Talk:Postmodernism

Article is self-contradictory

The article contains a direct contradiction:

This paragraph identifies many critics of postmodernism as, quote 'left academics with Marxist leanings'

<snip>

>As noted above (see History of postmodernism), some theorists such as Habermas even argue that
>the supposed distinction between the 'modern' and the 'postmodern' does not exist at all, but
>that the latter is really no more than a development within a larger, still-current, 'modern'
>framework. Many who make this argument are left academics with Marxist leanings...

<snip>

'But later in the same article, this:

<snip>
>It is well known that most of the adherents of postmodern philosophy are Leftists. <snip>

What is going on here? Can anyone shed light on this? Who are these crafty 'leftists' who are at once for and against postmodernism? (and how postmodern can you get?) ;0)

It's not a prima facie contradiction for there to exist both "postmodernist" and "antipostmodernist" leftists. However, the second sentence you cite was reverted to an earlier, blatantly POV form just a few hours ago by the same anonymous user who complains of the "impotence" of the criticism below. I've reverted it back to the at least halfway-resonable neutral form, for now. IMHO, the right way to deal with this kind of problem would be to find a legitimate source to cite for the criticism (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy for more discussion of this issue) rather than allowing every passing nonexpert to introduce their own opinion under cover of "some say" or "it's well known." -- Rbellin 17:03, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Split the Page?

I really think this page and the page on modernism should be split into different pages like "postmodernistic art", "postmodernistic literature", because calling the whole thing a syncronized movement is debatable.

If you do choose to do it (what?), it should be explained how it will be done in the article, avoiding confusion about the intention of the author.

I've tried to make some sense of this. If the author can't rephrase it so it makes more sense, I'm going to remove it. MrJones 12:14, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Neutrality

Hmmm. Would a truly neutral point of view require that all articles about movements be written as a parody of the style of that movement?

No.

Then we satisfy "writing for the enemy"... Where is this quote from? I am reminded of Chip Morningstar's "How to Deconstruct Almost Anything" which is the way I learned about postmodernism.

Using the Term "Body Philosophers"

If we're deprecating "body philosophers" then the best replacement phrase is "philosophy of action or Michel Foucault's application of the dialectic of Hegel to the human body as it acts within the society."

Of course, there are Adorno and Zizek and many others in this movement who apply the whole range of philosophical techniques to the body, so this is a bad explanation. But since the censors are determined to remove the simple term "body philosopher", as part of their body-denial body-replacement extropian-and-robotics program, the messy phrases will be forced to do.

Restructuring of the article (remove?)

the article was in bad need of some somstructure and purpose, (boom boom) and so I decided to try and give it some. i tried my very hardest not to lose anything specific statements. if i have trodden on any toes, i apologise, and extend my own toes in sympathy. I lost a few of the hyperrlinks, which i'll go through and fix up, when the wiki server stops going bananas on me. there's a couple of stray paragraphs floating around that need a home, but i wasnt gonna wipe them out. will incorporate into section "critics of postmodernism" or something soon, unless someone comes through with a sledgehammer on my edit. in which case i'll take my bat and ball and go home. :) by the way, body philospohers in a peculair term, sounds like a rogue breakdancing posse. -radio, july 13, 2002 ish.

Oh, so that's what happened. Well, I think I fixed most of them. I thought you copied from a wikipedia display page instead of an edit page, which is usually a bad idea. Thanks for your work on it.  :-) Oh, and four hyphens in a row will make a horizontal line tag to separate dialogue on talk pages etc. while four tildes in a row (also with no spaces) will insert your username and date. Cheers, Koyaanis Qatsi, Friday, July 12, 2002

cheers KQ. still getting the hang of the commands, etc. thanks for fixing the links etc. Radiofriendlyunitshifta, Friday, July 12, 2002

Removal of Murray's Criticism of PM

sorry to whoever wrote the short commentary on Murray's definition of pomo. I couldnt avoid axeing it - (1 para's worth). I felt that it was unclear on the crux of anti-pomo sentiment. Radiofriendlyunitshifta, Friday, July 12, 2002

Article's Definition of PM Questioned

Rejection of "meta-narratives" can hardly be called a premise of post-modernism, given that the term was coined in the late 1970s by Lyotard after what is normally dubbed "post-modernism" in the arts, architecture, and literature, had been entrenched for several decades. At most, "rejecting meta-narratives" is a project peculiar to those literary theorists who cast themselves as the philosophical branch of post-modernism.

I would say that relativism has been a key feature of postmodernism across all the arts. For example, in architecture, architects were reacting against what was perceived as 'monolothic' modernism, attempting instead to design buildings which were more in keeping with the surrounding environment and less of an imposition on it. On the whole, then, I think it is accurate to call the rejection of metanarratives a central premise of postmodernism. Lyotard was defining postmodernism with hindsight, attempting to give retrospective sense to a movement that - as you say - had been evolving for some time before he wrote his book in 1979. R Lowry

I suggest a middle position between the above two: I think it is true that "relativism" in some sense has always been a feature of all forms of "post-modernism." But I also think it is important to distinguish between post-modernism as a cultural phenomena manifested primarily in the arts, and post-modernism as a philosophical (or social theory) position (of which Lyotard is arguably the founder). This is important because there are theorists (I am thinking of Harvey and Jameson) who may or may not be "postmodernists" depending on how you define the term, but clearly recognize the existence of some phenomena called "postmodernism" (located primarily int he arts) upon which they are commenting from an academic position. I see a difference between them and Lyotard, who is not merely commenting on postmodernism (located primarily int he arts) but advocating a transformation of academia too. Slrubenstein

Harvey's best-known book on the subject is actually called 'The Condition of *Postmodernity*'. His concern is primarily with the postmodern as a socio-economic phenomenon, rather than as something that is located 'primarily in the arts'. Jameson, who like Harvey is a Marxist, is also (while he does discuss postmodern aesthetics in far more depth than Harvey) primarily interested in postmodernism in economic terms - he sees it as the 'cultural logic of late capitalism'.

Well, in fact, Harvey refers heavily to art and architecture; Jameson also to literature. They seem to understand postemodernity as something located primarily in the arts, although they explain it in terms of political-economic forces. When Jameson refers to postmodernism as the "cultural logic of late capitalism" he is not "interested" in postmodernism in "economic terms," he is describing it in cultural terms (i.e. "the cultural logic") which he then explains in political-economic terms.

Neither, IMO, would properly be described as 'postmodernists', exactly, but rather as cultural critics who have chosen to analyse and understand postmodernism in the light of their own (resolutely modern) Marxist teleology.

Then you agree with me, that they are not postmodernists but are recognizing the existence of something called postmodernism. I am glad you agree with me.

I think the best possible distinction to draw is that between postmodernism as a cultural / aesthetic phenomenon, and postmodernity as a socio-economic phenomenon. As you can see from those two links, that distinction has already been established on Wikipedia. Regards, R Lowry

And I agree with you that the distinction between postmodernism and postmodernity is important. But I am just adding that one more distinction is necessary, between postmodernism as a cultural phenomena (e.g. Robert Ventura, Julien Barnes, and I forget her name but the female photographer who photographs herself in various disguises/poses), and as an academic movement (e.g. Lyotard). I think this is closer to the point the first commentator (in this section) made. Slrubenstein

I agree to a certain degree about the additional distinction, though there is certainly an overlap. Postmodernism is sometimes "aesthetic" position, cultural movement, or the idea behing some cultural phenomena but other times "epistemological" position. Issues like the role of interpretation in research, power relations in participant observation, interviews, & ethnography, etc., are things postmodernists in the latter sense reflect upon. Tomos 19:33, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The terminology that i'm familiar with regarding postmodernism as a cultural phenomena is "the postmodern condition" -- Kevin Baas

Is the Wikipedia a PM project?

From the article:

Wikipedia is a good example of a postmodern project.

In what sense is this true? And how is it postmodern?

From my limited understanding of postmodernism, I suppose our "neutral point of view" is postmodern in that it does not try to present a position as the absolute truth, but merely reports what people think about a topic. We make only the most limited judgements as to the "worth" of some fact we report on, so we have articles on Carmen Sandiego along with ones on Romeo and Juliet. However, the NPOV policy does explicitly assume that opinions on topics can be determined and characterised accurately (and demands evidence for such), and the writing style of the Wikipedia rejects the kind of word games that postmodernists like to play.

Is my analysis accurate? If so (or even if I'm wrong), if we're going to use the Wikipedia as an exemplar of postmodernism, we should really explain why - and if that's not useful maybe the example should go. --Robert Merkel 06:08, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Personally, I come to the conclusion that Wikipedia is Postmodern by way of a shortcut, followed by a re-evaluation. Though, I'm sure there are many others who arrive at the same conclusion differently.

The shortcut is partly through Marshall McLuhan's book "Understanding Media", and is mostly from my spatial-reasoning approach to understanding post-modernism. To me, when post-modernism refers to a system (such as wikipedia), it refers to the way the system is constructed; how information flows through it, how that information is interpreted, and the underlying idealogical principles that guided it's construction. One could also say that these are mere after-the-fact interpretations, and that it was merely the conditions with made the system inevitable, and those conditions being post-modern conditions, the system itself is described as post-modern. (i venture this, at least)

• Wikipedia is decentralized; there is no overaching force or body, such as the church. (also meaning that wikipedia is secular)

And yet, some pages are protected from editing. Protected by who?

Wikipedia users. The proccess is democratic, not oligarchichal or monarchical. Hence "decentralized" rather than "centralized". Kevin Baas 17:46, 2004 Jun 26 (UTC)

But still, there's no easy way for the average user to edit a protected page (that's kinda the point, after all).

• Wikipedia is fragmented; there is no one idealogy, or "natural order to things"; there is no top-down organization, nor the belief in a need for one.

And yet, the articles are segregated into categories on the Main Page.

I am talking about the changes/edits to wikipedia. Wikipedia can be, and constantly is, edited "out-of-order" in extreme parralellism. Kevin Baas 17:46, 2004 Jun 26 (UTC)

• The information in Wikipedia is not valuable because it refers to "the truth" persay, (the word "truth" always has subliminal religious connotations) -but because of the way the information is gathered and aggregated. This is what makes it "true": because it is being constructed from all sides at once. Thus, you get, instead of a "truth" in the dogmatic sense, a "pearl" formed by the sands of a thousand voices, beautiful and imperfect. You get a series of narratives, but no meta-narratives, for no allegedly "third-person perspective" can survive. It is also the belief that information becomes authoritative not by some divine intervention or some ritual or standing, but by the forces which guided it's construction, which are ultimately human forces. Wikipedia channels those human forces in a way that respects this principle - that does not look to the sky for truth; that rejects the meta-narrative - and what emerges is an authoritative source of information, built by none other but a new form of human interaction; a new medium.

I think the users would disagree with you. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and people turn to an encyclopedia for truth. Good old authoritative truth. If the encyclopedia is a bunch of confused, contradictory mishmash, then the users will go look for another encyclopedia.

Well, obviously this new non-authoritative truth is not a bunch of confused, contradictory mishmash, now is it? At no point in Wikipedia's history did God come down from the heavens and write articles. They were all written by people, with their imperfect minds and imperfect understandings, many copied from books written by other such people, maybe a year ago, maybe a hundred years ago. In the end this is an aggregation point for flows of information. It's not published by Britannica or Wiley or Addison Wesley, and it's not disseminated by the Pope. It's post copying-machine age. It is a copy of a copy of a copy, rather than the "original" Bible scribed by monks. Now the belief that if a bunch of people got together and decided to write an encyclopedia, it would come out as a bunch of confused, contradictory mishmash, is not supported a priori. In fact, Wikipedia itself is evidence to the contrary. The Hitler days were evidence of social-intellectual synchronization and reification on a large scale. That's how the mind works. That's what this stuff is. Kevin Baas 17:41, 2004 Jun 26 (UTC)

Godwin's Law strikes again!!!! But seriously, you seem to be confusing open source with postmodernism.

This is only a rough description of my understanding, but I hope it is informative, and conducive to further discussion. -Kevin Baas

Criticism of MrJones' Changes

Mr Jones, I think that some of your recent edits are rather questionable. Some look like P.O.V. statements to me, for example your comments about the redundancy of feminist and post-colonial theory.

I'm pretty sure that some people think that these theories are obscelescent (sp?) and believe the other assertions I made. Could the assertions I make be included by stating this? I assume I would need to find sources to back this up, otherwise one could add arbitrary assertions to articles claiming that people believe them (indeed, some have done so). MrJones 16:36, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Other changes of yours, eg: "However, this does seem incongruous as technologies that have never existed before come into being", at the end of the 'Postmodernism in Literature' section; and "What that mindset was is not clear", in the second paragraph; strike me as simply irrelevant.

Completely irrelevant? Don't you think there's room for them in the criticisms of PM section?

I'm loathe to make changes to what you've written, since right now I'm not sufficiently focussed on postmodernism to feel able to do the job competently. Hopefully, though, someone else will be able to help out. R Lowry 17:51, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'd rather my edits be removed or better, be commented out with suggestions for improvements and the article remain accurate. However, I think there should be room throughout the article for criticisms. To declare my interests, I think PMism is a great, unfunny joke and a blight on effective leftist politics. I would dearly love it to be discarded as ridiculous. However, it does seem to include several functionally effective (though incorrect) models. I just hope that these can start to be replaced with other philosophies that do not abandon belief in a single, physical reality, but can serve the same purpose. I don't believe that it is necessary to abandon such a belief to achieve those things that PMism achieves. MrJones 16:36, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hello, Mr Jones. I'm quite sure that some people believe feminism and post-colonialism are redundant, but I don't think an article on postmodernism is the appropriate place to make those arguments. Better to go to articles about feminist and post-colonial theory and make them there, I think.

So you think mentioning them is too far off the point? MrJones 12:21, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Of course, adding informed criticism of p'mod is perfectly valid - after all, the aim on Wikipedia is to produce a balanced article which is neither 'for' nor 'against' a subject. And I would certainly agree with you that there are already some rather "arbitrary assertions" in this article, that could do with either embellishing or removing. I just couldn't see, with many of your edits, how you had actually added any useful information to the article. For example, regarding the example mentioned above, the sentence originally read,

Many of [postmoderism's] assumptions are integral to feminist and post-colonial theory,

which is certainly a rather vague statement that could do with a lot of fleshing out. But you added,

both of which are starting to look a little redundant with the rise of effective American colonialism and the achievement of the objectives of feminism important for its popular support,

which, to me, just adds another P.O.V. statement on top of what was already there. And there still isn't really any useful information in that sentence at all - just a ragbag of assertions. Which is a bit of a shame, because it is certainly possible to argue that there are theoretical connections between p'mod and feminism / post-colonialism, and it would be useful to bring that out in the article. Cheers, R Lowry 20:25, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

True enough. I'll think about this. MrJones 12:21, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

A flawed Paragraph on PMist and M'ist Literature

Eek. I've also just spotted this (an older edit, this one, not one by Mr Jones): >"Modernist literature has commonly relied on an objective and omniscient point of view (think of the role of a narrator in a third-person narrated novel). Perhaps Joyce's Ulysses may be the best example, but anything by Dickens or Tolstoy may serve."

This is so screwed-up that I hardly know where to begin.

• First, Dickens and Tolstoy were not modernists - they wrote in the mid- to late- 19th Century before modernism in literature began to emerge, in the last decade or two of the 19th Century.

• Second, modernist literature was precisely the point where authors began to move away from the idea of an "objective and omniscient point of view", and began to embrace subjectivism (eg, Virginia Woolf; see also Molly Bloom's interior monologue in Ulysses), and fragmentariness in narrative- and character-construction (eg, Strindberg; Pirandello; Woolf again).

• Joyce's Ulysses is modernist precisely because it shows a chaotic multiplicity of perspectives and narrative styles, rather than adhering to a consistent and 'omniscient' method of narration.

R Lowry 18:13, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I have now given the 'Postmodernism in literature' section a complete rewrite, which in my opinion was much-needed. I hope I haven't stepped on anyone's feelings by deleting what was there before, but I really felt that it was, at best, misleading, and at worst just plain wrong. R Lowry 00:36, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Would you like to remove these comments now this is fixed, or are they somehow useful? They seem historical to me, so someone interested in such comments can look in the history. MrJones 12:21, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Is the Post-Modernist Movement Dead?

There seems to be a developing consensus in Western intellectual and cultural communities tha post-modernism is dead or is dieing. Should this be listed in the article. Important to note is that the next cultural movement (or whatever exists now that post-modernism is gone) has not been titeled. thoughts? GrazingshipIV 16:44, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)

I hadn't heard it's dead....still very very much alive in many universities, which means that students are still learning its precepts. I wouldn't add it to the article unless we can attribute the assertion to someone...preferably someone who once supported the movement, rather than one of its critics (who presumably might greatly exaggerate rumors of its demise). And of course, until the new movement is named and characterized, we can't do much with it: Wikipedia is not original research. :-) Jwrosenzweig 16:46, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Touche, lets let it go for now or until that consensus exists. GrazingshipIV 16:53, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)

Speaking from a postmodern point of view, postmodernism is already dead, and has been dead from the moment it was born. That's its whole point: that it represents the death of history. Since it's already dead, it can't get any deader. That's one of the reasons why postmodernism isn't really a movement. Postmodernism is defined by coming after modernism. Nothing can come "after" postmodernism that isn't still postmodernism. It's like, the number 2 is post-1, and even though 3 comes after 2, 3 is still post-1. COGDEN 17:29, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think the statement by COGDEN has allot of merit. This is what makes post-modernism difficult to define and henceforth critique or track, but I am referring to the post-modern view points namely those that diagree with objective truth or universal principles. Fundementalism (both religious and secular)as well as Rationalism (increasingly in intellectual communities) seem to be making a comeback in the world as the weakness of not having commonality or unity seems to hurt the post-modernist movement. As well as the fact that post-modernism seems to not have synthesized with populure culture or any powerful subculture. It tends to be limited to academic institutions. GrazingshipIV 17:41, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)

I would disagree that postmodernism hasn't gelled with popular culture; rather, it has become popular culture. The postmodern blurring between objectivity/subjectivity and university/locality is a product of the diverse and fragmentary nature of popular culture, which defies unification. The only thing that the academics are really doing is "academizing" popular culture. Unlike modernism, postmodernism doesn't really hinge upon academia, which is considered a very modernist institution. Even if a meteor fell upon a large postmodern symposium and killed every postmodern academic, postmodernism as they defined it would still reverberate through popular culture, and the new "academics" would be the writers of The Simpsons and South Park. Moreover, they see the current rise of fundamentalism and rationalism as a very postmodern occurrence, because unlike in the 20th Century, everyone in Western society today has a different fundamentalism, and a different rationalism, and the're all on the internet. COGDEN 18:43, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

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

The criticism is watered down

The criticism is too weak and impotent. It was much stronger a few months ago. The postmodernists seem to have watered it down considerably.

Can you give a link to a version of the article which you think had a better criticism section? Snowspinner 20:17, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)

The only reason the criticism appears to be weak and "watered-down" is that there are very few citations, other than to the Sokal hoax. The previous criticism sections may have been "stronger" (in a Rush Limbaugh kind of way), but they were equally weakly supported by citations. The only way to strengthen the criticism section is to cite authorities, so please somebody add some! Unsupported statements along the lines of "Critics of postmodernism claim that it's just a leftist political movement that's entirely useless and doesn't have support by respectable scholars" doesn't cut it in a Wikipedia article because it's disguised POV. COGDEN 00:08, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think that the "Rush Limbaugh kind of way" is, perhaps accidentally, an insightful pointer. Let's remember that academics tend to be under particular fire from the right, especially from the neoconservative movement. A lot of the accusations that get made against postmodernism - for instance, that it's just a leftist political movement - come from these neoconservative sources, and are not meant to be academic arguments but political ones. That is, there aren't sources as such for some of this, as the arguments are occuring in a largely popular, rather than academic, context. Snowspinner 02:52, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)

Ouch. Just because something happens in popular culture doesn't mean it can't be verified. If we had a quote from a non-academic, that would be great. By the way y'all:

• ISBN 0801424941 - Postmodernism and Its Critics by John McGowan
• ISBN 0521465982 - Postmodernism and Popular Culture: A Cultural History by John Docker
• Postmodernism and its discontents : theories, practices / edited by E. Ann Kaplan.
• http://www.nyobserver.com/pages/story.asp?ID=6665 - Al Gore: "That’s postmodernism. It’s the combination of narcissism and nihilism that really defines postmodernism, and that’s another interview for another time, if you’re interested in it."

Hyacinth 03:14, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I love that McGowan book, for what it's worth. :) Snowspinner 03:33, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)

Valuate or evaluate?

Valuate and evaluate mean nearly the same thing, except that evaluate has the sense of determining the worth of something as it is (that is, as it is in itself), whereas valuate has the sense of giving or instilling value to something. Considering that the paragraph is talking about a particular bit of art that was valueless in the modern period, it would seem appropriate to say that postmodernism gave value to this art, yes? Therefore, valuate. -Seth Mahoney 23:58, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

Valuation is the process of assigning a numerical worth or value. Learn to use a dictionary please. Stirling Newberry 02:10, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Really, there's no reason for the snotty attitude. Its totally uncalled-for. According to the American Heritage dictionary, 'valuate' is a back-formation of 'valuation', which has the definition "an estimation or appreciation of worth, merit, or character", which would suggest that 'valuate' has the definition "to make an estimation or appreciation of worth, merit, or character" - note, no emphasis on numerical. 'Valuate', additionally, is used often in theory with the clear implication that it means to give or assign value or worth. Note the use of the word 'valuation' in the following sentences:

For each soul, the gravitational center of valuation was placed within itself: salvation or damnation!

What valuation is attached to the narrative of historical change?

Ontology can tell us some things about value. It can tell us where value comes from (the choices of the for-itself) and that valuation is inevitable (The for-itself must always choose certain values.)

The first is Nietzsche, the second is Sedgwick, and the third is from a lecture on Sartre, and all three of these people are concerned, not with putting a numerical value on things but with the way people infuse value into things. As you can see, I know perfectly well how to use a dictionary, and also have a skill you might want to learn - how to extract meaning from use.

-Seth Mahoney 02:27, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

valuation has a generally accepted meaning, it isn't the one you are using. Your sentence implies that someone sat down and changed the numerical value based on some extrenal process. Stirling Newberry 02:30, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The term as you are using it implies an intrinsic change, that is "valuation" is an intrinsic process to the spiritual. Unless you are goign to argue that Rauschenberg's works were intrinsically changed, using revaluation in the philosophical or spiritual sense is incorrect. More miscitations do not add up to an argument, and the overwhelming use of the word in the present is the more specific financial one. "Revaluation" hasn't been a good synonym for "re-evaluation" in this context for decades at the very least Stirling Newberry

As I pointed out above, the entry in the American Heritage dictionary makes no specific mention of a numerical value, beyond noting that appraise is a synonym. It also notes that appraise is a synonym of evaluate. The definition for valuate, further, is "to set a value for", whereas the definition for evaluate is "to ascertain the value of". In the first case, it is clearly the valuator who decides the value, whereas in the second case it is the evaluator who finds out what the value is - he has no say. I'm not sure where you're getting your "generally accepted meaning" from, but if its not the dictionary, I'm not sure how it can be generally accepted.

What the overwhelming use of a word is depends on where one looks. 'Valuate' is commonly used in both literary and art theory in pretty much the sense I'm using it here. And I've never argued that 'valuate' and 'evaluate' are synonyms. If they were, there would be no point to this discussion.-Seth Mahoney 02:41, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

rewrote whole 'graf. Your infantile behavior in this case is not amusing. Stirling Newberry 02:53, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, I was going to say:

The new paragraph is a lot better than the old one, whether it was with 'valuate' or 'evaluate'. Thanks for the rewrite.

but, um, yeah. Nevermind. -Seth Mahoney 02:55, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

Semantics are never infantile, they seem quite an adult concern, as infants are incapable of speech. Negative personal comments, are however, minor personal attacks. Hyacinth 03:01, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Hyacinth - I'm a fan of getting the semantics just so, ya know? -Seth Mahoney 03:50, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

edit wars however, are almost always infantile. I've taken steps to end this one. As for personal attacks, that's in the eye of the beholder, and I have lost patience with Seth sometime ago. If you want to report me, go right ahead. Stirling Newberry 03:09, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

" 'Valuate' is commonly used in both literary and art theory in pretty much the sense I'm using it here. "

One more time, since even your own citations don't back you up. A "valuation" refers to an objective or intrinsic standard. None is mentioned in the paragraph - which isn't unreasonable, since you didn't write it, it doesn't mean what you want it to mean. If you want to talk about revlauation, as in a recentering of intrinsic value - which is what the citations you list refer to - be my guest. The graf as it was written wasn't about that, and therefore doesn't support that alteration. You might as well change "friend" to "fiend" in the sentence "George Bush is a friend of the US". It might make a certain ad hoc sense, but it won't be correct.

For someone who has lost patience, you sure are continuing this discussion much longer than it needs to go. Maybe you have a crush on me? Regardless, as I said above, I think the current paragraph is great, so there's no need to continue. We can both sulk off to our own corners of the wiki and hopefully never run into one-another again. -Seth Mahoney 03:18, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

Don't waste your time. Although Stirling Newberry's contributions to articles are often good, his behavior on talk pages has a tendency towards overly quickly jumping to cry "edit war" and towards hostility to other users. Better to just ignore it entirely. Snowspinner 03:28, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

You're right - his contribution was great, once it was made. -Seth Mahoney 03:50, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

Postmodernism in Architecture

I was thrilled to see a section on postmodern architecture in this article, particularly because it cited Frank Gehry. Just down the street from my terminal, the Stata Center lifts its bulk over the MIT campus. Now, opinions on that building vary all over opinion space: some people see it as the best thing built here in years, and some very vocal types call it an abomination. Others just ask, "When it breaks, where are they going to find spare parts?" (A skunk recently took up residence in its main air intake, but that's a different story.) Finally, I've found the perfect way to describe it: it is the world's finest example of poststructuralist architecture.

In all seriousness, though, can we really claim that the Las Vegas strip is a postmodern work? Unlike the ATT Building, it wasn't designed by one creator; instead, it's the compilation of everything that casino operators once thought eye-catching. If anything which was made of the past's bits and pieces, institutionalized and preserved through many people's actions and whimsies, counts as a "postmodern work"—well, then, let's list the United States Constitution here, too.

Examining the aesthetic of such an eclectic mix could well be postmodern. Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas is, arguably, a postmodern book because it does this sort of thing. But the Strip itself?

Anville 22:35, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Confusion

I'm confused about the meaning of a few sentences in Postmodernism and its Critics:

"Sokal also co-authored Fashionable Nonsense, which criticizes the inaccurate use of scientific terminology in intellectual writing and finishes with a critique of some forms of postmodernism. Ironically, the purpose of many books which are considered to be postmodern literature is the former, with the exception that the format and structure of scientific writing is mocked, to emphasize the distinction between the content and the embodiment. That is, to say "This is not a pipe.", as would the study of semiotics."

The purpose of many books is the former what? Why is it ironic? Why is "mocked" in itallics? And is the final sentence a sentence?
I know nothing about PM, though, so if I'm merely misunderstanding something that would be clear to anyone else, pay me no heed. --Asbestos 00:56, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Even if none of my other questions are seen as valid, I'd still recommend changing "That is, to say "This is not a pipe.", as would the study of semiotics." The sentence is ungrammatical. If I had any idea what it was trying to say I'd change it myself — Asbestos | Talk 13:40, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That sentence no verb. Anville 18:18, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In all seriousness, I tried to parse that paragraph, but I was only able to extract two items of information.

1. Sokal believes that "postmodern literature" uses scientific terminology in inaccurate ways.
2. Postmodern literature itself mocks the formal, technical and jargon-laden style of scientific journal articles.

The rest seems to be a melange of "proof by citation", dragging in Magritte and hyperlinking it to a phrase popularized by Borges. I get the impression that the author argues that what postmodernists do is really like what Sokal does—giving up on beating Sokal, he tries to assimilate him. Sokal's mockery of postmodern rhetoric, I gather, is the same thing as the postmodernists' abuse of scientific vocabulary, because both types of abuse try to show that their opponent is all form and no substance.

Sounds specious to me, but what can I tell—I'm probably missing the whole point.

The phrase "many books which are considered to be postmodern literature" seems to indicate a terminal canon allergy. (Of course, admitting that there is a postmodern literary canon might count as a defeat.)

Anville 18:48, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The sentences under discussion no longer appear in the article. I think this passage is fixed in its current form (see if you agree). The occasionally fuzzy language, however, is (IMO) among the smallest problems with this article, parts of which range from muddiness through misleading overgeneralization to simple factual error. I've sworn off edits to this article because I have a distaste for the combination of ignorance and hostility that seems to greet improvements to it. But please edit for clarity as you see fit. -- Rbellin 03:21, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I like the revised version much better. Being me, I couldn't resist tweaking one sentence to try making clear what the quotation's all about.

It seems that confusion, ignorance and hostility are all de facto an important part of this subject. So many people have said so many things, which because they've been heard so widely they must be important—yet half of them seem to be driven by distaste for the other half. Sigh. My guess would be that arrogance breeds arrogance: any movement whose very name implies "the end of everything" (for nothing can follow it) probably makes anyone who talks about it get a little uppity, whether they're for or against.

Anville 15:26, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am confused about the whole article! Most likely, someone who already knows about post modernism is not going to read about it here. Therefore, the article should be geared for those like me, those who know nothing about post-modernism. Or for that matter, who don't know much about much to begin with! lol Jaberwocky6669 01:41, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

I came to this article knowing very little about philosophy in general, I came away still knowing very little about philosophy. I think it should be re-written so that those who know nothing about philosophy could actually understand what is being said. I do not mean to completely dumb everything down, you can still show me all of your knowledge. I have a problem with any kind of internet article that tries to explain something and then refers you to other articles in order to explain something that the author could not go into for sake of length. The problem is that I will have to read 2000 articles before I could go back and understand the original article. Jaberwocky6669 20:08, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC) any questions? refer to my talk page

---

What about the Art History?

Wikipedia gives ,on the art history page, information about Modernism(Modern Art), but elludes "Postmodern Art History". Yes, Modernism, Postmodernism, and Modernistic Postmodernism in the visual arts is umbrella terms encapsulating different movements. But more information on which artists and movements go where and criticism, theory, facts and, descussions of artists and art works would be much apreciated.

Postmodernism vs. Modernism article

The postmodern article features a long 'Critics of postmodernism' section where as the modernism article contains no analogous section.

I think that's because the two terms are used very differently. 'Modernism' is essentially a movement in the arts, not a philosophical system. The term Postmodernism is used to refer to stylistic developments in the arts, but also to a wider cultural condition (i,e. 'Postmodernity') and to a series of related philosophical positions. To be a 'critic of modernism' would, essentially, to be an opponent of Modernist art or literature. To be a critic of 'Postmodernism' is to attack an intellectual model. I think this divergence in usage is one of the central problems for defining the relation between the two terms. Paul B 14.39 22 Dec 2004

"Baudrillard Contra Feminism" Contra This Article?

The article just seems to throw down names of people which have all been placed under a "post-modernist" label. This is not effective because it just becomes incoherent. If all the names listed are "postmodern," then really the only thing the term can mean is just referring to a general time period and nothing else. Take areas like this:

"Jean Baudrillard, Michel Foucault, and Roland Barthes (in his more post-structural work) are also strongly influential in postmodern theory. Postmodernism is closely allied with several contemporary academic disciplines, most notably those connected with sociology. Many of its assumptions are integral to feminist and post-colonial theory."

Baudrillard and Foucault? These two theorists are almost diametrically opposed in their views(see Baudrillard's "Forget Foucault"). If they are both strongly influential in postmodern theory, this can only attest to the meaningless of the term beyond referring to a time period. Further:

"The movement has had diverse political ramifications: its anti-ideological insights appear conducive to, and strongly associated with, the feminist movement..."

Baudrillard is constantly described as "the high priest of postmodernism" which is a quote from the journal Marxism Today. Baudrillard can be fairly described as fully opposed to the feminist movement, pretty much any work by him from 1979 to 1989 makes this clear. I even remember him in a Mike Gane book(it could have been from an interview in "Baudrillard Live" or just quoted in "Baudrillard: Critical and Fatal Theory", it's not in "Baudrillard's Beastiary", though) referring to this one's woman's position as mere "shitty feminism," a particularly profane comment from a person firmly rooted in academia. If the high priest of postmodernism is against the feminist movement, then how strongly could postmodernism be associated and conducive of it, if the term has any meaning whatsoever?

Perhaps the article is effective though in that its confusion demonstrates well the confusion of the discourse around the subject, but, I would be tempted to say that an encyclopedia shouldn't strive for such, I can't think of a good word, "ambiguous", perhaps, portrayals. Maybe an encyclopedia authored by a general public, with all its contradictions, like the Wikipedia, can never pretend to be the same as traditional encyclopedias, with all their cohesion, though If I would writeup the description it would probably look something like:

"The term postmodernism is applied to a variety of systems and trends in various philosophical, sociological, artistic and generally theoretical fields from the middle of the 20th century and onward. The proliferation of this application is vast and varied, encompassing many contradictory positions. Because of these contradictions it seems impossible to give a coherent defintion of postmodernism." And include famous musings on what postmodernism is, such as Lyotard's which is already included and some list of notable artists and theorists that are placed under the sign of "postmodernism." But the passages which just come off as splatterings of these names and then attempts at connecting the dots seem futile: the dots are far too chaotic in their placement to be of encyclopedic interest in connecting beyond the fact that they're under the same sign and time period.--Whoabot 09:59, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This seems like the right direction for an improved article to me, and I quite like the sentences proposed as an approach to the impossible problem of a general introduction. And I agree that its current confused state is only enlightening as a reflection of common confusions on the topic. I hope you and similarly informed editors will be bold and put in some work on the article. -- Rbellin 04:37, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

MERGE THIS ARTICLE IN

There is a great deal of information here and a reference list, but the style is unwiki - will merge into postmodernity and postmodernism. Stirling Newberry 02:30, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

First, a minor point - if you want to discuss any article with reference to your own essay or other essays, provide a link to the latter instead of filling up the Talk page and making it unreadable and unnavigable (the page bloated to 71 KB after SN's post and skewed the TOC.) Next, before stating you will merge anything you must actually discuss the necessity for a merge; usually merges for large articles like this one are only made after a Vote for Deletion or some other major concensus decision in which a Merge was agreed on. -- Simonides 03:36, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This isn't my essay it's cruft, but it has references that should be merged into the main articles that it refers to. It isn't a large article, it's someone's essay and I am trying to preserve it, otherwise I would blitz the whole thing as unencyclopediace POV original research. Stirling Newberry 03:55, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Meaning of modernism and postmodernism

The relationship between modernism and postmodernism, can best be examined through the works of several authors, some of whom argue for such a distinction, while others call it into question. 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, although it is noted that this classification is at times controversial. Although useful distinctions can be drawn between the modernist and postmodernist eras, this does not erase the many continuities present between them.

It is important to acknowledge that the very notion of modernity and modernism is problematic. Etymologically, it comes from Latin modo, meaning just now. (OED 2^nd Ed.) Pinkey notes that the term modernism refers to "merely the empty flow of time itself" (Pinkey, 1989:42). "Modernity can only define itself in terms of a temporal break with an organic past", (ibid) or, in the words of the Oxford English Dictionary, "[i]n Historical use commonly applied (in contradistinction to ancient and mediæval) to the time subsequent to the middle ages". (Oxford English Dictionary, 1989) Its nature as a term is inherently indexical or deictic: every period which compares and contrasts itself to previous periods is modern in its self-understanding. Indeed, [Jürgen] Habermas observes that "[p]eople considered themselves modern during the period of Charles the Great, in the 12th century, as well as in France of the late 17th century...the term 'modern' appeared and reappeared exactly during those periods in Europe when consciousness of a new epoch formed..." (Habermas, 1981:147)

Postmodernism is an even more problematic term, paradoxically meaning (if we take its Latin origins literally) 'after just now'. Indeed, Jean-François Lyotard describes it as "the paradox of the future (post) anterior (modo)." Its paradoxical nature might lead one to question whether it is in fact distinct from the modern period. "Postmodernism has the essential double meaning, the continuation of modernism and its transcendence." (Lyotard 1984:759) (Jencks, 1986:21).

I don't think the Latin origins of the words Modernist and Postmodernist are really very useful for understanding their usages in contemporary discourse - especially when Modernist becomes confused with 'modern' meaning post-medieval and 'modern' meaning of today. I certainly do not think the etymology should be seen as a guide to the meaning. However, I agree that the authors of this article are often too close to 'Postmodernist' attitudes to see them dispassionately and to speak usefully of their relationship to Modernism. I do not think, however, that the two terms are really fully cognates, and I think that fact should be made clear. However I applaud the general approach you seem to be outlining - the rewriting of the article to stress the problem of relationship between the two terms. I think that would resolve many problems that remain intractable in the current form of the article. I'm not clear whether you are saying that "Postmodernism" and "Postmodernity" should be merged. I think ther problem of the relationship between these two terms should indeed be examined in the content of "Postmodernism" but that a separate article on Postmodernity is probably still useful. Paul B 03.16, 05 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Postmodern" versus "Post-Modern"

Seriously, we have to come to some kind of Wikipedia consensus. Postmodern is "correct," as I understand it, being the name of the actual movement, not just "the one after modernism". Has/is this been/being discussed elsewhere?

The usage elsewhere is generally, though not exclusively, that the "-" signals that the author believes that the modern aspect is dominant. Stirling Newberry 15:52, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Right, however, I think we need uniformity on Wikipedia. I'd recommend complete adoption of the sans hyphenated version, but including a section in the main article regarding disputes between the two, and who tends to use one or the other. This isn't a color/colour deal; that hyphen, or lack thereof, certainly brings a bias. Anyway, I'm no Wikipedia vet; how are these kinds of things (i.e. BC vs. BCE) handled? --Max Terry 23:43, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Neomodernism

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

do we really need cartoons?

I'm removing the following but posting it here in discussion in case someone else thinks it's appropriate or wants to defend it. I think it's amusing but not really necessary or all that relevant here.

The cartoonist Bill Watterson argues a similar point in his comic strip Calvin and Hobbes. His six-year-old protagonist often claims that his snowmen and school-notebook doodles are "avant-garde", backing up his contention with prose similar to that which Sokal generated. Once, Calvin pencils a book report entitled, "The Dynamics of Interbeing and Monological Imperatives in Dick and Jane: a Study in Psychic Transrelational Gender Modes". Displaying his creation to his friend Hobbes, he smugly remarks, "Academia, here I come!" These strips and others of note are reprinted in The Calvin and Hobbes Tenth Anniversary Book (1995), in which Watterson explains that his "art criticism" was derived from published postmodern rhetoric, with minimal changes.

--csloat 06:42, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My rationale for adding the passage in the first place is that it is probably one of the more widely disseminated critiques of academic garbledygook to be made in recent years. After all, Calvin and Hobbes is certainly a popular comic strip; I'd be willing to bet that Watterson's jibes reached a wider audience than Sokal's. Besides, one of the themes of present-day literary analysis seems to be to treat a wide range of "texts" as worthy of attention. Quoting a comic strip in our discussion might just be the postmodern thing to do. Hey, what's the point of having a featured article if we don't cite it anywhere? Best, Anville 11:07, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of Watterson, and however funny his criticisms, they aren't of the same kind as those which are thought out. After all Norman Rockwell satirized abstract expressionism, and just about every art movement has attracted cartoonists who have lampooned the excesses of it. One of my favorite cartoons is the "Liszt-Wagner sound-fog machine", and I am a Wagnerite. Perhaps a note on the lampooning would be correct. Stirling Newberry 14:32, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

I agree. I'm a great fan of Watterson's, but his satire doesn't have anything to do with postmodernism specifically. The rest of the article needs a lot of narrowing down, too; I get the sense (with no offense intended) that many of the editors of this page don't know there's a difference between postmodernism and many other varieties of quasi-philosophical jargon. I would support the creation of a new article on academic obscurantism that could serve as a clearinghouse for many criticisms of jargon and bad writing which this article should not contain. -- Rbellin|Talk 18:26, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The use of the phrase "gender roles" and "trans-" means it isn't modernism. Again, lampooning excesses is normal, and exists with every period. Modernity's use of scientific jargon and mathematics has been lampooned too. In fact, one can go back to Aristophanes send up of Socrates in finding examples. Stirling Newberry 19:26, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure one can, but I don't think we'll include cartoons making fun of Socrates in the entry on philosophy. I think Watterson's send-up is funny too, but it has no place here. Also, I don't believe there is anything essentially "postmodernist" about the word "gender" or the prefix "trans-". As Rbellin points out above, this is not just a problem with the cartoon but with many of the claims in this article -- "postmodern" does not just mean "obscure" or "turgid academic jargon."--csloat 05:21, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Revising the introduction

I did an extensive and needed revision to the introduction, and I excised a couple of sections that I have problems with, and I'm not sure what to do with them, so I put them here for discussion. The sections are as follows:

"This dichotomy [between fragmentary and monolithic] is somewhat problematic, since it ignores the strong emphasis on irrationalism and fragmentation within modernism. For this reason postmodernism can equally be seen as a development of aspects of modernism while rejecting others, in particular the emphasis on authenticity."

"Jean-François Lyotard famously described postmodernism as an "incredulity toward metanarratives" (Lyotard, 1984). Postmodernism attacks the notions of monolithic universals and encourages fractured, fluid and multiple perspectives and is marked by an increasing importance in the ideas from the Sociology of knowledge."

My problems with these passages are as follows:

1. There is nothing particularly irrational about either modernism or postmodernism. Just because postmodernism criticizes rationalism doesn't mean it emphasizes irrationalism. More often than not, postmodernism uses rationality to show how modernism is both rational and irrational.

That's one POV, the POV of many is that postmodernism is irrational because it criticises rationalism. Nothing in the passages you've excised claims that postmodernity is incontroveribly irrational. Stirling Newberry 19:55, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

1. Regarding the "dichotomy" between fragmentary and monolithic, this is not really part of postmodernism. Postmodernism isn't "attacking the notion of monolithic universals", or "saying" that things are fragmentary rather than monolithic: that's a common misconception. Quite to the contrary, what's happening is that this dichotomy between fragmentary and monolithic is deconstructed. In postmodern art, for example, the artist messes with that which is thought by modernists to be Monolithic, and portrays it as Fractured, or vice versa.

Perscriptive, not descriptive. That's POV Stirling Newberry 19:55, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

1. Postmodernism doesn't reject the modernist emphasis on authenticity. Indeed, Authenticity is a very common target of deconstruction, and appears very frequently in postmodern art, although in deconstructed form.

You are misciting the section, it says it rejects the emphasis, not the concept the section.Stirling Newberry 19:55, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

1. Lyotard's quote was not about postmodern-ism. It was about postmodern-ity. He said that postmodernity was characterized by an incredulity toward metanarratives. That doesn't mean that everyone that is skeptical about metanarratives is a postmodern-ist.

You've misread the passage completely. Stirling Newberry 19:55, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

-- COGDEN 19:44, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

I believe that your problems can be addressed far better than you have done. The introduction was shortened in line with complaints that introductions were too long. Since, in my opinion, your changes are based on perscriptive notions of post-modernism, and a misreading of the content, I'm reverting, but would like to continue the discussion to get a version which answers your concerns. Stirling Newberry 19:55, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)