Not Reading Closely

Abstract

There reigns everywhere an indecent haste .. (Nietzsche [1889] 1968, p. 64) Because I argue that postmodern theories are plural and contradictory (Antonio 1991, p. 155) and that their aims and contexts diverge from theory, I concur with some of William Bogard's comments. Extremely puzzling, however, is his ire about reframing of postmodern discourses. What is wrong with using theories for different purposes and bringing them into new contexts? Where is postmodern delight in disjunctive fusions and pastiche? Why would one who embraces postmodern sensibilities imply that he knows intent of these diverse approaches and preach about need to preserve it? Bogard excoriates Seidman and others for instrumentalizing and taming postmodern theories by using them to address and critically. But what was Bogard (1990, p. 2) doing in these pages when he earlier located Baudrillard's work as a response to more traditional concerns of Continental and American . .? Was this essay, written in a neat, conventional style, safely within boundaries, and entirely devoid of his hero's playfulness and irony, his idea of a bold move? What is abundantly clear is that Bogard does not practice what he preaches-indifference to sociology. He makes Baudrillard and Seidman useful for his own professional purposes. In earlier essay, Bogard (1990, pp. 1-2) lauded Baudrillard's original and incisive ideas about society, culture and theory; he celebrated Baudrillard's lasting contribution to critique of contemporary theory and how he radically denies possibility of sociology. Baudrillard claims that has been evaporated by a mass media and a surplus of fragmented information that implodes all meaning. In his view, hyperconformity of silent majorities is only viable strategy for defying all-controlling sign system. Consequently he substitutes indifference and fatal theory for critical and for modes of analysis and critique. As Bogard maintains in his current commentary, Baudrillard claims to leave sociology behind and considers theory to be superfluous (Bogard's emphasis). But Bogard speaks in entirely different tones when countering illegitimate responses to Baudrillard and other postmodern theorists by thinkers who have been superseded. To invalidate appropriators, such as Seidman, Bogard argues that postmodern approaches do not really address To neutralize critics, such as Alexander, he contends that these perspectives have nothing to do with undermining or discipline-he recalls no argument about eclipse of sociological theory. Can this fork-tongued maneuver be taken as a serious critique, or is it an inept simulation? Rather than accepting Baudrillard's admission that he is pulling our legs, Bogard deploys his hyperbolic claims about total simulation and the end of social to dismiss theory, to pronounce uninteresting other sociologists' efforts to engage postmodern ideas, and to nullify critiques by nonbelievers (conservatives). Those who engage Baudrillard's challenge are censured for not being true believers. Except for musical