The no-nonsense Camille Paglia is back at Salon (thank God) and she had a few interesting jibes to make at Chomsky (she goes after Bush and Rumsfeld as well) but I had to laugh…
[quote]What else? Yet another folly – creating more generations of hatred against America. The feckless behavior of the Bush administration has been a lurid illustration of Noam Chomsky’s books – which I’ve always considered half lunatic. Chomsky’s hatred of the United States is pathological – stemming from some bilious problem with father figures that is too fetid to explore. But Chomsky’s toxic view of American imperialism and interventionism is like the playbook of the rigid foreign policy of the Bush administration. So, thanks very much, George Bush, you’ve managed to rocket Noam Chomsky to the top of the bestseller list!
I’m worried about the future of America insofar as our academically most promising students are being funneled through the cookie-cutter Ivy League and other elite schools and emerging with this callow anti-American, anti-military cast to their thinking. How are we ever going to get wise leadership or sophisticated diplomacy from people who have such a distorted, clichéd view about everything that’s wrong with the United States? Neither the intellectuals nor the Democrats have any answers to the problems we face. It’s not as if the Democrats are offering a coherent and persuasive foreign policy – they have no foreign policy! They just come across as small-minded politicos jockeying for power.
And we do face an international crisis of mammoth proportions. What should we do in the face of this ruthless and barbaric Islamic fundamentalism? Is there an answer to the problem of Israel? There was a time when the left’s call for a transnational Israel made sense to me, but at this point does anyone really think that, if Israel stops calling itself a Jewish state and opens its borders to all Palestinians who wish to return, there would be instant peace? Because of the shocking upsurge in anti-Semitism in the last few years – exacerbated by the American incursion into Iraq – surely such a development would mean suicide for Jews who reside in Israel. Passions have become too inflamed among young Muslims all over the world. I think it will be a century before any of this is resolved. [/quote]
[quote=“NeonNoodle”]Interesting about that passage that was quoted. As she is criticizing Chomsky, she is also confirming many of his theses. What a dunce![/quote] :roflmao: Uh …yeah…OK…
[quote]"…stemming from some bilious problem with father figures that is too fetid to explore. "[/quote] She may have something here…and here also.
What is it about THOSE types and their strange adulation of Chomsky? It is like Dummies for Intellectuals 101 or is it Intellectuals for Dummies 101? Hard to tell which is the cart and which is the horse, eh? Anyway, for those who have read only one book and want to sound authoritative on subjects x, y or z, I am sure Chomsky will continue to fill the void or rather should it be void the fill. See what fun one can have with deconstructionism or rather shouldn’t it be see how much fun it is to deconstruct fun or rather how fun to deconstruct? or just fun to have fun and deconstruct… er… mental meltdown… You know… I am starting to see how Chomsky makes sense after all… or senses make
With his ponderous heaving and groaning about thesis and antithesis, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel did no more than express a commonplace observation in the maximum number of words: just when a movement – be it political, intellectual, artistic, or religious – is at the stage of its greatest worldly success, the seeds of decay are already germinating. The decay springs from having no serious opposition, which in turn leads to complacency, stagnation, and a streak of self-righteousness. When opposition is heretical by definition, there is no need for rigorous intellectual justification of one’s own viewpoint.
Liberalism demonstrated this tendency in the 1960s and '70s. As an (apparently) unchallengeable consensus, liberals degenerated into arrogant defenders of the status quo; opponents were dismissed (or demonized) as ignorant racist rednecks. As intellectual stagnation ensued, mainstream liberalism gradually splintered into political dead-ends: identity politics, the cult of victimization, and cultural nihilism.
As the Richard Hofstadters, Arthur Schlesingers, and Daniel Bells receded from defining liberalism, their place was taken by a bizarre coterie of crackpot feminists, cultural deconstructionists, guilt-mongers, and liberation theologists. By merely by asserting confidence and upholding the “normal,” Ronald Reagan was able to topple the liberal consensus.[/quote]
Whereas Bush may as well have managed to start swinging the pendulum back again with what Paglia was so kind to just call ‘feckless behaviour’.
Bush and Chompsky operating at roughly the same level? Almost spot on, kind of a political perpetuum mobile it seems.
Woody Allen made a film called “Deconstructing Harry” that was apparently quite good though unfortunately it doesn’t seem to be available here in Taiwan. Anyway, if you could clue us in on what you mean by “deconstructionism” that would be helpful. Of course we will be happy with whatever prattle you come up with related to the subject but really a clear analysis is what we are after. Thanks professor.
Thankfully, yes. And kicking…ass, no less. I’ve loved this woman since I first read her words in an dinner interview with Neil Postman for Harpers way back in '89 or '90.
One of the few public commentators who blasts the mindless left and idiotic right with more or less equal scorn. One of the last of that dwindling herd, the public intellectual (a genuine academic) that the Average Joe Public has actually heard of. Of course, I disagree with lots of what she says, and never understood the whole Madonna worship (“Like a Virgin”, not The Virgin), but I respect her opinions and intelligence she brings to the table.
I think that deconstructionism involves a certain definition but I will play along: Bob, I do not want to define deconstructionism because I do not want my “narrative” to be the dominant “theme” of this “discourse” as it would involve “power paradigms” that by their very nature would seek to “impose, dominate and define” the issue to the expense of “marginalized voices” such as your own and this would lead to a narrower, constricted exchange of narratives on the subject at hand which naturally would dictate a less fruitful interchange that presupposes a certain stricture on a multipolar, multicultural, multigender, multidiscursive richness that should be celebrated for its ability to engage humanity in all of its many facets in a tribute to the complex understandings of the experience of living that make each and every individual a paean to the uniqueness of the human experience in all its remarkable diversity.
See above. I will consider that question answered and will take satisfaction that as usual you are once again “happy” with “prattle.”
I enjoyed reading Paglia’s column in Salon back in '98 and '99 or so (free archives here: salon.com/archives/1999/col_pagl.html), but her schtick grew old fairly quickly. She constantly brings up the same few references that I think you could set up a bot to auto-generate some of her columns.
“The poisonous effect of Foucault on higher education…the power and force of Mother Nature, just as seen in Alfred Hitchcock’s “The Birds”…similar to my own pagan Dionysian Italian-American Catholic beliefs…my disdain for the prissy effete constructs of post-structuralism…my lesbian partner thinks…”
Her political commentary is annoyingly predictable. But she has wonderful taste in women. I can’t be too critical of anyone who at every possible opportunity talks about how Gwyneth Paltrow or Helen Hunt are pasty and unsexual and Catherine Zeta-Jones and Kate Winslet are primal and sensuous.
Wow, that was good. A refusal to define deconstructionism couched in the very language of a deconstructionist, or your stereotypical view of a deconstructinist in any case. Anyway if anyone else is curious, from wikipedia…
[quote]Surveying the deconstructive texts and the secondary literature, one is confronted with a bafflingly heterogeneous range of arguments. These include claims that deconstruction can sort out the Western tradition in its entirety, by highlighting and discrediting unjustified privileges accorded to white males and other hegemonists. On the other hand, some critics claim that deconstruction is a dangerous form of nihilism that wishes the utter destruction of Western scientific and ethical values. As a rule, deconstruction is ridiculed by members of the political right of just about any stripe. Its reception on the left is far more varied, ranging from hostility to co-option:
While there is no doubting that principal figures associated with deconstruction in France have been “leftist” in their political positions, Heidegger’s place in deconstruction complicates matters considerably, as do the politics of Paul de Man in early adulthood. Heidegger assumed the rectorship of the University of Freiburg from 1933-1934 as a member of the National Socialist German Workers Party (Nazis), while de Man worked, during the German occupation of Belgium, as a writer for a collaborationist newspaper, Le Soir.
From a racial-religious perspective, deconstruction has no clear sectarian identity. For example, Derrida’s views on religion are anything but sectarian. As a Jew raised in a walled Jewish community in colonial Algeria, Derrida rejected what he regarded as the countersignature of anti-Semitism by Algerian Jewish institutions of the 1940s. He is almost certainly an atheist in terms of dogmatic theology, and has written about religion in terms of what was shared among the Abrahamic faiths.
Those writing sympathetically about deconstruction tend to use an “idiosyncratic” (sometimes in fact imitative) style with numerous neologisms, a bent toward playfulness and irony, and a massive amount of allusion across many corners of the Western canon.
…
Deconstruction is in fact much closer to the original meaning of the word ‘analysis’ itself, which etymologically means “to undo” — a virtual synonym for “to de-construct.” … If anything is destroyed in a deconstructive reading, it is not the text, but the claim to unequivocal domination of one mode of signifying over another. A deconstructive reading is a reading which analyzes the specificity of a text’s critical difference from itself." (Johnson, 1981)
Some detractors claim deconstruction amounts to little more than nihilism or relativism. Its proponents deny this; It is not the abandonment of all meaning, but attempts to demonstrate that Western thought has not satisfied its quest for a “transcendental signifier” that will give meaning to all other signs. According to Derrida, “Deconstruction is not an enclosure in nothingness, but an openness to the other” (Derrida, 1984, p. 124), and an attempt “to discover the non-place or non-lieu which would be that ‘other’ of philosophy” (ibid. p. 112). Thus, meaning is “out there,” but it cannot be located by Western metaphysics, because text gets in the way.
…
John D. Caputo paradoxically defines deconstruction thus: “Whenever deconstruction finds a nutshell – a secure axiom or a pithy maxim – the very idea is to crack it open and disturb this tranquility. Indeed, that is a good rule of thumb in deconstruction. That is what deconstruction is all about, its very meaning and mission, if it has any. One might even say that cracking nutshells is what deconstruction is. In a nutshell. …Have we not run up against a paradox and an aporia [something impassable]?..the paralysis and impossibility of an aporia is just what impels deconstruction, what rouses it out of bed in the morning…” (Caputo 1997, p.32)
…
One typical form of deconstructive reading is the critique of binary oppositions, or the criticism of dichotomous thought. A central deconstructive argument holds that, in all the classic dualities of Western thought, one term is privileged or “central” over the other. The privileged, central term is the one most associated with the phallus and the logos. Examples include:
speech over writing
presence over absence
identity over difference
fullness over emptiness
meaning over meaninglessness
mastery over submission
life over death
Derrida argues in Of Grammatology (translated by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak and published in English in 1976) that, in each such case, the first term is classically conceived as original, authentic, and superior, while the second is thought of as secondary, derivative, or even “parasitic.” These binary oppositions, or “violent hierarchies”, and others of their form, he argues, must be deconstructed. [/quote]
And if anyone is curious, what shall I tell them regarding your presence at Fredfest V? Are you really not coming? I hear red wine is good for dissolving fat? And if you stay on a 100 percent protein Atkins type diet well that might be manageable then mightn’t it? It would be fun to have you there. I could throw bread rolls at you every time I wanted to get your attention. That would help make the meaningless meaningful and for that, there is no need to deconstruct.
Well, since it is just down the street, and I stop by there for the lovely cranberry tart they sell in the lobby anway I guess I could pop in for spell, since you asked so nicely and all I mean…
No, but seriously, I am following my new diet like it was a religion these days. For about a week there every doctor (4) I talked to said I had had a heart attack. It runs in my family too, and with heart disease that’s a major factor so I’m afraid old bob is on a pretty restricted diet, exercise, relaxation program these days. Bummer. Wish I could go, especially if broonale is going to be there, he’s always a hoot.
Or here’s thought, since my place is just down the street why don’t you guys swing by after dinner and I’ll pop in the latest “He left right? brain film studio and langauge school” production of “Penghu - The Video.” You guys can bring along a few bottles of red wine and I can drink it. Yeah, yeah, this is starting to sound pretty good…
Her name is cherry and she is NOT a tart. At least, if she is, I didn’t know about it.
I will try to stop riling you.
so does the riling in mine.
Yes, I expect Broon Ale to be there and yes he is a “hoot.” Comrade Stalin and I are going to lure him over, shoot him and tie him naked to the front of our Cadillac convertible as we drive down Renai Rd. beeping and throwing empty beer cans into the street. Wanna come?
Gosh. Sounds mighty or rather Might T tempting. I will have to take a vote, but I bet that your suggestion wins hands down. (deliberate) as opposed to hands up which would indicate greater support if you get my drift…
How does Red Zinfandel strike your fancy or fantasy as the case may be. I have a good source for some Old Vine Zinfandel that willl knock your socks off and I hear it is good for the heart. Think of it as tender nursing from the Republicans Abroad… eager to keep foes that make it look good alive and kicking…
It’s a deconstructionist thing I suppose. Balancing opposites, looking beneath the surface, questioning assumptions, coming by lil b bob’s haouse at three in the morning and waking up his lovely wife…
Maybe not such a good idea, funny thought though, Almas John, Broondale, Tigerman, Comrade Stalin (he is a big guy too I bet) and of course your and my own pudgy selves etc. squeezing into my little grovel for a showing of “Peng Hu” the video.
[quote=“alidarbac”]I enjoyed reading Paglia’s column in Salon back in '98 and '99 or so (free archives here: salon.com/archives/1999/col_pagl.html), but her schtick grew old fairly quickly. She constantly brings up the same few references that I think you could set up a bot to auto-generate some of her columns.
“The poisonous effect of Foucault on higher education…the power and force of Mother Nature, just as seen in Alfred Hitchcock’s “The Birds”…similar to my own pagan Dionysian Italian-American Catholic beliefs…my disdain for the prissy effete constructs of post-structuralism…my lesbian partner thinks…”
Her political commentary is annoyingly predictable. But she has wonderful taste in women. I can’t be too critical of anyone who at every possible opportunity talks about how Gwyneth Paltrow or Helen Hunt are pasty and unsexual and Catherine Zeta-Jones and Kate Winslet are primal and sensuous.[/quote]
Total 100% agreement (especially about the women- just listening to Zeta-Jones- that Welsh accent…). I also used to enjoy her earlier stuff, but was put off by her attempt to turn herself into a cult, complete with circle of worshipful male submissives.
As for “Paglia unloads on Chomsky”
Chomsky???
That generates about the same interest as
“In comeback attempt, Mike Tyson unloads on George Foreman”.
