I’ve been recommending (in private emails and in the comments sections of various sites) Stanley Fish’s sober defense of postmodernism, available so far only in the print edition of this month’s Harpers. Fish is one of our greatest modern rhetoriticians — and though he’s frequently wrong (sorry, Stanley, but it’s true) he’s nothing if not engaging, brilliant, and remarkably persuasive the vast majority of the time.

Too often, the real crux of postmodern thinking is caricatured as a kind of proscriptive relativism, which it is not (at least not as a matter of necessity). In fact, to my way of thinking, the problem with postmodernism is not a problem with postmodernism as a philosophical position per se — but rather with the misapplication and mischaracterization of postmodern thought, even by many of its most spirited practicioners and purveyors. Fish never seems to recognize this (or perhaps he considers it less of a problem than I do — and would likely reply that such people aren’t practicing postmodern thought at all), so on that point we part ways. But if you can get your hands on it, read his Harper’s piece. If nothing else, it’ll get you thinking more about the nature of our enemies — and of the battle itself — in this war on terror.

Then, as an addendum to that recommendation, here’s a critique of Fish’s piece — from The New Republic’s Peter Berkowitz (who finds the good Doctor either confused or disingenuous or both).

[update: Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to go and maintain that there can be no independent standard for determining which of many rival interpretations of an event is the true one — while insisting that this empirical fact in no way invalidates individually or collectively-held notions of truth, much as critics of postmodernism like to insist otherwise. Which I’ll do while drinking a coupla’ Gibsons. At tonight’s blog bash]