From: "John S. Ransom" <dickinson-AT-alinet.it> Subject: I: what is postmodernism? (fwd) Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 23:25:03 +0100 Here's an attempt I made to define postmodernism once. Corrections and criticisms appreciated, should anyone here be so inclined. -- John Ransom -----Messaggio originale----- Da: John Ransom <ransom-AT-dickinson.edu> A: dickinson <dickinson-AT-alinet.it> Data: Sunday, March 21, 1999 6:23 PM Oggetto: what is postmodernism? (fwd) >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1999 17:44:26 -0500 (EST) >From: John Ransom <ransom-AT-dickinson.edu> >To: mctighe-AT-dickinson.edu >Subject: what is postmodernism? (fwd) > >Subject: what is postmodernism? > >Friends, > >My colleague [so-and-so] asked me to come up with a brief description of >postmodernism. I couldn't find anything I liked so I tried to map out the >idea below. I do, however, draw on several articles on postmodernism. >References can be provided for those interested. Comments, additions, and >criticisms are *welcome*. > >This word is used in different though related ways in different >disciplines. It actually started off as a term that applied to an >architectural style. > >I would describe postmodernism as follows: > >To understand postmodernism we need some familiarity with modernism. >"Modernity" is closely linked to the industrial and agricultural >revolutions of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. It follows -- >speaking very generally and necessarily crudely -- the feudalistic middle >ages. > >*Economically* modernity is characterized by the growth of massive, >industrially-based productive forces making possible whole new >dispositions of human material on the basis of the incredible wealth >produced by those forces. > >*Sociologically* modernity is characterized by the division of society >into more or less self-conscious classes that compete and cooperate with >one another to achieve fairly clearly identified material and ideal >interests. > >*Culturally* modernity is dominated by a faith in the efficacy and >truth-producing capacities of science and the scientific method. > >*Historically* modernity is characterized by a forward-looking belief in >"progress." Progress occurs in terms of the accumulation of ever more >precise kinds of knowledge; it also refers to an infinite increase in >goods and labor-saving devices. > >*Politically* modernity is dominated by nation-states. These are the >primary actors on the international stage; influencing and perhaps >controlling them is also the primary object of the classes within them. > >*Ethically* modernity focuses on the sanctity and rights of the individual >person, especially as it confronts a powerful nation-state and a peer >pressure that promotes conformity. > >Let's contrast postmodernism to modernity on each of these points. > >*Economically* postmodernism (PM) is marked by the transition from an >industrial (factories producing commodities) to a service economy >(organizations providing services). > >*Sociologically* PM is marked by the disintegration of the old class >structure and the dispersion of labor into various clerical and service >occupations that militate against political action based on class >interests. > >*Culturally* PM has a skeptical attitude toward science and the scientific >method, pointing to the interests and societal imperatives that science >unavoidably pursues. The sociological disintegration of society reduces >the pressure on agents to understand their interests and ideals in terms >of broad social values. Cultural particularism holds sway, and the more or >less clear battle lines characteristic of modernity are blurred. > >*Historically* PM gives up on the idea -- whether in Marxist or liberal >terms -- that history is the story of progress and the realization of >human freedom. The events of the twentieth century, in postmodernist eyes, >discourage such optimism. > >*Politically* PM is characterized by "plurality." This plurality, however, >should not just be seen merely in terms of "interests" in the sense, say, >of Dahl's use of the term "pluralism." Instead, pluralism in the PM mode >refers to discrete ways of viewing and valuing the world that cannot be >subsumed under some kind of progressive "united front." > >*Ethically* (and this point is unsurprisingly related to the politics >point above) PM turns away from a unitary account of the individual and >her rights as they relate to the broader social environment. (This is not, >of course, to say that PM advises us to give up rights!) It focuses >instead on the plurality of structures of value. The ethical question for >PM is not: "Are the rights of the (uniformly conceived) individual being >respected?" but rather, "What alternative ways of knowing and of being are >being marginalized by today's dominant forms?" > >One last point: we should not think of "postmodernism" as an exclusive >possession of the "left." The term (in the sense that we are discussing it >here) was first introduced by historians like Toynbee and sociologists like >Daniel Bell. They *describe* the postmodern condition, but *deplore* it. > >--John > >
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005