I can't figure out whether this is The World is Flat for post-structuralists or post(post-)-structuralism for the World is Flat set. I get the seduction of wanting to be post-representation, post-symbol, post-subject, post-object, post-ideology, post-etc., but there have to be ways of going about this that don't manage to be as simultaneously turgidly elitist (Miller in the intro writes of the tragedy of having to "come down from the mountain" (i.e. the teat of pure philosophy) and deal with people who still think of themselves as subjects dealing with objects, blinkeredly ethnocentric (hey look, it's now the western cannon plus Islam and Marilyn Strathern!!), and totally power-evasive. Maurer writes less goo-ily than usual (or maybe it's just that his short pieces are always as good as his book length stuff is bad, but he manages to claim that Mu'tazalite theology "pre-figured" Saussure's distinction between langue and parole (which I'm sure they were keen to do). Chris Pinney reinvents althusserian wheels while advocating for the death of context and for, in general, square wheels on academic cars. And then there was all this stuff that basically riffs of off Latour and Gell and spits on those poor folks who haven't used the critique of culture as an excuse for getting rid of everything else as well.
Cataracts of time, paralanguages, blah, blah, blah, rehabilitating Bhabha and totally forgetting power, let alone, White Mythologies. Okay,so it made me think, does that mean it rates two stars? For the cover alone perhaps.