Posted on 05/28/2003 9:36:17 AM PDT by jalisco555
Postmodernist anti-science thought was once primarily associated with European and North American academics in the humanities. Now not only has its influence become international, but it has become integrally intertwined with a number of other issues such as anti-globalization, anti-transgenic technology in agriculture, and conservation. Nobody can fault the prevailing internationalism of postmodernists and their respect for different cultures and peoples (except for the culture of those who are committed to modern science/technology and its benefits). Nor can we fault their argument that all of us have biases, though they fail to comprehend the vital role that scientific method plays in helping to overcome the limitations which personal and cultural biases impose. Their belief in the worth and dignity of all human beings is unexceptionable. Some of us critics would suspect, however, that in going global, postmodernist thought does not necessarily impact on other political/cultural traditions in a way which upholds the worthy ideas that most postmodernists claim to espouse. To the extent that these postmodernist ideas have become part of the globalization debates, there is a legitimate issue of consistency if in fact what is being forcefully advocated produces adverse outcomes contrary to what its proponents claim for them.
None of us are totally consistent in all our beliefs, nor can we find total consistency in the various political or social movements we may be committed to. Life and the world of ideas are messy, and so we can take heart with Ralph Waldo Emerson's strictures against that foolish consistency which is the hobgoblin of petty minds. A little untidiness and a few gaps in our knowledge here and there are probably healthy, and facilitate the emergence of new ideas. However, the argument to be pursued here is that there is a basic inconsistency, or more accurately, a fundamental contradiction between what has been advocated by a type of postmodernist thought, and its practical outcome in developing countries. It is a contradiction that is often so blatant as to undermine whatever merit there may be in the avowed postmodernist respect for other cultures. Stated baldly, the respect for "local ways" of knowing, rather than promoting multi-culturalism, ends up instead promoting crass forms of cultural chauvinism and intolerance that can devolve into violence. In our internet/information age, there is no excuse for those who have entered various globalization debates without knowing the outcomes and implications of their advocacy.
(Excerpt) Read more at butterfliesandwheels.com ...
The point of the article is to attack people like Shiva. The writer agrees with you. Sure she's celebrated but the people who celebrate her are contributing to the destruction of the people they think they are helping.
Yes, but it doesn't matter what you know. What matters is what you feel. In her cultural context it was rice. And can we really say that our Western, hegemonic concept of "rice" is better than her traditional, indigenous concept?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.