Peter Berkowitz has taken up the cudgels against Stanley Fish. His basic argument is that Fish’s claim that post-modernism simply means taking into account different views of the world is extremely disingenuous. If that’s all the pomos want, what’s the big deal? But of course, that isn’t really the post-modern claim. The claim is that there is no such thing as truth, that all truths are equivalent, that believing one over another is essentially arbitrary or a function of power relations. Or, as Peter puts it:
[T]he guiding theme of postmodernism is that objectivity, especially in morals, is a sham–in other words, precisely the definition Fish was disavowing in the Times. Postmodernists take their lead from Nietzsche’s famous aphorism in Beyond Good and Evil, “There are no moral phenomena at all, but only a moral interpretation of phenomena.” They draw inspiration and sustenance from the many books of the French theorist Michel Foucault, who held that the quest for truth in the study of history is wrongheaded–that, instead, one should seek to grasp “how effects of truth are produced within discourses which in themselves are neither true nor false.” And they (the postmodernists) consider as one of their outstanding contemporaries Judith Butler, a professor at the University of California at Berkeley, who asserts that “power pervades the very conceptual apparatus that seeks to negotiate its terms, including the subject position of the critic”; that “there is no ontologically intact reflexivity to the subject which is then placed within a cultural context”; and that “agency is always and only a political prerogative.”
This, of course, is also the objection to my politics of homosexuality. For pomos, homosexuality is not a stable part of the human condition, no more than liberal politics is an eternal answer to the vicissitudes of unruly human nature. All these phenomena are merely a function of social construction, of the concatenation of power and meaning that is all that passes for truth in our world. The only important thing to do is to redefine the meaning of this phenomenon in subversive ways – undermining the fight against evil by equating terrorism with democracy, making something eternal in human nature “queer”. In this sense, the battle against terror and the fight for civil rights are closely connected. They are both struggles in defense of human reason and morality against nihilism and brute force. And they require re-fighting in every generation. This generation, in particular, has its work cut out.
GOOD NEWS IN THE WAR I: We’re quietly building up the Qatar base. It’s increasingly clear that Qatar is the beginning of the end for our Saudi connection. And with any luck, the beginning of the end for Saddam as well.
GOOD NEWS IN THE WAR II: The Bush-Putin relationship, the most important right now in global politics, is beginning to pay more dividends. In the end, of course, it’s about oil. Another slow maneuver away from the Saudis.
THE BELL-RINGER OF NOTRE DAME: The term “hunchback” is now verboten. It could offend those with the condition known as “scoliosis.” So a British Theater company has changed the name of its upcoming production, despite the fact that the entire story is about how someone overcomes the handicap of being stigmatized. How can you overcome a stigma when it’s already been removed? Oh never mind.
THOSE TOLERANT MUSLIM STATES: In an inspiring move, a Pakistani player, Aisamul Haq Qureshi, teamed up with an Israeli to play tennis doubles at Wimbledon. The team did well – with the Pakistani doing better in a major tennis tournament than any of his countrymen before him. His Israeli partner had the right attitude: “I didn’t even think about Qureshi being a Muslim until I went home and found out it was big news in Israel, that a Jew was playing with a Muslim,” he said. “I just thought of him as another tennis player, a human being. Maybe if we get far here we’ll do some good because people will see Muslims and Jews can be friends.” Qureshi was similarly non-political. But what was his country’s official response? “Although he is playing in his private capacity, we officially condemn his playing with an Israeli player and an explanation has been sought from him,” Pakistan Sports Board director Brigadier Saulat Abbas told the BBC. “Since Pakistan has no links with Israel, Qureshi may face a ban.” Now say after me: Islam means peace.
THOSE WONDERFUL D.C. COPS: Now they’re being investigated for actually vandalizing the Chandra Levy crime scene. Thanks to Josh Marshall for finding that staggering news in the deep recesses of the Washington Post.
CELIBACY AND TRADITIONAL CATHOLICS: Don’t believe the theocon hype. Even traditional Catholics don’t buy the celibacy arguments for the priesthood. Here’s an email that captures the mood:
So I’m with my in-laws for a few days. My wife’s grandparents were straight off the boat from Italy. These people are all what I think of as “old school Catholics”. As an agnostic-leaning-toward-Catholic, I’m probably the fringe of this group. The rest of them were all raised in Catholic homes during the fifties or earlier. They went to old traditional Catholic schools, and can recite horror stories of nuns with rulers along with the best of them. They formed most of their theological opinions pre-Vatican II, is my guess.
And what was the consensus opinion in this very Catholic group? “Priests should be able to marry.” “That’s a dumb rule.” “It’s not scripture.” And, in a really interesting twist on the old explanation for where the celibacy rule comes from: “It was put in place by one of the corrupt Popes so that when the priests died, the Church would inherit their property.” They’re also united in their scorn for the bishops who were accomplices to pedophilia. So even among this old school Catholic bunch who are otherwise representative of the worst of pre-sixties America (their blatant racism reminds me why conservatives have such a bad name among minorities), there’s a feeling that it’s time for some changes. I hope the Church is paying attention.
I hope so too.
The Dish 