Postmodernism, History and Philosophy: How is the Past Reconstructed or Deconstructed?

[JackDaydream]

Explicit language is open to all. For instance there is no ambiguity in efficient instructions about how best clean an oven.

Modernism does not include lack of insight into hidden prejudices and dogmas , one's own or other people's. For instance a proper study of history recognises the fallacy of periodisation. Also, contrasting historiographies should be set side by side and their unwitting and hidden references to basic moral principles can be and are brought into active consideration. Of course we can't know for sure however what we do is choose the most probable explanation.

Psychology has already made progress into knowledge of human nature.

Pomos need to recognise that relativity is widely recognised and so we have jumped over the hurdle of postmodernism.

I find your reply helpful because it captures the way in which postmodernism has pointed to relativism, and about 'having jumped over the hurdle of postmodernism'. That is probably the most influential aspect of the movement on a long term basis for philosophy. It may be in conjunction with the psychology of human nature in understanding the nature of subjective reality and the nature of the self, which is being seen in relation to cognitive models and neuroscience. This is about the nature of constructed experience.

The idea of constructed reality is in contrast to philosophy perspectives of 'out there' reality and abstract metaphysics. It traces the source of human values in culture itself. Ideas like good and evil are seen as human constructs and relative. It questions the existence of objective knowledge systems, such as Plato's theory of forms. In that way, it has been important in breaking down ideas in the process of deconstruction and demystification. It probably has more significance in the larger picture of academic influences, especially in the social sciences and understanding of human culture.

[chewybrian]

Explicit language is open to all. For instance there is no ambiguity in efficient instructions about how best clean an oven.

Pomos need to recognise that relativity is widely recognised and so we have jumped over the hurdle of postmodernism.

Don't the instructions on how to clean your oven include a presumption that it would be morally acceptable to own an oven or, perhaps, the correctness of using chemicals to clean your oven? When you say best, do you mean best for: your budget, your busy schedule, the lifespan of the oven, the environment, others you might have helped with the resources you devoted to oven cleaning supplies...?

The rest is confusing. Aren't Pomos a tribe of American Indians? Do you mean relativity as in Einstein, or maybe relativism (perspectivism) as in Nietzsche?

...only an interpretation and arrangement of the world (according to our own requirements, if I may say so!)—and not an explanation of the world. Nietzsche

How is postmodernism a hurdle rather than a tool? (I'll admit I may be biased. The little bit of postmodernism that I do think I understand appeals to me.)

[Count Lucanor]

You're fighting a lost battle. That food can be cooked doesn't mean that by analytical definition, as you pretend, food entails cooking.

No, it doesn't. But cooking entails food.

Yes, of course, just as much as cultural practices entail the production and reproduction of material life.

But who claims that "hunting/gathering is at the base of religion, art, kinship relations"?

Er, Engels. Have you forgotten the argument? "According to the materialist conception of history, the ultimately determining element in history is the production and reproduction of real life . . . The economic situation is the basis, but the various elements of the superstructure . . . also exercise their influence upon the course of the historical struggles and in many cases preponderate in determining their form..."

No, Engels' quote doesn't entail such claim. You're applying the reductionism that Engels aimed to clear up from the materialist interpretation of history. So, insisting on that interpretation only confirms that it is a straw man argument.

Well, even accepting Maslow's hierarchy (which is at best a generalization), a priority order, or hierarchy, does not imply a structural or dependency relation, i.e., that higher-priority X is the "basis" of lower-priority Y. Y may have nothing to do with X.

It's quite evident that your claim is not true. It does imply a structural relation which determines the priority of basic needs over other needs that emerge on top of them. And yet, the fulfillment of all those other needs, in whatever form they take and the processes involved, it's not reducible to the simple direct satisfaction of the needs at the base, since for realising that objective, humans, unlike other animals, must enter a different relation with the natural environment, a relation that necessarily implies its transformation, thus labor, and cooperation. People must eat to survive, but given their social relations, they don't simply extract and consume resources from nature, they plan the procurement of such resources, organize labor, assign social roles, attempt to understand how nature works, invent technology, experiment with new things and create new realities from the transformed environment and the relation among peers, including alliances, rules, laws, etc. And so food preparation and cooking emerges as a cultural practice in relation to the satisfaction of the basic need to eat, but evidently, it is more than that. The same for other basic needs as sex, shelter, etc. Such practices ultimately can determine what people will eat and what they will not, who they will have sex with and how they will build their shelters. And then the entanglement of these practices with all others creates a complex network of relations where multiple factors mutually determine each other.

Kinship is biologically determined; cultural variables have nothing to do with it. Whether Alfie is the brother or cousin of Bruno depends not a whit on their productive methodologies. And in nearly all societies brothers and cousins, parents and children, will have closer personal relationships than they will have with most other members of the community, regardless of their "means of production."

That's a naive and badly informed view of kinship. What matters in kinship are not only the genealogical relations, but the functional role of each member to its relative, so in some cultures brotherhood imply some rights, duties and practices, which are different in others. In some cultures, the children are not raised by their parents, and so on. Biology? Pff..

That objection doesn't refute what I said. In virtually all cultures brothers and parents/children will have closer relationships than with non-kin, no matter their "functional roles."

Well, you said first that "cultural variables have nothing to do with kinship" and you're dead wrong on this. Concepts like nurture kinship completely cancel your genealogical view of kinship based on biological ties. Also, the existence of so called skin names in Australian aboriginal tribes refutes the idea that the closer the biological tie, the closer the kinship relationship. Bear in mind that a key element of kinship relationships is marriage, which is instituted to regulate matters concerning the social upbringing of the offspring, and almost universally, marriage involves a relation between non-kin individuals, what is called the incest taboo. This is not explained by biology, but by the nature of social practices, which also explain the exceptions when incest is not prohibited.

That is one of those patently false beliefs Marxists tend to dogmatically insist upon no matter how obvious their falsity. Marital relationships, friendships, even cooking, all require, of course, that the society have some means of meeting those physical needs, but those relationships tend to be very similar in hunter/gather societies, neolithic agricultural societies, feudal societies, and modern civilized societies (not to mention both modern "socialist" and "capitalist" societies). Even cooking: humans have been brewing beer, for example, since the dawn of civilization --- recipes are found on Sumerian cuneiform tablets. People boil grains and roast meat before eating whether gathered in the wild or raised on a farm, or if raised on a farm, whether with slave labor, a mom & pop homestead, or a mechanized corporate farm or ranch.

This is completely false and based on a very naive, shallow, Disney-like understanding of culture, reducing its diversity to a fixed, almost universal psychological character that is simply updated with different clothes and technology. There's nothing like that in practice. If there's something that links all cultural practices throughout history is the fact that they involve human labor, both physically and creatively, since we permanently live in a relationship with an environment that we must transform to survive.

Again, does not address the claim quoted. That response amounts to nothing more than, "All cultures require some methods/means of meeting their material needs." Obvious and irrelevant. Doesn't address at all the similarlities in marital or friendship relations across cultures.

The concept being discussed is whether all different social relationships across cultures ultimately rest or not on the material conditions of life possibilitated by their modes of production. And the answer to that is a categorical yes. It is a central concept from which other analysis can be derived in different levels and domains that stem from it. It is not intended to exhaust the study of social life and reduce everything to a direct, cause and effect explanation in the light of economic determinism, as you keep expecting, in a similar fashion as those that cannot acknowledge the possibility of a materialist view of the world without appealing to scientific reductionism. Yes, there are reductionist interpretations of Marx's historical materialism (such as Plekhanov's and Stalin's, among many), but guess what, there are non-reductionist interpretations as well. What Marx proposed was that "the mode of production in material life determines the general character of the social, political, and spiritual processes of life", not the specific character developed in each historical circumstance.

Yes, in an atavistic, intuitive longing for the familiarity, intimacy, uniformity, and predictability of tribal societies. In tribal societies everyone is kin, every member has known every other since birth, they all hold the same beliefs, do the same things in the same way, dress the same way, eat the same foods, worship the same gods, and have done so since time immemorial. "It is our way." As a result tribal cultures can remain static for thousands of years, with only a slight refinement in spear points to indicate any time has passed at all. That vision --- that "genetic memory" of social life is comforting; real life in dynamic civilized societies is unpredictable, contentious and stressful.

You're describing the typical conservatism of traditional societies, which BTW, some "modern" people still strive for. Another sign that it has nothing to do with Marx's view. No one celebrated the dynamism of capitalist society as Marx, as it is made quite evident in the Manifesto. And of course, it has become one central point of postmodernist criticism of Marx. He was a white Eurocentrist, after all.

Well, again, you're attempting to reduce Marx's economic determinism to an easily defensible triviality, i.e., that all cultures have some "practical involvement with our natural environment." But that thesis requires more than that --- it requires some evidence of a correlation between specific religious beliefs and specific economic practices. For example, do rice farming practices in Hindu India differ from those in Buddhist China? Do those different rice farming practices explain the differences between Hinduism and Buddhism?

It seems you didn't get the point. I wasn't just saying that "all cultures have some practical involvement with our natural environment". I wouldn't be saying anything different than what I would be saying about any living domain, regardless of culture. The point is that culture IS that practical involvement with nature. And no, this thesis does not require "some evidence of a correlation between specific religious beliefs and specific economic practices". Marvin Harris had tried this with some level of success, and I'm pretty sure he was pointing towards the correct direction in Anthropology, but I'm very cautious about his findings. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that Harris', White's and Steward's cultural materialism, which departs from Marx's distinction between infrastructure and superstructure, is a serious scientific challenge to idealism that can be discussed on its own merits, without even mentioning Marx, and Harris is not even considered a Marxist.

https://anthropology.ua.edu/theory/amer ... terialism/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_ ... th_Marxism

If there is some correlation, which is the cart and which the horse?

You might want to read Marvin Harris' Cows, Pigs, Wars and Witches: The Riddles of Culture. You might find there what you're looking for: turns out the sacredness of cows in India has more to do with practical reasons than what it looks at first glance.

Given the licenses you take with some words and concepts in this thread, I'm still wondering what you mean by "civilization" and what you mean by "religion".

I gave my understanding of "religion" above, and of "civilization" in a previous post (a "civilized" society is one characterized by cities, and "cities" are communities so large that most members don't know most of the others). "Civilized" societies are societies of strangers.

So, small towns that do not meet your definition, but share most or all the standards of living of modern life, are not "civilized"? Was 17th century Manhattan an "uncivilized" settlement?

Although you seem to be unaware of it, the evident fact is that all disciplines and institutionalized practices involve some type of organization by groups in society, following common interests, goals, principles, etc. These forms of organization, whether they conform formal hierarchies or not, move in the direction given by those who have more power or level of influence than others. They are directed (to some extent) human practices, not natural phenomena, which is why we can talk about their social control, in the sense that they respond to social norms. It might be necessary, for example, that a person meets some educational requirements in order to participate in a given discipline, or having some other qualification. In any given moment, there's a state of the discipline that determines the overall context in which a person can contribute, even allowing for innovations, so when you ask what controls Aristophanes writing, Galileo's observations or Picasso's painting, you're just looking at a tree without noticing the forest.

I have no idea how you think that answers my question.

That's too bad for you, because it answers it directly. Ignoring it doesn't help your case.

Now, now. If you make a claim that workers are "exploited" (a morally-laden term) backed by a (false) claim that profits are obtained by "appropriating" (i.e., stealing) the "surplus labor" of workers, then you clearly invite those workers to demand "justice."

Well, first, it is not a false claim, making anyway the necessary clarification (already explained) that the appropriation of the surplus labor does not occur as Proudhon or Lasalle complained, since the workers don't sell their terminated products to the capitalist, that is, the value of their labor. They sell their work force before it is even used, and THEN the capitalist uses it to produce values higher than what it takes to buy the work force.

He uses that, plus raw materials, plus a shop and equipment, plus energy, plus transportation and marketing costs, plus an idea --- a design or concept for a product* --- to produce a product which has a higher market value than the total cost of those. Yes, that is how economies work --- how they create wealth. The laborer's efforts account for a portion of that wealth, but far from all of it. He is paid (in full) for the value of his contribution, just as are all other contributors.

*Arguably the most valuable "factor of production."

Ha! You truly believe that the extraction of raw materials, the making of equipment, the building of infrastructure, all the logistics and everything that happens in the value chain before another worker adds its own value by manufacturing the final product, is the product of magic, without labor involved. The magical powers of the capitalists are truly astounding!!

What Marx did complain about is that looking at the worker as a mere object for production involved practically ignoring their humanity, throwing overboard the chance of their complete fulfillment as rich individuals, not just in the "materialistic" sense. But that's hardly a complain about moral justice.

Oh, that certainly is a moral complaint, whether Marx wished to so characterize it or not. And it rests on a faulty moral premise, namely, that employers have some moral duty to facilitate or at least assure someone else's "fulfillment as rich individuals." No person has any such duty to any other person. The contrary view derives, of course, from the "organic fallacy."

No, even if it's a moral complaint, it doesn't rest on such premise, nor it is ever heard from Marx a complaint about the whole problem being reduced to a conflict between the "bad" capitalist and the "good" worker (the typical idiotic interpretation that you can hear from Jordan Peterson and other clueless, ignorant right-wingers like him). Marx's view rests on an aspiration of progress of human kind in general, in the classic humanistic sense, which he thought was purely idealistic and unfeasible in the previous stages of society. With the portentous developments of productive forces possibilitated only by capitalism, the doors were open, he thought, to fulfill that promise, only to find that the same progressive, revolutionary forces that created such possibilities, out of pure greed (let's call it "private interest"), were the first to shut down the doors to progress, in the name of that very same private interest, represented in whole by the bourgeosie. It was the historical task of the proletariat, in the name of its own practical interest, to break free from that state of affairs, acting as a revolutionary class, in the same way as the bourgoeisie acted as a revolutionaty class against the rule of the aristocracy.

Just to be sure, what 20th century or present day workers you say aren't, as a matter of fact, oppressed? All of them? Most of them? Some of them? And what is the "common of understanding of oppression"?

The common understanding of "oppression" is restricting someone's liberties or otherwise violating their rights, usually in an ongoing, systematic way. And workers have indeed been oppressed in various times and places, such as the plantation slaves in the antebellum South, or impressed sailors prior to the Barbary Wars, or the workers on Soviet collective farms, or the ethnic or religious minorities (reportedly) forced to work in some Chinese factories.
https://www.state.gov/forced-labor-in-c ... ng-region/
But workers in no Western country have been "oppressed" at any time in the last century.

Yeah, sure. I thing Ecurb's response to this ridiculous assertion covers my own reaction to it. I wonder, though, if you ever heard of the Silver Roll and Gold Roll implemented by the US administration in the Panama Canal Zone, that kept going on until the 60's.
https://thesilverpeopleheritage.wordpre ... anal-zone/
Do you consider that a form of "worker's oppression" or not?

[Consul]

I find your reply helpful because it captures the way in which postmodernism has pointed to relativism, and about 'having jumped over the hurdle of postmodernism'. That is probably the most influential aspect of the movement on a long term basis for philosophy. It may be in conjunction with the psychology of human nature in understanding the nature of subjective reality and the nature of the self, which is being seen in relation to cognitive models and neuroscience. This is about the nature of constructed experience.

The idea of constructed reality is in contrast to philosophy perspectives of 'out there' reality and abstract metaphysics. It traces the source of human values in culture itself. Ideas like good and evil are seen as human constructs and relative. It questions the existence of objective knowledge systems, such as Plato's theory of forms. In that way, it has been important in breaking down ideas in the process of deconstruction and demystification. It probably has more significance in the larger picture of academic influences, especially in the social sciences and understanding of human culture.

Postmodernism is characterized by extreme skepticism about objective truth and knowledge, and even about semantic reference to translinguistic realities or facts. The consequence is alethic, epistemic, and ethical relativism!

Relativism: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/

[JackDaydream]

I've been reading a couple of introductions to postmodernism, and the impression I have gained is one of jumbled and incomprehensible thoughts that I can't make head or tail of. There are a number of interesting ideas and concepts that I have come across, that supposedly came from postmodernism. Those ideas I find useful, and I'll hang onto them. As for the rest, I'll await a presentation of postmodernism that I can understand.

And yet, the straw-man criticisms nudge me toward the suspicion that there is something there that is worth considering. Otherwise, why are so many philosophers so angrily and emotionally opposed to it? They criticise it, saying (for example) that postmodernists believe that all opinions/ideas are equal, when the original thought is that such things cannot be compared at all, never mind proclaimed "equal".

Is there something to postmodernism as a whole, as a 'movement'? If so, what is it?

One small book which I found helpful is by Christopher Butler, (2002), 'Postmodernism: A Very Short Introduction' because it sums up the various topics which are touched upon by the movement. Although I have read some of the ideas while studying sociology and art, I have read some of the writers mainly in collections of writings. Some are more readable than others, and I do wish to read Lacan at some point because he writes about psychoanalysis, which interests me a lot.

I was fairly surprised to find that some people on the forum are so opposed to postmodernism, because in real life I know a number of people who are so in favour of it. I am not completely swayed by it more than other schools of philosophy but I am influenced by it because it was an approach which was I became familiar with during sixth form. At the time, I had not even questioned Catholicism and it gave a way of seeing ideas more from the human point of view, especially the sociology of knowledge and other aspects of social life.

However, while I appreciate some aspects of the theory, I am not so sure about postmodern art because it seems so conceptual. When I was studying art therapy, so many of the people on the course were influenced by postmodernism in the art they were making and I had some trouble relating to it as an art movement.

It was the part about art that helped to confuse me. Of the 'leading lights' of postmodernism, only one seems to be a philosopher, Derrida. The rest are artists, poets and literary critics, or so it seems. The stuff I had thought to be postmodern philosophy is so deeply buried it's almost inaccessible. And yet, the ideas that I thought were postmodern philosophy are good and interesting ideas, and I don't want to let them go. ... So I would like to understand postmodernism better.

The Butler book is one of the two that I found, and I didn't find it very helpful. Perhaps that's my fault.

Postmodernism had such an important influence on the arts and, even though I prefer making art of a realistic or symbolic kind, I have to admit that I find the postmodern art as innovative in thinking. Even Judith Butler's emphasis on gender as performance seems to be playful and the nature of textual understanding is about play. This approach is something which I found refreshing coming from a 'heavy metaphysics' background in Catholicism.

The use of images in production was central to this in minimalist art, such as that of Andy Warhol. It does connect with the avant-garde, countercultural and bohemianism. This involved music as well, probably from the music of Velvet Underground and other forms, such as punk and post-punk. It was probably a large influence on youth subculture and the arts.

Also, on a conceptual level it looked at images, which Baudrillard referred to as the 'simulacra'. He was speaking of images and consumption of images, and the symbolic aspects of consumer society. The analysis of this does involve seeing the way in which people buy items as symbolic aspects of identity, including art as a commodity and the culture of shopping arcades.. What may be interesting thinking of this in the twentieth first century is that consumer culture has changed so much. So many shop chains have shut down but that may simply mean that people are shopping online more

There is a move towards minimalism but the values of consumer materialism may be as strong as ever. That is because there is still a lot of emphasis on having the latest devices, such as the latest smartphones. It is possible to see the postmodernist critique of images and status as one for critiquing the culture of consumerism and its values.

[Gertie]

I've been reading a couple of introductions to postmodernism, and the impression I have gained is one of jumbled and incomprehensible thoughts that I can't make head or tail of. There are a number of interesting ideas and concepts that I have come across, that supposedly came from postmodernism. Those ideas I find useful, and I'll hang onto them. As for the rest, I'll await a presentation of postmodernism that I can understand.

And yet, the straw-man criticisms nudge me toward the suspicion that there is something there that is worth considering. Otherwise, why are so many philosophers so angrily and emotionally opposed to it? They criticise it, saying (for example) that postmodernists believe that all opinions/ideas are equal, when the original thought is that such things cannot be compared at all, never mind proclaimed "equal".

Is there something to postmodernism as a whole, as a 'movement'? If so, what is it?

One small book which I found helpful is by Christopher Butler, (2002), 'Postmodernism: A Very Short Introduction' because it sums up the various topics which are touched upon by the movement. Although I have read some of the ideas while studying sociology and art, I have read some of the writers mainly in collections of writings. Some are more readable than others, and I do wish to read Lacan at some point because he writes about psychoanalysis, which interests me a lot.

I was fairly surprised to find that some people on the forum are so opposed to postmodernism, because in real life I know a number of people who are so in favour of it. I am not completely swayed by it more than other schools of philosophy but I am influenced by it because it was an approach which was I became familiar with during sixth form. At the time, I had not even questioned Catholicism and it gave a way of seeing ideas more from the human point of view, especially the sociology of knowledge and other aspects of social life.

However, while I appreciate some aspects of the theory, I am not so sure about postmodern art because it seems so conceptual. When I was studying art therapy, so many of the people on the course were influenced by postmodernism in the art they were making and I had some trouble relating to it as an art movement.

It was the part about art that helped to confuse me. Of the 'leading lights' of postmodernism, only one seems to be a philosopher, Derrida. The rest are artists, poets and literary critics, or so it seems. The stuff I had thought to be postmodern philosophy is so deeply buried it's almost inaccessible. And yet, the ideas that I thought were postmodern philosophy are good and interesting ideas, and I don't want to let them go. ... So I would like to understand postmodernism better.

The Butler book is one of the two that I found, and I didn't find it very helpful. Perhaps that's my fault.

Postmodernism had such an important influence on the arts and, even though I prefer making art of a realistic or symbolic kind, I have to admit that I find the postmodern art as innovative in thinking. Even Judith Butler's emphasis on gender as performance seems to be playful and the nature of textual understanding is about play. This approach is something which I found refreshing coming from a 'heavy metaphysics' background in Catholicism.

The use of images in production was central to this in minimalist art, such as that of Andy Warhol. It does connect with the avant-garde, countercultural and bohemianism. This involved music as well, probably from the music of Velvet Underground and other forms, such as punk and post-punk. It was probably a large influence on youth subculture and the arts.

Also, on a conceptual level it looked at images, which Baudrillard referred to as the 'simulacra'. He was speaking of images and consumption of images, and the symbolic aspects of consumer society. The analysis of this does involve seeing the way in which people buy items as symbolic aspects of identity, including art as a commodity and the culture of shopping arcades.. What may be interesting thinking of this in the twentieth first century is that consumer culture has changed so much. So many shop chains have shut down but that may simply mean that people are shopping online more

There is a move towards minimalism but the values of consumer materialism may be as strong as ever. That is because there is still a lot of emphasis on having the latest devices, such as the latest smartphones. It is possible to see the postmodernist critique of images and status as one for critiquing the culture of consumerism and its values.

A bit of a tangent, but I think Woolf rather beautifully encapsulates the bridge between modernism and post-modernism in Art. Not the Warhol mass production consumerism, alienated I Am A Camera aspect, but if you take a novel like To The Lighthouse, which tries to capture the nature of povs, being a subject, and then her book of essays A Room of One's Own about the mundane realities of who gets to tell their pov narratives. She, even as a privileged woman, understands the import of both.

[JackDaydream]

I find your reply helpful because it captures the way in which postmodernism has pointed to relativism, and about 'having jumped over the hurdle of postmodernism'. That is probably the most influential aspect of the movement on a long term basis for philosophy. It may be in conjunction with the psychology of human nature in understanding the nature of subjective reality and the nature of the self, which is being seen in relation to cognitive models and neuroscience. This is about the nature of constructed experience.

The idea of constructed reality is in contrast to philosophy perspectives of 'out there' reality and abstract metaphysics. It traces the source of human values in culture itself. Ideas like good and evil are seen as human constructs and relative. It questions the existence of objective knowledge systems, such as Plato's theory of forms. In that way, it has been important in breaking down ideas in the process of deconstruction and demystification. It probably has more significance in the larger picture of academic influences, especially in the social sciences and understanding of human culture.

Postmodernism is characterized by extreme skepticism about objective truth and knowledge, and even about semantic reference to translinguistic realities or facts. The consequence is alethic, epistemic, and ethical relativism!

Relativism: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/

I have just read your link on relativism and it is one of the major challenges to objective truth and knowledge. I find it a fairly difficult area, especially the extent to which ideas are based on underlying metaphysics or constructed in human consciousness. I am not completely sure that it is one or the other completely. In particular, I do have a certain amount of sympathy with Plato's ideas of forms and archetypes as a source of universal ideas. On the other hand, tracing ideas to their human construction seems important. Part of the issue may be about the nature of symbolic reality and the collective unconscious. Also, I have not managed to get hold of his writings but from what I have come across Deleuze's idea of the imminence of consciousness may enable a bridge between the construction of ideas and the existence of a source beyond human consciousness.

[JackDaydream]

One small book which I found helpful is by Christopher Butler, (2002), 'Postmodernism: A Very Short Introduction' because it sums up the various topics which are touched upon by the movement. Although I have read some of the ideas while studying sociology and art, I have read some of the writers mainly in collections of writings. Some are more readable than others, and I do wish to read Lacan at some point because he writes about psychoanalysis, which interests me a lot.

I was fairly surprised to find that some people on the forum are so opposed to postmodernism, because in real life I know a number of people who are so in favour of it. I am not completely swayed by it more than other schools of philosophy but I am influenced by it because it was an approach which was I became familiar with during sixth form. At the time, I had not even questioned Catholicism and it gave a way of seeing ideas more from the human point of view, especially the sociology of knowledge and other aspects of social life.

However, while I appreciate some aspects of the theory, I am not so sure about postmodern art because it seems so conceptual. When I was studying art therapy, so many of the people on the course were influenced by postmodernism in the art they were making and I had some trouble relating to it as an art movement.

It was the part about art that helped to confuse me. Of the 'leading lights' of postmodernism, only one seems to be a philosopher, Derrida. The rest are artists, poets and literary critics, or so it seems. The stuff I had thought to be postmodern philosophy is so deeply buried it's almost inaccessible. And yet, the ideas that I thought were postmodern philosophy are good and interesting ideas, and I don't want to let them go. ... So I would like to understand postmodernism better.

The Butler book is one of the two that I found, and I didn't find it very helpful. Perhaps that's my fault.

Postmodernism had such an important influence on the arts and, even though I prefer making art of a realistic or symbolic kind, I have to admit that I find the postmodern art as innovative in thinking. Even Judith Butler's emphasis on gender as performance seems to be playful and the nature of textual understanding is about play. This approach is something which I found refreshing coming from a 'heavy metaphysics' background in Catholicism.

The use of images in production was central to this in minimalist art, such as that of Andy Warhol. It does connect with the avant-garde, countercultural and bohemianism. This involved music as well, probably from the music of Velvet Underground and other forms, such as punk and post-punk. It was probably a large influence on youth subculture and the arts.

Also, on a conceptual level it looked at images, which Baudrillard referred to as the 'simulacra'. He was speaking of images and consumption of images, and the symbolic aspects of consumer society. The analysis of this does involve seeing the way in which people buy items as symbolic aspects of identity, including art as a commodity and the culture of shopping arcades.. What may be interesting thinking of this in the twentieth first century is that consumer culture has changed so much. So many shop chains have shut down but that may simply mean that people are shopping online more

There is a move towards minimalism but the values of consumer materialism may be as strong as ever. That is because there is still a lot of emphasis on having the latest devices, such as the latest smartphones. It is possible to see the postmodernist critique of images and status as one for critiquing the culture of consumerism and its values.

A bit of a tangent, but I think Woolf rather beautifully encapsulates the bridge between modernism and post-modernism in Art. Not the Warhol mass production consumerism, alienated I Am A Camera aspect, but if you take a novel like To The Lighthouse, which tries to capture the nature of povs, being a subject, and then her book of essays A Room of One's Own about the mundane realities of who gets to tell their pov narratives. She, even as a privileged woman, understands the import of both.

I have read some of Virginia Woolf's writings and the one which I found most memorable was 'Orlando'. She could be seen as a precursor for postmodernism, alongside TS Eliot. I find some of the postmodernist fiction worth reading and it is possible to see Vladmir Nabokov, Kurt Vonnecut, Philip K Dick and William S Boroughs as being in the loose category of postmodern fiction writing. What may be happening in fiction, in the aftermath of both modernism and postmodernism is so many forms of blending and crossovers of genres. I find this exciting for thinking about the creative possibilities of this, especially as fiction can also be a platform for the exploration of philosophical ideas in connection with the enfoldment of stories in life.

[Belindi]

Explicit language is open to all. For instance there is no ambiguity in efficient instructions about how best clean an oven.

Pomos need to recognise that relativity is widely recognised and so we have jumped over the hurdle of postmodernism.

Don't the instructions on how to clean your oven include a presumption that it would be morally acceptable to own an oven or, perhaps, the correctness of using chemicals to clean your oven? When you say best, do you mean best for: your budget, your busy schedule, the lifespan of the oven, the environment, others you might have helped with the resources you devoted to oven cleaning supplies...?

The rest is confusing. Aren't Pomos a tribe of American Indians? Do you mean relativity as in Einstein, or maybe relativism (perspectivism) as in Nietzsche?

...only an interpretation and arrangement of the world (according to our own requirements, if I may say so!)—and not an explanation of the world. Nietzsche

How is postmodernism a hurdle rather than a tool? (I'll admit I may be biased. The little bit of postmodernism that I do think I understand appeals to me.)

Nobody reads instructions how to clean your oven unless the reader participates in a culture where oven cleaning is what people do. Except perhaps academics studying that culture, its belief and artefacts.
"Best", I wrote. I have noted that modern instructions don't analyse precisely what category the "best" belongs to and that's because the social context of the instructions do that job. So if I unpack a new oven the leaflet with cleaning instructions would be interesting if it included a dissertation on all aspects of buying, owning , and cleaning an oven, however the author has guessed most people prefer brevity and probability. Social contexts are more basic than language as noted by Wittgenstein who pointed out the meaning of a word is its use.

Relativity and relativism are synonymous except that the former is used by scientists and the latter by philosophers and sociologists.
I shall stop using 'pomo' as shorthand for postmodernists. I had not known Pomo were a people.

I suppose a postmodernist would read into what I just wrote that it's loaded with presumption that a reply to yours was proper, that a reply should be earnest not flippant, that we agree its okay for philosophy talk to include ovens, and so forth if there is any forth as I cannot think of any at present.Then a postmodernist may read a post modern critique of this very paragraph. Ad infinitum.

Postmodernism is both hurdle and tool. If we say modernism is thesis we have postmodernism as antithesis, the synthesis of those is a spiral beyond the earlier version of modernism. Any antithesis is not going to stimulate progress unless it takes some effort to get beyond it, therefore "hurdle".

[Ecurb]

A bit of a tangent, but I think Woolf rather beautifully encapsulates the bridge between modernism and post-modernism in Art. Not the Warhol mass production consumerism, alienated I Am A Camera aspect, but if you take a novel like To The Lighthouse, which tries to capture the nature of povs, being a subject, and then her book of essays A Room of One's Own about the mundane realities of who gets to tell their pov narratives. She, even as a privileged woman, understands the import of both.

I believe Woolf is generaslly considered to be a Modernist, although literature is confusing when it comes to modernism and post-mmodeernism. According to Glenn Ward, “In the modernist novel reality is represented through fallible, selective points of view. Events may be described from an uncertain position (or a number of different positions). They may be presented discontinuously, according to a subjective experience in which reality, perception and the unconscious get caught up in each other. Historical or ‘clock’ time may get mixed up with the personal time of emotion and memory. Characters struggle against their own disintegration in the face of modern life. Deep tr uths about the world and our place in it can be perceived, however fleeting. Modernism is concerned with consciousness and experience. It asks: How can we know reality?”

So modernism in literature adumbrated the post-modern movement elsewhere, as "To the Lighthouse" clearly shows. Narrators may be unreliable; time may be subjective; etc., etc. I agree, though, that "To the Lighthouse" lends itself to post-modern analysis. I love the dinner party, which seems as if it will be boring to both the reader and two of the snobbier guests, until Mrs. Ramsay turns on the charrm.

[chewybrian]

Explicit language is open to all. For instance there is no ambiguity in efficient instructions about how best clean an oven.

Pomos need to recognise that relativity is widely recognised and so we have jumped over the hurdle of postmodernism.

Don't the instructions on how to clean your oven include a presumption that it would be morally acceptable to own an oven or, perhaps, the correctness of using chemicals to clean your oven? When you say best, do you mean best for: your budget, your busy schedule, the lifespan of the oven, the environment, others you might have helped with the resources you devoted to oven cleaning supplies...?

The rest is confusing. Aren't Pomos a tribe of American Indians? Do you mean relativity as in Einstein, or maybe relativism (perspectivism) as in Nietzsche?

...only an interpretation and arrangement of the world (according to our own requirements, if I may say so!)—and not an explanation of the world. Nietzsche

How is postmodernism a hurdle rather than a tool? (I'll admit I may be biased. The little bit of postmodernism that I do think I understand appeals to me.)

Nobody reads instructions how to clean your oven unless the reader participates in a culture where oven cleaning is what people do. Except perhaps academics studying that culture, its belief and artefacts.
"Best", I wrote. I have noted that modern instructions don't analyse precisely what category the "best" belongs to and that's because the social context of the instructions do that job. So if I unpack a new oven the leaflet with cleaning instructions would be interesting if it included a dissertation on all aspects of buying, owning , and cleaning an oven, however the author has guessed most people prefer brevity and probability. Social contexts are more basic than language as noted by Wittgenstein who pointed out the meaning of a word is its use.

Relativity and relativism are synonymous except that the former is used by scientists and the latter by philosophers and sociologists.
I shall stop using 'pomo' as shorthand for postmodernists. I had not known Pomo were a people.

I suppose a postmodernist would read into what I just wrote that it's loaded with presumption that a reply to yours was proper, that a reply should be earnest not flippant, that we agree its okay for philosophy talk to include ovens, and so forth if there is any forth as I cannot think of any at present.Then a postmodernist may read a post modern critique of this very paragraph. Ad infinitum.

Postmodernism is both hurdle and tool. If we say modernism is thesis we have postmodernism as antithesis, the synthesis of those is a spiral beyond the earlier version of modernism. Any antithesis is not going to stimulate progress unless it takes some effort to get beyond it, therefore "hurdle".

I'm glad you read everything in the spirit it was offered. I see now how it could be a hurdle. However, I still think it is worth the effort to verify (as best we can) that we are living up to the ideals we aspire to reach. It's just too easy to accept the way things have always be done and not realize that there was some kind of injustice baked in. Further, it's not at all easy to see how things might appear to another person with different past experiences. Many or even most of us are projecting without realizing it much of the time.

[Sy Borg]

Pomos need to recognise that relativity is widely recognised and so we have jumped over the hurdle of postmodernism.

I agree. The lessons of postmodernism have been largely absorbed in academia and, to a lesser extent, in society at large.

[Gertie]

It was the part about art that helped to confuse me. Of the 'leading lights' of postmodernism, only one seems to be a philosopher, Derrida. The rest are artists, poets and literary critics, or so it seems. The stuff I had thought to be postmodern philosophy is so deeply buried it's almost inaccessible. And yet, the ideas that I thought were postmodern philosophy are good and interesting ideas, and I don't want to let them go. ... So I would like to understand postmodernism better.

The Butler book is one of the two that I found, and I didn't find it very helpful. Perhaps that's my fault.

Postmodernism had such an important influence on the arts and, even though I prefer making art of a realistic or symbolic kind, I have to admit that I find the postmodern art as innovative in thinking. Even Judith Butler's emphasis on gender as performance seems to be playful and the nature of textual understanding is about play. This approach is something which I found refreshing coming from a 'heavy metaphysics' background in Catholicism.

The use of images in production was central to this in minimalist art, such as that of Andy Warhol. It does connect with the avant-garde, countercultural and bohemianism. This involved music as well, probably from the music of Velvet Underground and other forms, such as punk and post-punk. It was probably a large influence on youth subculture and the arts.

Also, on a conceptual level it looked at images, which Baudrillard referred to as the 'simulacra'. He was speaking of images and consumption of images, and the symbolic aspects of consumer society. The analysis of this does involve seeing the way in which people buy items as symbolic aspects of identity, including art as a commodity and the culture of shopping arcades.. What may be interesting thinking of this in the twentieth first century is that consumer culture has changed so much. So many shop chains have shut down but that may simply mean that people are shopping online more

There is a move towards minimalism but the values of consumer materialism may be as strong as ever. That is because there is still a lot of emphasis on having the latest devices, such as the latest smartphones. It is possible to see the postmodernist critique of images and status as one for critiquing the culture of consumerism and its values.

A bit of a tangent, but I think Woolf rather beautifully encapsulates the bridge between modernism and post-modernism in Art. Not the Warhol mass production consumerism, alienated I Am A Camera aspect, but if you take a novel like To The Lighthouse, which tries to capture the nature of povs, being a subject, and then her book of essays A Room of One's Own about the mundane realities of who gets to tell their pov narratives. She, even as a privileged woman, understands the import of both.

I have read some of Virginia Woolf's writings and the one which I found most memorable was 'Orlando'. She could be seen as a precursor for postmodernism, alongside TS Eliot. I find some of the postmodernist fiction worth reading and it is possible to see Vladmir Nabokov, Kurt Vonnecut, Philip K Dick and William S Boroughs as being in the loose category of postmodern fiction writing. What may be happening in fiction, in the aftermath of both modernism and postmodernism is so many forms of blending and crossovers of genres. I find this exciting for thinking about the creative possibilities of this, especially as fiction can also be a platform for the exploration of philosophical ideas in connection with the enfoldment of stories in life.

Personally I find Eliot's conservative catholicism and self-conscious reverence(?) of the literary canon very different to Woolf's wilful FU  deconstruction.  Both are fab, but Woolf brings new voices into the discourse - domestic  and fantastical.  Her experience of being an elite, and we generally only get to hear from elites (or at least those with £500 a year and a room of their own) , is different, fresh.  Eliot examines our established tasty pick n mix  platter of cultural  canon reassembling meanings within a modernist sensibility, Woolf asks who gets to be in the kitchen.  Who gets to tell the stories and what does that mean to our cultural canon.

[Gertie]

ecurb

Gertie wrote: ↑Yesterday, 10:31 pm

A bit of a tangent, but I think Woolf rather beautifully encapsulates the bridge between modernism and post-modernism in Art. Not the Warhol mass production consumerism, alienated I Am A Camera aspect, but if you take a novel like To The Lighthouse, which tries to capture the nature of povs, being a subject, and then her book of essays A Room of One's Own about the mundane realities of who gets to tell their pov narratives. She, even as a privileged woman, understands the import of both.

I believe Woolf is generaslly considered to be a Modernist, although literature is confusing when it comes to modernism and post-mmodeernism. According to Glenn Ward, “In the modernist novel reality is represented through fallible, selective points of view. Events may be described from an uncertain position (or a number of different positions). They may be presented discontinuously, according to a subjective experience in which reality, perception and the unconscious get caught up in each other. Historical or ‘clock’ time may get mixed up with the personal time of emotion and memory. Characters struggle against their own disintegration in the face of modern life. Deep tr uths about the world and our place in it can be perceived, however fleeting. Modernism is concerned with consciousness and experience. It asks: How can we know reality?”

Yes it's hard to draw clear boundaries, but I like that summary.

So modernism in literature adumbrated the post-modern movement elsewhere, as "To the Lighthouse" clearly shows. Narrators may be unreliable; time may be subjective; etc., etc. I agree, though, that "To the Lighthouse" lends itself to post-modern analysis. I love the dinner party, which seems as if it will be boring to both the reader and two of the snobbier guests, until Mrs. Ramsay turns on the charrm.

Yeah I'd say To The Lighthouse is def a self-consciously (so to speak) modernist novel. But there's also Woolf thinking about who gets to write novels in the first place in A Room of One's Own. And if Modernism embraces the nature of what it means to be a Subject, as a novel like To The Lighthouse does, which Subject's experiences are being told, and become canon, authoritative, normal, shape our sense of who we are, our values, etc. That strikes me as a post-modern attitude. She herself was privileged in terms of class, but still felt an outsider in some respects. Her class gave her the opportunity to write a novel like To The Lighthouse, become part of the canon, but her sex and sexuality gave her enough distance to also make such questions part of the discourse. So it struck me as a neat example of a modernist author moving into post-modernist territory.

[Sy Borg]

I would think we are in a post-postmodern situation, where it's acknowledged that anything goes in our meta-culture, but these are not all equal. The cream and the scum tend to rise to the top, which somewhat clarifies relative merits.

Some thought provoking material here: