I think there are ways - at least as related in 'The Origins of Postmodernity' - that abstruse theory can 'trickle down' to popular usage, but Anderson's line seems always to be that the theory has been diluted along the way: 'The subsequent influence of [Lyotard's] book, in this sense, was in inverse relation to its intellectual interest, as it became the inspiration of a street-level relativism that often passes - in the eyes of friends and foes alike - for the hallmark of postmodernism' (26); and 'The culture of the spectacle has generated, of course, its own ideology. This is the //doxa// of postmodernism that descends from the moment of Lyotard. Intellectually, it is not of much interest: an undemanding medley of notions, whose upshot is little more than a slack-jawed conventionalism. But since the circulation of ideas in the social body does not typically depend on their coherence, but their congruence with material interests, the influence of this ideology remains considerable - by no means confined to campus life alone, but pervasive in popular culture at large. It is to this complex that Terry Eagleton has devoted a scintillating critique...There has rarely been so effective and comprehensive a dissection of what might be called...the common nonsense of the age' (115).

I think you're right to point to art as one place where the concerns and anxieties of critical theorists can be broadcast at more accessible wavelengths, but I wonder whether Harvey, Jameson, Lyotard, Anderson, et al. - all authors writing in and around the arts - wouldn't agree with you. Harvey, for instance, sees //Blade Runner// and //Wings of Desire// as articulating distinctly 'postmodern' problems and providing, with greater or lesser degrees of success, 'postmodern' solutions, and I don't think that he thinks that the audiences need access to his article for the movies' problem sets and solutions to resonate.

--Guattari Hero

Mental excursions are great and all, but I too am more interested in where the rubber hits the road. I think this is especially true when the given theories further attenuate the possibility of action or consensus building, or any of the kinds of activities that are necessary for the "d-i-y political and artistic interventions" to take root on a larger scale than the individual. Developing an accurate cognitive map is important, in a strictly utilitarian sense I guess, for knowing what obstacles threaten to weaken, and gasp, obnubilate action. But I think it is patently ridiculous to conclude that "Oh, I feel much too atomized in the face of the sublime to attend the Jena 6 rally this afternoon."

How do we recognize the experiences of atomization, the anxiety of losing one's cognitive map, and the schizophrenic reality(ies) of postmodernity while preserving a power to act and create communities of resistance? Resistance to to oppression engendered by capitalism? But maybe, quoth Leotard, there's some kind of libidinal pleasure derived from surviving under harsh conditions (which, as a distance swimmer, I am more or less forced to agree with, given my own rather masochistic relationship with Haldeman pool). If there's one thing that narratives in American politics have indicated, it's that rhetoric of self-sufficiency is very powerful--to question the ability to self-sustain ("you need more government support!" [phrasing makes all the difference]) is to presume arrogance and a dreaded "nanny-government" condescension. So how to alter systems of oppression when perhaps even the oppressed have a stake in such a system--though I still find that hard to wrap my head around, I feel like it must be capitalist self-justification. Is ontological emancipation possible when financial incentives and inertia perpetuate oppressive status quos, let alone in the emancipation-narrative-denying framework of postmodernity?

I agree with the notion that postmodern theories are not made accessible to the "common man." Case in point: I'm a hostess at a restaurant in a town very similar to Claremont. Last night I was reading Anderson at work. On more than a dozen occasions, customers asked me about what I was reading. The only person who had any clue what postmodern theory entailed was a CMC professor. If we are in fact living in a postmodern world, why are the intellectuals the only aware ones? I read this passage from Jameson's "Aesthetics and Politics" to my manager - "There is some question whether the ultimate renewal of modernism, the final dialectical subversion of the now automatized conventions of an aesthetic of perpetual revolution, might not simply be... realism itself!" Her response? "He seems like he'd be a real asshole." She had no interest in Jameson's point because she immediately became annoyed by the pretentious vocabulary. A small minority is able to succesfully communicate in Jameson's language. And this minority can often be described as elitist - precisely what postmodernism attempts to escape. So how does postmodernism progress the ignored classes if it is incapable of connecting with them?

That said, I do believe that there are outlets in which postmodernism does reach these people. On page 63 Anderson discusses the integration of "new peoples onto the global stage." Postmodernism does want to give faces to the previously excluded people and it does this through the form of art. Anderson points out that the divide between high and low culture is diminishing. Women and minorities are recognized through novels and films. Postmodern themes are expressed through mainstream media. But the question still remains: Can this be considered productive if the middle class man in Montana watches a postmodern film and yet has no comprehension of what postmodernism is?

This might be a moot point, present conditions being as they are, but I tend to think that the problem is rooted in factors *external* to the production and consumption of theory, such as the public school system and media consolidation. Obscure theory is not inherently unaccessible; most is even well-written once one assertains the complex vernacular and interwoven conceptual backgroup. The problem is that people are encouraged, taught, forced - whatever - to avoid anything remotely abstruse. No one understands postmodern theory (or any theory) without putting significant effort into working through these texts. I raise this point not to champion some quasi-meritocratic it's-all-about-putting-your-mind-to-it! narrative, so much as highlight the contingency of interpellation. Taking pleasure in the critical evaluation of texts is not an inherently upper-middle-class value; if education and exposure to media forms were different, society would be different, which is essentially Althusser's point. That said, as long as people aren't taught to question the mythologies that parade as common sense, we're screwed no matter what theorists do.

I agree that many "defenses" of impenetrable writing come in naseautingly self-indulgent form, like the common (I guess I'll qualify that to "common within literary and critical theory circles") narrative that "clarity," as we generally understand that term, is an ideological construct. To be sure - but does it have to be syntactically unpleasant? However, Adorno makes a compelling point in Minima Moralia when he argues that insofar as "accessibility" refers to that which is already (or at least readily) understood, "accessible texts" present zero possibilities for anything but affirmation. This renders "accessibility" a rather vacuous criterion for theory. Do we really want greater accesibility? Doesn't it seem like theory is one important register to enable the critical assesment of "that which is already understood"?

For anyone interested, "Just Being Difficult: Academic Writing in the Public Arena" (Ed. Culler) is a fascinating collection of essays about the issue of obscure writing and political engagement.