The Ripper
10-08-2010, 11:22 AM
I suppose this is the most appropriate section, despite this being rather political and ideological in nature as well. The following is a translation (by myself) of an article written by a blogger called Olympiark that appeared on a Swedish radical right blog portal called Motpol ("Opposite pole"), which I'm an avid reader of.
The Absurdity of Postmodernity Contra the Potential of Discourse Analysis
One who studies the Humanities at any of the higher academic institutions in Sweden is sure to, sooner or later, come into touch with post-modernism/post-structurialism, a scientific theory - a term to be taken with a grain of salt - which has relativism as its ontological fundament. This text will briefly summarize postmodernism's view on language, power and truth and then it will present Frithjoh Schuon's criticism of relativism. I will conclude with a few comments regarding the use of discourse analysis as a political weapon.
I - Language, Power and Truth
The postmodern - at times called post-structuralist - ontology stems from a constructivist view of language and reality, a perspective which has as its premise the idea that these two phenomena are inseperable. It is impossible to discuss a reality without a subjective reality being created by the use of language. Language is not neutral and can never describe anything objectively, and thus people and their relations are impossible to observe out of an objective perspective. Another characteristic quality of the post-modern view on science is its challenging of greater sociological theories - metanarratives - and the categorization in the form of gender, class or sexuality. This anti-essentialist view on identities and groups denies the existence of a given essence of any specific categorical identity. Instead, even these are construed through language. As an alternative to advancing a specific category, postmordernism applies as many perspectives as possible.
Language is also seen as an activity, a conscious action. As soon as language is used, it produces and re-produces that which makes up our view on reality. Michel Foucault wrote of the truth-effects and truth-regimes of discrursives. He meant that observation of how language is formulated helps the observer to understand what is made out to be true and sets the limits for what is thinkable in a specific context. It is possible to deduce, through exclusion procedures and authorization - based on accepted rituals and socializing institutions - whose opinions are legitimate and on what that legitimacy is based on.
II - The Paradoxical Absurdity of Relativism
Frithjof Schuon was of the opinion that the goal of relativism is to reduce and relativize all forms of ontological basis for an objective and autonomous reality, an undertaking that is not entirely painless when relativism itself as an outlook is put under the critical magnifying glass. The origo of relativism from a philosophical perspective is the normative assumption that there only exists one truth, and that truth is that no truths exist. Schuon likens this reasoning to writing that no writing exists. All ideas are reduced to a social, psychological and historical relativity. This assumption is equally absurd when considering that it claims to be unique in the aspect that it, for some inexplicable reason, is not affected by the original claim that only relativism is possible. Even the most base logic should find its conclusion in the understanding that an assumption that annulls itself is false, null and void.
Relativism outgoes from the postulate that no human can avoid human subjectivity. If this is true, the above postulate is devoid of any objective value and it annulls itself by its own premises. Schuon thinks that it is obvious that a person can circumvent their own subject, otherwise she would simply not have been person. The evidence makes itself apparent through the fact that a person is able to imagine subjectivity within herself. If we were entirely corrupted by our own subjectivity, would subjectivity in itself be impossible to fathom. Animals on the other hand live entirely within the confines of their own subjectivity without realizing it, in constrast to man animals are not created with the ability to be objective.
III - The Double-Edged Sword
It is rather natural for a radical rightist to dismiss post-modernism as something completely subversive. In their incomprehensible inability to overcome their subject, virtually all post-modern researchers, journalists and cultural personalities manage to come to the defense of the prevailing and hegemonic cultural marxism, despite their relativist outlook. It is obvious that much of the touted relativism, subjectivism and advancing of perspectives is there simply to provide a basis for undermining, critcizing and denigrating traditional European culture. The premises of the post-modern view on knowledge and reality only allows for criticism. Even the solutions the post-modernists propose to the problems that derive from the white European man - the being with a copyright to oppression - always seem to lead to further undermining of that which is being observed. The day a post-modernist de facto relativises that which makes up the value system of post-modern society, the author shall eat his hat.
The useful aspects and what radical rightists should learn from in this context, is the post-modern idea of language as activity and power, with the reservation that language constitutes a part of the political, cultural and social power-weilding from above, from state and media. It can seem strange that this must be pointed out, but it is nonetheless important to concretely demonstrate what kind of power is meant in the context, precisely to avoid all too abstract - and thus worthless - interpretations of a diffuse concept of power. Furthermore, as a radical rightist, one should be pleased that discursive analysis as a political weapon is double-edged. In their quest to undermine and overthrow traditional norms, the post-modernists developed a weapon that can just as well be used against those who make up the true status quo, the post-modern and cultural marxist society. Without having to ascribe to the absurd ontological preconditions that postmodern "ontology" and "epistemology" are based on, one can use, without shame, discourse analysis as scientific and political instrument. As a radical rightist - or a political dissident of any stripe - it is possible make use of discourse analysis for what it is best suited, that is to systemize and expose the mechanisms of political correctness. What is made into truth? How is it made into truth? What and who are excluded? How are they excluded? These are by no means new ideas within the politically incorrect sphere, but conscious acknowledgment should always precede action.
Keeping in mind the context of discourse analysis, voicing arguments such as "What is actually Swedish?" and "There has never been anything Swedish" become fully rational and conscious actions. For they are uttered exclusively by solipsists that are uninterested in truth and reality, and constitute in themselves only a tool of power. We who keeping our integrity intact try to make claim on the truth have to begin to ponder how we express our ideas as well how we should work to win legitimacy.
The original in Swedish: http://olympiark.motpol.nu/2010/10/07/postmodernismens-absurditet-kontra-diskursanalysens-potential/
The Absurdity of Postmodernity Contra the Potential of Discourse Analysis
One who studies the Humanities at any of the higher academic institutions in Sweden is sure to, sooner or later, come into touch with post-modernism/post-structurialism, a scientific theory - a term to be taken with a grain of salt - which has relativism as its ontological fundament. This text will briefly summarize postmodernism's view on language, power and truth and then it will present Frithjoh Schuon's criticism of relativism. I will conclude with a few comments regarding the use of discourse analysis as a political weapon.
I - Language, Power and Truth
The postmodern - at times called post-structuralist - ontology stems from a constructivist view of language and reality, a perspective which has as its premise the idea that these two phenomena are inseperable. It is impossible to discuss a reality without a subjective reality being created by the use of language. Language is not neutral and can never describe anything objectively, and thus people and their relations are impossible to observe out of an objective perspective. Another characteristic quality of the post-modern view on science is its challenging of greater sociological theories - metanarratives - and the categorization in the form of gender, class or sexuality. This anti-essentialist view on identities and groups denies the existence of a given essence of any specific categorical identity. Instead, even these are construed through language. As an alternative to advancing a specific category, postmordernism applies as many perspectives as possible.
Language is also seen as an activity, a conscious action. As soon as language is used, it produces and re-produces that which makes up our view on reality. Michel Foucault wrote of the truth-effects and truth-regimes of discrursives. He meant that observation of how language is formulated helps the observer to understand what is made out to be true and sets the limits for what is thinkable in a specific context. It is possible to deduce, through exclusion procedures and authorization - based on accepted rituals and socializing institutions - whose opinions are legitimate and on what that legitimacy is based on.
II - The Paradoxical Absurdity of Relativism
Frithjof Schuon was of the opinion that the goal of relativism is to reduce and relativize all forms of ontological basis for an objective and autonomous reality, an undertaking that is not entirely painless when relativism itself as an outlook is put under the critical magnifying glass. The origo of relativism from a philosophical perspective is the normative assumption that there only exists one truth, and that truth is that no truths exist. Schuon likens this reasoning to writing that no writing exists. All ideas are reduced to a social, psychological and historical relativity. This assumption is equally absurd when considering that it claims to be unique in the aspect that it, for some inexplicable reason, is not affected by the original claim that only relativism is possible. Even the most base logic should find its conclusion in the understanding that an assumption that annulls itself is false, null and void.
Relativism outgoes from the postulate that no human can avoid human subjectivity. If this is true, the above postulate is devoid of any objective value and it annulls itself by its own premises. Schuon thinks that it is obvious that a person can circumvent their own subject, otherwise she would simply not have been person. The evidence makes itself apparent through the fact that a person is able to imagine subjectivity within herself. If we were entirely corrupted by our own subjectivity, would subjectivity in itself be impossible to fathom. Animals on the other hand live entirely within the confines of their own subjectivity without realizing it, in constrast to man animals are not created with the ability to be objective.
III - The Double-Edged Sword
It is rather natural for a radical rightist to dismiss post-modernism as something completely subversive. In their incomprehensible inability to overcome their subject, virtually all post-modern researchers, journalists and cultural personalities manage to come to the defense of the prevailing and hegemonic cultural marxism, despite their relativist outlook. It is obvious that much of the touted relativism, subjectivism and advancing of perspectives is there simply to provide a basis for undermining, critcizing and denigrating traditional European culture. The premises of the post-modern view on knowledge and reality only allows for criticism. Even the solutions the post-modernists propose to the problems that derive from the white European man - the being with a copyright to oppression - always seem to lead to further undermining of that which is being observed. The day a post-modernist de facto relativises that which makes up the value system of post-modern society, the author shall eat his hat.
The useful aspects and what radical rightists should learn from in this context, is the post-modern idea of language as activity and power, with the reservation that language constitutes a part of the political, cultural and social power-weilding from above, from state and media. It can seem strange that this must be pointed out, but it is nonetheless important to concretely demonstrate what kind of power is meant in the context, precisely to avoid all too abstract - and thus worthless - interpretations of a diffuse concept of power. Furthermore, as a radical rightist, one should be pleased that discursive analysis as a political weapon is double-edged. In their quest to undermine and overthrow traditional norms, the post-modernists developed a weapon that can just as well be used against those who make up the true status quo, the post-modern and cultural marxist society. Without having to ascribe to the absurd ontological preconditions that postmodern "ontology" and "epistemology" are based on, one can use, without shame, discourse analysis as scientific and political instrument. As a radical rightist - or a political dissident of any stripe - it is possible make use of discourse analysis for what it is best suited, that is to systemize and expose the mechanisms of political correctness. What is made into truth? How is it made into truth? What and who are excluded? How are they excluded? These are by no means new ideas within the politically incorrect sphere, but conscious acknowledgment should always precede action.
Keeping in mind the context of discourse analysis, voicing arguments such as "What is actually Swedish?" and "There has never been anything Swedish" become fully rational and conscious actions. For they are uttered exclusively by solipsists that are uninterested in truth and reality, and constitute in themselves only a tool of power. We who keeping our integrity intact try to make claim on the truth have to begin to ponder how we express our ideas as well how we should work to win legitimacy.
The original in Swedish: http://olympiark.motpol.nu/2010/10/07/postmodernismens-absurditet-kontra-diskursanalysens-potential/