>Let me explain a little more what I mean by modernism. I think of
>modernism (a la Lyotard, The Postmodern Condition) as a sense that one has
>gotten hold of a metanarrative, or a theory, that has no other point of
>view. (Lyotard specifically mentions Marxism and psychoanalysis as
>examples of such metanarratives, feminism would be another.) In order to
>maintain this position, I think, with people one is just getting to know,
>one must, supplement the new words one hears with what one imagines the
>other must be saying on the basis of what "people like that say".
>Otherwise, there is always room to listen more and to recognize the
>possibility that the other person might have something interesting to
>contribute to the dialogue.
>
>But once the agonistics get started, it's hard for any of us to
>listen. Each person takes a line on things and conversation is just a
>see-saw with lack of dialectical growth.
Interesting, but this seems to define modernity only by its negatives.
I don't think modernity should be defined in terms of adopting a "fight"
mode, although this might be a part of modernity (and it may even have
value.. more on this in a minute). It seems to me that there is nothing
incompatible about both trying to erect a grand narrative while at the
same time setting aside one's narrative, grasping alternative narratives,
and presenting compelling arguments meant to develop and refine one's own
narrative. Postmodernity doesn't have a monopoly on these values.
The "fight mode" might have value -- if it is conducted in a fashion
directed at the articulation of ideas rather than at faulting individuals.
If I put my ideas on the table, and you attack them, and I defend them,
you are helping me make my ideas (perhaps a grand narrative) stronger. And
if others are convinced by your attacks on me, then my grand narrative
may go by the wayside, and your narrative might gain greater acceptability.
The fight mode can be a worthy way of testing, developing and refining
ideas.
And a good "fighter" should not be too worried about incorporating the
ideas of her antagonists.
>
>How am I doing here? Do you feel challenged by this? I hope not.
>..Lois Shawver
>
I would differentiate between challenging me-as-a-person-worthy-of-
respect and challenging my ideas. I assume that you mean that you don't
wish to challenge my integrity. We must proceed with this assumption as
a given in academic or intellectual discourse. However, I want my ideas
to be challenged by you; this is an important way for me to develop them,
and for me to help you develop yours. So no apologies are necessary...
All the best,
Mike Mascolo
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%