Talk:Postmodernism/Archive 1

message: The article contains a direct contradiction:
This paragraph identifies many critics of postmodernism as, quote 'left academics with Marxist leanings'
<snip>
>As noted above (see History of postmodernism), some theorists such as Habermas even argue that>the supposed distinction between the 'modern' and the 'postmodern' does not exist at all, but>that the latter is really no more than a development within a larger, still-current, 'modern'>framework. Many who make this argument are left academics with Marxist leanings...
<snip>
'But later in the same article, this:
<snip>
>It is well known that most of the adherents of postmodern philosophy are Leftists.
<snip>
What is going on here? Can anyone shed light on this? Who are these crafty 'leftists' who are at once for and against postmodernism? (and how postmodern can you get?) ;0)
: It's not a prima facie contradiction for there to exist both "postmodernist" and "antipostmodernist" leftists.  However, the second sentence you cite was reverted to an earlier, blatantly POV form just a few hours ago by the same anonymous user who complains of the "impotence" of the criticism below.  I've reverted it back to the at least halfway-resonable neutral form, for now.  IMHO, the right way to deal with this kind of problem would be to find a legitimate source to cite for the criticism (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy for more discussion of this issue) rather than allowing every passing nonexpert to introduce their own opinion under cover of "some say" or "it's well known." -- Rbellin 17:03, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Article is self-contradictory

message: I really think this page and the page on modernism should be split into different pages like "postmodernistic art", "postmodernistic literature", because calling the whole thing a syncronized movement is debatable. 
If you do choose to do it (what?), it should be explained how it will be done in the article, avoiding confusion about the intention of the author.
: I've tried to make some sense of this. If the author can't rephrase it so it makes more sense, I'm going to remove it. MrJones 12:14, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split the Page? 

message: Rejection of "meta-narratives" can hardly be called a premise of post-modernism, given that the term was coined in the late 1970s by Lyotard after what is normally dubbed "post-modernism" in the arts, architecture, and literature, had been entrenched for several decades.  At most, "rejecting meta-narratives" is a project peculiar to those literary theorists who cast themselves as the philosophical branch of post-modernism.
: I would say that relativism has been a key feature of postmodernism across all the arts. For example, in architecture, architects were reacting against what was perceived as 'monolothic' modernism, attempting instead to design buildings which were more in keeping with the surrounding environment and less of an imposition on it. On the whole, then, I think it is accurate to call the rejection of metanarratives a central premise of postmodernism. Lyotard was defining postmodernism with hindsight, attempting to give retrospective sense to a movement that - as you say - had been evolving for some time before he wrote his book in 1979. R Lowry
:: I suggest a middle position between the above two: I think it is true that "relativism" in some sense has always been a feature of all forms of "post-modernism."  But I also think it is important to distinguish between post-modernism as a cultural phenomena manifested primarily in the arts, and post-modernism as a philosophical (or social theory)  position (of which Lyotard is arguably the founder).  This is important because there are theorists (I am thinking of Harvey and Jameson) who may or may not be "postmodernists" depending on how you define the term, but clearly recognize the existence of some phenomena called "postmodernism" (located primarily int he arts) upon which they are commenting from an academic position.  I see a difference between them and Lyotard, who is not merely commenting on postmodernism (located primarily int he arts) but advocating a transformation of academia too. Slrubenstein
::: Harvey's best-known book on the subject is actually called 'The Condition of *Postmodernity*'. His concern is primarily with the postmodern as a socio-economic phenomenon, rather than as something that is located 'primarily in the arts'. Jameson, who like Harvey is a Marxist, is also (while he does discuss postmodern aesthetics in far more depth than Harvey) primarily interested in postmodernism in economic terms - he sees it as the 'cultural logic of late capitalism'. 
:::: Well, in fact, Harvey refers heavily to art and architecture; Jameson also to literature.  They seem to understand postemodernity as something located primarily in the arts, although they explain it in terms of political-economic forces.  When Jameson refers to postmodernism as the "cultural logic of late capitalism" he is not "interested" in postmodernism in "economic terms," he is describing it in cultural terms (i.e. "the cultural logic") which he then explains in political-economic terms.
::: Neither, IMO, would properly be described as 'postmodernists', exactly, but rather as cultural critics who have chosen to analyse and understand postmodernism in the light of their own (resolutely modern) Marxist teleology. 
:::: Then you agree with me, that they are not postmodernists but are recognizing the existence of something called postmodernism.  I am glad you agree with me.
: I think the best possible distinction to draw is that between postmodernism as a cultural / aesthetic phenomenon, and postmodernity as a socio-economic phenomenon. As you can see from those two links, that distinction has already been established on Wikipedia. Regards, R Lowry
And I agree with you that the distinction between postmodernism and postmodernity is important.  But I am just adding that one more distinction is necessary, between postmodernism as a cultural phenomena (e.g. Robert Ventura, Julien Barnes, and I forget her name but the female photographer who photographs herself in various disguises/poses), and as an academic movement (e.g. Lyotard). I think this is closer to the point the first commentator (in this section) made.  Slrubenstein
::I agree to a certain degree about the additional distinction, though there is certainly an overlap. Postmodernism is sometimes "aesthetic" position, cultural movement, or the idea behing some cultural phenomena but other times "epistemological" position. Issues like the role of interpretation in research, power relations in participant observation, interviews, & ethnography, etc., are things postmodernists in the latter sense reflect upon. Tomos 19:33, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article's Definition of PM Questioned 

message: Eek. I've also just spotted this (an older edit, this one, not one by Mr Jones): 
>"Modernist literature has commonly relied on an objective and omniscient point of view (think of the role of a narrator in a third-person narrated novel). Perhaps Joyce's Ulysses may be the best example, but anything by Dickens or Tolstoy may serve."
This is so screwed-up that I hardly know where to begin. 
* First, Dickens and Tolstoy were not modernists - they wrote in the mid- to late- 19th Century before modernism in literature began to emerge, in the last decade or two of the 19th Century. 
* Second, modernist literature was precisely the point where authors began to move away from the idea of an "objective and omniscient point of view", and began to embrace subjectivism (eg, Virginia Woolf; see also Molly Bloom's interior monologue in Ulysses), and fragmentariness in narrative- and character-construction (eg, Strindberg; Pirandello; Woolf again). 
* Joyce's Ulysses is modernist precisely because it shows a chaotic multiplicity of perspectives and narrative styles, rather than adhering to a consistent and 'omniscient' method of narration. 
R Lowry 18:13, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now given the 'Postmodernism in literature' section a complete rewrite, which in my opinion was much-needed. I hope I haven't stepped on anyone's feelings by deleting what was there before, but I really felt that it was, at best, misleading, and at worst just plain wrong. R Lowry 00:36, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Would you like to remove these comments now this is fixed, or are they somehow useful? They seem historical to me, so someone interested in such comments can look in the history. MrJones 12:21, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  A flawed Paragraph on PMist and M'ist Literature  

message: There seems to be a developing consensus in Western intellectual and cultural communities tha post-modernism is dead or is dieing. Should this be listed in the article. Important to note is that the next cultural movement (or whatever exists now that post-modernism is gone) has not been titeled. thoughts? GrazingshipIV 16:44, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)
:I hadn't heard it's dead....still very very much alive in many universities, which means that students are still learning its precepts.  I wouldn't add it to the article unless we can attribute the assertion to someone...preferably someone who once supported the movement, rather than one of its critics (who presumably might greatly exaggerate rumors of its demise).  And of course, until the new movement is named and characterized, we can't do much with it: Wikipedia is not original research. :-) Jwrosenzweig 16:46, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I would disagree that postmodernism hasn't gelled with popular culture; rather, it has become popular culture. The postmodern blurring between objectivity/subjectivity and university/locality is a product of the diverse and fragmentary nature of popular culture, which defies unification. The only thing that the academics are really doing is "academizing" popular culture. Unlike modernism, postmodernism doesn't really hinge upon academia, which is considered a very modernist institution. Even if a meteor fell upon a large postmodern symposium and killed every postmodern academic, postmodernism as they defined it would still reverberate through popular culture, and the new "academics" would be the writers of The Simpsons and South Park. Moreover, they see the current rise of fundamentalism and rationalism as a very postmodern occurrence, because unlike in the 20th Century, everyone in Western society today has a different fundamentalism, and a different rationalism, and the're all on the internet. COGDEN 18:43, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: My 2 cents: I've heard the mention of postmodernism's supposed demise from someone taking philosopohy courses at UWM.  At the time, she was working on an assignment in which she had to prove that a logically correct sentence had the same number of open parenthesis as close parenthesis.  Her definition of postmodernism sounded conspicuously like high modernism, and she knew nothing of postmodernity.  She told me about a post-post-modern philosopher writting about naturalism.  That sounds pre-modern to me.  I think many people are regressing when confronted with post-modernity, but I don't see that as postmodernism's demise, I see it rather, as people's failure to comprehend postmodernism. Kevin Baas 23:26, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Is the Post-Modernist Movement Dead?

message: I was thrilled to see a section on postmodern architecture in this article, particularly because it cited Frank Gehry.  Just down the street from my terminal, the Stata Center lifts its bulk over the MIT campus.  Now, opinions on that building vary all over opinion space: some people see it as the best thing built here in years, and some very vocal types call it an abomination.  Others just ask, "When it breaks, where are they going to find spare parts?" (A skunk recently took up residence in its main air intake, but that's a different story.)  Finally, I've found the perfect way to describe it:  it is the world's finest example of poststructuralist architecture.
In all seriousness, though, can we really claim that the Las Vegas strip is a postmodern work?  Unlike the ATT Building, it wasn't designed by one creator; instead, it's the compilation of everything that casino operators once thought eye-catching.  If anything which was made of the past's bits and pieces, institutionalized and preserved through many people's actions and whimsies, counts as a "postmodern work"—well, then, let's list the United States Constitution here, too.
Examining the aesthetic of such an eclectic mix could well be postmodern.  Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas is, arguably, a postmodern book because it does this sort of thing.  But the Strip itself?
Anville 22:35, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Postmodernism in Architecture 

message: The article just seems to throw down names of people which have all been placed under a "post-modernist" label.  This is not effective because it just becomes incoherent.  If all the names listed are "postmodern," then really the only thing the term can mean is just referring to a general time period and nothing else.  Take areas like this:
"Jean Baudrillard, Michel Foucault, and Roland Barthes (in his more post-structural work) are also strongly influential in postmodern theory. Postmodernism is closely allied with several contemporary academic disciplines, most notably those connected with sociology. Many of its assumptions are integral to feminist and post-colonial theory."
Baudrillard and Foucault? These two theorists are almost diametrically opposed in their views(see Baudrillard's "Forget Foucault").  If they are both strongly influential in postmodern theory, this can only attest to the meaningless of the term beyond referring to a time period. Further:
"The movement has had diverse political ramifications: its anti-ideological insights appear conducive to, and strongly associated with, the feminist movement..."
Baudrillard is constantly described as "the high priest of postmodernism" which is a quote from the journal Marxism Today.  Baudrillard can be fairly described as fully opposed to the feminist movement, pretty much any work by him from 1979 to 1989 makes this clear.  I even remember him in a Mike Gane book(it could have been from an interview in "Baudrillard Live" or just quoted in "Baudrillard: Critical and Fatal Theory", it's not in "Baudrillard's Beastiary", though) referring to this one's woman's position as mere "shitty feminism," a particularly profane comment from a person firmly rooted in academia.  If the high priest of postmodernism is against the feminist movement, then how strongly could postmodernism be associated and conducive of it, if the term has any meaning whatsoever?
Perhaps the article is effective though in that its confusion demonstrates well the confusion of the discourse around the subject, but, I would be tempted to say that an encyclopedia shouldn't strive for such, I can't think of a good word, "ambiguous", perhaps, portrayals.  Maybe an encyclopedia authored by a general public, with all its contradictions, like the Wikipedia, can never pretend to be the same as traditional encyclopedias, with all their cohesion, though  If I would writeup the description it would probably look something like:
"The term postmodernism is applied to a variety of systems and trends in various philosophical, sociological, artistic and generally theoretical fields from the middle of the 20th century and onward. The proliferation of this application is vast and varied, encompassing many contradictory positions.  Because of these contradictions it seems impossible to give a coherent defintion of postmodernism."  And include famous musings on what postmodernism is, such as Lyotard's which is already included and some list of notable artists and theorists that are placed under the sign of "postmodernism."  But the passages which just come off as splatterings of these names and then attempts at connecting the dots seem futile: the dots are far too chaotic in their placement to be of encyclopedic interest in connecting beyond the fact that they're under the same sign and time period.--Whoabot 09:59, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems like the right direction for an improved article to me, and I quite like the sentences proposed as an approach to the impossible problem of a general introduction.  And I agree that its current confused state is only enlightening as a reflection of common confusions on the topic.  I hope you and similarly informed editors will be bold and put in some work on the article.  -- Rbellin 04:37, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Baudrillard Contra Feminism" Contra This Article? 

message: Seriously, we have to come to some kind of Wikipedia consensus. Postmodern is "correct," as I understand it, being the name of the actual movement, not just "the one after modernism". Has/is this been/being discussed elsewhere?
The usage elsewhere is generally, though not exclusively, that the "-" signals that the author believes that the modern aspect is dominant. Stirling Newberry 15:52, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, however, I think we need uniformity on Wikipedia. I'd recommend complete adoption of the sans hyphenated version, but including a section in the main article regarding disputes between the two, and who tends to use one or the other. This isn't a color/colour deal; that hyphen, or lack thereof, certainly brings a bias. Anyway, I'm no Wikipedia vet; how are these kinds of things (i.e. BC vs. BCE) handled?  --Max Terry 23:43, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Postmodern" versus "Post-Modern" 

message: I've written a stub on neomodernism, but it needs contributions (by someone who knows more than me ie anything about the subject). m.e. 10:55, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neomodernism 

message: I'm removing the following but posting it here in discussion in case someone else thinks it's appropriate or wants to defend it.  I think it's amusing but not really necessary or all that relevant here.  
:The cartoonist Bill Watterson argues a similar point in his comic strip Calvin and Hobbes.  His six-year-old protagonist often claims that his snowmen and school-notebook doodles are "avant-garde", backing up his contention with prose similar to that which Sokal generated.  Once, Calvin pencils a book report entitled, "The Dynamics of Interbeing and Monological Imperatives in Dick and Jane: a Study in Psychic Transrelational Gender Modes".  Displaying his creation to his friend Hobbes, he smugly remarks, "Academia, here I come!"  These strips and others of note are reprinted in The Calvin and Hobbes Tenth Anniversary Book (1995), in which Watterson explains that his "art criticism" was derived from published postmodern rhetoric, with minimal changes.
--csloat 06:42, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My rationale for adding the passage in the first place is that it is probably one of the more widely disseminated critiques of academic garbledygook to be made in recent years.  After all, Calvin and Hobbes is certainly a popular comic strip; I'd be willing to bet that Watterson's jibes reached a wider audience than Sokal's.  Besides, one of the themes of present-day literary analysis seems to be to treat a wide range of "texts" as worthy of attention.  Quoting a comic strip in our discussion might just be the postmodern thing to do.  Hey, what's the point of having a featured article if we don't cite it anywhere?  Best, Anville 11:07, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a big fan of Watterson, and however funny his criticisms, they aren't of the same kind as those which are thought out. After all Norman Rockwell satirized abstract expressionism, and just about every art movement has attracted cartoonists who have lampooned the excesses of it. One of my favorite cartoons is the "Liszt-Wagner sound-fog machine", and I am a Wagnerite. Perhaps a note on the lampooning would be correct. Stirling Newberry 14:32, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: The problem with the 'Calvin and Hobbes' passage is tht it fails to differentiate modernism from postmodernism and both of them from general academic jargon. 'Avant-garde' is essentially a concept within modernism, as is the idea that abstract squiggles count as fine art. "The Dynamics of Interbeing and Monological Imperatives" and "Psychic Transrelational Gender Modes" does not sound much like postmodernist rhetoric, at least not specifically. It sounds more like something from academic psychology or sociology. Paul B 14:22, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree.  I'm a great fan of Watterson's, but his satire doesn't have anything to do with postmodernism specifically.  The rest of the article needs a lot of narrowing down, too; I get the sense (with no offense intended) that many of the editors of this page don't know there's a difference between postmodernism and many other varieties of quasi-philosophical jargon.  I would support the creation of a new article on academic obscurantism that could serve as a clearinghouse for many criticisms of jargon and bad writing which this article should not contain. -- Rbellin|Talk 18:26, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The use of the phrase "gender roles" and "trans-" means it isn't modernism. Again, lampooning excesses is normal, and exists with every period. Modernity's use of scientific jargon and mathematics has been lampooned too. In fact, one can go back to Aristophanes send up of Socrates in finding examples. Stirling Newberry 19:26, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure one can, but I don't think we'll include cartoons making fun of Socrates in the entry on philosophy.  I think Watterson's send-up is funny too, but it has no place here.  Also, I don't believe there is anything essentially "postmodernist" about the word "gender" or the prefix "trans-".  As Rbellin points out above, this is not just a problem with the cartoon but with many of the claims in this article -- "postmodern" does not just mean "obscure" or "turgid academic jargon."--csloat 05:21, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  do we really need cartoons? 

message: I'm happy to see that quotation from Marx here, but I think the point it raises could use some explication. Much of post-modernism is a nostalgia for the pre-modern world, for the "solids" that modernity (but not modernism) melted. Marx himself had no such nostalgia -- he was glad that capitalism had performed its historical role of melting those older feudal solids into air, it was preparation for communism. Yet that phrase has become a rallying cry for people whose critique of capitalism is very different from Marx's, who want to undo what he was congratulating capitalism for doing. --Christofurio 13:47, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
:All very interesting as POV's, but can we document who has made these arguments in a notable way and document them. The paradigm we should have is that an individual is "looking up" postmodernism. We should provide enough description of the uses of the term and their context for them to go to the particular use. If there are controversies about that context then those should be documented in place, and not pre-emptively. Stirling Newberry 14:01, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  All that is solid melts, etc. 

message: I find it intresting that those of us posting in this tread are talking about postmodernism like it is something we can objectively box, having little or no participating in the movement itself. There are comments about the self contradictory nature of the article, but the subject itself grapples with conflictions and ambigiouty.
:"Grapples with"?  Just judging from my own life experiences, a better phrasing might be "surrenders to".  Best wishes, Anville 15:32, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Artist v.s. The Critic 

message: In the section titled "The development of postmodernism," the article does not have a very clear delineation of Derridian deconstruction.  The article makes it sound like logos is idiosyncratic to a particular individual who then priveleges the construct.  Isn't there an idea of "truth" in "original utterance" that contrasts with idiosyncratically priveleged constructs or are those constructs the original utterances?  Very confusing. Theshibboleth 03:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The development of postmodernism 

message: IMO there should be a section on this, as well as a sub-article.  My issue is, the obvious place to put this is in with the other "manifestations," but it would be a much easier section to write if it came after the discussion of "deconstruction."  Should I then put a political science section below, in with postmodernism and philosophy, should deconstruction be moved up higher, should I put political science in with the other manifestations, or is such a section misplaced in this article, deserving perhaps a sub-article and a link, but unnecessary to the purpose of this article.
My preference would be to move deconstruction up higher, to be closer to the definitions, or even to move the list of manifestations to the end, so that postmodern philosophy becomes the focus of the article, with other manifestations getting their due later. Smmurphy 04:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Postmodernism in Political Science