Re: w-s critique of po-mo

Sat, 8 Mar 1997 20:14:29 -0800 (PST)
Judi Kessler (

Try not to appreciate too much about your peers' approach. You seem to be
right on track (I am a doctoral student in sociology - global industry
and commodity chains) - glad to meet you.
Not long ago I was visiting some colleagues at el colegio de la frontera
norte, a northern Mexico college that generates a ton of great literature
on the political economy of Mexico. Over lunch I asked a visiting
post-doc how el colef dealt with post-modern theory. His response (in a
kind a gracious spirit): (laugh) You American scholars may have the
luxury to wallow around in post-modern rhetoric - here in Mexico, we have
big problems that need solving - we simply don't have time to waste on
such matters (I applauded him).


On Sat, 8 Mar 1997, David Lloyd-Jones wrote:

> asks:
> >
> > Among my peers (I am a Ph.D. candidate in history), postmodern theory
> > is the rage. Culture, gender, the body, and the psyche are
> > preferred topics whose treatment seems to ignore social-economic
> > foundations. I feel most comfortable with Marxist-Braudel-Wallerstein
> > style, yet I appreciate much about my peers' approach. I would like to
> > hear w-s critiques of postmodernism in order to have a better idea about
> > its merits and pitfalls. Also, could anyone recommend an article
> > critiquing postmodernism from a w-s perspective?
> No.
> W-S and po-mo are agreed on the Fundamental Proposition(tm) that
> Everything is Related to Everything.
> To suggest otherwise would obviously be otherwise. And vice versa.
> My suggestion to you would be that if you want to critique a particular
> assertion you do it on the basis of fact; if you wish to criticise any
> school, ridicule is probably the best weapon. Using one school to
> attack another school would be like attacking a creampuff with donuts,
> woonit now?
> -dlj.

Judi A. Kessler
University of California, Santa Barbara
Department of Sociology
Santa Barbara, California 93106
(805) 893-3751
fax (805) 893-3324