by sam » Mon Mar 20, 2006 11:40 am
As a linguistics and English double major in college, I think I accepted that I was a postmodernist before I accepted I was a feminist, which is rare for radical feminists I've noticed.
I was a mega-nerd who overloaded credits each semester and took a lot of experimental classes and independent studies. When I signed up for the brand-spanking new class Postmodernist Theory & Philosophy I didn't have a clue what it would be about but I took like a fish to water to questioning meta-narratives, unravelling semiotics, and deconstructing simulacra back to its earliest signifier. The language theory of Kristeva was challenging for most in the class to read but I breathed it in and was never so proud to be a linguist in an English class. The class was also my introduction to academic queer theory, which I went on to pursue in the experimental Queer Studies minor at my college.
The gender questions (and language stuff) were where my heart was at concerning postmodernism, and I am grateful to what pomo had to teach me in regards to rejecting hierarchy and raising up minority voices and opinions, but that's the limit of its usefulness for an activist who won't live with her head in a book. The emblem of Harvard is of three books with two faced up and one, veritas, faced down to symbolize that truth is not always found in books. While the possibility of endless personas and experiences is theoretically true, it's also true that people alig themselves to archetypes and social forces are much more than the sum of each individual's experience.
I've spoken with sociology professor and antiporn writer Gail Dines about this some and she believes the gender issues, queer theory, and theoretical language stuff I focused on in the mid 90s is different than what's being taught as pomo a decade later. Can anyone speak to that?