As a service to members of DESIGN-L, the following essay is posted to
assist the writers and readers of this list.
Alden Jones
> HOW TO SPEAK AND WRITE POSTMODERN
> by Stephen Katz, Associate Professor, Sociology
> Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario, Canada
>
> Postmodernism has been the buzzword in academia for the last
> decade. Books, journal articles, conference themes and university
> courses have resounded to the debates about postmodernism that
> focus on the uniqueness of our times, where computerization, the
> global economy and the media have irrevocably transformed all
> forms of social engagement. As a professor of sociology who
> teaches about culture, I include myself in this environment.
> Indeed, I have a great interest in postmodernism both as an
> intellectual movement and as a practical problem. In my
> experience there seems to be a gulf between those who see the
> Postmodern turn as a neo-conservative reupholstering of the same
> old corporate trappings, and those who see it as a long overdue
> break with modernist doctrines in education, aesthetics and
> politics. Of course there are all kinds of positions in between,
> depending upon how one sorts out the optimum route into the next
> millennium.
>
> However, I think the real gulf is not so much positional as
> linguistic. Posture can be as important as politics when it
> comes to the intelligentsia. In other words, it may be less
> important whether or not you like postmodernism than whether or
> not you can speak and write postmodernism. Perhaps you would like
> to join in conversation with your local mandarins of cultural
> theory and all-purpose deep thinking, but you don't know what to
> say. Or, when you do contribute something you consider relevant,
> even insightful, you get ignored or looked at with pity. Here is
> a quick guide, then, to speaking and writing postmodern.
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> 1. First, you need to remember that plainly expressed language
> is out of the question. It is too realist, modernist and
> obvious. Postmodern language requires that one uses play, parody
> and indeterminacy as critical techniques to point this out.
> Often this is quite a difficult requirement, so obscurity is a
> well-acknowledged substitute.
>
> For example, let's imagine you want to say something
> like, "We should listen to the views of people outside
> of Western society in order to learn about the cultural
> biases that affect us". This is honest but dull. Take
> the word "views." Postmodernspeak would change that to
> "voices," or better, "vocalities." or even better,
> "multivocalities." Add an adjective like
> "intertextual," and you're covered. "People outside" is
> also too plain. How about "postcolonial others"?
>
> To speak postmodern properly one must master a bevy of biases
> besides the familiar racism, sexism, ageism, etc.
>
> For example, phallogocentricism (male-centredness
> combined with rationalistic forms of binary logic).
> Finally "affect us" sounds like plaid pajamas. Use
> more obscure verbs and phrases, like "mediate our
> identities."
>
> So, the final statement should say, "We should listen to the
> intertextual, multivocalities of postcolonial others outside of
> Western culture in order to learn about the phallogocentric
> biases that mediate our identities." Now you're talking
> postmodern!
>
>
> 2. Sometimes you might be in a hurry and won't have the time to
> muster even the minimum number of postmodern synonyms and
> neologisms needed to avoid public disgrace. Remember, saying the
> wrong thing is acceptable if you say it the right way.
>
> This brings me to a second important strategy in speaking
> postmodern -- which is to use as many suffixes, prefixes,
> hyphens, slashes, underlinings and anything else your computer
> (an absolute must to write postmodern) can dish out.
>
> You can make a quick reference chart to avoid time
> delays. Make three columns. In column A put your
> prefixes: post-, hyper-, pre-, de-, dis-, re-, ex-, and
> counter-. In column B go your suffixes and related
> endings: -ism, -itis, -iality, -ation, -itivity, and
> -tricity. In column C add a series of well-respected
> names that make for impressive adjectives or schools of
> thought, for example, Barthes (Barthesian), Foucault
> (Foucauldian, Foucauldianism), Derrida (Derridean,
> Derrideanism).
>
> Now for the test. You want to say or write something like,
> "Contemporary buildings are alienating." This is a good thought,
> but, of course, a non-starter. You wouldn't even get offered a
> second round of crackers and cheese at a conference reception
> with such a line. In fact, after saying this, you might get
> asked to stay and clean up the crackers and cheese after the
> reception. Go to your three columns.
>
> First, the prefix. Pre- is useful, as is post-, or
> several prefixes at once is terrific. Rather than
> "contemporary buildings," be creative. "The
> Pre/post/spacialities of counter-architectural
> hyper-contemporaneity" is promising. You would have to
> drop the weak and dated term "alienating" with some
> well suffixed words from column B. How about
> "antisociality", or be more postmodern and introduce
> ambiguity with the linked phrase,
> "antisociality/seductivity."
>
> Now, go to column C and grab a few names whose work everyone will
> agree is important and hardly anyone has had the time or the
> inclination to read. Continental European theorists are best
> when in doubt. I recommend the sociologist Jean Baudrillard
> since he has written a great deal of difficult material about
> postmodern space. Don't forget to make some mention of gender.
> Finally, add a few smoothing out words to tie the whole garbled
> mess together and don't forget to pack in the hyphens, slashes
> and parentheses.
>
> What do you get? "Pre/post/spacialities of
> counter-architectural hyper-contemporaneity (re)commits
> us to an ambivalent recurrentiality of
> antisociality/seductivity, one enunciated in a
> de/gendered-Baudrillardian discourse of granulated
> subjectivity." You should be able to hear a
> postindustrial pin drop on the retrocultural floor.
>
>
> 3. At some point someone may actually ask you what you're
> talking about. This risk faces all those who would speak
> postmodern and must be carefully avoided. You must always give
> the questioner the impression that they have missed the point,
> and so send another verbose salvo of postmodernspeak in their
> direction as a "simplification" or "clarification" of your
> original statement. If that doesn't work, you might be left with
> the terribly modernist thought of, "I don't know." Don't worry,
> just say, "The instability of your question leaves me with
> several contradictorily layered responses whose interconnectivity
> cannot express the logocentric coherency you seek. I can only
> say that reality is more uneven and its (mis)representations more
> untrustworthy than we have time here to explore." Any more
> questions? No, then pass the cheese and crackers.
assist the writers and readers of this list.
Alden Jones
> HOW TO SPEAK AND WRITE POSTMODERN
> by Stephen Katz, Associate Professor, Sociology
> Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario, Canada
>
> Postmodernism has been the buzzword in academia for the last
> decade. Books, journal articles, conference themes and university
> courses have resounded to the debates about postmodernism that
> focus on the uniqueness of our times, where computerization, the
> global economy and the media have irrevocably transformed all
> forms of social engagement. As a professor of sociology who
> teaches about culture, I include myself in this environment.
> Indeed, I have a great interest in postmodernism both as an
> intellectual movement and as a practical problem. In my
> experience there seems to be a gulf between those who see the
> Postmodern turn as a neo-conservative reupholstering of the same
> old corporate trappings, and those who see it as a long overdue
> break with modernist doctrines in education, aesthetics and
> politics. Of course there are all kinds of positions in between,
> depending upon how one sorts out the optimum route into the next
> millennium.
>
> However, I think the real gulf is not so much positional as
> linguistic. Posture can be as important as politics when it
> comes to the intelligentsia. In other words, it may be less
> important whether or not you like postmodernism than whether or
> not you can speak and write postmodernism. Perhaps you would like
> to join in conversation with your local mandarins of cultural
> theory and all-purpose deep thinking, but you don't know what to
> say. Or, when you do contribute something you consider relevant,
> even insightful, you get ignored or looked at with pity. Here is
> a quick guide, then, to speaking and writing postmodern.
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> 1. First, you need to remember that plainly expressed language
> is out of the question. It is too realist, modernist and
> obvious. Postmodern language requires that one uses play, parody
> and indeterminacy as critical techniques to point this out.
> Often this is quite a difficult requirement, so obscurity is a
> well-acknowledged substitute.
>
> For example, let's imagine you want to say something
> like, "We should listen to the views of people outside
> of Western society in order to learn about the cultural
> biases that affect us". This is honest but dull. Take
> the word "views." Postmodernspeak would change that to
> "voices," or better, "vocalities." or even better,
> "multivocalities." Add an adjective like
> "intertextual," and you're covered. "People outside" is
> also too plain. How about "postcolonial others"?
>
> To speak postmodern properly one must master a bevy of biases
> besides the familiar racism, sexism, ageism, etc.
>
> For example, phallogocentricism (male-centredness
> combined with rationalistic forms of binary logic).
> Finally "affect us" sounds like plaid pajamas. Use
> more obscure verbs and phrases, like "mediate our
> identities."
>
> So, the final statement should say, "We should listen to the
> intertextual, multivocalities of postcolonial others outside of
> Western culture in order to learn about the phallogocentric
> biases that mediate our identities." Now you're talking
> postmodern!
>
>
> 2. Sometimes you might be in a hurry and won't have the time to
> muster even the minimum number of postmodern synonyms and
> neologisms needed to avoid public disgrace. Remember, saying the
> wrong thing is acceptable if you say it the right way.
>
> This brings me to a second important strategy in speaking
> postmodern -- which is to use as many suffixes, prefixes,
> hyphens, slashes, underlinings and anything else your computer
> (an absolute must to write postmodern) can dish out.
>
> You can make a quick reference chart to avoid time
> delays. Make three columns. In column A put your
> prefixes: post-, hyper-, pre-, de-, dis-, re-, ex-, and
> counter-. In column B go your suffixes and related
> endings: -ism, -itis, -iality, -ation, -itivity, and
> -tricity. In column C add a series of well-respected
> names that make for impressive adjectives or schools of
> thought, for example, Barthes (Barthesian), Foucault
> (Foucauldian, Foucauldianism), Derrida (Derridean,
> Derrideanism).
>
> Now for the test. You want to say or write something like,
> "Contemporary buildings are alienating." This is a good thought,
> but, of course, a non-starter. You wouldn't even get offered a
> second round of crackers and cheese at a conference reception
> with such a line. In fact, after saying this, you might get
> asked to stay and clean up the crackers and cheese after the
> reception. Go to your three columns.
>
> First, the prefix. Pre- is useful, as is post-, or
> several prefixes at once is terrific. Rather than
> "contemporary buildings," be creative. "The
> Pre/post/spacialities of counter-architectural
> hyper-contemporaneity" is promising. You would have to
> drop the weak and dated term "alienating" with some
> well suffixed words from column B. How about
> "antisociality", or be more postmodern and introduce
> ambiguity with the linked phrase,
> "antisociality/seductivity."
>
> Now, go to column C and grab a few names whose work everyone will
> agree is important and hardly anyone has had the time or the
> inclination to read. Continental European theorists are best
> when in doubt. I recommend the sociologist Jean Baudrillard
> since he has written a great deal of difficult material about
> postmodern space. Don't forget to make some mention of gender.
> Finally, add a few smoothing out words to tie the whole garbled
> mess together and don't forget to pack in the hyphens, slashes
> and parentheses.
>
> What do you get? "Pre/post/spacialities of
> counter-architectural hyper-contemporaneity (re)commits
> us to an ambivalent recurrentiality of
> antisociality/seductivity, one enunciated in a
> de/gendered-Baudrillardian discourse of granulated
> subjectivity." You should be able to hear a
> postindustrial pin drop on the retrocultural floor.
>
>
> 3. At some point someone may actually ask you what you're
> talking about. This risk faces all those who would speak
> postmodern and must be carefully avoided. You must always give
> the questioner the impression that they have missed the point,
> and so send another verbose salvo of postmodernspeak in their
> direction as a "simplification" or "clarification" of your
> original statement. If that doesn't work, you might be left with
> the terribly modernist thought of, "I don't know." Don't worry,
> just say, "The instability of your question leaves me with
> several contradictorily layered responses whose interconnectivity
> cannot express the logocentric coherency you seek. I can only
> say that reality is more uneven and its (mis)representations more
> untrustworthy than we have time here to explore." Any more
> questions? No, then pass the cheese and crackers.