[The Decay of Meaning]

Could someone explain what postmodernism really is? I am a bit confused.

[ness]

um...I would say it is a revision of all the grand narratives.

[Kon]

www.tdmlearntousetheinternet.com

[Le Rouge]

I would not say post-modernism a revision of all meta-narratives but a rejection of a meta-narrative. According to post-modernism the ‘objective’ is in reality an inter-subjective construction and therefore all narratives should be treated equally.

[Potemkin]

Postmodernism - What is it?

Shite.

[| I, CWAS |]

Potemkin has described it perfectly.

[ness]

I'm socially Conservative - but even I can see a small amount of merit to PM.

[Einherjar]

Potemkin has described it perfectly.

Why? (I ask you not Potemkin because I can anticipate the response of an objectivist marxist.)

I am intrigued by the philosophical foundations of postmodernism; not at all by its modern political ramifications though.

[QatzelOk]

I say no to astringents on my dry facial skin.

*cat jumps up and down because Lassie is home at last*

B-b-b-benny and the Jetsssss...

[Kanadees]

Are you perhaps a screenwriter?

[QatzelOk]

Maybe I will be a screenwriter one day.

Hollywood might find me useful.

[Adam_Smith]

Postmodernism may have begun as a sincere effort to examine the assumptions of "modernist" thought, i.e., mainstream literary/intellectual 20th century notions. However, it quickly degenerated into pretentious claptrap.

For a startlingly realistic, but randomly generated, postmodernist essay click on: http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo

[Mikolaj]

So, instead of folloing one metanarrative, in pomo do you get all eclectic and select elements from a bunch of narratives?

[Potemkin]

So, instead of folloing one metanarrative, in pomo do you get all eclectic and select elements from a bunch of narratives?

Pomo essentially declares that all 'grand narratives' or 'meta-narratives' are flawed ways of looking at reality. They impose a unified and self-consistent framework onto a reality which is inconsistent, self-contradictory and fragmentary. They claim to be objective, but in fact are radically subjective. They therefore act as mental straitjackets, what Blake called "the mind-forged manacles of Man", and must be shattered, broken up, discredited and denied. In their place there must be a myriad of separate voices, each telling their own personal story from their own openly subjective viewpoint. These voices will clash, contradict each other, and will coexist without denying or replacing each other.

Needless to say, this project, if carried through to its logical (!) conclusion, would lead to the end of philosophy, religion, political ideology and science as we currently understand them. Exactly what they would be replaced by, and how useful these replacements would be, is unclear. In practice, it merely leads to so-called 'academics' of dubious scholarly and political pedigrees being given the excuse they need to smuggle in all sorts of crackpot and reactionary ideas under cover of 'postmodernism'. You won't hear any self-respecting Marxist say a good word about postmodernism. In fact, the American Marxist scholar Frederick Jameson has called pomo "the logic of late capitalism". I believe he is correct - pomo is merely the symptom appearing on the superstructural surface of society of the economic development of the capitalist system under conditions of globalisation.

[QatzelOk]

I believe he is correct - pomo is merely the symptom appearing on the superstructural surface of society of the economic development of the capitalist system under conditions of globalisation.

So do you believe the old metanarratives will be fine once globalisation and global warming reduce us all to pre-postmodern living conditions?

Or do you think that, perhaps, environmental conditions and advanced education standards have reduced these traditional metanarratives to being only valuable in understanding the errors of our ancestors?

The Bush administration is very modernist in its application of its own metanarratives onto regions of the world who don't share his belief in them.

"Freedom. Democracy. Global Economic Status Quo. Judeo-Christian Americana."

[Potemkin]

So do you believe the old metanarratives will be fine once globalisation and global warming reduce us all to pre-postmodern living conditions?

There is only one correct metanarrative and that is Marxism. This metanarrative is, as Marx himself pointed out, itself historically determined, and as the nature of human society changes, so we will need to adapt our metanarrative to meet those changing conditions. There will even come a time, as Marx foresaw, when Marxism itself is an outmoded metanarrative. But under present conditions, it is a correct and necessary metanarrative.

Or do you think that, perhaps, environmental conditions and advanced education standards have reduced these traditional metanarratives to being only valuable in understanding the errors of our ancestors?

All traditional metanarratives are what Marx referred to disparagingly as 'ideologies', which is to say symptoms of false consciousness. It is one of the ironies of history that (vulgar) Marxism became precisely such an 'ideology'. In his questioning of all previous 'ideologies', Marx could be called the first postmodernist. However, he believed that there is such a thing as objective truth, albeit a truth which changes through historical time, and he set out to establish 'scientific' socialism rather than utopian, ideological socialism.

The Bush administration is very modernist in its application of its own metanarratives onto regions of the world who don't share his belief in them.

"Freedom. Democracy. Global Economic Status Quo. Judeo-Christian Americana."

Very true, and just like most Modernists, he has crypto-fascist leanings. But as I said, Bush's metanarrative is a false one, merely a symptom of his false consciousness. But the Islamicists have their metanarrative too, which is also symptomatic rather than objective.

[Subversive Rob]

It's pretty difficult to actually 'define' postmodernism as anything specific, even the 'rejection of all metanarratives' line doesn't seem to really capture precisely what it is. This is especially as a good deal of PoMo work assumes a form that is not unlike a metanarrative itself. The other problem is that PoMo is often muddled up with Poststructuralism (as seems to be the case with a lot of these 'PoMo generators'), or seen as some kind of 'surrealism'.

So I think the best way to approach it is from a historical and contextual standpoint. The first thing to note is that many of the important PoMo people were involved in the intellectual milieu of French Marxism (e.g. Lyotard et al were members of S ou B), as most people on the French left were in some way shape or form. However, they were often involved in the more libertarian Marxist projects, and drifted slowly into a critique of Marxism, and some of the theoretical positions it is associated with. This carries through to a lot of other PoMo stuff in that they are primarily a reaction to other traditions ('modernism' if you will), and in that respect it is hard to 'define' it.

This means that the concept is somewhat slippery, and doesn't really capture very much. In many respects the term 'postmodernism' is something imposed on 'PoMo' works from the outside, so as to delegitimate them.

Or do you think that, perhaps, environmental conditions and advanced education standards have reduced these traditional metanarratives to being only valuable in understanding the errors of our ancestors?

Well, what exactly do you mean by postmodern living conditions? If you mean the post-Fordist consumerism that some of us are experiencing I'd note that these conditions exist in a very small part of the world and that most of these have been anticipated and dissected by 'modernists', time and time again. If you mean 'globalisation' then that was of course the pre-eminent theme of Marx's 'metanarrative' and so can hardly be said to 'surpass' it.

I'd also say that Marx never used the term 'false consciousness', and that his 'grand narrative' is actually a particularly situational one, that is not just some schema that can be smuggled into any situation.

You won't hear any self-respecting Marxist say a good word about postmodernism

I'm not sure about that...

[motojackal]

It has no real definition or any real meaning. It is just psuedo intelectuals engaged in a wanking competition.

[Potemkin]

It has no real definition or any real meaning. It is just psuedo intelectuals engaged in a wanking competition.

Would that be 'soggy biscuit' or a 6ukkake?

[QatzelOk]

It is one of the ironies of history that (vulgar) Marxism became precisely such an 'ideology'. In his questioning of all previous 'ideologies', Marx could be called the first postmodernist.

Marx lived before automation, so his view of a future world of egalitarian control of means of production was missing a significant feature. Humanless manufacturing.

Marx lived before global warming and atmospheric damage. So his view of social harmony was missing a significant feature: A de-industrialised economy.

So, in the end, through his articulation of dialectic materialism, Marx helped structure (rather than explain) the history of the world without providing any real prescription for it. The seizing of means of production by the proletariat was probably an afterthought. Engels kept asking him, "So what do you suggest now, Mr Immiseration-of-the-Prolos?"