Postmodernism in Literature and Politics: Experimental Fiction and Post-Left Anarchy

Most progressives agree that traditional institutions, cultural or political, deserve a good shaking up. So we approve of discourse that challenges the boundaries set by staid literary journals or moribund political organizations. In letters as in politics, we speak on the one hand of the traditional, mainstream elements deserving of comeuppance, and on the other of the avant-garde, the rebels.

But inevitably, some wish to be more radical than the radicals, the newest new wave. This latter tendency is typically irrelevant at best, but often does real harm by posing as the "true" avant-garde and attacking more productive rebellious movements.

In the following article we will examine two cases of extremism for its own sake, consciously postmodern experimental literature, and also a school of thought called Post-Left Anarchy. We will situate each in its cultural context, and make distinctions or draw parallels as appropriate.

Most progressives agree that traditional institutions, cultural or political, deserve a good shaking up. So we approve of discourse that challenges the boundaries set by staid literary journals or moribund political organizations. In letters as in politics, we speak on the one hand of the traditional, mainstream elements deserving of comeuppance, and on the other of the avant-garde, the rebels.

But inevitably, some wish to be more radical than the radicals, the newest new wave. This latter tendency is typically irrelevant at best, but often does real harm by posing as the "true" avant-garde and attacking more productive rebellious movements.

In the following article we will examine two cases of extremism for its own sake, consciously postmodern experimental literature, and also a school of thought called Post-Left Anarchy. We will situate each in its cultural context, and make distinctions or draw parallels as appropriate.

What is postmodernism?

A broad critique of postmodernism would be beyond the scope of this article. However, since we will be considering to what extent, if any, Post-Leftism is a product of postmodernism (consciously or otherwise), and also since experimental literature is so very much a conscious product of postmodernism, a summary introduction cannot be avoided.

Briefly, postmodernism holds that the modern era- on the heels of the prehistoric, ancient, and medieval eras, beginning with the Renaissance and continuing through the Enlightenment and beyond- has ended. Humanity is said to have entered a new era, the postmodern (more modern than modernity itself, touché!) Furthermore, this new era constitutes the "end of history", the march of human progress having halted, indeed, having reached an apex. Humanity is thought to be henceforth forever moving, but aimlessly: there is nowhere of consequence left to go. Constant change is now the status quo, but it is change with no real substance, a mere shifting of the order of preexisting thoughts, and reflections of thoughts. The production of new ideas is a thing of the past: henceforth all ideas are recycled commodities, mere shadows, representations of representations. [1]

The resultant attitude is typified by irony, a rejection of the search for meaning [2] in favor of glib, self referential asides. In visual mediums, Pop Art (such as Andy Warhol's celebrations of the visages of celebrities like Marilyn Monroe) are held to be postmodern. In the musical sphere, hip hop's random samplings of previous recordings are considered "pomo".

The state of letters in the USA

Let us now, briefly, examine the state of literature in the USA, before considering postmodernism's contribution within literary circles.

For lovers of good books, popular novels are a never-ending source of dismay: periodically the shelves of Wal-mart are cleared to make room for the latest John Grisham novel, shoddily written [3], stressing plot over character development, and presenting nothing whatsoever new in the way of personal revelation or social perspective.

The discriminating reader might hope to fare better while perusing the pricey publications of the colleges and universities, the so-called literary journals. Well, journals they are, and literate, too. What they are not, is in touch with life beyond the ivory towers of academia. One searches in vain for a working class character who is not demented, violently antisocial, or just plain stupid. Mostly, though, working class characters are simply absent: in their stead we are treated to a succession of male college professors who grapple with their consciences before wrestling with female students. How novel, how risqué.

As a result of this sparsity of worthwhile content, periodically new tendencies in literature appear that consciously seek to blaze new trails, and in the process rattle the cages of the old guard. Beat literature, which championed black jazz music, working class experience, Eastern religion, and drug use, was one such example. The Beat movement produced many offshoots, among them the Transgressive school of literature. Transgressive fiction is "a genre of literature that focuses on characters who feel confined by the norms and expectations of society and who use unusual and/or illicit ways to break free of those confines... Protagonists often pursue means to better themselves and their surroundings—albeit unusual and extreme ones." [4]

This is all well and good: such rebel writers have ever made significant contributions to the literary canon. Accordingly one might hope to find on the internet, squatting in the alleyways of cyberspace, all manner of daring, original literature, transgressive and otherwise. But unfortunately, under the sway of a smug postmodern sensibility that posits change and upheaval as a normal, ongoing state of affairs, the literature of rebellion itself has become institutionalized, giving rise to a pervasive, supposedly avant-garde genre termed "experimental".

Being postmodernists, proponents of experimental literature insist that modern conventions of narrative no longer hold. Accordingly, "stories" are no longer required to begin, introduce a conflict that is resolved for good or ill, and end. The traditional (commonsensical) structure of the narrative is routinely abandoned, with little apparent concern for the reader's cognizance. In the place of structured narration we find aimless digressions coupled with abrupt changes in chronology and point of view.

In moderation, such techniques can actually be used to good effect. Ken Kesey played fast and loose with structural conventions in Sometimes a Great Notion, and the result was admirable. But to the uninitiated reader- and particularly when employed in excess- the effect of unstructured narration can be disconcerting, akin to watching a video that flashes unrelated scenes in unpredictable sequence. Film, of course, can more easily and successfully convey abrupt shifts of time and locale, than can verbiage. The puzzled reader might be forgiven a suspicion that experimental fiction is simply an unsuccessful literary attempt to mimic the effects of video.

However, once the reader is familiarized with the tenets of postmodernism (and recalls that experimental fiction consciously claims postmodernism) the underlying logic becomes all too plain: the reader's disconcertion is not the unhappy result of poor technique, but is intentional. Look at me, crows the author, I have written the anti-story. This posturing, reeking as it does of authorial self absorption, bears only contempt for the reader. As an art form, most experimental literature resembles the fare of a channel-surfing couch potato who seeks only escape, who wishes to stare at a series of images passing across a television screen, and so distract himself from his (presumably miserable) surroundings. This it resembles, more than the engrossing, challenging novels of a Kesey.

Writers of experimental literature might be forgiven such excesses, if their cut-and-paste techniques were employed as a means to convey the spiritually crippling nature of life under consumerist, industrial capitalism. That is, if the bewildering absence of narrative were intended to mimic an alienated mode of life. But if such were the case, we would expect the authors to eventually encourage the reader to sympathize, or at least identify with the protagonists. Instead, far from encouraging emotional engagement, experimental literature seems to present alienated existences, overt hostility, lives devoid of affectionate relations, and casual brutality, as ends in themselves. In other words, experimental literature is too cool to care. It is literature for an effete elite, divorced from the world of job, family, and community, where the great mass of humanity has yet to be informed that giving a damn is passé. [5]

The state of (revolutionary) politics in the USA

Mainstream politics, like popular fiction, is a deplorable mess. Advocates of the impotent vote deplore those who ineffectually march in the streets. The tradition of mass direct action in the form of strikes, boycotts, workplace occupations and sabotage, hibernates, if it is not dead. Environmentalism features the lobbyists of the Sierra Club on one futile pole, and the ritualized direct action of tiny affinity groups on the other. [6] Meanwhile, in the halls of academia, politicized professors parallel the literary journals by churning out volumes of theory divorced from the reality of modern life- for example, proposing naïve strategies that suppose capitalism can be overthrown without a fight, if all would but drop out of consumer society. [7]

Paralleling the hopeful buoyancy of Beat and Transgressive literature, within the realm of politics stands the anarchists. This idealistic movement offers the novel vision of a stateless, decentralized, self managed society. Anarchists seek to resurrect the best of past revolutionary experience and apply it to current situations, to employ mass direct action in the context of struggles between workers and communities on the one hand, and the corporate masters on the other. The anarchist movement offers a forum for dissent, a battleground even, that is not bounded by the dead ends of voting, marching, and collegiate navel gazing. The anarchist movement, whatever its flaws, offers a practical, yet simultaneously immensely idealistic, terrain of rebellion in the political sphere.

But for some, this is not good enough. Enter the Post-Left Anarchy school of thought.

The Post-Left defines itself, not by what it champions, but rather by what it opposes: The Left. [8] At this point, it is worth recalling the origins of the anarchist movement: it grew from criticisms that certain libertarian factions had with the Marxian dominated international workers movement (that's right, The Historical Left). Anarchism has always been a part of The Left. Yet Post-Leftists declare themselves anarchists, while disassociating themselves from the Left. The thoughtful observer can only conclude that Post-Leftism is a secessionist movement, seeking to lead anarchists out of the clutches of the leftist enemy, and on to more fruitful terrain.

What terrain is that, you may well ask? What program do Post-Leftists propose? Well, none, actually. Post-Leftism is "not a movement", nor seemingly even a tendency within anarchism. It is, rather, a critique. Nothing more. It is "a tool of critical thinking". [9]

There is nothing inherently bad in criticism. Marxism originated as a critique of capitalism, and anarchism, as a critique of Marxism. However, political movements throughout history- or throughout "modern" history, at any rate- have consisted of more than mere critiques, they have also identified a social base and proposed a program of action. Both Marxism and anarchism target social bases, the proposed agent of revolutionary change: for orthodox Marxists, the industrial proletariat, for latter day anarchists, workers, and the otherwise oppressed. Furthermore, these political movements (like their sundry splinters and offshoots) have programs of action: various, complex, often confusing and sometimes seemingly contradictory, but programs they have. But not the Post-Leftists, for whom criticism is an end in itself.

With Post-Leftism naught but a critical tool, rather than a movement, there remains but one anarchist movement (with myriad tendencies within, the anarcho-syndicalists, anarchist communists, and so on.). And yet Post-Leftists accuse the anarchist movement… of being insufficiently "anarchist". Too "Leftist". So we see that Post-Leftism is an ethereal, self referential critique of a critique, a supposed political movement but with no social base, no program, nothing in fact of any concrete substance whatsoever. When critics query, "We know what you are against, but what are you for?", Post-Leftists vaguely reply, "Anarchy". "Anarchy" is said to be anarchism… minus the ideology! [10] (Ideology is an example of what postmodernists call a metanarrative. Postmodernists reject metanarratives.)

As we say down South, if Post-Leftism ain't postmodernist, it sure missed a good chance to be.

Most tellingly, in Leftism 101 the author damns socialism (i.e., leftism) as having Renaissance ideals for philosophical antecedents. Renaissance and Enlightenment ideals are the philosophical foundations of modernism, which postmodernists- and, apparently, Post Leftists- reject. [11]

Why such emphasis on Post-Leftism's postmodernist foundation or connections? Because if we are truly at the end of history (as postmodernists claim), if we have achieved the apex of human development, then future revolution is either unnecessary, or else impossible. [12] The end-of-history thesis is not only egotistical, but worse, it is pro-capitalist. The notion that one can be simultaneously postmodern and an anarchist revolutionary, is oxymoronic.

At the risk of belaboring a point, Post-Leftism reduces to a shell, devoid of content. The only positive content Post-Leftism appears to offer is "the liberation of individual desire", a tired idea if ever there were one, having been rejected by the greater part of the anarchist movement almost a century ago. [13] We can hope, at least, that the Post-Leftists reject the most noxious aspects of individualist anarchism's legacy, its support for lone acts of terrorism known as propaganda of the deed. [14]

What, finally, is Post-Leftism?

Over the course of this article we have briefly surveyed postmodernism, considered how it manifests itself in U.S. letters as experimental literature, and finally examined Post-Left Anarchy for similarities or differences to postmodern ideology and practice. Unfortunately, as we have seen, Post-Left rhetoric raises more questions about itself than it answers. Post-Left is nearly always suffixed by Anarchy, so we know Post-Leftists consider themselves anarchists; they employ the circle A. But are they social revolutionaries, or merely lonely, postmodern rebels? Are they anarchists who espouse a program for social revolution whereby a subjugated sector (or sectors) of society seeks to overthrow the ruling class, or is "the liberation" of one's "individual desire" as far as their rebellion extends: the isolated worker giving the boss the finger, the wife telling off the husband, the child standing up to the parent? Are Post-Leftists but angry postmodernists, content to devote the rest of history-less time to recycling images of rebellion in a thousand varying incarnations, each with no more social significance than a Warhol rendering of a Campbell's soup can? What, in the final analysis, is Post-Left Anarchy? A shadow on the wall? Or less?

Written for anarkismo.net

[1] "…(postmodernism) implies… that the modern historical period has passed… Modernism places a great deal of importance on ideals such as ... progress… Postmodernism questions whether these ideals can actually exist at all… The pro-postmodernism argument runs that… ideas are… only inter-referential representations and copies of each other, with no real original, stable or objective source… Postmodern scholars argue that… society inevitably creates… the breaking of traditional frames of genre, structure and stylistic unity… Postmodernism's anti-ideological ideas appear to have been… strongly associated with… most forms of late 20th century anarchism…" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism

[2] - "Postmodernism, in contrast, doesn't lament the idea of fragmentation, provisionality, or incoherence, but rather celebrates that. The world is meaningless? Let's not pretend that art can make meaning then, let's just play with nonsense." http://www.colorado.edu/English/courses/ENGL2012Klages/pomo.html

[3] - - " …John Grisham uses the adjectives pretty and nice almost exclusively in lieu of description in his novel Runaway Jury, as in He had a nice smile, She had pretty eyes, She had a nice, pretty ponytail. This tells you that the author seems to admire certain smiles, eyes, and ponytails, but is too lazy or too unskilled to describe them…" Jim Chaffee, editor of The Big Stupid Review, http://www.thedrillpress.com/manifesto/manifesto-05.shtml

[4] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgressional_fiction (For a short example of some good Transgressive fiction, read American Loser at http://www.undergroundvoices.com/UVamericanloserI.htm )

[5] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodern_literature "… the sprawling canvas and fragmented narrative… has generated controversy on the 'purpose' of a novel… (many) attack the maximalist novel as being disorganized, sterile and filled with language play for its own sake, empty of emotional commitment—and therefore empty of value as a novel." (As with any sweeping generalization, my dismissal of experimental literature runs the risk of damning some fine works. If Nabakov's Lolita is experimental or postmodern, as many contend, then the genre can count a magnificent work among its legion of failures. But- whatever Nabakov's philosophical leanings- I would characterize Lolita as Transgressive, more than experimental, noting the tale's structural integrity.)

[6] - "…Resistance to (Mountaintop Removal) generally take one of two forms, that may be categorized according to…tactics…: the liberal community groups who prioritize fundraising and government lobbying, and the champions of direct action within Earth First!..." http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=4564&condense_comments=false#comment4006

[7] - "… The theory of exodus proposes that the most effective way of opposing capitalism and the liberal state is not through direct confrontation but by means of what Paolo Virno has called `engaged withdrawal,’ mass defection by those wishing to create new forms of community…" David Graber http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=869&search_text=exodus

[8] - A search of the term "post left" on a prominent web site (www.infoshop.org) produces the following articles: Anarchy after Leftism, Leftism 101, Post-Left Anarchy: Leaving the Left Behind http://infoshop.org/afterleftism.html

[9] - ibid, "Post-leftism is not a movement, network or organization. It doesn't need more members or recruits because it is more a tool of critical thinking about politics…"

[10] ibid, "Leftism, as the reification and mediation of social rebellion, is always ideological… For leftists history is never made by individuals…" Jason McQuinn

[11] - http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=04/01/27/9056501

[12]- "…By discarding 'grand narratives' (like the liberation of the entire working class) and focusing on specific local goals (such as improved day care centers for working mothers in your own community), postmodernist politics offers a way to theorize local situations as fluid and unpredictable, though influenced by global trends. Hence the motto for postmodern politics might well be 'think globally, act locally'--and don't worry about any grand scheme or master plan." Dr. Mary Klages, Associate Professor, English Department, University of Colorado, Boulder. http://www.colorado.edu/English/courses/ENGL2012Klages/pomo.html

[13] - "Both Goldman and Berkman, like almost all anarchists, firmly rejected such individual acts by that time in favour of mass resistance and collective action…" http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=2135&search_text=individualist%20anarchism

[14] - "… historically been willing to engage in adventuristic practices which do not necessarily exclude the possibility of terrorism, and to link itself to the propagandists of individual action who do not have to answer to any type of mass organization. Neither does their action, unlike that of the anarchist communists, have to form part of the process of political growth of the working class and its allies…" http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=38&search_text=the%20deed