To apply the word "post" to an ideology or perspective is a really lame thing to do. It seems to be a really easy, almost lazy way to describe one's current state of being, without really explaining much. I am in my Post Dave Matthews Pre Radiohead phase, which doesn't really explain much about my current affinity for Kelly Clarkson, except that I probably will never flick DMB back onto my iPod and Thom Yorke's voice STILL really grates on me, but I might get there eventually. While it does imply a certain outlook on a given aspect of life, to put "post" in front of anything really implies that it had enough of an impact so that for the time being, we gauge the facets of our lives that both directly and indirectly relate to this event on this event, so that everything we do is colored by events of and/or perspectives on the past. My least favorite way of doing this is BC(E, if you're one of those people) and AD. Before Jesus, we were this. What? Pagans? Jews? What does that even mean? After Jesus, we were something else enough to put a name to it. Its very culturally chauvinistic- I'm sure the lives of rice farmers in Southeast Asia didn't have a vast ideological shift after the death of Christ, and its really silly to expect that even most people in the Western World did until the widespread Christianization of Europe, 500 years later.
I live in a posthighschool world. I live in a postmilk-at-dinner world. I live in a postfirst-kiss, postred-as-my-favorite-color, postteenage, postreceptionist period, which might evolve into a postundergraduate, posttea-every-morning, postfirst-serious-relationship, postgreen-is-my-favorite-color, posttwenties, posti-will-never-ever-HAVE-to-be-a-receptionist-AGAIN phase. But what does that really say about me right now? Anything important? Probably, because it chronicles my growth and change, but does it matter what the catalyst was, or that it merely happened? I really don't like to think of my life in terms of the past, but what my possibilities are for the future. Living in a postSomething world doesn't imply a fixed perspective that we have as a result of that SomeEvent. For example, we discussed the term "Post 9/11 world": it doesn't imply that "oops, we really got some group of Middle Eastern guys pissed, maybe we should try to be nicer," although it COULD. To us, it usually is applied to the idea that we are scared of bombs, things that look like bombs but aren't, the word bomb, afghanis, iraqis, airplanes, oilfields, uranium, lower manhattan, and about a million other signifiers (vocabulary alert) that have to do with terror, terrorism, threats, insecurity and war. But it could mean something else, which, to me softens the validity of the term.
I really like this quotation, which I found on Paul Lieberstein's myspace. He plays Toby on The Office, in case you haven't reached your postScrubs phase...
My philosophy is, live life "two days at a time." One day at a time is unrelenting. Two days, well, if I drink too much or eat too much I can just do better tomorrow, on my second day. Honestly, I don't even understand the success that "One day at a time" is having.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
"I really don't like to think of my life in terms of the past, but what my possibilities are for the future."
I want to comment on this idea of past, present, and future. I agree that the way to live is to focus on what the future could be, but what this really means is that what you do now determines how the future unfolds, and how you "are" in the future. So you can't ignore the past, because what you did in the past determined how you are now. The choices you made and the paths you chose to tread determined the opportunites that are now open to you, the habits you now have, the interests and hobbies you now have, etc. And looking back to the past can be helpful in recognizing patterns (both good and bad) so you can always be improving your situation the older you get. Past, present, and future are connected by your indiviudal string of decisions/actions (both conscious and unconscious).
I think there's something temporally significant about these classifications. Think of it, if you will, as a 'rupture'...
Consider the BC/AD construction that irks you so. Now take Jesus out of the picture. What else is going on. Hint: The peak of the Roman Empire. Maybe it's coincidence, but maybe the cards just sort of lined up and played out the winning hand of a major sea change in the ancient world. The periods of ancient society's ascension and descension surrounding the 33 years of Jesus are oddly symmetrical. From the end of the stone age to the Roman Empire then back, oddly enough, downwards again until the Renaissaince. Kind of merits consideration...
But you're also absolutely right - these divisions are arbitrary and imply some sort of centre. I.e. structuralism is this and post-structuralism isn't, and neither of them are something else, but they're both a third thing.
These are oddly concrete assumptions which the book(s) admit are only partially valid at best.
The thought that just flew through my head was that the "post" before the actual term is in a way replacing something, acting as a suppliment in the center...so there is not center-Post Strucuralism. There is always something filling something else..constant change.
it's both exhausting and annoying for me to fret about the present. i like it when things are post-present, but i tend to think of things as having expiration dates, which is reductive (and i know i do that all the time). i'm not negating the influence of the past and present, i just like to think of the past as the past and the present as the future past. why stress over a test i just took as possibly failed? there isn't anything i can do but take the lesson for what its worth and move on to my post-test stage. its over, ttyl test, move it along, sally.
discussing life in vintage is one of the many things i tend to roll my eyes at, and the phrase "post(...)" immediately invites that.
Post a Comment