Noam Chomsky on Post-Modernism
cscs.umich.edu
cscs.umich.edu
I agree with Chomsky here: there are far more poisonous and important targets to address than this cult, which thankfully remains quite insular and self-contained and, ultimately, of virtually no consequence to the world at large.
Look: I've spent the better part of 30 years studying continental philosophy (and more specifically, the works of Derrida) and anyone who thinks that the field can be summarily dismissed by folks like Chomsky, Weinberg or Dawkins are sadly mistaken. Chomsky, Weinberg and Dawkins are all brilliant men in their own fields, but it takes some mighty big cojones, and a mighty parochial view of the world, if they think that this means that their judgments on matters outside their field are more important than any other amateur. And I'm sure they'd be the first to cry foul if some philosopher or other tried to dismiss their work on the basis of a few out-of-context quotes, without bothering to actually do the reading.
I'm not saying that the writers generally thought of as "post-modern" are above reproach; far from it. What I am saying is that if you want to attack them, for God's sakes read the texts.
To your point, if you read the linked article, you will note that Chomsky has indeed attempted to read the works of several post-modernists and found them to be totally devoid of meaning, wrong, imcomprehensible, and/or trite.
He shows absolutely no elitism or "smug posturing" or "implied superiority" in his critique -- on the contrary, he repeatedly stresses that he is perhaps not smart enough to understand these works, that he is perhaps missing the point. But if people as intelligent as Dawkins & Chomsky fail to understand these works, then it's highly unlikely they are capable of being understood by anyone.
Postmodernism is a critique frame of references and can't by definition be nonsense since they don't claim anything positive about the world.
ThomPete, you might find it instructive to consider that the major problem of postmodernism is its' adherents seeming inability to make simple declarative statements. Of course, simple declarative statements are often freighted with unspoken assumptions, and unpacking and analyzing these is a postmodern exercise in itself, particularly that of Jacques Derrida and the deconstructionists.
But where many postmodernsists go wrong is in the attempt to make fully qualified and narrowly specified declarative statements, which end up being almost impossible to read. In their zeal to avoid implying anything or having their intentions misunderstood, postmodernists frequently alienate their audiences with discourse which resembles cultural autism. This creates the impression that post-modernists are actually in love with the comforting certainties of modernism, but have seen the negative results of too much certitude: they would still like to establish definitive truths, but have decided to do so very very carefully.
I am not against post modernism, which I believe has many interesting things to say and provides useful tools with which to understand the world and our place in it. However, a critical framework that is so woolly and inconsistent as to be useless for practical communication of ideas does no service to the truths it was designed to express.
That Derrida showed that it's not possible to make declarative statement's is not the fault of Derrida but of language.
It is exactly the point that you CAN'T make any declaretive statements i.e. express truth that is the point of Derrida and deconstructivism.
The first problem with postmoderism is it exists across fields. There was a movement in architecture. There was a movement in theatre. If you listed all the fields, you'd notice that they're all creative. That's the other problem, and the one that creates so much confusion for non-creative people. I wouldn't say all scientifically minded (digital thinking) people are not creative, but I'd guess a majority probably aren't. It's those that have problems with it, and this is why people 'that get it' call them 'stupid'. I don't agree that they're stupid, but I do think it's to do with the lack of natural creativity.
From my interpretation, the thing about postmoderism is that it measures the field using what makes that field unique as the variable. Postmodern designers feared that 'creativity' in design was disappearing, as it was the 'creativity' that designers valued, so without it - there was no more design. The postmodern philosophers, who are mostly concerned with humans, came to the same conclusion - humans were disappearing. Without humans, there is no more philosophy.
You also have to remember that these are creative people asking the questions, and creative people cannot be tamed. They love a prank, and if they choose to write, their styles become poetic and humourous. They redefine words as that is what philosophy has been doing since the origins of it. A bunch of drunk greeks sitting around defining concepts like love. Hegel re-defined practically every stylistic word he could find - to be poetic. Philosophy may have branched out into fields like science, but its origins are in human creativity, and that can't be measured by rigorous scientific method. It's art for thinkers. It explores a world that 'does' exist, but science choses to ignore as it has no other option but to. Some people can't accept that, and in this modern culture with modern people on a postmodern trajectory, they lash out, which results in some ridiculous polemics against it.
The big point of postmodernism that needs to be understood is that it is the 'end' of something. The 'end' of design. The 'end' of humans. It doesn't mean those things will cease to exist, but that what made them worthy of our attention was going to 'end'. Tech fields haven't yet hit a point where new ideas stop coming, but there will come a time where the only things coming out are rehashes of twitter or myspace. That's when a genuine postmodernism movement will rise within technology.
The ultimate test of postmoderism is to hand a naturally creative human a book by Baudrillard, and see if they get it. I would guess at least half could interpret a bulk of it.
Even if it is true, do you really think that's a good argument?
Why don't you point out how this article shows Chomsky to be stupid or afraid.
Second of all the attack on Post Modernism is what is wrong the entire thing. How can you attack Post Modernism for pointing out some obvious flaws in the way we approach frames of reference.
That's like blaming the compiler for giving you errors just because you would like what ever you write to be possible.
This is the level of the writing. He don't understand deconstruction so he don't like it. That is what is wrong with most critique of postmodernism.
Further more it's not just french philosophers. Thomas Kuhn, Lakatos and Feyrabend are not exactly french.
All he do is showing how ignorant he is on what he speaks. But that do expalain the level of his other writing.
I have heard people criticize universal grammar as being, essentially, a Colonialist theory, which attempts to assimilate languages into a Eurocentric framework. That is the sort of BS he is replying to. Chomsky is not saying, "postmodernists are stupid and should stop doing philosophy," rather, he is saying, "you want me to do things in a certain way, so explain why."
What is the BS part then formulation or the theory?
After reading only a few lines of this article it struck me as inconsistent in tone from other speeches and writings of Chomsky. So I would first like to get Chomsky's response on whether he authored this. Considering how many interviews and public speeches Chomsky gives, I find it hard to imagine him having the time to debate his ideas on Internet bulletin boards. Unless he was experimenting with the format back in 1995.
I searched around for more on Chomsky and postmodernism and came up with http://archive.zcommunications.org/chomchatarch.htm, which includes quotes from the OP. So it seems it's at least partially authentic.
As for whether he would have had time, that's easy. It's already impossible to explain how he has time to do what he does.
Edit: I also ran across a clip of Chomsky's discussion with Foucault on Dutch TV from the early 70s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kawGakdNoT0), which was fun to take a look at. Can you imagine anything more un-TV-like? The very length of their sentences is unthinkable - I was going to say "nowadays" but I bet it was unthinkable on TV even then.
His attitude here reminds me of people who proudly say "I suck at math!"
The next time a Chomsky article shows up here, I really hope that it's in an area that he actually knows something about!
1) "I can't read most academic po-mo papers (with exception of Foucault)"
2) "I also can't read some academic mathematics and physics paper"
3) "Physicists and mathematicians can readily explain their papers in terms that are understandable to me, no one seems to be able to do so for po-mo papers."
He then gives specific criticism of Foucault (whom he understood), and then makes a logical statement about po-mo:
1) Either po-mo is so incredibly advanced, it can't readily be explained by one academic to another academic (and while Chomsky is known in public for his political writings, his real contribution manifests itself every time you are using a parser, interpreter or compiler).
2) or.. po-mo is incomprehensible and can't be treated in a logically rigid manner, which means it would be pointless for Chomsky to speak more on the matter.
Both 1) and 2) are logically valid conclusions, but facts seem to align themselves closer to 2)