Knew I couldn't trust you guys.

teagar

passout wrote:

I think I see what you mean. Science does have rules and theories some of which can be proved e.g. gravity. It is important to remember that science is used to answer questions and of course the question that is chosen reflects the person / society asking it, rather than science itself. In that sense it is just a tool and a construct as history is. Also there is a strong element of philosophy intertwined with science. At it's highest level Physics can overlap into Philosophy and even Theology. However none of these ideas are particulary new and are not particulary 'post modern' in origin I would argue. I think post modernism has not really challenged science significantly. Many scientists are positivists after all and tend not to take social sciences very seriously. The science ivory tower is some distance from the humaitiies one - they don't talk much. Of course there are some exceptions. Anthrolpology throw open lots of methodical questions too, but lets not go there.....

I think post modernism is significant when studying communication (especially the media), the social sciences/ humanities and especially art/achitecture. For me the concept of de-differentiation really sums up what post modernism is about (if that's possible). I also think the idea of a risk society helps explain much about the modern world - pig flu, global warming etc. Look up Beck and Risk Society - very interesting stuff and clearly tlined to any 'post whatever' theory.

On Africa and 'other' cultures. The West has always been Euro-centric. That hasn't changed. I agree that representations of Africa, Morecambe or any place is indeed a social construct with various labels attached. Sometimes negative (patronising even hateful), sometimes 'mostly harmless' (eg the idea of exotic places) but never representing the 'truth'. Basically the world is big and complex and people buy into such constructs because they offer an easy 'black and white' answer, which brings us back to the Daily Mail.....

Oneother point. Just because Modernism is now self aware and self critical (basically that's what post modernism is) , it doesn't mean that it is over. I personally think that we are still in the grip of Modernism and will be for a LONG while to come.

If you read any pre-1960 history you'll be hard pressed to find any history which is so self reflective (I can't vouch for any other subject, but, given what I've read, i'd venture that it's largely the same). Most history, even in the '70s (feminism/post-colonail etc aside), was still largely centred around the grand narrative. In Oxbridge it's still largley the case if what my friends who study history there tell me is true!

I'd venture that the pervasive stereotypes of "the exotic" etc, are not harmless. They were all part (and largely still are) of a more general imperialist discourse, which, I, today, pass pretty negative moral judgements on! Unlike the Mail... (I refer you to the Quentin Letts review on a play I mentioned at the beginning of the thread)...

There is one thing I find slightly disconcerting. When you say "the West has always been Euro-centric", you seem to imply that since it has always been that way, it is then somehow acceptable. Even Jeremy Clarkson in his latest times column agrees that just because it's old and always been that way, doesn't justify it!

I also don't think you quite appreciate the sinisters ways this "euro-centricism" has manifested itself, i.e. a root notion in Imperialist ideas. There, has, and still is, a pervasive notion that Europe (nowadays the West), is superior than the rest of the world. Of course, through western eyes, and through western "knowledge", this is largely the case. The West naturally defines what is superior in ways that make it top dog. Hence terms like "developing" countries. This notion implies that these nations are backward, since they are not developed, unlike the European nations, which are. So this Euro-centricism you refer to is not just a natural occupation with itself. It is a way to conceptualise European dominance over the rest of the world, i.e. Imperialism.

Knowledge is not just subjective, but it is also inherrently political, since knowledge (as opposed to information) forms identities and conceptions, which are inevitably political.

passout

TEAGAR
Well, you are making a pretty big assumption there - you do seemed determined to label me as some sort of colonialist!

My point was that it has 'always' been Euro-centric and still is. In other words Post Modernism has made no difference at all either way! As you and I have discussed before I feel that I am well aware of these issues and indeed I have recently visited the Massai Centre in Kenya (near Aboseli). I studied the impacts of Tourism on these people. I spent sometime in their company and got to know a few pretty well; I also spoke to German and British tourists and got to know them too. I am well aware of views regarding this part of Africa and how they are recieved - as well as African views on the West. The only reason post modernism is of interest to be is that lt links to tourist expectations and perceptions of Africa and other developing nations. More specifically I wanted to link to the work of Deanh Macannall (staged authenticity) and John Urry (the tourist gaze). The idea of the exotic other is 'relatively' harmless compared to other parallel representations (which can be linked) but I do agree that it is racist - the softer side of racism if you like. I say 'soft' because it is generally socially acceptable in the West not because of any personal opinion or because it is any less patronising.

On Developing Countries - it's chiefly an economic term, and denotes countries less developed than our own. I agree that it is linked to negative connations. Funnily enough I think it's misleading for another reason. Quite simply many African countries are not developing economically by rather moving backwards. Dare I mention the Congo again...? So I think 'developing' should be ditched too. However you put it though the GDP or wealth per head in Kenya or The Congo is much lower than the UK. There has to be a succint way of putting this without renering me 'racist' surely? If we can't say poor or developing then what words would you like us to use to describe these economies. Perhaps - Economically Challenged? You are going beyond history with this. Words have meaning and historical connations yes, but I should be able to use them without such assumptions been thrown in my direction.

On self critical history... I agree that history has become more so. I don't think that this is because of post modernism though. I think that it is the development of socio-economic history. People like John Walton write about working class history (not the great game) but dismiss the very idea of post modernism. Also history has become interwined with Heritage in the minds of many people (non historians). History has changed for the better for the reasons that have inspired post modern though and writings (let say cultural shifts), but not because of those writings or new interpretations.

jimmypippa

My geography teachers used "less developed Countries" (LDCs) in the 1980's which seemed pretty appropriate.

Economically they are*, and I would argue that (according to my values) they are often politically less developed too.


I would argue that some measure of life expectancy is a good fundamental measure of economic development (maybe life expectancy of bottom quartile?)

teagar

passout wrote:

TEAGAR
Well, you are making a pretty big assumption there - you do seemed determined to label me as some sort of colonialist!

My point was that it has 'always' been Euro-centric and still is. In other words Post Modernism has made no difference at all either way! As you and I have discussed before I feel that I am well aware of these issues and indeed I have recently visited the Massai Centre in Kenya (near Aboseli). I studied the impacts of Tourism on these people. I spent sometime in their company and got to know a few pretty well; I also spoke to German and British tourists and got to know them too. I am well aware of views regarding this part of Africa and how they are recieved - as well as African views on the West. The only reason post modernism is of interest to be is that lt links to tourist expectations and perceptions of Africa and other developing nations. More specifically I wanted to link to the work of Deanh Macannall (staged authenticity) and John Urry (the tourist gaze). The idea of the exotic other is 'relatively' harmless compared to other parallel representations (which can be linked) but I do agree that it is racist - the softer side of racism if you like. I say 'soft' because it is generally socially acceptable in the West not because of any personal opinion or because it is any less patronising.

On Developing Countries - it's chiefly an economic term, and denotes countries less developed than our own. I agree that it is linked to negative connations. Funnily enough I think it's misleading for another reason. Quite simply many African countries are not developing economically by rather moving backwards. Dare I mention the Congo again...? So I think 'developing' should be ditched too. However you put it though the GDP or wealth per head in Kenya or The Congo is much lower than the UK. There has to be a succint way of putting this without renering me 'racist' surely? If we can't say poor or developing then what words would you like us to use to describe these economies. Perhaps - Economically Challenged? You are going beyond history with this. Words have meaning and historical connations yes, but I should be able to use them without such assumptions been thrown in my direction.

On self critical history... I agree that history has become more so. I don't think that this is because of post modernism though. I think that it is the development of socio-economic history. People like John Walton write about working class history (not the great game) but dismiss the very idea of post modernism. Also history has become interwined with Heritage in the minds of many people (non historians). History has changed for the better for the reasons that have inspired post modern though and writings (let say cultural shifts), but not because of those writings or new interpretations.

You're confusing views with discourses. A discourse is an inescapable system of knowledge. It shapes the way you can conceptualise and know things.

My examples were there to provide a little window and insight into a small part of this imperialist discourse, which still exists. The fact that you dismiss the developing example is exactly the point! Why label an entire country on the basis of its economic development? For the reasons I gave before. People regularly refer to the "developing world" even when they are not discussing anything remotely economical.

We are all victims of a discourse. That is entirely the point. We all conceptualise and know Africa in an implicitly colonial way. There is no escape!

That doesn't mean you can't try and become aware of it and notice the subjective nature of it.

You're as much of an imperialist as me... At least, before I was given the tools to deconstruct the imperialist discourse!

I think your views on history are a bit dated to be honest. The post-modern influence is largely accepted by all historians in my department at least to be present, and an important development in historiography and historical epistemology.

Class history is completely a grand-narrative type of history. It is totally teleological!

Your talk of history becoming entwined with heritage is also a red herring, since you are confusing academic history with more public history, where there is a very distinct separation.

Public history is totally in the public domain, and is there to help form cultural and national identities, and to be used by people in the public domain for their own means (such as politicians 'learning from the past'). Academic history still writes history for the sake of history. Often many issues in academia never make the public domain. There have been plenty of academic works which prove quite conclusively that the experience of WWI soldiers was nowhere near as bad as the myth suggests. That experience was limited to a very small minority.

This post-modern argument is principly academic, since, as you rightly pointed out, postmodernist ideas or values have not made any impact in the public conscience. That doesn't mean it shouldn't...

mmitchell88

teagar wrote:

It is totally teleological!

I'm sorry teagar - that comment alone means I think it's time to crack on with my irrational rantings on the papers. Here we go...(additional titles courtesy of mercsport)

Daily Star: Poor man's Sun.
Morning Star: The last time I saw this was some crusty trying to sell me a copy on the streets in Leeds. Jeez, crusties. The Levellers. Dogs on ropes. Do people still own dogs on ropes any more? Jeez, dogs on ropes.
Daily Sport: Never read it in my life. Is the sport coverage actually any good? I mean SPORT, not just football. I wonder - there could be a world-class journalist at the Sport covering the Giro right now, and I wouldn't even know. But I bet there isn't. So. Football and tits it is then.
Independent: Readable. I suspect my tiny slice of the world would be a bit poorer if the Independent didn't exist. Even though I've bought it about 3 times ever.
Daily Record: Are the Broons and Oor Wullie in this? Age 11 or 12, a friend of mine (nickname, Podgy) had a couple of annuals The Broons and Oor Wullie. One evening at his house we read through them, and we were in hysterics as to how utterly unfunny they were. There was not a joke-inspired laugh all night, but we were in tears at this p1ss-poor attempt at humour. I got more genuine laughs out of Trainspotting.
Observer: Dad came home with this one Sunday when the Sunday Times had sold out. The day little Mitch didn't get his 'Funday Times' was forever remembered as 'Bad Sunday'.

teagar

mmitchell88 wrote:

teagar wrote:

It is totally teleological!

I'm sorry teagar - that comment alone means I think it's time to crack on with my irrational rantings on the papers. Here we go...(additional titles courtesy of mercsport)

.

Why? :roll:

passout

TEAGAR

You make your points well but you will never really convince me that post modernism is of much value to anyone (academic or not). It has shaped the way many historians & some others look at the world though, I accept that. I still doubt that Post Modernism is the best way to explain our present position and world view in contemporary society. If anything Post Fordism is a more likely contender! If Post Modernism 'exists' then it most do so alongside Modernism - depending on who & where you are.

Also I think the distinction between a true academic historian and the keen amateur (often inspired by Heritage) is not as great as your post suggests e.g. John Pimlott was the first ever historian to write about the history of mass tourism in any detail and was a civil servant who enjoyed going to the seaside! Perhaps that's why historians need PM'ism and other 'jargon' - to keep the amateurs out? As you may have guessed though I'm as much an Economist as an Historian and will not try to match your knowledge on the history of history!

I actually agree that the language we use to describe Africa comes from the past - as all language does. Languages evolve as a result of discourse - along a continuum if you will. This is usually a slow process and in the mean time we may be limited by language but not in thought or much more importantly in action....IMO anyway. We are not trapped in that sense. I actually believe that individuals & socities choose their own course (history I guess) and that little is inevitable. I realise that 'context' (in the structuralist sense) is inescapable but at the same time it is constantly evolving in new, unexpected and unpredictable ways and rates of speed. In that sense history is not 'linear'. And then there's the aliens that control all of us anyway (I read it in the Mail).

teagar

passout wrote:

TEAGAR

You make your points well but you will never really convince me that post modernism is of much value to anyone (academic or not). It has shaped the way many historians & some others look at the world though, I accept that. I still doubt that Post Modernism is the best way to explain our present position and world view in contemporary society. If anything Post Fordism is a more likely contender! If Post Modernism 'exists' then it most do so alongside Modernism - depending on who & where you are.

Also I think the distinction between a true academic historian and the keen amateur (often inspired by Heritage) is not as great as your post suggests e.g. John Pimlott was the first ever historian to write about the history of mass tourism in any detail and was a civil servant who enjoyed going to the seaside! Perhaps that's why historians need PM'ism and other 'jargon' - to keep the amateurs out? As you may have guessed though I'm as much an Economist as an Historian and will not try to match your knowledge on the history of history!

I actually agree that the language we use to describe Africa comes from the past - as all language does. Languages evolve as a result of discourse - along a continuum if you will. This is usually a slow process and in the mean time we may be limited by language but not in thought or much more importantly in action....IMO anyway. We are not trapped in that sense. I actually believe that individuals & socities choose their own course (history I guess) and that little is inevitable. I realise that 'context' (in the structuralist sense) is inescapable but at the same time it is constantly evolving in new, unexpected and unpredictable ways and rates of speed. In that sense history is not 'linear'. And then there's the aliens that control all of us anyway (I read it in the Mail).

Fair enough. I think that more or less settles our (probably) permanent differences!

You're certainly right that post-modernism exists alongside modernism... Then again, post-modernism says that that is perfectly acceptable


Still hate Quentin Letts mind.

passout

Agreed!

I meant post strucalist sense towards then end of that last post by the way.

Right time for a late night walk with the dog!

elPedro666

NapoleonD wrote:

The Daily Mail really p's me off. My Mum and Dad read it and it is just awful.

The headlines are often a sensationalist question that turns out to be wrong or not proven, for example -

Thatcher a man in disguise?

Absolutely - call that a disguise?!