Postmodern mumbo jumbo

29 Jan, 2020 at 13:09 | Posted in Theory of Science & Methodology | 3 Comments

hall
Fyra viktiga drag är gemensamma för de olika rörelserna:

    1. Centrala idéer förklaras inte.
    2. Grunderna för en övertygelse anges inte.
    3. Framställningen av läran har en språklig stereotypi …
    4. När det gäller åberopandet av lärofäder råder samma stereotypi — ett begränsat antal namn återkommer. Heidegger, Foucault, och Derrida kommer tillbaka, åter och åter …

Till de fyra punkterna vill jag emellertid … lägga till en femte:

5. Vederbörande har inte något väsentligen nytt att framföra.

Överdrivet? Elakt? Tja, smaken är olika. Men smaka på den här soppan och försök sen säga att det inte ligger något i den gamle lundaprofessorns karakteristik …

MUMBO-JUMBO1The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power.

Judith Butler

3 Comments

  1. Det lät ju ungefär så bland de marxistiska testuggarna på 70-talet också, så särskilt nytt är det inte.

  2. But what does it mean? No not the Swedish, the English bit.

  3. Here is my attempt to paraphrase:

    “the move in the description of reality — from one that is based on static and relatively immutable accounts of social roles and institutions [like the nuclear family or the static theory of comparative advantage], to one in which these roles or institutions are viewed as being inherently unstable, and thus requiring for their continued existence constant re-invention — has resurrected a need for examination of the historical foundations of power [Joan Robinson’s “arrow of time”, for post-Keynesians]. Instead of looking at social institutions and the existing power structure as homogeneous givens, the aim is now to consider how expectations (rational and otherwise) frame current and future power relations, and how these power relations then modify future expectations, in an unending dynamic process.”

    Or, “by thinking less rigidly, and in setting out our expectations, we can in some measure effect in changing the future, but any changes will in turn alter our thinking and expectations, and how we view and manifest power”


Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and comments feeds.