Postmodernity/postmodernism – WTF

Some readers may feel that these labels are pointless and, generally, I would agree..But, on this occasion, it seems rather important to know if we are in a new era - where the old assumptions which served us well in the past no longer work

So allow me to pursue these personal recollections – to see where they lead…… 

I don’t think too many of us – if asked - would be able to give a convincing account of “postmodernity”. And that certainly includes me.

Until recently I would have muttered something like “incoherent gibberish” as a comment and “anything goes” as an epitaph – except that it hasn’t really gone away. Arguably, with “post-truth”, it is only now reaching its zenith….

As Postmodernity is presumed to have revealed itself just as I was starting university (1960) and I didn’t notice anything all that unusual until sometime in the new millennium, this suggests a certain carelessness – if not insouciance - on my part.

Although I can always plead that I haven’t lived in Western Europe for the past 30 years!  

But did we ever understand what “modernity” was about? And when did we first become aware that it was no more?

It’s interesting that it was 1982 before clear explanation was published - with Marshall Berman’s  “All that is Solid Melts into Air”  – a quotation, of course, from Karl Marx whose “Communist Manifesto” launched the age of modernity. But I for one didn’t came across the book until the last decade or so. Oh - and modernity, for him, was the combustion engine, electricity, trains, speed, ideology etc 

In 1972 I set up a Local Government Unit at Paisley College of Technology which basically allowed me to use my position as a reforming politician in a shipbuilding town to present and explore the odd mixture of ideas about rationality, participation, positive discrimination which were wafting their way across the Atlantic…..The very phrase “maximum feasible participation” of the poor indicated how radical the efforts were…

The Unit’s papers and seminars achieved sufficient success to allow the powers-that- be to give me a sabbatical for 4 years to try to consolidate its position.

I have to confess that I repaid their faith with lethargy – the powerful position I held as one of the leaders of Strathclyde Region (which had half of the Scottish Office budget and managed half of the professional employed in Scotland) just took up too much of my time.    

Recognising in 1982 or so that I would need to go back to real academic work, I was in the first group to enrol in Britain’s first (part-time) Masters’ degree in Policy Analysis set up by Professor Lewis Gunn at the University of Strathclyde whose staff included people such as Michael Keating, Arthur Midwinter and Gavin Kennedy.

Lewis Gunn delivered traditional lectures about the fascinating exchanges which had been taking place in the postwar period in the USA about rationality and the decision-making process involving people such as Herbert Simon and Charles Lindblom…..

The session on “Frame Analysis” (originating from Erving Goffman in 1974) made such a vivid impression on me that I still have memories of my reaction as it was being delivered. The technique simply demonstrates how different “stories” are used to make sense of complex social events. But I had no occasion to use it - little did I realize that it was to become a central part of post-modernism’s encouragement of diverse realities…  It took more than a decade before political scientist Chris Hood’s The Art of the State (1998­) brought it all home to me. The book uses Mary Douglas’ grid-group theory to offer a brilliant analysis of 4 basic “world views” (individualist, hierarchical, fatalist and egalitarian) and their strengths and weaknesses in particular contexts.

Michael Thompson is an anthropologist who has used Mary Douglas’ cultural theory to make The case for clumsiness (2004) which, again, sets out the various stories which sustain the different positions people take on various key policy issues – such as the ecological disaster with which we are now confronted. There is a good interview with the author here

Three short reports give an excellent summary of all this literature; and its political significance – Keith Grint’s Wicked Problems and Clumsy Solutions (2008); Common Cause (2010); and Finding Frames (2010) 

But geographer Michael Hulme’s Why We Disagree About Climate Change (2009) is probably the most thorough and satisfying use of the approach - applying seven different lenses (or perspectives) to make sense of climate change: viz those of “science, economics, religion, psychology, media, development, and governance”. His argument is basically that –

·       We understand science and scientific knowledge in different ways

·       We value things differently

·       We believe different things about ourselves, the universe and our place in the universe

·       We fear different things

·       We receive multiple and conflicting messages about climate change – and interpret them differently

·       We understand “development” differently

·       We seek to govern in different ways (eg top-down “green governmentality”; market environmentalism; or “civic environmentalism”) 

It’s a pity that so few authors have tried to apply this approach to the global economic crisis. Most people who write about that are stuck in their own particular “quadrant” (to use the language of grid-group writing) and fail to do justice to the range of other ways of seeing the crisis. This diagram of mine tries to offer an example of the sort of humility we need from our writers 

The previous post and this one have involved a romp down memory lane. I’ve inflicted this on my readers simply because it seems to take us a long time to recognise what’s staring us in the face. I’m sure I remember George Orwell saying something to that effect. It’s like boiling a frog – something I’ve never done – but Charles Handy uses the story to make the point about the dangers of being left behind by social change

Postmodernity - another go

These last 2 weeks I’ve been trying to get my head around postmodernity – or rather what the relevant “literature” seemed to be saying about it. An accident of birth had actually given me the facility, from my mid-teens, of seeing the world through several lens. Initially I experienced this as a difficult tension but that gradually gave way to a realisation that being able to look at the world from a variety of angles had its beneficial side. Like Monsieur Jourdain, I’ve been speaking prose all my life 

This post is a continuation of the recent series of posts on postmodernism started here – in which I will try to bring my thoughts on the issue more clearly together. For reasons I can’t quite explain, however, I feel it important that I first describe

-       my particular learning experience

-       the difficulties I’ve had in making sense of postmodernism

and then to explore the question of what follows postmodernism. This may take several posts…

Why I was lucky 

I received my education in a state school which still then possessed the positive features of Scotland’s Democratic Tradition now, sadly, much traduced. It would have been easier for my parents to send me to the secondary school just a few blocks from our house but my father was a Presbyterian Minister and home was a manse (owned by the Church of Scotland) in the exclusive “West End” - so that school was fee-paying, if one in which I already had friends.

And my parents (although no radicals) would never have contemplated taking a step which would have created a barrier with my father’s congregation who were stalwarts of the town’s lower middle classes with modest houses and apartments in the centre and east of the town. 

Thus began my familiarization with the nuances of the class system – and with the experience of straddling boundaries which was to become such a feature of my life. Whether the boundaries are those of class, party, professional group intellectual discipline or nation, they are well protected if not fortified…..And trying to straddle such borders – let alone explore them – can be an uncomfortable experience.  

At University in the 60s I had been interested in how social systems held together - and  in particular in why people (generally) obeyed those placed in authority above them - Max Weber’s classification of political systems into – “traditional”, “charismatic” and “rational-legal” was an eye-opener and gave me the first of many typologies I was to find myself using. 

When I became a young councillor in 1968 (for the Catholic-dominated Labour party), I found myself torn between my loyalties to the local community activists on the one hand and those to my (older) political colleagues and officials on the other.

And I felt this particularly strongly when I was elevated to the ranks of magistrate and required to deal with the miscreants who confronted us as lay judges every Monday morning – up from the prison cells where they had spent the weekend for drunkenness and wife-beating……..The collusion between the police and my legal adviser was clear but my role was to adjudicate “beyond reasonable doubt” and the weak police testimonials often gave me reason to doubt….I dare say I was too lenient and I certainly got such a reputation – meaning that I was rarely disturbed to sign search warrants! 

And, on being elevated a few years later to one of the leading positions in a giant new Region, I soon had to establish relations with - and adjudicate between the budgetary and policy bids of - senior professionals heading specialized Departments with massive budgets and manpower. 

It was at that stage that I developed a diagram for my students to make sense of the “conflict of loyalties” in what I saw as 4 very different sets of accountabilities to which politicians are subject – 

- local voters (if the electoral system is based on local constituencies);

- the party (both local and national)

- the officials (and laws) of the particular government agency they had entered;

- their conscience. 

Politicians, I argued, differ according to the extent of the notice they took of each of the pressures coming from each of these sources – and the loyalties this tended to generate. And I gave names to the 4 types which could be distinguished –

-       “populist” – who articulated the stronger voices of the voters

-       “ideologue” – who operated in the bubble of the party faithful

-       “statesman” – who would try to extract the commonality from the multiple voices of professional advisers 

-       “maverick” – who tries to sort it out for him/herself

But, I argued, the effective politician is the one who resists the temptation to be drawn exclusively into any one of these roles. Each has its own important truth - but it is when someone blends the various partialities into a workable and acceptable proposition that we see real leadership.

Each generates its own way of looking at the world – as you will see from the table in this post which looks only at seven academic disciplines 

Once we become aware of the very different worlds in which people live, our world suddenly becomes a very richer place – in which we have choices about the particular lens we use to make sense of it all…

I remember the first time I really became aware of this – when I did the Belbin team test. And The Art of Thinking by Bramsall and Harrison (1984) very usefully sets out the very different ways each of us thinks. viz types of strategic thinking..How we see ourselves (and others see us) is a critical part of self-discovery - part of the Schumacher quote which figures in the “quotations” block which I’ve just moved up to the 4^th section of the long list which now stretches down the right-hand corner of the blog

Holding Power to Account

I’ve posted before about how far the United States has become a rogue state. For the last half century at least, the principles of free speech and of democracy have been honoured there in the breach more often than in reality. I was, however, shocked this morning by a Scheerpost reporting two items which reveal just how far the power structure goes to muzzle those who challenge the military-industrial complex

First, human rights attorney Steven Donziger has now been under house arrest in his New York City apartment for two years. The reason for his detainment is that Donziger made it his business to hold Chevron accountable for how the Big Oil megacorp "harmed, sickened and killed tens of thousands in Ecuador" and tried to avoid paying "billions of dollars" in restitutions. 

Donziger's battle against American oil companies and on behalf of indigenous communities and farmers in Ecuador spans nearly three decades. He was part of an international legal team that represented indigenous groups in Northern Ecuador where, as he tells Camp, from the 1960s to the '90s Texaco (now Chevron) deliberately "dumped billions of gallons of cancer-causing toxic waste" into local waterways, costing thousands of people their health, livelihood—even their lives.

Though in 2011 the lawsuit culminated in a historic $9.5 billion pollution judgment, Chevron brass subsequently focused on going after Donziger rather than paying the fee. In late July, he was hit with a six counts of criminal contempt, a conviction stemming in part from his refusal to turn over his computer and other devices, which he fought last month with a request for a new trial. His ongoing pre-trial detainment for a misdemeanor offense is unprecedented for any person without a prior criminal record in federal court. (Click here to watch Chris Hedges' interview with Donziger, and listen to Robert Scheer's "Scheer Intelligence" podcast episode with Donziger here) 

The second example is of a former intelligence analyst in the drone program for the Air Force who as a private contractor leaked some 17 classified documents about drone strikes to the press, was sentenced today to 45 months in prison. 

The documents, published by The Intercept on October 15, 2015, exposed that between January 2012 and February 2013, US special operations airstrikes killed more than 200 people. Of those, only 35 were the intended targets. For one five-month period of the operation, according to the documents, nearly 90 percent of the people killed in airstrikes were not the intended targets. The civilian dead, usually innocent bystanders, were routinely classified as “enemies killed in action.”

The Justice Department coerced Hale, who was deployed to Afghanistan in 2012, on March 31 to plead guilty to one count of violating the Espionage Act, a law passed in 1917 designed to prosecute those who passed on state secrets to a hostile power, not those who expose to the public government lies and crimes. Hale admitted as part of the plea deal to “retention and transmission of national security information” and leaking 11 classified documents to a journalist. If he had refused the plea deal, he could have spent 50 years in prison.  

But what’s really sinister about the case is, as Chris Hedges puts it, that 

Those charged under the act are treated as if they were spies.  They are barred from explaining motivations and intent to the court. They cannot provide evidence to the court of the government lawlessness and war crimes they exposed.  Prominent human rights organizations, such as the ACLU and PEN, along with mainstream publications, such as The New York Times and CNN, have largely remained silent about the prosecution of Hale. 

The sentencing of Hale is, of course, one more potentially mortal blow to the freedom of the press in the USA.  It follows in the wake of the prosecutions and imprisonment of other whistleblowers under the Espionage Act including Chelsea Manning, Jeffrey Sterling, Thomas Drake and John Kiriakou, who spent two-and-a-half years in prison for exposing the routine torture of suspects held in black sites.  Chris Hedges continues 

The group Stand with Daniel Hale has called on President Biden to pardon Hale and end the use of the Espionage Act to punish whistleblowers. It is also collecting donations for Hale’s legal fund. The bipartisan onslaught against the press — Barack Obama used the Espionage Act eight times against whistleblowers, more than all other previous administrations combined — by criminalizing those within the system who seek to inform the public is ominous for our democracy.  It is effectively extinguishing all investigations into the inner workings of power. 

Not that the Americans are the only ones up to dirty tricks of this sort. Just a few nights ago, I had watched the 2019 film Official Secrets which told the case of UK whistleblower Katharine Gun, who leaked a memo exposing an illegal spying operation by American and British intelligence services to gauge sentiment of and potentially blackmail United Nations diplomats tasked to vote on a resolution regarding the 2003 invasion of Iraq

Her defence team decided on the plea that Katharine was acting out of loyalty to her country by seeking to prevent the UK from being led into an unlawful war in Iraq. UK Foreign Office deputy legal adviser, Elizabeth Wilmshurst, had famously resigned when the UK Attorney General Peter Goldsmith changed his position on the legality of the Iraq War after meeting with several lawyers from the Bush administration. Despite the odds stacked against them, Katharine refused to plead guilty in exchange for a reduced charge.

On the day of the trial, the Crown prosecutor dropped all charges against Katharine on the grounds that prosecuting her would have shown that Bliar led the UK into war on false pretences. 

OK the goodies won on this occasion - but they all too rarely do!

Little wonder that one of the books on my recent reading list was Unaccountable – how the elite brokers corrupt; Janine Wedel (2014)

Update; Scheerpost has just put up a third striking post - this time a forensic dissection of the Afghan strategy.

And, on 13 September, this brilliant contextual analysis

Evoking Zeitgeist

One of the most difficult challenges for any writer is to try to evoke the spirit of a nation - in a balanced but insightful way. Chauvinism comes all too easily - be it of the American, English, French or even Scots variety.

But summoning up the soul of a country with appropriate text is a much greater challenge – and may well be best done by an outsider who knows the country well…Think Madame de Stael and Germany; de Tocqueville and the USA  

This train of thought is sparked off by my reading – almost in one go – a delightful book called “The Story of Scottish Art” – explored in this nice video. The author is himself a painter and uses a lot of examples (carvings as well as paintings) to illustrate the text - as well as his own water-colours. The book is based on a BBC series.

One of the things which endeared the book to me was the way he skilfully wove together aspects of the painters’ lives with developments in the nation. 

Painting is a good “handle” on a country – but it’s rarely used. Peter Robb’s Midnight in Sicily gives a “food and Mafia” take on that country; and Simon Winder’s “Germania” and Neil McGregor’s “Germany; memories of a nation” cultural takes on Germany – but skate over painting.

In 2007, I found myself leading a project in Sofia, Bulgaria and quickly became so taken with the paintings – particularly from the interwar period - I came across in its fascinating small galleries that I started to collect them. Naturally I wanted to know something about the artists – and found myself traipsing into antiquarian bookshops in search of information. The result was initially a small book of 50 pages – and, by 2015 or so, a larger one of 250 pages Bulgarian Realists – getting to know Bulgaria through its Art

This particular book started its life quite literally as a scribbled list on the back of an envelope - of painters whom a gallery friend thought I should know about in 2008 or thereabouts…..

It eventually became a list of 250 or so Bulgarian artists of the “realist” style which I developed to help me (and visitors) learn more about the richness of the work (and lives) of artists who are now, for the most part, long dead and often forgotten. 

But it also got me wondering about who is best placed to try to evoke the spirit of a nation….Social historians? Anthropologists? Artists? 

Some of you may know the author Nassim Nicholas Taleb whose book The Black Swan became a best-seller a few years ago. In it he makes a profound point about the process by which artistic “genius” is recognised (or not – the latter being more often the case). More than four centuries ago, the English essayist Francis Bacon had a very simple intuition….about a man who, upon being shown the pictures of those worshippers who paid their vows then subsequently escaped shipwreck, wondered where were the pictures of those who happened to drown after their vows. The lack of effectiveness of their prayers did not seem to be taken into account by the supporters of the handy rewards of religious practice. “And such is the way of all superstition, whether in astrology, dreams, omens, divine judgments, or the like”, he wrote in his Novum Organum, written in 1620.

This is a potent insight: the drowned worshippers, being dead, do not advertise their experiences. They are invisible and will be missed by the casual observer who will be led to believe in miracles.

Not just in miracles, as Taleb goes onto argue…..it is also the process which decides whether an artist is remembered. For every artist of genius, there have been many more with the same talent but whose profile, somehow, was submerged….

Art, of course, is the subject of high fashion – reputations ebb and flow…..we are vaguely aware of this…but it is money that speaks in the art “market” and it is the din of the cash register to which the ears of most art critics and dealers are attuned…… 

As I read Lachlan Goudie’s little vignettes of painters in “The Story of Scottish Art”, I realised that painters have always occupied an important position in social networks – often poor themselves, they rub shoulders with a wider range of people than most of us. In the early days, of course, they would focus on religious figures and then society people. But from the mid 19^th Century, artists such as David Wilkie were able to celebrate ordinary folk in their paintings.

Nowadays, of course, we rarely see faces any more in paintings – just blobs and abstractions. Perhaps our artists are telling us something?

But my question is, I think, a good one – who is best placed to gives us insights into a country’s soul? Poets? Writers? Painters? Anthropologists? Historians? Social historians? Travel writers? Sociologists? Or who? 

Further Reading

Watching the English by anthropologist Kate Fox is one of my favourites – for that country.

Theodor Zeldin is probably the best on the French.

Perry Anderson’s article A New Germany? offers a great intellectual and political history of contemporary Germany. But otherwise, it’s not easy to find a serious book about modern Germany (although many good -histories) Gordon Craig’s magnificent “The Germans” came out in 1982 and John Ardagh’s “Germany and the Germans” in 1987 – since then there has be no real update to their insights into the German soul - Gitty Sereny’s “The German Trauma – experiences and reflections 1938-2001 and Fritz Stern ‘s “Five Germanies I have known” (2007) notwithstanding

On Italy, people are spoiled for choice – not just Barzini’s classic “The Italians” (1964) but Foot, Gilmour, Ginsborg, Hooper, Jones and Parks all giving a sense of the modern Italians….You pays your money….

The background to social history is laid out in this article

7 social historians lay their claims here

A book on The anthropology of Ireland demonstrates its possibilities

And the others?

A Plus for Postmodernism - part III of series

My foray, these past few days, into “the literature” of postmodernism has provoked two thoughts –

the first the (flippant) question of why on earth these guys can’t agree their terminology. What are we actually talking about - is it critical theory? literary theory? structural theory? Constructivism? Deconstructionism? Postmodernism? postmodernity?

Why so many different words? I know they’re trying to tell us that words are meaningless…but hey, I’m getting confused!

Confused people, of course, tend to lash out. And there’s a lot of anger in the air – so maybe that’s why we’re angry!!

The second thought is a discovery - that the trawling through the most significant commentaries on the field (Perry Anderson, Peter Berger, Marshall Berman, Chris Butler (“A Short Intro to PM”), Terry Eagleton, David Harvey) unearthed one gem – The Saturated Self- dilemmas of identity in contemporary life (1991) by a well-read and good writer who happened to be a social psychologist, Kenneth Gergen who dramatically introduces his book thus - 

Many nonacademic readers are aware of the debates over the canons of Western literature now engulfing the academic community, and the increasing currency of such terms as de construction, poststructuralism, and postmodern. Yet these are meagre indications of the radical reconsideration of longstanding traditions of truth and knowledge which are underway.

As beliefs in objective knowledge fall into disrepute, the entire face of education, science, and "knowledge-making in general stands to be altered. The issues are far too important, and too much fun, to be contained within the walls of academia.

One aspect of this ferment is of special concern to me. For many years one of my central interests has been the concept of self, our ways of understanding who we are and what we are about. Beliefs about the self seem pivotal to all our undertakings. We believe that as normal human beings we possess reasoning powers, emotions, conscience, intentions; these beliefs are critical to the way we relate to others…… 

Remember this was written 20 years ago!! 

It is not simply that the present turn of events has altered the emphasis placed on rationality, the emotions, and the like, or that it adds new concepts to the traditional vernacular. Rather, like the concepts of truth, objectivity, and knowledge, the very idea of individual selves—in possession of mental qualities—is now threatened with eradication.

I have just started reading the book – although this excellent review has given me a good sense of the argument It starts with the observation that a combination of modern transport systems and the internet have transformed how each of us relate to others and then moves to consider how this has affected the way we understand (or fail to!) the world.

The last post made the point that one of the aspects of Postmodernism with which I don’t have a problem is its celebration of seeing the world from multiple perspectives – indeed I joked about my 57 varieties of capitalism. Even in 1991 Gergen accepted that our pursuit of progress was putting the very existence of the planet in danger - and argued that awareness of the multiplicity of perspectives could – if put into an appropriate decision structure - help give voice to marginalised groups.

In fact, a few years later, this is exactly what happened when a social anthropologist presented a fascinating case study of the process by which Arsenal Football Club found the site for its new stadium 

which started off quite elegantly - just the market actor (Arsenal) and the hierarchical actor (Islington Council) - but was soon clumsified by the entry of an egalitarian actor (the Highbury Community Association). Association). The result was a solution, totally overlooked in the early stages, that gave each of these contending actors more of what it wanted (and less of what it did not want) than it would have got if it had somehow established hegemony and "gone it alone." 

This "clumsy solution" came about more or less by accident, and it stands in marked contrast to the sort of outcomes that we usually get, especially in relation to policy issues that have a high scientific input: environment and development in the Himalayan region, for instance. All of which raises the question: "How can we get clumsy solutions by design." One important part of the answer is: "By doing pretty well the exact opposite of what policy orthodoxy says we should do." Rather than a single, agreed definition of the problem, we need to move towards noisy and argumentative institutional arrangements in which all three voices (each with its distinctive definition of the problem - a definition, moreover, that cannot be reconciled with the other two) are (a) able to make themselves heard and (b) are then responsive to one another.  

Michael Thompson uses the “grid-group” or “cultural analysis” approach which I’ve discussed before on this blog – but sets it out very clearly in The Case for clumsiness (2004)

The ideas were considered important enough to be presented by Professor Keith Grint in “Wicked problems and clumsy solutions – the role of leadership” (2008) Michael Thompson was interviewed by the RSA here. This tribute gives a good sense of his work

Update; I’ve been a bit remiss in not mentioning one book which is a model of clarity - From post-industrial society to post-modern society – new theories of the contemporary world; Krishan Kumar (2nd edition 2004) which follows an earlier 1978 book of his which looked at the post-industrial writers such as Daniel Bell and Alain Touraine who explored the move to a service economy and a ‘knowledge society’, and  the social and political changes that could be expected to follow from this. Those theories have been joined by others with a more ambitious scope about the information and communication revolution, the transformation of work and organization in the global economy; and of political ideologies and cultural beliefs

Spirit of the Times - part II of series

“Modernism” is the label we stick on the cultural and intellectual genie which was released by industrialisation from the middle of the 19^th Century - although purists insist that “modernity” is actually the world for the philosophical aspects. In many ways “The Manifesto of the Communist Party” (1848) marks the start of what was to be a very turbulent century 

The cultural aspects are superbly described in Peter Gay’s Modernism – the lure of heresy (2007) which has a stunning 32 page bibliographical essay. The intellectual/political aspects of modernism probably require both The Crisis of Reason – European thought 1848-1914 by JM Burrows (2001) and Contesting Democracy – political ideas in the 20^th Century by Jan Werner-Mueller (2011) 

There is some dispute about when Modernism eventually gave way to Post-modernism - with Perry Anderson’s The Origins of Postmodernity (1999) doing the most thorough detective work. This timeline tracks down a reference by C Wright Mills in 1958 – but most people now accept that Daniel Bell’s use of the phrase “post-industrial” in 1960 signalled the birth-pangs of post-modernism with The Temporary Society by Warren Bennis and Philip Slater (1968); The Age of Discontinuity by Peter Drucker 1969 and Between Two Ages - America’s Role in the Technetronic Era by Zbigniev Brzezinski (1970) best capturing the transition pains…

I’ve made a couple of efforts to make sense of Post-Modernism – with my last attempt selecting what I considered to be the more accessible of what is a very turgid field of study.  This was probably the best summary I came across. 

I’m encouraged to return to the fray by a book which came out recently with the title Cynical Critical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything about Race, Gender, and Identity – and Why This Harms Everybody (2020) by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay  

This looks to help those of us who are puzzled by the way that both hard left and hard right seem engaged in a new Culture War – with the clear progress which has been made toward racial and gender equality not apparently being enough to satisfy significant numbers who are taking to the streets and toppling statues…..Is this just impatience – or is there more to it than that. Pluckrose and Lindsay think the latter. Here’s how the they start - 

A fundamental change in human thought took place in the 1960s. This change is associated with several French Theorists who, while not quite household names, float at the edges of the popular imagination, among them Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, and Jean-François Lyotard. Taking a radically new conception of the world and our relationship to it, it revolutionized social philosophy and perhaps social everything. 

Over the decades, it has dramatically altered not only what and how we think  but also how we think about thinking. Esoteric, academic, and seemingly removed from the realities of daily existence, this revolution has nevertheless had profound implications for how we interact with the world and with one another. At its heart is a radical worldview that came to be known as “postmodernism.” 

Ultimately, the Enlightenment that postmodernists rejected is defined by a belief in objective knowledge, universal truth, science (or evidence more broadly) as a method for obtaining objective knowledge, the power of reason, the ability to communicate straightforwardly via language, a universal human nature, and individualism. They also rejected the belief that the West has experienced significant progress due to the Enlightenment and will continue to do so if it upholds these values 

When I’m being flippant, I refer to Postmodernism as the “whatever” school – since its proponents use that phrase and a shrug of their shoulders to express their contempt for the poor souls who still believe in objectivity or searching for “truth”.

Personally I have a lot of time for people who insist on looking at the world with multi-angled prisms – I posted once about 57 varieties of capitalism. But that doesn’t make me a relativist! I respect the process of trying to disprove falsities… 

And, in all the discussion, I can’t understand why no one refers to the classic book on this subject which was long before any French deconstructionists got involved in the fight – The Social Construction of Reality by T Luckman and Peter Berger (1966)

In Praise of Richard Hoggart

I have a young Bulgarian journalist friend who has a multilingual blog The Bridge of Friendship about cross-border issues. He’s based in his home town of Russe on the Danube – a selection of the earlier posts can be read here.

We chat frequently and he has taken recently to posing what he calls “challenges” – when he presents, in a few phrases, a new issue which he needs to explore. This wrenches me out of my usual channels and has me musing about things which normally pass me by.

And this was particularly true of the latest one he threw at me – about the sociology of literature or was it literary theory – or indeed critical theory?  Is there a difference? And does it matter?    

As I’m not a fan of novels, this was a tough one. But then I remembered the reason for my dislike of English novels and their boring portrayal of the various dilemmas of middle-class characters….it’s the narrowness of the social context which turns me off – in contrast with the dynamism I find in Scottish and Irish writing – let alone French and German cultural icons. 

Take the Germans first – I was still in my early 20s when I first came across artists such as Georg Grosz and Kathe Kollwitz and writers such as Bert Brecht and Heinrich Boell – all profoundly influenced by the experience of war and exploitation, the first three angrily whereas Boell’s  stories were more resigned. Michel Houllebecq’s novels react against consumer capitalism where JG Ballard’s tales show the threatening dystopia.

In picking out such artists I simply show my own preference not just for critical narrative but for stories to be set against a social context. Other people are different – they don’t like to be reminded of such realities – preferring more magical tales….Where does that get us? 

In 2014, Michael Schmidt produced a 1,200 page book called “The Novel; a biography” which discussed the plots of hundreds of writers – grouping them into strange categories such as 

THE HUMAN COMEDY: Victor Hugo, Stendhal, Honoré de Balzac, Gustave Flaubert, Émile Zola 

IMPERFECTION:  George Eliot, Louisa May Alcott, George Gissing, Samuel Butler

BRAVERIES: Robert Louis Stevenson, Bruce Chatwin, William Morris, Charles Kingsley, Henry Rider Haggard, Rudyard Kipling

SMOKE AND MIRRORS: Lewis Carroll, Bram Stoker, Oscar Wilde, Athur Conan Doyle, J. M. Barrie, Max Beerbohm, Kenneth Grahame

PESSIMISTS: Thomas Hardy, Joseph Conrad, Stephen Crane

LIVING THROUGH IDEAS: Nikolai Gogol, Ivan Turgenev, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Leo Tolstoy 

A book I read with some interest a few years back was Grand Hotel Abyss – the lives of the Frankfurt school; by Stuart Jefferies (2015). For me, Erich Fromm was the most interesting of the group but he soon parted company with them. Jefferies’ Intro to his book is useful as it reminds us that - 

The School came into being in part to try to understand failure, in particular the failure of the German Revolution in 1919. As it evolved during the 1930s, it married neo-Marxist social analysis to Freudian psychoanalytical theories to try to understand why German workers, instead of freeing themselves from capitalism by means of socialist revolution, were seduced by modern consumer capitalist society and, fatefully, Nazism.

The School was forced to leave Germany in 1933 – for the USA and, while in Los Angeles exile in the 1940s, Adorno helped develop the California F-scale, a personality test designed to discover those likely to fall prey to fascist or authoritarian delusions. Breivik would have been the perfect example of the authoritarian personality Adorno wrote about, one who was ‘obsessed with the apparent decline of traditional standards, unable to cope with change, trapped in a hatred of all those not deemed part of the in-group and prepared to take action to “defend” tradition against degeneracy’. 

But Herbert Marcuse was the only one of the group to take a revolutionary path – remaining in the States and supporting the students during the 1968 unrest. 

What I find most curious is that the ultimate legacy of the Frankfurt School was not actually in the field of literature but - in popular culture. This is what fascinated the group in 1950s America – and spawned the discipline of Cultural Studies - started in the UK by Richard Hoggart in 1964 but whose biggest star was Stuart Hall. The Frankfurt school may have shown an initial interest in people like George Lukacs and Lucien Goldmann who were trying to develop a sociology of the novel but soon veered into polling work on the authoritarian personality…. 

I came to adulthood in the late 1950s – just as the New Left was getting off the ground. I remember the impact Hoggart’s “The Uses of Literacy” (1957) made with its picture of the resilience of working-class culture and the threat posed by the banality of “popular culture” – as well as the excitement as I held in 1960/61 the first few issues of “New Left Review” in my hands after its creation from “New Reasoner” and “Universities and Left Review”. 

The wider global context is nicely caught in the diagrams in this short paper 

But Cultural Studies has probably done more harm than good – it was certainly the means through which the issue of identity came to the fore and destroyed the left. Richard Hoggart is, for me, an immensely important – if rather neglected – figure in the story. Raymond Williams is the man who attracts the adulation these days from the trendies – perhaps because he is so high-falutin’ and boring!

So what do I take from this canter down Memory Lane? What lessons about culture? About the left? About the UK? Well, my prejudices are still intact – I find it curious that anyone can take writers such Goldmann, Lukacs and Williams seriously…. 

On the other hand, I realise that I have neglected Richard Hoggart for too long. He was a superbly sensitive writer whose various autobiographies (he lived to the grand old age of 95!) are beautifully written – you can get a sense from some excerpts from A Measured Life – the times and places of an orphaned intellectual; R Hoggart (1994; 2019) 

And I’m delighted to see that he’s still celebrated today – see this recent article in the Los Angeles Review of Books

Further Reading

Understanding Richard Hoggart – a pedagogy of hope M Bailey, B Clarke, J Walton (2011)

Richard Hoggart and Cultural Studies ed S Owen (2008)

a review of the above book

Rereading Richard Hoggart ed Sue Owen (2008) some excerpts of a more personal tribute

“Promises to keep – thoughts in old age”; R Hoggart (2005)

Cultural Studies 1983 – a theoretical introduction; Stuart Hall et al (2016) which contained the lecture series he gave in the US in that year which was issued only two years after his death

The Novel; a biography; Michael Schmidt (2014)

Reading as a Conversation

Some months back I offered some hints to identify whether a book was worth reading 

-       check the Introduction – or Preface. This is the author’s chance to show (s)he understands how overwhelmed we are by the choices; to offer us a convincing argument about why (s)he has to inflict yet another book on us. And the best way to do that is to give a brief summary of what others have written and identify the missing elements which make a book necessary. Books which fail even to attempt that prove that the author is living in a bubble... 

-       Look for a summary of each chapter…..I have always liked the old habit of prefacing a book chapter with an explanation of what that chapter will deal with. When I got hold recently of George Bernard Shaw’s The Intelligent Woman’s Guide to Socialism and Capitalism; (1928) it was to discover that his Table of Contents has no fewer than 33-pages..

-       Look, at the end, for a (short) list of recommended reading, ideally with notes explaining the choice. Most books have a long “bibliography” which, I’ve taken to calling a “virility test” - demonstrating nothing more than (a barely compressed sense of) superiority. I want instead to see a shorter (and annotated) list for several reasons - partly to smoke out the author’s prejudices; partly to see how honest (s)he is; and partly to see how well (s)he writes    

-       Make sure that the writing is clear – with suitable use of graphics and tables which are needed both to break up and to illustrate the text…. 

But I also need to be persuaded that the book in question has three other features --

- respects the basic facts about an issue;

- has a coherent “narrative structure” (here’s a good example of a book which lacked this)

- refers to the various sides of the key arguments on the issue  

And this can be done only by checking the reviews. 

These, of course, are just my views. Different sorts of people have different methods  of productive or active reading.

Those who want to know more about how to extract most benefit from a book should have a look at the classic How to Read a Book (1965) by Mortimer Adler whose first edition  was actually written in 1940. Part I is best skimmed – the meat of the book is from chapter 7

Adler divides what he calls “inspectional reading” into two categories. The first is skimming; the second is superficial reading. 

Skimming is the most effective tool for discovering those truly great books you want to read.

If upon skimming a book, you realize it doesn’t hold your interest or have new information, that’s a success. It means you’ve made your way through a title in just a few minutes instead of spending a couple hours to arrive at that conclusion. If you realize you are interested in the text, you’ve guaranteed you’ll enjoy reading the entire book.

For any non-fiction book we read, we should be able to answer a few questions after spending just a few minutes with the book. First, what kind of book is it? Is it explanatory or expounding? Is the purpose of the book to explain how something works, or to convince the reader to take a certain action? Broadly, what is the author trying to say? The purpose of skimming is to learn these answers quickly – at a bird’s perspective – and have a feel for the style of the author. 

This is actually an excerpt from a post with the great title of How to never read another boring book by Elizabeth Peterson in which she shares her approach to active reading. 

Chapter names and summaries
Inspect the table of contents for chapter titles and descriptions. The chapter titles will reveal how the information is organized. Older books often include descriptions or outlines about the organization of individual chapters. This is also useful for when you want to read about a specific idea or piece of research. 

Index
Look through the index to see the individuals, concepts, studies, etc., the author references in the book. This is will give you an idea of what ideas or research, if any, the book presents, and a blueprint of their arguments. You’ll also be able to see quickly whether the book covers any ideas or ground that is new to you. Additionally, you might choose to go straight to a certain chapter to see the research on a given topic. 

Publisher’s Blurb and Preface
The publisher’s blurb often includes a summary of the author’s arguments and conclusion, making it a great resource for answering basic questions about the book. You may be inclined to dismiss the publisher’s blurb as empty praise to convince you to read or buy the book or simple adulation for the author – and you may be right in some instances. However, you should definitely read the blurb to find out.
Likewise, in their prefaces or “notes to the reader”, authors often include interesting observations or references which didn’t make it into the final version of the book. The preface also usually includes the author’s hopes for the books stated clearly. 

Introduction
If the book has an introduction, read it. There is often so much good information added here that the author thought was important, but for whatever reason, couldn’t include in the body of the book. Often, a chapter or passage got cut from the final version of the book, so the author included those resources or ideas for the reader in an introduction. With older books, the introduction often explains the cultural setting and ideas the author was addressing at the time. Contemporary titles often include references to similar or related work, for you to read next. The editor may also have notes explaining why the book is structured in a particular way. 

Final chapter
Finally, look through the end of the final chapter. As Adler advises, “Few authors are able to resist the temptation to sum up what they think is new and important about their work in these pages. You do not want to miss this, even though, as sometimes happens, the author himself may be wrong in his judgment.” 

Having read all or most of these key passages, we can now explain the conversation the book is joining, the major arguments the author includes, and their conclusion. Instead of sinking a couple hours into a book we may or may not finish, we now know the major points and whether we want to read the entire book. This brief skimming may very well be all the time you need to spend with a book. 

And here’s another fascinating read – which introduces me to the benefits of a book’s Index! 

-       The index is everything

-       Use the Table Of Contents as the skeleton

-       Preview with the preface 

The Index is Everything

You can take any path you want, but for me, the index is my first stop after the title. Armed with a guess of the book's point of view from the title, I use the index to understand what topics we’re going to cover and hopefully how we’re going to approach them. 

If you want to play along, open that non-fiction book you haven’t read yet — or just see the example below. Look through the index, notice what topics are covered, and more importantly, at what depth. If an author is spending a good deal of pages on something, make a note of that topic.

Remember, what we’re trying to do with this process is answer two questions: what is this book about, and, am I interested in reading it? I’ll take a look at a random book from my bookshelf and look through the index, right now. Turns out this book is Homo Deus by Yuval Noah Harari. 

Ok, first index page...boom! What do I see? What stands out? What topics get a lot of coverage? What seems interesting or out of place? 

What is this book trying to get across?

For Homo Deus, it looks like this author is trying to set up a new paradigm called Dataism. It might be related to scaling human cooperation, and he seems to be supporting his thesis with some tenets from techno-humanism, pre-existing religions, and probably some AI for extra spice.

Am I interested? Eh, kinda. Enough to delve deeper for sure.  

The Table Of Contents is the Skeleton of a Book

Once I’m armed with a handy-dandy list of topics culled from the index, I compare my index map with the good old TOC (table of contents). The TOC is the skeleton of the book, and the terms from the indexes you grabbed earlier are like the fleshed-out limbs. 

The TOC shows the way the author wants you to understand the progression of the book. (Like the title, authors also think about what the TOC looks like.) It gives you the big picture of the approach. Then the index helps you fill in the types and level of details. 

You could start your process at the TOC if you want to, but I have found that starting with the index and overlaying that research on top of TOC is most helpful. 

It looks like Harari takes a historical view of humanity as he leads us to what is coming next—if I can assume as much, because it’s the final chapter of his book: “The Data Religion.” And when I look at the index and account for the way page numbers and chapters align, I can see the stuff about “Dataism” is overlaid against a chapter titled “The Data Religion.”

My best guess right now is that this book is about how we will organize ourselves using data in the future instead of religion.

Do this for a few minutes. Build a rough map in your mind of the book. It’s sort of like connecting the dots between the chapter titles in the TOC and the topics and page numbers listed in the index. All of the above takes 5-15 minutes and is really a simplified version of “inspectional reading,” popularized by Adler and van Doren, which is just a more methodological skimming or “pre-reading” process. Once we’ve answered the question of what the book is about, the remaining question—and indeed the main question—remains. 

Do you care?

If not, throw the notecard in the front pages somewhere (for future reference) and toss the book back on the shelf. Maybe, if you are interested in knowing more, spend an hour or two reading some of the sections that interest you. For instance, with Homo Deus, I’m likely to read a few index points and the final chapter on Dataism. 

But, before I do any of that, I always skim the preface.  

Preview with the Preface 

In the preface, good authors will tell you right away what the book is about and where it is going. In that way, the preface is like the trailer to a movie. Maybe you see Ben Affleck and Pee Wee Herman are co-starring and lose interest. Maybe the author makes a point you never thought of, and you become more interested. Follow that instinct. 

I’ll get through a preface in about 5 minutes. Skimming is my friend—I don’t need to memorize or meditate too deeply on it. It’s mostly just to make sure my mental map is on the money. 

The preface and the index are indispensable to understanding what the book is about. So far, all we are trying to understand is: what is this book trying to get across? 

How to Extract the Knowledge Nuggets

So how do I get those useful knowledge nuggets? I use the index map (page numbers) and again, I follow my interests or problem-solving needs. I start by reading the pages corresponding to the seemingly useful parts from the index. Yeah, right in the middle of the book. Feel free to just start reading on page 212. Seriously.

For instance, from the index map above, do I really want to understand what the “biological poverty line” is? Or did some other topic seem more interesting? This is where I break free of the author's structure, and delve into the book to find the pieces I need or that I want to know. 

I suggest following a topic over multiple chapters, so if the author starts talking about something on page 2, picks it up again on pages 25-29, and then again at 101-105, read those pages in sequence. Other interesting topics might be mentioned along the way. If so, add those to your map and find their places in the index. Let curiosity and interest take the lead.  

Interact with the Book

Writing in the margins and taking notes is also a huge part of this process for me; underlining words and marking up pages. I like to draft points to myself—notes, ideas, thoughts. If it’s a hard copy of a book I’ll use a pencil. If it’s digital, I’ll use the built-in notes app.

One thing I appreciate about notations in a book is that it allows you to track your thinking about the book over time. If you do end up coming back later, these little notes can serve the same purpose that commenting your code does.  

It’s been a long read – so here’s a video from Ryan Holiday – one of at least three people who have made a profession out of helping us find our way through this pro- and con- fusion of books, the others being Tom Butler-Bowden who has produced a very useful series of book summaries; and Robert Greene who produces superbly-designed books covering such central topics as War, Strategy, Seduction, Mastery and Human Nature and whose working methods are nicely described here.

The picture is "Conversation" by Rene Magritte