In response to Mr. Gentry's comment to my thoughts in "de punkum et postmodernum"
Justin:
I was thinking of Jacques Derrida (1930-2004), Michel Foucault (1926-1984), and Edward Said (1935-2003). Derrida and Foucault you may find interesting in their studies on literary criticism. They are some of the foremost on deconstruction (a word has an idea constructed behind it and a critic can 'undo' or deconstruct that meaning, kind of like word studies in IBS). In addition to deconstructing meanings authors had on words, Derrida and Foucault also advocated post-structuralism. This is your run-of-the-mill postmod relativism of meanings. With respect to exegesis, it becomes a matter of 'how do you interpret it' or 'what do you take from the text.' Edward Said is a singularly interesting case. My understanding is that he draws on Foucault's deconstruction theories. His best know work is Orientalism that seeks to deconstruct European notions of the Middle Eastern "Orient." This really ushered in the post-colonial historiography of the latter 20th century. If you want to read up on things, just go to wikipedia.org.
Si erro, monet me. (SEMM)
(Pardon the poor latin in the title of the previous post, the nouns should be in the ablative case and not the accusative. Dr. Schenck, if you are reading, I apologize.)
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
De Punkum et Postmodernum
In Response to Justin Gentry's comments to my installment: "Postmodernism, What a Trip!: The Reflective Journey of a Graduate Student in the Postmodern Age."
Gentry: Interesting thoughts, I am wondering if Postmodernism is going to suffer from the same issues that music did in the early '90s. It wasn't the '80s and we were proud of that but when it comes down to it it really had no definition and died in infancy. Now glamrock (or fashion core) is back and grunge is only a pleasant memory. Postmodernism is not modernism but we really don't know what it is. Without some definition I think it might go the way of the flannel shirt and bib overalls. Keep searching, Justin.
Price: Very interesting metaphorical insights. To continue the metaphor, I liken Postmodernism to punk music. In its infancy it was raw and new, a complete departure from the set form of rock music (e.g. Sex Pistols, see also Sonic Youth). Yet as time went on, punk incorporated more raggae (ska, e.g. NOFX), more 80s pop (new wave, e.g. Blondie, Talking Heads, later The Clash), or simply became more mainstream such that bands like Green Day, Yellowcard, Simple Plan, Relient K, etc. are the heart-throbs of jr. high girls in your youth group. Of course, punk has also transitioned into Emo, a truly postmod phenom (e.g. Dashboard). Likewise, Postmodernism is due for adaptation and assimilation into the mainstream of scholarship. In a lot of ways it already has. Punk music, which has developed in the postmodern age, is a microcosm of the maturation Postmodernism has experienced.
You are right in your analysis of early '90s music. Nirvana had its roots in punk but adapted into grunge and then found themselves as the representatives of a music genre that had no clear definition and to which they could not completely identify. Then in 1994, with the death of Cobain, grunge itself died. Sure there were other great Seattle bands such as Pearl Jam, but Pearl Jam itself reverted to Neil Young (see Mirrorball) that influenced their later works (see especially No Code). Grunge was dead, giving way to the Indie sounds of the early-mid '90s (e.g. Toadies) and the ska sounds (e.g. No Doubt, Reel Big Fish, Big Bad Voodoo Daddy, Gold Finger). But these ska sounds then gave way to the revival of swing (e.g. Cherry Poppin' Daddies, Brian Setzer Orchestra [a new, and less tasteful, dose of Stray Cats]; see also the semi-ska, semi-swing East Coast Punk). But the question of where punk fit proved to be very problematic. If punk did not die with Kurt Cobain like Grunge did, it was certainly diagnosed with a terminal disease (I also blame MTV, as I do for a number of other social ills). The death of punk music has been slow and has relegated the genre into a dichotomy of either being a mainstream pale image of what it could be or being a nascent, raw musical force that will again redefine itself. Yet these two streams are continually becoming polarized.
What does this mean for Postmodernism? There is the possibility that with the deaths of leading postmod scholars Postmodernism could dichotomize into the mainstream scholarship and into the clandestine method of study that is "just too theoretical" for scholars to take seriously. If this is the case, I shall err on the side of mainstream Postmodernism just so I can get/keep a job. But I shall always keep an eye on those other methods and subtle employ them.
Keep questioning me.
Gentry: Interesting thoughts, I am wondering if Postmodernism is going to suffer from the same issues that music did in the early '90s. It wasn't the '80s and we were proud of that but when it comes down to it it really had no definition and died in infancy. Now glamrock (or fashion core) is back and grunge is only a pleasant memory. Postmodernism is not modernism but we really don't know what it is. Without some definition I think it might go the way of the flannel shirt and bib overalls. Keep searching, Justin.
Price: Very interesting metaphorical insights. To continue the metaphor, I liken Postmodernism to punk music. In its infancy it was raw and new, a complete departure from the set form of rock music (e.g. Sex Pistols, see also Sonic Youth). Yet as time went on, punk incorporated more raggae (ska, e.g. NOFX), more 80s pop (new wave, e.g. Blondie, Talking Heads, later The Clash), or simply became more mainstream such that bands like Green Day, Yellowcard, Simple Plan, Relient K, etc. are the heart-throbs of jr. high girls in your youth group. Of course, punk has also transitioned into Emo, a truly postmod phenom (e.g. Dashboard). Likewise, Postmodernism is due for adaptation and assimilation into the mainstream of scholarship. In a lot of ways it already has. Punk music, which has developed in the postmodern age, is a microcosm of the maturation Postmodernism has experienced.
You are right in your analysis of early '90s music. Nirvana had its roots in punk but adapted into grunge and then found themselves as the representatives of a music genre that had no clear definition and to which they could not completely identify. Then in 1994, with the death of Cobain, grunge itself died. Sure there were other great Seattle bands such as Pearl Jam, but Pearl Jam itself reverted to Neil Young (see Mirrorball) that influenced their later works (see especially No Code). Grunge was dead, giving way to the Indie sounds of the early-mid '90s (e.g. Toadies) and the ska sounds (e.g. No Doubt, Reel Big Fish, Big Bad Voodoo Daddy, Gold Finger). But these ska sounds then gave way to the revival of swing (e.g. Cherry Poppin' Daddies, Brian Setzer Orchestra [a new, and less tasteful, dose of Stray Cats]; see also the semi-ska, semi-swing East Coast Punk). But the question of where punk fit proved to be very problematic. If punk did not die with Kurt Cobain like Grunge did, it was certainly diagnosed with a terminal disease (I also blame MTV, as I do for a number of other social ills). The death of punk music has been slow and has relegated the genre into a dichotomy of either being a mainstream pale image of what it could be or being a nascent, raw musical force that will again redefine itself. Yet these two streams are continually becoming polarized.
What does this mean for Postmodernism? There is the possibility that with the deaths of leading postmod scholars Postmodernism could dichotomize into the mainstream scholarship and into the clandestine method of study that is "just too theoretical" for scholars to take seriously. If this is the case, I shall err on the side of mainstream Postmodernism just so I can get/keep a job. But I shall always keep an eye on those other methods and subtle employ them.
Keep questioning me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
