post modernism

[Brainaddict]

I'm not fan of most of what has been written so far, but the central premise of PM - that while there are patterns within human behaviour there are no overriding narratives and that any that are seen are simply a way to impose one set of views on a situation - is a far more complex way of looking at things then modernism. Only at the moment the actual process of thinking about it comes out as intellectualised gibberish.

Coming late to this argument, but I agree with this. I agree with a lot of postmodern thought but long for someone (influential) to express it in a way that doesn't make them sound like an onanist.

 

[exosculate]

Coming late to this argument, but I agree with this. I agree with a lot of postmodern thought but long for someone (influential) to express it in a way that doesn't make them sound like an onanist.

PM is an amazing critical tool, but its a crap practical tool.

It will explain in fine detail why using a table spoon to dig a pond in ones garden is a bad idea. But it would never recommend using a spade.

 

[Brainaddict]

PM is an amazing critical tool, but its a crap practical tool.

It will explain in fine detail why using a table spoon to dig a pond in ones garden is a bad idea. But it would never recommend using a spade.

Yeah, I kind of agree, which is why I would never set it up as a separate system of thought to modernism - I see it as a (very) necessary adjunct to modernism. People sometimes disagree with me on this, but I find them unconvincing

 

[kyser_soze]

PM is an amazing critical tool, but its a crap practical tool.

It will explain in fine detail why using a table spoon to dig a pond in ones garden is a bad idea. But it would never recommend using a spade.

So, to use another metaphor, it shows you the tree in immense detail, but misses the wood completely?

 

[exosculate]

So, to use another metaphor, it shows you the tree in immense detail, but misses the wood completely?

I think so.

Of course its great at deconstructing grand narratives communism/fascism/religion/ideology in general etc, and we all know how much damage these sorts of narratives have done. So thats a real plus.

When you look at the left as it is at present (albeit meaninglessly small) you see many left advocates are carrying on with different versions of these over-arching narratives, so lessons really don't get learnt, and again PM is really useful.

On the other hand how does PM deal with the most pressing issue of practical importance today, where we clearly need a coherent narrative - namely the environment - well it finds itself way out of its depths I think.

 

[exosculate]

Yeah, I kind of agree, which is why I would never set it up as a separate system of thought to modernism - I see it as a (very) necessary adjunct to modernism. People sometimes disagree with me on this, but I find them unconvincing

Totally.

 

[Brainaddict]

I think so.

Of course its great at deconstructing grand narratives communism/fascism/religion/ideology in general etc, and we all know how much damage these sorts of narratives have done. So thats a real plus.

When you look at the left as it is at present (albeit meaninglessly small) you see many left advocates are carrying on with different versions of these over-arching narratives, so lessons really don't get learnt, and again PM is really useful.

On the other hand how does PM deal with the most pressing issue of practical importance today, where we clearly need a coherent narrative - namely the environment - well it finds itself way out of its depths I think.

That's made me think - we as human beings think in narratives - always have done, for reasons unknown. I know that a postmodernist would say that we ought to focus on micro-narratives rather than grand narratives, but when you come to something like the environment, where (ideally) you need the cooperation of everyone in the world, it makes you think that some kind of grand narrative might actually be needed.
It would be a mistake to then think that the narrative was objectively *true*, but you could argue that it was necessary - but the kind of the thinking you need to construct/justify that narrative would essentially be modernist thinking, no?

 

[exosculate]

Well.....

that some kind of grand narrative might actually be needed.

I think so.


It would be a mistake to then think that the narrative was objectively *true*, but you could argue that it was necessary - but the kind of the thinking you need to construct/justify that narrative would essentially be modernist thinking, no?

I definitely think so.

 

[cybertect]

One way of looking at postmodernism is to see it as a set of very nice stage curtains and when you pull them back you see nothing but a brick wall.

In PoMo architectural terms that would be one of Robert Venturi's Decorated Sheds

 

[kyser_soze]

I think the environment is a classic case of how a meta-narrative is not impossible to create, but impossible to grasp in one go.

The environment has 000s of mini-narratives of varying influence and size - from the lifecycle of a bug around a specific tree to something like the carbon cycle, and while all of them are interlinked, have you ever tried to hold even a partial model of how each different bit of the earth's ecosystem is interlinked? It makes my head hurt the same way thinking about infinity did when I was a kid!

BUT it's not necessary to have that kind of grand narrative in order to create reasons why there needs to be a call to action on the issue - what's needed is a change in approach to how people see the planet, a move away from the religious 'the earth is ours to do as we will with' view, which Modernism, with it's deification of science as a means of social progress, is a secular continuation of.

So th environment becomes a meta-narrative that you don't have to know how it all works at every level - rather, the environment can be 'saved' by billions of small, tiny actions that can be understood within their sub-narratives, and this can be applied across the board.

Might even help people develop a sense of perspective about how far it's worth developing their 'eco friendly' behaviour so you don't end up with some of the ridiculous scenarios I've read about in that Guardian column on green living...hopefully that might also avoid the whole thing turning into a quasi-religious thing with the concommitant dogma and potential for oppression that brings with it.

 

[Brainaddict]

a move away from the religious 'the earth is ours to do as we will with' view, which Modernism, with it's deification of science as a means of social progress, is a secular continuation of.

I kind of see what you're saying, but you've also done the classic thing that postmodernism is good at - describing what we should move away from without describing what we should move towards.

You say there should be a 'change of approach', but in what direction?

 

[kyser_soze]

You say there should be a 'change of approach', but in what direction?

I might sound a bit of a hippy in this, but bear with me...

At present all thinking about the environment works in reverse - we look at what we do and establish what is 'good' or 'bad' for the planet, be that pesonal behaviour, national policy or even science to an extent. I think the situation should rather be that consideration for impact and consequence is first - a reversal of the current situation.

There also needs to be a re-balancing of how the market works - at present it still pays to pollute, but by placing environmental impact assessment at the heart of policymaking you could start to change things within a market mechanism - for example, insisting that a high percentage recycled materials are used in consumer goods; food pricing that includes the food miles it generates on the packaging; making media companies like Sky include the carbon footprint of all the decoders they sell which can't be turned off standby; changing the policymaking environment so that instead of the 'one way of doing it' system we seem to have at the moment WRT energy generation, that policy matches rhetoric...just a few ideas, but in the same way that Marx made class the basis of everything, environment needs to be given a similar position.

I hope that's clear...

 

[Brainaddict]

but in the same way that Marx made class the basis of everything, environment needs to be given a similar position.

So you *are* suggesting a grand narrative then?

I don't entirely disagree btw - just trying to get at the nitty gritty of what you're suggesting - and whether it's modern or postmodern.

 

[kyser_soze]

Ah bollocks...

This is where we run up against language really - it's more seeing development through the context of good environmental practice, but being pragmatic about it - i.e. attempting to avoid developing a formalised meta-narrative, while still operating under an informal 'shower' of mini-narratives...

Which just sounds like flim-flam really...

 

[Brainaddict]

Ah bollocks...

This is where we run up against language really - it's more seeing development through the context of good environmental practice, but being pragmatic about it - i.e. attempting to avoid developing a formalised meta-narrative, while still operating under an informal 'shower' of mini-narratives...

Which just sounds like flim-flam really...

Yes

 

[118118]

I always find it strange that people are so quick to say that there are truths that are beyond human understanding.

It just sounds really weird and a bit like rubbish (no offence). Dunno, but perhaps it can't be a "truth" if its beyond humans. Now if someone were going to say that there are truths/realities that can never be known - because of the practical difficulties of looking at them (if we can sparate out understanding and manipulation). That would sound less mental/etc.

Imho