Talk:Postmodernism

The usage and extent of the concept of ‘postmodernism’

I have added this section, using Dick Hebdige. to succinctly (I hope) broaden the scope to indicate the frequent use in popular culture of the term postmodernism while still indicating the broader scope of the term. Mike Milligan 11:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Authors

After consulting some books, I think Wagner did a fair job assisting in the clarification, and since the architecture bit edited in by Galemp, in the near future maybe we have some more - encyclopedic - sources we can quote from? Britannica was no big help, doesnt have a single entry for it, it's m-w.com component gives a (too) short definition, but it keeps mentioning it. Proposals for something else?--Flammingo^Hey 13:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I have issues with the authors of the texts because it is very America-centric. This bias, and view isn't doing a benefit to the article. I had to remove an 1 of 2 American definition which was similar to the other; whereas there wasn't a British dicitionary cites, Oxford had a very diffent definition. Why were there 2 American ditionaries? Why are there constant referals to American culture et cetera? This article needs to be cleaned up badly.--122.106.113.237 (talk) 13:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The listed authors under "Influences" needs serious work. They're all old white men. Where are the women? Where's the multiculturalism that postmodernism espouses? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.163.196.160 (talk) 02:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Randolph Bourne

This passage does not add new information, is there a reason to keep it anyway? The term is actually used as early as 1916 in Randolph Bourne's "Trans-NationalAmerica" in relation to advances in a cultural context --Flammingo^Hey 22:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Literary Contributors (Surrealism, Beckett, Ihab Hassan, etc.)

I have several serious problems with the section titled "Notable philosophical and literary contributors," mostly the "literary" part. I'm reluctant to make the actual changes because if you give proper room to literary contributors the section would be gigantic and that's supposedly being taken care of by the "postmodern literature" page (though I've complained on that talk page about how inadequate it is). One problem I have is the mention of Dadaism without the mention of Surrealism. Dadaism was a brief movement compared to Surrealism; though both highly influential movements, Surrealism lasted for much of the early part of the 20th century and I'd say it had a more significant influence. Just look at how often an artist from each movement is mentioned by a "postmodern" artist or philospher. How often does Foucault or Derrida reference Rene Magritte, for example? I'm not saying the page needs an in depth exploration of the influence of Surrealism on postmodernism, but it needs as much mention as Dadaism. Also, the phrasing/grouping implies that Beckett was an existentialist which is a common mistake (yes, I know Camus isn't one either, but that's not my point); if "literary" is in the title of the section, shouldn't more time be spent on actual literary figures (I'm talking maybe a sentence or two). Beckett's break from Joyce is more significant in making him a "father" of "postmodernism" than implications that he "drew heavily" from Kierkegaard and Nietzsche ... who, by the way, he didn't really draw all that "heavily" from. I vote for another sentence or two to justify this section having the word "literary" in the header. I say a significant development in the history of postmodernism (and this can justify the inclusion of Dadaism) is the adaptation of William S. Burroughs of the cut up technique (first suggested by Tristan Tzara, a Dadaist and a Surrealist). But I'm sure plenty of people would disagree that there's enough significance to that to include it here.

Now for the basic factual error: "In 1971, the term postmodernism was coined for the first time by the Arab American Theorist Ihab Hassan." First of all "coined for the first time" is redundant, and it's just plain wrong. I love Ihab Hassan but he didn't coin the term postmodernism. He may be the first one to use it in the way we use it today. "Postmodernism" was first used to describe Latin American literature of the late nineteenth, early twentieth century, first used in the 30's. Then Charles Olson was using it in the fifties and it was used by a lot of people in the fifties and sixties to describe Black Mountain poets, New York School poets, San Francisco Renaissance poets, Beat poets, etc. That's why the influential anthology edited by Donald Allen originally called "The New American Poetry" (1960)that was influential in helping define the above mentioned groups, was later republished as "The Postmoderns" and the related anthology of fiction edited by LeRoi Jones was also called "The Postmoderns". Is all that relevant? Maybe, maybe not. I certainly think the phrasing on the Hassan sentence needs to be changed.

F. Simon Grant 19:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I gave it a try, though only a tiny edit; would you like to rephrase what you just wrote here and put it on the page? Even the headlines # 2 Overview

1. 3 Approaches to the term
2. 4 Development of postmodernism are totally redundant, they are simply three attempts of a (second!) introduction, and none of them is satisfactory. Contribution much apprechiated! -- Flammingo^Hey 11:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

What do you think would be most relevant to add? The history of the use of the term is interesting, but with such a cluttered and confusing page I don't know how relevant or useful talking about 19th century Latin American poetry would be. Since this is such a cluttered page, I'd like to get feedback on what should be added. I suggest expanding the Surrealism (the break from focus on conscious understanding is significant), maybe two or three literary milestones (the three b's: Beckett, Burroughs and Borges [I forgot to mention good old Jorge Luis Borges earlier, but I difinitely think he's significant, influences writers, Foucault references him, etc.]) Would adding those four things make it too cluttered? By the way, somebody really needs to work on the postmodern literature page. This page seems relatively well maintained. Maybe somebody from here can help it out. I've been meaning to, but that page needs a whole lot more time than I'm able to give it right now.

F. Simon Grant 16:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

This page: Anti-postmodern pov and not user friendly

To me this whole page sounds like an article for a literary journal (though I doubt the severe amount of unecessary repetition would get it published) by a professor trying to prove that postmodernism is useless and terrible -- not an encyclopedia article. It seems to be mostly about how confusing the term is (said about a hundred different times) and how it's not really worth much to talk about. It's not a very informative or easy to read page. If I was a student trying to learn something about postmodernism I would be even more confused about it, less informed about it than I was before I started. I certainly would assume that every critic hates and dismisses postmodernism. This whole thing is more like a rant than an encyclopedia article. Now, I love rants, but rants don't really teach me much. Take for example one of the most basic ideas of postmodernism: Lyotard's attack on metanarratives (and I know there's a postmodern philosophy section, but the idea of attacking metanarratives is something that permeates through most aspects of postmodernsim, so I think this concept should be pretty clear and straight forward on the basic "postmodernism" page). I think you'd have to dig through the dense hoity toity phraseology to find out what metanarratives are, and even then I'm guessing you'd have to already know what it means and already know how significant it is. Lyotard explains it himself, but is that really user friendly? Overall, why even write about something that's obviously (according to the impression I get from this page) not worthwhile that was probably a big mistake? The "negative criticism" appears to be another of many redundancies. As Flammingo mentioned above, the useless repetion is a big problem (and I'll work on that if I have the time), but I think neutrality and clarity are even bigger problems here. At least that's what it seems like to me.

F. Simon Grant 15:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC) 17:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I admit I disagree somewhat - to me, its downfall lies in the fact that it seems to have been written by a self-absorbed BA student imagining his or herself to be oh so terribly 'pomo.' This is certainly amongst the weaker major Wikipedia articles.

Not that I can be bothered to fix it. Treefox 13:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to be insulting, Treefox. My above criticism of the page had to do with NPOV and the reader-friendliness of the page. Notice I said it sounded like a professor in a literary journal. You said it sounded like a "self-absorbed BA" being "oh so terribly 'pomo'" which seems to serve little practical purpose beyond insulting all the very intelligent and non-self-absorbed people who work on this page (why would self-absorbed people edit Wikipedia?). Comments like "oh so terribly" sound fairly self-absorbed and elitist to me. Please inform us what SPECIFICALLY about this page sounds like a self-absorbed BA?

I'll give you an example of what I was talking about. The following paragraph is criticism and opinion (the "in fact" in line seven, sounds more like opinion than fact to me). Saying something like "more nuanced non-postmodernist thinkers and writers" and "is at best simply a period following upon modernism" are pov -- well-reasoned pov, certainly; not a self-absorbed BA's pov -- it's not consensus, encyclopedic, etc. Certainly not reader friendly. What's the point? How does it help people understand postmodernism? I question especially the last sentence, the inclusion of Baudelaire. Is he being considered a Modernist in this paragraph? By which definition of Modernism? By the definition of modernism that puts the beginning of modernism at the beginning of the Enlightenment, and therefore a mid-19th century poet like Baudelaire would be part of modernism, well, then, of course postmodernism is a part of that because it's several centuries long. In that case, would people like Mann, Stravinsky, Mondrian, etc. really be its most representative figures, it's great thinkers, it's standard setters? But if you put the beginning of modernism at the beginning of the 20th century with Pound and Mann and Kandinsky, etc. -- and they'd certainly be more like standard setters in that case -- then Baudelaire wouldn't really be a part of that, he'd be a part of an earlier period, and the aesthetic of modernism would've certainly developed in part from the aesthetic of Symbolists which developed in part from the aesthetic of Baudelaire which developed in part from the aesthetic of Poe and the Romantics, and so on ad infinitum. So how is the writer of this paragraph defining "separate period" and "quantum leap". Victorian literature is separate from Romanticism, but is it a "quantum leap"? Is Tennyson a quantum leap from Keats? They're in separate periods, right? What's the point? Overall, period separations are a convenient illusion: they help us understand relationships while not necessarily having a basis in fact: it's like state lines. But when you make it a big mess like this -- when you point out something that's true for ALL periods of art and literature: that they're not truly separate, that they're all interdependent, that no period is a quantum leap from the previous period -- then the convenient illusion ceases to be convenient all together. It's like you have a legal case involving state law and you say, "There's no difference between states. We're all Americans." It's true, but it doesn't really address what specifically the differences are in state laws. More important to an encyclopidia article about postmodernism than pointing out the illusion of distinction: What aspect specifically of postmodernism makes it different from modernism? How does the label help us understand art, literature, philosophy, etc. in the last half of the twentieth century? The fact that label distinctions are false (big duh) is mentioned about twenty times on this page. What's not presented in a reader-friedly way -- and what's not addressed in the following unhelpful quote -- is what actually defines this distinction (even if it's an illusion).

"The argument against the need for the concept is that the "modern" era has not yet arrived at its term [this is apparently the definition of modernism that equates modernism with enlightenment]; and that the most important social and political project of our age remains modernism's project of replacing counter-enlightenment and emotionalist tendencies [postmodern art and literature are emotionalist and counter-enlightenment, so postmodernism is continually in the process of being replaced by the better option, rationalism? I can't wait for Positivism to come back into style], as well as combating widesperead cultural ignorance, pervasive superstition, and mindless resistance to technological and social innovations [so postmodernism promotes ignorance and superstition -- sounds like a bad thing to me]. From this perspective, the realities of the modern era, and its philosophical underpinnings, are being challenged by a backlash from precisely that reactionary quarter [so postmodernism is the same as Victorian conservatism? so postmodern literature is just a rebirth of the realism movement? Or maybe this is an unhelpful over simplification] against which modernism in fact [fact? really?] began its initial late 19th-century crusade. On the other hand more nuanced non-postmodernist thinkers and writers (quoted below) hold that postmodernism is at best simply [nothing more nothing less? that helps me understand why it's called "postmodernism", something I could've probably figured out by, I don't know, paying attention] a period following upon modernism; a hybrid variety of it; or an extension of modernism into contemporary times; and therefore not a separate period or idea which represents a quantum leap from the theories of art familiar to us from Stravinsky, Mann, Kandinsky, Mondrian and Baudelaire [so ... what are those theories? This is an encyclopedia article for the general public -- is the general public going to be familiar with Piet Modrian's theories of art? And why is Mann mentioned but not Pound or Joyce? Why Kandinsky and not Picasso, Breton, etc.?]"

F. Simon Grant 15:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's another one in the "overview" section: Shouldn't this go in the "negative criticism" section? Is this really the most important basic "overview" knowledge? It's pov ("This latter concept CAN ONLY be described" -- sounds like an essay, not an ecyclopedia). And what are these "assertions"; that's a provacative, intriguing statement, but it's not explored. The paragraph before it gives some basic overview stuff, but both paragraphs, I'd say, are not reader-friendly. The whole "meta-narratives" thing is very important to postmodernism as a whole ... but what is it? Same goes with bricolage -- Why's it a bad thing? Imagine you're somebody who has no idea what postmodernism is. Would you read this and say, "Oh, I get it. Metanarratives and bricolage. Makes perfect sense to me"? This is not a scholarly journal. It's just wikipedia. Delusions of sophistication are unhelpful. (Also, this has needed a citation since March -- does the section or the article really need this paragraph?)

"Critics of the idea claim^{[citation needed]} that it does not represent liberation, but rather a failure of creativity, and the supplanting of organization with syncretism and bricolage; this latter concept can only be described as anti-intellectual. They argue that postmodernism is obscurantist, overly dense, and makes assertions about the sciences that are demonstrably false."

F. Simon Grant 19:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that your criticisms of the lack of a neutral POV are fair and accurate. However, the pursuit of NPOV doesn't mean that the article should only present 'neutral' and descriptive accounts of postmodernism; the term and its constituencies are highly contended, and the article ought to describe that. A description of a contradictory and divided field is what we should be aiming for, I would suggest. With regard to the modernism questions, though, very many people define its beginning in the mid-c19th and with Baudelaire specifically (off the top of my head, Walter Benjamin talks about incorporating the 'shock' of the urban, Marshall Berman too); this isn't to collapse the category into the Enlightenment. Naturalism and symbolism are part of modernism, but not of the avant-garde phase. Another note: the complaint about whose name is or isn't included: that list may be extended to the ridiculous. Each name defines in a certain way the movement they're 'representing'. DionysosProteus 01:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The Dawkins quote

But don't the postmodernists claim only to be 'playing games'? Isn't it the whole point of their philosophy that anything goes, there is no absolute truth, anything written has the same status as anything else, no point of view is privileged? Given their own standards of relative truth, isn't it rather unfair to take them to task for fooling around with word-games, and playing little jokes on readers? Perhaps, but one is then left wondering why their writings are so stupefyingly boring. Shouldn't games at least be entertaining, not po-faced, solemn and pretentious?

— Richard Dawkins: Postmodernism Disrobed

--Heyitspeter 02:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

There was a discussion on the "postmodern literature" page about removing the Richard Dawkins quote. Most of the discussion had to do with whether or not he was talking about literature. Regardless, I think it's a useless quote. It's an opinion. What's his criticism? That postmodernism is boring? That's not scholarly, useful, relevant, or, frankly, very interesting -- just a silly waste of space, and another example of redundant and unhelpful things on this page. Anyway, here's the discussion from the "postmodern literature" page:

F. Simon Grant 19:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Is this quote from Dawkins really needed? Since when has his opinion on literature mattered? --Dreww 17:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Last time I checked Dawkins is a biologist. When I want an opinion on biology he would be one of the first to ask, but his opinions about literature have no place in scholarly discourse.

--"65" 75.176.130.32 (talk) 18:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Dawkins is notorious for lecturing above his level of expertise. His speculative Darwinian psychology has been methodically critiqued and debunked by fairly conventional UC Santa Barbara philosophy professors in a series of televised lectures appearing on UCTV in 2011 entitled "Debating Darwin" (badly named because natural selection itself is accepted as true, only the glib conjectures of folks like Dawkins and Richard Wright are questioned). {user Paul L. Ness, 2:16 PST, 12-2-2011} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.12.31 (talk) 22:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Is anyone even sure this is a quote about literature? I would more readily believe that Dawkins tries to chastise postmodern philosophy. (About which he presumably knows nothing, of course.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 145.97.205.222 (talk) 14:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

It doesnt seem to be (though he is in the Royal Society of Literature), he is rather concerned with religion, but I liked his postmodernist text generator! -Flammingo^Hey 15:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, for the moment, this needs supporting editors, so here's the passage: Richard Dawkins writes of postmodernism: "But don't the postmodernists claim only to be 'playing games'? Isn't it the whole point of their philosophy that anything goes, there is no absolute truth, anything written has the same status as anything else, no point of view is privileged? Given their own standards of relative truth, isn't it rather unfair to take them to task for fooling around with word-games, and playing little jokes on readers? Perhaps, but one is then left wondering why their writings are so stupefyingly boring. Shouldn't games at least be entertaining, not po-faced, solemn and pretentious?" --Richard Dawkins: Postmodernism Disrobed Cheers, Flammingo^Hey 16:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I would point out that it is a criticism, in a section titled "Criticism". And since the quote is criticizing writers specifically, I'd say it applies. I'd Vote to Keep. --SECurtisTX | talk 18:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, but that quote is not about postmodern literature. Just look at the context.--Dreww 17:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Is a quote about postmodern writers and what they write not, by extension, about postmodern literature? You may be splitting hairs here. --Janus Shadowsong | talk 17:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

This seems just like an opinion and not really a well-reasoned literary criticism. I think there should be more negative criticism on this page (Jameson, Eagelton, etc.) but it doesn't seem like Dawkins, a very smart man when it comes to religion, etc., is putting much thought into his criticism here. It seems like a side comment, like he was talking about something else and wanted to give a little jab at postmodern literature (and it definitely seems like he's talking abt literature here). But it's just an opinion, not an argument with much merit. I wonder what he was thinking about specifically when he said, "one is then left wondering why their writings are so stupefyingly boring. Shouldn't games at least be entertaining, not po-faced, solemn and pretentious?" Off the top of my head I can't think of a postmodern novelist who isn't entertaining, especially compared to modernist writers (I'm not talking about quality, just entertainment). People like Pynchon may seem stupefying and pretentious (though I'd disagree -- only an opinion, not an argument), but boring and solemn don't really fit. Vonnegut may often be solemn but he's definitely not pretentious (again, opinion) or boring. Maybe he's talking about Derrida -- still just an opinion. Anyway, for all the solid arguments Dawkins may have made about other things, this is not a helful, insightful, or relevant argument. Jameson or Eagelton, on the other hand, might present an actual argument against postmodernism (literature specifically) based on more than just opinion.

F. Simon Grant 14:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Elsewhere, in Devil's Chaplain, Dawkins says this about human knowledge:

"Our sense organs have been shaped by Darwinian selection over countless generations. You might think tht our sense organs would be shaped to give us a 'true' picture of the world as it "really" is. It is safer to assume they have been shaped to give us a useful picture of the world, to help us survive. In a way, what sense organs do is assist our brains to construct a useful model and it is this model that we move around in. It is a kind of virtual reality simulation of the world...

"Science is very much not synonymous with common sense.... Modern physics teaches us that there is more to truth than meets the eye; or than meets the all-too-human mind, evolved as it was to cope with medium-sized objects moving at medium speeds through medium distances in Africa."

That looks genuinely postmodern to me. In any case, Dawkins cannot have it both ways. If knowledge is not absolute, it must be relative. Dawkins is not a philosopher. Scientists often attack postmodernism without understanding what it really says and without making any contribution to the discussion. They rarely recognize how postmodernist thought is the foundation of modern science. It stresses the need to be skeptical, doubt, and question everything. It also teaches the human inability to assess causes. Scientists today are careful to couch their findings not in terms of causality but of correlations and probabilities.

In my opinion, this article does not provide adequate treatment of what modernism is as a philosophical movement and dominated by a group of French radicals such as Voltaire. Modernism was later taken up by Kant, who became a chief spokesperson for the function of reason in morality. I am also puzzled why Hume is not even mentioned here, as he usually takes up a central position on discussions of postmodernism. He opened and led the attack on rationalism. See Ray Linn's "A Teachers Introduction to Postmodernism." Hume made the break with modernism and deserves significant attention here. Bdubay (talk) 19:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

and the Sokal stuff for that matter

In that same vein: Is the Sokal stuff really a relevant devestating attack? He kind of proves postmodernism while attempting to disprove it. It's like people criticizing abstract expressionists because it's messy and looks like a crazy person did it or criticizing Paul Klee because it looks like something your kid could do. I've had students say, "I'll just throw a bunch of crap on a canvas and see if I can get it into a museum" and I reply, "Sure, if it's good it might." Does that undermine the art world because craft and representation are no longer valuable? Some say yes, but is that a devestating attack? William S. Burroughs would say to Sokol: congratulations, that just proves scientific control systems are bullshit. I'm just saying the Dawkins and the Sokol stuff are up front, but they both seem like the opinions of people who don't like postmodernism and not any solid, valid argument against it -- definitely the weakest, lamest of the criticisms. I've always heard that Marxists have the strongest, most solid objections, but I would expand on Jameson and Eagelton. I would get rid of the Dawkins nonsense entirely and tag the Sokol stuff on at the end just as funny trivia because it's not worth much else.

F. Simon Grant 21:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The point of Sokal was that no rigour was applied to post-modernism, not that the standards applied were themselves, as you put it, "bullshit". --THobern 10:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by THobern (talk • contribs)

Burroughs would also say rigour is bullshit. I'm not qualified to speak about the science end of the postmodern spectrum (though the combination of science and postmodernism seems like an act of the imagination anyway), but from the literary/cultural end of the spectrum, an essential feature of postmodernism is that scientific rigour is bullshit. Distrust of metanarratives, play, that sort of thing... essential postmodernism. So I'm saying Sokol is irrelevant because he's just saying "Postmodernism is bad because it is itself." It's like saying Impressionism is bad because it's blurry. (I know this is probably an old issue, but I haven't done this in a while and it's kind of fun).F. Simon Grant (talk) 20:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The Sokal stuff isn't meant to be a devastating attack on postmodernism. Indeed, they specifically say they are not out to attack the philosophy of postmodernism at all. Their aim is purely to expose what they see as misuse of scientific concepts in postmodern philosophy. They claim, correctly, I think, that scientific and mathematical concepts are regularly employed in postmodern philosophy with almost no regard for the meanings of these terms as employed by mathematicians and scientists. They frequently show that they have almost no grasp whatsoever of the things about which they are writing. Sokal claims that this is deliberate obfuscation on the part of these writers who employ scientific terminology in order to give their work a veneer of profundity, when in actual fact, from the point of view of the mathematical/scientific use of these terms, they are writing gibberish.

Now, if you want to say "Yes, they are writing complete gibberish but then gibberish is all there is, really etc." then I don't think you and Sokal are in disagreement. This is all bye the bye, anyway. The Sokal stuff is a well known criticism and, as such, ought to be featured in the article, regardless of its correctness. You might want to put in a few well cited sentences pointing out the flaws in his approach, but the stuff should certainly be there.

Ruby Gottlob (talk) 19:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Is it relevant?

I removed the quote, and it was put back, and I removed it again. In the interest of avoiding an edit-war, or whatever you call it, I figured I'd post here.

I don't particularly care whether Dawkins is or is not qualified to comment on post-modernism. The section header reads: "As meaningless and disingenuous". Dawkins does not criticize post-modernism "As meaningless and disingenuous", but rather, as boring. The only statement made per se is that post-modernism is boring. The rest of the quote consists of questions. Questions do not provide information, and so are not helpful by themselves, even if they bear a superficial relation to the material in question. A criticism section consisting of questions wouldn't actually be a criticism. Even Richard Rorty could have asked, "But don't the postmodernists claim only to be 'playing games'? Isn't it the whole point of their philosophy that anything goes, there is no absolute truth, anything written has the same status as anything else, no point of view is privileged? Given their own standards of relative truth, isn't it rather unfair to take them to task for fooling around with word-games, and playing little jokes on readers?"

We can include the Dawkins quote in the criticism section; but if we do, let's include it under the "Post-modernism is Boring" section.--Heyitspeter 23:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's an accurate representation of what Dawkins says in the quotation. That the quotation consists of a series of rhetorical questions does not make it without substance. He is very clearly presenting an argument, in the form of a series of questions. That argument levels two specific accusations: (1) that its extreme relativism and playfulness renders it inappropriate to serious critical debate (or something along those lines), and that (2) it does not live up to its own professed standards of playfulness. (1) certainly like an accusation of meaninglessness and (2) looks like an accusation of disingenuousness. That he also calls it boring, it seems to me, is part of a broader argument. The debates from the literature page about whether or not he's referring to literature specifically aren't relevant here. DionysosProteus 01:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

If you look carefully (I copy/pasted the comment on the top of this section) you'll see that he doesn't actually assert (1). He asks whether (1) is valid, and then answers, and I quote, "Perhaps." Also, (2) does not imply that postmodernism is meaningless. I would be more inclined to read the quote as an assertion of disignenuity, but I don't think it is. If I call myself a playwright but write a bad play, it's not that I'm not a playwright and was lying, I just wasn't that good. Similarly, Derrida may state that philosophy should be playful, write philosophy that is not playful, and still be a philosopher who philosophizes. He isn't disengenuous for writing philosophy that doesn't live up to his expectations, he is simply (according to Dawkins) a bad writer/philosopher.

This is what Dawkins is asserting: "Post-modernists would like all works to be playful, but it looks to me like their work is boring. They should have utilized the playfulness they appreciate." That's all he is saying in that quote. It isn't about disenginuity or meaninglessness, it's about the quality of their work.--Heyitspeter 02:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Anything can be classified as "boring" when one can't understand it. I'm sure James Joyce and William Faulkner are very boring to people who are used to a certain style of writing. Richard Dawkins is just too narrow-minded and self-centered to realize that. I'm glad his quote was deleted. Timeloss 11:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

if this is still at question -- It seems to me the Dawkins quote is important, precisely because of its mischaracterization of what has come to be popularly called Postmodernism. How something is misunderstood is often as important as how it is understood. For example, Derrida (leaving aside the "is he post-modern and what would that mean if he was?" question) is obviously not only "playing games" -- he is asking serious questions about violence, religion, war, etc. Nor does he advocate "just" being playful -- I would ask Dawkins to find the quote where Derrida or any other major post-modernist says "we should only be playful." The idea that post-modernists were "just playful" is a common mischaracterization. Moreover, the relativism issue is about how folks like Dawkins characterize so-called post-moderns --- none of these folks (except Joseph Margolis - and he only in an attenuated sense) actually characterize themselves as relativists. Again, I would ask Dawkins to find a passage in Derrida, Foucault, Rorty (or even Margolis) etc. which says that "anything written has the same status as anything else," if such a statement has any meaning. So, Dawkins in effect is saying, "if my mischaracterization of what I call postmodernism is right, why are they so dull and serious?" The idea that postmodernists were relativists in the way Dawkins means it is, again, an obvious mischaracterization. [Which doesn't mean Dawkins is wrong so much as he is knowingly giving bad argument, because of the arrogance of some (emphasis on some) scientists who believe it's okay to give dumbed down versions of science (or dumbed down criticisms of what is percieved as a threat to science) for (what folks like Dawkins consider to be) the stupid masses.]

That said - I think such a mis-characterization is significant enough to include in an encyclopedia - since this type of criticism, and worse, is quite common -- nor need it be labeled as a mischaracterization - if the article is well-written, the thoughful reader will know folks like Dawkins are full of poo.

FInally, shouldn't this issue be decided here, on the talk page, rather than through a revert war, as seems to be the case?Editor437 12:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

That's the idea. Hence the discussion which is happening right now.

You make a good point. It seems to hint at a deep mischaracterization. Still, Dawikins doesn't actually affirm a positive answer to the questions, so they aren't statements per se, and therefore cannot be misunderstandings in any strict sense. I think you may be right that it could be included in a section on 'common misperceptions' or some such, just to add some character to that section; but the question for this discussion was concerned with whether it is relevant to the "As meaningless and disingenuous" section, which (and it sounds like you might agree) it isn't.--Heyitspeter 15:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The Dawkins quote is problematic on an even more basic level (and hopefully I'm beating a dead horse here, but I think this debate can be simplified). Dawkins says postmodern writers are boring. So what? What does it matter that Dawkins is not entertained by postmodernists? "Playful" to postmodernists doesn't really mean entertaining. To equate the two is a ridiculous oversimplification. Further more, on an even simpler level, it's Dawkins' opinion. Anyone can easily disagree and that would be the end of the argument. It's like an argument a college freshman would've made. All the debate about the Dawkins quote presented here is interesting, but it's skirting around the basic flaw of the argument: it's an opinion based on an evidently poor understanding of postmodernism. Dawkins could've farted at a picture of Derrida and done as good a job at arguing. Now that would've been entertaining.

F. Simon Grant 15:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Dawkins is not a notable critic of postmodernism except perhaps in the context of postmodernist debates in science, ie Science Wars. Since that subject is not even adequately covered here in this article, the balloon of the Dawkins quote is just cartoony/pop trivia/Dawkins fancruft --- take your pick. This article "as is" is almost incoherent on that aspect of postmodernism, mentioning for example the Sokal Affair-the "gotcha" episode unmasking of the postmodernist critique of science but fails completely in even describing the nature of postmodernist critique itself. Whether or not Dawkins' argument is flawed is not for WP editors to judge. We are, however, tasked with assessing its notability. And in the context of the article in its present form, the Dawkins quote is obviously out of place here.-- Professor marginalia (talk) 17:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Word. Yeah, I tried to make my argument as straightforward and objective as possible, so I didn't mention the quotes quality, but I agree with both of your points. However, I'm not sure that it matters to wikipedia whether the viewpoints brought up in an article are accurate. Isn't notability the only requirement? Does anyone know where I can find this out?---- Heyitspeter (talk) 19:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You're actually misreading the quote. "Perhaps" refers to if they should be brought to task, not if they are playing games. Basically, he's saying the pomo people are just playing word games, and for this reason that they don't even deserve a serious refutation. In other words, he is not saying pomo is boring, he is saying something more to the effect of, "Pomo philosophy is as meaningless as any other collection of random words; so if they are going to bother writing it, why not at least make it fun." Again, he is saying pomo is a bunch of bullshit that they didn't even bother to make sound interesting. Phoenix1177 (talk) 10:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You know, its not that hard to find the context of this quote, which makes it make a lot more sense. (Although yes, disingenuity is a major thrust of its accusation). Dawkins is specifically commenting on the reception of the Sokal hoax by the PM philosophical community. Ie, he's saying that the PM academic community should have embraced the Sokal hoax rather than been upset by it - all Sokal did was point out they were playing games. Are they embarassed to be caught doing exactly what they say they're doing or something? The accusation that the games they play are boring is more or less a snide comment, but Dawkins is basically taking them to task for not practicing what they preach. --69.209.75.199 (talk) 13:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Negative criticism vs. Actual information

In this whole article I counted 39 paragraphs and lines, 17 of which are negative criticism. That means 22 out of 39 are actually informative? I would count some of those as being jumbled nonsense, so I'd say roughly half of the paragraphs or lines in this article are about the negative criticism of postmodernism. How informative is that? Yet I say it needs an entire section dedicated to Lyotard's concepts and an entire section dedicated to Baudrillard's concepts -- purely informative which is what an encyclopedia article is supposed to be. If an article is missing big important details like that, I'd say 17 paragraphs of negative criticism is way too much. I'm sure somebody will assume I'm a pomo junky who's trying to quash negative criticism -- I'm just saying in an article that's supposed to be informative, especially in an article where basic info about the main topic of the article is obscured or missing, 17/39 is way too big a ratio. Let's work on making the neutral stuff strong, then negative becomes more relevant. I don't care if something's bad if I don't understand what that something is.

F. Simon Grant 14:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Ishiguro quote: another example of a quote made useless by its lack of context

In my assessment of all the useless information in this article, somehow I skipped this one. That's probably because I respect Barry Lewis and Kazuo Ishiguro and assumed it was right. There's nothing wrong with the info in the quote; there's something very wrong with the lack of context. First of all, what book does this come from? Was it just Barry and Kazuo in conversation? Were they speaking simultaneously like a Beckett play? That would be postmodern, sure, but it doesn't make it useful. Secondly, what's being described here could just as easily describe modernist fiction. I doubt that's the fault of the speakers; they (or he?) maybe gave more context in the complete quote. These are common features of postmodern literature, but only "mingling of fictional forms" -- which I'm assuming is pastiche -- really makes it distinct from modernism. Without the assumption that it's a reference to pastiche, the vague statement "mingling of fictional forms" still could describe modernist fiction. As important to the lack of clarity in this particularly vague quote is the apparent lack of relevance to the page as a whole. Perhaps if there was a quote about the reflection of the challenge to metanarratives in the pastiche of postmodern fiction, maybe then it would be helpful. Or, you know, something like that. As it is, the casual reader might get more from Moe's quote than this one.

"Postmodernist fiction is defined by its temporal disorder, its disregard of linear narrative, its mingling of fictional forms and its experiments with language." - Barry Lewis, Kazuo Ishiguro

So James Joyce is a postmodernist? Who knew?

F. Simon Grant 18:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Postmodernism in science

I have removed the criticism of postmodernist theory of science. If, as one editor has alleged, "there is no such thing", then criticisms of it don't make sense. But I would like to argue that indeed there was a good deal written of postmodernist theories of science-an epistemological stream that is very real. There are many texts available referring to the subject, and I do think it warrants mention in the article. (See "A House Built on Sand: Exposing Postmodernist Myths about Science", Noretta Koertge, "A Society of Signs", David Harris; "Implications of Postmodernism for Science, or, Science as Progressive Discourse" the Educational Psychologist. See Science wars. ) It's widely described as a postmodernist movement, if you will. Professor marginalia 23:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I said "there is no such thing as 'postmodernist science', only a critique of the claims of scientific discourse." That is to say, there are postmodernst writers who have engaged in critiques of science. In other words they have a theory of science (though speaking of 'they' in this fashion is obviously rhetorical. There are divergent views and no single 'postmodern' pov). Much of the Sokal affair was about pm claims to engage with and critique science. However, there is no such thing as 'postmodernist science' in the same way that there is 'postmodernist art'. Paul B 08:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Kuhn, who was arguably one of the biggest influences to postmodernist thinking in science, was a PhD scientist and professor of science history, not an artist or writer. Most significant thinkers who furthered the postmodernist theories of science came from social scientists, and in that sense it was as much a science as behavioralism or cultural anthropology. It was very influential for a time, even influencing educational theory and teaching of science. I agree there is ambiguity in the terminology - unfortunately there is too much confusion of the whole subject in this article. Sokal, for example, is discussed in some detail and he is a "debunker" of sorts of postmodernist scientific analysis. This philosophical genre, postmodernist scientific analysis, is not explained in the article--all that appears is criticism of it. Somehow this needs to get sorted out. And the introduction needs to encompass the postmodernism in science since it is criticized at length in the article. Why is Dawkins remarking upon it? He's not an art reviewer, he's a scientist reacting against postmodernist thinking in science.Professor marginalia 17:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Kuhn is not, as far as I am aware, ever referred to as a postmodernist, but even if he were, his scientific activity is not characterised as "postmodernist science", rather, his theory of science is deemed to have been a precursor. Of course, if you trhink the discussion of postmodernist commentaries on science is weak, improve it. Paul B 19:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

You're correct. Kuhn was more like the "seed of thought", yes, working in epistemology of science, not a laboratory. Like Popper, not a working scientist but reshaping the concept of knowledge from science. Do you see why the article is a muddle on this? Kuhn is identified in it. Kuhn was talking narrowly of science, at least that's always been my understanding. I will think about how to best improve this. Since I'd argue there is at least as much to say about postmodernism in the field of science as there is postmodernism in the fields of law or theology, "See also" section as is used for the others might help. As well as editing away all the "science war" critics like Sokal if the subject isn't even going to be explored here.Professor marginalia 23:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Before anyone attempts to improve the postmodernism-to-science section of this article, I'd like to add my two cents: This page should really be for the general public, not just specialists. There's a lot of really basic stuff missing from this article that needs to be fixed before we work on something that's essentially tangential. I'd say science is to postmodernism as psychoanalysis is to abstract expressionism. It's interesting to look at them together, but far from essential. Postmodernism is a huge subject and we can really talk about any aspect of knowlege and justify its presence on this page (I personally think pop culture should be addressed more specifically) -- but what's most needed on this page is an overhaul so that it's much more general-audience-friendly. Once the core is solid (much, much more solid than it is now) I'd say there would then be room for more tangential aspects of postmodernism like science, etc.F. Simon Grant (talk) 18:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Could we maybe take Quine out of this, he is defenetly not a postmodernist. He'd be better characterized as a conservetive neopositivist. His statements on philosophy are also very much aggressive polemics against postmodern thought. On Kuhn I would opt on leaving him in since his thoughts are very much respected and rethought throughout the postmodern philosophy. It could be useful for anyone of the general public who is interestet in the more concrete thoughts of postmodernism to get linked onto his page. I also suggest to put Feyerabend in there as well, he is one of the disciples of popper and kuhn and his book "against method" formes very well a part of postmodern thought on science. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.221.76.105 (talk) 22:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess... but Quine can be kind of difficult to classify. He really did have a lot of strong arguments against some basic axioms that most people think of as necessary prerequisites for knowledge (e.g., the analytic-synthetic distinction). Richard Rorty used his critique of translation to prove one-half of his critique of any type of knowledge whatsoever (the other half was Sellars' myth of the given). Along with most people, I suppose (not counting Rorty, though), he was extremely opposed to being classified as post-modern. But so was Foucault... Just some thoughts...--Heyitspeter (talk) 22:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Postmodernism article and Postmodernity article

I am confused over the relationship between these two articles. Could anyone help clear this up for me? I note that Postmodernism has a link to Postmodernity but not the other way round. Mike Milligan (talk) 14:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone else may want to be clearer (I'm oversimplifying with often ambiguous terms) but my understanding is that postmodernism is more of a conceptual notion relating to critical ideas and the arts, while postmodernity is more a reference to our current time period (end of WW2 to the present) in relation to politics, economy, and "culture". For a better understanding you may want to see the similar relationship between modernism and modernity where the differences are more clearly defined but, I believe, forms the template for the differentiation between postmodernism/ity. Again, to oversimplify, postmodernism is conceptual in nature and related to the arts/philosophy/critical theory, while postmodernity is more of a temporal/chronological term (not sure of the right word) related to history, economics, social issues, etc. --TM 15:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Introduction edits

Thanks to those who responded to my queries in this and other articles. These responses have given me the confidence to change the introduction to this article. I feel that the article may have lost focus. I hope that my amendments go some way to address this. 82.23.82.103 (talk) 18:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

More on Introduction edits

I amended the introduction because

• There's a lot of really basic stuff missing from this article that needs to be fixed before we work on something that's essentially tangential. (see above)
• The Wikipedia appeal for an expert's view - I am not an expert but I do teach first year undergraduates in social sciences. I know that they would find the present introduction incoherent and baffling
• The Wikipedia appeal for a more international view.

I was really disappointed that my revised introduction was deleted (easier than burning books?) by another Wikipedian. Can I ask that my revisions be considered on their merits? Please improve on them but let us work together to providing a coherent introduction to Postmodernism which will help the newcomer. Mike Milligan (talk) 21:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Mike,

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, and I'm terribly sorry if my edits were erroneous.

However, I spend a few hours daily reverting vandalism and your edit diff looked like pure old vandalism. If you would just have made an attempt to explain your edit (using the edit summary) I would probably have had a second look at you removal of a lot of content. So, happy editing and please remember this is a collaborative project!

Hope you forgive me and again thanks for contributing

/ Mats Halldin (talk) 22:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

So what's postmodern again?

Am I the only one who reads this and is still confused as to what postmodern is supposed to be? Is Shrek post modern?Zelphi (talk) 16:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. —a thing 06:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thirded. Someone might start by changing the very first sentence, which tells us what post-modernism is "characterized by", rather than what it **IS**. (Actually I lied; it does tell us that "Postmodernism is a tendency." Great, a tendency. Brilliant definition.) I have a feeling this article is as confused as postmodernism itself, using colourful turns of phrase that are ultimately devoid of meaning. But maybe I'm revealing too many of my personal biases? :) 130.15.68.97 (talk) 19:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

This article doesnt make any sense

Anything this complex must be dishonest. Get rid of it. --216.60.126.2 (talk) 05:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hahaha! In that case, shall we delete this article as well? --Heyitspeter (talk) 22:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

""And , behold, thusly was the Law formulated: IMPOSITION of Order = escalation of Disorder!"" --H.B.T.,; The Gospel according to Fred, 1:6

This Article Makes Perfect Sense. I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN BY THAT STATEMENT! -Cents is another story. *I'm the Change i can Believe In! --68.127.162.17 (talk) 01:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

""Good and evil have no self nature; Holy and unholy are empty names; In front of the door is the land of stillness and quiet; Spring comes, grass grows by itself. Master Seung Sahn""

The above two entries make sense. May I suggest the following definition...

I vote to keep Kurtosis but...I do think that the critic above raised a valid point. A typical person visiting this page can read and read and have no clue WTF postmodernism IS. I think this is a problem. Cazort (talk) 00:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Confusing perhaps? Valis2374 (talk) 23:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

It's just a type of trolling 92.0.138.3 (talk) 13:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Postmodernism - More Discussion of Basic Definitions

Surrealism without the sense of humour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.22.214 (talk) 17:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

There is so much confusion over what this term is meant to mean. I have read many attempted definitions of the term and they fall into two categories.

1 The verbose. These use language that you can not understand without the aid of a dictionary, but when you filter them down they seem to say the same thing. There is no authoritative voice or objective perspective. They then invariably quote an authoritative objective voice to validate their claim. (see above)

2 Definition by example. These usually cite the work in theatre, film or literature to show what postmodernism is. Unfortunately the techniques described as used by these people were previously used by Buster Keaton, Bob Hope, and Gene Kelly. Has anyone ever seen a Hollywood musical that was not surreal? Postmodernism seems to be little more than a word seeking a definition that does not exist, but when you look at the attempted definitions, I think that is entirely appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MackenzieSpence (talk • contribs) 17:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that postmodernism is difficult to define but I still think it is important and worthy of a good Wikipedia article. However, this article is much more confused than most postmodernism primers. The postmodernisms in architechture, art, literature, etc are, I think, defined in relation to 'modernisms' which took place in the early twentieth-century. However the philosophical writings are reacting to modernity (science, Enlightenment values, etc.) which is itself defined in relation to pre-modernity (dominance of church and monarchy) so the historical timespan is much larger. I think if this was made clearer then we might be able to make this article make much more sense. Perhaps this could be done by briefly commenting on this, referring the interested reader to the 'specialist' articles and then going on to what seems to be the meat of this article - the postmodern thinkers.

Mike Milligan (talk) 10:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the three definitions of the term that the Merriam Webster dictionary provides are the most accurate:

• 1) Postmodernism: a term designating the time Period / historical era after Modernism, regardless of what "Modernism" denotes and in whatever context this term Postmodernism, as an epochal denotation, happens to be deployed. For instance, this definition is used when discussing "Postmodern Architecture," "Postmodern Film," "Postmodern literature," "Postmodern Music," etc. - it often entails (and has been construed - say by Frederic Jameson - as entailing) but does not necessarily entail the 2nd definition, as "Postmodern music" may simply denote specific stylistic changes from predecessor movements that do not necessarily entail the thoroughgoing, broad-scale characteristics of the 2nd definition. For example, the term Postmodernism has been used to classify music as diverse and mutually incompatible as that of Neoromantic composers David Del Tredici and John Corigliano and that of New Complexity composers Brian Ferneyhough and James Dillon. Yet many have described the New Complexity movement as an extension of the "High Modernist" tradition in classical Music (most notably that of the Integral Serialism defined by Pierre Boulez, Luigi Nono and Milton Babbitt in the 1950s). Still, many broad or cursory histories of Classical Music writing in an ironically Modernist vein, group the New Complexity under "Postmodernism in Music”, which, according to such histories, denotes all the academically recognized sub-genres of Western Art Music since the Mid-to-late 1960s.

• 2) Postmodernism (in Wikipedia, this definition is termed "Postmodernity" and dealt with in a separate article): the social-cultural era in which the defining institutional structures, social trends and cultural assumptions of "Modernism" have been supplanted by new or contradicting structures, trends and assumptions. Ironically, this definition is much informed with the conception of a Zeitgeist, a collective force defining an era's cultural traits, material and organizational infrastructure and ideologies according to a certain mode.
  • Institutions and social trends: Women-to-work and smaller family sizes in Bourgeois households in the Industrialized West; Minority Civil Rights movements in the Industrialized West; the Sexual Revolution; the end of the Cold War and the supposed decline of Statism in favor of Globalization and Multinational Trade; the accompanying "Post-Colonial" era of international terrorism and "Rogue States"; the rise of Neo-Conservatism and Neo-Liberalism; the Information Age; Increased mobility and fluidity in professionalized labor markets.
  • Cultural values: "Progress" replaced with "stasis", "development", or "proliferation"; "Reason" with "convention"; "Knowledge" with "data" or "information"; "Being" with "discursive formation"; "Essence" with "appearance"; "Truth" with "description"; "Origin" with "copy"; "Reductionism" with "Holism".
• Rather than denoting a simple time period, this definition tends to concern an intersection of overt cultural developments and underlying epistemic assumptions somehow distinct from those characterizing Modernism or Modernity. Though loosely epochal, "Postmodernism" in the sense of the 2nd definition is primarily assigned on the basis of a qualitative assessment of the content at hand rather than when that content was produced. The 1st definition, on the other hand, is often assigned on the grounds of an object's having fallen after a simple point on the time line. If, contrarily, the 1st definition happens to be applied qualitatively, it is done so on the basis of particular, manifest traits to a body of work, and not on the way in which such traits relate to larger, systemic developments of the Zeitgeist or Cultural Logic..

• 3)Postmodernism:
  • A) The philosophical/intellectual/academic movement in the Humanities and Social Sciences of Western Universities after World War II that challenges the notions of progress, objectivity, rationality and human nature associated with Modernism or, more broadly, with the intellectual and philosophical heritage of the Enlightenment (this definition often fully overlaps with or refers to certain aspects of what have been called Post-structuralism, Relativism, Cultural Relativism, Moral Relativism, Epistemological Pluralism, Cultural Pluralism, Conventionalism, Social-Constructionism, Symbolic Interactionism, Pragmatism, Anti-Foundationalism, Anti-Positivism, Non-Essentialism, Contextualism, Nominalism, Trope Theory, etc.)
  • B) The basic ideas and premises of the broad system of thinking that corresponds to such movements, irrespective of any association with a particular movement or development in intellectual history.

Though portions of each of these definitions can and often do overlap in common usage, they are also distinct enough from one another to serve as useful descriptions of the main senses in which the word "Postmodernism" is invoked.Artisticidea (talk) 06:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia: the postmodernist ur-text

The irony here is that wikipedia is the most postmodernist form of knowledge production and exchange available. It is only regulated by individuals, and thus represents an intensely fragmented site of information. Wikipedia is fetishistically visited and revisted by (I can only imagine) dictators, educators, browsers, students, parents, priests, and citizens. Its postmodernism is always-already implicit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Genxprof (talk • contribs) 04:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but you should look up 'ur-text' in a dictionary... Cop 663 (talk) 22:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

What would the "expert on postmodernism" say to his students?

There was a template that an "expert" should write his opinion. But why an "expert" (whoever that is supposed to be, since many here have studied ? The biggest problem of the article is its coherency. There are still many repetitions. Maybe they can be drawn together in statements saying "PM is .... and ..., says Derrida and is suppported by...". In order to do that, it would be necessary to find a book (or, less reliable expecially a year from now, a webpage) you can put in "<ref"-brackets. Who would be able to do that? How can that be done? Disagreements? --Flammingo^Hey 15:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

why should it be done? --Buridan (talk) 11:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Gonna be annoying

Sorry for being pedantic but the statement that post modernism literally means 'after the modernist movement' is incorrect, literally it means after modernism, and modernism coul refer to a great many non-philosophical' paradigms, but dosen't. Would it not just be better to say, post-modernism means after modernism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.128.121 (talk) 11:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC) t

Additionally it's amusing to note this wikipedia page looks like it has been written by a post-modernist, and contrasts in style every with almost every other wikipedia page. Perhaps for those of us not 'in the loop' the page could be made slightly less metaphysical in nature.

Postmodernism in India...?

I'm not sure why the "Philosophical Movements and contributors" is a child of the heading "Postmodernism in India."--Valis2374 (talk) 21:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

This article should be split

Postmodern art and the political academic movement called postmodernism are two different things. It's impossible to make any sense of the current article if you want to learn anything about either, but not both. The name 'postmodernism' makes sense for both movements but in a different way: whereas postmodern art is an antithesis to abstract modern art, postmodern philosophy is an antithesis - and the continuance - of marxism. At this moment the article doesn't make any sense as a whole. Piechjo (talk) 07:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Quine and Postmodernism

This was briefly mentioned above but I'd like to bring it up again for a more thorough discussion.

Firstly, a couple of points about the description of Two Dogmas which says:

'developed the theses of indeterminacy of translation and ontological relativity, and argued against the possibility of a priori knowledge. Argued that we can never satisfactorily know what a word "means."'

In Two Dogmas of Empiricism, Quine attacked the analytic/synthetic distinction and what he called 'reductionism'. The indeterminacy of translation thesis was in his later book, Word and Object; not Two Dogmas. Also, I'm not sure what 'ontological relativity' is doing here either - it's not in Two Dogmas. Neither did he argue against the possibility of a priori knowledge. Although some people think Quine's attack on the analytic/synthetic distinction leads to scepticism about meaning, Quine never actually espoused the view that meaning was indeterminate until Word and Object (via the aforementioned indeterminacy of translation argument). Even if it had been in Two Dogmas, the description is poorly worded since it suggests that this is an epistemological issue about what we can know about meanings. Rather it is a metaphysical claim that there is no such thing a determinate meaning.

Aside from the fact that the description of his paper is wholly inaccurate, my main criticism is that Quine shouldn't be here at all. It's true that Rorty takes some influence from Quine and employs a couple of his arguments; but which other postmodern philosophers were positively influenced by his work? Is Quine's influence in continental philosophy so pervasive that Two Dogmas merits a place in the top 10 landmark works of postmodernism?? I find this very hard to believe.

I suggest that the reference to Quine be removed unless someone else can come up with some convincing arguments for his inclusion. Ruby Gottlob (talk) 22:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Since noone has posted suggesting reasons not to, I'm going to remove the reference to Quine. Ruby Gottlob (talk) 14:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Wittgenstein and Postmodernism

The first reference to Wittgenstein claims that he

"examined the fundamentals of knowledge; they argued that rationality was neither as sure nor as clear as modernists or rationalists assert."

I take it that this is referring to the later 'Philosophical Investigations' Wittgenstein rather than the 'Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus' Wittgenstein. This should probably be mentioned, but that's a side issue. The main problem is that this characterisation of Wittgenstein is completely wrong; he did not examine the foundations of knowledge, neither did he talk about rationality. He would especially not have said that rationality was not as CLEAR as 'modernists' assert; for Wittgenstein all philosophy is clear and open to view. Certainly Wittgenstein was generally anti-foundationalist; but then so are lots of analytic philosophers who could never be called postmodernists (coherentists about knowledge, for example). Anti-foundationalism is not, it seems to me, sufficient reason to call someone a 'contributor' to postmodernism. It is true that Rorty was influenced by Wittgenstein (as he was by Quine) but then Rorty was also influenced by Kripke; are we to call him a contributor to postmodernism too? What other postmodernists were strongly influenced by Wittgenstein? Which postmodernists cite Wittgenstein's arguments in their work? It seems to me that, as with Quine, Wittgenstein's views are utterly at odds with the views of most postmodern philosophers and that his influence on postmodernism is, at best, peripheral (certainly not great enough to merit the investigation's inclusion on the 'top 10' list).

In short, I suggest that Wittgenstein be removed form the article. Does anyone have any arguments to the contrary?

Best Ruby Gottlob (talk) 17:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, no responses, so I'll remove it.

Ruby Gottlob (talk) 19:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Modernism

Modernism doesn't refer to the present. It refers to everything after Machiavelli, the "Moderns". Before that was "the Ancients". The present is "contemporary". So the first paragraph is for the birds. 70.22.35.192 (talk) 19:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Although you are correct to a degree (not sure how you begin with Machiavelli), and this article is far from perfect, in this context, modernism refers to a difficult-to-determine period up until the middle of the 20th century. Postmodernism is a reaction to that. The modernism article discusses this further. Having said that, the intro to this article could use a thorough rewrite. freshacconci talktalk 19:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It is has been a long standing tradition and convention in political science and philosophy that Machiavelli's Prince mark the first of the Moderns.

Cf. the following as reaction against the tradition:

http://books.google.com/books?id=B_1HgSfFnnIC&pg=PA563&lpg=PA563&dq=the+first+modern+Machiavelli&source=bl&ots=6wl4TYSMOv&sig=M8koev9eQ59x4TwidAEqERP52Oo&hl=en&ei=tuYjSqzbONOntgfrz-THBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8

70.22.35.192 (talk) 14:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. That's helpful and quite interesting. I come at this from an art historical perspective. Like all disciplines, art history has a "beginning" moment for modernism (usually the middle of the 19th century with Manet and Baudelaire's writing on art), with postmodernism coming sometime around 1970 (give or take a decade or two). I think the main problem with this article is that there is no common-ground when it comes to the beginning of modernism and without allowing the reader to understand modernism, how can we expect them to understand postmodernism? I think the intro to this article needs to make reference to a number of different disciplines (philosophy, politics, literature) and where each places the beginnings of modernism to show how postmodernism developed at different times in different fields as a reaction to modernism. Having said that, I'm not sure who's going to do this. This article has been neglected for far to long and I'm as guilty as anyone else. I just pop in to make small changes and revert vandalism. freshacconci talktalk 14:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The modern era, modernity and modernism are quite distinct concepts, just as Ancient history ancents and the The Ancients are distinct. Paul B (talk) 16:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Humanities burping

In its current form, this entry is a clear symptom of everything that is wrong with the humanities. You come up with a term, go to a bar, collect some followers, and then use the term as if it referred to a real phenomenon. Apart from the ambiguity of postmodernism vs postmodernity, the reader of an encyclopedic entry does not have your average Aha Erlebnis. S/he is not a member of your tribe yet. So please explain your concept clearly. I have spent quite some time to analyze this page (I am a scientist), but I still don't have a clue what you are talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.125.178.72 (talk) 15:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Your first problem is that you are a scientist applying scientific logic and theory to something from the liberal arts. Liberal arts follow different rules: Yes, it's a made up word fora made up movement, but that's pretty much how the humanities work. This isn't a bad thing, and the humanities aren't in any way inferior to the sciences, they just work differently. Postmodernism is still a fluid movement, not yet set in history, but there are definitive indicators (for example, in literature: nonlinear plot, blending of autobiography and fiction, innovative and nontraditional presentations, etc.). All of which are useful in finding postmodernism, but not for defining what it actually is. So basically, stop thinking like a scientist, that's not how books work. If they did, we wouldn't call it liberal arts, we'd call it book science and they would all be about calculus and quantum theory. 65.122.168.1 (talk) 18:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Amen, 65.122.168.1 (Mind if I call you 65?)! self congratulatory nonsense like Humanities Burping guy above inspired my post below ("If you're thinking about patting yourself on the back because your so clever you're wasting everyone's time" etc..) You're more eloquent about it, 65, because I was just pissed off (and it still annoys the crap out of me any time I read that nonsense). The sciences give labels to things that are testable in order to understand them better; the humanities give labels to things that are not testable (like, I don't know, humanity because treating humanity scientifically is dehumanizing) -- also in order to understand it better. Both are attempts at understanding the incomprehensible. Just because a label applies precisely to the celebration of the incomprehensible doesn't mean its bullcrap; maybe those who only think the testable is worthwhile are the ones who are intellectually bankrupt. To act like a condescending asshole and dismiss the humanities is very, very intellectually bankrupt. It's dismissing a whole area of study b/c you're too busy exploring your own testable colon to acknowlege other areas of intellectual pursuit. But just listen to what 65 says. S/he says it better.F. Simon Grant (talk) 14:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Huh, I actually got a reply. Indeed.

The truth is, and this is a problem throughout the talk page, especially near the end, is that postmodernism is still happening. How can you define it in an era when you're still unsure what era you're in? Past movements only seems clearly defined because we have the benefit of history and we can study every element of the movement's construction. Then, after reviewing all of the material, historians can say when it began and when it ended, but know that this decision is somewhat arbitrary. Consider: when did the Dark Ages "begin"? When did the Industrial Revolution begin? These things are nebulous and fuzzy at the edges.

Pull up the "Age of Enlightenment" article:

"The terminology "Enlightenment" or "Age of Enlightenment" does not represent a single movement or school of thought, for these philosophies were often mutually contradictory or divergent. The Enlightenment was less a set of ideas than it was a set of values. At its core was a critical questioning of traditional institutions, customs, and morals. Thus, there was still a considerable degree of similarity between competing philosophies. Also, some philosophical schools of the period could not be considered part of the Enlightenment at all."

Now replace all instances of "Enlightenment" or "Age of..." to "Postmodernism" and it still largely remains accurate. Movements within the liberal arts or culture will never fit neatly in to categories, especially movements that aren't finished moving. For now, quote what's quotable and cite what's citable, but leave the rest to the historians, authors, philosophers, etc. to figure out because it is, after all, their job.

-- "65" 173.93.136.236 (talk) 12:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

A word with no meaning

Postmodern has come to mean so many things to so many people and disciplines that I don't believe it has any concrete meaning at all. Describe Dickens as Victorian and everyone knows what you're talking about. Describe any work as modern and everyone knows it to be of the current era -- not a category such as post-Renaissance or Elizabethan -- so postmodern is merely a tautology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbartimo (talk • contribs) 20:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I have read the lead of this article at least 4 times and still have no idea what it's talking about. I suppose we can find humor here in observing that this article itself is an exemplar of the very thing it seeks define to. What an intellectually bankrupt movement. Billare (talk) 07:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Postmodern music

Minimalism is not Postmodern music. It is a later development. I will rewrite this soon but leave the minimalist stuff as "later devs" or something. Jubilee♫clipman 01:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

If you decide to write a terribly clever post about how ridiculous postmodernism is or how it doesn't mean anything, please read this first

I respect how wonderfully witty you are. We all acknowledge that you're a great genius. But postmodernism's existence or non existence and whether or not humanities is burping, etc., are entirely irrelevant. Here's a relevant comment: "The description of postmodernism is likely to be unclear to the general reader, and here is a specific and helpful suggestion for how to fix that. My own cleverness here is irrelevant compared to the need to make this article helpful and reader friendly. After all, my cleverness is really just a defense mechanism against something I don't really understand. Please help the general public understand this concept by making this specific change..." Yes, postmodernism is a ridiculous word, but it is a commonly used word -- so commonly used, it really needs an article that makes the concept clear. Self-congratulatory wit is just a waste of time.

For example, here's a less than helpful comment: "Describe any work as modern and everyone knows it to be of the current era." This is simply not true. "Modernism" is a term that is as complicated -- if not more complicated -- than "Postmodernism." In literature, "Modernism" could mean something written between WWI and WWII, or it could mean something written between the Enlightenment Period and today. A comment like this betrays an ignorance of the true complexity of words like this as they are commonly used. Even my little old college freshmen get the concept that there's a difference between "contemporary" and "modern." If this page were about modernism, a more helpful comment would focus on the difficulty of communicating to the general reader this complexity: since "modernism" has multiple meanings, how could we communicate that accurately without alienating the uninitiated? A comment like that would lead, hopefully, to suggestions for ways to organize the article so that the multiple meanings are accurately and clearly presented. No one is going to read a comment like "Postmodernism doesn't exist" and say, "By God, you're right! Let's erase the whole page!" Therefore, what can be accomplished other than a giggle of satisfaction?F. Simon Grant (talk) 14:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

well... aren't 3/4 of all wikipedia edits the 'giggle of satisfaction' or the 'sigh of satisfaction' or some other little thing. but i otherwise completely agree with your analysis, though i doubt anything will change by posting it. --Buridan (talk) 17:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't say I'm guiltless of the satisfied giggle, especially when I first started doing this. I'd say the ratio of useless snarky comments to actual proactive helpful comments is more like 100 to one. And I think that's because most of the time people have very little commitment to actually do something, and it's easier just to be a smart ass. I know there's no way to stop this tendency entirely, but I'm hoping one or two people might have second thoughts.F. Simon Grant (talk) 15:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I've added a notice at the top of the page, and made sure it's reasonably visible. But you know some of the apparently less constructive comments should be telling you something as well, about accessibility. Rd232 ^talk 15:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

First sentence

The first sentence of the article seems ill-chosen: "Postmodernism literally means 'after the modernist movement'." I don't really have suggestions for improvement, but the first sentence of an article should describe it better, more like "Postmodernism is an aesthetic, literary, political or social philosophy, which was the basis of the attempt to describe a condition, or a state of being, or something concerned with changes to institutions and conditions (as in Giddens, 1990) as postmodernity." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.159.83.20 (talk) 11:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds nice! Still, the sentence you quoted initially is - IMHO - still relevant for the lead because the article later relates to what the postmodernists and/or poststrucuralists etc want, because there's much of that "reaction to the previous movement/thought of"-thinking in it (for lack of a better way to say this)--Flammingo^Hey 00:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Final sentence in lead

Would anyone be able to make the final sentence in the lead a bit more clear in what it's supposed to mean? Elucidating the symbolic meaning of those terms in their relation to postmodernism and post-structuralism would be helpful. And why is there a hyphen in the name of the latter, and not in the former? --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 22:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Post-postmodernism and steampunk?

Hey, it just occurred to me that among all the ideas performatism, hypermodernity, Altermodern, and digimodernism (which I've barely if ever heard of), there is no mention of an explicitly aesthetic dimension. I'm not saying it is the only candidate, but steampunk seems like an interesting contender! To cite *one* example, look at the way Alan Moore's comics have moved from very postmodern experiments in works like Supreme, to more steampunky things like the recent/ongoing Century novel. Another reason that steampunk is an interesting candidate is that it takes a sort of Deleuzian approach to cyberpunk -- and thereby becomes a critical mode from which to deal with high technology; it is simultaneously very "human" and very connected to (disruptive, disrupting) words and fiction. I could say more, but I should probably check some references out first! Arided (talk) 23:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I would certainly agree, but it probably belongs more on the postmodern literature page. A lot of people, for some reason, had resistence to adding cyberpunk to the postmodern literature page. It's much easier to see how steampunk is postmodern since pastiche, temporal distortion, and playfulness are huge parts of pomo lit. Steampunk may be too specific a permutation of tendencies within lit to really work well on the main pomo page, so I'll post something on the pomo lit talk page. It may face resistence, but I'll fight for it too.F. Simon Grant (talk) 19:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Performatism, altermodern and digimodernism all have very strong aesthetic dimensions. Don't "characterise" what by your own admission you know nothing about. 217.154.158.238 (talk) 08:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Historians in Postmodernism

I just wanted to respond to the footnote recently added by Rjensen in the introduction (the first footnote). This seems like a concern to bring up on the discussion page, not in a footnote. It's difficult to argue that postmodernism has not affected the interpretation of history, even if you argue that proper historians don't use it. Look at Foucault and Kuhn. They certainly reinterpret history. Are they proper historians? Not necessarily, but that's not the point. They contributed important concepts to postmodern thought. It will likely confuse general readers to add a minor, nitpicky point like that -- especially as the first footnote. A better idea would be to just get rid of "history" in the intro and make sure it's very clear in the sections about Foucault and Kuhn that they used postmodern ideas to reinterpret history.F. Simon Grant (talk) 17:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

the point is that very few historian use pomo -- the number is not zero but it has not caught on. Rjensen (talk) 17:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't dispute that. I'm just saying that the original phrasing is that "postmodernism is used to interpret history." There's a difference between that and "Historians use postmodernism." So Foucault can use postmodernism to interpret history without being a historian, and historians in very small numbers can use pomo without negating the fact that postmodern thinkers use it to interpret history. We're talking about two different things here. That's why I say "history" can be taken out of the intro (if just to avoid confusion) and we can bring up the dispute about its use by historians elsewhere on the page. A lot of people on this discussion page seem up in arms about pomo being used in science. Maybe we can have a section about disciplines where it hasn't caught on. Or would that go on the criticism page?F. Simon Grant (talk) 18:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The notion that historians use or do not use postmodernism is problematic. First of all, you would need to discuss the "linguistic turn" to show how historians struggled with the postmodernist challenge. Secondly, history in many ways is interdisciplinary, depending on the focus of the subject. Social history and intellectual history each borrow methodologies from other disciplines, such as sociology, anthropology and literary studies. So when you start including and excluding scholars as "proper" historians based on disciplinary boundaries, you run into problems of deciding when a type of historical focus should be considered the work of another discipline. Thirdly, many historians accept aspects of postmodernism, while rejecting other aspects. How much of postmodernism would a historian need to accept to be considered a postmodernist historian? Loungehead (talk) 06:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Postward Disillusionment

Not to pick on you Rjensen, but again you seem to be reading vague and poorly explained concepts and misinterpreting them as mistakes. You erased the following quote and said that disillusionment happened in the 20's: "Following the devastation of fascism and World War II many intellectuals and artists in Europe became distrustful of modernism." And here's the reference that followed: "For a relevant treatment of modernism, see Adorno and Horkheimer, Dialectic of Enlightenment."

Please, I urge you and anyone before making changes like this, please discuss them. The justification for your deletion -- that this disillusionment happened in the 20's -- is based on the strange logic that disillusionment about the modern world can occur only once. It happened after WWI and after WWII. After WWI, disillusionment with the modern world produced High Modernism. After WWII, it produced postmodernism. The seeming disintegration of Old Europe after WWI led the artist to desire a new way to recreate culture; the domination of fascist and nazi dictatorships led the artist to address lack of control. It's two very different tpes of disillusionment, and they are important to understand, I would argue, in order to understand postmodernism. I believe the deleted sentence should be returned but with more explanation and perhaps more support from citations.F. Simon Grant (talk) 17:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

the statenment is OR and is not well sourced (Adorno and Horkheimer are used as examples of this, --that is as primary sources. In any case they did not write postwar). Let's get some recent historians making this argument, please. Rjensen (talk) 17:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I'm not defending the original line because I think OR is okay, and I'm not the one who wrote the original, so this is not me defending my poorly sourced addition. Indeed, I believe it can be made better with a better source. I just want to make sure we do these things for the right reason. This is why discussing them here first is a good idea. If you just mean the Adorno/Horkheimer source was not postWWII, that's understandable. You seemed to be saying that disillusionment in general was isolated to postWWI which is just not true. Post-WWII disillusionment is a big part of pomo. I'll argue that the concept of the original statement you deleted is valuable but needs to be more specific and needs a better source.F. Simon Grant (talk) 20:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

well I thinjk dating pomo to the 1945-50 period is much too early. I think the upheavals of the 1960s is a better turning point. Rjensen (talk) 21:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a relevant point to debate. The 60's upheavals were certainly the peak of the postmodern shift, but clearly the forces that made that happen had their start in the 50's. The world certainly didn't become suddenly pomo in '45, but disillusionment over the war and the postwar materialism certainly affected the great thinkers of the 50's. My area is lit, so I can't speak with confidence about other areas, but most of the developers of pomo lit were affected in some way by the war (Beckett, Vonnegut, Heller, etc.) or postwar culture (Black Mountain, the Beats, Pynchon, etc.) so pomo wasn't the dominant force in the 50's, but it's hard to argue that it did not start in the 50's. Good point to debate. I'd like to hear other perspectives and discuss how this might affect the page.F. Simon Grant (talk) 13:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

intellectual impact should not take two decades to show up. Looking at the key dates in the article, there are none in the 1945-55 era. -- it took these powerful intellectuals 10-20 years to notice they were disillusioned? Rjensen (talk) 14:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

This is not a very scholarly comment. If you were familiar with Vonnegut, Heller, Beckett, Ginsberg, Kerouac, Burroughs, Pynchon, etc., etc., etc., you would not make such an uninformed statement. Vonnegut started writing in the early 50's but didn't really get taken seriously until Slaughterhouse Five in the 70's. Heller wrote Catch 22 about WWII (but really about post-war America) in the early 60's. Beckett wrote Godot in 48 and it was first produced in 52 (my dates may be way off, but I'm ranting more than arguing here). Ginsberg was an unknown poet until 56. Both Kerouac and Burroughs published in the early 50's but didn't really become who they were in the publishing world until 57 and 59 respectively. Pynchon's first trilogy which he started to publish in the 60's was two thirds about WWII and one third about postwar America. I know impact is not supposed to take two decades but it does. Saying they took a decade to notice they were disillusioned is just insulting and ignorant. Please base your comments on facts, not personal observations and a poor understanding of how a culture changes. I think this is a point worth debating but debating with facts. I acknowledge that actual scholarship, postmodern theory, etc. was a sixties phenomenon, but if you're talking about postmodernism in the arts, it has clear beginnings -- or at least origins -- in postwar culture. Whether to call this a transitional period or the true beginning of postmodernism is a relevant debate; to say this line of thinking just doesn't exist is, as I said, just ignorant.F. Simon Grant (talk) 19:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

'See also' should really be in a template

I think all the links in the 'See also' section should really be in a template. Is that possible, or does anyone disagree? The basic idea is to make them accessible to those who seek further, but not taking up so much space in the article. —Zujine|talk 14:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Structural overhaul

I just restructured the whole article. I changed barely any of the content, but just gave most everything new headlines and rearranged things a bit differently. And I pulled out all the large and ugly templates asking for references - half the article suffers that problem, and it seemed unfair to single a few places out. I also deleted the whole quote section because I thought it was pretty boring and unencyclopedic. I am still eyeing warily other parts of the article - like the gigantic quote from one person.

I will wait and see how these changes go down first before editing further. —Zujine|talk 14:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Does the further reading section need to be so long?　I think it would be more valuable to the reader to provide some good, key works on the subject, rather than this many. It may be disorienting to newcomers. —Zujine|talk 06:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

It's so long because the PM covers so many different fields and subfields--many cultural fields, including literary criticism, linguistics, architecture, visual arts, and music etc etc. The idea of having a short definitive guide, of course, violates the spirit of postmodernism. "disorienting"--yes that is the first reaction most people have to postmodernism. Rjensen (talk) 06:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think our articles are supposed to be actual reflections of their subjects, in how long they are, or how they are structured. That doesn't gel with me. —Zujine|talk 15:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

"Officially coronated" by boundary 2? Really?

I was just casually browsing through the page again and noticed how all of a sudden boundary 2 "officially coronated" the term postmodernism in 1972. I question 1) the phrasing, 2) the accuracy, and 3) whether or not this is just an add for boundary 2. First, it was "officially coronated" meaning it was given a crown by an office with authority ... I get the implication, that this journal (that I've never heard of though I'm very familiar with postmodernism in general, though I'll give the original poster the benefit of the doubt) spread the word "postmodernism" in its current usage. "Coronated," I'd maybe accept even though it's a little silly, but "officially" makes it seem like decisions like this could be decided "officially" and that this one journal had some sort of authority. Also, "postmodernism" had been floating around for many many years before 1972. I understand the issue of deciding when it was first used in its current form. The first time I could identify was Ihab Hassan, The Dismemberment of Orpheus, 1971. It says that in that section because I put it there. I'm dubious about it being that late though I haven't found any better information and nobody else on this page has challenged that (if you have better info, please do challenge it, I beg of you). So if we just look at the structure of that section, we have boundary 2 officially coronating postmodernism in 1972 at the beginning of the section and Hassan first using it in its current form in 1971 at the end of the section. Is boundary 2 more important than Hassan? Is this a contradiction? What is the most accurate way to address this issue? Even if we don't get to the true story, at least I think we should fix the structure of the section, with 1971 coming before 1972. We also need good citations. The only citation to support the idea that boundary 2 officially coronated postmodernism is a website for boundary 2. It stinks of advertisement to me, but, again, I'll give the original poster the benefit of the doubt. We can do better! We can be accurate! And we can make this very confusing subject clear to everyone!F. Simon Grant (talk) 18:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, philologically inaugurated is a better word, but seriously, boundary 2? What the hell is boundary 2? It sounds like a weight loss pill. I'm incredulous because it's not like I don't know jack about postmodernism. I know it fairly well, yet I've never heard of this. You'd think I'd run across it before this point. More importantly, you can't seriously claim postmodernism started in 1972. It's ridiculous. Whoever posted the boundary 2 stuff, please explain. I asked six months ago and nada. I'm all for fake selfpromotion, but the idea that pomo started in 72 I find offensive. That craps in the face of all the much more important people that came before this weightloss pill or whatever it is. Since we're faking things, just fake an earlier date. That's all I'm asking.F. Simon Grant (talk) 14:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Part of the problem is of course when to state that something began. There's no consensus on when modernism begins let alone postmodernism. Then there's the issue of when one ends and the other begins and whether or not postmodernism has ended or whether or not postmodernism actually ever existed or was just late modernism, and so on. I'm thinking that the claim for 1972 is based actually on Charles Jencks' position that architectural postmodernism begins in 1972. As for boundary 2, that's an academic journal. Since none of this can be categorically or factually pinpointed, a claim published in a journal is as useful or as useless as any other. I'll be bold and make the claim that PoMo started on Jan. 1, 1952. I'm going to get an essay published in a peer-reviewed journal (double-blind, natch) to prove my point. So that makes it official, yes? Of course not. The article needs to reflect various claims for postmodernism and state clearly that there is no consensus anywhere about any of this. I'd say remove anything that is so clearly defining something as varied as a date and expand and clarify the section that explain that there is no consensus on dates. freshacconci talktalk 15:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Finally somebody responds. I agree totally. I'm fine with keeping boundary 2 whether it's fake self-promotion or not. The claim that pomo started with it in 72 is what I find problematic, and it's much better to assert the uncertainty of the issue (no matter how much jokesters like to bitch about the uncertainty of uncertainty [ha ha, postmodernism on wikipedia is so postmodern so we should just abandon it, ha ha, b/c humanities is burping, ha ha, I said burp which makes me giggle]). For example, I've heard the notion that pomo started with architecture in the 70's, but is that the real start of pomo or the use of the term? Charles Olson was using it in the 50's. Latin American writers were using it long before that. Since lit is my area of expertise, I can tell you with certainty if we're talking about the actual style of postmodernism, it started in the 50's. Perhaps the best way to approach it is to have a clear distinction between when the style started to be used (50's) and when the term started to be used (70's) and propose several possible beginning points -- boundary 2 can be one of them. We would then back it up with sources that aren't just blatant self-promotion.F. Simon Grant (talk) 18:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Plagiarism in intro fixed

The Anchor Blue edits were plagiarism: http://www.transparencynow.com/overview/viewtable.htm Good job, Drmies.F. Simon Grant (talk) 21:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

good.88.230.30.66 (talk) 02:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Stuckism

An editor added a great deal of info on Stuckism positioning it as the principle critique of Postmodernism (an idea which is unsourced and WP:OR). It is also poorly written and contains quotes with spelling errors but it's unclear if that is how the text was spelled in the original sources (and thus requiring a [sic]). This is way too much emphasis on Stuckism per WP:UNDUE and the only source provided is a blog. The editor reverted my removal of this section stating that it could be expanded with more sources. Expanding is not the answer as this is very much original research and synthesis of primary sources (interviews). I won't revert at this time to avoid a war but this really doesn't belong. freshacconci talktalk 19:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

2 separate points

• Can we make the long table of magnificent exegetes 'hidden' until one clicks 'show'? Secondly, needs more pictures~! —Zujine|talk 20:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Article needs a cleanup and focus

Hello,

I'm having difficulty getting through this article. What is the purpose of the section called "Overview of ideas (see also Postmodern philosophy)"?

Shouldn't all that just be moved into the Postmodern philosophy article, and only leave a summary here? The Postmodern philosophy article is very short and barren of detail on the philosophers, IMO, while this article contains way too much philosophical stuff.

This article here should be a general, summary article, n'est pas? Kindest regards, KennethSides (talk) 21:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

incorrect opening statement

Postmodernism is clearly not a "philosophical movement". it is incorrect to state this as it is heinously misleading (as I am aware it is causing alot of confusion judging by the contents of 'talk'.. It is a concept that encompasses a wide range of ideals and practices. And postmodernism is not philosophy. If anything, it incorporates a number of philosophies and critical methods that can be considered 'postmodern', the most obvious of note are feminism and post-structuralism. Put another way, postmodernism is not a method of doing philosophy although postmodernism could be regarded as a way of thinking about something but does not constitute a philosophy. It would be more helpful to begin as simply a concept, movement or an era that encompasses a range of ideals and practices. Pgtimms (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgtimms (talk • contribs) 21:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC) Pgtimms (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Further to this I have re-written most the introduction for clarification. This should make more sense when someone is attempting to understand the main body of the text Pgtimms (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand the need to be accurate when speaking of such an abstract concept. However, vagueness and redundancy seem to accomplish the opposite. Postmodernism being "not a philosophical movement in itself" and "not a method of doing philosophy" are inferred from its definition of being a "concept," no? Can we be more succinct here?98.155.87.113 (talk) 12:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)