Firstly, let me define postmodernism as a movement against modernism that preceded it and arose around the sixties. It was given impetus with the student uprising in France and Germany in the late sixties
The
primary driver was a rejection of many aspects of the positive and orderly
approach of modernism circa from the ending of hostilities from the first World
War. But there exists an overlap between their respective movements, as
paradoxically it is a rejection of parts of modernism combined with its
extension.
Modernism
As
a unitary movement it embraces just about everything- philosophy, religion, the
arts (music, painting, architecture, literature etc) which was discussed and
performed in accordance to the rules and conventions.
That
position assumed a good outcome and permeated teaching in most of the
educational institutions all over Europe against which the students saw reasons
to rally against since that status quo had not avoided the ravages of
war.
Notwithstanding
Modernism had its beauty of course because of that unity- for instance Art Deco
buildings, the Sydney Opera building and Books written with a beginning and
end.
It brought enjoyment and order but excluded expression outside of those set boundaries. For instance, a priest or minister might make minor changes to the liturgy, but must start generally within the framework of a given model.
A
familiar image was the triple-fronted brick veneer. I recall our family
home in that modernist design but unrecognisable given it has since undergone
major extensions. Today it is barely recognisable. Hence you could only make
minor changes inside the house, but not outside the house, or you wouldn’t have
a triple-fronted brick veneer anymore.
Postmodernism
A
good example of postmodernism is Federation Square in Melbourne, whose recent
changes don’t impinge on recognitiom for it retains its Postmodern creation.
Hence Federation Square has been described as being part of
a deconstructivism style. In that respect post-modern architecture
involves a clever manipulation of structure to provide a more enhanced
multidimensional perspective.
Note there
is an emphasis on various aspects of human interactivity. You may have noticed,
as I have, how the square is enveloped by the surrounding buildings which
created for me a feeling of safety and intimacy. Buildings
are also designed with multiple axis points; each entrance can be a
transition zone, encouraging one to wander off almost accidentally to the next
place or passage.
The
materials used are bluestone that matches the footpaths in Melbourne and the
rich ochre-coloured sandstone blocks that reflect the Australian
outback. Hence, we could say Postmodernism incorporates many individual
separate pieces, making up the total in a seemingly haphazard way.
Another
typical aspect of Postmodernism is the ‘pinching’ of ideas (the pieces) from
anywhere, like the classics, the Romantics etc.
An excellent example is the film ‘Moonwalker’ with Michael Jackson. In this film scenes are stolen from other genres including the music to nevertheless retain its postmodern creativity.This is exemplified as it features a montage of clips of children in Africa, Martin Luther King Jr., Mother Teresa, Mahatma Gandhi, Desmond Tutu, Jesus Christ, kids in graduation, and other historical figures.
Postmodern
writing, including Slaughterhouse-Five, tends to present a
self-conscious critique of culture, society, politics, economics, and
religion. The resulting works can usually be described as fragmented,
discontinuous, and even chaotic.
In
visual art, the works of Andy Warhol and Jackson Pollock are held up as prime
examples of postmodernism. In film, classic examples include The Matrix
and Blade Runner.
Precursor to post modernism.
It is important to remember that Postmodernism, although dated to the late sixties, was prepared well before that time by various philosophers including Kierkegaard, Nietzsche Heidegger, Wittgenstein and Sartre.Derrida especially underpinned post modernism both with his philosophy and his insight on ‘reading’ and analysis.
A
typical approach for cold bloodied textural analysis independent of the
author's meaning was regarded as important.
Now,
deconstructionism extends that analysis to determine the underlying ideologies,
religious concepts in the use of words and sentences, i.e. language, which are
often inferred but hidden. A political speech would be a great example, in
which sometimes nothing is said but the political ideologies. All hidden by the
use of certain language, words and sentences.
In
a nutshell, while modernism adopted idealism and reason,
postmodernism challenged or was highly sceptical of any ideas that
involved universal certainties or truths. The principal idea was to reject
modernism's unshakable belief in progress championed by the likes of
Hegel's idea of the thinking spirit that meant each generation would learn from
the past. This led to changes in the way we see ourselves but more so for
society at large and philosophy. For instance, the existential movement was
more about creating your own meaning and the self-whilst post-mortem thinking
concerns were society's at large rejection of those modernists’ themes
previously mentioned. But postmodernism arose from Continental
Philosophy.
The Historical Background- Continental Drift – why the analytics fiercely contest the continentals and vice versa
A serious rift between the two traditions occurred at the beginning of the 20th Century with the work of G.E.Moore and Bertrand Russell. At that time, a Continental style, Hegelianism, ruled the world, dominating not only on the continent itself but also in England and America. Russell's reaction probably made the biggest impression and, in doing so, in a sense gave us what we now call ‘analytic philosophy’. The Moore-Russell movement instituted a concern with clarity, logic, and language and a prosaic, precise approach to philosophy as a reaction against what it took to be the ‘grandiose nebulosity’ of German Idealism and Hegelianism. It was a hard, precise, ‘masculine’ approach to philosophy, whereas Hegelianism might be dubbed more fluid, complex, and ‘feminine’. This set the tone not only for the way Analytic philosophy developed (from Russell and Moore to logical positivism and Wittgenstein and after), but also for the curriculum in university philosophy departments. Philosophy was studied up to the ‘crucial figure of Hume’, then a sudden jump was made (which totally ignored Continentals like Fichte, Hegel, Nietzsche, Marx and Husserl) to Russell and Moore. This gave the impression that nothing very important had happened in philosophy between Hume and Russell.
Continental philosophers, the clarity and precision of the Analytic style, they argue, are actually a mark of its myopia, parochiality, lack of real depth, and inability to see the limitation of the Analytic framework and programmed. They posit Analytic philosophers have not read, or properly understood, the criticisms levelled at Analytic philosophy by certain key figures
The
movements, some of whom are from their own tradition: Nietzsche, Heidegger, the
later Wittgenstein, Derrida and the deconstructive movement, Richard Rorty.
There
have been many attempts to modify and undermine Wittgenstein’s conclusions, but
there is no agreement as to how successful these have been.
NIETZSCHE –
He represents the end of
German Idealism, being the man who replaced Schopenhauer’s ‘will to live’ with
his own ‘will to power’ as the essential description of reality. (This is how
Nietzsche was regarded, especially by the Analytic tradition, for a long time,
but that today is generally regarded as true.
For he is a sceptic and
relativist and pro -Derrida’ who, by a series of ‘genealogical tracings’
deconstructs the truth-seeking enterprise of philosophy, as well as its passion
for reason and precision, by showing the murky psychological roots of such enterprises,
praising instead the unconscious, emotion, instinct, the body. That
appeals to many Continental and Feminist thinkers, and goes some way towards
explaining the bewildered astonishment with which Analytic philosophers respond
to the more ‘radical’ texts in contemporary continental thought.
Whether
or not Nietzsche’s philosophy is consistent – and whether that even matters! –
is one of the moot points at issue between contemporary Analytic and
Continental philosophy.
Heidegger’s
‘primordial’ return to the ‘ground of metaphysics’, they feel, has surely made
the whole framework in which Analytic philosophers discuss things inadequate,
since it has shown that the entire subject-object distinction is a secondary
and artificial construct that obscures rather than illuminates Being.
The
later Heidegger is essentially a philosopher of mysticism, and his basic
message would surprise neither Buddha, Lao-tzu, or St John of the Cross.
Mysticism
has always taught that while there is an ego differentiating a world, the
truth, or at least, reality, escapes it. The position is a recurrent one in
both philosophy and theology, and Heidegger’s is the most recent version of it.
Heidegger salvages functions
in terms of a move towards an ethics and a politics that would tend towards
‘letting beings be’, and being more circumspect about that ‘will to will’ that
drives our technological ‘in framing’ of the modern world.
The
figure of Jacques Derrida has probably aroused more adulation and fury in this
debate between the traditions than any other. His detractors – mainly Analytic
philosophers – either regard him as an incompetent charlatan or else generously
grant that he has some reasonable philosophical points to make, only
unfortunately Wittgenstein (or sometimes Nietzsche) made them all first.
Richard Rorty has described
himself both as an American Pragmatist and a ‘postmodern bourgeois liberal’. He
is significant for being one of the few Analytic philosophers who has seriously
tried to take on board Continental philosophy, and who can claim a high degree
of competence in both traditions.
What can we learn from both traditions and the conclusion.
Each
has something to contribute- Analytic philosophy and continental
philosophy each play an important role.
Philosophy
is a historical movement which seeks to provide answers to social and
political questions as well as more technical problems of logic and
epistemology. To assume that analytic philosophy is above the social and
historical currents of its time is to ignore the wider reality.
Continental
philosophy also needs to recognize that logic is important in ensuring we
provide clarity for language is connected to the ability to convey meaning, to
ensure we are making propositions we know are correct and justified.
It seems obvious that existence and being are vital to philosophy, yet analytic philosophers might ask how we know that to be true. Continental philosophy may be forgetting those basics necessary for intelligible experience. Science, logic, and the analysis of language are not the only things that matter, but neither are literature, art, and history. The balance between love and knowledge, the knowing and the doing of the good, can only proceed with a degree of humility.
