Here we go again. I am not going into the details of this again (I wrote
two long posts on this concept the last time we debated this) but for those
of you who are interested in learning more about postmodernism read David
Harvey's _The Condition of Postmodernity_ and Perry Anderson's _The Origins
of Postmodernity_. Read the Harvey book first because I think it is a
little more accessible and helps fill in some gaps in the Anderson book.
And then if you are really brave and ambitious take on Jameson's seminal
book _Postmodernism, or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism_. Both
Harvey and Anderson discuss Jameson and make Jameson a little easier to read.
In short, what all three scholars say, and which all others that I have
read in other areas of work done in this area say, is that postmodernism is
NOT a theory in itself but an umbrella term that registers other more micro
theories, i.e. deconstructionism, poststructuralism, new historicism,
feminism, queer studies, and so. Furthermore, it is NOT first and foremost
a concept defined through aesthetics. Rather, it is a periodizing term that
registers the shifts in capitalism, production, technology, globalization,
and so on, not _just_ aesthetically (which is why some texts in the past --
dates differ but roughly before the 60s -- may technically work in terms of
form and structure but will not work in terms of content) but in terms of a
whole different sensibility (just the notion that we have become such a
dominantly image conscious society seems to me enough of a difference from
past epochs). When I wrote on this term previously I was unsure whether
this was just a Jameson thing or more universally believed, especially
since the early theorists that pushed this term, Hassan and Lyotard
primarily, saw the term, at least explicitly, in terms of how aesthetically
and structurally texts reflected these changes. Since then I have found
that it has become common now to see the term as a periodizing concept that
embraces all aspects of how we percieve and live in the world, whatever the
field may be i.e., art, politics, theory, science, and so on. If you need
this drawn out in more black and white terms I suggest you take a look at
the field of architecture where the lines between modernist architecture
and postmodernist architecture are drawn very clearly.
Again, the meaning behind this term is just too involved and complex to
suitably go into here, but if you want a clearly drawn out, substantively
researched and examined definition to the term read the above books.
Best,
Reagan
|