I agree with this comment. There is such plurality of views as to what
post-modernism is (by both protagonists and antagonists) that to
conceptualise it into the dichotomy of post-mod versus modernism is to
oversimplify what can be quite a stimulating area. To characterise all
postmodernists as taking the position that there is no such thing as an
objective is to disregard the middle ground that explanation can be the
socially constructed element of reality, a position that seems similar to
hypothesis generation and testing in science.
Postmodernism started out as the rejection of grand theories in literature,
arguing that there are many interpretations or readings of a text. It can be
quite dour or very playful, which is the element I enjoy. Anderson remarks
upon the postmodernism reading of an naive image he observed in Japan one
Christmas, an image that reflected the confluence of two major forces in the
Western world - commercialism and religion. The image - Santa Claus on a
Cross.
Andrew Jull
Clinical Nurse Consultant
Auckland Hospital
NEW ZEALAND
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Deborah Colville [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Wednesday, 17 January 2001 14:36
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Post-modernism
>
> Dear list
>
> In my experience both 'post-modern' and 'modern, realist' writing
> can be
>
> 1. rubbish, or
> 2. extremely helpful in conceptualising, and therefore altering, medical
> practice.
>
> As a clinical epidemiologist, I believe that to simply ignore postmodern
> scholarship is a mistake.
>
> Deb Colville
> Ophthalmologist
> Sen Lecturer,University of Melbourne
> MBBS FRACO FRACS Dip Epi MPH Grad Cert Vocational Education & Training
> (Clinical Instruction)
|