Postmodernism?

[ComradeAllende]

I've heard the word "postmodernism" tossed about, usually in deep philosophical conversations, but I never seem to have gotten the basic definition of it. Can someone give me a dumbed-down explanation of postmodernist principles and basic tenets?

[Cliff Paul]

Kind of hard to sum post-modernism into a short definition. So many different theories - post-structuralism, deconstructionism, whatever the fuck Baudrillard does are part of the post-modernist tendency. Perhaps the best way to describe post-modernism is that it's a way of thinking, of approaching issues. David Harvey gives a good summary of the differences between modernist thinking and post-modernist thinking here:

https://yoseph2010.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/0070280802001.png

[Hatshepsut]

Postmodernists basically reject the idea that there's an objective reality. They argue that each person creates her or his own reality through personal experience.

That's a blatant oversimplification; there's more to it in the posts above mine. Postmodernism emerged as a reaction against logical positivism, the philosophical orientation toward ontology and epistemology which was dominant in the early 20th century.

[andie holland]

Post-modernism poses the question as to the possibilities of doing philosophy after the demise of Modernism, which is loosely defined as the means and ends of reason. Therefore, 'post-mod' assumes that the claims of reason as somewhat of an absolute have already been proven false.

The key player, of course, is Descartes, with support from Aristotle. 'I think, therefore I am', of course, but also the presupposed ability to claim what we sense and commit to reason is real in a way which we'd now call 'common sense'.

Most writers see this fall coming with Nietzsche's perspectivism. What we are is a 'will to power'. Yet many, including Negri, see the pushback as early as Spinoza, who wrote that reason only serves our basic striving (conatus).

In this vein, one can easily imagine Marx's claim that 'the prevalent ideas of a society are those of its ruling class' is anti-modernist, too: there is no pure reason other than its application.

In this respect, it's not that post-mods reject the existence of an objective reality , but rather, that we do not possess the means of discovering it. Returning to Kant, as homo sapiens, we're rigged up with certain capacities that serve our own ends-- that later evolutionists would claim to be 'adaptive'.

OTH, knowing what's 'really' true in a larger sense would presuppose a mind given in the image of god. This, again, is the Cartesian mind. Without it, ewe have to inquire as to the means and ends of thought itself--the real challenge to modernism as such.


Postmodernists basically reject the idea that there's an objective reality. They argue that each person creates her or his own reality through personal experience.

That's a blatant oversimplification; there's more to it in the posts above mine. Postmodernism emerged as a reaction against logical positivism, the philosophical orientation toward ontology and epistemology which was dominant in the early 20th century.

[RedMaterialist]

I've heard the word "postmodernism" tossed about, usually in deep philosophical conversations, but I never seem to have gotten the basic definition of it. Can someone give me a dumbed-down explanation of postmodernist principles and basic tenets?

Some random thoughts.

It seems to be pretty much agreed that post-modernism is what came after modernism. So what was modernism, how long did it last, etc. My view is that modernism began in 1914 with WWI; modernism was the cultural, philosophical, historical form of imperialistic capitalism. This is why structure, objectivity, liberal values, were so important to modernism. Imperialism was imposing Western structure, objectivity and values on the rest of the world.

So, when did modernism end? 1945 at Auschwitz and Hiroshima might be a good date. No one could pretend any more that Western, liberal values were the highest values.

But also, Western, nationalistic imperialism was replaced by international, monopolistic, monolithic corporate capitalism. The modern corporation doesn't pretend to have any values at all, except for the single-minded pursuit of profit. The only value of post-modern capitalism is the subjective, de-centered, de-structured value of consumerism.

Post-modernism is what you get with late-stage, monopolistic capitalism. Modernism was Henry Ford and Picasso; post-modernism is Amazon and Quentin Tarantino.

Post-modernism is the empty space between capitalism and socialism.

[Hit The North]

Postmodernists basically reject the idea that there's an objective reality. They argue that each person creates her or his own reality through personal experience.


Attributing this kind of solipsism to postmodernism is, I think, not just over-simplified but actually incorrect. It is more that they reject the idea that reality can be described from a central, privileged point of view. That one's position and experiences will influence one's perspective of the world. That one cannot prove an objective truth but only offer various interpretations of that truth and that there is, in the end, no objective way of privileging one interpretation over the another.

In a way, Marx pre-empts this idea by linking epistemology with the class struggle.




So, when did modernism end? 1945 at Auschwitz and Hiroshima might be a good date. No one could pretend any more that Western, liberal values were the highest values.


Could anyone pretend that Western liberal values were superior to any others after the catastrophe and human carnage of the first world war?

One of the key cultural responses to the 1914/18 war was DADA and its rejection of Western artistic values. Wasn't this a rejection of modernism and the beginnings of what came later to be called postmodernism? And what about Surrealism, which quickly followed DADA, with its rejection of rationalism and realist ontology?

[Guardia Rossa]

Does Postmodernism aid the proletariat class struggle?
Or does it harms it?

[RedMaterialist]

Could anyone pretend that Western liberal values were superior to any others after the catastrophe and human carnage of the first world war?

One of the key cultural responses to the 1914/18 war was DADA and its rejection of Western artistic values. Wasn't this a rejection of modernism and the beginnings of what came later to be called postmodernism? And what about Surrealism, which quickly followed DADA, with its rejection of rationalism and realist ontology?

Good point. But all wars are catastrophic and cause human carnage. The Holocaust and Hiroshima have become signifiers of an entirely new kind of human destruction.

Dadaism described itself as "anti-art," a reaction against not only the capitalism of WWI but also modern art in general. It certainly was a rejection of modernism. But it mostly died out in the 20s and 30s, while modernism continued to develop along with international capitalism. Some, in my view, artistic, literary examples of modernism are The Sun Also Rises, Ulysses, Faulkner, D.H. Lawrence, modern film, etc. All of this is essentially different from, say, a typical novel of late Victorianism.

Marx was far ahead of his time in being a modernist. But he is also ahead of his time in being an anti-post modernist. After pomo comes socialism when the great Marx will return. Not that Marx would want to be an icon.

Dadaism might have been a reaction against modern capitalism, but it is, as Marx showed, the economic system itself which produces a general art form. Dadaism had to remain a reaction until capitalism transformed into something else, which I argue, leads to post-modernism.

So, on the one hand we have a reaction against an economic system, and on the other a development out of the new economic system. Post moderns are usually very comfortable with late capitalism. And why shouldn't they be? They are its children.

[Hit The North]

Good point. But all wars are catastrophic and cause human carnage. The Holocaust and Hiroshima have become signifiers of an entirely new kind of human destruction.


Sure, but the point isn't which war was most destructive, but at which point the confidence of modernism began to falter and open up spaces for challenge. If modernism was the child of the fin de siecle (which I suggest it was), based as it was on a claim to rational control over the economy and international relations, then the outbreak of war in 1914 was a massive trauma to the legitimacy of those claims.


Dadaism described itself as "anti-art," a reaction against not only the capitalism of WWI but also modern art in general. It certainly was a rejection of modernism. But it mostly died out in the 20s and 30s, while modernism continued to develop along with international capitalism.In the age of mechanical reproduction, no art form really dies, but continues a zombie existence within the circulation of cultural commodities (in fact this is one of the conditions which produces postmodernism in various artistic fields: Dada depended upon the reproduction of images and text in order to subvert the original, through montage and radical juxtaposition).


Some, in my view, artistic, literary examples of modernism are The Sun Also Rises, Ulysses, Faulkner, D.H. Lawrence, modern film, etc. All of this is essentially different from, say, a typical novel of late Victorianism.
Well, none of those writers are late Victorian writers, but anyway. I've often heard the claim that Joyce's Ulysses is a work of high modernism, but what do you think makes it an example of the modernist novel?

I think this is a problem with all attempts to periodise the emergence of postmodernism. Not only did it emerge at different times in different disciplines, but also it is difficult to define what modernism is, which is certainly a precondition for understanding what postmodernism is.

A related problem is that the identification of modernism is actually simultaneous with the discovery of postmodernism. It is a retrospective category. T.S. Elliot, Joyce, Falkner, Stravinski and Picasso, etc., did not go about their business claiming to represent "the modernist school". It is a label imposed by critics who have to engage in a good deal of generalising and framing in order to make their categories coherent.

Another problem, I guess, is that no cultural movement exists alone and it is precisely the dominant movement which produces oppositional alternatives. But generally, most artists and thinkers do not operate consciously within these categories. So, for instance, in Marx, we have claims toward relativity (knowledge in class society is a class power and shaped by class struggle and is ideological) and we have claims about universal processes (historical materialism).


Dadaism might have been a reaction against modern capitalism, but it is, as Marx showed, the economic system itself which produces a general art form.
Well, postmodernism itself is a reaction to modernism. But where does Marx show that it is "the economic system itself which produces a general art form"? Perhaps your use of the term "general art form" is mistaken? But I doubt Marx would have subscribed to such a crude formulation. Obviously, technology and particular relations of production shape cultural production, but is there anything within "the economic system" which would determine the rise of, say, Serialism?


Dadaism had to remain a reaction until capitalism transformed into something else, which I argue, leads to post-modernism. Sorry, are you claiming that postmodernism is something which replaces capitalism? Last time I looked, we still lived in a global capitalist system.


So, on the one hand we have a reaction against an economic system, and on the other a development out of the new economic system. Which new economic system are referring to?


Post moderns are usually very comfortable with late capitalism. And why shouldn't they be? They are its children.
I'm confused. Is "late capitalism" a different mode of production from capitalism in your opinion?

[RedMaterialist]

I'm confused. Is "late capitalism" a different mode of production from capitalism in your opinion?

Yes, that is essentially what I am saying. Late-stage, monopoly capitalism is different from early 20th century imperialist capitalism. Although not an entirely new mode; but a later developed mode. It's that difference which, in my view, determines post-modernism. I can't say what all the details are; the best analysis I have seen is Jameson's Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. I don't think he completes the analysis.

Isn't the capitalism of 1915 different from the capitalism of 2015? Could the old imperialists have ever dreamed that capital would be as world dominant as it is today? Could they have imagined that less than 50 people would own more wealth than half of all people on the planet. It is true that Cecil Rhodes said that if he could he would colonize the planets, but even he could not get past the old idea of "colonization."

Isn't historical materialism the idea that the means and mode of production determine philosophy, law, art, etc.? Of course you can't show that a specific novel, film, or painting was directly, specifically determined by a specific economic condition, but nevertheless in general terms isn't that what Marx meant?

Take two novels, written by the same author, in two different historical/economic eras: The Sun Also Rises and The Old Man and the Sea by Hemingway. The first, in my opinion, is classic modernism, the lost generation, social alienation, modern angst, Western, white, male dominance, homophobia, racism, misogyny, etc. But the latter novel? It's completely anti-social, individualistic, a return to some kind of ideal naturalism. How to explain the difference? (an exception to this argument would be a world-historical figure like Shakespeare.)

Just some random thoughts. But, nevertheless, I still think post-modernism is real and is a real product of the economic conditions of post war capitalism.

[Црвена]

Does Postmodernism aid the proletariat class struggle?
Or does it harms it?

Speaking as a former postmodernist...no, it's really not a useful ideology to use when you want proletarian liberation. Class consciousness involves consciousness of objective, material reality, and postmodernism doesn't allow acknowledgement of any material reality. Besides, it's the epitome of "edgy liberal teenager," ideology: it appears revolutionary, with its apparent encouragement of open-mindedness, but it's really just the same idealist nonsense people have spouted for centuries.

[Hatshepsut]

But all wars are catastrophic and cause human carnage. The Holocaust and Hiroshima have become signifiers of an entirely new kind of human destruction.

Precisely. Most of the reason I favor communism relates to eliminating this Sword of Damocles from above the world's head. Nuclear weapons will destroy us more surely than climate change will, though since the USSR folded we forgot all about them.

I'm a bit ignorant regarding Dada or Soviet Avant-Garde; comments on them on the forum are appreciated. I agree the labels for the movements are retrospective and that's true for historical eras like the Renaissance as well.

[Hit The North]

Yes, that is essentially what I am saying. Late-stage, monopoly capitalism is different from early 20th century imperialist capitalism. Although not an entirely new mode; but a later developed mode. It's that difference which, in my view, determines post-modernism. I can't say what all the details are; the best analysis I have seen is Jameson's Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. I don't think he completes the analysis.


Fine, but we need to be precise in our categorisation and the conceptual level we are operating on. Both capitalism and socialism are modes of production, but postmodernism is not. It is fine to see postmodernism as determined by the mode of production but not as something different which capitalism is turning into, as you indicate in an earlier post. But i have no problem with an analysis which seeks the roots of cultural changes within the material relations of the day.



Isn't historical materialism the idea that the means and mode of production determine philosophy, law, art, etc.? Of course you can't show that a specific novel, film, or painting was directly, specifically determined by a specific economic condition, but nevertheless in general terms isn't that what Marx meant? Yes, but...


Take two novels, written by the same author, in two different historical/economic eras: The Sun Also Rises and The Old Man and the Sea by Hemingway. The first, in my opinion, is classic modernism, the lost generation, social alienation, modern angst, Western, white, male dominance, homophobia, racism, misogyny, etc. But the latter novel? It's completely anti-social, individualistic, a return to some kind of ideal naturalism. How to explain the difference? (an exception to this argument would be a world-historical figure like Shakespeare.)The difference can be explained with references to personal changes and the experiences of the author, ranging from a series of failed marriages, the failure of the revolution in Spain, the descent into global war or any other things that could lead to disenchantment or whatever. I'd suggest that a significant shift in the mode of production is unlikely to be a compelling factor in the differences between The Sun Also Rises (1926) and The Old Man and the Sea (1952). For a start, the period of Hemingway's literary career coincides quite nicely with the period of Fordist production and the shift toward post-Fordism was yet to get underway (Modernism being the cultural form of the former and postmodernism the form of the latter). It's important that we are not too deterministic and abstract in the relations we make between base and superstructure.


Just some random thoughts. But, nevertheless, I still think post-modernism is real and is a real product of the economic conditions of post war capitalism.
What do you mean by "real" though? Obviously it exists as an approach, a style of analysis, or a philosophy. But do you mean it exists as an actual condition of existence? That the various claims it makes about social transformations and contemporary social life are accurate?

[RedMaterialist]

It is fine to see postmodernism as determined by the mode of production but not as something different which capitalism is turning into, as you indicate in an earlier post.

It's not an economic system that capitalism is turning into. My point was that it is a reflection, a philosophical development out of whatever is "late stage capitalism."



The difference can be explained with references to personal changes and the experiences of the author, ranging from a series of failed marriages, the failure of the revolution in Spain, the descent into global war or any other things that could lead to disenchantment or whatever. I'd suggest that a significant shift in the mode of production is unlikely to be a compelling factor in the differences between The Sun Also Rises (1926) and The Old Man and the Sea (1952). For a start, the period of Hemingway's literary career coincides quite nicely with the period of Fordist production and the shift toward post-Fordism was yet to get underway (Modernism being the cultural form of the former and postmodernism the form of the latter). It's important that we are not too deterministic and abstract in the relations we make between base and superstructure.

Well, I agree. But I think that Fordist industrial capitalism began to diminish, between 1945-1955 or so (by 1980 most mass production had been shifted to the East.) Then finance capitalism emerged as the dominant mode of production, at least in the United States. Everyone talks about "determinism" in Marxist analysis. Yet, historical materialism is essentially about society being determined by a mode of production. Slave society being determined by slavery, feudal society by feudalism, etc.


What do you mean by "real" though? Obviously it exists as an approach, a style of analysis, or a philosophy. But do you mean it exists as an actual condition of existence? That the various claims it makes about social transformations and contemporary social life are accurate?

Yes, as a philosophy, but not as a condition of existence, any more than religion is. It is, as Marx said, a mental reflection of the conditions of economic and social existence.

I suspect that some of its claims are accurate. What other consistent philosophy has developed out of the current (1945-2015, especially beginning about 1980), economic system?

If the current economic system can be described as "neo-liberal" then what is the neo-liberal philosophical system?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Some things that have come up in this thread:

(1) When did "modernism" start? It is attributed to the 1500s-1600s, with the renaissance, new science, mathematical attempts to interpret reality, etc. It comes with the discovery of the new world and important scientific discoveries by folks like Galileo and Newton, as well as critical philosophers like Descartes.

(2) What is "modernism"? It is a broad category of beliefs but is generally understood as the movement to understand nature at its basic level in scientific, or even mathematical terms, so we create calculus, etc to learn about physics.

(3) When did post-modernism start? As some folks alluded to, it was influenced by Nietzsche and other thinkers, but it didn't really come to the fore until the 2nd half of the 20th century.

(4) What exactly is it? There's no good question to this answer. I think it encapsulates many schools of thought that all seek to uncover problems with notions of objectivity within our modern age. There might be hidden assumptions in our language and concepts that make things appear one way, and we take it as an objective matter of fact. This will be especially problematic when supposedly objective claims are being made about groups of people. For instance, many post-modernists critiqued the psychiatric health care system. The categories psychiatrists use to diagnose individuals come up for critique. Likewise, heteronormativity can come up for critique as a way to open up gender relations.

I think the main benefit of post-modernism from a Marxist point of view is the fact that objective features of oppression which we were blind to before can become exposed. Consider the way the USSR oppressed homosexuals and many parties justified or agreed with such policies. This was a form of oppression which Communists weren't particularly concerned with, if they didn't endorse it themselves. Understandably, some intellectuals like Foucault who were themselves gay were not so enamored with an ideology which was oblivious to their situation. Postmodernism allowed the left to better appreciate the material structures of oppression among the gay community by openly discussing the experiences of their oppression, and how it related to concepts which most people just took for granted.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Some things that have come up in this thread:

(1) When did "modernism" start? It is attributed to the 1500s-1600s, with the renaissance, new science, mathematical attempts to interpret reality, etc. It comes with the discovery of the new world and important scientific discoveries by folks like Galileo and Newton, as well as critical philosophers like Descartes.

(2) What is "modernism"? It is a broad category of beliefs but is generally understood as the movement to understand nature at its basic level in scientific, or even mathematical terms, so we create calculus, etc to learn about physics.

(3) When did post-modernism start? As some folks alluded to, it was influenced by Nietzsche and other thinkers, but it didn't really come into being until the 2nd half of the 20th century.

(4) What exactly is it? There's no good question to this answer. I think it encapsulates many schools of thought that all seek to uncover problems with notions of objectivity within our modern age. There might be hidden assumptions in our language and concepts that make things appear one way, and we take it as an objective matter of fact. This will be especially problematic when supposedly objective claims are being made about groups of people. For instance, many post-modernists critiqued the psychiatric health care system. The categories psychiatrists use to diagnose individuals come up for critique. Likewise, heteronormativity can come up for critique as a way to open up gender relations. Various concepts or objects can be shown to be less-than real, or at least not real in the way we think about it in an everyday way.

I think the main benefit of post-modernism from a Marxist point of view is the fact that objective features of oppression which we were blind to before can become exposed. Consider the way the USSR oppressed homosexuals and many parties justified or agreed with such policies. This was a form of oppression which Communists weren't particularly concerned with, if they didn't endorse it themselves. Understandably, some intellectuals like Foucault who were themselves gay were not so enamored with an ideology which was oblivious to their situation. Postmodernism allowed the left to better appreciate the material structures of oppression among the gay community by openly discussing the experiences of their oppression, and how it related to concepts which most people just took for granted.

[Dodo]

Post-modernity is pretty much the rejection of the mentality of modernity through modenity.

Foremost, it is an epistemological argument which is its greatest contribution. It becomes very easy to understand post-modernism as a Marxist due to the "modernist" theory framework that Marxism has created. And yet it is also very easy to have a post-modern perspective as a Marxist due to dialectics being the core philosophy.

Secondly, post-modernism refers to an era, what some call late-capitalism, service economy dominated capitalism.

Third, it has its own political culture. Which is where the hipsters and radical feminists come in.

The political culture bit clashes with Marxism but it can also be an ally if the fragmented struggles are united in a new-framework(see post-marxism), the post-modern era is something Marxists need to update to in their political-economy critique. And most importantly, the epistemological contributions of post-modernism must be absorbed and answered to not be radical dogmats with marginalized ideas.

Basically though, modernist ideas start with enlightenment philosophy, with the concept of "laws of nature" . What is important for us is how modernism related to social science mentality, something Marx actually critized very well long before post-modernists.
An example would be the grand narrative of history, where Europe is seen as the end point of a linear development cycle. And this process occurs through "laws of nature" that apply to society as well. Modernism is best presented in positivist social sciences.

Where we are hit most by post-modernism is the historicist perspective of dialectics. But I believe it is easy to integrate. Some of the core ideas like historical materialism however needs clear revision. As majority of the early Marxist "theoretical frameworks" carried a strong modernist perspective.