Talk:Postmodernity/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Postmodernity. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Stbalbach's criticism of Newberry's Opening paragraph

The opening paragraph is not very good. I find it incomprehensible, impenetrable. The opening paragraph should be a high-level overview that most people can understand without too many facts or buzzwords; and then you have a section in the body of the article called "What is Postmodernism?", or simply "Definition", that expounds and educates the reader on the principals. If there are multiple valid definitions, they should all be layed out, instead of one all encompasing monolithic definition in the opening paragraph. The opening paragraph should provide a sentence or two on the significance and place of the term (What people use this term and why?), again, in simple high-level language that any one can understand. The opening paragraph should be a high-level summary of what will follow in the article (see the Wikipedia manual of style). It should not be a place where the term is defined, much too complicated to fit it into the introduction paragraph. Stbalbach 20:17, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

edit boldly, but keep cool. I find your criticisms excessive and over the top, but if you think you can do better, by all means take your best crack at it. Stirling Newberry 20:41, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Have you read the Wikipedia Manual of Style? For example, "postmodernism" is mentioned 4 times in the opening paragraph, but not at all in the article body. If it's so important that it be in the introduction paragraph 4 times, why is it not mentioned at all in the article? The opening paragraph is a place to introduce the reader to what is contained in the article body. It is a progressive layer of detail. Please read the Wikipedia manual of style on how articles should be layed out. Stbalbach 21:33, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The wiki manual also says keep cool. If you think you can do better, do so. Harrangues do not improve the content of the article. Stirling Newberry 21:49, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There are some other problems now I look at it more closely. It says Postmodernity is related to postmodernism (a diffrent article). Then in later sentences, it implies they are the same thing. Very confusing. I am just someone who would like to understand the history of the term, what people use it, why, it's definition, how it is typically used, and it's overall significance. If I knew these things, I would contribute to the article. Stbalbach 22:07, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Be Bold! Stirling Newberry 22:11, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

COGDEN's criticism of Newberry's Opening Statement

I was bold yesterday when I rewrote the introduction, but my rewrite was reverted. Maybe the rewrite wasn't perfect, but I think it was significantly better than the present one, which confuses postmodernity with postmodernism, which are two wholly different things. I replaced my original introduction, but left the other one essentially intact, though I don't think it's accurate. Note that my intro is generally NPOV, because it uses phrases such as "it is said (by critical theorists) that...", etc. [[User:COGDEN|COGDEN^talk]] 23:08, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

First, your edit was not "reverted" but moved into the definition section. Second the current intro does not confuse post-modernity (which it describes as a condition) with post-modernism (which it describes as a reaction). It's POV (namely the POV of critical theory) and not introductory. Since there seems to be interest in improving this article (which is laudable), then it seems like a good time to really work on it. Post-modernity is the response or the conditions which create the response which post-modernism is the self-conscious expression of. All of the other definitions flow from this, either in their definition of what the fundamental driving condition is - late capitalism, dissemination, mass production etc - or what shapes the response to them.

I'm sure we can come up with something that is better than what is here currently.

Stirling Newberry 23:27, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Once again, my edit has been buried by Stirling Newberry with the terse assertion that it was POV. I don't think Stirling understands what NPOV means. It can't be POV if I say something like "critical theorists claim that..." or "postmodernity is seen (by critical theorists) as..." I agree with Stbalbach that the introduction as it stands after Stirling reverted me doesn't make a lot of sense. (For one thing, since when was postmodernism a way of life?) If Stirling has a primary source for the current definition of postmodernity, please share. My definition of postmodernity is backed solidly by the writings of Frederic Jameson and Jean-François Lyotard, who for all practical purposes defined the term as it is used today. In addition, we need to say who uses the term. Essentially, the term postmodernity is used only by critical theorists, or people criticizing critical theorists. Therefore, we absolutely must say in the introduction what the word means in critical theory. [[User:COGDEN|COGDEN^talk]] 23:36, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you cool down and stop lying. Your edit was not "burned" it was - in its entirety - moved. (As has been the previous opening paragraph) Stirling Newberry 23:43, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Speaking objectively I would appreciate it if Sterling Newberry actually read what was written. If he can't see that COGDEN stated that his edit was buried, not burned, then what hope have we that he's actually reading the edits on the main page? Martin TB 13:52, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

General discussion of Opening Statement

Changes: Removed the definition from the opening paragraph. Added some context on what the term is about. Added some headlines to break up any different usages of the term. Keept consistent spelling of the term based on article title (postmodernity versus post-modernity). --Stbalbach 04:13, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There are long arguments about what the difference is. One consistent usage is that post-modernity applies to the late modern phase, that is "post-modernity seen as a phase of modernism" versus postmodernity which is "the phase after modernity (if any)". There are others, but that is the most common (out of many) in the literature Stirling Newberry 05:17, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Changes:

Removed or the personal state of being in a society which views itself as having passed beyond modernity. from the intro.. two reasons, 1) I can't figure out what it means, and 2) when I read the rest of the article there is no follow up to explain what it means. So I added "..and individual" which I think is what it means.
Moved postmodernity and postmodernism debate to its own section, meat and potatos for the body.
historical condition in the opening paragraph doesnt make sense out of context. Too difficult to summarize the definition in the opening paragraph. This is a complex topic, can't be summed up in one sentence, better not to define the term in the intro.

Slrubenstein's criticism of Newberry's Opening Statement

I'm a bit concerned that the introduction has moved back in the direction of confusing postmodernity with postmodernism. The intro is a good introduction to postmodernism, but unlike postmodernism, postmodernity is not a movement, but a condition. It's analogous to the difference between modernism and modernity. [[User:COGDEN|COGDEN^(talk)]] 19:13, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

The changes made are unacceptable poor and just plain wrong. Including them here and reverting. Post-modernity is defined, everywhere, as a condition or a set of circumstances, the changes belong in post-modernism, except they are not well written and heavily POV. Long before there was postmodern architecture there were post-modern other things. Stirling Newberry

Quite right that the article is about postmodernity and not postmodernism; I do understand the difference. That said, the current opening paragraph is awful:

in general, can mean the state of a society, or individual, which has evolved from modernity. The term is used in a more specific way in the field of critical theory as first used by Frederic Jameson and Jean-François Lyotard. In sociology the term is used to describe the changes in institutions or systems.

First, the claim that it is the state of society that has evolved from modernity is at best highly POV, but probably just inaccurate. It is true that it follows modernity, but that is not the same thing as an evolution, and of course there are some very smart people who should be mentioned here, like Marshall Berman and Bruno Latour, who argue that post-modernity is an illusion either because we are still modern, or because we have never been modern. Slrubenstein

Second, it is sloppy to identiyf Lyotard with critical theory. Some would even quibble with Jameson. In any event, what is the "more specific way?" I don't think Jameson and Lyotard fully agree. Slrubenstein

The third sentence is vague, plus why privilege sociology? Slrubenstein

Nitpicking after having dumped inaccurate POV on the page is not going to win any arguments.

Let's take this from the top:

post-modernity is the condition of being in a society which differs in key respects from a preceding modern one. What these are, whether it is enough to make post-modernity separate or an extension of modernity are all matters of dispute to be documented. Post-modernity cannot, by defintion, start out as a movement, since it is not a movement, nor is the term used in that manner - as opposed to labeling an object, idea or work "post-modern" or a movement "post-modernism".

post-modernity is, indeed visible in architecture and it would be more than useful to document how the condition of post-modernity expresses itself in architecture, etc. but this is not the same as post-modern architecture. See Frampton and Architecture from Prehistory to Post-modernity

Stirling Newberry 22:32, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Do you misunderstand me, or did you not read what I wrote? I am not defending what I wrote earlier, nor am I criticizing you for having deleted it. By the way, I am not trying to "win" an argument -- wikipedia is a collaborative effort, not a competition. That said, the first paragraph was still awful. I don't know who wrote it and I don't care -- this talk page is not about getting personal, it is about improving the article. Slrubenstein

Reverting, FJ is already mentioned in lead graf. Stirling Newberry 22:40, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Do you really think I am a vandal? I am being courteous and providing substantive objections to the previous version of the opening paragraph. Slrubenstein

Yes you are being a vandal. You are inserting inaccurate POV material to multiple pages. The expressed preference in this round of editing was to have a simpler openning, not a wordy opening of one particular POV on post-modernity which has already been mentioned any way.

Stirling Newberry 22:54, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The material I added is accurate. You accused it of a Marxist bias, so I added considerable more information on Lyotard's view and cited Wittgenstein, definitely not Marxists, thus restoring balance and NPOV. I don't know what "the expressed preference" was, most people have expressed discontent with your opening paragraph. You have yet to respond to my objections. The opening paragraph you keep reverting to is a poor introduction because it if NPOV inaccurate and vague. Slrubenstein

It isn't accurate - postmodernity isn't an architectural movement nor did it start in architecture. That's documentable - before there was "post-modern" architecture the word, and concept had had other meanings. More over what you are inserting has already been mentioned and violates the coverage rule for points of view. You also inserted it in another page, obliterating the defintion there. The theory you are pushing is in the text, has several links in the text (FJ, late capitalism, mentioned in post-modernism and critical theory as well). There's no reasonable way you can say the POV isn't covered. If you think you can do better than the existing grafs - then edit away.

But I will reiterate - "late capitalism" is POV by definition, because not everyone agrees that capitalism is about to, or already has, kicked the bucket. It's not like "late roman empire" or "late middle ages" where most people agree that the roman empire and middle ages are over. Stirling Newberry 23:02, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about, mentioning "architecture?" Where, in the paragraph you keep reverting, does it mention architecture? Did you even read what you reverted? Also, what is your point about Jameson? Jameson is mentioned in your version of the intro too, so this is not a debate over whether to mention FJ in the first paragraph or not. In fact, I mention him because you mention him. It is just that I identify him accurately, whereas the other paragraph does not identify him accurately, and it is vague. In other words, you give two reasons for reverting my work and neither makes sense: I do not mention architecture, and I only correct the information about Jameson. Yes, Late capitalism isa point of view -- but it is Jameson's POV. You mention Jameson in your version, you should be clear about what his POV is. The way you achieve NPOV is not by deleting accurate content, it is by adding more points of view (such as Lyotard's), Slrubenstein

My. What a flame. Also inaccurate in a number of points. There's no need to respond at this point. You aren't editting but trying to impose your POV on the page. Stirling Newberry 23:12, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What do you mean by "flame?" I am trying to improve the article. I am also trying to dialogue with another contributor. Do you know how to do that? Slrubenstein

Easy, now, both of you. I don't think we're getting anywhere. I agree with Slr that I don't understand Stirling's criticisms about architecture or Jameson....the Jameson criticism is perhaps a minor point of Sitrling's (I can't tell) but architecture seems to be important to him, and I don't see it here. Stirling, would you clarify? I think there are criticisms to be made of Slr's version -- I don't think it's deeply POV, but I do think that Slr's opening paragraph used language in an unusual way (I think the reference to the modernity and Enlightenment "projects" was a little jarring) and that it reads as though there is an assumption that capitalism is either dying or in some kind of final stage. I grant that this is an opinion held by many, and I think Slr cites well to establish it, but I think we could find an approach that asserted more balance. I don't know as much as I'd like about the topic, but I'd like to do what I can to help keep this civil. Can we? Jwrosenzweig 23:30, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hmm...I think I basically agree with Jwrosenzweig - although I would note that the idea of a state of "postmodernity" seems itself to be based on the assumption that capitalism is either dying or in some kind of final stage. But perhaps that this is an assumption of those who advocate the idea of postmodernity, rather than the state of the world. At any rate, it seems to be that Stirling Newberry has at least twice on this talk page been unconscionably rude. To call someone a vandal because they made an edit that you feel to be POV is simply absurd. john k 00:46, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Problems with Body of Article

I have some questions about the body of the article. First, why separate "critical theory" from sociology and philosophy? Almost all "critical theorists" I know of are either sociologists or philosophers (some are social psychologists, some are in comp. lit.)? Slrubenstein

Also, I don't agree with this charactersization of how critical theorists understand postmodernity; the critique of master narratives comes from Wittgenstein and I don't know many critical theorists who take this tack at all. What are the sources for this? Slrubenstein

This is from Lyotard (the skepticism about master narratives part) and Jameson (the transnational economic/social configuration part). [[User:COGDEN|COGDEN^(talk)]] 19:52, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Lyotard is an authority, but he is not a critical theorist (i.e. practicioner of critical theory). Jameson may be, but I don't think he ever identified himself as one or is identified as one by others. In other words, I do not object to what is being said about postmodernity -- only to the view being ascribed to critical theorists. Slrubenstein

Ditto sociologists -- which sociologists use the term "postmodernity" in this way, and make these arguments? I don't know of any -- if any do it is certainly a minority of sociologists in the US. Are you referring to Cultural Studies people in England? Again, real sources are needed here. Anthony Giddens is a good source, but only one -- are there any others? This section claims "sociologists" and I wonder if it is really just trying to sum up Giddens' views. His views are important and of course should be included but to then ascribe them to "sociologists" is too vague and broad. Slrubenstein

Ditto "philosophy," where the identification iwth "post-structuralism" is vague and I wonder who makes it. Lyotard and Baudrillard certainly are critical of structuralism but they are just as critical of Marxism and other "master-narratives." Where do they identify themselves with post-structuralism? We need a source and citation, if this claim is at all verifiable. Slrubenstein

Which post-modernists use the word "evolution?" I know of none who claim that post-modernity evolved from modernity. What are the sources? Slrubenstein

In the "history" section, the passive voice is not only bad style but obscure. Who says this? Who makes the claim that postmodernity starts in the Cold War/1950s? Who exactly divides postmodernity into these two stages? Slrubenstein

Opening paragraph

Is there any chance the opening paragraph can be reduced to 4 or 5 sentences giveing a brief overview of what is contained in the main body article? On my screen the TOC is off the page, it should be right near the top. Currently, it seems like the body of the article is in the opening paragraph, and the body of the article, I have no idea what to say about that. Has a consensus been reached on how to define this term? Remember, this is a NPOV encyclopedia article for a general audience, if there are multiple usages of the term from diffrent disciplines and perspectives, they should all be given equal weight. I feel like theres original research going on currently with authors trying to write their own particular understandings instead of recording the views of others. Stbalbach 19:20, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am not sure what is causing the off the page problem, but it isn't the length of the opening paragraph. But I will try to shorten it. I am just sure how to do that while remaing NPOV and accurate. The problem is, unlike apple pie this is a topic people really disagree over; also it is a philosophical topic and necessarily abstract. Slrubenstein

Well it's not about the length of the material, if anything it is too short and not enough explanation. The problem is, most of it doesnt belong in the opening paragraph it belongs in the body of the article. The opening paragraph is meant to be a mirror of whats in the article body. The opening paragraph is an introduction, to lead the reader in to further details, like peeling an onion you repeat the same things in the body article with more detail (see wikipedia manual of style). As it stands, there is stuff in the opening paragraph that is never mentioned in the body article. Basically, the opening paragraph right now is using "positioning" ie. putting text high-up in the article to give it more credibility over other authors. I can tell you, it won't last like that and just leads to edit wars. If there are disagreements over it, then the disagreements should be spelled out in the article body *with sources*. Again, I am seeing a lot of original research here from Wikipedian authors trying to explain how they see the issue. That's not what Wikipedia is about.Stbalbach 19:50, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The opening paragraph should be the last thing your write. Write the body first, the opening paragraph then comes easily and naturally because it just summarizes whats in the body, as it should be. Stbalbach 19:52, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In principle, I agree with you. The problem is, I think there is a lot wrong with the body of the article and it will need a complete rewrite -- and I fear getting into edit wars about that! That's why I listed six separate problems I have with the body in the talk page -- I want people to have a chance to respond before I make any changes. One person commented, but I think misunderstood my objection. Slrubenstein 20:06, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Given how quickly changes have been reverting, it would be difficult to re-write the whole article without an ugly edit war. Perhaps instead, re-write the article in a /temp article and present it for discussion, so there is no pressure to revert edits and protect turf. Stbalbach 21:45, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A fine suggestion. But just in case this wasn't clear earlier (because I thought it goes without saying) I welcome your suggestions through edits to the article itself. I mean, rewrite the intro if you want to. Ido feel strongly about the content that I added, and think the intro should reflect that content. But it seemed that you were commenting on organization and style, and if you want to rewrite what I wrote with an eye to better style, I would welcome that. I strongly objected to Stirling Newberry because he simply reverted what I wrote to an earlier version that I think was inaccurate and poorly written. That doesn't mean my own writing can't be improved on, and I really don't want people to think I will revert any change to anything I wrote. Slrubenstein

Latest revisions

Stirling, excellent additions of late. I believe I understand what postmodernity is now (assuming it is correct!). I have a question. It seems postmodernity is a term, or concept, with pejorative meaning, as an expression of disfavour with the current condition -- in which case application of the term postmodernity implicity implies favour for a new period. Is it post-modernism? Or, is postmodernity the result of post-modernism? And if so, what is seen as the answer to the postmodernity condition? Stbalbach 12:53, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

a problem with current version

Stirling, first I want to say that I think the new first paragraph is very good, and I appreciate the way you have managed to keep some of my work in the article (I am being sincere, not sarcastic). But there is a problem with the "sociological" section you have been working on. I want to give you a chance to fix it yourself, because I imagine you are still working on this and I don't want to make a change you will just revert. Here is the problem: David Harvey is not a philosopher, he is a geographer and very firmly established within the field of geography. He shouldn't be in a section called "sociology." I see a variety of solutions: retitle the whole section "Geography" if Harvey is the main source, or retitle it "Social Sciences" if it draws on both sociologists and geographers like Harvey, or just cut the passage about Harvey and move it to another section. I also have a problem with the section "critical theory" because it doesn't seem to reflect the views of the main critical theorists, Horkheimer and Habermas. Here is a suggestion for organization: put "critical theory" as a subsection of "philosophy" which would allow us to divide the philosophy into two sections, pro-postmodernist (Lyotard) and anti-postmodernist (critical theorists like Habermas). What do you think? Slrubenstein 17:51, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Placed philosophy and critical theory together. Stirling Newberry 17:18, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Postmodernism series

I've created a template feel free to add other important examples of postmodernism - broadly defined - in this template so that readers can gain a better understanding of the terms involved by comparing and contrasting their use over several articles. Stirling Newberry 17:18, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Placing this here for merge

Moved to Postmodernity/to-merge. -- Beland 03:53, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

original research?

I removed this from the article:

Postmodernity can be said to have gone through two relatively distinct phases: the first phase beginning in the 1950's and running through the end of the Cold War, where analog dissemination of information produced sharp limits on the width of channels, and encouraged a few authoritative media channels, and the second beginning with the explosion of cable television, internetworking and the end of the Cold War.

The phrase "can be said" is poor style -- who has actually said this? In its current form, the implication is that this is the view of one of the editors, that is, original research (and a violation of our policy). If the person who has said this can be named and cited, then it should go back into the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:13, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Um...I think I posted something here on the discussion, but it seems to have been utterly blotted out, not even in the history. I imagine this was probably some kind of an error on my part, because I had thought that discussion pages existed for people to put in their input about articles, and even if they were percieved as stupid or biased, their objections wouldn't be erased without even a record of being erased. Corbmobile

Divided the Links Category

All external links had been placed in a category labelled "Studies in Postmodernism", a fair description of a number of the links, but I wasn't sure that the Postmodern Essay Generator could be so described. It's a nice piece of satire, and I liked seeing a link to it, but I felt that a category entitled "other external links" would be more apropo. This also opens the door a little more widely to pages about Postmodernism which aren't the homepages for academic programs or anything vaguely similar to these.

Removed

Much of this can be reincorporated, but as it stands it is someones (rather badly argued) tirade against the term, along with personal commentary. It violates enough rules to be almost a text book of how not to edit wikipedia: POV, original research and out of proportion. The point is to explain the term to readers, and to explain the controversy.

Meaning of modernity and postmodernity

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).

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.

Joyce's Ulysses

James Joyce's Ulysses can be viewed as a text which problematises the distinction between modernism and postmodernism. McHale notes that "Ulysses, literary historians agree, is one of the founding texts of the 'High Modernist' phase of literary modernism" (McHale 1990:5). However, "Ulysses has lately entered upon a strange second career as a postmodernist text" (ibid.) McHale argues that this is due to the nature of the text, for while parts of it are an exemplar of High Modernist style, other sections deviate from this style, in a way which has come to be called by many "postmodernist". Indeed, he notes that different critics have placed emphasis on different parts of the work: earlier modernist critics mostly neglecting the sections which deviate from a modernist style, while more recent postmodernist critics have emphasised those sections which display these deviations. (Joyce 1964)

For social, political, technological, and economic determinists, postmodernity is a major cause of the emergence of postmodernism and postmodern culture. For others, it is a mode of society which goes hand in hand with postmodernism. Postmodernity may be a reason for some to choose postmodernism as a way of life, epistemological, ethical, or aesthetic position.

Different viewpoints on the relationship between them

It is possible to conceptualise two different polar viewpoints concerning the relationship between modernism and postmodernism: one which views postmodernism and modernism as being fundamentally distinct; another which identifies them as being essentially identical, and thus rejects that any useful distinction between them exists. The approaches of individual thinkers to this question lie somewhere between these two viewpoints.

In this article several authors representing a range of different views on the issue will be considered. At the extreme that postmodernism represents a fundamental break from modernism, is Fredric Jameson. At the other extreme, authors such as Jürgen Habermas, Marshall Berman and Gerald Graff, view postmodernism as fundamentally a continuation of modernism. In between these two positions, is Jean-François Lyotard, who views postmodernism as part of modernism, although an important new phase.

Jameson's view

To Jameson, postmodernism is not part of the modern, but rather a radical break with it. Postmodernism is not an aesthetic condition or style, but rather a "cultural dominant". To him postmodernism is a "cultural dominant", not a style, because of concerns that theories of historical periods (such as postmodernism) ignore the many differences within the supposed periods, and present them as homogenous.

Jameson considers, and disagrees with, the thesis that postmodernism is a later stage of modernism, rather than an altogether new stage of civilisation. He notes that the features of postmodernism can be found fully developed in modernism. He gives the examples of Gertrude Stein, Raymond Roussel and Marcel Duchamp as representing the features of postmodernity while being present in the modern period. To Jameson what distinguishes the postmodern era from the modern, and likewise the modern from earlier eras, is the social standing of these features. Whereas modernism was rejected by Victorian society as "ugly, dissonant, obscure, scandalous, immoral, subversive, and generally 'antisocial'" (Jameson 1993:78), it later came to be canonised and institutionalised in academe; finally, with the rise of postmodernism, modernism was rejected by a younger generation as a "set of dead classics", no longer existing in opposition to the "official or public culture of Western society", but rather representing it. (Jameson 1993:113)

Jameson concludes that while in his view the modernist and postmodernist have distinguishable features, even if all the features of postmodernism were identically present in modernism, the two periods could "remain utterly distinct in their meaning and social function, owing to the very different positioning of postmodernism in the economic system of late capital." (Jameson 1993:131)

Jameson seeks to elucidate the distinguishing features of the postmodern period. In order to do so, he compares various works of art, literature and architecture which he views as definitive of the two periods in question, seeking thereby to identify the presence or absence of these features in them.

Van Gogh & Warhol

The first comparison is of the work of Vincent Van Gogh and Andy Warhol. Jameson considers two modernist interpretations of Van Gogh's "Peasant Shoes". He starts with art as transformational, taking "the whole object world of agricultural misery, of stark rural poverty, and the whole rudimentary human world of backbreaking peasant toil, a world reduced to its most brutal and menaced, primitive and marginalized state" and transforming this into "a hallucinatory surface of colour". This transformation is seen as a "Utopian gesture" (Jameson 1993:26). The second interpretation Jameson considers is art as creating a world, whereby "henceforth illustrious peasant shoes slowly recreate about themselves the whole missing object-world which was once their lived context" (ibid.).

Both these interpretations stress the continuity between art and worldly context. Hence both convey meaning to ("speak to") the viewer, in that "the work in its inert, objectal form, is taken as a clue or a symptom for some vaster reality which replaces it as its ultimate truth". By contrast, in relation to Warhol's "Diamond Dust Shoes", Jameson is "tempted to say that it does not really speak to us at all". (Jameson 1993:27)

Marshall Berman's view

Postmodernist authors have frequently characteristed modernity as a totalising monolith. However, Berman has argued that modernity in fact is dynamic, forever changing, fluid and pluralistic — characteristics which have been identified with postmodernism. Thus, for Berman, postmodernism is a continuation of modernism. Indeed, the work in which he presents this view is entitled — All That is Solid Melts into Air — a term which succintly describes the postmodern condition, and yet is in fact a quote from Marx's description of modernity.

Berman argues that the Enlightenment tradition contains within itself an anti-Enlightenment argument, and that anti-modernism is as old as modernism itself, in which the Enlightenment represents "a sort of fall from grace", in which humanity's "metaphysical balance and unity with nature" is disrupted (Berman 1991:1-3). While this argument has the undoubtedly non-modernist Catholic right and Southern conservatives in the United States as its defenders, it can also be found in Enlightenment thinkers such as Hume, Johnson, Diderot, Rousseau and modernists such as W.B. Yeats and Eliot, resulting in what he refers to as "modernist anti-modernism". This then supports the view espoused by Graff that postmodernism is a continuation or triumph of tendencies already found within modernism, rather than something wholly new. (Berman 1991:1-3).

Habermas' view

Jürgen Habermas views postmodernism as, for all its claims of fragmentation and plurality, still existing within a larger 'modernist' framework. He is an influential critic of postmodernism, viewing it as nihilism.

Habermas views the origins of modernity as being in a period's conceptualisation of its relationship with previous periods. From the 12th century until the Enlightenment, people saw themselves as "modern" whenever they looked back to antiquity as a period to be emulated, as an ideal which one should return. This changed with the Enlightenment, and the beginning of what is generally termed modernism, which Habermas sees as that which "simply makes an abstract opposition between tradition and the present." (Habermas 1981:147).

Graff's view

The conception of postmodernity as a succeeding age to modernity is closely associated with the idea of modernism as a failure; indeed, awareness of modernism's failure is seen as the driving force behind postmodernity. Graff sees postmodernity as being driven by the failure of high culture to give back meaning to a world from which meaning has been drained. He views postmodernism as the "logical culmination" of the premises of modernism (Graff 1973:122). Like Jameson and Lyotard do, he traces the history of the broader societal phenomena of modernity and postmodernity through the history of the art of these two periods. He argues that "Postmodernist anti-art was inherent in the logic of the modernist aesthetic". (Graff 1973:124).

Graff traces the modernist aesthetic as originating in an attempt to use art as a substitute for religion, which due to the rise of scientific thought and secularisation had in the 19th century become threatened. The world of facts and the world of values, which in premodern thought had been unified through religion, had been torn apart by the rise of science and Enlightenment philosophy.

Art seemed, for a while, a means of bridging once more this divide; but in the end it has not been successful. As Graff puts it, "the downfall of religion and the relativism of science were developments which could not help undermine the moral and epistemological foundations of art." (Graff 1973:124).

Graff argues that "modernism's positive faith in literary meanings and postmodernism's repudiation of these meanings prove to be highly ambivalent attitudes — much closer to each other than they might at first appear." (Graff 1973:124). Postmodernism views its rejection of a "significant external reality" (Graff's term for the loss of the belief in the unity of truth and value) as both a blessing and a curse: in some postmodernist authors and works, it is depicted as a liberatory force; in others as a great loss. Of the first approach, he gives a few examples among works which he considers postmodernist: among others, John Cage, certain poems of the Beats, Ken Kesey and Richard Fariña; of the second, he cites Barthelme, Robbe-Grillet, Beckett, Borges, Barthes' The End of the Road, and Nabokov's Invitation to a Beheading as examples. (Graff 1973:125)

Both Graff and Jameson criticise those who view postmodernism as an unmitigated blessing. Graff writes that "the revolutionary claims which have been widely made for the postmodernist new sensibility are overrated… when we view it in the context of the current social and cultural situation, postmodernism shows itself to be a reactionary tendency, one which reinforces the effects of technocratic, bureaucratic society." Jameson likewise believes that "the complacent (yet delirious) camp-following celebration of this aesthetic new world… is surely unacceptable". (Graff 1973:125) (Jameson 1993:78)

Lyotard's view

Lyotard disagrees with Jameson in that he sees postmodernism as part of modernism rather than a fundamental break. In his book The Postmodern Condition he identifies the postmodern as being "undoubtedly part of the modern." (Lyotard 1984:13). Postmodernism is also seen as modernism's "nascent state". (ibid.)

To Lyotard, both modern and postmodern art seek to present the "unpresentable", to represent through art certain ideas or concepts which are incapable of representation. He gives as examples such ideas as the world, the simple, the infinitely great, and the infinitely powerful — although the artist may attempt to produce representations of these things, they appear "painfully inadequate". Modernist art "allows the unpresentable to be put forward only as the missing contents", while the form of the art provides its consumer with "solace and pleasure" in the face of this failure of representation. In postmodern art, by contrast, the unpresentable is represented "in presentation itself", but the "solace of good forms" is denied. (Lyotard 1984:17-21)

Although Lyotard views postmodernism as part of modernism, he does identify it as an important new phase in modernism. To him the end result of modernism is giving to us "as much terror as we can take", seeing its metanarratives of the "Progress of Spirit" and the "March to Freedom" as resulting in the 20th century horrors of Nazism and Stalinism, with their mass extermination of millions of people. (Lyotard, 1984:81-2) (Fuery & Mansfield, 2001:108).

Whereas for Jameson, the postmodern age has already happened as an inevitability, for both Lyotard and Habermas, postmodernism is a result of a decision to reject the metanarratives which have formed modernism's foundation: a decision which Lyotard calls upon us in order to take to save ourselves from totalitarianism, but which Habermas opposes, as undermining the moral justification for the very political institutions which protect us from it.

Thus, Jameson can be seen as presenting postmodernism as a theory about our modern society, whereas for Lyotard and Habermas it is more a political position to be accepted or rejected as a matter of choice.

Lyotard famously defines postmodernism as "incredulity towards metanarratives". However, Jameson's work can be seen as introducing postmodernism as a metanarrative itself, one of the decline of one cultural dominant and the rise of another. In Graff's work, this metanarrative is extended, into a narrative of the slow decline of the belief in the objective truth and values in society, through the rise of science and the decline of religion, accompanied by attempts to stave off this decline through the means of Art and Literature, attempts which in postmodernism are finally revealed as ultimately futile.

Lyotard's work itself can be criticised as being self-defeating: his opposition to all metanarratives become yet another metanarrative among all others. Palmeri identifies his postmodernism as containing "a vision or premonition of an all-encompassing and threatening explanatory or totalitarian order plays a significant role in the world of the narrative" (Palmeri 2001:3).

Which authors' texts are (post)modernist?

From the above analysis it can be seen that many of the authors discussed, including Jameson, Lyotard and Graff, conduct their analysis of postmodernity and modernity through an examination of works of art and literature which they identify as being modern or postmodern respectively. In some instances however, their identifications can be open to question. For example, Lyotard implies that Joyce, generally considered to be a high modernist, is a postmodernist, although as discussed above, there are defensible reasons for describing some of his work as such. (Lyotard 1984:758). Susan Sontag (Evans 2001) has commented, in an interview by Evans Chan, that "many writers who used to be called modern or modernist are now called postmodern…", giving Donald Barthelme as an example, an author whose work is identified by Graff, among others, as postmodernist. Chan adds that "the way writers are being relabelled as postmodern is at times baffling", noting with puzzlement Jameson's labelling of Beckett as a postmodernist. That the classification of many authors as modernist or postmodernist is subject to dispute demonstrates that the boundaries between modernism and postmodernism are not clearly defined. In turn this lends some support to those (such as Lyotard and Graff) who view postmodernism as a part or continuation of modernism, as opposed to those such as Jameson who view it as a fundamentally new phenomenon.

Conclusion

One must conclude that the relationship between modernity and postmodernity is a contentious one. At one extreme, postmodernity is seen as a phase or continuation of modernism. In the alternative, postmodernity is seen as a fundamental break with modernity. If one accepts the proposition that works can be continually reclassified, the distinction is one of semantics. However, if the distinction is based upon distinct historical periods there is a clear differentiation. The works examined illustrate the debate — there is no consensus view and one must accept that all points of view are to some extent valid, although Jameson's view is preferred because although his detractors see the features of postmodernity in modernity, the predominance of certain features has clearly changed —in other words the cultural dominant in the postmodernity era is different to that of the modernisty era.

Conclusion - Somone needs to read the rules before adding huge amounts of original research personal essay POV out of proportion badly researched material to the page. Stirling Newberry 05:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I can see no OR nor POV there. All assertions are appropiately attributed to their sources, except for the probably uncontroversial one that the nature of postmodernity is controversial in itself. And I take a very strong objection to your choice of language, which is in flagrant violation of Wikiquette. You are welcome to edit and trim down these admittedly verbose additions, but removing them in toto is way over the top. Taragüí @ 11:58, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Then go back and read the policies again. It is flagrant violation - including statements such as "one must conclude" which is almost a direct violation of NPOV all by itself. If this had been pasted into its own article it would have been deleted, that's how bad it is. Stirling Newberry 12:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Appeals to mysterious authority ("one must conclude") are sometimes a sign of copyvio, text pasted in verbatum. A search of a9.com (books) or copyscape.com (web) may help. --Stbalbach 15:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Stirling and Stbalbach are of course correct. "one must" and "If not" are clearly argumentative. We should present other people's arguments and cite them, not just argue. Slrubenstein | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 21:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

non-english language biblio entries

This is the English Wikipedia. If there is a notable reason why a non-english entry should be included in the bibliography it should be noted (in english) in the article as to why this is important - otherwise there is no way to "vet" the entry .. it could be a self-promo link for all we know. Also we have language links built-in to other versions of the article. -Stbalbach 20:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Confusing introduction

"Postmodernity (also called post-modernity or the postmodern condition) is a term used to describe the social and cultural implications of postmodernism.... whereas postmodernism is an aesthetic, literary, political or social philosophy that consciously responds to post-modern conditions ... Postmodernism ... is the presumed results of holding post-modernist ideas."

This makes no sense. In the excellent first sentence postmodernity is defined to be caused by postmodernism, then in the very confusing first section of the article proper, postmodernism is described as a philosophy "consciously responding" to post-modern conditions - i.e., postmodernity. And then the clincher being that the final sentence saying that postmodernism is caused by postmodernity, where we learnt at the very beginning of the article it's the other way around. I don't want to butcher the text up myself, but I'd suggest you cut this stuff about defining postmodernism here (leave that to the other article), and keep the part suggesting that postmodernity regards the "cultural and intellectual" implications of postmodernism. After all, that's what the Giddens reference appears to be for. As it stands, the first section half-turns the introductory paragraph on its head.

common criticism of wikipedia as MODERN vs. POSTMODERN

"Wikipedia generates noise, not knowledge. Previous encyclopedias were well-researched and contained precise information that could be trusted to be correct. Wikipedia, on the other hand, contains a large amount of errors, omissions and superfluous trivia." -unnamed critic

The above criticism is heard over and over again. Isn't this an example of a modern view vs. a post-modern view ? the critic (a modern person) sees "universal knowledge" and "capital-t-Truth", while wikipedians (post-modern persons) see "point of view" and "neutral point of view".

Please tell me if i just misunderstood the concept! :) -- ExpImp^talkcon 00:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Shaun's Criticism

The opening statement states:

Postmodernity (also called post-modernity or the pejorative postmodern condition) describes the present social, cultural, and economical state, using the term of the art movement postmodernism. Postmodernity does not yet have a simple, general definition on its own account.

This seems to be a bold claim, in sociological terms it is debateable whether we are living in a post modern society. It is unclear whether society is still modern, late modern/reflexive modern or post modern. I suggest either backing the claim with a qoute or using less deterministic language.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.232.226 (talk • contribs) 04:01, 4 May 2007

I agree, have changed that. --Flammingo^Hey 10:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)