From
DAILY EXPRESS
Fish Story
by Peter Berkowitz
http://www.thenewrepublic.com/doc.mh...erkowitz062802

In the wake of the September 11 attacks, commentators on intellectual life from a variety of quarters, including The New York Times, Time magazine, and U.S. News and World Report, speculated that the war into which the United States had been thrust would force a new seriousness upon the nation. And they wondered whether one consequence would be a decline for postmodernist thinking--among both the scholars who propound it and the students who imbibe it. As the argument went, postmodernism--with its celebration of irony, its commitment to the subversive, its conviction that all morality is local, historical, and socially constructed--would soon find itself out of step with the temper of the times. ...
========
The rest of the article is devoted to the post-modernist professor, Stanley Fish.

I suppose post-modernism sometimes celebrates irony, although much of the time I just found it dreadfully pedantic and tiresome.

But more to the point, is it possible to argue there are moral absolutes while still accepting the idea that very different cultures can be morally equivalent? (or can they) Is it possible to have multiculturalism in a society if you have members with very different ideas of what is moral and acceptable?

How is this all going to work in any given pluralistic society?