Lefties have been writing against "pomo" about as long as the writers people call "pomo" have been writing. In fact, Mark, I have seen you here conflate "pomo" with certain kinds of Marxism, but many, many Marxists have railed against "pomo" over the years, often with arguments very similar to yours.
(By the way, in my experience people who use the expression "pomo" or "postmodernists" or "postmodernism" to identify the referent of their critique either:
(a) tend to have read little or none of what they are attacking;
(b) are referring to a pretty bizarre straw man comprising an odd collection of thinkers and writers who wouldn't likely identify with each other;
(c) are attacking shallow imitators whose easily refutable ideas and arguments bear little resemblance to the particular members of that same odd collection from whom they claim their heritage; or
(d) are some combination of a, b, and c.
The biggest general exceptions to this are people who identify a certain period -- the current one, or the one that has just passed -- as "postmodern," and the constellation of conditions, values, and social relations that define that period as "postmodernism." Those people then write a critique, account, or history of that era and its dominant structures the way one might write about "modernism," or "Victorianism," or the "enlightenment," etc. Frequently, those authors are then mistakenly thought to be advocating for the values, conditions, structures they are attempting to identify, enumerate, and analyze and are therefore subsequently lumped into the odd collection mentioned in b and c above.)
David R.
|