Tuesday, March 24, 2020

Understanding postmodernism

I've participated in a few discussions with fellow dissident rightists about postmodernism. There is an awareness that this is something to be understood. I'm therefore sharing a discussion about it made originally on Twitter by Helen Pluckrose. She is not a traditionalist but a secular humanist liberal, so she is on the opposite side of the fence to us. I have to give her credit, though, for making some of the distinctions between Marxism and postmodernism clear.

Helen believes that much of postmodernist thought derives from Foucault:



She believes also that Marxism greatly influenced postmodernism but that it is important to understand the distinctions:




She begins to discuss the particular differences here:




She gives the following example of an academic supporting a postmodernist approach. The academic is not concerned with students being able to assess how truthful a proposition is, based on evidence or quality of definitions or logic, but on being able to identify expressions of power within language:



Helen compares this postmodernist approach to the Marxist one, which is based more on a materialist, economic, class based understanding of the world. The following excerpt is from a World Socialist Website and it criticises from the Marxist perspective a campaign launched to reframe American history:



Sometimes those on the left just lump everyone on the right into the same category. They can't be bothered to understand the differences between, say, a classical liberal, a traditionalist or a white nationalist. We should try to avoid the same mistake. Helen Pluckrose, as a secular humanist liberal, admits that she finds some things to support in Marxism and some things in postmodernism, but also has criticisms of both. They are all connected to a degree in their political lineage but are not the same. It's easier, I think, to make effective criticisms of all of them if we understand the distinctions between them.

2 comments:

  1. Very good piece. It helps demonstrate how postmodernism is more destructive of civilisation than Marxism, because Marxism only brutalises people; postmodernism destroys thought and meaning and seeks to turn comprehensible reality into a kind of primordial sludge. Marxists may be evil, but they can put a man in orbit and land probes on the Moon. Postmodernism corrodes everything it touches, it's a kind of rot or rust that makes everything non-functional.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks. I agree with your observation but would add that the adoption of postmodernism by the left potentially makes the left vulnerable for the very reasons you describe. The more that postmodernism influences the left, the more off putting it is likely to be to those who still look toward comprehensible reality.

      Delete