# Post-Modernism **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 23, 2009, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/post-modernism/514812 "2009-10-23T02:15:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 11:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/post-modernism/514812/21 "2009-10-23T11:41:51Z")
> [@HazelNutCoffee](#): > > My favorite quote about postmodernism was from Don Patterson, who was talking about how in order to read good literature, readers have to meet authors halfway in the effort to understand the text. He then went on to say that readers have to meet postmodern authors at the train station with wheelchairs. > > As for the OP, have you actually read any Baudrillard or Derrida? The OP might have an easier time starting with Foucault. I am not under the impression that the OP reads a lot of literature anyway, so he probably won’t get that much mileage out of theory. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/post-modernism/514812/22 "2009-10-23T13:49:47Z")
Sometimes I think “postmodernism” is really just another word for [“lampshade hanging.”](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LampshadeHanging) ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/post-modernism/514812/23 "2009-10-23T14:08:07Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > [hijack] > > More important question: What comes next? What are we going to call it when we’ve used up “postmodern”? “Postpostmodern” is just too too. > > I propose “cyberzoic”! It’s scientific-sounding, it’s open to open-ended interpretation, and it’s got “cyber-” in it! 🆒 > > [/hijack] I’m on record as supporting “contemporaryism” as the next great philosophical movement. It’s just so… now. Unfortunately, I think the term is VERY post-modern, so I’m not sure how now it can be when it is still after what was before, which is still going on. ---
**Author:** ![Dorothea\_Book](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/da6949/32.png) [@Dorothea\_Book](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dorothea_Book)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/post-modernism/514812/24 "2009-10-23T14:26:55Z")
> [@Maeglin](#): > > The OP might have an easier time starting with Foucault. I am not under the impression that the OP reads a lot of literature anyway, so he probably won’t get that much mileage out of theory. Foucault easier to read than Baudrillard or even Derrida? Mais non! In any case Foucault is really a poststructrualist don’t you think? Lyotard IMO, would be the best single figure to read as an entree into postmodernism. And one could always rent _The Matrix_ for a quick fix 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![El\_Kabong](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/el_kabong/32/496_2.png) [@El\_Kabong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Kabong)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/post-modernism/514812/25 "2009-10-23T15:26:00Z")
My opinion of post-modernism is that it is a very good name for something. ---
**Author:** ![StusBlues](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@StusBlues](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/StusBlues)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/post-modernism/514812/26 "2009-10-23T15:40:01Z")
> [@Dorothea\_Book](#): > > Foucault easier to read than Baudrillard or even Derrida? Absolutely. Not even an arguement to be made there. Foucault is really a captivating writer in most of his translations. Derrida is, to again quote Moe S., “weird for the sake of weird”. ---
**Author:** ![Dorothea\_Book](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/da6949/32.png) [@Dorothea\_Book](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dorothea_Book)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/post-modernism/514812/27 "2009-10-23T15:57:11Z")
> [@stuthehistoryguy](#): > > Absolutely. Not even an arguement to be made there. Foucault is really a captivating writer in most of his translations. Derrida is, to again quote Moe S., “weird for the sake of weird”. I agree that F is captivating–he tells a lot of good yarns. But (depending on what one is reading) 1) I also find Derrida to be a good read and 2) I find what Foucault is putting across to be more conceptually intricate than Derrida and certainly Baudrillard. Most of all though I don’t think of Foucault as really a postmodernist (though I’m sure the OP would not have problems with the fit). ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/post-modernism/514812/28 "2009-10-23T17:30:26Z")
This thread would not be complete without a link to Chip Morningstar’s famous essay [How to Deconstruct Almost Anything](http://www.info.ucl.ac.be/~pvr/decon.html). I am in broad agreement with Morningstar, and hence I also lean in the direction of **Curtis** , though I find his OP to be exaggerating. The bottom line, as I see it, is that postmodern critics are willing to interpret almost anything as meaning almost anything, and they’ll accept virtually any logical leap in order to get where they want. They’ll pick up some terribly minor details, such as the fact that a character is wearing white socks, and use it to insist that the character is supposed to represent sexual purity and innocence, but later the same character enjoys eating pork, so the author is really making a comment about society’s hypocritical and misogynist attitudes, which is further confirmed by the scene in chapter fifteen where a tulip in the garden is drooping, &c… &c… (For the record, I have read nothing by Foucault or Derrida, but I did earn a minor in English lit in college, so I did have to read papers explaining why _A Midsummer Night’s Dream_ is an attempt to justify pedophilia or how Jane Austen uses dirt in _Pride and Prejudice_ to criticize imperial capitalism and so forth. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/post-modernism/514812/29 "2009-10-23T18:03:55Z")
If one examines postmodernist theory, one is faced with a choice: either reject expressionism or conclude that narrativity serves to reinforce capitalism. Therefore, the premise of subcultural dematerialism states that class has significance. Baudrillard suggests the use of expressionism to analyse and modify sexual identity. The characteristic theme of the works of Spelling is a mythopoetical whole. In a sense, a number of discourses concerning not desituationism, but postdesituationism may be discovered. The subject is interpolated into a neoconceptualist capitalist theory that includes consciousness as a paradox. If one examines dialectic narrative, one is faced with a choice: either accept expressionism or conclude that government is fundamentally a legal fiction, given that culture is interchangeable with consciousness. Therefore, the main theme of Parry’s[1] critique of Foucaultist power relations is the absurdity, and eventually the economy, of capitalist culture. Sartre promotes the use of neoconceptualist capitalist theory to attack sexism. So no [PoMo isn’t shite](http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/). ---
**Author:** ![Dorothea\_Book](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/da6949/32.png) [@Dorothea\_Book](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dorothea_Book)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/post-modernism/514812/30 "2009-10-23T18:52:07Z")
**ITR** , I think you and I may have been around this block once before. And why not? 🙂 > [@Blake](#): > > If one examines postmodernist theory, one is faced with a choice: either reject expressionism or conclude that narrativity serves to reinforce capitalism. Therefore, the premise of subcultural dematerialism states that class has significance. Baudrillard suggests the use of expressionism to analyse and modify sexual identity. Exactly what have you proved other than that it is possible to fail entirely to write a parody of postmodern critical theory that would succeed in fooling anyone? For the record though… > [@](#): > > Therefore, the main theme of Parry’s[1] critique of Foucaultist power relations is the absurdity, and eventually the economy, of capitalist culture. Sartre promotes the use of neoconceptualist capitalist theory to attack sexism. Why would any Foucauldian, or any critic of Foucault, argue that “capitalist culture” is absurd? And to my knowledge (though I could be wrong), Sartre never attacked sexism in his entire life! In fact the idea that he did is quite amusing. Also for the record I am not a postmodernist. But I do feel as though I really understand what I disagree with. ---
**Author:** ![MeanOldLady](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/meanoldlady/32/10737_2.png) [@MeanOldLady](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MeanOldLady)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/post-modernism/514812/31 "2009-10-23T20:49:54Z")
> [@hansel](#): > > I think that you don’t have a clue what postmodernism is. Folks, you do realize this Curtis fellow is about 11 years old, right? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/post-modernism/514812/32 "2009-10-23T21:07:31Z")
> [@MeanOldLady](#): > > Folks, you do realize this Curtis fellow is about 11 years old, right? 13 I think he said. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/post-modernism/514812/33 "2009-10-23T21:19:28Z")
> [@MeanOldLady](#): > > Folks, you do realize this Curtis fellow is about 11 years old, right? > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > 13 I think he said. That explains a lot, actually. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/post-modernism/514812/34 "2009-10-23T23:12:34Z")
> [@Curtis LeMay](#): > > What is your opinion of post-modernism? > > I think post-modernism is a bunch of nonsense created by pathetic losers who liked to make everyone more or less equally pathetic and loserific as them. They have declared there is no absolute morality, no God, no hope, and no objective truth among other things. I admire your astute analysis. ---
**Author:** ![Dorothea\_Book](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/da6949/32.png) [@Dorothea\_Book](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dorothea_Book)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/post-modernism/514812/35 "2009-10-23T23:18:58Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > 13 I think he said. And can already bandy a term like “loserific”? ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2009, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/post-modernism/514812/36 "2009-10-23T23:19:07Z")
Post-Modernism just tells you how to take things apart. It is silent on putting them back together. But knowing how to take things apart is useful. ---
**Author:** ![MichaelQReilly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@MichaelQReilly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MichaelQReilly)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2009, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/post-modernism/514812/37 "2009-10-24T01:46:30Z")
I look at Post-Modernism a lot like I look at Solipsism - even if I grant that it could be correct, it doesn’t really lead to anything. The whole world of art, literature, etc. is better if we agree that, perhaps, there is something we can know about it. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2009, 12:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/post-modernism/514812/38 "2009-10-24T12:23:33Z")
> [@Curtis LeMay](#): > > I think post-modernism is a bunch of nonsense created by pathetic losers who liked to make everyone more or less equally pathetic and loserific as them. They have declared there is no absolute morality, no God, no hope, and no objective truth among other things. Let’s grant, for the sake of argument, that it was created by people who wanted to make everyone equally pathetic; I don’t think that happens to be true, but let’s really go with it for a moment. Does that make it _ **untrue?** _ Who cares _ **why** _ they declare there’s no God? Isn’t that irrelevant to the question of whether there _ **is** _ a God? Why bother pointing out someone’s alleged motivation for declaring “there is no absolute morality”? Isn’t the only interesting question whether there _ **is** _ an absolute morality? ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2009, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/post-modernism/514812/39 "2009-10-24T15:10:34Z")
> [@MichaelQReilly](#): > > I look at Post-Modernism a lot like I look at Solipsism - even if I grant that it could be correct, it doesn’t really lead to anything. The whole world of art, literature, etc. is better if we agree that, perhaps, there is something we can know about it. I see some post-modern analytical tools to be helpful when deconstructing one’s biases. I think people labor under a misapprehension that a philosophy must provide some sort of answer or way to be in order to be helpful or useful. That’s not the case. Deconstruction is useful in and of itself. It’s up to you to find some way to replace it not to search in the musty tomes of philosophers. ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2009, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/post-modernism/514812/40 "2009-10-24T15:12:53Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Let’s grant, for the sake of argument, that it was created by people who wanted to make everyone equally pathetic; I don’t think that happens to be true, but let’s really go with it for a moment. Does that make it _ **untrue?** _ > > Who cares _ **why** _ they declare there’s no God? Isn’t that irrelevant to the question of whether there _ **is** _ a God? Why bother pointing out someone’s alleged motivation for declaring “there is no absolute morality”? Isn’t the only interesting question whether there _ **is** _ an absolute morality? No because if you for instance say “I don’t believe in God because or else He would have made win the Lottery last Saturday” and “I don’t believe in God because He would have saved by daughter’s life if He exists” are two completely different reasons for not believing in God. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/post-modernism/514812.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/post-modernism/514812.md?page=3)