X-Popmail-Charset: English
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.rhetoric
Date:         Fri, 2 Oct 1992 14:52:13 CST
From:         "(Ralph L. Wahlstrom)" <rwahlstr@HP.UWSUPER.EDU>
Subject:      mod/post-mod responses

I thank all of you who responded to my request for a Cliff Notes primer on
the modern/postmodern periods.  I now understand everything, and were I to
father another child, would probably name him or her Michel(le).

In fact, the citations have been and will be very useful, and because
some of you have asked, I'm forwarding the responses to the group.
Try to overlook the messy format.  That's what happens when I draw material
straight out of Wordperfect into my E-Mail system.

Ralph W.


!!My off-the-cuff take on structuralism v.poststructuralism/postmodernism
is to say that structuralism loved building categories, andfindingbinary
oppositions to make global distinctions betweencategories.... Post-
structuralism realizes 'oops, maybe that isn't going to behelpful....'
Example:  Structuralist linguistics looked for universal featuresof all
languages, hoping to make grand statements like "All languageshave acopula
(forms of the verb 'to be')..."  Many of these grandstatements,like the
one just provided, turned out to be false.  Theoristsproducedcompeting
systems of categories, and eventually started asking questions about the
act of categorizing (which leaves the way open for Derrida andcompany to
come charging in, merrily snatching the ground outfromunderneath the idea
that a binary opposition is a useful way ofapproaching _anything_) The
first book of texts which "started" poststructuralism, really the
conference proceedings from when Derrida first hit the fan, so to speak,is
a small book called _The Structuralist Controversy_ (Or perhaps the_Post_
structuralist...I can't recall the title offhand...)  It is rather heavy
going, but the papers certainly illustrate how structuralism began coming
apart at the seams.Literature hint: Eliot was Modern; Pynchon is
Postmodern.LiliRhet in the Blue Linen
Labcoat

Subject: Postmodernism etc...Date: Thu, 01 Oct 92 16:24:49 CDTNot to be
considered systematic reading into the areas youmentioned(rather
peripheral and working toward the center) the followingbooks may be of
help if you have a lot of time on your hands:
Kritzman, L. (1988). Michel Foucault:  Politics, philosphy,
culture; Interviews and other writings 1977-1984.  New york:
Routledge     Angus, I. & Jhally, S. (eds.)(1989).  cultural politics
incontemporaryAmerica.  New York:  Routledge.     The first is mainly
interviews with fouc., who consideredhimselfpost-structuaralist, and
discusses a wide array of philosophy. Easyreading.  i imagine that a
course in theories of rhetoric will at somepoint discuss Fouc.       The
second is a large compilation of essays on cultaralissues, andhow they
relate to the politics of human nature, and the politicsof apost-modern
society.       Essentially Critical theory (a.k.a. social theory)
andrhetoric isthe crossraods you are looking for in covering these
topics.       The UTNE Reader devoted an issue to post-modernism in
thelateeighties (not sure of the exact citation, but they only producefour
issues a year, so should not be hard to find), if you want abubble gum
quick description of Post. m.Enjoy.Ted ReillyIowa State Universtiy,
Ames.
------------------------------------------

 . .where to begin?  OK, here's a fewarticles/resources which I found
helpful:Sharon Crowley's A TEACHER'S INTRODUCTION TO DECONSTRUCTION(NCTE).
Advantages:  small, thin, cheap, and very accessible, practical;not only
for teachers but other scholars wanting to be introduced.!!!!!!!(!!!!!!!!!!
0*0*0*!!!!!!!!!Disadvantages:  doesn't necessarily cover all the
theoreticalimplicationsand complexities of D/Cism and has been criticized
on thosegrounds.  Sotry also--Jane Tompkins' "A Short Course in Post-
Structuralism" in COLLEGE ENGLISH,50:7 (Nov. 1988).  A truly excellent
piece--highly accessible,clear, witha handy history of structuralism
included, so that Derrida'snotions ofpost-structuralism are placed into
context.  Essential reading!I also recommend--Jonathan Culler's ON
DECONSTRUCTION, a longish paperback,providing detailed and scholarly
background on structuralism andpost-struct. frommore the literary
viewpoint.  Complex but not unreasonably so.Wondering about the
difference(s) between postmodernism andpost-structu-ralism?
In some schools of thought, there are distinct differences. Fredric
Jameson's article "Postmodernism, or The Cultural Logic of Late
Capitalism" in NEW LEFT REVIEW (146: 1984) is rather dense but does
helpcreate a meaningful and very rich definition of postmodernism.
FInally, some texts on rhetoric are now including explanations ofpost-
modern/structuralist criticism.  Among the most lucid are Foss,Foss
andTrapp's section on Michel Foucault in CONTEMPORARY PERSPECTIVESON
RHETORIC, 2nd ed. (1991); "The Postmodern Approach" in Brock,Scott,  and
Chesebro's METHODS OF RHETORICAL CRITICISM, 3rd ed. (1989); andBizze
lland Herzberg's sections on Foucault and Derrida in THE
RHETORICALTRADITION (1990). Hope this helps!  I also hope some other
folks are providingtitles, too,so I can broaden my own perspectives on
post-somethings. Amanda_Goldrick-Jones@mts.rpi.
edu

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The best summary of the structuralism/poststructuralism debates arein
Terry Eagleton's book LITERARY THEORY; AN INTRODUCTION (Univ.of Minnesota
Press, 1983).  Don't be put off the by the title, it's not just
for English-types.  In fact he calls for a return to rhetoric inhis last
chapter.There are kazillions of definitions of postmodernism floating
around.  To get a quick feel for how the concept is useful, check out
Scott R. Olsen, "Meta-television: Popular Postmodernism,"Critical
Studies in Mass Comm, 4 (1987), 284-300.JenniferSchool of Journalism
U of Colorado, Boulder

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


not exactly what you asked about, but of interest and related:try the
20 page chaper (14) "Emerging Eurpoean Perspecties on Rhetoric" in Golden
et al. THE RHETORIC OF WESTERN THOUGH, 4th ed, onGrassi, Habermas, and
Foucault;Also find chapters on those three, as wellas a chapter on
"Challenges to the Rhetorical Tradition "(Feminist, Afrocentric,
Asian Challenge) in Foss et al. CONTEMPORARYPERSPECTIVES ON RHETORIC, 2nd
ed.--Ed Lamoureuxell@bradley.bradley.edu.


Ralph       rwahlstr@hp.uwsuper.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU