Post postmodernism or metamodernism

[osho]

What is this and why not postmodernism suffice to represent we so called twenty first century people? The world is really full of anomalies, and inconsistencies and the kind of orderliness we find in literature is unfound in our lives. Feminist activisms, hounding capitalism, growing numbers of unmarrieds, deteriorating cultures, sexism, and of course economic and social insecurities became the sum and substance of post postmodernism.

I want to know your opinions and ideas on this topic.

[PeterL]

In a few years this time will be known as "The Good Old Days:. What people call their times is inconsequential.

[maxphisher]

Keep in mind the impasse that postmodernism has created. Essentially, it argues that, if everything we understand about our existence is fragmented and then fragmented further, as modernism suggested, then the process spirals out of control very quickly. In fact, many that oppose postmodern ideology do so because it becomes a venture into hopelessness; we simply cannot accept it as an end and still seek to move past it. So, post-postmodernism, though still in its infancy, is a reaction, at least partially, against such a stance. It suggests that, while we must definitely acknowledge and understand the uncertainty of language and representation (ie. poststructuralism), we must also maintain a sort of hope that we can overcome that uncertainty. Several theorists and critics, such as Frederic Jameson, use the idea of Utopia to counter the postmodern argument. Even though we cannot and will not achieve Utopia, the mere idea of a Utopian state, the fact that we can imagine the world as such, is what overcomes the impasse created by postmodernism. In short, though we've essentially been rendered hopeless by the aforementioned fragmentation, that does not mean that we have just given up hope. The point now is to think critically about the world around us and about ourselves in order to work toward a clearer understanding of existence.

I hope that helps...

[PeterL]

Keep in mind the impasse that postmodernism has created. Essentially, it argues that, if everything we understand about our existence is fragmented and then fragmented further, as modernism suggested, then the process spirals out of control very quickly. In fact, many that oppose postmodern ideology do so because it becomes a venture into hopelessness; we simply cannot accept it as an end and still seek to move past it. So, post-postmodernism, though still in its infancy, is a reaction, at least partially, against such a stance. It suggests that, while we must definitely acknowledge and understand the uncertainty of language and representation (ie. poststructuralism), we must also maintain a sort of hope that we can overcome that uncertainty. Several theorists and critics, such as Frederic Jameson, use the idea of Utopia to counter the postmodern argument. Even though we cannot and will not achieve Utopia, the mere idea of a Utopian state, the fact that we can imagine the world as such, is what overcomes the impasse created by postmodernism. In short, though we've essentially been rendered hopeless by the aforementioned fragmentation, that does not mean that we have just given up hope. The point now is to think critically about the world around us and about ourselves in order to work toward a clearer understanding of existence.

I hope that helps...

I think that Praeter-Postmoderninsm would be a better idea. "Praeter" meaning "beyond", rather than "after". Let's get beyond it.

[miyako73]

We are never postmodern. Only the arguments of cultural critics and social theorists are.

What we have is an advance evolution of modernism. Our culture, which is technology-driven, is still modernist.

The laptops and the cellphones you have and use are not postmodern. They are the results of structuralism, formalism, functionalism, and systems theory that are all babies of modernism.

Haven't you asked why postmodernism is only huge in humanities? well, that's the only field where they can produce hell on earth.

[islandclimber]

The point isn't that laptops and cellphones and other such technology are postmodern... it's that these things and the "technology-driven" society that creates them, have exteriorized knowledge, made it a commodity, and have killed off the very idea of collective identity and ultimate purpose that gave modernism its "metanarratives" (metanarratives based upon quasi-mythological ultimate beliefs, and that generally just led to cultural hegemony, violence, and exclusion). Instead we're now controlled by our automatic responses to various "language games". Communicative and semantic acts are dominated by media and technology through an interchangeability of signs and this leads to a lack of identifiable context where subjects are detached and indifferent towards the outcome of events. The idea is that this endless bombardment of appearances and references lacking any direct consequence to the perceiver will eventually render the gap between appearance and object indiscernible, leading to only a virtual existence, where we live on that Borgesian map of the world instead of the world itself. A world of copies without originals perhaps.

As Foucault once wrote, "language is oppression"... and it certainly can be. Whether we live in a world that is the result of the tree of modernism with all its various branches, this evolution of modernism towards digital information and automatic calculations has led to the postmodern condition of the last 50 years. So culturally and socially, it is important to be aware of this and to consider the next step which it seems likely is a sort of "metamodernism" where the meta more so means "in between" and also "beyond" in that Platonic sense of "metaxy"... An oscillation between the tenets of Modernism and Postmodernism, that is not just a reconciliation of the former two, but a step beyond.

[miyako73]

Island, tell me a social artifact or a cultural material you have in your possession now, besides text-related objects such as books, that is postmodern.

Postmodernism is a descriptive intellectual practice not prescriptive. It does not fix social and cultural problems. How can it be part of our daily lives?

Yes Foucault said this, but does his idea really exist in reality? Is it tangible?

Postmodernism is understandably descriptive because its origin can be traced back to the study of language. What does language do? It only describes.


I only see the products of postmodernism in arts and literature because those luxuries are not really social needs. Let these postmodernists deconstruct rice, let's see if they won't be bombarded with complaints.


As my physics professor once said, "as long as those postmodernists are in humanities and not working in nuclear labs, the future of humanity is safe."


Postmodern condition is a myth. It only exists in departments under humanities. The foundation of objectification and oppression of women today is the same during the time of Jesus--patriarchy. The root cause of poverty today, which is inability to create wealth, is the same during the time of Marx.

[islandclimber]

I think I'm agreeing with you to a point. Yes these things are the end-product of modernist principles, but those same principles create this postmodern societal condition, where things have lost meaning, value, significance, context... at least in the West, where for the last 50 years no one cared about where their food came from, or how it was made, or who was exploited for it. Or how those modernist technological devices were created, and who they were produced by, and how much those people were abused in said production.

I think that postmodernism is, of course, an intellectual practice, but it brings to mind the problems of modernism, such as mass production of copies and replicas, and the commoditization of information... It's worth being aware of and understanding, and now we see that people (again this may just be a western thing where things got so detached and out-of-hand) are making the attempt to care about things like local production of food and community and sustainability, that had vanished in a sense for the past 50 years. We see that the real world, and not the world of simulation, is again garnering attention from its inhabitants. People are again worried about context and significance, and something other than irony and cynicism.

Your physics professor (perhaps intentionally), made a rather ironic statement. Or perhaps "post-ironic"...

[miyako73]

"Yes these things are the end-product of modernist principles, but those same principles create this postmodern societal condition, where things have lost meaning, value, significance"

Considering now that we have internet, facebook, and other technologies where production of meanings, establishment of relationships, and appropriation of human interactions happen every fraction of a minute, do you think that that period of modernism when human alienation and loss of meanings were the rules of the day was only a phase? Also consider that the evolution of a society or a culture happens in phases.


"I think that postmodernism is, of course, an intellectual practice, but it brings to mind the problems of modernism, such as mass production of copies and replicas, and the commoditization of information..."

Again, considering that we have abundance and surpluses now due to advance technologies, was the collective mass processing during the modernist period also a phase in modernism and a response to demand and consumption that were not actually caused by modernism? Consider also the wars that happened during the modernist period and the deprivation they caused. When mass needs have to be met, meanings are inconsequential.


In short, do you think postmodernism during its early period was a premature attempt to halt modernism? Do you also think postmodernism has successfully decentered and deconstructed the metanarratives of modernism and the modernist processes?

[MorpheusSandman]

Hopefully I can join in this conversation:

Considering now that we have internet, facebook, and other technologies where production of meanings, establishment of relationships, and appropriation of human interactions happen every fraction of a minute, do you think that that period of modernism when human alienation and loss of meanings were the rules of the day was only a phase?

I'm not quite sure what you think this has to do with M(odernism). That alienation and "loss of meaning" only happens when someone has, or is capable of having, a macro view of culture and society. Obviously, a great many do not and stay insulated within their sub-cultures where there ARE shared meanings, relationships, ideals, etc. For those that attempt to take in all societies and all cultures is does become next to impossible to establish any consistent, coherent set of meanings and ideal, and it was this search for one that united most all of the major M poets (Eliot, Pound, and Stevens in particular).

do you think postmodernism during its early period was a premature attempt to halt modernism? Do you also think postmodernism has successfully decentered and deconstructed the metanarratives of modernism and the modernist processes?

I don't think PM tried to "halt" M as much as critique its various assumptions, such as its attempt at keeping the hierarchical culture distinctions ("high" VS "low" art, eg) or its belief in coherent structures. I do think PM was successful in what it set out to do. It's hard to read something like Barthes' S/Z and not see how easy it is for M to slip into more PM ideas.

[miyako73]

"I'm not quite sure what you think this has to do with M(odernism). That alienation and "loss of meaning" only happens when someone has, or is capable of having, a macro view of culture and society. Obviously, a great many do not and stay insulated within their sub-cultures where there ARE shared meanings, relationships, ideals, etc. For those that attempt to take in all societies and all cultures is does become next to impossible to establish any consistent, coherent set of meanings and ideal, and it was this search for one that united most all of the major M poets (Eliot, Pound, and Stevens in particular)."

Read how alienation of humans, loss of meanings, mass production of socio-cultural artifacts, absence of interactions become part of the postmodern critique against Modernism. It has something to do with forms, structures, functions, systems that are all part of the Modernist metanarrative. You can dig examples in architecture, film, fashion, philosophy, and even in the treatment of text.

[islandclimber]

Jump right in Morpheus. The more the merrier.

I think Miyako is trying to suggest that basically all technological development, and scientific progress finds its roots in Modernism and its many branches (structuralism, formalism, systems theory, etc.). And this is perhaps true, although I might suggest that Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle alone casts some doubt as to whether any sort of scientific metanarrative can really be trusted. Yet, regardless of whether Modernism was around for the past 50 years, in the form of its offshoots, it still was not the dominant cultural movement in the Western World after about 1950-1960. Morpheus puts it perfectly when he suggest some do not find that alienation and "loss of meaning", because they stay insulated in their sub-cultures with shared meanings, ideologies, etc. Small localized narratives as Lyotard suggested. Modernism was all about the grand overarching metanarratives, but when one takes on the macro view of culture and society that falls apart. And in the face of that crumbling of values and significance, you have the reaction of postmodernism with its understandable cynicism towards the enlightenments and universals of modernism. We see a movement that indirectly caused two world wars and terrible social upheaval around the world. Where Modernist ideologies like Marxism led to violence, oppression and cultural hegemony. Where high art and low art could not be reconciled at all. Postmodernism was bound to arrive as a reaction.

And again, Morpheus makes an apt observation when saying Postmodernism was more of a "critique of the various assumptions" of modernism. It was successful in this critique in my opinion also, inasmuch as we see a movement into the future where the cynicism and irony of postmodernism can live alongside the sincerity and rationalism of modernism. We see it in the post-ironic and the metamodern. 'tis why I much prefer the term metamodern to post-postmodern. Because it is not just a step beyond the post-modern, but both a reconciliation of postmodern with modern, and therefor a step beyond each. Postmodern was a reactionary movement (albeit a necessary one in my opinion). Post-postmodernism would be another reactionary movement (in the context of what the term signifies), whereas metamodernism seems more a reconciliation in order to finally move forward with the salient points of each.

[miyako73]

How can a mere critique against modernism, which has established vast cultural materials, social texts, and historical artifacts, be successful in its intellectual goal of decentering and deconstructing the Modernist narratives and processes?

Remember the narratives of Modernism are mostly prescriptive and tangible. Formalist architects design buildings. Functionalist policy makers think of programs that will actually function. Technologists build infrastructures based on systems. Philosophers rely on structures to make sense of the world.

Has Postmodernism erased those? I don't think so.

I'll tell you how postmodernism has failed. Postmodern Critical Theory has attempted/has been attempting to invade science and technology, the strongest foundation of Modernism, with the establishment of Science, Technology, and Society (STS) or History of Science and Technology or Science and Technology Studies. As far as I can see, the project has failed miserably. One reason is that a critical theorist cannot really argue with a physicist about particle physics. So, if you enroll in those courses all you hear are complaints about science and technology that revolve around ethics and values. Again, the Postmodern project is descriptive and a mere critique. It seems to me the Postmodern program to invade science and technology has failed also because first, scientists and technologists, in general, do not take it seriously, second, the strength of Postmodernism is in language, which is not really the core of science and technology, third, science and technology exist because of metanarratives.

I mention science and technology because it is the field nobody can accuse of being tainted with postmodernism.

Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle has been studied thoroughly already. The disturbance caused by observation and measurement is negligible. Social scientists and statisticians encounter that discrepancy often that's why they use margin of error. I don't see any academic protests.

[islandclimber]

I don't think it has erased these things either. I don't think that was ever the idea of postmodernism. I think the idea is that modernist narratives aspired to universality and this eventually brought about a cultural status where deconstruction and decentering of this universality was desirable due to the alienation and fragmentation of humanity these universals had caused. This led to things like biopower and "language as oppression", and cultural hegemony, and oppression, as universals and metanarratives generally do. I think postmodernism succeeded in bringing attention to this and creating an understanding of the mechanisms behind it. For those buildings, those programs, those infrastructures were and have led to a world where context is often severely lacking, where appearance and object are appearance are almost interchangeable, where we fail to grasp that there can be no full understanding of self-referential things (which should be obvious, but we so often try to ignore that certain things are self-referential and can only be understood to a certain degree due to inherent bias in observation). Advanced technology has its benefits, even in the information realm, but it also creates a world that is easy to be alienated from, and this advance led to the perfect conditions for a reaction against modernism.

Deconstructing and decentering aren't the same thing as destruction though, nor was the idea to erase and do away with modernism and its tenets. It was more-so to understand the problems with it, and to deconstruct the binary oppositions that modernism insists upon and to reinterpret them without making such a black and white value judgment. For the fundamental precept of modernism is that "this is good, and that is bad" and that we can know this objectively. I think postmodernist thought succeeded to some extent in proving its point that objectivity and metanarratives and self-referential things are almost quasi-mythological.

Postmodernism was never going to be really all that relevant in the science and technology field. I don't think it ever was really meant to be. I mean, there have been movements in that direction, within it, but they've been generally half-hearted. It's a cultural critique of the social, cultural, and ideological concepts of modernism. I suppose this links into science and technology in the sense that postmodernism wants us to be aware that technology, science, and especially information technology can lead to destabilization of meaning, and that blurring of the line between object and appearance. I think it has been successful in showing this. When we lose that distinction between the copy and the real, so that a copy is no longer a copy but a truth in its own right, a simulacrum, that's slightly disturbing. We were slowly starting to displace the real with an invented fiction. Postmodernism was the backlash, perhaps metamodernism is the reconciliation where we can move forward with an evolved modernism.

In saying that, I agree with you, that perhaps postmodernism was just a blip in the evolution of modernism. I still think we learned something from it. Or I sure hope we did.

[miyako73]

As far as I can remember, the myopic view of postmodern critique is focused on basically the destruction of metanarratives and metatruths. To do that Postmodernism relies on deconstruction, decentering, decontextualization, defamiliarization, and anything that can overhaul those metanarratives and metatruths.

I think it has been the goal of Postmodernism to erase the intellectual influences of Modernism. It has succeeded in arts and literature. Formalist writers are now rare. Artists don't care about art movements anymore. I believe it is the case because arts and literature are the haven for interpretation, which cannot be separated from language, the foundation of Postmodernism.

Don't get me wrong; I want Postmodernism to still exist but as a reaction to the excesses of Modernism. Yes, only its excesses not its foundations. Postmodernism should not overestimate itself; it should not compete with Modernism. Modernism has a long established history. It is a tree of many schools of thoughts. In art alone, there are a lot to mention. Cubism for instance has many variations as a visual style.

Some stuff in postmodernism already existed even in 1900's. Duchamp transgressed a metanarrative concerning art appreciation and definition with that urinal. I like postmodernism to be an intellectual transgression. Postmodern transgressions or critical narratives can actually help Modernism adapt, develop, and become stable.