UNIT 2 POSTMODERNISM

CONTENTS

2.0. Objectives
2.1. Introduction
2.2. The Characteristics of the Pre-Modern Age
2.3. The Characteristics of the Modern Age
2.4. The Characteristics of the Post-Modern Age
2.5. The Challenge of the Postmodern
2.6. Contributions of Postmodernism
2.7. Limitations of Postmodernism
2.8. Let Us Sum Up
2.9. Key Words
2.10. Further Readings and References
2.11. Answers to Check Your Progress

2.0. OBJECTIVES

Postmoderns would look at history in three periods, namely, the pre-modern, the modern and the
post-modern.

• In this Unit, you are expected to look at these three periods of history, as seen by
postmodern thinkers. Since postmodernism is largely a Western cultural phenomenon, the
history referred to is the intellectual history of the West. Postmodern thinkers want to
differentiate themselves from the pre-modern and the modern ways of looking at life and
ideas.

2.1. INTRODUCTION

1
 Postmodernism is a much-used and even overused term today in a variety of disciplines.
It is hard to define, since it is not really a doctrine, but rather a particular type of sensitivity, a
way of looking at things that has influenced styles in literature, in art, in architecture, in religious
writings and even in moral and social practices and preferences.
To clarify this rather confusing state of affairs, it may be helpful to know that
postmodernism is used in contemporary writings in at least four different meanings:
(a) the state of affairs in a society, that is, how a particular society actually is or
works;
(b) a style in art, as when we speak of a postmodern building or painting;
(c) a term loosely used to indicate any aspect of today’s society that is different from
how societies were in the modern period;
(d) the ideas and theories that try to understand or explain this “new” state of society
and its way of organizing things.

Some people use the term postmodernity to indicate the state of society today, and the
word postmodernism to mean the thinking or the philosophy typical of today. Others use the
term postmodernsim to mean both. Now we shall begin with the characteristics of the pre-
modern age.

2.2. THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PRE-MODERN AGE

By “pre-modern” is meant the world before the arrival of modern science.

Religious dogma was the ultimate reference point in settling issues. Religious leaders
held the most powerful posts in public life. Most people went to religious places of worship, not
because of conviction or inner experience, but because society expected them to attend public
worship and abide by the religious practices of the group, which could punish the person who did
not observe the prescribed religious practices. The penalties could include social ostracism
(being thrown out of the village or society) or fines, physical punishments or even death.
Religious texts were held to have all the answers, whether on matters referring to one’s
spiritual life, or on other “secular” matters, such as social relationships (e.g., the way women

2
were treated in society, or what authority the king had, or how the so-called higher and lower
groups in society related to each other), or health and sickness, or the nature of the material
world, or even travel. Matters that we today consider purely natural or scientific, were taken to
be part of religious revelation. People believed that the nature of the sun, moon and stars or the
shape of the earth were matters of religious dogma.

This can, and still does, happen in parts of the world where education has not spread.
Many people today still live in cultures and settings that are pre-modern. In such settings,
ignorance and superstition still rule. Matters are settled according to village tradition and the
opinion of magicians or wizards. Fear of evil spirits and of curses keeps people frightened and
easy to manipulate.
There were certainly many good aspects to this pre-modern or unscientific world. There
was a great sense of belonging to a community or village. People helped each other in case of
need. People knew their neighbours, visited each other frequently, or met often at places of
worship or in the market place. Most people knew almost nothing of what happened outside their
village or region (in this sense, their village was their world); mutual need and the absence of
other resources made people depend on each other in sickness, natural disasters and special
events, marriage, funeral or village festivals.
Much of this changed, for a significant part of the world, with the arrival of modern
science. Science ushered in a world that was significantly different, in a number of ways. This is
the world we refer to as the modern world.

2.3. THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE MODERN AGE

The modern period is roughly the period lasting from the sixteenth century A.D. up to the
middle of the twentieth century—the last four hundred years or so. This period is marked by a
strong confidence in reason, particularly scientific reason. Knowledge obtained through
“scientific” methods were considered more reliable and higher than other forms of knowledge.
According to postmodern thinkers, the modern period is marked by these characteristics:
rationality, dualism, the search for absolute knowledge, belief in progress, pride of place given to
science, a centre-periphery division of cultures and nations. Here is a short explanation of each
of these traits:

3
Rationality: A good model of the centrality of reason would be the philosophy of
Descartes. For him and other rationalists, the surest and the most evident certainties came
through reason. Reason is the highest arbiter of truths. There is nothing we cannot
explore through reason. Reason was seen as more reliable and less biased than ordinary
experience or religious dogma. Descartes, Kant, Leibnitz, Fichte, Schelling and Hegel
would be typical representatives of this modern way of thinking.

Dualism: Reality was seen as divided into the world of reason or spirit, and the world of
matter. Of the two, the rational was seen as superior to the realm of matter. Human
beings, too, were seen as made of up the dual elements of matter and spirit, which were
very different from one another. One of the philosophical problems that would grip many
thinkers discuss is the mind-body problem. How can my thinking or decision, for
instance, move my hand?

The possibility of, and the search for, absolute knowledge: Descartes and Kant in
particular tried to establish unshakable foundations for their philosophy. Their belief or
claim was that absolute knowledge was possible. What was needed was to develop a right
methodology to discover it. When discovered, such truth would be absolutely valid and
unassailable; it would be true for everyone, everywhere, irrespective of the conditions or
times.

Belief in Progress: Belief in reason led moderns to believe in unlimited progress.

Sigmund Freud, for instance, would speak of reason as “our real God.” He held that all
problems could be solved by reason. If we do not have a solution today, human reason
will discover the solution tomorrow. Moderns saw history as progression. The diseases
which we cannot heal today will be treated by medicines which we will invent tomorrow.
In social and political areas, too, moderns were optimists. A hundred years ago, that is, at
the beginning of the twentieth century, a number of intellectuals and political leaders
believed that there would be no more wars, since countries could now communicate with

4
each other easily, and settle disputes rationally. Moderns, in this sense, were optimists
about the future. Things were expected to get better and better.

Science as supreme: Modern thinkers generally accepted scientific knowledge and

technology as the paradigm of knowledge or as the most perfect type of knowledge. The
main tool for unlimited progress was science. Science, many moderns believed, will
solve most of our problems and make our individual and social lives safer, more
comfortable and better in every way. Compared to pre-modern times, the modern world
seemed to have been so much better off, in every way. To be modern meant to believe in
science and recognize its superiority. All other ways of knowing were considered
somehow inferior to scientific learning. This belief in science and technology was at
times taken to absurd lengths. In one well-known tragic instance, when the Titanic was
built, it was considered unsinkable; the ship did not, therefore, carry enough lift boats.

Centre and periphery: Most of this progress and scientific advancement took place in one
particular part of the world, namely, the area we refer to as the “West,” that is, Western
Europe and North America, together with other nations where Europeans settled in large
numbers, like, Australia and New Zealand. The average Westerner was proud of being
white and richer than the rest of the world. Western culture considered itself as not only
richer than other parts of the world, but as racially and culturally superior. They saw
themselves as the “centre” and the rest of the world as “periphery.” In the colonized
countries, such as India, they managed to influence a good number of the local people,
too, to see Western culture as inherently superior and their own cultures as inferior. This
cultural arrogance was used to justify colonization. Instead of seeing it as the economic
and cultural exploitation of the rest of the world in extremely unjust ways, it was
presented as a civilizing process. Many non-European nations were conquered and
exploited by European nations, which became extremely wealthy in the process, while
reducing old civilizations like India to extreme penury.
Thus, the centre-periphery contrast was not just a philosophical notion; it had deep
economic and political repercussions.

5
 Some call this the Enlightenment Project, linking these traits to the European
Enlightenment Period, when reason was accepted as the supreme norm in society. People
believed that the best way to discover the truth and to organize society was reason (and not, for
instance, religious doctrine). Thus, the modern European nations are not organized around a
religious dogma or sacred texts, but around reason. The French Revolution and the French
Constitution (which, in its turn, influenced the American Constitution, as well as the Indian
Constitution) are examples of this way of thinking. People believed that human reason is the best
tool for solving human problems. They took a clear stand that was different from, and often in
opposition to, pre-modern ways of thinking, which they considered outdated and obscurantist.

2.4 The Characteristics of the Post-Modern Age

The confident, progress-oriented, supposedly rational and scientific way of thinking that
marked modernity came under serious shocks in the twentieth century. Far from being a time of
peace and harmony, it was marked by the two most destructive wars of history. The blind faith in
science was in for a rude shock for a number of reasons. (The Titanic sank!). Besides the two
world wars, the human race witnessed atrocious cruelties, such as the genocide of millions of
Jews, the exploitation and ill-treatment of human beings on the basis of race, caste and gender.
The same human brain that invented medicines invented also the atom bomb. The intellect that
composed music and literature was also used to build gas chambers where innocent men, women
and children perished. The so-called superior cultures and nations treated others with contempt
and created systems of exploitation. In cities, side by side with high rise buildings, slums and
crime increased. There were now not only more efficient ways of healing the sick, but also more
ruthless forms of torture and murder. Atomic energy created more possibilities for providing
electricity; it also led to nightmares like Chernobyl in the USSR, where a dysfunctional nuclear
reactor led to the death and disfigurement of many people. The invention of plastic gave us many
new useful products; it also created a never-ending problem of waste disposal. Chemicals can
kill insects; they also damage our lungs and brain. They can increase the yield of a farm; they
also cause cancer on a large scale.
This deep disappointment with modernity’s promises and the awareness of the double-
edged nature of science and history, led many thinkers to question the certainties on which the

6
modern period was built. This sense of un-ease with the unquestioned certainties of modernity is
one of the marks of postmodernism, which, as we said, is not a fixed doctrine or a set of
doctrine, nor an organization or dogma. Postmodern thinkers would take a conscious distance
from the modern mental make-up in a number of ways. Rather than accept the ways of the
modern period as universal norms valid for all times and places, more and more people started
taking unbeaten or formerly unaccepted paths. This they did in art, in architecture, in philosophy,
in social science, in politics, in mass media. Let us have a look at some of the traits that mark this
new sensitivity. It is impossible to even summarize the main trends of this vast array of
movements, but the following characteristics would be somewhat typical of doctrines, ideas and
mentalities that call themselves post-modern. We will first look at the new situations and
changes in awareness that led to this new type of thinking. Next, we will see how these new
(post-modern) ways of thinking challenge earlier patterns of thought. After that, we will have a
brief look at postmodernism’s main contributions and limitations.
These are the world-changing events and thought patterns that challenged the confident,
optimistic, Euro-centric vision of the world that marked modernity.
End of the colonial period: During the colonial period, it was easy for the European
colonizing power to present itself as the norm for culture and morals, and present other
cultures and civilizations inferior. Thus, European writings—from so-called scientific
writings to children’s stories and comic books—in general presented Asians as inferior
and Africans as savage. British writer Macaulay, for instance, claimed that one shelf of
Western books was superior to the whole literary output of other cultures. Western
writings presented the European as more cultured, better, more benevolent, bearer of a
superior culture. The end of the colonial period showed the world the cruelty and
inhumanity that had sustained colonial rule. Colonization, far from being a benevolent
arrangement benefiting the conquered peoples, was plunder on an incredibly large scale.
The claim of the West to be a superior, caring ruler was exposed as largely false.
Awareness of pluralism: Travel, studies and exposure to different countries and cultures
made many people more aware of cultural pluralism. Every human being starts life as a
frog in a small well, but there are better chances today or seeing other frogs and other
wells, and of seeing one’s own way of speaking, living and judging as one among many
ways of being human.

7
Historical and cultural conditioning of truth: This awareness of cultural pluralism also
raised serious questions about the claims of particular ways of thinking to be universally
valid. How do you judge, say, an Indian or Chinese or African marriage and family life
with the criteria evolved in Europe? How far are our values and ethics universally valid?
How far are they culturally conditioned?

Reality as evolving: The new discoveries in the sciences made us aware that the universe
itself is a constantly changing reality, far more mysterious and incredibly more vast than
we had imagined. The world changes; nature changes; our knowledge of nature changes.
Subatomic particles change even as we study them.

The new world order: In the place of a world dominated by a few European nations, as
was the case during most of the modern period (think of the massive migrations of
Europeans to Australia or the Americas, with no thought given to the rights of the
original inhabitants), we have a new world order, with rising powers. To give just two
well-known examples, China has emerged as the world’s largest manufacturing nation,
and India is expected to become the world’s third or fourth largest economy very soon.
This is a far cry from colonial days.

International capitalism and a globalized economy: Multinational companies dominate

the world economy today. A number of them have more power and money than most
nations have. Globalization, for better or worse, is a powerful movement, enriching some
nations and individuals beyond what could be thought of during the modern period, and
impoverishing those who cannot compete in the world market.

New meaning and sources of knowledge: The printed word or even radio or television is
not the most powerful source of knowledge today. It is the Internet. Knowledge is not
only given and received in very different ways today; knowledge is the greatest source of
wealth today. Today’s IT firms based in Bangalore, for instance, are dealing in a product

8
 that was unknown in the modern period. This is where the strongest part of the economy
is.
Under the influence of these changes that marked the twentieth century, thinkers and
artists started looking at theory and life differently, a kind of difference that came to be
known as postmodernism. Here are the challenges raised by this new form of thinking.

Check Your Progress I

Note: a) Use the space provided for your answer

b) Check your answers with those provided at the end of the unit

1) What do you understand by ‘rationality’?

…………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………..
2) Write a short note on a “New World Order.”
………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………………….

2.5. THE CHALLENGE OF THE POSTMODERN

Although postmodernism has no founder nor a fixed set of doctrines, most postmodernist
thinkers and artists would raise (or have sympathy for) for the following types of criticisms
of modern thought.

9
Critique of metanarratives: Jean-Francois Lyotard, the name most associated with
postmodernism, would define postmodernism thus: “I define postmodern as incredulity
toward metanarratives.” What did he mean? Lyotard sees any branch of knowledge as just
one type of knowledge. In fact, he said, “Scientific knowledge is a kind of discourse.” He
does not see science as inherently superior to others. To present one’s position or doctrine as
superior or as valid for everyone, everywhere, one needs what Lyotard calls
“metanarratives.” By meta-narratives he meant general theories or unexamined world views
that would justify a particular position. Thus, if I want to promote science as the best type of
knowledge, I would need a meta-narrative that tells me that scientific truths are superior to
common sense or that all scientific work is done for the benefit of human beings. Or, when
Karl Marx wrote about the exploitation of workers and children in nineteenth century mines
and factories, he was narrating a fact. When he proposed Marxism as a solution for economic
exploitation everywhere, he is claiming to have a universally valid theory, a diagnosis and
prescription that should work in all settings. This would be, for post-moderns, a meta-
narrative, and hence suspect. In general, postmodern sensitivity would lie in suspecting any
doctrine or view that places itself above criticism and makes absolute claims, and in listening
rather to the little stories that lie behind the big theory. This brings us to another important
movement associated with postmodernsim, namely, deconstruction.

Deconstruction: This term, as well as the intellectual movement it represents, is associated

with the French thinker Jacques Derrida. Derrida’s ideas are proverbially hard to understand
or summarize. In a few words, deconstruction would refer to a critical study of a subject,
examining the language used and the assumptions involved in the writing. To deconstruct a
text means to take it apart into its constitutive elements, and see how the text itself in a way
undermines the doctrines it holds. We have to use words, since we have no other way of
communicating ideas; at the same time, the words we use are inadequate to express what we
want to. In this sense, words are both right and wrong. They need to be used, and at the same
time, unused (he said much about the need to “erase” what we write.)

10
End of the autonomous subject, of history and of absolute truth: This is another well-known
“slogan” associated with postmodernism. The meaning is this: By “end of history,”
postmoderns mean three things: They question the assumption that human beings are
progressing to an ever better state of being or society. A later stage of history can be worse
than the previous one. Secondly, they look at historiography (the writing of history)
critically. What we have is not raw history, but historiography done by particular nations or
persons or cultures. We do not have any one objective of knowing or writing history. Thus,
the history of the British Period in India would look different when written by an English
historian—especially one who believed in the superiority of British culture or in the right of
conquest—or by an Indian who saw colonization as immoral. Thirdly, postmoderns do not
believe that history has a direction or unity. They think rather that the events that make up
history are of too many different kinds to fit into any one coherent whole.

When they mention the end of the isolated subject, what they mean is this. In
Descartes, for instance, we have a philosopher claiming to identify the nature of the
thinking subject. Descartes’ claim would be that his conclusions would be valid for all
human beings, everywhere. The same is true of other philosophers, like Kant. In these
(and other thinkers), we see an attempt to make statements about any human being,
anywhere. The abstract conclusions a particular philosopher comes to, are held to be
valid for all human beings everywhere. This view is largely discarded by postmodern
thinkers.

Why speak of the end of absolute truth?

This, too, is because postmodernists are in general more sensitive to the particular
situations and conditions under which a so-called truth is developed. They are more
reluctant than people in the modern period to think that anyone can propose universally
valid abstract truths which cannot be challenged or changed, and which do not depend on
the circumstances under which they discovered or proposed.

Language games: “Language games” is an idea mentioned earlier by distinguished

philosophers like Wittgenstein. The point made here is this: Each branch of knowledge has

11
its own rules. We cannot see experimental science as the highest form of knowledge, nor
judge other areas of learning by the criteria of science. Thus, music or religious writing or
architecture play by different rules when compared to physics or astronomy. This idea frees
each discipline to follow its own language and rules. Science is no longer seen as the highest
discipline, nor as the arbiter of truth. Thus, how we judge art or the truth of a mystical
statement will be different from how we judge the validity or the veracity of scientific
statements.

Periphery and centre: The centre and the periphery of the modern and colonial era have
largely lost their meaning. What was once periphery can become the centre (e.g., the United
States when compared to U.K.), or the world can be seen having many centres of power and
influence rather than as having one economic or political or cultural centre. This change in
the “pecking order” and the consequent change in international relations and the perception
of cultures and peoples will be welcomed as empowering by formerly oppressed and
excluded groups, or as threatening and destabilizing by groups that benefited from the earlier
hierarchies (whether they be hierarchies of race or nation or caste or whatever).

Pluralism of cultures: No one culture can propose itself as the norm or as inherently superior.
Recently, the Australian government apologized for the appalling injustices committed
against the original inhabitants of that continent. Such a stand would have been unthinkable
earlier. In the modern period, white settlers saw it as their right to take over a continent,
exploit the Aboriginals (whom they despised as inferior). Today, there is much greater
awareness of the richness of different cultures, together with the acceptance of the human
rights of all.

Historical nature of many truths: Unlike the quest of Descartes or Kant or Hegel to build a
system of universally valid truths, postmoderns are sensitive to the historical conditioning of
many truths. So, the question to ask about a doctrine would not simply be: “What is the
truth?” We would also need to ask: “In what setting was it said? Why was it said? Would it
be valid for me/us/our setting?”

12
2.6. CONTRIBUTIONS OF POSTMODERNISM

As we have repeatedly stated, postmodernism is not a system or coherent set of doctrines.

Hence, it cannot be presented, or defended or rejected as such. We need to see it as a new set
of movements that arose independently in different fields, and influenced each other. These
new ways of thinking can be credited with the following merits or contributions to the world
of thought and culture.

Listening to the forgotten little narratives: The postmodernist suspicion of meta-narratives

(accepting an unexamined grand theory that supports many particular doctrines and
practices) can help us to listen to the many forgotten stories of ordinary people, smaller
nations, less powerful cultures. For instance, colonization supported itself with the
metanarrative of European cultural superiority and the claim of bringing civilization to the
colonized peoples. In the process, the voices of the conquered peoples were not listened to.
The so-called discovery of America in 1492 would mean different things to the conquering
European settlers and to the Native Americans who lost all their land. The same can be said
about the “progress” made by India by building huge dams; we do not normally hear the
voices of the millions of people who lost their homes and land in the process.

The uniqueness and independence of different fields: Postmodernism frees each discipline to
be itself, rather than compare itself to experimental science and be treated as inferior. Thus
Kalidasa’s writings or the Ajanta-Ellora paintings or the Bhagavad Gita or the Bible cannot
be judged by the canons of science. Each field is unique and independent. (And has the right
to exist, provided it does not violate the rights of other human beings.)

From a centre-periphery world to a pluri-centric world: No culture (e.g., European) or race

(e.g., white) or caste (e.g., Brahmin) has the right to propose itself as superior or as the norm
to judge others. Who is to decide who is superior, and on whose criteria? Why should we
have this superior-inferior hierarchy at all? Can’t human beings live and treat each other as

13
human beings, different in some ways (in race or gender, in looks or language or customs),
but equal in dignity and worth?

Critique of doctrines with culturally insensitive claims: Postmodernism invites us to look the
background of doctrines that claim to be universally valid.

Influence of the non-rational: Reason, the queen in modernity, is seen as just one of the paths
for reaching the truth. Postmodernism gives an important place to the role of the non-rational.
This is partly because of the frightening truth that very brilliant people did some horrible
things to others during the wars or during inter-racial or inter-religious fights. Reason alone
does not seem to be a reliable guide and teacher in human affairs. We need to listen to other
areas, such as, our emotions, our aesthetic sense, our traditions, our dreams.
Analysis of language: Language is used and abused. We need to examine it critically. Words
express ideas; words also betray the ideas they claim to represent. A language is not merely a
tool of communication; it is also the bearer of a culture, and defender of particular values.
Words can never express human experiences exactly or exhaustively.

Creativity in the arts, architecture and other fields: Refusing to follow the canons of
modernity blindly, postmodern thinkers, artists, architects and writers have walked on
untrodden paths, exploring new themes and new styles in new ways.

2.7. LIMITATIONS OF POSTMODERNISM

Postmodernism has both strong admirers and adamant critics. Here are some of
postmodernism’s weaknesses

Theoretical critique of theory: This is an age-old issue in philosophy. To criticize a

theoretical position, you are using other theoretical assumptions. Thus, for instance, to
state that we should reject all meta-narratives is itself a meta-narrative. Human beings
cannot speak or survive without some grand theories, whether religious or social or

14
economical. Even to state that there are other avenues to the truth besides reason, is itself
a rational, theoretical statement. We cannot escape the use of reason.

Claiming more than it can prove: Postmodernism’s claim that we live in a very different
kind of age cannot be proved. Some would see postmodernism itself as a continuation of
modernity (as another type of rational critique) rather than as something different from
modernity. There are differences among periods of history and among cultures. This does
not prove that what human beings have in common from one century to another or from
one setting to another is less than the differences. A person living in the third or tenth or
eighteenth century has more in common with us than there are differences between that
world and ours.

Neglect of the essential and permanent: Why people read old religious books, or respond
to a novel or movie from another culture, is because there is something essential and
permanent we all share. Each of us is not so unique as to be completely different from
others. This essential and permanent element is largely ignored or denied by postmodern
thinkers.

Overlooking the contributions of modernity: While there were many flaws in modernity,
it had its undeniable achievements. Psychiatric treatment of mental patients, for instance,
is certainly an improvement over seeing the mentally sick as possessed by demons and
subjecting them to cruel punishments. So, too, our modern means of travel, our mobile
phones and computers, the spread of books, the many medical treatments available, are
some of the advances the human race made using the gift of reason. Even the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights is a great achievement. Whatever one’s religious faith (or
lack of it), people have certain inalienable rights as human beings. The common basis is
our human nature, as seen by our reason. Modernity was a greatly beneficial and freeing
change for most people living in pre-modern settings. Would any of us like to go back to
the pre-modern era?

15
 Neglecting Social reforms: Whether it is the abolition of sati in India or of slavery in the
West, while one’s religious faith was often the motivating force, the real arguments
against injustice were based on an appeal to reason. Think of the fight against
untouchability or the political action against the enslavement of Africans or for the better
treatment of women, or the respect afforded to persons of different religions in a multi-
religious society. A modern, rational outlook was a key element in bringing about such
changes. Without a common rational forum for exchange, what would a society’s
decisions be based on? We cannot leave everything to the preferences of individuals or
small groups.

Moral relativism: A number of people who study postmodernism accuse it of having no

strong ethical principles, of making everything a matter of private opinion. We should not
forget that the position, “Everything is relative,” is itself a self-contradictory statement.
No one can logically hold it without contradicting oneself. To say that we need to respect
cultures and that all our learning is conditioned by history and setting, is one thing. To
jump from that to the conclusion that everything is relative, and that there are no
universally valid truths, is an illogical step. Postmodernism seems to make this mistake.

Unnecessarily complex and obscure language: While studying the use of language and
pointing out its limitations, several postmodern writers are notorious for excessive use of
complex jargon, and writing in a way that is hard for even an educated person to follow,
or for a reader to pin down.

2.8 LET US SUM UP

This short presentation aimed at an introductory, non-technical look at the influential

contemporary cultural phenomenon called postmodernism. There is already a vast literature
about, and within, postmodernism. A good library or the Internet can put the student in touch
with more material.
Postmodernism is more a mood or sensitivity than a doctrine or organization or dogma. It
can be seen as progress or as regression, depending on one’s style of life, preferred values, close

16
associates and point of view. There are authors who see it as a bold critique of the excesses of
modernity; others see it as a return to the pre-modern; still others look on it as an extension of
modernism or even as a faulty abandoning of much that is valid in modernity.
Human beings can be said to be the same all over, and at all times, or very different,
depending on what you want to stress. The same can be said of the similarities and dissimilarities
among people. Postmodernism stresses the differences more than the sameness or continuity
with modernity.
As a call not to let the big voices (meta-narratives) drown the little voices, or to allow the
self-styled centre (Europe, or the US, or Western culture or a so-called higher caste) ignore the
dignity and voices of the less powerful, it is a bold and challenging critical voice.
How far these ways of thinking, living and looking at the world are widespread, and who
are the votaries, are moot questions. In our own country, we have people living in the pre-
modern age (think of people looking for religious explanations of diseases like small pox, or the
killing of women as witches to ward of evil in a village), in modernity (e.g., our study of
mathematics and science, our use of phones and computers and trains and planes, our access to
vaccination, blood tests and heart surgery) and in post-modern settings (generally smaller groups
found on college campuses and in research circles). No person or country or culture is totally
pre-modern or modern or post-modern.
To understand some of the changes taking place in our world, it is good to listen to voices
that consider themselves postmodern, so that we may never deify science and reason and
progress and a particular culture, not deny its achievements, but have a realistic idea of the power
of reason to do good and to do evil, the ambiguous nature of scientific progress, the unclear
direction of history, the good and bad found in every culture (no culture being intrinsically
superior or inferior), the need to listen to the little voices and not just to the dominant ones, to
examine texts and language critically, to be willing to learn from those who are different from
us…In all this, postmodernist thinkers have been pioneers inviting us to listen, question, adapt,
learn, and not be dazzled by the achievements of reason, science, technology, capitalism and
colonial expansion. In taking such bold steps, this trend itself has neglected or denied important
and essential aspects of what it means to be human. Postmodernism tends to deny ultimate
principles or philosophical or religious truths that are perennially valid.

17
 But then, following the same logic, postmodernism’s own ways of thinking cannot be
defended or validated. This is why philosopher Richard Tarnas says of postmodernism, “[It]
cannot on its own principles ultimately justify itself any more than can the various metaphysical
overviews [meta-narratives] against which the postmodern mind has defined itself."
To conclude, just as postmodernism invites us to look at modernity critically, common
sense and human wisdom remind us to look at postmodernism itself with critical appreciation,
seeing its strengths and not denying its weaknesses.

Check Your Progress II

Note: a) Use the space provided for your answer

b) Check your answers with those provided at the end of the unit

1) What do you understand by ‘metanarratives’?

…………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………..
2) Write a short note on ‘periphery and centre.’
………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………………….

18
2.9. KEY WORDS

Dogmatism locks itself within systems expressed in absolute formulas of supposed universal
value.
Skepticism maintains a position of doubt and asserts that truth does not exist or that it cannot be
discovered by the human mind.
Relativism sees truth as partial and changeable, depending on the knower’s mode of perception
and varying according to the circumstances of place and time.

2.10. FURTHER READINGS AND REFERENCES

Butler, Christopher. Postmodernism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University

Press, 2002. A very brief presentation of the different aspects of PM.
Heelas, Paul (ed.). Religion, Modernity and Postmodernity. Oxford: Blackwells, 1998.
Fifteen articles by different authors.
Hutcheon, Linda. The Politics of Postmodernism. London: Routledge, 2002. Discusses
themes linked to PM, such as history, films, feminism, etc.
Lemart, Charles. Postmodernism is Not What You Think. Oxford: Blackwell, 1997. Clarifies
distorted views on PM; explains, too, that PM is not just a set of ideas.
Puthenpurackal, Johnson J. (ed.). The Postmodern…A Siege of the Citadel of Reason. New
Delhi: Media House, 2002. Nine articles on different aspects of PM.
Sarup, Madan. An Introductory Guide to Post-Structuralism and Postmodernism.
Hertfordshire: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1993. Seven chapters on different trends
associated with PM.
Ward, Glenn. Teach Yourself Postmodernism. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 2003. A basic
introduction to PM and the different fields influenced by it.

19
Internet Resources:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/postmodernism/ retrieved on 5th September, 2009

http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/irvinem/theory/pomo.html, retrieved on 8th September,
2009
http://www.colorado.edu/English/courses/ENGL2012Klages/pomo.html, retrieved on 5th
September, 2009
http://www.as.ua.edu/ant/cultures/cultures.php, retrieved on 5th September, 2009

2.11. Answers to Check Your Progress

Answers to Check Your Progress I

1. Rationality: A good model of the centrality of reason would be the philosophy of

Descartes. For him and other rationalists, the surest and the most evident certainties came
through reason. Reason is the highest arbiter of truths. There is nothing we cannot
explore through reason. Reason was seen as more reliable and less biased than ordinary
experience or religious dogma. Descartes, Kant, Leibnitz, Fichte, Schelling and Hegel
would be typical representatives of this modern way of thinking.

2. The new world order: In the place of a world dominated by a few European nations, as
was the case during most of the modern period (think of the massive migrations of
Europeans to Australia or the Americas, with no thought given to the rights of the
original inhabitants), we have a new world order, with rising powers. To give just two
well-known examples, China has emerged as the world’s largest manufacturing nation,
and India is expected to become the world’s third or fourth largest economy very soon.
This is a far cry from colonial days.

Answers to Check Your Progress II

20
1. ‘Meta-narratives’ means general theories or unexamined world views that would justify a
particular position. Thus, if I want to promote science as the best type of knowledge, I would
need a meta-narrative that tells me that scientific truths are superior to common sense or that
all scientific work is done for the benefit of human beings. Or, when Karl Marx wrote about
the exploitation of workers and children in nineteenth century mines and factories, he was
narrating a fact. When he proposed Marxism as a solution for economic exploitation
everywhere, he is claiming to have a universally valid theory, a diagnosis and prescription
that should work in all settings.

2. The centre and the periphery of the modern and colonial era have largely lost their
meaning. What was once periphery can become the centre (e.g., the United States when
compared to U.K.), or the world can be seen having many centres of power and influence
rather than as having one economic or political or cultural centre. This change in the
“pecking order” and the consequent change in international relations and the perception of
cultures and peoples will be welcomed as empowering by formerly oppressed and excluded
groups, or as threatening and destabilizing by groups that benefited from the earlier
hierarchies (whether they be hierarchies of race or nation or caste or whatever).

21