An Indian View

 “Post-Modernism Today” by Siraj, 2018

First came the Trotskyists, now the left Maoists, both aiming Marxist shots at the idealist trends of post-modernism and post-structuralism (PM/PS).  You might think these ideas are limited to obscure academic journals.  They are not, as they have flowed into political culture.  Siraj seems to be around the Communist Party of India (Maoist) and makes for the most part an orthodox Marxist attack on these philosophic trends, though he says both the CPI and CPI(Maoist) have made these errors recently.

Why pay attention to theory?  Because ‘theory’ actually promotes practice in the real world. According to Siraj, Foucault and Derrida, the two most prominent theorists of this current, both downplay anything but local, small-bore attempts to change social reality, as any exercise of power is corrupt - even in opposition.  Any ‘overarching theories’ or metanarratives are also rejected by them, as are cause and effect, which denies both Marxism and actual science.  They ignore class and capitalism and dwell on ethnicity - which feeds into pure bourgeois identity politics from the right and left.  Essentially these are conservative, alt-right and anti-revolutionary tacks that parade as ‘critical of the discourses’ of modern capitalism.  While providing some illumination of problems under capitalism, their general thrust is not that.

One of the elements of post-modernism/post-structuralism (Siraj combines them) is a reliance on words and language as the primary markers of reality.  This is not merely philosophic idealism. This issue arises in the real world of politics when words become arbitrary.  Word salad and word games have nothing on this – a method also noticeable in their opaque writing styles. For instance, some activists claim that ‘men’ can have babies or that there are hundreds of genders or that who can give birth doesn’t matter. Others apply the word ‘fascism’ to everything.  Even the word ‘anti-imperialism’ is changing its skin.  In a sense, it makes nonsense of words and material reality, redefining them beyond comprehension, or turning them on their heads. But this partly arises out of a post-modernist approach.  Peace is war!

THE TEXT

Siraj, poor soul, read books on this issue and many of its’ theorists too – Foucault, Derrida, Lyotard, Baudrillard and Lacan.  He tries to tie their ideology to Nietzsche, Heidegger and Edward Said’s ‘Orientalism.’  In contrast, he stands up for the historically progressive parts of the Renaissance, the Reformation, the Enlightenment, the French Revolution, Descartes, reason, science and human progress.  This is clearly because he has the material background of continuing Vedic and Hindu obscurantism in India, and the accompanying poverty, violence, exploitation and class/caste misery it justifies.  The deep and diffuse uselessness of post-modernism in Indian society is evident in his analysis.

The book is a somewhat brief survey of philosophic trends.  Siraj starts with the textual analysis of Saussure, semiotics, structuralism and how it morphed into PM/PS.  His analysis is somewhat disorganized, repetitive and runs on, but his points are eventually made.  Essentially written ‘signs’ became divorced from what they signify – which means reality becomes language.  As Lacan says “The world of words creates the world of things.”  Or as the Bible says “In the beginning was the Word…” Language is no longer what it refers to, nor what role language plays in social links between humans, or even its relative role in communication.

Hinduvtva - celebrating the 'difference.'

META-NARRATIVES

PM/PS opposes ‘totalizing’ or a holistic approach to reality, and seeks to break down any coherent explanation of reality or economic and social systems into shards and fragments.  This method flows into Siraj’s section on Nietzsche.  Siraj focuses on the concept of relativism and difference that both PM/PS and Nietzsche celebrate.  He says:  “…to worship the ‘difference’ as being intrinsic to societies is to legitimate and provide feudal moral license accepting all the horror-inspiring practices in such semi-feudal and colonial societies of the East.” Relative to this, Foucault endorsed Khomeini and the theocratic mullah government in Iran as a sterling example of an exciting ‘non-Western’ difference.  This view feeds into a traditionalist polemic against ‘foreigners’ and ‘outsiders’ who infect ancient cultures or ethnicities.  Foucault’s endorsement of this kind of ‘revolution’ shows his hypocrisy as to metanarratives.

Nietszche based his philosophy on ‘natural’ biologic differences that flowed into fascism, while PM/PS believes that culture creates all differences and those cultural differences should be upheld against any human similarities or broad material causes.  It is not a stretch to see here the early origins of academic identity theory, or a political program of disunity.  Nietszche believed the Christian myth that Jesus supported equality, and he came to oppose religion for precisely that reason – not its magical properties, its nonsensical explanation of the world, its alliance with various ruling classes – but its weak ‘powerlessness.’

As part of this is the mixed legacy of Edward Said, who Siraj claims denied any benefits to all of the ‘Western episteme’ because of European colonialism, a view PM/PS also endorses.  Siraj, based in India and seeing its’ effects, says of this over-reaching ‘anti-colonialism:’  “The so-called Colonialist discourse is basically weak and partial …”

According to Siraj, PM/PS also abrogates cause and effect, making science impossible.  They oppose “logocentrism” and ‘scientific reductionism’ in this regard.  They dismiss ‘Western science’ as biased, based on their cultural and textual critique, not over whether it approaches reality or is misused by capital. You see reality doesn’t exist, as that would be a metanarrative.  Siraj goes to the point of calling this a form of petit-bourgeois nihilism - rejecting the universality of many scientific discoveries, including people’s science.  He also touches on their romantic primitivism in a discussion of Marx’s ecologic views.

What Siraj is writing is not much different than other critical analyses of post-modernism by Habermas and others, but in more detail and with an Indian perspective. This might not be an introduction but it can be seen as an addition to your library about post-modernist nonsense.

Prior blog reviews on this subject, use blog search box, upper left, to investigate our 15 year archive, using these terms:  “Microverses,” “Marxism versus PostModernism,” “Fashionable Nonsense,” “From the Factory to the Metropolis”(Negri); “Art is Dead,” “Capitalist Realism” (Fisher); “The Marxist Theory of Art,” “Lacan,” “The History of Philosophy,” “La Biennale Arte di Veniza,” “Intersectional Class Struggle.” INDIA: “Walking With the Comrades,’ “Field Notes on Democracy,” The Ministry of Utmost Happiness,” “Capitalism – A Ghost Story” (all 4 by Roy); “Arundhati Roy,” “Celebrate Indian Women,” “The God Market,” “Caste – the Origins of Our Discontents,” “Annihilation of Caste” (Ambedkar); “White Tiger,” “Modern De Facto Slavery,” “Value Chains,” “Last Man in Tower” (Adiga); “Behind the Beautiful Forevers,” “Life of Pi,” “The Story of My Assassins.”

And I bought it at May Day Books, where everything isn’t about ‘philosophy!’

Red Frog

September 24, 2022