Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

The postmodern left: part one

By Niall Lucy and Steve Mickler - posted Wednesday, 28 March 2007


Pomo-bashing, like dragon-hunting, is an activity best undertaken in the suspension of disbelief. By imagining a world in which winged, fire-breathing reptiles with magical powers are real, it is possible to imagine what it might be like to hunt such creatures. Similarly, once you accept that postmodernism holds there to be no such thing as truth, you can bash it.

In political terms, such acceptance turns “postmodernism” into a dirty word. Conservatives use it to denigrate a version of the educated, middle-class left as dragon-hunting dreamers who believe that all cultures are equal and history is a myth. The left uses it to distinguish serious and practical concerns from the “soft” ideas of dragon-hunting dreamers who self-identify as left, or are made out to do so by the right. Attacking “the postmodern left”, as it were, is a bipartisan sport.

For most conservatives, “postmodernism” is shorthand for any form of critical relation to the conservative idea that truth is absolute and universal. As Giles Auty tells it in a Quadrant essay for June 2000, postmodernism’s hydra-like appearances take the shape of “deconstruction, post-colonialism, revisionist history, gender theory, political correctness, multiculturalism and feminism”, all of which are underpinned by “neo-Marxist theory” (“Postmodernism’s Assault”).

Advertisement

Adopting an apocalyptic tone favoured by conservatives when contemplating the always inevitably “Stalinist” implications of any so-called Marxist position, Auty ends his essay in convulsive paranoia: postmodernism, he writes, “represents an attempt to usher in a new kind of left-wing totalitarianism via the unlocked back doors of democracies. Postmodernism represents the neo-Marxist conquest of Western cultures by stealth” (ibid.).

Ramping up the rhetoric, while continuing to offer nothing in the way of legitimate evidence, Keith Windschuttle brings the conservative line on postmodernism up to date in the January 2007 issue of Quadrant. For Windschuttle, Auty’s various neo-Marxisms collapse into a powerful “evangelical” movement belonging, unsurprisingly, to the “middle-class, tertiary-educated Left, with its campaign for the three Rs of refugees, reconciliation and republic” (“Struggle for Australian Values”).

Peddling a series of fabricated atrocity stories, such as the stolen generations, this movement has somehow managed to hoodwink an unspecified but putatively vast number of Australians into hating their country:

The reasons why so many Australians today want to think so badly of their own country are hard to pin down. I don’t pretend to understand them all. But it is clear that, for the past thirty years, the Evangelical Left has bloated itself on such a diet of myth, propaganda and atrocity stories about Australian history, about our role in the contemporary world, and especially about our chief ally and best friend, the United States, that it no longer believes in or cares about objective truth. (Ibid.)

Such hyperbole (which is used to considered effect by other conservatives, from Miranda Devine, Kevin Donnelly and Luke Slattery to Prime Minister John Howard himself) seeks to make it seem as though the postmodern left will stop at nothing short of laying Western civilisation to cataclysmic waste. Small wonder of late that conservatives are increasingly emboldened to associate postmodernism with jihadism.

Yet beyond such hyperbole, where is “the postmodern left”? Where, beyond the fear-mongering accusations and alarmist spin, would you find this new “totalitarianism” that the “middle-class, tertiary-educated left” has produced, out of loathing for the West and hatred for Australia, from the utterly preposterous idea that there is no such thing as truth?

Advertisement

Where is this movement’s manifesto? In which books, and on what pages, is it written or implied that the aim of postmodernism is “the neo-Marxist conquest of Western cultures by stealth”? Where is it written, on what page, that postmodernism stands for the belief that nothing is true?

Like dragons, the postmodern left invoked by Auty, Windschuttle and other conservatives does not exist outside of texts. This doesn’t mean it is just a discrediting lie, however, a strategic shibboleth, invented by the right to make the left seem anti-democratic. On the contrary, for a certain idea of the left - one that reduces the radical democratic force of the left to a voter-friendly “alternative” to conservatism - the phantom of the so-called postmodern left is a very convenient bogey-figure indeed. Briefly, the version of the left we have in mind here is divisible into three groups:

  1. the ALP (the parliamentary left);
  2. established, left-leaning media commentators (“the house reds”, we like to call them);
  3. Internet bloggers who identify with Labor (self-styled “social activists”).

Ultimately, for these groups the whole point of the left, the only “realistic” point, is to win government for the ALP.

The best way of achieving this is to broaden the left’s popular appeal, requiring these groups to position themselves against the abstract, revolutionary and extremist views that “postmodernism” is constructed to represent.

For the third group, for instance, it’s an incontestable article of faith that ideas are subordinate to actions (as though somehow ideas are not actions in themselves); hence the shibboleth of “the postmodern left” serves the useful function of making this group’s politics seem pragmatic and socially relevant in contrast to the self-serving obscurantism of the pomo elites.

For the house reds, too, whose professional and political credibility rests on not being seen to be obviously “biased”, and whose discursive stock-in-trade is therefore one of temperate critique, the sorts of rhetorical and conceptual excesses that postmodernism is often accused of indulging in are eschewed, all the better to make the rhetorical and conceptual performances of the “house reds” seem measured, serious and reasonable.

And as for the shape-shifting efforts of the ALP to be seen as “relevant” to voters - as a viable “alternative” to the Coalition, as a legitimate representative of “popular” aspirations and interests - there could be no room even for a trace of sympathy with whacky ideas about the indeterminacy of meaning or the instability of truth.

But what these groups cannot afford to countenance is the possibility of having become the very thing they shun. What could be more “postmodern”, after all, than a political party that existed for the sole purpose of getting elected, or a political movement supported by social activists and commentators whose only function was to help that party to procure enough votes to win government? What kind of politics and what kind of political movement would that be?

The ironic point here is that this nominal “left”, which pins its faith on the re-election of the ALP, is a perfect image of what conservatives mean by postmodernism, exhibiting the alleged standard features of a lack of substance, a contempt for values and traditions, a denial of objective history, the absence of any purpose beyond self-reproduction and a refusal to accept that anything could be meaningful or true.

But in the end what counts against postmodernism the most, for conservatives like Auty, Windshuttle and others, is the accusation that it’s always got something to do with Marx and therefore with the left. What conservatives call postmodernism is always understood as a project of the left. Why, then, aren’t the groups we list above coming out in defence of it?

In the past (in a time before postmodernism, let’s say) the whole point of the ALP, the only point, was to serve as the parliamentary arm of a big idea: democracy, in the radical sense of a project forever without end and always remaining to come (see Lucy and Mickler, The War on Democracy).

This idea (to revive a dead language momentarily) was based on the view that modern capitalist societies were unjust, since the interests of working-class people were subordinate to those of the propertied ruling class. The only democratic thing to do about this was not to seek justice through reconciliation, in some fanciful “middle ground” between the warring classes, but rather to further the interests of ordinary working people at the expense of ruling-class interests.

The idea was to give more power to working people by taking power away from bosses and owners. So labour got the eight-hour day, the right to strike, work-free weekends, sick pay, penalty rates, inflation-indexed wages, annual holidays and other rights and benefits (which have all since come under attack by conservatives), at the expense of capital’s interest in exploiting labour without restraint.

With increased leisure time and better wages, the spending power of working-class families fuelled the development of mass consumer society and gave rise to modern living standards that nowadays conservatives try to pass off as the result of some originary free market design rather than the outcome of organised, political labour struggles which forced capital into an historic compromise.

(This is not to overlook the need for ongoing democratic struggles in response to the conservative-backed corporate abuse of modernity in the form of global warming, for example, or the continuing exploitation of Third World and Indigenous people by global capital.)

So to the extent that, today, ordinary working people in the West have a measure of democratic social power they didn’t have a century ago, and to the extent they have a quality of life along with industrial and democratic rights they didn’t have back in 1845 when Engels published The Condition of the Working Class in England, their position is owed to a tradition of politically-conscious labour struggles animated by the spirit of democracy. And it is owed to those who fought and sometimes died in those struggles, on behalf of democracy to come.

Now, how very twee all this sounds today. What a comforting little delusion to suppose that all the complexities of the real world are reducible to a theory of underlying conflict between antagonistic social forces.

But if such a “theory”, such an eventful idea, is not the undeconstructible ground of the left today and in any future to come, what could be used to distinguish the left from its political alternatives? Without any allegiance whatsoever to an idea of class, in the complete absence of any form of relation to the event of such an idea - what could “the left” possibly be or mean?

We’re not so naïve as to think that the category, or the concept, of class is stable and universal. While acknowledging, though, that class is not a grand narrative or a transcendental signified, this is not to say that therefore there is no such thing as class. Like a dragon, which may not be real but is still a very powerful idea, the idea of class cannot be emptied of all political force and meaning simply because real-world class formations today are taken to have transcended their 19th-century origins. An idea of class (along with the idea that “class” is an evolving concept) is part of the political inheritance of today’s left, and such an idea can be abandoned only at the risk of losing that inheritance and hence a crucial part of what the left means.

The seeming intent of present-day Labor, for example, to sever its historical ties to blue-collar workers and their unions, raises the question of whose interests the ALP now seeks to govern on behalf of. No doubt, in the bipartisan political rhetoric of the moment, it would claim to seek government on behalf of “all Australians”. But what’s left about that?

The idea that all Australians could have anything in common - a common language, common values, common interests, a shared cultural heritage or such like - is entwined with a conservative myth of society as a naturally classless and egalitarian state. Why would Labor want to buy into it?

Traditionally, Labor rhetoric was on the side of workers’ interests over those of, say, bankers and corporate executives, on the understanding that working people once had little or no social, economic or political power at all. What power they may have today was won through struggles (in which the ALP played its part) between competing social interests that are fundamentally incommensurable. It was not won by pondering the “mutual obligations” of various social “stakeholders”.

Today, the hollow solidarity of the postmodern left clings to the free-floating signifier of the ALP, a party for all Australians, for crooks and celebrities alike, from Brian Burke to Maxine McKew. In turn, this Labor joins in solidarity with the conservatives in maintaining a consensual silence around the events of labour history. For this Labor, then, for the postmodern left - as for conservatism - the greatest enemy is Marx.

Read part two here.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

20 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Authors

Niall Lucy is a professor in the humanities at Curtin University. He hosts weekly music/culture show The Comfort Zone on 720 ABC Perth, Wednesdays @ 1.30pm. His latest book is Pomo Oz: Fear and Loathing Downunder (Fremantle Press). He co-edited Vagabond Holes: David McComb and The Triffids.

Steve Mickler is Head of Media and Information at Curtin University. His latest book, with Niall Lucy, is The War on Democracy: Conservative Opinion in the Australian Press (UWA Press, 2006).

Other articles by these Authors

All articles by Niall Lucy
All articles by Steve Mickler
Related Links
A travesty of logic - On Line Opinion
Right wing columnists - anti-democratic? - On Line Opinion
The postmodern left: part two - On Line Opinion

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 20 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy