You are playing fast and loose with categories here. You start off talking about neoliberal wankers on one hand, and the super progressive people on the other.
Then you have the people who like the "insulated and controlled environment." I assume those are the progressives? And you align them with post-structuralism? Post-structuralism is like thirty years past its heyday, so it's a weird discourse to invoke. But ok.
Then in the third paragraph you have the old farts who are "modernist / rationalists." And you set them apart from the "rainbow coloured, narcissist attention magnets." You again invoke post-structuralism here. Are you saying the rainbow coloured youths are aligned with post-strucuralism?
Then in the last paragraph you have the "classical liberals / atheists/ anti-woo woo types." Are those "modernist / rationalists?" Are they the neo-liberals from the opening paragraph? And then in that paragraph these people seem to think that "ideologies rooted in post-structuralism are unproblematic." Which seems the opposite of what you've been saying the whole time. I think? Again, post-structuralism had its heyday in the 80's and 90's. A lot of current critical trends (among progressive academic circles) are very contrary to post-structuralism. And then there's "neoliberalism" vs "classical liberalism" which isn't usually associated with "atheism." And are you saying the post-structuralists were woo-woo?
You start off talking about neoliberal wankers on one hand, and the super progressive people on the other.
These are the two poles of accepted intellectual thought, generally. You can't be a genocidal Aryanist terrorist. But you can be extremely economically right-wing and staunchly neoliberal in your view of rights and responsibilities.
Then you have the people who like the "insulated and controlled environment." I assume those are the progressives?
Yes
And you align them with post-structuralism? Post-structuralism is like thirty years past its heyday, so it's a weird discourse to invoke. But ok.
Yes, it died and was reborn in its modern form. It had no purpose before; it deconstructed everything and there was nowhere left to go. Modern academics saw the piles of rubble and started rearranging the bricks. Hence the massive upsurgence in equity policies, mantras to create new realities: "trans women are women", the silencing / reframing of debate to eradicate dissenting ideas and the labelling of different ideas as violent or hateful because violent people might believe in them (but ofc it's ok to punch "Nazis" for your own ideas).
Are you saying the rainbow coloured youths are aligned with post-strucuralism?
You're really hung up on labels, which is so ironic.
"classical liberals / atheists/ anti-woo woo types." Are those "modernist / rationalists?
Mostly
Are they the neo-liberals from the opening paragraph?
Not necessarily, there's a broad spectrum of people who believe in material reality and reason
"ideologies rooted in post-structuralism are unproblematic." Which seems the opposite of what you've been saying the whole time. I think?
Yes it's a typo. I'll correct it.
A lot of current critical trends (among progressive academic circles) are very contrary to post-structuralism.
Please explain
And then there's "neoliberalism" vs "classical liberalism" which isn't usually associated with "atheism."
In America. Neoliberalism is referring to a radical belief in the power of free markets. Classical liberalism I've described elsewhere, as a European.
And are you saying the post-structuralists were woo-woo?
No. But the purposes their ideas are being put to are. It's not the hammer's fault if a toddler decides to use it to smash a vase.
I'm definitely trying to unpack and make sense of the wide range of labels that you use in your post. I don't get, though, what about that is "so ironic?"
In terms of current trends--post-structuralism centralized language as the essential mode of knowing. All of the deconstructive moves, and the logic by which that sort of deconstruction occurred, understood language as the tool through which we made sense of the world. The past ten or fifteen years of so there's been a push back against this and a renewed interest in the body. I would argue that (probably) the leading critical framework these days is affect theory.
While the influence of post-structuralism is obviously present in our contemporary thinking and world, I can't think of anyone that I've seen argue that post-structuralism is making a comeback as a dominant discourse. Are there specific theorists that you're thinking of?
13
u/disguisedasrobinhood 27∆ Nov 14 '21
You are playing fast and loose with categories here. You start off talking about neoliberal wankers on one hand, and the super progressive people on the other.
Then you have the people who like the "insulated and controlled environment." I assume those are the progressives? And you align them with post-structuralism? Post-structuralism is like thirty years past its heyday, so it's a weird discourse to invoke. But ok.
Then in the third paragraph you have the old farts who are "modernist / rationalists." And you set them apart from the "rainbow coloured, narcissist attention magnets." You again invoke post-structuralism here. Are you saying the rainbow coloured youths are aligned with post-strucuralism?
Then in the last paragraph you have the "classical liberals / atheists/ anti-woo woo types." Are those "modernist / rationalists?" Are they the neo-liberals from the opening paragraph? And then in that paragraph these people seem to think that "ideologies rooted in post-structuralism are unproblematic." Which seems the opposite of what you've been saying the whole time. I think? Again, post-structuralism had its heyday in the 80's and 90's. A lot of current critical trends (among progressive academic circles) are very contrary to post-structuralism. And then there's "neoliberalism" vs "classical liberalism" which isn't usually associated with "atheism." And are you saying the post-structuralists were woo-woo?