In Defense of “Postmodernism”

Postmodernism is under attack. Whether on the “intellectual dark web,” the media establishment, or various online forums. At one level, we should be …

In Defense of “Postmodernism”

yes.

and.

One could argue that all that has happened is not that people have become more intelligent per say, but that the same elements of power I’ve been implemented within a new discourse; not that corruption and abuse of power has been overcome, but more that it is being perpetuated in a discourse that is postmodern.

It is that both modernity and the postmodern critique Constitute what we call modern reality. Together they can show the confinement of ideology which then lens to a precipitate of knowledge that we can then turn to what We see and call it an intrinsic mythology, or for a more plain word, a religion, a Catholic religion (in the universal sense).

The simple fact is evidenced by most people that you will run into have no idea what you’re talking about if you were to mention postmodernism.

Hence; The issue is less that modern-postmodern whatever should be or should not be, that is, as various arguments over what is ethical and what should be done and why.

On the contrary; it’s because certain manners of coming upon reality have asserted a certain type of power over the rest of humanity. The intellectualism that is postmodernity is involved in a modern way of understanding reality, and the two together comprise a kind of intellectual power over the rest of the world.

This is ironically the case. Because postmodern would assume that somehow it’s saying some thing which benefits humanity, yet all the while it is implementing the same kind of power it seeks to disrupt by its intellectualism.

It is a power Struggle of intellectualists. But, this is not to say that somehow we should deny the intellect or say that people should not intellectualize. No, that would be utterly ridiculous considering what is obvious about humanity.

However; we can say that the truth of the matter is that these particular discourses, modernity and postmodernity, are able to comprise the extent of what is knowable as intellectual positions and content, as well as a particular method by which to engage with the world. For any other name that we would want to put towards some different approach, any other category that we wish to define in someway to say, no, here’s another way that we engage with the world, is already taken up as either a modern approach, or is described in the postmodern critique. The only way to avoid this confinement of intellectual space is to then define ‘postmodern’ as accorded to particular authors or a particular era, etcetera, and thus reduce the meaning of associated works to mere authorship and period, which then negates the meaning of their works.

The two intellectual approaches inscribe a particular space that no one who would begin to speak intellectually about anything can escape. And this is exactly the postmodern critique, in general. We either have as assertion of propriety and essentialist righteousness, or we have a critique of such methods’ instituting power.

Hence we have a containment, a particular aspect of being human, a way or manner of knowing, that is contained, as evidenced by parameters. And by being able to see and understand this containment, we can find a way out.

cx