Postmodernism - Viable Alternative?

Factual Questions
1

This thread (which will probably devolve into a debate - mods, move at your discretion) is posed to those dopers who have some knowledge/expertise with postmodernism. I do have a somewhat rudimentary knowledge/understanding of the various themes that constitute postmoderism. For example - Lyotard defines postmodernism as “an incredulity towards all metanarratives”. Bear in mind that I am using the term loosely - I am aware that the term can have different meanings/definitions depending on the context (for example, an architect’s meaning/definition would probably be different from a philosopher’s or an English professor’s or a social critic’s meaning/definition).

I am also aware that some (but not all) who espouse a postmodern outlook tend (but do not limit themselves) to

  1. emphasize difference/diversity over unity/universality; 2) be skeptical/critical of those in authority; 3) believe that language limits what we can say (or know) about reality; 4) dimiss the entire Enlightenment project (for example, reliance on reason/logic/science to derive or uncover universal truths) as fatally flawed.

Granted, I am oversimplifying my understanding of postmodernism as such - there are many other themes I haven’t touched upon that would probably be considered just as important (if that is even possible).

Here’s the question (or rather questions re: #4 above). If one of the themes of postmodernism is the dismissal of the Enlightenment project - in essence, rejecting its tenants (ie - deriving/uncovering universal truths/knowledge via reason/science/logic), then what is the likely outcome for a society as a whole that adopts such a postmodern “stance”? Is it to see the total overturning/replacement of the Enlightenment project? Or is it more in trying to reinvigorate it, bring about a more egalitarian approach by bringing in other voices, other viewpoints to derive universal truths?

If it is the former, then how does it benefit society (I’m thinking in those countries that have a long standing history and investment in the Enlightenment project - US and Europe)? If it is the latter, then how is it any different from those that do not (necessarily) espouse a postmodern viewpoint (I’m thinking here of Habermas’s theory of communicative action)?

Or am I just totally off base?

2

You might find the following article of interest:

http://www.partisanreview.org/archive/2001/2/bauerlein.html

My own take on postmodernism is that it’s a really good pick-axe and a really lousy hammer. It’s really hard to build anything with a pick-axe.

If you’re looking for alternative contemporary philosophical stances you might check out John Searles’ The Construction of Social Reality or Susan Blackmore’s The Meme Machine.

3

pochaco:

That’s very very close to what I said:

from Missing in Action: PostStructuralist Feminism and/or Radical Feminism in the Academy

4

In John Horgan’s book The End of Science he discusses at one point something called Rational Morphology. It’s the idea that everything that exists is a “manifestation of abstract mathematical forms that undergo endless permutations”. It seems to me to be a perfect reconciliation of absolutism and relativism. It’s a having the cake and eating it kind of thing. I believe it means that absolute laws are subject to evolution or, at least, change. I have no capacity for any real analysis of the concept. It is just a fascinating idea to me.