The postmodernist examines, scrutinizes, or “deconstructs” such metanarratives ( as Derrida would say), calling into question the premises behind metanarratives’ assumptions. Postmodernism, as Lyotard explains, is fundamentally defined by skepticism toward these metanarratives. Marxism’s metanarrative is that the history of the world has been one of class oppression, and a revolution of the proletariat is the only solution to end poverty, scarcity, and injustice. The Enlightenment’s metanarrative is that rational thought grounded in empiricism leads to human progress. Christianity’s metanarrative, for example, is that humans have been sinful since Adam and Eve’s fall in the Garden of Eden, but there is hope for salvation in accepting Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. In plain English, they’re the tales we’ve been told all our lives about existence from various perspectives.
The clearest definition probably comes from the French philosopher Jean-François Lyotard, who wrote in 1979, “Simplifying to the extreme, I define postmodern as incredulity towards metanarratives.”Īs the word’s etymology implies, metanarratives are narratives about narratives, giving a grand structural story to human history. As literary critic Andreas Huyssen once said, “One critic’s postmodernism is another critic's modernism.”īut a comprehendible explanation of postmodernism does exist. Adding to the confusion, historians have trouble distinguishing postmodernism from modernism, its supposed predecessor.
Derrida, Butler, and Foucault have all shunned the term at one point or another, despite their work being largely classified into the same school of thought. As Michel Foucault famously remarked to the American philosopher John Searle, “In France, you gotta have ten percent incomprehensible, otherwise people won’t think it’s deep-they won’t think you’re a profound thinker.”įurthermore, it’s difficult to pinpoint an exact definition of postmodernism, since most so-called postmodern academics deny that they’re such. Such opacity is the unfortunate result of a French intellectual culture that emphasizes density over substance. Trying to comprehensively understand the work of thinkers like Jacques Derrida or Judith Butler is extremely strenuous, leading many who attempt the task to abandon the project altogether. Foremost, postmodern philosophers are notoriously obscure in their writing. Libertarian stereotypes of postmodernism have a grain of truth. One would be hard pressed to find someone subscribing to both schools of thought.īut have libertarians too quickly dismissed postmodernism without critically examining the philosophy in depth? Some of its elements are compatible with libertarianism and can enhance the libertarian critique of the State. After all, the former refers to a philosophical trend embraced by largely leftist academics over the past half-century, while the latter refers to a political ideology of limited government that many characterize as center-right, originating to a great degree in the Enlightenment. Most people don’t see postmodernism and libertarianism as sharing much in common.
0 kommentar(er)
