{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02853133769878391, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006548175865294668, 'mean_word_length': 5.2, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Responses to Hugh Miller: Rethinking a Postmodern Perspective: A Reply to Miller's Postmodern Turn

I find Miller’s response to my particular criticism as puzzling (and somewhat troubling) and rather—given the logic of his augments—predictable. I may be indeed “whistling in the dark” (whatever that means) but my central point still stands based upon one fact alone: nowhere does Miller refute my basic contention that his book with Fox ignores some of the most pressing economic and political issues of the day. What worries me most about Miller’s argument—which has now taken a definitive postmodern turn—is the fact that, yes, postmodern may be correct in being skeptical concerning foundationists claims, yet, as Steven Best and Douglas Kellner (1991, p. 243) correctly articulate, “the creation of a just society requires establishing certain universal rights like equality, rule by law, freedom, and democratic participation and those postmodern theories which scorn these notions ultimately help conservative powers who are all too willing to put aside democratic rights, freedoms, and values.” To merely brush aside this criticism with a reply that I should write my own book only demonstrates, or exposes, the intellectual weakness of his position. In short, Miller wraps himself so much in the lexicon of postmodern thought I think he is beginning to suffocate himself in a “fetishism of anti-foundationalism and perspectivism” in that he dismisses, almost completely, the need to theorize macrostructures that exhibit totalizing tendencies such as the market society we live in and the gender or racial oppression that can penetrate with ease the plurality and differences pronounced in postmodern theory. Here, I think, Miller could benefit from a careful reading of Arendt and Camus who both insisted that what we desperately need in this “dark age” is “a forthright use of the language of right, freedom, and truth, and in their insistence that all forms of normality and power are not equally repressive, and that some universal norms of freedom are indispensable” (Isaac, 1992, p. 229). I can only imagine the reaction of