Talk:Postmodernism/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Edit of "Postmodernism in society" section

There was a contradiction in the definition of a postmodern society that said that though a main feature of postmodernism is the uniformity of people, people are still individuals (which doesn't go along with the definition) so I removed it.

Yes, it is true that people are still "individuals" but one of the distinctive features of postmodernism is the homogenization of cultures.

I also tried to make things more clear by rewording other parts a bit (but the same info is still there).

-- Usernamefortonyd

Agreed, but I'm actually not sure that "people are still individuals" in postmodern theory. Our common notion of "individuality" (as a necessary way of thinking about other people and ourselves) has actually come under heavy scrutiny by many postmodern authors. They've often pointed out that people seem to be so much defined and influenced by their situation and cultural context that it doesn't make sense to talk about them as individual things--thinking their own thoughts, and acting on individual impulses. Instead, these authors think we might do better to look at people as manifestations of broad cultural patterns--constituted by relations, not some inner essence of individuality.

i think that you all just like to argue for the sake or arguing. just a bunch of hipster snobs. cheers!

Incredible.

The chart under "The development of postmodernism" is just plain stupid. Absolutely pointless and abusive. Serious POV and relevancy issues.

Wow.

Ok, I'm a year 12 student here, and felt like doing a little research on post-modernism. This concept seems hard to grasp at first, and so many articles seem to be beyond many people's comprehension. It'd be great if there were a simplified version, even if it didn't include everything, just the basics. So I propose changes in the sentence structuring. Say what you want to, then give a simplified example. There’s no use writing an advanced article, which may well be of high standard, when only a few percent of the people can understand it.

Well that's my 2 cents.

I just came to the talk page to add: This article doesn't tell me what post-modernism is!

Then I found someone else had already said the same..... FT2 14:00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

That's an issue with a lot of Wikipedia articles. The fact is though, that a lot of people want in-depth articles. But you're right, a brief summary on the page or something would be nice.

• i agree with the concerns that his page is not straight-forward enough; alot of difficult sentences and stuff. This is changing and i think the page has become more accessable.Spencerk 07:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Nietzsche

The word 'Nietzsche' appears once in this article, and what is more, this single occurrence is preceded by the word 'maybe'. There aren't 20 ways of putting it: post-modernism is simply Nietzschean thought rehashed -and what I am saying is not even that controversial, you read this in every single (serious) handbook. Every single post-modern thinker assents to the Nietzschean God is Dead, or the genealogical uncovering of the knowledge/power nexus. A substantial amount of reworking required... (Cookydog)

Ironically, your stance is very unnietschean. There are 20 different ways of putting it. There are a thousand different ways of putting it. On the other hand, Nietzsche might be okay with you trumpeting him as the uber-way-of-putting-it.

By the way, a whole paragraph on the postmodern influence on political science was plagiarised from Ashley's 1990 Reading dissidence/Writing the discipline essay: a “draft-age youth whose identity is claimed in national narratives of ‘national security’ and the universalizing narratives of the ‘rights of man,’” of “the woman whose very womb is claimed by the irresolvable contesting narratives of ‘church,’ ‘paternity,’ ‘economy,’ and ‘liberal polity.’ So, you've put it between quotation marks -unless you say where it's from, it's plagiarism. (Cookydog) Dec 3. 2005

COMMENT: Nietzche is not postmodernism per se. Lyotard's essay is most instructive -- it begins with the computerization of knowledge. There is a clue for you. Nietzsche is a source, of course.

"The existentialists like Nietzsche brought a new nihilism and atheism which influenced culture."

Well, as far as I know, and I have done considerable Nietzsche reading, Nietzsche is foremost an anti-nihilist. He proposes the making of new values for humankind, beyond good and evil. The above passage in the text is one of the most common misrepresentations of the Nietzschean thought. Yet, overall, the sentence seems clearly biased against existentialist thinking in large... and what really does "brought a new atheism" mean? Is atheism used in a hidden pejorative sense? I guess. (Necati 22:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC))

"Postmodernism" as a philosophical movement is not just Niezsche rehashed; it grew out of the staged confrontations and collaborations of Nietzsche, Marx, and Freud undertaken by French (mostly) intellectuals in the early twentieth century. Boiling it down to Nietzsche is inaccurate (as would be boiling it down to the three of these thinkers).--csloat 01:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Freudo-Marxism --Jahsonic 07:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Come on people... There's no such thing as "inaccurate" (as any good postmodernist should "know"). The story you've told, Jahsonic, is just one of thousands that have been told about the development of postmodernism. One could write other stories for ages: Postmodernism was a byproduct of WWII, and the disillusionment that accompanied it. Postmodernism was a response against Freud and Marx, along with other modernists and their monolithic truths. Postmodernism was the result of globalization and increasing intercultural contact.

None of these stories is the "correct" one. For history, as postmodernism tells us, is just fiction.

Some stories are more correct than others. The story that postmodernism is just Nietzsche is incorrect. The story that it is just "Freudo-Marxism" is also incorrect. More accurately it developed out of all these things, as well as some of the things you mention. While there is no "grand narrative" that trumps all others, it is incorrect to say history is "just fiction" according to postmodernism. True, there are probably some authors who call themselves "postmodern" who write such things, but the key writers in the field who use the term do not use it in this irresponsible manner (and, in fact, most of them do not describe themselves as "postmodern" anyway; they use the term to describe a condition or a development in philosophy, art, economics, politics, etc.)--csloat 20:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

And on what grounds do you distinguish between a more correct and less correct story?

It sounds like you've given up on the possibility of a perfectly correct story, but your idea that there's a spectrum of more correct and less correct perspectives is just a watered down modernist vision of Truth. What could it mean, for a story to be "more accurate," other than that it is an agreed upon picture of the world? Is this sort of consensus really something you should be so forcefully espousing? What, after all, is your act doing but surpressing other voices, in trying to declare yours the voice of objective truth?

I thoroughly enjoyed this thread -I like making provocative and exaggerated statements in order to get people riled up, and to get them to really say their mind! :-) I guess what my original point was that -despite what has been said hereabove- Nietzsche is an undeniable influence on post-modern thought. It is therefore a shame that he is nowhere mentioned in this article. Thank you! Cookydog.

original research rant

I think a number of useful quotes and definitions were eliminated that do not constitute original research but rather the claims of others with expertise here (eg lyotard). It is true some of those sentences were problematic but I think the etymology of the term is useful, as well as comments by lyotard and habermas.--csloat 04:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

big essay

I'm too lazy too dissect it myself, but here is an essay that perfectly defines the attitude of postmodernism:

HIP-DEEP IN POST-MODERNISM Reading Quiz by Todd Gitlin

1. Post-modernism is more than a buzzword or even an esthetic; it is a way of seeing, a view of the human spirit and an attitude toward political as well as cultural possibilities. It has precedents, but in its reach it is the creature of our recent social and political moment.

1. In the realism that rode high in the 19th century, the work of art was supposed to express unity and continuity. Realism mirrored reality, criticized it and consoled. The individuals portrayed were clearly placed in society and history.

1. In modernism, voices, perspectives and materials were multiple. The unity of the work was assembled from fragments and juxtapositions. Art set out to remake life. Audacious individual style threw off the dead hand of the past. Continuity was disrupted, the individual subject dislocated.

1. Post-modernism, by contrast, is indifferent to consistency and continuity altogether. It self-consciously splices genres, attitudes, styles. It relishes the blurring or juxtaposition of forms (fiction-non-fiction), stances (straight-ironic), moods (violent-comic), cultural levels (high-low). It disdains originality and fancies copies, repetition, the recombination of hand-me-down scraps. It neither embraces nor criticizes, but beholds the world blankly, with a knowingness that dissolves feeling and commitment into irony.

One post-modernist trope is the list, as if culture were a garage sale , so it is appropriate to evoke post-modernism by offering a list of examples, for better and for worse: Michael Graves's Portland Building, Philip Johnson's AT&T, and hundreds of more of less skillful derivatives; Robert Rauschenberg's silk screens, Warhol's multiple-image painting, photo-realism, Larry Rivers's erasures and pseudo-pageantry, Sherrie Levine's photographs of "classic" photographs; Disneyland, Las Vegas, suburban strips, shopping malls, mirror-glass office building facades; William Burroughs, Tom Wolfe, Donald Barthelme, Monty Python,Don Delillo, Isuzu "He's lying" commercials, Philip Glass, "Stars Wars," Spaulding Gray, David Hockney ("Surface is illustration, but so is depth"), Max Headroom.,David Byrne, Twyla Tharp (choreographing Beach Boys and Frank Sinatra songs), Italo Calvino, "The Gospel at Colonus," Robert Wilson, the Flying Karamazov Brothers, George Coates, the Kronos Quartet, Frederick Barthelme, MTV, "Miami Vice," David Letterman, Laurie Anderson, Anselm Kiefer, John Ashberry, Paul Auster, thePompidou Center, the Hyatt Regency, "The White Hotel," E.L. Doctorow's "Book of Daniel," "Less Than Zero," Kathy Acker, Philip Roth's "Counterlife" (but not "Portnoy's Complaint"), the epilogue to Rainer Werner Fassbinder's "Berlin Alexanderplatz," the" language poets"; the French theorists Michel Foucault, Jaccques Lacan, Jacques Derrida and Jean Baudrillard; television morning shows; news commentary cluing us in to the image-making and "positioning" strategies of candidates; remote-control-equipped viewers "grazing" around the television dial.

Consider also Australia's Circus Oz, whose jugglers comment on their juggling and crack political jokes in a program infused by (their list) "Aboriginal influences, vaudeville, Chinese acrobatics, Japanese martial arts, fireman's balances, Indonesian instruments and rhythms, video, Middle Eastern tunes, B-grade detective movies, modern dance, Irish jigs, and the ubiquitous present of corporate marketing." Consider the student who walks into my office dressed in green jersey, orange skirt and black tights.

There important differences, of course. Donald Barthelme is wistful about the dignity of the pre-modernist tradition (In the Tolstoy Museum"); Kathy Acker ransacks and trashes it. But whether disasssembling or dissembling, post-modernists know that they, we, are living hip-deep in debris.

So what's new? It has been argued that post-modernism is nothing more--or less-- than the current phase of a modernist tradition (nice oxymoron!) already nearly a century old. True enough, for all the fanfare, post-modernism is, by definition, known by the company it follows. It is too modest (or is that only a ploy?) to pretend to be more than a sequel--which may be nothing more than an aftermath or a hiatus. Still post-modernism peels away from its predecessor in several respects: its blase tone, its sense of exhaustion, its self-conscious bemusement with surfaces. The question remains, whether brand new or a "new improved" modernism, just what does post-modernism express (and repress) at this historical moment? Why should this spirit have surfaces recently and why is it so anxiously debated?

A phenomenon this sweeping cannot be traced to a single cause. In the recent debates, I detect six theories. They are not incompatible, but their emphases are different. Each contributes to an explanation; none is sufficient.

• The Marxist critic Fredric Jameson, among others, has argued that post-modernism is an ideology well suited to express and further the global economic system that capitalism has become. High-consumption capitalism requires a ceaseless transformation in style, a connoisseurship of surface, an emphasis on packaging and reproducibility: post-modernist art echoes the truth that th the arts have become auxiliary to sales. In order to adapt, consumers are pried away from the traditions, their selves become "decentered," and a well-formed interior life becomes an obsolete encumbrance. Even "lifestyles" become commodities to be marketed.

In effect, post-modernism expresses the spiritless spirit of a global class linked via borderless mass media with mass culture, omnivorous consumption and easy travel. Their experience denies the continuity of history, they live in a perpetual present garnished by nostalgia binges. Space is not real, only time. The post-modernists style makes sense to the new consumer. In the global shopping center (as Richard Barnet and Ronald Miller have called it), local traditions have been swamped by the workings of the market; anything can be bought, and to speak of intrinsic value is mere sentimentality. Post-modernist literature cultivates place names in the same way consumers flock to the latest cuisine: in the spirit of the collector, because the uniqueness of real places is actually waning. It makes much of brand names (even ironically) because they have become the furnishing of our cultural "home." How else to represent this new world than through post-modernist flatness? The post-modernist motto is: You can't beat trash culture, so join it.

The trouble is, this sweeping, impressive argument, once carved out from beneath murk, is too sweeping. Aiming to explain so much, it glides over actual artists and the relation between specific experiences and artistic choices. Moreover, the economic changes have been at work for 50 or 75 years; then why are their artistic consequences showing up only now?

• Perhaps, it has been argued, scientific reason is the corrosive force that has eroded the authority of narrative style and especially of the grand "metanarratives" (the Enlightenment, capitalism, Marxism,etc.) that purported to justify not only philosophical but artistic claims to have rendered things as they are. Quantum theory and microphysics have undermined certainty and continuity. Voila, post-modernism, which enshrines the discontinuous and "reinforces our ability to tolerate the incommensurable." Something like this has been argued by the theorist Lyotard ("The Postmodern Condition"), whose slapdash style, in the French mode, is to insist rather than to argue. But the argument , if I understand it, is clumsy: the impact of science has been accelerating for centuries, yet the post- modernist style is no more than two decades old.

• More concretely and modestly, the critic Cecelia Tichi argues that post-modern fiction--at least the work of Ann Beattie, Bret Easton Ellis, Bobbie Ann Mason and Tama Janowitz, among others--is " video fiction." Anesthetized writing recreates the experience of watching television to the saturation point, taking it for granted. Attention span shriveled, a new generation of fictionists writes in televisionese. They write in the present tense because that is television's only tense: everything is always happening right now, in the middle; there are no beginnings or ends. Growing up on fragmented television, to which they gave fragmented attention, these writers produce "short scenes juxtaposed almost at random." Their characters live inconclusively, "forever poised for action rather than engaged in it," because that is what television watching feels like. I would add to Ms. Tichi's speculation that post-modernism echoes (or produces) the Couch Potato phenomenon, which renders ironic the slug-a-bed passivity that literary moralists deplore: you can mainline your television and mock it. But if fiction simply transcribes an impoverished experience, is it not impoverished fiction? Ms. Tichi's observation is acute, but television cannot explain all of post-modernism.

• It is also irresistible to observe that post-modernism extrapolates the long-established eclectic logic of American culture. Post-modernism was born in the United States because juxtaposition was always the essence of a polyethnic culture, less melting pot than grab bag. "There is no distinctively American culture," the essayist Randolph Bourne wrote in 1916. "It is apparently our lot rather to be a federation of cultures." One side of American culture since Alexis de Tocqueville's description 150 years ago is the marketplace jamboree, amazing diversity striving for recognition, the shimmer of the evanescent, the tall tale meant to be simultaneously disbelieved and appreciated. No style, no subject is intrinsically superior to any other. Vulgarized pluralism is the cultural logic of laissez-faire -- "anything goes" is the motto of an elbows-out, noisy, jostling version of cultural democracy (or, if you don't like it, leveling). What could be more American than humbling the highbrow? In this sense, the essence of American culture is the variety show, finding a place for everyone--post-modernism's prototype. The raucous, disrespectful side of post-modernism has a root here. Unfortunately, so does the bland side. For the cult of the least common denominator is also an American tradition; we keep cultural peace by forcing everyone to sheathe swords.

• Post-modernism is above all post-1960's; its keynote is cultural helplessness. It is post-Vietnam, post-New Left, post-hippie, post-Watergate. History was ruptured, passions have been expended, belief has become difficult; heroes have died and been replaced by celebrities. The 1960's exploded our belief in progress, which underlay the classical faith in linear order and moral clarity. Old verities crumbled, but new ones have not settled in. Self-regarding irony and blankness are a way of staving off anxieties, rages, terrors and hungers that have been kicked up but cannot find resolution. Paul Fussell has made the point that irony became standard in English writing after World War I as a way to navigate around the unspeakable. The blank, I've-seen-it-all post-modernist tone, in this light, is self- imposed cultural anesthesia, a refusal to feel (except for punkish rage, in which only one thing can be felt: loathing). The fear is that what's underneath hurts too much; better repress it.

• To which I would add a generational corollary. Post-modern currents run especially strong among readers and audiences born in the 1950's and 1960's. Post-modernism, in other words, has a demand--as well as a supply-side. From this angle, post-mod is, let's face it, a yuppie outlook. It reflects an experience that takes for granted not only television but suburbs, shopping malls, recreational (not religious or transcendent) drugs and the towering abstraction of money. To grow up post-1960's is an experience of aftermath, privatization, weightlessness; everything has apparently been done. Therefore culture is a process of recycling; everything is juxtaposable to everything else because nothing matters. This generation is disabused of authority, except, perhaps, the authority of money; theirs is the bumper sticker, "THE ONE WITH THE MOST TOYS WINS." (Perhaps the ultimate post-modern experience is to shift information bits and computer bytes around the world at will and high speed.) The culture they favor is a passive adaptation to feeling historically stranded--after the 1960's but before what? Perhaps the Bomb, the void hanging over the horizon, threatening to pulverize everything of value. So be cool. In this light, post- modernism is anticipatory shell shock. It's as if the Bomb has already fallen.

Post-modernism, which fancies itself ever so disdainful of history, turns out to be all too embedded in (guess what) history. Such a variety of forces have funneled together to nourish post-modernism, it would appear the tendency will be with us for some time. What, then, is its impact on our literature? Pastiche lives off borrowed energies. The post-modern mode is compilation, recombination. In the visual and performing arts, this can wonderfully represent the oneness of the world--and the immigrant diversity of New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. But pastiche writing tends to become a scrapbook, a compendium of anti-moralism that shrieks moralistically, Look at me! and Who cares? When writing is imprisoned within previous writing, it can't attend to what hasn't been written, what hasn't yet been imagined. Numb, recombinant fiction therefore fails to bring the real news of subsurface feeling, sense and sensibility. Nor can it be a criticism of life. At its worst, it veers toward tourism, mannerism and mood music. Bret Easton Ellis's jejune "Less Than Zero" is an easy target, but I am more discouraged by the evasions of such novels as Joan Didion's "Democracy" and Denis Johnson's "Stars at Noon." in which a stylized third world stands as a shaky backdrop for opaque intrigues. In this fiction, the larger world, whether banal or exotic, is blank; marooned "characters' stare and gesture in its direction. Neither person nor place quite exists, only portents.

By contrast, there is a trenchant side to the post-modernist phenomenon. Consider Donald Bartelme's fiction, which hints at emotion beyond the junkyards of alluring empty, mass-prduced signs. Consider Art Spiegelman's brilliant "Maus," which uses the form of a comic book (!) with talking animals (!!) to tell a story about a survivor telling a story about the Holocaust to his son - not for evasion's sake, and not to trash narrative form as such, but to tell the untellable to those for whom the Holocaust has become "a story." Consider Don DeLillo's "White Noise," which goes beyond post-modernist blankness by suggesting (mockingly) that something is being evaded. The white noise of TV/death is disturbing because something out there--beneath images, surfaces, everyday banality--is trying to break through. Mr. DeLillo's fragments of TV speech are chilling, disruptive, shocking because out there in the wings is a baseline life capable of being chilled, disrupted, shocked. Television intrudes into something which is not television; there are real children, real toxic chemicals, real death.

These works are exceptions; purists would deny they are post-modernist at all. But for the most part, post modernist writing confesses (or celebrates!) helplessness. Make the most of stagnation, it says; give up gracefully. That is perhaps its defining break from modernism, which was, whatever its subversions, a series of declarations of faith --Constructivism's future, Joyce's present, Elliot's unsurpassable past. What is not clear is whether post modernism, living off borrowed materials, has the resources for continuing self-renwal. A car with a dead battery can run off its generator only so long. Exhaustion is finally exhausting. But if it is true that deep social forces have been at work for a long time to produce the present cultural anesthesia, then post-modernism is not going to fade easily. Writers will have to do something else. They will have to cease being stenographers fo the surface. They will have to decide not to coast down the currents of least resistance.

Adapted from an essay by Todd Gitlin in Cultural Politics in Contemporary America edited by Ian Angus and Sut Jhally, to be published in January by Routledge.

Some of Gitlin's observations are astute, and I would be tempted to say that postmodernism in a different way (in philosophy anyway) occurred in Greece during Plato's time with the sophists simply asserting that there was no such thing as truth so all one has to do is perfect their argumentation etc. However, I'm not sure what relevance this essay you've posted here has, unless it can be incorporated into the article of course.--Knucmo2 15:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

"Postmodernism, Planning & Urban Design" Section

The section has an unwikified "REFERENCES" component that is making the page a nonstandard width. I would move it to the bottom, but I don't see a numbered list in a reference section that some articles have, so I figure that references on this page are being handled some other way. Theshibboleth 23:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Note from a Christian

I have a Christian World view,and have read several articles on Postmodernism, and other related cultural views. Through the lens of my own beliefs I have reached the conclusion that Postmodernism, Humanism, and Existentialism are like a runaway train in the current culture, hostile to any reason. Postmodernism is the permission to breed the fungus of humanistic philosophies of the greater good at any cost in the petri dish of Existentialism. If you don't believe we live in this selfish stench look around at the agendas fueled by the Humanistic Frankenstein monster masquerading as Multiculturalism; Abortion, Gay Marriage,and Cloning,(Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer). Like inner-city gangs looking for reason to servive,Pragmatism justifies the crime, Duelism places the blame, and fear of loss bonds together. God help us.TerryA 22:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)TerryA

By "duelism", do you mean dualism? Because that is a philosophy embraced by most Christians. Anyway, it is interesting to me that you say "Through the lens of my own beliefs" - it is a statement very much in line with some postmodern thinking. -Seth Mahoney 22:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your POV. It is noted, but dismissed. Here's a hint; if your lens tells you that Humanism is hostile to reason, your lens is dirty, broken, or ill-prescribed for your eyes. Alienus 04:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes."dualism"(Thank you)

I reject the harmful aspects of Dualism reguarding Christian influence on the culture. There is a positive/negative influence Orthodox Christianity has on the culture,in this arena. I would say no, most Christians don't hold to Dualism if they follow Christs teachings.To hold to a "We" "They" mentality means I think I'm better than you. We are all the same in Gods eyes, You may be a Homosexual,but I ate too much chicken last night at the church-- its all sin. to God... Also, to say "Through the lens of my beliefs" would only resemble postmodern thinking if I did not believe the bible was devine. (It is absolute truth)--Thank you for your feedback TerryA 05:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

In philosophy, dualism generally refers to a belief that human beings have some dual nature, that they are body + something else (mind, soul, spirit, whatever), which is why I was surprised to hear you reference it negatively. Anyway, it still seems like you're talking postmodern language: "if I did not believe the bible was divine". A modernist phrasing would probably look more like "would resemble postmodern thinking if the bible were not divine (but it is)." That's not meant as a criticism, I just find it interesting. -Seth Mahoney 18:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I am influenced by the culture like everyone else,I became a Christian only five years ago. (Come as you are, but you will never be the same.)Everyone is affected by the culture, you will be affected by this note.I have been affected by your responces as well.I challenge you to some great reads--

[Mere Christianity By C.S.Lewis-- [How Now Shall we live? By Charles Colson] (I must confess I'm getting off subject) To sum it all up, bottom line, Postmodernism standing alone is harmless,(It's the absence of light)just keep the blasting caps(Agendas)away from it.TerryA 05:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

This is NOT my point of view,This is all common knowledge,I only talk of the "LENS of Christ" to take liberty with the meanings of these words. It is a task to use them correctly. Reguardless, anyone that looks around can see it if they want to, personal (Agendas) DO seem to get in the eyes!(POST NO BILLS)24.216.163.173 01:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear fellow information bits - from the POV of self confessed Christians, we are to expect little more than the blurred lens of those who claim to see little, and "through a glass darkly". For those of us interested in fact, rather than in the startling nonsense assertion that 'The Bible' 'is absolute truth', Gilbert Ryle effectively killed off Cartesian Dualism in his 1949 book The Concept of Mind, showing that talk of 'the ghost in the machine' (his coinage) was the product of 17th century literalism arising from Descartes' mechanistic view. It is to be noted that the mechanistic view itself arose from the circular argument for 'God', who was presumably quite happy to create a universe of haunted machines for his own entertainment. Fanshawe 19:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The lens-allegory is intrinsically postmodern or poststructuralist. I think a true non-pluralist Christian has no use for such a metaphor as it would suggest that a Christian lens is still just a lens, and not a true perception of reality or divinity.

The Bible is not a book, to begin with, but a library. It is probably the best example of the ambiguity of literature. Not only is the list of authors endless, so are the timeframes and circumstances they wrote in and the audiences they wrote for. Over the past 1700 years the Bible has been used as an excuse for violence, suppression, hate, suicide, murder and war. Moreover it has inspired thousands of very different religious movements to call it 'their' book.

Since Vaticanum II in 1965, the Catholic Church has admitted this and it has allowed theology to make use of different interpretation models in Bible texts. Genesis, for example, is not to be taken literally, but can be considered a metaphor for human weakness.

Around that same time Derrida coined the term 'Deconstruction,' Barthes and Foucault reformed humanist literay and cultural criticism to an open thinking structure (poststructuralism) which has questioned every God, albeit Jahweh or Shakespeare. A postmodern culture emerged from that.

When I hear a so-called "Christian" (credo: a person who loves him or herself as much as his brother or sister) make statements that align abortion, homosexualiy, the genome project and inner-city crime; and consequently blames Pragmatism and Postmodernism, I truly believe (for once) that you have missed out on more than a century of intellectual evolution. I'm sorry. I have nothing against spirituality. But it is the mentality of your out-of-touch form of religion (etymology of religion: connection...) that sends the largest military force in the history of man to war. It is a lack of evolution in urgent need of humanism, existentialism, structuralism and who knows, one day, postmodernism. -- So please, God, for once, don't help us.

Janpieter Chielens 17:10, 5 May 2006 (CEST)

I'm not sure what you dislike more "I'm a Christian" Or that I'm sure the Bible's true for you also" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TerryA (talk • contribs) .

Please note this page is not for promoting points of view, general chit chat or personal comments. It is discussion about items to go into the article to improve it. If you want something to go in the article and it is from a NPOV, then put it in, and back it up with verifiable sources. Thank you. Tyrenius 01:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

There definitely should be a 'postmodernism in the church' section, but I am not aware of how it relates to religions other that Christianity, so I may not put anything up. -Kmaguir1 19:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware of how postmodernism relates to religion, and it's already in the article:

"Postmodernism is incredulity towards metanarratives." Jean-Francois Lyotard [1]

Kevin Baas^talk 21:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I was thinking more of a chronicling of the Emergent Church, and Word of Faith movements, since most of the other subsections address the specifics of postmodern culture within them--there is no such discussion of postmodernism's role within the Church, as it is currently operating. Oh, and just as a side note--I don't think M. Lyotard is strong enough in describing what he subscribes to. Postmodernism is revulsion and anger towards metanarratives. -Kmaguir1 19:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Although you may feel that postmodernism is "revulsion and anger towards metanarratives", I'll avoid any spin or interpretation and use Occam's Razor: I believe that M. Lyotard subscribes to the belief that "Postmodernism is incredulity towards metanarratives.", and that, therefore, insofar as he subscribes to postmodernism, he does not find metanarratives credible.

I don't see how postmodernism can have a "role within the church" without greatly deranging what postmodernism is. To me that's tantamount to calling "Intelligent design theory" science. Kevin Baas^talk 14:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, read any articles about the Emergent Church or Word of Faith movements. The word 'postmodernism', as you know, is very pliable. -Kmaguir1 18:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Foundations

I don't it's too big a deal if we Nietzsche and other 'foundational' theorists of post-modernism don't form the basis of this article. I mean, isn't crediting any one (or even several) individuals with the genesis of post-modernism a very modernist idea? Post-modernism, like globalization and wikipedia, is the working of collectives, a decentralized restructuring of knowledge production and the power that holds.

steve

With all due respect, this is an article about postmodernism, not an exercise in postmodernism. If postmodernism can indeed be traced back to the efforts of particular thinkers, we ought to share this research.

Also, I moved your text down to the bottom and gave it a section of its own. It would be good if you could make a habit of signing with four tilde's (~~~~), as well. Alienus 19:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Warning: the following comment contains graphic philosophical imagery and metaphor.

This is a Wikipedia article about postmodernism, and therefore it cannot be an exercise in the subject it describes. Think about it. The Neutral Point of View and No Original Research policies, taken together, mean that we cannot propose our own concepts here. Instead, we give pointers to thoughts expressed elsewhere, scrupulously indicating the sources so that everything is honest and above-the-table. What we contribute is organization, cross-referencing and summarization. We take what our sources say at face value; anything else would be Original Research. If I report that Carl Sagan or Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart or Björk said thus-and-so, I cannot then turn around and pick apart what they said, unless another party has already picked it apart for me. Deconstruction is not allowed.

Jimmy Wales has called NPOV "non-negotiable". This is one of the key factors which differentiates Wikipedia from all other things, how we can tell if a given thing is Wikipedian or not. (You can rephrase this in terms of some pomo "hierarchy", if you'd like, but I won't bother.) Our non-negotiable policies mean that the merest seed of postmodern discourse is aborted. If we do not allow deconstruction, we've really ripped the left testicle off of postmodern literary theory, and like that of Ouranos, the blood will fall on the landscape and breed miraculous creatures, Furies and goddesses of beauty alike.

Be seeing you, Anville 19:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

But we still have the right testicle of intertextuality. youngamerican (talk) 19:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

You force me to say it: what is the sound of one testicle clapping? (Ah, hypertext humor.) Anville 16:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Right, but one of the central points of postmodernism is that "neurtrality" or "NPOV," in this sense, is totally impossible. No language is neutral. No story we tell about postmodernism or where it came from is simply a reflection of what happened. We're necessarilly reconstructing it--inventing something new rather than just passively reflecting.

Obviously, it'd be silly to leave out foundational theorists simply because including them would be "modern" rather than "postmodern." But that's not the point. The point is what these postmodern critiques have shown us: that foundational myths about cultural developments are just that--myths. We don't have to tell a story where Nietzsche, or whoever else, invented this stuff. In fact, we could write them out entirely and just let it be a story about the culture.

I'm not saying we should write these authors out, however. Postmodern critiques show us how encyclopedia articles are bound to fail in their aims, but that doesn't really tell us how to write them.

Raw quotes belong on wikiquote

The section called "Ways postmodernism has been described" is just a list of quotes. They may be useful to work out a definition of postmodernism, but the raw quotes belong on Wikiquote .--Yannick 14:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

• I understand wikiquote is a good quote repository, i feel the use of quotes on wikipedia is justified if they are relevant and cited, especially for a term like postmodernism where the page bloats quite quickly. i vote to keep? Spencerk 03:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• I think having a section containing relevant quotes does not hurt. But I think they should be restricted to quotes from notable people (ie. not Chip Morningstar, whoever that is; no people without an already existing page about them on wikipedia; and no anonymous quotes). Plus, perhaps it would be better if the quotes were moved near the end of the article rather than at the beginning. -- noosphere 04:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• noosphere's ideas sound okay with me Spencerk 07:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that postmodernism is symbolic of potatoes. Potatoes are ever changing; they start out as a simple tuber, and end up as poop. --69.164.126.162 01:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Removal of quotes

The entire section of quotes has been removed, but I have reverted it as I feel it is very useful to have this direct material in the article. It is quite acceptable in a wiki article to have such a section as indicated in Guide to writing a better article. Could we please discuss here before making radical changes to it. Thanks. Tyrenius 05:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• I'd prefer to see it go to wikiquote (and linked to - wikiquote supports grouping quotes together by topic) and not in the article itself. Its just wasted space, and tends to be filled with every random editor's favorite quote. And it is much worse on this article, where every other week every random editor adds their favorite postmodernism dis. -Smahoney 06:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer to see it stay in the article as at present so everything is accessible on the same page. The argument about editors adding favourite quotes is not a valid one for moving the material. It just indicates the need for editorial vigilance. My main concern is that the quotes don't just vanish. If you feel the right thing is to move elsewhere, and provide a suitable link, I am not going to kick up a fuss, provided that the link is clearly there. Tyrenius 16:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

PING

A cosmic spaghetti with noodles and onions? Total chaotic outer limits, no where, no space, no form, no soul, no languague, nothing...

Possible plagiarism

The section "The relationship between modernism and postmodernism" contains the following:

Following a methodology common among the authors whose work this article examines, a number of artists and writers commonly described as modernist or postmodernist will be considered

This doesn't make sense as no artists are subsequently considered. I hope this is not a paragraph simply copied out of another text. At any rate it will have to be changed.

Tyrenius 12:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

good work tyrenius, i quickly googled it and did spot anything:Spencerk 18:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't spot anything on Google, so I wondered if it might have come from a book. It first appeared in the article here. It was merged from Postmodernism to merge but I don't know how to get any further back than that.

Tyrenius 18:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

One of the tenets of Postmodernism (if it can be said to have any) is that all Culture is Plagiarism anyway.

Nuttyskin 16:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

History

the paragraph beginning "Post-modernism is not counter-this or anti-that." Sounds more like a rant then NPOV. 209.245.22.60 21:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Interpretations such as "sounds more like a rant" constitute a POV.

The prefix "post" is occasionally confused with other prefixes, such as "anti", or "counter".

proposed merge- postmodernity

hello. okay, i know these terms are different. postmodernity is the condition of postmodernism. in otherwords, one is an adjective? I'm eager to do this because i think the combined page would be really really really great. There is already alot of overlap, and even if they remain seperate pages, id like to use alot of material from the postmodernity page, esp. #history. Spencerk 06:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

COMMENT: Quoting from the postmodernity article on Wikipedia:

"There are multiple positions on the differences between postmodernity and post-modernism."

One position says that post-modernity is a condition or state of being, or is concerned with changes to institutions and conditions (Giddens 1990) - whereas postmodernism is an aesthetic, literary, political or social philosophy that consciously responds to post-modern conditions, or seeks to move beyond or critique modernity."

There is no relation between postmodernism and postmodernity which suggests that the earlier precedes the latter. The current structure with the "postmodernism series" involving the two titles underneath is best kept intact. (Necati 22:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC))

Both the articles are already pretty long. I'm not sure how much (if any) content overlap there is, but given their length, just glancing at the articles suggests that a merge would not be a good idea. -Smahoney 22:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The merging of Postmodernism and postmodernity is troublesome. It goes beyond one just being an adjective for the other. As described by David Lyon, Postmodernism is the "cultural and intellectual phenomena" while postmodernity is focused on social and political ideas and issues. In a way postmodernism is to postmoderntiy the way a culture is to a society. We wouldn't merge the page on American politics with one on American culture (I realize that example is pretty vague- but it makes the point). I feel they should remain two separate pages, but have a clear and obvious link.

I'd like to add two-cents to this conversation. I think one page with the root 'postmodern' ought to be a central jumping off point for 'the postmodern,' postmodernity, and postmodernism. The main 'postmodern' page could list three branches or versions--the aesthetic aspects (art, architecture, music, etc.); the historical/social/economic aspects; and the theoretical/philosophical perspectives. I think there is significant overlap across the current pages, and some of the explanations of 'postmodernity' are quite strong and would boost the quality of the 'postmodernism' page by being able to eliminate some of the weaker discussions there. Postmodernism page's current strong point is the listing of art, archecture, etc. While I agree that it is inaccurate to suggest that postmodern architecture/art/thought is an effect of postmodernity or a 'postmodern age,' I still think that organizing all three from the starting point of 'postmodern' would make for a better structure. I think it might finally be the case that explaining 'postmodern' does not have to be inherently confusing. --Deborah 02:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• thanks for comments, i have used material from here for the postmodernity page. lets leave the tags up for longer. I would like a clearer distiction on the idea:

Postmodernism is the "cultural and intellectual phenomena" while postmodernity is focused on social and political ideas and issues

This is the best part from our accumulation on the difference between the terms I would like a better understanding, it just isn't very clear.
I have merged alot of very good material from postmodernity, but without deleting it from that page yet. I would say 80% overlap at this point. Spencerk 20:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to further muddy the waters, but personally I think the article would be significantly more coherent if it were split between postmodernity, encompassing social and political issues (collapse of metanarratives, the hyperreal etc.) and the postmodernist (the aesthetic and cultural movement emerging in response to modernism after the second worl war). —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

• which article would be split, postmodernity? if there is a reference or something to support a division between postmodernism and "postmodernist" (which does seem muddy,) i would support the division. I like the work that has recently been done on the postmodernity intro, i also would like to see more 'seemain' tags on the postmodernity page to push the reader over to postmodernism. anyone else have thoughts? Spencerk 19:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

They should not be merged. I think the postmodernism article itself should be further split, however, since postmodernisms in different areas of thought can be very different things. (Also, postmodernity is a noun, of course, not an adjective.) --The Famous Movie Director 22:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Pretentious and overly complicated language

I think a lot of people would love to learn more about the exciting topics of "postmodernism" and "postmodernity." It's discouraging that the language in these two articles is so ridiculously obscure and pretentious. I'm an undergraduate graduating this May, and consider myself to be a reasonably well-read person. So this is not just the request of a lazy person unwilling to make an effort to stretch herself. I think we can all agree Wikipedia isn't exactly an academic journal. We love it, edit it, and refer to it because the language is accessible. The language of the two articles really suggests that some sixth year anthropology/philosophy/literature graduate students, instead of working on their dissertations, are spending time trying to prove to Wikipedia readers just how smart they are. I couldn't believe what I was reading: "The modern project has undergone, etc etc etc" The "modern project"?! Are these writers serious? The true scholars are those who can clarify difficult topics. I think it's a mark of a truly smart graduate student *help* the masses (people like me) understand what the hell postmodernism is, rather than complicating the issue.

I agree with the sentiments. You are of course free to edit as you choose to simplify the current text. For other editors, I cite this as a fairly random example, which I am still trying to decipher:

Popularly, close textual analyses describing deconstruction within a text are often themselves called deconstructions. Derrida argued, however, that deconstruction is not a method or a tool, but an occurrence within the text itself. Writings about deconstruction perhaps are referred to in academic circles as deconstructive readings, in conformance with this view of the word.

As Byron wrote about Coleridge: "Explaining metaphysics to the nation—I wish someone would explain his explanation."

Tyrenius 05:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem with simplifying postmodernism, or especially deconstruction, to simple terms to explain them is that you can't; you have to use their own jargon and terminology. If there already was a word that meant what a 'deconstruction' means, then, the word 'deconstruction' wouldn't have needed to be created (for this context). Deconstruction is founded on logical inconsistencies in language and meaning, thus, any quotes referencing a deconstruction will be really hard to understand. Plus, I add that deconstruction and other post-modern concepts are just not easy to understand. If you want to 'understand' deconstruction, you're going to have to read quite a bit more than what can be put in a Wikipedia article. Finally, editing out the specific jargon associated with the field will ultimately show a particular editor's bias for meaning. This last statement belies a deconstruction itself; it is unfortunate, but there is no way around the subjectivity of editing/meaning. READ some books about these topics at a library; don't just rely on the executive summary of Wikipedia. I don't agree with a lot of the characterizations of post-modernism put forth in this article; but I do think it is as accessible as it's going to get. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 161.253.21.180 (talk • contribs) .

I agree with the feelings regarding pretentious language. But it is hard to avoid. Postmodernism deals with really complicated issues.:Spencerk 20:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

No more complicated than the Offside Rule. Which I still don't understand.

Nuttyskin 16:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is someone who seems able to understand and express Postmodern concepts in a way a reasonably intelligent human being can understand. It is a secondary source, verifiable etc, so it can be used. Tyrenius 20:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

--This is the person who originally posted this topic; writing in response to the person who offered the long response starting with "The problem with simplifying postmodernism," I would have to disagree with your statements. Deconstruction is obviously a difficult topic to understand, and Wikipedia is certainly no substitute for going out and reading books on the topic. Those are valid points you bring up. Nevertheless, I still argue that the really, really great thing about a tool like Wikipedia is that it is so democratic--it spreads knowledge around and gives everyone access to obscure information. The articles on postmodernism and postmodernity are plainly geared toward an elite audience well-versed in the latest cultural studies/linguistics jargon. For readers, it's like we're listening to the cultural elites whisper among each other. For the record, I *do* understand what postmodernism is and have written papers on it, but nevertheless, find the description of the topic in Wikipedia to be unforgivably unclear. I know I'm sounding like someone who is complaining too much and not taking action--obviously I should be spending my time editing the Wikipedia article rather than writing on this board. But I just felt it needed to be stated that no matter *how* difficult a topic postmodernism is, Wikipedia is a great equalizer of information, a democratic tool, and if it can make obscure topics clear for mass audiences (like myself), then it's doing something right. So yes, postmodernism is damned hard to understand, and the descriptions will likely be complex--but yes, it IS possible to write the article so that it sounds like it is geared towards a mass audience (or at least, say, a young adult audience) rather than geared towards sixth year cultural studies graduate students. Yeah, I know I probably shouldn't be hating on grad students so much..

NOR

At the moment this article reads more like an essay or original research and is very poorly referenced for the amount of text. Tyrenius 20:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Postmodernism is based in a fundamental distrust of authoritative texts. Do not mistake original insight for original research.

Nuttyskin 16:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as Wikipedia is concerned, there is no difference. An encyclopedia isn't about publishing original insight. Its about publishing established "truths". And this article is remarkably poorly cited. -Smahoney 16:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Misunderstandings

There are huge misunderstandings of postmodernism everywhere on Wikipedia. Let me show you what I found in the Da Vinci Code article a few days ago.

Postmodernism is another influence that has been suggested as an explanation for the apparent falsifications in the book. One could mention here the postmodern tendency toward "giving the irrational equal footing with the rational". Yet, postmodernism's attempt to read texts in light of assumed or real power structures deserves to be mentioned. In other words, since facts cannot be known or conveyed (or simply are not conveyed), a text's author's quest for power explains his/her "version" of the truth. Sir Leigh Teabing explictly states that the biblical account of Jesus and Mary Magdalene is "victor's history", that is, it is written to corroborate the power position of the Catholic Church which, in the view of Teabing, depends in large part on the suppression of the "sacred feminine". Similar claims would have to be made concerning the "real" religion of ancient Israel which, according to The Da Vinci Code, was headed by Jahwe-Jehova (male) and Shekhinah (female), which found its alleged symbolic expression in the Star of David (Magen David), consisting of two interlocking triangles, which are said to be ancient symobls of male and female. The reference to Shekhina (and not, e.g., Asherah) in this context brings Jewish kabbalah mysticism into the mix, which is featured prominently in U. Eco's Foucault's Pendulum. The reference to the Star of David as a male-female symbol brings in a trace of Hinduism (Shakti, female + Shiva, male = Creation). Thus, despite postmodernism's dislike of dominating "meta-narratives", Dan Brown seems to offer such a general frame of reference that puts (almost) "everything" in its interconnected place.

Incredible, isn't it? The problems with this paragraph should be obvious to someone with an extremely basic knowledge of postmodern thought, but this sort of thinking is far too common on Wikipedia. Some people seem to want to drag postmodernism into everything as some kind of scapegoat. I don't believe postmodernism is immune from criticism, but it's simply not necessary to mention a lot of the time. Maybe people who really understand the subject should monitor the article's What links here section and try to remove things like this. --The Famous Movie Director 21:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The passage quoted violates WP:NOR. I suggest you edit it. Tyrenius 01:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I deleted it when I found it, of course, but I think it's one example of a more widespread problem. --The Famous Movie Director 23:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• i agree that pomo-wikipedia has alot of internal contradictions. lets bust all these.Spencerk 21:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The passage you cited was definitely written quite poorly... But there were points when I could imagine something good lurking beneath those clumsy words. You know, when it mentions stuff like the blurring of fact and fiction, the opening of everything to interpretation, the awareness of "truth" operating as power... These ideas are all closely tied to postmoderninm, and I could probably buy that these movements make a book like DaVinci Code possible.

Postmodernism in literature

The following was removed from the main article, as it was inserted as a comment:

The paragraph above is strikingly un-postmodern in its citation of writers. Postmodernism disputes the authority of a single cultural group and its beliefs and tendencies, however heterogeneous they may be. Thus to invoke only authors who are white American males (other than Borges) is proundly misleading. It would seem obvious that any argument about postmodern literature that does not mention Gertrude Stein as a precursor, and a more diverse set of writers (try Frank O'Hara, Harryette Mullen, Julio Cortazar, Gabriel Cabrera-Infante, Susan Howe, Lyn Hejinian, Erika Hunt, Charles Bernstein, Theresa Hak Kyung Cha, Myung Mi Kim, Mei-mei Berssenbrugge, Kathleen Fraser, Charles Alexander, Ron Silliman, Heriberto Yepez, Roberto Tejada, Linh Dinh, Gil Ott, and Johanna Drucker on for style) should be actively disputed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chaxpress (talk • contribs) .

Tyrenius 01:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to edit the article to incorporate your suggestions. Be bold!

Tyrenius 01:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Tough & Strong versus 'Beautiful' in Art

What is 'modern' and 'postmodern' can perhaps be better discussed by using a more direct approach to the words used to describe an art work. There has been a reluctance to avoid the word 'beautiful' because of the subjective dimension of assigning an aesthetic value. In its stead, some prefer to use the word 'strong' as in 'the image reflects a strong sense of compositon and use of color.' Another semantic approach to avoid 'beautiful' is to to describe a work as 'tough.'

Perhaps all of these attempts to construe visual art with language ultimately fail and what is left to dictate the approved sense of art is whoever holds the keys to the museums or galleries.

User:joe nalven -- jnalven@cox.net 09:26, 25 May 2006.

Changed link from Power to Power (sociology)

This change is in the "Postmodernism in political science" section. I made ths change to avoid sending readers to the Power disambiguation page, which includes topics such as electric power and the IBM POWER microprocessors. There is a topic on economic power; if anyone is upset that there is no longer any association with economic power on this link, please revise. Gerry Ashton 20:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

a grand unified, un-postmodern article for postmodernism

This page has reinvented itself several times since ive been watching it. any thoughts about what layout the page should really have? namely, the introduction and initial summary. i'm all for tables, bullet points, less bloat. your thoughts? Spencerk 23:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I actually like the current set-up a lot (at least through the bullets). The individual points seemed pretty clear, and I think they sucessfully point toward the non-thing that is "postmodernism."

Issues with the first paragraph

I will make an edit today if nobody has objections... my edit concerns the first paragraph. Postmodernism is NOT a cohesive "movement" as the article would have you believe. "Postmodernists" don't get together and collaborate on their "postmodern" theories and crafts and celebrate the "postmodern" era. In fact, few people actually identify themselves as "postmodern" (I myself have never met any). In fact, the only cohesive movement surrounding "postmodernism" is anti-postmodernism. That is to say, the use of the term "postmodern" is really only a phenomenon among critics and intellectuals who disapprove of what they see as "postmodernism". The interesting thing is, none of these intellectuals can agree on what postmodernism really is. In the end, "postmodern" is really nothing more than a catch-all phrase to lump together many unrelated things that traditional intellectuals have a problem with, such as:

- secularism

- commercial art

- "moral relativism" or "pluralism" or "people who dont agree with my own hardliner ideology"

- multiculturalism

- film-editing/montage techniques (how this gets lumped in with ideologies, i dont know)

- sample-based art (sampled music, tarantino films, etc), which (contrary to anti-postmodernist understanding) has been around since the countless adaptations of homer by other classical authors

- the use of non-sequiturs in speech or art

- anything derived from nietzsche

- anything derived from dadaism or surrealism (how these get lumped in with nietzsche, i dont know)

- anything inspired by eastern traditions

- contemporary music, especially black music or what it inspired (blues, rock, rap, etc)

- the trivialization of science

- drugs

- skepticism of authority or tradition

I plan on editing the first paragraph as to state that nobody has really been able to pin down a total definition of what postmodernism is and why it includes all these things (in other words, how these things are somehow related). Just how are these all related?

Many postmodern theorists (such as Ken Gergen, who was a leader in postmodern social psychology) actually spend a great deal of time describing the "movement" of postmodernism (although they generally do so with an understanding that the borders are hazy and that "pinning down" any word with a "total definition" is impossible). I'd recommend reading some of them.

I, for one, certainly see links between all these things that you call "unrelated." The "trivialization of science" is just one example of the "skepticism of authority or tradition," which was in many ways inspired by the influx of other cultures (like "eastern traditions") and other ways of being (drugs), which called into question the "knowledge" and "reality" we'd taken for granted, and the "truths" that formed the basis of our "authorities" like "science." A similar phenomenon was described by Nietzsche in his "perspectivism," which was basically a position of moral and cultural relativism, which has been developed by plenty of other thinks since and provides the core of multiculturalism (where cultures can exist side-by-side, without one being "better" than another). And all these new perpsectives and different cultural ideas push us toward secularism, because all these other people's religions sure seem to work a lot like ours, and on what grounds do we know they're wrong while we're right, and, in any case, we need some way for these different religions to coexist... And all of this leads us to an understanding of the history behind our ideas, which leads us to question the possibility of "originality," which leads to pastiche (or sampling, as you called it). And so on...

So I see a relation between all these. The trouble, of course, is that it's all a matter of interpretation whether these words you list are really related (along with what each of those words really means in the first place). You look at those words and see no connection. I look at them and see an interconnected movement. Unfortunately, there's no objective way for us to settle whether you're right or I am. There's no truth out there for us to discover, that'll tell us whether these words are really related... because the words are only related in our heads... and what's supposedly "in our heads" is really just an outporing of the cultural patterns and ideas we've been exposed to... But all of this, you see, is postmodernism at work.

Anyhow, I say leave the article as it is.

I definitely see what you're getting at, and thus I won't edit the article... thanks for the feedback  :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.195.133.120 (talk • contribs) .

the "intellectual criticisms" section misses an important distinction

there are two distinct things that the article (especially the "intellectual criticisms" section) seems to view as one and the same. 1: those who are vehemently opposed to the pursuit of "truth" (who would be nihilists, not postmodernists). 2: those who do not feel obliged to pursue overarching forms of "truth" (who would be postmodernists). postmodernism simply rejects the modernist sense of duty with regard to metanarrative "truth". it doesnt provide anti-truth arguments, but anti-obligation-to-truth arguments. for instance postmodernists abide by scientific processes in their day-to-day lives (needless to say), but at the same time they are skeptical of viewing the entire world in terms of science and crying out "falsifiability" at anything they disagree with. that is to say, they go along with these things, but they dont buy into them as something they owe their entire existence to.

perhaps we can edit something along these lines into the page? 138.89.85.63 23:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I dunno... I'm not really sure I see your distinction. To me the difference between 1 & 2 ("vehemently opposed" versus "not feeling obliged") is one of attitude... Like (1) is somebody who's mean about it, and (2) is much softer and nicer... but they're both saying basically the same thing. And I think postmodernism definitely does "provide anti-truth arguments" (that's the reason why there's no "obligation-to-truth": there isn't any one truth to which we could feel obligated). You're right that there's another sort of truth that postmodernists talk about--one that happens in the plural ("truths"), isn't "objective" or "unbiased," and functions as a form of power. But that's really a whole different sort of "truth" than the standard modernist version, to which postmodernism is opposed, and which its critics are trying to defend.

The difference, to simplify a bit, would be this.... someone cries out "truth!" A nihilist's reply would be an emphatic "NO!" while a postmodernist reply would be a sarcastic "um, big deal"

Right, and it's no "big deal" because that's not the Truth, it's just your truth--which the way a modernist sees it (with his or her focus on objective knowledge and universal truth) is the same as no truth at all. The critics who chastise postmodernism for being nihilistic aren't simply confused. Postmodernism is against the sort of universal truth they find so important.

The idea of it being "just 'your' truth" (as you put it) acknowledges that the "truth" in question may have some sort of validity. Postmodernists concede that there may be such validity, provided that the scope of the said "truth" is rather limited. This stands in sharp contrast to a nihilist's outlook on "truth"... a nihilist denies any such validity. What I'm getting at is that postmodernists criticize modernism as a matter of scope, rather than rejecting their concern for truth all together. And in my opinion, one look at a Jackson Pollock painting (who was quite possibly the modernist of all modernists) will show that the postmodernists really do have a point with regard to the limited scope of modernist "truth." Ditto with other modernists, such as Stockhausen. As a side note, the Coen Brothers had a great take on nihilism in the Big Lebowski, I'm hoping that sometime soon they will do the same for postmodernism.

Hmm... I still think postmodernism goes farther than what you're saying though. You're claiming now that postmodernists still recognize some form of validity, while nihilists don't. But "validity," for a postmodernist, is just this word that we apply to certain sorts of language usage in our culture. What we call "valid" or "invalid" has nothing to do with reality, truth, or an unbiased logical system. It's just a culturally determined label (in other cultures, like say Buddhist philosophy, it might be perfectly permissible to make arguments that would be deemed "invalid" in our Western system). And it functions as an instrumet of power, giving us a way to declare certain speech or writing good and worthy (valid) and declaring other writing negligible and confused (invalid)--probably that of marginalized and uneducated groups who haven't been able to learn what counts as "valid."

So you're right in a sense that postmodernists don't reject "truth" and "validity" per se... They recognize that these are terms that we use in our culture, and probably aren't arguing that we have to stop using these terms immediately. But for a modernist critic, with his (probably "his") absolutist and universalist perspective, saying that truth and validity are just words that we use in particular ways is the same as saying that truth and validity (those real things that are supposed to lie beneath the words) don't exist at all. (Also, the Coen Brothers are awesome... I've always thought of them as doing postmodernism--which to me sounds much better than having a "take.")

I gotcha. I just have always thought it a bit much to lump postmodernism and nihilism together. But I think what I'm hearing from you is that this would actually be rather consistent with a modernist ethos. What I guess I was ignoring is that modernism rests on transcending certain cultural designations, thereby achieving a sort of universal take on things. Needless to say, aiming at universality requires a strict outlook on "truth." This would render postmodernism just as futile as nihilism, at least when it comes to modernist ambitions. In this sense, since many of postmodernism's critics are modernists, it is definitely fair to keep a mention of these criticisms in the page. Thus, I won't do any editing along these lines.

I agree with the original view, this is a very important point. Many people lump postmodernism and nihilism together and they are not the same. Nihilism basically says there is no Truth, whereas postmodernism says, everything is Truth, or everything contains Truth (even if only to the smallest degree). That is my opinion is my Truth and your opinion is your Truth. My opinion is true in the sense that my perspective and my experience have created one of way of looking at the world that is valid. In criticising/reacting against/straying from modernism, postmodernism is trying to move away from judgements about what perspective is more true than others, it tries to expose the factors that have legitimated one perspective over another and proclaimed it as Truth (the one and only). Anyway, the reference to this in the article seems to have disappeared, so it doesn't really matter. JenLouise 06:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Right, postmodernists certainly don't go around calling themselves nihilists... but almost nobody does, since nihilism isn't really a theory to which one can ascribe. People against postmodern theory are generally the ones who go around saying it's "nihilistic." What they mean is that by reducing truth to an opinion (like you did), you're basically getting rid of any sort of real Truth--the objective sort people write books and encyclopedia articles about, which doesn't depend on one's perspective. The critics have a point too, although rather than seeing this as a horrible, "nihilating" move, postmodernists like to think of it as opening up new possibilities.

Sydney Opera House

The image of the Sydney Opera House is, I believe, out of place. The reasons I believe this are outlined in point form:

• Postmodernist architecture is differentiable from postmodernism in other fields or even in general and therefore, the picture could be counterinformative. This difference is admitted on Wikipedia at other articles (see postmodernity and postmodern architecture).
• The opera house's own page does not describe it as "postmodern."
• Because I personally dispute it, I think it needs a reference. If I'm wrong and it is generally seen as postmodern, it must have a citation as such somewhere.

Srnec 22:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur, (mostly with Srnec's 1st reason) but furthermore, in my 5 1/2 years of architecture school, I have never heard of the Sydney Opera House described as being Pomo. If you insist on using an image to illustrate postmodern architecture, I'd suggest the work of Charles Willard Moore, Charles Jencks or Michael Graves (the Portland Public Service Building being a notable example). Anyhow, once again, the Sydney Opera house is not considered postmodern. --Blahm 23:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I dunno... I've always thought it associated with postmodernism, and here's an MIT architecture class that says so [2]. The building also seems to match the article's description of postmodern architecture pretty well, and the page could use some more images to spice things up. So I say put it back in.--BrownApple 03:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

disagree jenks himself puts the sydney opera house in the category of postmodern architecture in his book "The New Paradigm in Architecture: The Language of Postmodernism". Robert Venturi also has allowed that categorization and he more or less coined the term. btw, as i've told srnec elsewhere, this is pretty much undisputed in the literature... no one seems to say 'this is not postmodern', and several say it has other categories also, like 'innovative architecture' or 'concrete expressionism'. however, it is also postmodern architecture. go look up 'sydney opera house' and 'postmodern architecture' in google scholar --Buridan 12:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Buridan, if you already looked it up, why don't you provide a reference, all I see is second rate articles. BUT if Venturi and Jencks spcifically say "This is postmodern architecture" then there isn't much for me to argue about (aside from the fact that I find their contribution to the field of architecture weak, but that's of no relevance here).
Buridan, that's what I tried to express, but poorly. The building fits in 'other categories' much more so than in the postmodern one. To me the only feature that may appear postmodern about the building is its allusion to sails. Nothing else. Most postmodernist architecture does not look like that; it is not white and stark, it does not have subtle, but rather painfully obvious historical references and they are used in the wrong context in order to express irony.
It would also be worthwhile looking into how Utzon sees himself and would provide clearer evidence as to whether the building is PoMo (and of course the result of all this debating would fit nicely into the articles on Utzon and the Opera House itself). Allow me to reiterate that the work of Charles Willard Moore, Charles Jencks, Michael Graves or Robert Venturi would be a much more appropriate example for this page. --Blahm 14:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to suggest avoiding providing an architectural photograph as an example of "Postmodernism." Postmodernism in architecture encompasses but one of many (admittedly interrelated) meanings of the word. I think it would be counterinformative. No picture is necessary (or useful) at the top of this article, perhaps the subsections can have them when the article is cleaned up. Srnec 20:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand how you think this is an objection. Of course "postmodern architecture" is only one of many meanings. It's not the same as "postmodern literature" or "postmodern philosophy" etc, and it doesn't embody every aspect of postmodern thought. But do you really think anyone is going to be confused by it? Like they'll look at the page, see this one building, and then be like "oh, there's no such thing as postmodern literature because I saw a picture of the Sydney Opera House."

Also, Blahm, Bluridan just provided a couple of great references saying it is postmodern, while you haven't provided any saying it's not. The fact that it fits into other categories doesn't change anything, since "postmodern" is an overarching category. --BrownApple 22:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm unconvinced by your argument BrownApple, 'look it up on google' is not a source, nor is "'postmodern is an overarching category' therefore it is postmodern." Regardless, I am past arguing whether it is or is not. If Jencks or Venturi say it is, then who am I as an architecture student to argue. My point is that the Sydney Opera house is not representative at all of what postmodernist architecture looks like. If you find me a quote of Utzon saying something along the lines of "I am a postmodernist architect, and my Sydney Opera House design is based on postmodernist principles" then we should use the image. Until then, and I will repeat myself for the third time, and recommend that we use an example by one of these architects (Robert A. M. Stern, Charles Jencks, Michael Graves or Robert Venturi), for a much more clear-cut example of what postmodernism is since they themselves have written about and defined the term and presumably 'put it into practice.' --Blahm 00:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Blahm, I'd exclude Stern from that group, because he is not "representative" (I believe). Also, I still think that, in an article titled "Postmodernism," a picture at the top may be counterinformative: the postmodernism underlying any painting or building is probably quite different from postmodernism in other contexts and tells us little about postmodernism as an overarching philosophy or worldview. Srnec 04:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

of course, that is your opinion Smec, and you've yet to provide any substantiation to that opinion in argument or example. You have referred the postmodernism in architecture article previously, but I don't see where it really applies also that article seems a bit non-neutral. If people want to replace the image, with one that is more appropriate, that is fine. my position though is that we shouldn't go around deleting/removing things that currently have support. I don't accept the postmodernism is 'different' in architecture argument, because I've not seen any evidence of that in my work in the area. postmodern in architecture is the rejection of the same sort of metanarrative systems in architecture as elsewhere, those being things like perfection of form, unified unidirectionality, etc. etc. Granted, I've only read a few books that deal with architecture in this light, but i don't accept the distinction that blahm accepts from smec. "I think it is counterintutive." is generally not a winning argument, you have to say why it will be counter intuitive for the greater wikipedia audience. --Buridan 10:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Just a reminder that opinions of wiki editors are irrelevant in articles or on talk pages. The only relevant factors are verifiable sources, and anything included should be backed up by the same. If there are sources that conflict they should both (or all) be represented from a NPOV, being careful not to over-represent a minority view in the field etc. Tyrenius 11:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I have never heard the Sydney Opera House described as a postmodern building. If you're going to illustrate with a piece of architecture, why not go for some Venturi, as he's the arch-postmodernist (Vanna Venturi House comes to mind, though there are many more, maybe even the duck sketch from Learning from Las Vegas), or the AT&T building if you want a famous landmark.

Quotes about postmodernism

The Derrida quotation is better translated as "there is nothing outside [or beyond] the text." Novaisel 13:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)novaisel

Postmodernism in society

This section is relatively small and says: "In sociology, postmodernity is described as being the result of economic, cultural and demographic changes (related terms in this context include post-industrial society and late capitalism) and it is attributed to factors such as the rise of the service economy, the importance and ubiquity of the mass media (and the subsequent uniformity of social behavior), and the rise of an increasingly interdependent world economy."

I'd love to see a citation for this because as a sociology student who has done a bit on post-modernism and post-modernity, I have not come across anything like this. I am in the process of creating more to add to it from all the sources that we looked at but in the meantime, I think it would be good to get a source for it. JenLouise 07:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

GA nomination

This article is on hold for 7 days for: length-GAs are not designed for excessive long articles and this one is almost 80K-can some be put in subarticles, there is an expert tag-find one and work the issues, very bullety-use more prose especially in the beginning. Rlevse 02:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

There is actually too much to do to be put on hold as the reviewer says, the article will be failed for now, please come around the GA process when these issues are addressed. Lincher 03:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Please consider archiving the page too. Lincher 03:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Reader comment

Postmodernism can be characterised as: Experience is Personal, and media that stems from experiences has meaning created by the READER, not the AUTHOR.

This stresses freedom of choice and responsibility for the consequences of one's acts.

Social Theory (theoretical frameworks to explain and analyze social patterns) and Artwork begins to take on Parody, satire, self-reference, and wit.

Self reference could be a sentence such as “74.6% of statistics are completely made up” or a media which contains a reference to itself such as Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy or Tenacious D’s song “Tribute”.

A view of diversity in political power and communication, lacking and dominant canter - also applies to pluralism in thought production, an belief that many different schools of thought will influence each other, which may eventually lead to a more advanced and logical way of thinking.

Finally, importantly, a period of time with such an enormous amount of mass media from newspapers to magazines to films and broadcast where every thought and idea is referential and no originality is given. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.201.57.9 (talk • contribs) 12:31, July 12, 2006 (UTC)