Postmodernism As Anti-Progressive?

First, speaking to Faith’s last post (though I also agree with everything stated in her off-topic Anna Nicole post), I believe that Rhetorics, Poetics, and Cultures was published in 1996 (maybe it was reprinted in 2006), two years after Berlin’s death. Thus, it does perhaps capture a mid-90s interest in the connection between literary theory and composition and rhetoric. Donna will perhaps correct me, but I see the 90s, even more than the 80s, as a hot time for the comp/rhet field to actively draw upon theory.

Second, responding to Berlin, I liked the moment where he points out that postmodernism, which in the academy we sometimes view as progressive or liberating, can be usurped by groups for conservative or class interests. Berlin writes, after having described the celebratory nature of postmodern de-centering, “There are a number of dangers in this uncritical celebration [of the postmodern]. Most important, it [postmodern incoherence as a ‘triumph of contemporary civilization’] is a narrative told from the limited and exclusive point of view of a small segment of the comfortable classes. The vast majority of workers are outside this circle of professional security, so that glorifying in the possibilities of floating subjects and indeterminate signifiers is unthinkable. Space-time compression for them most often means out of work and out of luck, not the frolic of simulated experiences from other places and times” (71). This section reminded me of the section in James Gee’s piece where he too points out how certain “turns” (the social turn, the theory turn, the postmodern turn) can be used to non-progressive ends. What does it say, for instance, when advertisers use the postmodern in order to create product? The social is tacitly implied here. Postmodernism may strike us as liberating, freeing, but society can use postmodern notions towards its own end--in short, society defines things ultimately.

Finally, a very general comment. I really enjoyed the Berlin book, at least the sections that we read. He hadn’t delved very deeply into composition/rhetoric yet, but is overviews are incredibly lucid yet also very accurate. Anyone, for instance, who needs a primer on structuralism and post-structuralism could do worse than read over Berlin’s summaries of these theoretical movements. I also appreciated Berlin’s overview of the history of English departments, especially where he critiques the William Riley Parker piece, “Where Do English Departments Come From?” which I believe we read in 8010 last term.