Uncritical Theory: Postmodernism, Intellectuals and the Gulf War

by Christopher Norris

On 29 March 1991, shortly after the cessation of hostilities in the Gulf War, Jean Baudrillard published an article entitled "The Gulf War has not taken place", in which he argued that "the true belligerents are those who thrive on the ideology of the truth of this war". It is in response to such excesses of post-modernism that Christopher Norris has written this extended polemical essay. He argues that the extreme cognitive scepticism and relativism of this school of thought is profoundly disabling for critical theory. Reviewing the writings of Derrida, Foucault, Lyotard and Baudrillard, as well as the American neo-pragmatist school as represented by Rorty and Fish, he meticulously examines the flaws in their arguments, and makes an impassioned plea for the continuance of the philosopher's role as intellectual critic of real world politics and governments.

218 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1992

About the author

As of 2007 he is Distinguished Research Professor in Philosophy at Cardiff University. He completed his PhD in English at University College London in 1975, while Sir Frank Kermode served as the Lord Northcliffe Professor of modern English literature there.

Until 1991 Norris taught in the Cardiff English Department. He has also held fellowships and visiting appointments at a number of institutions, including the University of California, Berkeley, the City University of New York and Dartmouth College.

He is one of the world's leading scholars on deconstruction, particularly in the work of Jacques Derrida. He has written numerous books and papers on literary theory and continental philosophy. Norris is now considered a philosopher in his own right: 2003's Life After Theory reference required featured an interview with Norris, placing him alongside Derrida as a significant contemporary.

Reviews

[Minäpäminä · Rating 4 out of 5]

Christopher Norris advances a criticism of postmodernism, targeting mostly Baudrillard but also Lyotard, Rorty and Fish, by investigating the postmodern reaction to the Gulf War. It's a wonderful method, combining history, politics and philosophical analysis by taking an (at the time contemporary) event and looking at the public discussion around it within a certain school of thought (if anyone knows of any books with a similar approach, you're welcome to recommend them to me). With both the Gulf War and postmodernism being relatively unknown to me, this was a real fount of information.

Now, Norris isn't a conservative by any means, which makes this refreshing for me. Most of the criticism I have seen of postmodernism has come from the right side of the political spectrum, and often the investigation hasn't been very arduous, but more on the shallow side (e.g. Jordan Peterson). Norris seems (as I said, I'm very much an uninitiate in pomo) to be relatively well versed in the theory. For example he defends Derrida from the common (according to Norris) misunderstanding that Derrida forgoes the Enlightenment project of looking for truth, and instead posits (with long quotations from the man himself) that Derrida is continuing this project by subjecting itself to criticism.

The brunt of Norris' criticism is taken by Baudrillard and the "neo-pragmatists", who claim that the truth is something inaccessible, that the Gulf War didn't really happen in any traditional sense of a war, and that to attempt to point out wrongdoings or lies on either side of the conflict is to fall into the trap of believing that any conflict took place, which is the real aim of the whole "hyperreal" show. According to Baudrillard the only effective strategy of resistance is for the masses to become so indefferent to the matter of "media truth and falsehood that the whole apparatus of public-opinion management collapses into manifest nonsense" (p. 194), reminding me of accelerationist criticism of capitalism, the belief that the internal logic of capitalism will destroy itself if only taken far enough. Surely a recipe for passivity and nihilism. And this is what Norris has a problem with.

Since the postmodernists lay stress on the heterogeneity of different discourses or language-games, especially between the ones involving factual matters and ethico-aesthetical discussion, they deny any possibility of attaining truth. Norris, though conceding that Truth with a capital T might be unattainable, accuses the postmodernists' of jumping from naïve epistemological realism to the other extreme of cynical relativism and nihilism. Norris instead opts for something Solomon calls "potentialist realism", a midway, where the impossibility of Truth is denied, but so is the impossibility of attempting to reach it in any meaningful way.

Norris sees the postmodernists as playing into the hands of the power elite by encouraging passivity and nihilism, which they themselves no doubt see as transcending the lies altogether by refusing to take part in public discussion so proliferated with them. This of course works, Norris admits that much, but it is a stance unavailable for those who stand under the cruise missiles when they hit. To them Norris feels we owe to take the risk of being mistaken and taken in by lies, because the alternative is to do nothing, which would be appalling by most ethical standards. Norris raises Chomsky to the stature of a paragon in acknowledging the difficulty of knowing but nevertheless attempting ceaselessly to attain it, with Chomsky very much taking part in public debate as a public figure, something Baudrillard refuses to do - at least on the terms Chomsky is doing. Like Chomsky, Norris is clearly a political thinker, who feels the immediacy of ethical imperative. I think this is where he differs with Baudrillard et al., so... I just might teeter over onto Baudrillard's side with this one, not judging Chomsky or Norris, no, but simply saying that there is room for apolitical philosophy - which I don't think Norris would agree with.

In the course of around 200 pages, Norris overstates his case. I felt the work could have done well with half the text mass. A lot of ground was covered twice, some even thrice. But still, this was a rare find: a comprehensible work for the somewhat-general audience (a few discussions on Kant's sublime notwithstanding) on postmodern philosophy. Loads of info on both the Gulf War and the most incomprehensible of thinkers. Though I'm left with a nasty feeling that this wasn't the whole story; that Norris was simplifying some of pomo for argument's sake. Because he really does paint a repulsive picture, one which is hard to imagine appealing to anyone. Plus I'm in the habit of sympathizing with the underdog (aren't we all?) and after witnessing so thorough a beating on these poor sexy hot-shit academics, I might just have to look into their work next. But Norris whet my appetite. I thank him for that.