English and Postmodernist Objections to Mr. Stevenson

As I read Mr. Waligore's post Blind About Postmodernism, I fell into an apopalectic fit as the ghost of William Strunk Jr. siezed my body and began making red marks all over my computer screen--such was the intensity of his rage that I hadn't the opportunity to explain to him the benefits of modern technology.

In other words, I don't really know what, if anything, Mr. Waligore tried to say. I think he is accusing John Stevenson of not knowing what he's talking about. I thought if I went back to the beginning of this thread, I might find some insight, but no luck. All of his lengthy posts read like a stream of consciousness. They jump from one point to another without pause to make sure we're still listening, or even understanding. It demonstrates his own lack of understanding of the topic at hand. So, what follows is a sort of a hodge-podge of a response. If this frustates my readers, I remind them of the material I have to work with.

1. Marxist Ontology
Waligore writes:
Yet as Stevenson surely knows, Marx thought that in the world, class was the only thing we should care about. He did not have an 'ontology' of race or gender. In fact, he and mainstream Marxists been criticized on that score. So diversity advocates, or whatever you want to call them, are NOT using a "Marxist ontology," as John says. They are using Marxist ways of looking at things to ANALYZE totally different things in the world BEYOND "Marxist Ontology,"

Incorrect, Mr. Waligore. Marxist ontology is one of dialectical materialism. This means that human activity is determined by the material conditions of time and place. If I live in South Bend, Indiana during the 1950s, I'll drive a Studebaker. If I live in South Bend, Indiana in the 1830s, the Feds will relocate me to Kansas or Oklahoma. Marx analyzed how this ontology led to conflict between the classes of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Just because Marx concerned himself with class does not mean his entire ontology was about class. It was about material conditions and power, and one can apply it to race and gender as easily as one applies it to class.

Thus, Mr. Stevenson does not mislabel Marxist ontology, nor does he get his arguments backward. In fact, he has hit his target.

2. Nietzschean Methodology
On a less assured note, I am not clear how the idea of the ubermensch is a methodology (it seems on first glance to be closer, if anything, to being an ontology?) and also I am not sure how the idea of the ubermensch connects to a theory that minority groups are being oppressed, though here I can think of some possible connections. You could make a better case that Nietzche's geneology is aking to a methodology used by 'diversity advocates.'

I'm not quite sure what it means to "ak" to a methodology, and I have no idea what the original word should have been. But I can discuss Nietzsche.

First of all, the übermensch concept is about ethics and the will to power, not onotology. Übermenschen constitute a higher form of humanity, and thus our herd ethics of "good" and "evil" do not apply to them. I see two ways for it to connect to a theory of minority oppression. First, the oppressors view themselves as such supermen, and thus may oppress with impunity. This idea fueled much Nazi rhetoric. Second, considering the rhetoric of many of the panelists at the Race Matters Conference, they probably view themselves as such supermen, having the right to dictate policy to the unwashed, unitiated heathens in their audience. Übermenschkeit isn't just a philosophy, it's a way of life. So, if I've interpereted Mr. Stevenson's remarks correctly, he indeed made the case that Nietzsche's views ak to the panelists' opinions. I find nothing wrong with such an assertion.

Also, Mr. Waligore has no idea how the übermensch is a methodology. It's not. Mr. Stevenson never said it was. He said that the diversity advocates' methodology was Nietzscean, and related it to the übermensch in his explanation. Be careful shuffling ideas around.

3. Foucaultian Analysis
I'm not sure about this, but something is nagging me about John's description of Foucault in that I wonder whether, as John states, Foucault would separate the tools from how we analyze the world from what actually exists in the world is. I know some PoMos deny this distinction between how we view and world and what exist: I bet this a big debate among Foucault scholars; John, do you know? I'm not denying that Foucault (and therefore his influences like Marx and Nietzsche) has influenced at least some 'diversity advocates,' but I think John's jumbled up what is going on here and does not quite know what he talking about. That's fine, as long as he admits he got it wrong and the implications of that for the other things he said in his post or show why those errors do not affect his criticism, which is possible.


I will assume from Mr. Waligore's familiarity with postmodernism, that he has spent a fair amount of time within their camp. So I must ask him, and anyone else who may have something to say on the topic, why do postmodernists, who obsess about the influence language has on the structure of thought, so ineffectively use language to structure their thoughts? I have a gist of what he wanted to say in this piece, but his syntax is so fragmented, I can't possibly be sure this gist in anyway reflects his real opinion. I'll try to comment anyways.

First off, a so-called diversity advocate need not have read Foucault or Marx or Nietzsche to be Foucaultian or Marxist or Nietzschean. That's the great thing about ideas--anyone can have them. Thus, I can describe the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence as Keslerian in politics, despite the fact that they were written about two centuries before I was born.

But does Mr. Stevenson accurately use the term "Foucaultian" in his description of the rhetoric heard at the Race Matters Conference? Yes. Foucault viewed ideas as the products of "discursive formations," not as the products of individual thinkers with human motivations. This fits in nicely with Marxist ontology if we accept this as an ideal analog to dialectical materialism. Instead of resource distribution driving the privileged whites, pyschological insecurities about power drive them. Further, Foucault's work had a focus--it tied ideas to systems of social control. Thus, "white privilege" and the ideas that drive it are about social control over minorities. Institute a new system of knowledge, and thus institute a new system of social control. By deconstructing white privilege, one can break its hold over social structure, or so the panelists would argue. Therefore, considering Mr. Waligore's statement, "some PoMos deny this distinction between how we view and[sic] world and what exist[sic]" change our view of knowledge and we change the world. Quite fitting within the context of the Race Matters Conference.

4. Lumping People Together
Now, I realize most of you don't care about this stuff, but those lefties who John seems to lump all together sure do.

As I said, I went back thorugh the thread trying to make sense of this debate. I found no instance of Mr. Stevenson assigning these sorts of ideas to the left. In fact, he claims:

Another option could be to: acknowledge "white" "privilege" but suggest that these loons have taken a good concept to far and proceed to deconstruct structures of power complete with your own portable Foucault and Derrida for just $2.95. By doing so, you could condemn morally insufferable radicalism without reverting rightist jargon and showing your leftist credentials.


This doesn't seem like lumping all leftists together. In fact, Mr. Stevenson seems to write that one can be leftist without adhering to these sorts of beliefs. I must wonder why Mr. Waligore is so eager for Mr. Stevenson to lump leftists together that he accuses him of doing so before he even does do so.

5. English
[I]f [Mr. Stevenson] can't talk about epistemology and ontology in a comprehensable manner here, I'm skeptical as to whether he understands the much harder debates that take place among other 'leftists' against postmodernists. . .

I think his use of academic jargon only serves to obscure his thoughts (or lack thereof) rather than make clear what he's (not) saying; for someone who projects the aura of knowing about 'postmodernism' he misuses and misunderstands basic terms.

If Mr. Waligore thinks Mr. Stevenson "can't talk about epistemology and ontology in a comprehensable manner," I would suggest it's because his own command of the English language is too immature to make sense of Mr. Stevenson's writing. His lack of a coherent response only bolsters my arguments. The sort of writing found in Waligore's posts may pass for complex thought at The Nation, but I have much higher standards of style. Mr. Waligore further accuses Mr. Stevenson of hiding his misunderstanding of basic terms behind obscure academic jargon. But Mr. Waligore provides no counterdefinitions for these terms, nor does he demonstrate how such counterdefinitions would negate Mr. Stevenson's arguments. In fact, he betrays his own lack of thought by refusing to include any sort of structure in his arguments. So as the ghost of Strunk leaves my body, I hope he finds his way over to yours, Mr. Waligore, to leave his red pen marks on your screen instead of mine.


Posted by Anonymous at 10:31 PM |