What is Postmodernism

[Hiero]

What is post modernism? I thought I had a general idea what post modernism is. Relativism, scepticism, personal experince etc. These ideas latter influenced modern acadamics with such theories on identity politics and dismissing the importance of class. Other people claim the complete opposite. What do people think post modernism is, what do other authors say?

This is a definition from marxists.org


Postmodernism

Postmodernism is the period of bourgeois society from the late 60s/early 70s up to the present, and in particular the cultural aspects of this period, characterised by the marginalisation of traditional (religious, kinship, custom, etc.) practice and belief and a disappearance of the prospect of achieving social harmony.

Once capitalism, in the words of the Communist Manifesto “has left no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous ‘cash payment’ [and] drowned out the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation [and] resolved personal worth into exchange value”, then the basis for postmodern society has been laid. Postmodern society is characterised by scepticism in relation to science, all forms of authority and the possibility of an ethical life, by relativism and disbelief in any concept of value beyond 'what pays', while the very ideas of originality, progress and truth seem themselves to be derivative, out-dated and untrue.

The period of postmodernism began when the period of expansion of capitalism following the Second World War drew to a close. Belief in progress was bolstered after the devastation and barbarism of the Second World War, by the Marshall Plan and the Bretton Woods arrangements which allowed the dollar to be printed in unlimited amounts to finance the expansion of capitalism. This protracted Post-War Boom caused many former radicals to draw conclusions about the impossibility of rebellion and about capitalism having resolved its historic crisis. See for example Herbert Marcuse's One-Dimensional Man.

At roughly the same time that the Bretton Woods arrangements collapsed in 1968, the failure of the student uprisings and the betrayal of the French General Strike, caused a number of formerly radical French intellectuals to begin elaborating sceptical and subjective views, which incorporated elements of Marxist theory, and which laid the foundations for postmodern social theory. (See biographies of Roland Barthes, Michel Foucault, Jacques Lacan and Jacques Derrida). The Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia, and other phenomena world-wide around this time demonstrated a rupture in the alliance between the workers' movement and the intelligentsia, an alliance which dated back to the Russian Revolution and before.

Beginning already in the 1950s, but accelerating following the collapse of the Bretton Woods arrangements and the boom in commodity prices which followed, the dominant capitalist powers turned decisively from being net exporters of capital towards importing capital, and relocating their manufacturing industries to countries offering cheap labour, relying on military supremacy, financial power and knowledge and image industries to maintain their dominance. This led to a situation where the division of labour between mental and manual labour which had been around as long a civilisation and which forms the basis for the separation of theory and practice, was now articulated on an international scale, with whole countries securing their domination over other nations on the basis of military and financial power and the “symbolic industries”. Any wonder then, in those countries, that idealist, sceptical and subjectivist outlooks became rampant, with writers theorising that “there is nothing outside of the text”. The same phenomena has been exhibited in the periods of decline of earlier civilisations. Especially as the limits on growth which were the root of the Environmental Movement became manifest, natural science lost the mystique it had held since the days of the Enlightenment. Social theory and feminist and marxist ideas in particular were turned to demonstrate the limits of scientific knowledge. (See Jacques Monod's Ethic of Knowledge and Jürgen Habermas's Knowledge and Human Interest).

See Frederic Jameson's Postmodernism, or The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism, Jean-Francois Lyotard's The Postmodern Condition, Michel Foucault's Archaeology of Knowledge and Teresa Ebert's Untimely Critiques for a Red Feminism for varying descriptions of the nature and origins of postmodern thinking.

[SPK]

The term was used mostly from the seventies to the mid-nineties to describe tendencies in different disciplines. And in every area, what it signified was different. In architecture -- one of the practices where the term initially appeared -- it meant one thing. In the traditional visual arts, like painting, the meaning was somewhat different. In philosophy and theory, the most wildly divergent thinkers were placed under its umbrella. In politics, which you mention, there was yet another meaning. And so on. So, I don't think that any attempt at an overarching explanation for postmodernism, like the entry from marxists.org, is going to get you a real sense of those different meanings. That article is so general and abstract that you could never extrapolate from it what real "postmodernists" actually said or did -- you would never get a sense as to what the hulabaloo was all about.

To what do you want to apply it: politics and revolutionary theory, or something else?

[dogwoodlover]

I've always understood postmodernism as being a fusion of nihilism, individualism, and relativism.


Originally posted by nihilism @ http://www.dictionary.com+--> (nihilism @ http://www.dictionary.com)4. Philosophy.
a. an extreme form of skepticism: the denial of all real existence or the possibility of an objective basis for truth.[/b]


Originally posted by individualism @ http://[email protected]
6. Philosophy.
b. the doctrine or belief that all actions are determined by, or at least take place for, the benefit of the individual, not of society as a whole.


relativism @ http://www.dictionary.com
–noun Philosophy.
any theory holding that criteria of judgment are relative, varying with individuals and their environments.

Perhaps that is inaccurate, but so far whenever I've seen the word used it seems to fit that definition.

[BreadBros]

Its really impossible to give a concrete definition of post-modernism. Some of that is likely because we're living through this particular phase of history right now and the way cultural and philosphical facets changed will become more apparent as time progresses. Anyway, the definition Marxists.org gives is pretty good. I would also say in my opinion postmodernism is highly related to the idea of decadence, although not necessarily as Lenin used it. Basically capitalism has become unable to provide further progress. This is reflected in the emptiness and reiteration of culture and the inability to develop new ideas. I highly recommend Baudrillard's "Simulacra and Simulation", where Baudrillard basically describes the post-modern world as one where reality or actual human experience is increasingly replaced by signs/symbols or representations of reality which leads to apathy and skepticism of the world containing any actual meaning. All of that can also be related to Debord's Society of the Spectacle of course.

Its also possible to understand post-modernism through its manifestation in the arts such as architecture. To quote Wikipedia:


Postmodern architecture is an international style whose first examples are generally cited as being from the 1950s, and continues to influence present-day architecture. Postmodernity in architecture is generally thought to be heralded by the return of "wit, ornament and reference" to architecture in response to the formalism of the International Style of modernism. As with many cultural movements, some of postmodernism's most pronounced and visible ideas can be seen in architecture. The functional and formalized shapes and spaces of the modernist movement are replaced by unapologetically diverse aesthetics: styles collide, form is adopted for its own sake, and new ways of viewing familiar styles and space abound.

[...]

Modernist architects regard post-modern buildings as vulgar and cluttered with "gew-gaws". Postmodern architects often regard modern spaces as soulless and bland. The divergence in opinions comes down to a difference in goals: modernism is rooted in minimal and true use of material as well as absence of ornament, while postmodernism is a rejection of strict rules set by the early modernists and seeks exuberance in the use of building techniques, angles, and stylistic references.

I think the key thing here is sort of the decline of a need for modernism. Modernist design (and therefore thought I guess you could argue) was highly motivated by the idea of progress, whether it be in terms of being progressive by designing and utilizing the best construction materials, or using space in the most fundamentally useful way, etc. Design was highly shaped by the need for physical progress. Post-modernism is in many ways saying thats no longer necessary, progress no longer necessitates a strict design and therefore design is free to do what it wants, which has its own set of implications including relativism and skepticism of modernity.

So yes, I think ultimately the Marxists.com definition is pretty dead-on, although it doesn't go very far in talking about how those economic changes effect cultural and philosophical trends. Ultimately I think most Marxists criticize post-modernism because its belief in the futility of modernism provides no basis for political action. Basically post-modern philosophers and the such are caught up in false consciousness, they've taken a change in the cultural manifestation of capitalism to be representative of a break with modernism and scientific thought, which it is not.

I think thats somewhere towards a definition of post-modernism, although it's obviously the tip of the iceberg. Of course the definition of post-modernism on this board, especially for Leninists is totally different, it usually means "anyone or any idea I disagree with". My favorite comment is one made towards me:


Originally posted by SovietPants
Bloody postmodernist anarchists need to stop telling women how to be feminists!

It doesn't even fit in with their own paradigm.

Essentially hes condeming "postmodernist anarchists" for exhibiting modernist thought, that is to say objective opinions on feminism. All while reiterating a common postmodern critique of feminist thought and social critique. Someone is very confused to say the least. :lol:

[blake 3:17]

I think of it as a condition or way of being imposed by certain relations of production and neo-liberal politics.

Just-in-time/lean production/IT production are symptomatic. Some important Marxist thinkers, like Benjamin and Adorno, and non-Marxists, like Foucault and Guattari, prefigure post modern thought.

There are loads of post modernism in hiphop & electronic music. Visual and literary artists abound.

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by dogwoodlover+December 06, 2006 01:32 am--> (dogwoodlover @ December 06, 2006 01:32 am) I've always understood postmodernism as being a fusion of nihilism, individualism, and relativism.


Originally posted by nihilism @ [URL=http://www.dictionary.com+--> (nihilism @ [URL=http://www.dictionary.com)http://www.dictionary.com[/URL]]4. Philosophy.
a. an extreme form of skepticism: the denial of all real existence or the possibility of an objective basis for truth.[/b]


individualism @ [URL=http://[email protected]
http://www.dictionary.com[/URL]]6. Philosophy.
b. the doctrine or belief that all actions are determined by, or at least take place for, the benefit of the individual, not of society as a whole.


relativism @ [URL=http://www.dictionary.com
http://www.dictionary.com[/URL]]–noun Philosophy.
any theory holding that criteria of judgment are relative, varying with individuals and their environments.

Perhaps that is inaccurate, but so far whenever I've seen the word used it seems to fit that definition. [/b]
For the love of Newton, Dictionary.com is not a technical reference! :angry:

[dogwoodlover]

I find it useful for defining terms in which their meaning might not be explicitly obvious to everyone. I guess it was a mistake on my part to try and make clear what I meant?