about the formation of idenity serve only to isolate demographic groups while denying any form of historical understanding outside each human's individualized experience. Rather than expanding the bounds of historical rhetoric, Downs and other leftist feminist scholars see postmodernism as another means of dividing marginalized groups, which ultimately benefits the very oppressors that postmodernism aimed to discredit. This further marginalization rests on the empirical notion of "truth" -- "the unchanging and eternal giver of categories; and of the self-enclosed, self-reflecting subject."
Additionally, Downs writes that postmodernism is unhelpful for social change because it "diverts our attention from the operation of power in the social sphere and fixes our gaze upon its metaphorical manifestations in the text." She believes that postmodernism's focus on textuality and the inherent subjectivity of texts confuses real socio-political relationships and patterns. Downs' critique of postmodernist historical approaches may be valid, though I think her work misses the vital distinction between events and texts. Even Hayden White pointedly reminds readers in Tropics of Discourse of the inherent difference between "observable or perceivable" historical events and "imagined, hypothetical, or invented" fictionalizations. On a more basic level, Downs also forgets that postmodernism is explicitly grounded in textuality and it would be foolish to critique such a movement for its emphasis on text when the whole idea literally revolves around the rethinking and reimagining of text.
Despite the contradictions between these varying perspectives, I would argue that all are neccesary to produce a full picture of the world we inhabit. Postmodernist history does not exist to marginalize but to expand the boundaries of thought and allow stories to be shared outside of hegemonic and colonialist norms.
Wow, I love how much extra research you put into this! It really provides an interesting, necessary perspective. Downs' point about division between marginalized groups benefiting the oppressors particularly stands out to me. I definitely agree with your critique of Downs' argument about post-modernism and text.
ReplyDeleteWe're gonna start with a classic "oof" because this is really really complicated stuff to think about. I agree - I think postmodernism is a school of thought which allows as you said, "to expand the boundaries of thought and allow stories to be shared outside of hegemonic and colonialist norms", and I think you really summarizing it's benefit well with that line. But I also do see that Down's argument is rooted in a real anxiety that postmodernism perhaps makes ideology and real experiences lesser somehow because everything is placed on an equal level - its very difficult to make a movement out of something that focuses on complexity and text and whatnot.
ReplyDeleteHm. I don't think postmodernism necessarily means that all versions of history are equally true -- for example, as Mr. Mitchell mentioned, we balk at those who claim that the Holocaust didn't happen, but postmodernism doesn't dictate that version of history as "truth". Postmodernism simply acknowledges that, within the bounds of human fallacy and bias, the "no-Holocaust" version of history is a version that does exist and is "real" to a certain subset of people with a certain subset of beliefs. It is still the people of the present's responsibility to decide if they let differing views of history factor into societal decisions today.
ReplyDeleteAnd on the other hand, think about postmodernism's ramifications for feminist histories. Without some subconscious/not-fully-defined ideas about postmodernism, we wouldn't have had things like "Lost Women" from Ms. Magazine, or even any positive ideas associated with the Black Power movement.
I mostly agree with Downs' argument, specifically the "postmodernism's focus on textuality and the inherent subjectivity of texts confuses real socio-political relationships and patterns" part. I think that it is fundamentally impractical to critique all texts claiming to be history as fictionalized and biased, and in doing so, you ignore mostly or entirely valid frames of history which protect and help marginalized groups.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting, because I can easily see a traditional Marxist scholar making a very similar point about Postmodernism, and I think it does pose a challenge to our abilities to construct a narrative of hope, of being able to actually change things for the better. I think it can lend itself to what I've seen called "capitalist realism" "yeah, everything sucks, and the future's gonna suck more, but you just have to live with it". But I think that this critique ultimately fails. Postmodernism just tells us that we have to remember that everything is a narrative. It's not telling us that all narratives are equally valid or invalid. And the fact that the status quo is a narrative doesn't make it any less powerful. We know that race has no basis in biology, and is a social construct. But does that make its effects any less real? Absolutely not. "Woman" may be an empty category in that maybe it or any other category doesn't need to exist, but it's not an empty category in that we've collectively given it meaning. Postmodernism doesn't tell us that all narrative is bad and there's nothing we can do, even if various forces would like to believe that it does, and would like us to believe that it does, it tells us that there is always a narrative to "it's always been this way", a narrative to what gets into our textbooks and what doesn't. It can be a tool, to remind us to look for the other narratives that some attempt to crowd out.
ReplyDelete