Discussion on - Postmodernism
A dialogue between me and my friends. Me and tanya are not post-modernists, we are no "ists"- we cannot stand generalisations like that.. We happen to defend it and hope that misconceptions about political theories decrease.
Modernism from the post-enlightment period has glorified rationality, scientific advancements, logic, facts, objective truths etc. Post-modernism challenges the credulity of modernism, and that's why my friend Amartya thinks that it's some primitive-loving low life theory.
Here are the extracts of our discussion : (Don't be Grammar police, I've copy pasted the conversation over from facebook) -
Sameera Shahid Rao -
Amartya Sharan-
Haha it's epic.
Abhinaswar Das-
Off topic: Did any of you guys apply for the Mock Parliament at Hindu next January?
Amartya Sharan-
I will, soon. Or has the date passed?
Abinaswar Das-
Don't know mate. They're being a little weird.
Amartya Sharan-
It hasn't, thankfully.
Abinaswar Das-
Dude, they're taking registration fees from Additional Directors, saying they'll be competing amongst themselves. DAFUQ?
Amartya Sharan-
Haha, htf does that even make sense? : p I don't know too much about the event man, I'll talk to some Symposium guy before I apply ..
Tanya Kak-
(Referring to the links)
imteresting. but the part about post modernity and deconstructuction as one of the most important methods they deploy, makes sense to a great extent. post modernism refuting the objective "Truth " behind subjective experiments, advocating how reality is elusive and hence transient and the linearity of things and finally using deconstruction as a means to unearth the socially constructed norms started making sense to me after today. so actually i might have a lot to say about the "sokal hoax "
Amartya Sharan-
I challenge you to disprove that gravity is real by surviving a jump off my roof. : p
Abinaswar Das-
^Abetment of suicide, my friend.
Tanya Kak-
amartyaa, you understand what really happens in deconstruction, it's actually about tracing the genealogy of concepts and then agreeing or disagreeing on the same.so taking this article and the laws of quantum physics into consideration, we'd actually have no objective truth because what you know is true only in the space or area you live in. hence different standpoints of the same so called "reality " and a very good example would be the debate around heliocentricity . which can be debated on the same lines as the question you asked
Amartya Sharan-
Okay, Read this.
Tanya Kak-
reading. also this is not to say i'm a post-modernist (firstly even post modernists would hate to be generalised like that ) but some of their methods, do make sense.
Sameera Shahid Rao-
Amartya. Fragments. Micro-narratives are so much more real in todays political context esp keeping in mind the failures of 'modernity' and 'enlightment'. Another valid point of post-modernism is its relativity as opposed to absolute truth claims like "the church knows what is right/wrong. Liberal democracy is best for countries" and so on.
Also the link says how there was no peer review of the hoax.
Deconstruction. Amartya jumping off a roof vaala bit... See. Postmodernism need not disprove anything. It shows alternatives to what we think exists. For example, suppose you were the son of jew-hating parents in nazi germany while the gestapo was winding n loading them in trucks, and killing them which was totally legit with the gov then. So would u fight against it? Would there be only one truth you'd see back in 1930s germany? Postmodernism hopefully tries (as i understand it) to explain the relativity of truth claims, morality, faith etc.
Amartya sharan-
What you're describing is not Postmodernism at all. That is simple disagreement. The characteristic idea of postmodern thought is that there is no 'real' right or wrong, no 'real' best form of government, no 'real' killing of Jews or anything of the sort. That's what I have a problem with. The basic foundations of a useful argument, facts and logic, don't matter within the postmodern discourse, because everything, including the real world, is just a freeplay of signifiers.
Also, I'm not saying that I disagree with everything dubbed as a 'post-modern' idea. I agree that all knowledge exists within language, and that language contains many essentializing social constructs, like sane/insane, or man/woman, which often reflect the power structure of the society we live in. But that doesn't mean that there is no objective truth at all. Because that would mean that there is no truth in the statement 'There is no objective truth', making it a fallacy of the type 'this statement is false'.
Sameera Shahid Rao-
Absolutely no.
I thought u believed in friedrich nietzsche . Hes said to be the 1st post modern thinker. ( see "antichrist" "will to power").
Youve fallen in a trap. There is no definition of postmodernism per se. And disagreement. I disagree with that. Its not about disagreement at all. And they dont refute reality. They refute the white mans notion of a scientifically advanced modern world.
Nietsche was the first post-modernist because he refused to agree with the so called objective claims of modernism, society n church.
Facts and logic dont matter? No. I think the overimportance that modernists place on stats, fact etc. Is what doesnt matter.... If modernism in the 19th ce n 20th ce cherished on these scientific advancements, the atomic bombs - everthing that cud be "controlled" and cud produce "desired effects" tht is what postmodernists refute... i may not be able to explain it as well as my pol theory teacher. But foucault is the best example. He started out by labelling, defining, characterising things- only to change n understand that reality could mean many things at different points in time. For example the debate with heteronormativity.
Tanya Kak-
i think amartya your blanket assumption is the fact that when they say thereis no 'real truth', they're simply undertaking the task of dismissing things around. however that's not true. they actually.say there is just not that one truth you talk about but many. and Derrida himself talked about the 'difference' if you remember. and therefore that's what they mean by real. because that 'real' is subject to constant changes.
Amartya sharan-
First of all, I don't 'believe in' any thing, ism, or one. Second, the white man's notion of scientifically advanced modern world, is one that believes in the existence of objective truth that can be discovered through science, reason, observation and logic, so to herald a 'post-modern' era is to undermine all of those things, which post-modernists often do. Third, the fact that post-modernists believe that arguments can proceed from things 'other' than logic and facts, and that those 'other' things are more important than logic and facts, is exactly what I have a problem with. The notion that we would be better off in a world without science and technological advancements IS my problem.
Sameera Shahid Rao-
"Second, the white man's notion of scientifically advanced modern world, is one that believes in the existence of objective truth that can be discovered through science, reason, observation and logic, so to herald a 'post-modern' era is to undermine all of those things, which post-modernists often do."
^ That my friend is the biggest assumption - that post modernism would 'undermine' logic/scientific advancements. See the movie Ive posted on your wall.
"The notion that we would be better off in a world without science and technological advancements IS my problem." How can you say that? How? How? How? theyre not saying give up your atm machine, internet connection for a a little hut in a jungle. NO. THATS advocating a primitive way of living. Thats not what postmodernism is about.
Tanya Kak-
^seconded. COMPLETELY. also, as pointed out earlier, facts and logic is definiteely not their problem. what they try to look for ,in my opinion is, how ephemeral those reasons and facts are. constantly changing. and uf still you wanna say they're against something, then it is the centrality and the linearity of things.
Uday Vir Anand-
Balls, ladies and gentlemen. Thats what it's all about, balls.
Amartya Sharan-
Alright, let us go back to where this started off. What is the Sokal affair about? The fact that postmodern thought also addresses the modern sciences, and argues that science cannot capture the 'real' and that we cannot reach objective truth through the sciences. They believe that primitive cosmologies are just as accurate. Postmodernism also rejects the notion that the modern world we live in is an 'improvement' on other forms of social organisation. It follows that for them, a primitive society is just as efficient at delivering social goods. And I don't agree with that.
So well, Tanya, are the facts posited by Physics and Mathematics 'ephemeral'? Will 1 and 1 someday make 6?
Suvij Sudershan-
They already do.
"Inner peace"
- Po ( Kung Fu Panda)
Amartya Sharan- That's a movie .. but my postmodern friends will reply - "Reality is a kind of film".
Sameera Sahid Rao-
"They believe that primitive cosmologies are just as accurate." Not true. Postmodernism does not believe in the accuracy of primitive cosmologies. but for the sake of discussion , tell me, Primitive cosmologies like? Post modernism literature like The God of Small Things, or Rushdie's Midnight's Children or Marquez's 100 years of solitude- what primitive notions do these profess according to you? None that I would call primitive. Unless I am stupid enough to think that imagination, micro-stories, questioning reality is inferior to facts, logic and hardcore truths. "Postmodernism also rejects the notion that the modern world we live in is an 'improvement' on other forms of social organisation." - So moving along your line of argument, lets assume the notion that the modern world is indeed an improvement on other forms of social organisation- holds true. Now if no "ism" rejects it aren't you claiming it's an absolute truth? why should I consider that notion as an absolute truth? and not reject it? Please Explain. And if that movie (Kung fu Panda) or any other form of art- say poetry- is trying to depict reality as what "a" particular individual sees it, what is wrong with that? [although nobody, postmodernist or not, in their right mind would say reality is a kind of a film. they would say reality is what is perceived at that time and space by that particular individual and how he/she expresses it with art, movie, poetry etc.]
Amartya Sharan-
Modern science views things as discrete objects. For example, a forest consists of trees and other flora, animals, birds and other fauna. But for a tribal inhabiting that forest, it may for example consist of holy spirits of ancestors, he may see in it the sleeping ghosts of dead people which are not to be disturbed and so on. So for a post-modernist, these are just the 'many different truths' about the forest, and there is no absolute truth about it. And concerning improvement, well, you would here concede, that there e x i s t s an improvement of our current form of social organisation. What it consists of is what signifies. You are welcome to reject that, and that would in no way undermine modernism - after all, modernism too was a critique of traditional forms of social organisation. And in order to prove that such a form of social organization exists, you would have to rely on either logical deduction or empirical fact. In no way does that undermine modernism. A post-modernist, however, would deny that such an objectively 'improved' form of social organisation even exists. Finally, well, Derrida did claim that 'Il n'y a pas hors-texte', i.e that there is nothing outside the text, and that all of the 'oppositions' that this world-text contained are capable of deconstruction, including that between reality and fiction. Do read John Searle's monograph on him, which I have posted above.
I'm gutted that you folks are into this debate, btw : ) There's another excellent though slightly advanced piece that I suggest you read
Finally, I draw from this conversation the following pointers-
A. Nobody can explain post-modernism.
B. It is the stage after modernism.
C. It is about- micro-narratives, fragments and deconstruction. The micro in society determines the macro.
D. What do we conclude? Nobody can change another person's opinions because they are just that. Opinions. Solution? How about we not give a F.
No comments:
Post a Comment