Postmodernism

egon spengler

what are your views on it? The idea that all master narratives have collapsed is problemmatic in itself given that such an idea is a master narrative. Yet if postmodernism were to become totally naturalised would not this idea become naturalised so that it is no longer an idea but a statement of understanding rather than thinking? Is totality by necessity unapproachable given that we live in a universe of approximations. If the universe is finite though, would this not mean that at some point science could describe everything including human discourses and thought? In that case the dissolution of narratives idea would be a contradiction as totality would be attained. Will science ever approach this level of sophistication, unlikely, but there is still the possibility. Science according to Lyotard is a denotative narrative or language game, so it would be narrative describing all narratives including itself in totality.

DadaKopf

I think it rocks.

So, when's the essay due in?

the real ramon

I used to like MTV postmodern back in the day when MTV was good and music was good. Sonic Youth: best thing about postmodernism!

McGinty

I can't say I understand your thread, could you explain please?

Laplandman

Many if's; one but: Universe not finite. IMHO.

Rubberbandits

I think postmodernism is getting very old, especially in popular culture. But what will follow? And is there any evidence of a movement which may overtake it?

Galvia

Rubberbandits wrote:

I think postmodernism is getting very old, especially in popular culture. But what will follow? And is there any evidence of a movement which may overtake it?

Jacques Dirrade died last year. His philosophy did not die with him.

Rubberbandits

Galvia wrote:

Jacques Dirrade died last year. His philosophy did not die with him.

But, of recent are we not seeing a return to fundamentalism. Since september 11th the American and Muslim communities appear to be much more public about their religious leanings. Is this not a rebirth of the acceptance of Meta Narratives? This trend like any other is trickling into Western popular cullture. On a personal level I know alot of young people in their late teens and early twentys that are becoming born again Christians. It is becoming "cool". These people that I know are blindly accepting and defending the Meta Narrative that is preached to them in the face of rationality. Even last week in a glossy magazines that came inserted in one of the sunday broadsheets (not sure which one, maybe The Irish Times) there was a large feature about the number of young Irish people returning to Catholicism. I see this as a rebellion against the postmodern scepticism expressed by "uncool adults" towards catholicism throughout the ninetees. I am not attacking postmodernism and yes Jacques Derrida was a legend. I am a huge fan of postmodern Art, Music, Literature etc. However the natural order of things dictates that it will be replaced, it is simple social psychology. Also, I would hardly call postmodernism Jacques Derrida's philosophy as the man himself never even used the word. He was extremely influential in postmodernism but strictly speaking he was a deconstructionist.

DadaKopf

These people that I know are blindly accepting and defending the Meta Narrative that is preached to them in the face of rationality.

The point many post-moderns and critical theorists make is that it's 'rationality' itself that has failed and so it's the 'post-modern condition', the post-ideological age that has actually created the conditions of possibility for religious fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is happening because of the breakdown of Enlightenment rationalism. It's not the return of it. To me, it only confirms the post-modern condition is strong as ever.

But you can't speak about 'postmodernism' as if it's one theory, but there are various preoccupations: the exhaustion of the Enlightenment project and its promises, the discovery of that project as a source of oppression, the function of language in those power complexes, the decentering of man from the world.

I don't really yet see a single 'meta-narrative' emerging that's somehow exterior to the postmodern turn. We're still dealing with multiple narratives within a broader context of global capitalism, which is itself postmodern because it perpetually mutates. It perpetually sews the seeds of its own destruction and leaves sites of resistence, which perpetuates its discipline.

Also, I would hardly call postmodernism Jacques Derrida's philosophy as the man himself never even used the word. He was extremely influential in postmodernism but strictly speaking he was a deconstructionist.

Actually no. He would have used the term post-modern, but would have found it meaningless. Also, he never called himself a 'deconstructionist' - he flatly rejected the idea that his critique was an -ism of any kind. He critiqued phenomenology and found, at the heart of philosophy, the seeds of its own destruction. He sought to show how categories and oppositions are arbitrary, merely the function of language, which is artificial, but something which structures our world nonetheless. He said that he developed a technique, or method he called 'deconstruction', but he wasn't a deconstructionist.

Galvia

Rubberbandits wrote:

I am not attacking postmodernism and yes Jacques Derrida was a legend. I am a huge fan of postmodern Art, Music, Literature etc. However the natural order of things dictates that it will be replaced, it is simple social psychology. Also, I would hardly call postmodernism Jacques Derrida's philosophy as the man himself never even used the word. He was extremely influential in postmodernism but strictly speaking he was a deconstructionist.

Perhaps Derrida's method and a revised postmodernist perspective?

But by referring to social psychology (i.e. change), were you suggesting that no one theory could stand the test of time?

DadaKopf

Galvia, have you actually read this thread? Not to be rude, but (1) you've repeated what some people have said, and (2) you use a lot of big words.

Galvia wrote:

Yes, a deconstructionist, and one that launched a different method of observation contrary to that held by those before him.

He didn't "launch" postmodern thought, saying so implies a metanarrative. Postmodern thought was, is, a protean response to changes engendered by modernity.

Galvia wrote:

Postmodernism was a philosophy in need of a method, and Derrida supplied substantial portions of it with deconstructionism; i.e., you really cannot talk about one without referring to the other at some point.

I thought the point of postmodernity is the realisation that the world cannot be subsumed under one "method". The postmodern view is that all narratives are equal. Again, implying a metanarrative.

Although you're right about mentioning "the other" in terms of deconstruction, it misses the broader, unifying agenda: that words/signs constantly defer meaning so that language (literature, visual art etc., scientific models, speech) are open to constant play and interpretation. The political project of postmodern thought is itself a response to the horrors of totalitarian ideology, which used words and signs to enslave people. When the connection between word and object is discovered to be arbitrary, the connection between model and power can be interrogated and torn asunder. Derrida's mission was to prevent any ideas from calcifying.

Galvia wrote:

The Derrida method flies in the face of Weberian rationalisation, and all its positivistic children, especially the "march of rationalisation" inherent in the Weberian typology of authority structures (i.e., charismatic > traditional > rational-legal), as well as the Hegelian modus for change (Weber's value rational vs. instrumental rational results in synthesis).

Many of philosophers "fly in the face of Weberian rationalisation". Many other sociologists etc. repeat his mistake, including Hegel, Talcott Parsons, Walt Rostow, Karl Marx. Weber's characterisation of authority is inadequate and assumes (to a significant degree, though not exclusively) a process towards some non-existent, purely rational society - it's 'teleological' in philosophy-speak. There are many ways and reasons people obey, including apathy, and people constantly go back and forth and even hold contradictory positions simultaneously.

Galvia wrote:

It would appear that a reversal from instrumentally rational/rational-legal to value rational/traditional (i.e. fundamentalist religion) via charismatic flies in the face of the positivistic "march of rationalisation" predicted through Weberian methods, suggesting that Weber got it wrong in the first place, and that an alternative method may be more apropos? Perhaps Derrida's method and a revised postmodernist perspective?

I don't really how you, in one paragraph, reject Weber's typology, and in the next use it to defend Derrida. If you reject Weber's scientism, then I don't think you can build an argument. Actually, you first assume that Weber's typology is teleological (a process with no reverse gear) - actually it's a continuum with forward and reverse. It's the arbitrary categorisation of the human subject and forms of life that is the underlying issue here. So your point here is moot.

If you're attacking scientism, you'd be better off, in my opinion, bringing up the critiques of Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer. They 'deconstructed' Enlightenment rationality when Derrida was still an obscure Husserl critic, and developed an interpretation of the dialectic that comes very close to Derrida's deconstruction - and more convincingly, I think. They're the ones who developed the idea of the 'open dialectic' (a non-teleological dialectic) and 'instrumental rationality'.

Galvia wrote:

I would also agree that, strictly speaking, Derrida would not have labeled himself a deconstructionist or a postmodernist, or any "ist" or "ism" for that matter. Unfortunately, for discussion purposes, we have to call it something, and for this discussion I elected to call his method deconstructionist.

This was why I asked if you read the thread at all. And, no, you don't have to call it 'deconstructionism', you can call it 'deconstruction', or the 'deconstructive method'.

Galvia wrote:

But at the same time, Derrida would not have accepted the "march" of social psychology, which is, in essence a restatement of positivism.

Actually, there's a middle-way being banged out in different circles: social-constructivism. It aims to reconcile positivism and postmodernism. Very difficult, and at least in geopolitical areas of research, it's only ended up in the co-option of postmodern ideas into basically positivist sociological and realist outlooks. But in philosophy and sociology circles, things look more productive.

If, by refering to social psychology, the purpose was to state that change is a constant, then perhaps additional perspectives could have also been mentioned that support this notion of change, including Hegelian dialectical materialism (thesis vs. antithesis > synthesis). But by referring to social psychology (i.e. change), were you suggesting that no one theory could stand the test of time?

Could you explain your ideas about social psychology? I don't fully understand.

the real ramon

Rubberbandits wrote:

. I see this as a rebellion against the postmodern scepticism expressed by "uncool adults" towards catholicism throughout the ninetees.

partly, but also it's an unwillingness to approach the many difficult ethical questions facing us in the post-ideological age head-on. Questions such as abortion, testing on animals have become much trickier philosophically than they were prior to the nineties. Some people would rather hide away blindly accepting easy 'truths'. Besides, most people need religion, and someone once said that if you don't give children a small dose of it early-on they will not be innoculated against the more fundamentalist streams of religion, which I thought was an interesting way to think about it!

Rubberbandits

the real ramon wrote:

someone once said that if you don't give children a small dose of it (religion) early-on they will not be innoculated against the more fundamentalist streams of religion

Very interesting point indeed.

muesli_offire

Originally posted by Dadakopf:
Actually, there's a middle-way being banged out in different circles: social-constructivism. It aims to reconcile positivism and postmodernism. Very difficult, and at least in geopolitical areas of research, it's only ended up in the co-option of postmodern ideas into basically positivist sociological and realist outlooks. But in philosophy and sociology circles, things look more productive.

But constructivism, (cognitive; social; whichever) is a far from recent phenomenon.

It is interesting that you should describe it as a via media between the positivistic and the postmodern, as I would have assumed the writings/flux-books/schizophrenic machines of constructivist thinkers (and boy do they think) like Gilles Deleuze/Felix Guattari ( I have 'A Thousand Plateaus' in mind mostly),e t c, to be thoroughly postmodern.

As for reconciling positivism and postmodernism, I have as little grasp of the dimensions of the former concept and even less of the latter, but I would imagine that positivism, bearing as it does such 'negative' (:D ) connotations would be an example of the kind of 'arborescent', or hierarchical/symmetrical/substantive thought which a constructivistic 'rhizomatic' or asymmetrical/anti-essentialistic thought, abhors according to Deleuze-Guattari.

Deleuze's 'immanent ontology' is, I gather, rhizomatic. I know that he reads Nietzsche as an empiricist, but again positivism seems like a term with a lot of historical baggage.

I suppose if you see postmodernism as a despair at the continued operation of philosophy with and within the category of the 'social' itself, then constructivism is productive as it tries to gesture beyond such skepticism to reach a new standpoint by creating original concepts.

I suppose (?) this process has its historical correlates in the developmental/educational psychologies of Piaget and Vygotsky, the latter maintaining that a person's learning can reach beyond their culturally mediated capacities, or 'zone of proximal development' (ZDP) by creative means.

I just picked up an excerpt from A Thousand Pleataus cos I felt the concept of the social was a bit dubious in much mid-late C20 philosophy, (Adorno and Horkheimer especially) so i was attracted personally to the alleged invigoration of said barbarism by Deleuze. I was also approaching a nihilistic perspective from which the idea of socially-constructed meaning, thought, even physicality seemed a decent alternative to agreeing with the statement that when something happens 'a wizard did it.'

Galvia

DadaKopf wrote:

Galvia, have you actually read this thread? Not to be rude, but (1) you've repeated what some people have said, and (2) you use a lot of big words.

Given that it would appear from your above comment that I must have proceeded somewhat uninformed, and in using too many "big words" (obviously suggesting that I was unqualified to enter this discussion in the first place), I do appreciate the extent to which you responded to my comments.

DadaKopf wrote:

Although you're right about mentioning "the other" in terms of deconstruction, it misses the broader, unifying agenda: that words/signs constantly defer meaning so that language (literature, visual art etc., scientific models, speech) are open to constant play and interpretation.

Perhaps Jacques Derrida would have agreed with your comment, but then again, perhaps he would have also observed that our dialogue says more about us as authors and actors than the subject of the thread?

DadaKopf wrote:

Could you explain your ideas about social psychology? I don't fully understand.

I was responding more to the word "simple" offered in an earlier post (Rubberbandits) as a foregone conclusion and merely supported by reference to a discipline without citations or other forms of intersubjective support. I would think that "complex" would be a better word, provided that it's not too big.

Rubberbandits

Galvia wrote:

I was responding more to the word "simple" offered in an earlier post (Rubberbandits).

I really should have written "In My opinion" before that one.

Neuro

Postmodernism is the refuge of the mediocre thinker - those who lack the intellectual ability to make a name for themselves using 'classical' thought alone. By declaring everything relative and arguing that objective truth cannot be known, everyone becomes an 'expert' since no one theory can be argued as superior to any other.

Some interesting books on the topic of postmodernism:

Fashionable Nonsense

Higher Superstition

That's just my 2c...

DadaKopf

Why is this different from people who use religion as a refuge from harsh realities and tough choices? This isn't a comment about religion and the harshness of religious paths to 'truth', but people who don't bother with it beyond it as a palliative.

And why should everyone be forced to accept 'classical' thought, whatever that is?

And the point about the post-modern turn isn't actually that we can retreat into selfish solipsism as liberal capitalist ideology says we can - it's the opposite, it's the statement that we're all intersubjectively linked and therefore responsible for ourselves and to others and that we have the power to change things. Which makes moral quests more difficult because there's no ready-made formula. Therefore we're challenged to genuinely, openly communicate and exchange meaning - more morally responsible, I think - not hide behind exclusivist moral or ethnic identities.

Galvia

Galvia wrote:

Jacques Derrida... perhaps he would have... observed that our dialogue says more about us as authors and actors than the subject of the thread?

egon spengler

Whoa, this thread exploded and has gotten very complex. A few things I see wrong with postmodernism, and this is only my opinion so here we go...

In terms of music there a complete absence of originality- bands like the artic monkeys, franz ferdinand, they just revive the 80s and its fashionable moreso on the basis of appearance and arousing nostalgia rather than on content. The music itself is devoid of innovation or originality. There exists within music though, streams of modernism and its a question of gradients in this case. Radiohead can be claimed to be postmodern in borrowing from the styles of electronica artists or like dinosaur jr yet the over-riding aspect of their music is modernist. Kid A is hardly pluralist, its challenging. Radiohead have a distinctive sound and could be described as an auteur band. Queen also possess a distinctive sound and brought something new to rock. What I see today is an absence of innovation. Just pandering to mass audience tastes or the cynical view of what mass audience tastes are and what sells, nostalgia being one of them.

In films like Sin City or Pulp Fiction the emphasis is again on the image. An advertisement for Sin City stated that you have to buy it because its one of the "coolest" films of the year. But is it any good? Its all about appearance, the elimination of depth and its replacement by surface reality.

One thing I realized recently is that universities are becoming commodified themselves. Its always about more results, more degrees how it will serve the economy. It seems that market logic is all encompassing and is all important. I dont understand this. Why should market logic take precedence over human/ social concerns. The drilling for oil in the artic, its profitable but it will destroy the environment and whatever you say about it, it is a human concern. The destruction of the environment affects us and yet it continues senselessly, because to halt car production etc would damage western economies. Its almost as if the market by its size becomes abstracted from the people who participate in it, who run it. Or maybe its again that small clique of country club bussinessmen who dont give a **** about anyone else including their future descendents.

This kind of atomized thinking gets deflected onto the rest of society. People are becoming more self interested. The breakdown of narratives, the rise of subjectivity is linked to this. Im all for lyotards democratic pluralism, I mean we should be skeptical about what narratives but not to the point of nihilism or relativism where every narrative is as legitimate as the other.

DadaKopf

Thanks for getting involved in the discussion. First of all, isn't 'postmodernism' just a blanket term for a multitude of views? So we shouldn't oversimplify.

But if we accept the term for a second, then I think you're going after the boogeyman in a sense because 'post-modernism' could be seen as 'late modernism' - it's the working out of what is conveniently called 'modernity'. It's the symptom of modernity, which is, broadly speaking the social reality of industrial capitalism. Modernity mutated itself.

The irony of modernism is that the search for one true theory of the world produced myriads, all in quicker succession. Think about how many discreet art movements developed in Europe within the space between 1890 and 1939. More than all the rest of European history. At the same time, consumerism (the ideology of consumption as a corollary to liberal capitalism) emerged and so graphics/cultural artefacts began to serve the needs of producers and businessmen (mostly men, rarely women). So, in postmodern parlence, the sign became so disconnected from the reference (here context emerges as the source of meaning and truth with a small 't) that they took on their own reality.

So, maybe there are two postmodernisms: the first is a radical critique of the situation we find ourselves in and an attempt to 'fix' the problems you rightly illustrate; the second is the utilisation of postmodern theories to justify and service production, consumption and the accumulation of wealth, in effect, co-opting the critques, mutating them and hollowing out their dangerous ideas, leaving only those that serve production, consumption and wealth accumulation.

herbieflowers

egon spengler wrote:

In terms of music there a complete absence of originality

Could the same thing have been said at the end of the 50s, 60s, 70s etc.? I agree with your point, but on the same note (pun intended) let's not be too morose about it. The "everythng's been done" argument is nonsense! Who could've predicted the Beatles or Hendrix - and their characteristic music - at the time it came out?

DadaKopf

time it came out

Exactly. Context is everything.

egon spengler

herbieflowers wrote:

Could the same thing have been said at the end of the 50s, 60s, 70s etc.? I agree with your point, but on the same note (pun intended) let's not be too morose about it. The "everythng's been done" argument is nonsense! Who could've predicted the Beatles or Hendrix - and their characteristic music - at the time it came out?

perhaps, but postmodernism really became a cultural dominant by the 1970s. Rock music is effectively a modernist form as it fashions something new and distinctive (rock) out of blues etc. Artists like Hendrix and the Beatles were within that milieu. Since then there has been a recession of originality. There have been distinctive genres which have emerged like dance or rap although its hard to determine whether they are modernist or postmodernist since they rely on sampling other peoples music although they have their own distinctiveness as genres. But there has definately been a decline.

jrey1981

The idea that the critiques of postmodernity were used / co-opted into justifying capitalism would fit into the context of how certain values and ideas of the 1960s and 70s were seized upon and twisted to suit consumerist ends.

This in itself was perhaps history repeating itself, given that it had happened before to a certain extent in the 1800s

muesli_offire

OK to keep the ball rolling, cos its an important debate and all tha.

Originally Posted by Dadakopf
Exactly. Context is everything.

Scanning for sarcasm...seems clean.

But I'm puzzled. Maybe you are just recycling one of the platitudes usually churned out with regard to postmodernism, ie.'context'?

Of course there's nothing wrong with that but I remain ambivalent. I mean yes, on the one hand philosophy -whether understood as a futurism or a history of ideas, or both, or neither- ought to be contextual.

But is this not a frightfully dull observation? I mean what isn't contextual?

Postmodernism might signify the breakdown of phenomenological and hermenutical discourses, those peskiest of context-mongers.

I suppose it depends on how postmodern you think Heidegger is, Freud is, Merlau-ponty, Derrida, whoever, but I reckon that for some, the biggest
catalyst for a postmodern 'turn' of some sort was the impetus to search beyond the axis of a phenomenology or a psychology whose interpretative-epistemological avenues
had become exhausted. One might call them narratives in that they deal with and express a chronology through their problematizing of historicity - but is this very
often with a view to the legibility of 'context', and so if one sees discontinuity, rupture and illegibility as aspects of historicity, one might reject them as metanarratives, or totalizations , or whatever your gripe-du-jour is, and so be labelled postmodernist.
Or you might just do it different from Heidegger.

One might look at Foucault's preference for an archaeological method rather than a phenomenological one in 'Les Mots et les choses' as a critical juncture. Sure, this work is contextual in that it tries to situate things but that doesn't imply, say, 'situatedness' in some Heideggerian sense. Foucault rejects 'the' phenomenological approach, the subject-specific historicity of can be viewed as a lapse, or indeed blatant retrogression, into a transcendentalist order of things.

Ermmm, I suppose my point is that notions of context are several, if not multiple. I am aware that to lump together any of the extremely diverse thinkers I have name-checked for the sake of identifying some powerful axis of epistemological evil isnt very helpful, I was just curious as to whether maybe someone has an opinion on how 'context' may or may not have ceased to figure in philosophising? Its a bugger of a bastard of a bitch. I'm not sure I even know what the question means.