8 Standing Problems
Chapter Seven dwelt on the idea that conventionalist argument was pushed back from
nationalist and communitarian arguments by various forms of multiculturalism,
pluralism, and difference-based theories. The basic logic of the case is that every
community, nation, or ethnos can also be seen as being constituted by mul-
tiple, conventionally-based, sub-communities, sub-ethnie, and sub-cultures. Con-
sequently, conventionalism does not stop at the level of the nation, ethnos, republic,
or community; it potentially implodes into a labyrinth of sub-conventions and sub-
cultures. In this sense, foundationalism becomes a permanently receding option.
One of the important strands of argument, encountered in Chapter Seven, which has
been frequently employed to support the latter arguments, is the loose conglomerate
of postmodern and poststructural theorizing. This conglomerate (particularly post-
modernism) is a potentially unwieldy topic. In raising it within this chapter, I wish to
pursue one important theme—that postmodern theory pushes the logic of conven-
tionalism (in political theory) several steps beyond even difference theory. At least
within communitarianism, nationalism, or indeed liberal multiculturalism, there are
some foundational grounds on which the individual can justify, legitimate, or premise
moral or political action. Although it is difficult to generalize about the postmodern
and poststructural conglomerate, it is safe to say that a large part of its case has been
based on the idea that there arenosecure foundations for justification or legitimation
in political theory. This claim is premised upon a much more vigorous prosecution
of the conventionalist case, particularly in epistemology. Although the difference per-
spective does embody a fairly strong commitment to postmodern argument, it still
does not fully engage with the complete logic of the conventionalist position.
The logic of this conventionalist position leads in unexpected directions. As men-
tioned, one of these is to undermine the whole idea of any foundations in political
theory. However, thisnota wholly consistent picture. There is still, ironically, a deep
yearning, within areas of postmodern and poststructural theory, to recover some-
thing more secure, grounded, and meaningful. This yearning appears in the most
unlikely areas.
My argument in this chapter, in a nutshell, is that conventionalist argument, if
pursued, is profoundly still reductionist, although there are severaldegreesof reduc-
tionism. The committed postmodern or poststructural critic aims to track down
secure foundational commitments in all the remote and hidden corners of political
theory. Morality and politics are all just human conventions or artefacts, pure and
simple, with nothing to mediate between multiple incommensurable conventions.