Postmodernism

[A.R.Amistad]

I'm putting this in learning because I need a "for dummies" explanation of what it is. This ideology really confuses me. I am not at all saying that I am one, but why do so many people, Marxists in particular, find this philosophy so repulsive? again, I'm pure devil's avocate here. This philosophy sems to piss people off like no other ideology. My mom actually considers herself to be a staunch postmodernist. Its sort of her forte. Imo she has some Utopian views on socialism, but socialism is not her forte. Yet I always wondered why so many Marxists' blood boils when postmodernism is mentioned? What makes this philosophy so repulsive (if it is at all)?

[FriendlyLocalViking]

What are you referring to specifically with postmodernism?

Cuz I'm rather a fan of the steam/dieselpunk type postmodernism.

[28350]

From what I understand, Postmodernism basically says

People don't know dicks about shit.
Nothing really has any meaning, and nothing really has any substance.
I think there's a Chomsky quote about Pomo being useless because it doesn't do anything or something out there, but idk
I read a pretty good class analysis of it too, lemme see if I can track it down.

[A.R.Amistad]

From what I understand, Postmodernism basically says

Nothing really has any meaning, and nothing really has any substance.
I think there's a Chomsky quote about Pomo being useless because it doesn't do anything or something out there, but idk
I read a pretty good class analysis of it too, lemme see if I can track it down.


But see, as with most things, the opponents arguments and descriptions against postmodernism conflict with the description of postmodernism by postmodernists themselves.

I'm not a postmodernist, but I don't think thats what postmodernism is about. But maybe I am wrong.

[Sheldon]

Postmodernism is a pretty broad field so a bit of an overview of what precisely you're referring to would be helpful. In the meantime, here's my basic understanding of "postmodernism."

Depending on the speaker, postmodernism can be applied differently. At its crudest, it's a chronological term for the period following the "modern" period (hence, "post" modern) but this isn't all too helpful. As a philosophy, it essentially starts with the notion that there are no "grand narratives" (which is why some postmodern cheerleaders have told me that Nietzsche was a precursor to postmodernism--don't know if I agree, but that's what I've been told) and begins by deconstructing "modernist" notions. These are things like liberalism, human rights, marxism, democracy--and just about everything else you can imagine.

From this framework, I think that postmodernist criticism has a lot to offer but at some point it hits a wall of triviality. The statement of no "grand narratives" and the hyper-rationalist assault on rationality (as one of the foremost "modernist" concepts) leads postmodernism into a neurosis that it can't get itself out of. Theory gets commodified, language becomes increasing obtuse and postmodern theory loses its relevance to the proletarian movement.

That's my two cents on it, I'd recommend checking out a book entitled The Postmodern Prince by John Sanbonmatsu. It has a lot of interesting things to say about postmodern theory and its decline after the 1960s. I don't agree with all of his recommended solutions to this problem, but it's still a fascinating read.

Also, as FriendlyLocalViking mentions, postmodernism has an aesthetic dimension which, basically, calls for a combination of different sources (from different time periods, industries, etc) in the construction of some sort of visual project.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Postmodernism is seen by many people to corrode believe in absolutes, essentially negating belief in anything. History and struggle are reduced to competing "narratives". Academic "pomos" tend to downgrade class struggle and encourage various forms of identity politics and cultural struggles. Eurocommunism, largely derived from a neutered postmodernist version of Gramsci, wrecked the PCI and the original CPGB and also contributed to the identity politics of New Labour. A similiar process happened within the academic left in the US.

Postmodernism is seen as corroding the Enlightenment believe in progress and promoting a type of cultural relativism. In India leftist postmodernists such as Gayatri Spivak helped develop support for the reactionary BJP.
Meera Nanda discusses this on her website.

http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/vedic_science_Mira2.htm

[A.R.Amistad]

My Mother's claim is that it doesn't deny the applicability or the correctness of theories such as dialectical materialism, she says that all words are simply biased and always carry cultural, class and gender biases, and that one interpretation of reality should not be discounted. Again, not saying I agree but this is what I was told. One interesting thing she told me was that, if asked if God exists, a postmodernist would say "yes, God does exist. God may not exist materially, but one cannot deny that the idea of "God" has had a real and significant impact on peoples lives." I thought that made some sense, and wasn't opposed to humanism or historical materialism, Marxism, etc. God is nothing more than an idea, but ideas do exist. That was my Mom's explanation.

But still, why are Marxists so opposed, and society in general? What is its most repulsive characteristic?

I also heard there was a post-modern "view on the state." Any validity there?

[A.R.Amistad]

Postmodernism is seen by many people to corrode believe in absolutes, essentially negating belief in anything. History and struggle are reduced to competing "narratives". Academic "pomos" tend to downgrade class struggle and encourage various forms of identity politics and cultural struggles. Eurocommunism, largely derived from a neutered postmodernist version of Gramsci, wrecked the PCI and the original CPGB and also contributed to the identity politics of New Labour. A similiar process happened within the academic left in the US.

Postmodernism is seen as corroding the Enlightenment believe in progress and promoting a type of cultural relativism. In India leftist postmodernists such as Gayatri Spivak helped develop support for the reactionary BJP.
Meera Nanda discusses this on her website.

http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/vedic_science_Mira2.htm

Interesting. As always, Lenina, you give a refreshing answer which always appeals to me. I agree that there is "an objective reality." But I myself reject that there is any such thing as "meaning" except the meaning we give to things. After all, aren't even Newton's Laws of Physics subjective, even thought hey correctly map on to objective reality? The laws are there, but have no meaning other than what we humans give to them. We understand the laws in human terms, even if the laws do exist independently of consciousness. My understanding is that a pomo would say "yes, Newton's laws are correct, but so are some Chinese astronomer's laws of essentially the same thing, albeit written with a different cultural bias."

[Meridian]

Movies where the plot jumps around in time, not specifically following a single narrative, multiple characters or points of views, are also some times characterized as 'postmodern'. An example that comes to mind is 'Pulp Fiction'.

That is the only example of usage of the word "postmodernism" that I have actually understood. That, and the 'steampunk' style, which was mentioned.

Some postmodernist ideas remind me of Wittgenstein, but with more obscure words and frequent promulgation of philosophical theories (which is completely self-contradictory).


One interesting thing she told me was that, if asked if God exists, a postmodernist would say "yes, God does exist. God may not exist materially, but one cannot deny that the idea of "God" has had a real and significant impact on peoples lives." I thought that made some sense, and wasn't opposed to humanism or historical materialism, Marxism, etc. God is nothing more than an idea, but ideas do exist. That was my Mom's explanation.
Do you mean the word, "God"? Because the word clearly exists, and it is used quite commonly. However, unless someone can show otherwise, there is no need to resort to the existence of 'ideas'.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I'm far from an expert but my understanding is that Marxists fault academic pomos for taking their critique way too far. Foucoult, Derrida and others started out as Marxists but their critique has come to invalidate any theory of social change, including Marxism. Originally evolving out of a critique of the dehumaniing aspects of "western" science, some pomos equate such practices as shamanism, rain dancing, and the Indian caste system, with modern science. Who are we arrogant westerners to deny competing non-western narratives?

Postmodernism does have something to offer, its just that its been taken too far.This is probably not fair but there's been a stereotype of radical English profs writing manifestos w/titles like "Transgressing The Academy; Watching Jeopardy As A Means of Social Subversion" and preparing to storm the English Dept. but ignoring or even opposing real life struggles on their campus.

[A.R.Amistad]

Do you mean the word, "God"? Because the word clearly exists, and it is used quite commonly. However, unless someone can show otherwise, there is no need to resort to the existence of 'ideas'.

Ideas don't exist?

[A.R.Amistad]

I think I may have a Marxist/post-modern view on national cultures, thats why I'm not as much of a flag burner as other leftists. I think the Nation-State is a direct result of class oppression and needs to be vanquished. Still, I think even in a communist world cultural differences will exist because geographical differences also affect and inspire regional cultures. hence I respect all cultures and believe multiple cultures can exist side by side, with no class divisions or state divisions, and there not be any sort of problem. Thats my view on internationalism, and why I oppose attempts to unify the world into one single, homogeneous culture. I think that American, Mexican, Kenyan, Persian, etc. cultures are equally beautiful separate from the Nation States, but the cultural uniqueness will always exist as it always has because of geographical differences.

[proudcomrade]

Without attempting to answer for other comrades, here are a couple of things about it that get under my skin, briefly:

* shoddy logic couched in nonsensical jargon
* inspires nihilism in too many would-be comrades
* dated- v. typical '60s reaction vs. 50's
* ID politics trump class struggle/ Derrida's own biases apparent

[Invincible Summer]

My Mother's claim is that it doesn't deny the applicability or the correctness of theories such as dialectical materialism, she says that all words are simply biased and always carry cultural, class and gender biases, and that one interpretation of reality should not be discounted.

That's what gets me... it's basically a philosophical take on the PC "Every opinion is a good opinion!" or "We can agree to disagree on everything! We are all special!" b.s.

Because I'm a self-righteous bastard, I refuse to accept the fact that my ideas are "just as good" as some bigoted rich white guy that would rather see people lose their livelihoods than see his stock portfolio take a hit.


Without attempting to answer for other comrades, here are a couple of things about it that get under my skin, briefly:

* inspires nihilism in too many would-be comrades


Ah yeah... I'll admit I fall into this often

[Thirsty Crow]

In my opinions, postmodernism should be perceived as an entirely separate epoch in cultural history, one that is engendered by the changes in the very capitalist socio-economic formation.

It is not a philosophy, or rather - it wouldn't be completely accurate to refer to postm as a mode of philosophy. As Jameson put it - it is the "cultural logic of late capitalism" (one note: most poignantly, it is witnessed in USA; although, various indigenous cultures are being colonized by what was once referred to as "American cultural colonization" - and imperialism).

As such, (I'll paraphrase Jameson), postmodernism entails a weakening of historicity, meaning that the whole cultural production (theoretical as well) loses the sight of collective and public history; everything is drowned into the enthusiastic now of fleeting images - or stereotypes - which disable any productive linked with past lived experience. Here comes the poststructuralist theory (not philosophy!), most notably with Baudrillard's concept simulacrum, a "copy-without-an-original". And the proclaimed end of all "great narratives", whose emblem is in fact Fukuyama's proclamation of the end of history. And precisely Fukuyama's "proclamation" is very emblematic of postmodernity.

If one thinks and acts within the confines of radical leftist (Marxist) politics and theory, this celebration of the crisis, if not the end of history, is what is very problematic in the lived experience of postmodern culture and the reading experience of its theoretical apologetics.

[Meridian]

Ideas don't exist?
Well, if you think they do, how do they exist? In what way?

[A.R.Amistad]

Well, if you think they do, how do they exist? In what way?
well, I believe that human beings have an individual conscience, and aren't controlled by any sort of supernatural or Godly force (whether it is outright claimed as a "God" or it is called "Human Nature" or some other nonsense). Here's a definition of "Idea":


The content of conscious (http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/c7.htm#cnss) thought. Plato (http://www.philosophypages.com/ph/plat.htm) used the Greek word idea to designate the universal Forms (http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/f5.htm#forms). For modern representationalists (http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/r9.htm#repm) like Descartes (http://www.philosophypages.com/ph/desc.htm) and Locke (http://www.philosophypages.com/ph/lock.htm), however, ideas are the immediate objects of every mental activity. Ideas in this sense are supposed to represent things—present or absent—before the mind.

Meridian, I don't take you for a mystic or a determinist, but if you are denying ideas isn't that just as mystical and determinist? Doesn't denying ideas constitute denying consciousness, and isn't that just entirely mystical and determinist? If so, capitalist ideology doesn't exist and we need not combat it. Ideas exist, but not all ideas are correct.

[A.R.Amistad]

That's what gets me... it's basically a philosophical take on the PC "Every opinion is a good opinion!" or "We can agree to disagree on everything! We are all special!" b.s.

Because I'm a self-righteous bastard, I refuse to accept the fact that my ideas are "just as good" as some bigoted rich white guy that would rather see people lose their livelihoods than see his stock portfolio take a hit.


I would totally agree with you if you didn't present this argument in a self-righteous (and dare I say arrogant) way. I don't mean to attack you personally, but it is this sort of attitude that makes learning here so hard and generally unproductive. People have a chance at making a good, informed argument but make a prioiri and/or uninformed arguments and strawman-arguments. I really don't think postmodernism is that simple, as wrong as it may be. Please, for this and everything else, could we make sure we know what we are talking about before making harsh criticisms. This phenomenon happens all the time here and its annoying.

[Proletarian Ultra]

There was a good essay in Red Critique about this...I'll dig it up in the morning.

EDIT: Here it is: For a Materialist History of "Theory" (http://redcritique.org/FallWinter2008/foramaterialisthistoryoftheory.htm)

Basically argues it's a ruse to obfuscate class, with special attention to the role of the publishing industry in promoting Theory.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Aufheben, a British LC group, put out an interesting article part of which discusses postmodernism and its influence on the British left. The article is long but IMHO worth reading in total.

BTW I wish my Mom was a pomo. My parents are very conservative.My Mom complains about "illegal aliens" all the time. I just don't think this way.

http://libcom.org/library/croissant-roses-new-labour-muslim-britain




The ideological and political transition to New Labour

Post-modernism: The bridge from New left to New Labour

As early as the 1950s American sociologists had begun to argue that with the relative decline of American manufacturing industry, and the consequent growing economic importance of 'the service sector', America was becoming a 'post-industrial society'. In the early 1970s, drawing on such ideas, historians of art and, in particular architecture, began to argue that this economic and sociological transition was being reflected in a cultural shift away from the 'modernism' associated with the industrialization of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, to 'post-modernist' forms of art and architecture By the late 1970s, these ideas were broadened, and given much greater philosophical depth, with their merger with the various strands of post-structuralist philosophy emanating from France. The various and often mutually inconsistent theories and notions that resulted, which came to be known under the rather broad rubric of post-modernism, swept across the faculties of the social sciences and the humanities of Britain's universities in the 1980s.

The ideas of post-modernism, and more particularly post-structuralism, had a strong appeal to the rising generation of academics who had benefited from the large-scale expansion of higher education in the 1960s and that, as a consequence, had been drawn from a much broader section of society than any previous generation of academics.

First of all, for those who had been radicalized by their involvement in the new left and the counter-culture, but who had now given up all hope that there would be any immediate revolutionary change in society - and had consequently 'sold out' and embarked on an academic career - post-modernism offered a means to preserve their sense of being radical and critical. Indeed, post-modernism often drew on many of the political and cultural themes of the counter-culture and the new left and, what is more seemed to give them a more radical theoretical and philosophical basis. As a result, post-modernism could appear to many young academics at the time as being, at least theoretically, far more radical than the rather 'outdated' nineteenth century ideas of revolutionary Anarchism or Marxism that they had once adopted in their student days.

History and progress, and hence the very claim that Western civilization was in some way more advanced than other societies and cultures, was merely a fiction. As such, history as known by Hegel, Marx and other Enlightenment figures, was merely a 'grand narrative'. There was no such thing as history, only a multitude of stories; and hence there was no such thing as historical progress (hence it was meaningless to talk of something being progressive or reactionary).

By the end of the 1980s post-modernism had reached it apogee. The university departments that were most susceptible to post-modernism had by then already become colonized. The notion of 'post-modernism', and a vague understanding of the ideas associated with it, had now become a part of the common knowledge of the 'educated classes' beyond the walls of the lecture theatre. 'Post-modernism continued to have an appeal to the social milieus associated with Britain's rapidly expanding cultural, media and advertising industries. However, for those of the post-68 generation who were on the verge of taking senior positions in the management of British capital and state, the intellectual nihilism of post-modernism, while retaining a certain fascination for some, was of little practical use in running the everyday reality of capitalism.

With the self-indulgent obscurantism of much of its writings, its glaring logical incoherence, together with the startling ignorance of the natural sciences it claimed to critique and the injudicious remarks concerning world affairs of its more vulgar proponents - most notoriously Baudrillard's insistence that the Gulf War did not happen - only served to open post-modernism up to ridicule and hasten its decline. By the early 1990s post-modernism was becoming distinctly passé. With the collapse of the USSR, and the consequent neo-liberal triumphalism, it became fashionable once again for intellectuals to speak of 'progress', 'modernization' and the 'end of history'.

Nevertheless, despite its decline, post-modernism was to have two distinct, if at times contradictory, legacies for the new ruling ideology that was to find its clearest political expression in the then emerging New Labour 'project'. First and foremost, post-modernism was to bequeath a strong predisposition towards cultural relativism within this emerging ruling ideology. As such post-modernism was to provide the intellectual basis for the relativist multicultural consensus, which insisted on the difference and incommensurability between cultures, that, as we shall see, was to influence much of New Labour's thinking on social policy.

Secondly, post-modernism, for all its supposed ultra-radicalism, paved the way for the acceptance of neo-liberalism and market fundamentalism, which was to be the defining element of the New Labour project. The pseudo-radicalism of post-modernism was always readily apparent as soon as its principal proponents were lured out of the comfort of their academic preoccupations to address some concrete political issue, when, almost invariably, they would reveal themselves to be either middle of the road liberals or conservatives. But this was not due to the proponents of post-modernism falling short of their theory, but was inherent in post-modernist theory itself. In denying the 'modernist' and enlightenment appeals to reason, history and reality, post-modernism denied any actual possibility for systematic total social transformation. Post-Modernists either had to be content, like Foucault, with the fragmentary reformism of everyday life; or else, like Baudrillard, to an inherently conservative acceptance of the inevitability and inescapability of what simply is. Such resigned acceptance easily slipped into a celebration of the freedom and individualistic hedonism of the market. After all, it could be argued for example that by playing with the ever shifting semiotics of differing commodities, the free market allows the consumer to constantly redefine their image, and hence roles and identities through what they buy. As a consequence, the well paid post-modernist academic could easily conclude that shopping could be a subversive activity.

At least as far as the educated and upwardly mobile 'class of 68' were concerned, it could be said that post-modernism did more to bring about the acceptance of neo-liberalism than any of its chief advocates, such as Hayek or Freidman, could have dreamed of doing through their explicit polemics and propaganda. But, of course, there was a certain irony in all this in that post-modernism ended up contributing to the resurrection of the most pervasive of all 'meta-narratives'