"Post" means "after," but how can there be such a thing as "after-modern"? Isn't "modernity"whatever is presently happening? In one sense that's true, but people don't start to think of themselves as being "modern" until there's a clear break with some kind of past. And for our culture, that break happened with the scientific revolution, which culminated in the Enlightenment, as ultimate authority of Religion passed to Reason. "Post-modernism," then, refers to another historical break, the beginning of a new era that is different in some special way from the period when we thought of ourselves as "modern," the period of reason and science: But if the modern period was all about the transition from religion as the most trusted authority on Truth to science as the most trusted form of Knowledge, then what transition defines our postmodern period? According to Jean-Francois Lyotard's famous book The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, there IS no longer any single trusted source of understanding. Science led to great technological progress, but also to the mind-numbing overload of the mass media, where "information" is "now something that is produced to be sold," not to be "true" (Lyotard). Most people in our culture no longer really believe in what Lyotard calls "grand narratives," which are belief systems that claim the absolute Truth about reality (Lyotard cites religion and Marxism). If Lyotard is right, our culture will become more and more fragmented, and "politics" as the large scale pursuit of social change will fade away. Even the idea of "society" could become outdated as technology evolves.
Is Lyotard right? Have we entered a "postmodern" phase that means the end of knowledge and society as we once understood it? Your goal is to take a position on this question after watching these videos by posting a one-paragraph response with at least one real-world examples that supports one of these perspectives: 1. Jean Baudrillard: Postmodernism, or as he calls it "Hyperreality," is here to stay. Watch movies, eat Arby's, do whatever... Just don't think you can change the world - those days are over. Simulations are all that remain. (Optional - Also watch this explanation of how Baudrillard's ideas influenced The Matrix.) 2. Neo-Marxism: The "Postmodernism Condition" is an advanced stage of capitalism where everything has become a product thanks to advertising and "branding." We need to fight capitalism, not give up on politics. (Optional - Watch modern Marxist Slavoj Zizek argue that capitalism's ideological power is the real problem). 3. Rorty's Pragmatism - Politics is not dead; Americans can and should come together to restore the American dream. This isn't going to be easy, because our politics have become corrupt, but we must retain hope.) (Optional - Watch John Green address this question, hear from a variety of Americans, and a British perspective).
23 Comments
Abby Westgate
3/5/2016 06:16:21 pm
I believe the Postmodern Era is a transition into the acceptance of uncertainty. However, if I fully subscribe to this definition, I will notice this means I cannot "believe" anything. Uncertainty is the absence of belief. This is nihilism at its core. So is Postmodernism another version of nihilism? This seems to go along with Baudrillard's definition of Postmodernism. There is no Truth because of the hundreds of thousands of realities existing in the media and through everyone's subjective lens. Each person has his or her own reality, or "simulation." A real-world example that supports this perspective would be the novel The Things They Carried. Tim O'Brien's novel exhibits that each soldier had his own reality, and there were no "true" war stories, because fictional war stories could sometimes get to the 'truth" better than war stories that actually occurred. Each soldier's mind was his own reality. The Vietnam War gave no meaning to the soldiers--places of worship, like the temple that the soldiers camp-out in during one of the chapters, even lose their significance. The soldiers feel their lives have different, fluid meanings depending on where they are. Sometimes it seems as though they have a purpose when they are given an assignment. When they return to the United States, though, they find their meanings are lost.
Reply
Biggs
3/6/2016 08:10:38 am
Yes, a lot of people think anyone who claims we've entered a "postmodern era" are just nihilists who've given up on belief. The Tim O'Brien example is a great one - you just get each soldier's perspective and there are no objective truths for them to hold onto... If you watch the second Baudrillard video (the one describing how his thought influenced The Matrix) you'll see the argument that postmodern is really just an extension of Kant's argument that we all live in our own "phenomenal" of subjective representation of reality thanks to our necessary mental "filtration" of the Real (or for Kant, the Noumenal). Postmodernism, then, would be giving up on the Noumenal altogether. And things like religious fundamentalism would be a reaction against that, saying, "No, we have pure undiluted access to Truth, the Noumenal, in our holy book!"
Reply
Dannielle Wolf
3/5/2016 07:18:15 pm
I would say that I agree with Lyotard, that there is no single Truth out there. Instead of taking the nihilist route, I agree more with the pragmatic idea. Politics aren't dead. We create laws that can expand our rights and (sadly) diminish them. Gay marriage being legalized in the US was and still is a huge deal. Not many other countries passed it, and I have to admit that I was very surprised when I heard the news. I never expected the United States to pass it before many other countries. I think that's one of the things that makes the USA not so bad. We can really change the government as we see fit. Throughout the centuries, philosophy has attempted to understand the Truth and Knowledge, but it has almost circled around back to now. We're left with tons of ideas but a broken system, and we have to work to improve and change it for the better. I think that's why I agree with pragmatism for this topic. The USA's government is extremely corrupt and the only way to fix it is through politics, by jumping into the mess and trying to change whatever we can for the better. In today's society, laws can really change the way we live, and it's important to do our best to create positive change. We must work to make laws to fix the American dream, so that anyone who comes here can really have an equal opportunity.
Reply
Biggs
3/6/2016 08:22:27 am
So we can respond to the "postmodern condition" (the collapse of the idea of a Single Truth) by returning to good old Pragmatism and focusing on what temporary ideas all us to make utilitarian improvements in our society. But with a money-soaked government like ours, can we just leave Marx out of the picture? Or do we have to acknowledge that the power of corporations has created barriers to real improvement? Has capitalism swallowed up democracy?
Reply
Skye Post
3/5/2016 09:43:15 pm
I think Lyotard is wrong to claim we are at the end of knowledge and society. While this could definitely be considered a postmodern phase, other postmodern phases can occur after this one, which then makes this phase...no longer postmodern, therefore outdated. I believe society and knowledge are constantly evolving or undergoing changes. Perhaps one day we resort back to older forms of society, forms that worked better before things got out of hand. But then we continue to evolve. It's as if society may relapse at any given time. As for knowledge, we never seem to lose any of the knowledge we gain. Human intelligence seems to progress, forward, infinitely. Therefore absolute truth (grand narratives) may never be able to be determined. That doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't exist, its just like pi. As far as we know, theres no end...or it may just be too big for US to see the end. I side mostly with pragmatism, in that "restoring the american dream" could mean relapsing society, which might be good. And of course it isn't going to be easy, but nothing else is anyway! One real life example: the ever-changing cycle of Chipotle. Remember their heartwarming commercial played to the tune of cold play's "the scientist"? When the farmer expands his industry and mass produces the poor piggies? So what does he do? Cue "I'm going back to the start" when all that bad stuff falls away. Moral of the story: Chipotle returned to the good old natural/local farming industry. And that is their pride and joy...BUT NOW they have returned yet again to the BAD industry, because it's cheaper. Hence relapse. Sometimes it's good, sometimes it's bad.
Reply
Biggs
3/6/2016 08:14:44 am
So grand narratives themselves aren't dead, we've just left the old ones behind. And since our intelligence continues to progress, we will invent new frameworks for knowledge and understanding - they might not be Absolute Truth, but they can continue to get better and better, closer and closer to a full comprehension of the Real. Definitely pragmatism. But I notice a little Marxism at the end too, where you notice how Chipotle went back to a "bad" model of production to make a quick buck. Does capitalism, as a system that promotes people to cut production costs instead of higher profits, make it harder for us to go "back to the start"?
Reply
Haley Watson
3/6/2016 07:08:48 am
I’m siding with Rorty’s Pragmatism. I think that the American dream is still alive, but it’s not defined in the same way as it was in the past. The American dream was depicted with the job/house/family/life/freedom of the your dreams. I watched John Green’s video on his ideas of opportunity and socioeconomic mobility in the United States. John Green talks about how nearly half of individuals in lower-income families will likely find jobs in that same range. It makes not only immigrants, but also Americans themselves question how we can fulfill our own American dream. As the 8-bit philosophy video shows, the American dream isn’t about how much pride we show through our Captain America t-shirts and our white-picket fence, but rather our hope for democracy and equal opportunity.The best example I can think of is as followed: although some of these companies (if not all) have questionable business/ corrupt practices, companies like Google, Apple, and Twitter all got their start in the U.S. Steve Jobs created one of the most well-known technological brands in the world without a college degree. I think that if people take enough interest in the “new” American dream, equal opportunity and socioeconomic mobility will become more prevalent in society.
Reply
Biggs
3/6/2016 08:18:29 am
I have a lot of respect for pragmatism, and Rorty's thought was a big influence on me in college. But I often think that, as modern Marxist philosopher Slavoj Zizek says, democracy and capitalism are destined to split up. Steve Jobs created brilliant ideas in a free society - yah democracy! But he realized those ideas by exploiting millions of third world workers - boo capitalism? Do we need to add a little bit of Marxist edge to Rorty's democratic hope? Or would that undermine the positivity of Rorty's message (since, as a pragmatist, the BELIEF is key in his view)?
Reply
Biggs
3/6/2016 08:24:17 am
I have to say I'm very impressed with the quality of the four initial responses above! Props to Abby, Dannielle, Skye and Haley for really thinking through these complex but oh-so-relevant issues. Anyone can respond to the questions I left on their posts, or any other posts, for extra credit :)
Reply
Emilie Weiner
3/6/2016 11:13:45 am
While I recognize that you asked us to side with one of the positions presented to us in the videos, but I find the issue so complex that I cannot entirely commit to one opinion. From my work on my EE I have learned a lot about the idea of the ever-changing process of acquiring knowledge and how it is used in society from the sociological works of Zygmunt Bauman and his theory of liquid modernity. Rather than fully coinciding with the nihilistic philosophy of post modernism, Baumaun describes present society similarly, but certainly not as an end. In fact, society as we know it is not ending, it is just the beginning of liquid modernity. He defines it as fast flowing, changeable, and amorphous, rather than stable and unchanging. We have endless information at our fingertips, travel is easier, and capitalism is still on the rise. It is possible, though, to harness the chaos of change and use it for guidance and the acquisition of knowledge that is readily there for us; after all, I do believe knowledge is subjective, and so is an individual's definition of society.
Reply
Biggs
3/6/2016 03:43:25 pm
I can't commit to one opinion either, haha! I think all three approaches have value. But I definitely agree that thinking of postmodernism as "liquid modernity" makes a lot of sense and lets you explain our current hyper-information society in a less nihilistic and pessimistic way than Baudrillard. I think it's important to be able to do that, too, because I agree with Rorty that we can still (as you say) harness the chaos and make positive change. The biggest problem, I think, is that many people are not willing to acknowledge that capitalism has both positive and negative aspects (unlike, say, the brilliant economist Joseph Schumpeter who perfectly described the system as "creative destruction"). We need to be asking, how do we enhance the creativity of capitalism (which at this point is synonymous with technology) while limiting the destructive aspects of technological progress, especially on the environment?
Reply
Jessica Auriemma
3/6/2016 03:03:14 pm
I cannot entirely side with any philosopher on postmodernism. I think Baudrillard is too extreme in saying “you might as well give up and embrace the void of nihilism." Rorty’s point of view is a little too idealistic by saying “if we all work hard we can fix it." I feel the Neo-Marxist view is good by saying everything has turned into a commodity to be bought and sold. If I had to define my standpoint I would say I am mostly Neo-Marxist with a little bit of Rorty and just a touch of Baudrillard. I agree with Neo-Marxism that capitalism has taken over, everything is something to be bought and that advertising has taken over. I also agree with the idea that we need to fight capitalism not give up on politics. Rorty is right in saying our political system is corrupt but I think he is wrong in saying Americans need to work together to restore the American Dream. The American Dream often consists of exploiting less fortunate people in order for one party to rise up. For example, it is the American Dream to accumulate as much wealth as possible. If someone designs a product but needs people to build it, odds are they will turn to the lower classes to build it because someone below the poverty line will work for far less than someone in the middle class would. I think instead of restoring the American Dream we should try to cleanse our political system and remove all corruption by electing fair politicians who will not be swayed by large corporations or other factors that could corrupt the government. However, here is where the touch of Baudrillard comes in. I do not think we should give up entirely because that comes off as lazy but these other two philosophies focus a lot on a group of people banning together to make some sort of change. Baudrillard says to do whatever YOU want. I agree him in that people should focus on living the life they want to lead. If enough people are dissatisfied with society to the point where there are countless philosophies on how to fix it then clearly there is some want to change things but trying to accomplish anything as a group is almost impossible. For example, group projects are a disaster. Even a simple class project like “make a poster about x” is a whole ordeal because people suck at working together and the more people you add to the project the harder it becomes as there are more viewpoints clashing together. But if you make the poster and individual assignment, it is a near painless process. That being said, if a few students can hardly create a poster together how is an entire nation supposed to change a political system? This goes back to the herd mentality. I think if any change is to be seen and if we are to redeem ourselves from this postmodern era, it will be up to the individual to change the things they are dissatisfied with in their own lives. Hopefully if people can make small changes in their own lives then combining all those small changes will result in a collective large change.
Reply
Biggs
3/6/2016 03:34:22 pm
I've always found that doing a poster assignment works best if you structure it so that people can choose to work alone or together, BUT adding more people = extra work so as to discourage people from working with their friends if they don't actually work well together. If they do, they'll be able to combine their powers and produce better work. If they can't do that, it's best they develop their powers separately. I think Foucault, Nietzsche's more left-wing heir from 1960's France, best presents that perspective. He would definitely agree with your final line about making small-scale changes alongside people you openly choose to work with (as opposed to being forced to work together, as in a group project) is a better approach than trying to make some revolutionary utopia happen. He returns to Aristotle's metaphor of life, in a postmodern world, as a "work of art" than we can create individually or with others. We'll be talking about Foucault soon :)
Reply
Kristen Wimmer
3/7/2016 05:35:01 pm
As flawed as our modern world is, I try not to take the nihilist route because I think thats an easy way of giving up on what we have. I would agree with Lyotard in his assertion that there is no one single trusted source of knowledge, however I believe that there never was. Even when science became the more dominant source of reason, there was a massive split between the conservatives and the "enlightened". I think its impossible to say that everyone will line up behind a single method of reason moreover I don't believe most people utilize ONLY empirical or rational reasoning. That said, I do think the media plays a critical role in our gathering of knowledge, however I would not call it a "hyperreality" that we hold as our only truth. I think as long as we are conscious that news and advertising operate on the same wavelength, we can discern some truth from lies. For example, even my 10 year old sister understands the bias of Fox News. While this is arguably the most obviously partisan news channel, it doesn't mean that the Today Show and CNN don't have their own views. The less educated are certainly the targets of the false information propagated by the news. If I had to side with one of these philosophers, I would choose Rorty. Simply because I do believe in Pragmatism as a philosophy nor am I cynical enough to think the American dream is dead. I think that the mold of "The American Dream" is B.S., in the whole sense of the white picket d=fence and middle class stability. However I'm glad Rorty addresses that the "Four Fs" don't necessarily have to make up this dream and the philosophy as a whole is more about hope and not letting the past deter you which I think you could tie in with existentialism. You are responsible for yourself, you create your own path, and therefore you shape your own truth. I believe in this assertion more which why I don't fully accept the pessimism of postmodernism.
Reply
Gabriela Recalde
3/8/2016 08:12:51 am
After watching these videos and really comparing these three viewpoints, I find that they all are flawed in one way or another. In regard to Baudillard, it is not productive to stop caring and trying. While he would say it doesn't matter and that things won't change anyways, I believe that this would not only not benefit society, but hurt it as well. I think one positive idea to take from his philosophy is to keep in mind that some things are out of our individual grasps and will never change unless society as a whole or majority wants it to. When it comes to neo-Marxism, I agree that capitalism is becoming out of control, but I don't believe in fighting it as much as reforming it. Rorty's pragmatic view seems to take a middle ground that I find appealing, but still a bit idealistic. (Was the American Dream ever achievable for EVERYONE in the first place?) I do appreciate that he acknowledges that this will be a difficult and long (impossible?) process.
Reply
Gabriela Recalde
3/8/2016 08:17:08 am
If from the beginning, America was a fair and equal place for everyone, I would no doubt agree with Rorty's pragmatism. However, whenever I hear "American Dream" I immediately get turned off, because that is said with the majority and those in power in mind.
Reply
Zoe Kralyevich
3/8/2016 09:07:44 am
I agree with Rorty's pragmatism, although only after choosing the option that I find the less amount of fault with. All of the other options are fairly pessimistic, but I can understand. However, in order to grow, we need hope and optimism. Without those, we cannot grow and expand as humans but will be stuck in an endless loop of similarity. Contemporary politics are extremely corrupt, however given the amount of time we were allotted to expand, I can understand our expanding government system. However, there is a breaking point, which I believe we have reached. For instance, Republican front runner Donald Trump is running on a campaign fueled by racist, sexist and rich-favoring ideals which are some of the most absurd points given our pushing for equality for all. With the eradication of such ideas as well as a more balanced government, the American Dream can be lived once again.
Reply
Ricky Wild
3/8/2016 09:47:14 am
Lyotard could not have been more wrong about the end of politics and the fragmenting of society, now towards the end of postmodernism. In fact, I would be willing to argue that this is still only the beginning of postmodernism and will only end when society regresses. There are two ways this can be; going into modernism and then pre-modernism again, or a nuclear or apocalyptic event occurs, putting the human race directly back into the prehistoric era. Mark it, the best part of postmodernism is when the entire human race collectively evolves.
Reply
Joe Dark
3/8/2016 09:56:40 am
I would agree that we have entered postmodernism era but i kind of disagree with "end of knowledge and society as we once understood it". I do agree with some of the main ideas of postmodernism, the postmodernism condition, and Rorty's pragmatism. I agree with the postmodernist idea that you can't change the world anymore. I also agree with the postmodernism condition idea that everything has become a product thanks to advertising and branding. I also agree with the Rorty's pragmatist idea of the american dream being corrupt/broken and could be fixed. An example of the postmodernism condition is basic news, or even YouTube. You go on to the news/YouTube trying to find information and all you see is advertisements for an object or a human being ("Vote for X"). It is on too. right before most YouTube videos is some sort of advertisement. Everything is focused on money that's why i would say that it's end of knowledge and society as we once understood it completely. Its just very heavily suppressed from truth or success to come out.Most dollars earned are either dishonest or cheap/quick. Aka swindling banks or suing because one is to dumb to understand that coffee is hot when served. Knowledge and society are both taking hits though from many of the postmodernist ideas.
Reply
Jane Breslin
3/9/2016 04:36:28 pm
As we have entered the postmodern era, human knowledge has grown, not ended. I believe there is always something new to learn. Society has not ended either, but has constantly changed throughout history and differs from region to region. People still have the ability to change the world. Cures for diseases still have to be discovered, humans have to convert to more eco-friendly energy alternatives and such to help our earth, and many more things humans can still change. Humans can also help other people change as well whether it be rehabilitation to creating a new invention that will allow impoverished countries gain electricity and purified water, which will change lives. Partially the ability to change is in a person's mindset. If you do not think the world can change, then to you, it will not. However, even simply complimenting a person when they have a bad day can change that person's entire view on the day. It could change from, "Today is the absolute worst," to "Today isn't that bad." To you, the complimenter, it was a simple casual sentence, but to the other person it could make their entire day. People have the ability to change even if they do not see it themselves.
Reply
Adel Soliman
3/10/2016 07:24:57 pm
We have reached the point where we don't have time to think about life anymore. The world's current state with exponentially growing crime, poverty, threat of nuclear destruction, and the dramatic change in weather patterns, everyone's mind is far away from questioning and focused on the day they are in and only that day.
Reply
Shea Cody
3/22/2016 08:02:57 am
I do not agree with Lyotard's postmodern ideas. I think society has always been changing and evolving into a new state whether positive of negative and it is continuing this process. I don't believe we have come to a point where there is no more knowledge to be understood and i do not think this will ever happen.There is always more to be understood whether it is positive or negative.
Reply
Michael DeCristofaro
4/4/2016 05:42:42 am
I find the 3rd one to be the most interesting. I would find it to be interesting on what it would be like if Americans came together to rebuild America and chase the American dream. Another reason it would be interesting is because many people judge others on their political views. For example someone may not like another person because they are not voting for the same person they are. With this being said I think it would be hard to get Americans together to try and rebuild America again.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorArchives
April 2016
Categories |