What is Postmodernism, Anyway?

Many papers that set out to define a concept introduce a simplified thesis at the beginning which is highly likely to be followed by the author's attempt to elaborate by presenting a multitude of examples that seem to support the main point. A difficulty arises when the given concept is one that cannot be summarized in one succinct sentence. When postmodernism itself is the subject of a paper, it seems only appropriate that the paper be composed in a "postmodern" sort of mindset, without claiming to lump all the ideas that constitute this broad way of experiencing the world into one neat little package. According to postmodern though, that package would possess different contents for each person who opened it. It would possibly even carry different concepts for the same person opening at different points in time, or within different contexts. It would be quite difficult to write a paper entitled, "What is Postmodernism?" due to the fact that there could be no full, concrete answer to that question. According to one author, "Postmodernism is best understood not as a rigid concept or a coherent ideological stance but as a bundle of shared impulses and tendencies amounting to a kind of common spirit... postmodernism is an attitude, and that attitude is definitively ironic" (Lehman, 5). Instead of attempting to define the un-definable, this paper will attempt to relay how an understanding of postmodernism can influence one's personal perception of not only literature, but aspects of life and culture as well.

In order to understand postmodern thought, it is first important to realize what it is not. The definition of modernism seems to be the most accurate description for the opposite of postmodernism. Modernist thought is based on the Enlightenment philosophy that humans have the capability to find absolute truth through reason, logic, and science. A modernist would believe that technology and innovation through science could help people discover these universal "truths" (Gaggi, 19). A modernist might suggest that these ideas could be used for the betterment of society as a whole, that a "utopia" could exist on earth. The problem that these ideas do not address is that the world consists of many different cultures and subcultures, with no two alike. In the fifteenth century, Sir Thomas More wrote a book entitled Utopia, which could be considered an early version of modernist thought. Even in this ideal society, problems existed. The only way for outsiders to join this society was to become slaves for life (More, 57). The people in this society were represented as being happy, but even More realized that this idea of culture was completely incompatible with the rest of the world (More, 84-85).

Postmodernism addresses the fact that different cultures cannot be expected to agree on some universal value system or common ontology. One of the most obvious examples of this can be illustrated through the concept of organized religion in different areas of the world. A modernist thinker would assume that there is one correct religion which should be observed by all (Grenz, 73). However, postmodernists would examine the ways that different religions have taken root in different areas around the world. Some religions may be more widespread, but that does not necessarily mean they are any more "true" than the multitude of other belief systems. The following quote by Jared Diamond in his book entitled Guns, Germs, and Steel, attempts to explain why certain world views have persisted throughout history:

As recently as A.D. 1500, less than 20 percent of the world's land area was marked off by boundaries into states run by bureaucrats and governed by laws. Today, all land except Antarctica's is so divided. Descendants of those societies that achieved centralized government and organized religion earliest ended up dominating the modern world. (Diamond, 266-267)

This theory seems to explain why many aspects of culture, while often taken for granted as "normal," and therefore "true", can be traced back to the geographical spread of ideas.

For example, Christianity was spread to much of the Americas as a result of the Catholic explorers who forced conversion on the natives they found in more primitive areas. Some may have been baptized willingly, but those who resisted were often killed, and the traditional religious practices of these cultures were usually banned. Thus, later generations of conquered people (such as South American Catholics) have become deeply devoted to the ideas that had been forcefully imposed on their ancestors. When examining this concept of religion from a postmodern viewpoint, it seems somewhat ridiculous to declare that one religion was correct, and the rest are not. While a present day South American may wholeheartedly believe Catholicism is the only true religion, that same South American may have been raised to value a form of the long gone Incan tradition if Catholic conquerors had not brutally overtaken his ancestors thousands of years ago. In the words of poet David Lehman, "We see what we want to see; when we aren't looking." (Lehman, 8).

As opposed to the idea of researching religion to find which one is true or to research a particular religion to prove its authenticity, a postmodern approach to religion would accept the fact that people have different faiths because of their different life experiences (Grenz, 43). It makes sense that many people have a tendency to retain the religious ideas instilled upon them as children. Others find religious affiliation that attracts them as they mature and are influenced by outside sources. Some denounce affiliation all together. Some even change faiths because of marriage, politics, geography, etc. As a child in a rural Catholic grade school, I once asked in class, "If you have to be a Christian to go to heaven, why are there so many other religions? Does everyone else go to hell?" The question was always brushed aside with vague answers like, "Well, that's something we'll just have to find out when we meet with Jesus in heaven. You should pray for those who aren't as fortunate as you." It was not until I reached college and was exposed to more open minded ways of thinking, like postmodernism, that I seriously began considering questions like these that had been pushed to the back of my mind for years.

When examining postmodernism as a concept, it is important to question knowledge in itself. People acquire knowledge in many different ways, whether it is from authority, instinct, emotion, science, or reason. Sometimes a person or group of people may think they "know" something but have absolutely no proof that it is true, except that they believe it is true. Science attempts to prove theories true beyond question. A somewhat cliché illustration of this process is this: At one point in history, many people "knew" that the earth was flat. Although people who thought differently were often ridiculed by society, science and exploration eventually led people to believe that it is, in fact, round. However, not all aspects of life that science attempts to explain are quite this clear-cut. Science is always expanding, often proving theories wrong that were once common belief. Quantum theory is an example of science that did not adhere to traditional scientific beliefs (Gaggi, 50). As the postmodern philosopher Michel Foucault points out, "the nature of knowledge cannot survive unchanged within the context of the general transformation" (Caputo, 52). This type of postmodern thinking may be confounding for those who do not question the existence of concrete truth because it would seem impossible to define truth at all, in a universal context.

Foucault addresses this paradox by explaining the concept of truth as the product of trends in history that led to common thought throughout an entire group of people or culture. He wrote, "We are subjected to the production of truth through power and we cannot exercise power except through the production of truth" (Caputo, 42). This statement may explain why entire societies could believe in something so contrary to what most people would now consider acceptable. For example, Nazi Germany's leaders were spreading powerful ideas about what was true, and the ideas took root and grew. Millions died because a more powerful group of people believed in carrying out these ideas (Quinn, 41). This is an extreme example of the way "truth" can be arbitrary, and a person cannot always assume that all he or she "knows" is actually "true" beyond his or her own cultural constructs. Author Daniel Quinn wrote a book entitled Ishmael in which the narrator undergoes the disturbing realization that everything he takes for granted is not necessarily true, and must be questioned. He states:

...when I said that there was no such thing as certain knowledge about how people ought to live, what I meant was this: Certain knowledge is knowledge of the one right way. That's what we want... We don't want to know a way to live that works well. We want to know about the one right way. And that's what our prophets give us. And that's what our lawmakers give us. (Quinn, 204).

In literature, postmodern thought helps readers better understand works that are not didactic in meaning. This way of thinking encourages the audience to look beyond an obvious "moral of the story" to realize the many different levels of experience within a novel, poem, or other work. Postmodernism emphasizes the way a poem, for example, may have complete different meanings for different people. Not only may it carry a special, personal significance to the author, but it is sure to evoke different memories and emotions to each person who reads it. As postmodern work became more popular among certain circles, it opened up a new window of creativity to writers who wanted to express themselves outside of the traditional academic scene (Altieri, 110).

However, these works were not always accepted as valid literature because they were often so "outside the box" that they could not be molded to fit the forms that had historically defined literature (Altieri, 54). Many critical theorists, like structuralists, were investigating ways to scientifically examine literature to find common criteria that could be used in any context. "At the heart of structuralism is a scientific ambition to discover the codes, the rules, the systems, which underlie all human social and cultural practices" (Selden, 85). The following hypothetical situation describes the way postmodernism challenges these ideas of universality.

A modernist and a postmodernist are watching television when they see a commercial for a box which will be delivered, guaranteed to contain something the customer wants. The two begin to argue about whether some universal item that would please everyone could possibly exist. The modernist might say yes, that something could exist which any person would be happy to receive. The postmodernist answers maybe; maybe there is something that anyone would like, but it would make more sense to take each person's age, demographics, personality, interests, and immediate situation when they open the box into consideration. This way, if a person is starving, the box could contain food. If a person is locked out, the box could contain a key. If it is raining, it could hold an umbrella. Meanwhile, the modernist attempts to think of something to which no one would be allergic, something no one could be too young to appreciate: something anyone could use. The postmodernist reminds him that even something that would seem universally pleasing, like a picture of a beautiful landscape, might offend someone who has studied art, who might find the picture cliché or boring. The modernist finally decides that money is the answer because everyone would want more money.

However, the postmodernist points out that money comes in different currencies, and would have to be adjusted accordingly to be of use to the receiver. Also, money would not be appropriate for a baby, who would probably just try to eat it. What if the box is delivered while a person is stranded on a desert island with no way to use it? The postmodernist argues that for any object the modernist can name, there would be some context in which the object would not be appreciated. After several rounds of this challenging game, the modernist says he is being cynical, and just because he can't think of the perfect object does not mean it could not ever exist. They finally must agree to disagree. The problem is that the modernist wants to find something tangible to put in the box while the postmodernist is focused on what lies outside it.

This illustration can be extended to literature and the ongoing discourse on how it should be interpreted. Some realists like Marxist Georg Lukács focused on the idea that "the novel reflects reality, not by rendering its mere surface appearance, but by giving us 'a truer, more complete, more vivid and more dynamic reflection of reality'" (Selden, 94). This approach to literature would seem to assume that there is a concrete reality that may be reflected. On the other hand, later Marxist critics like Fredric Jameson leaned toward dialectical thought, which would include the idea that the critic "has no pre-set categories to apply to literature and will always be aware that his or her chosen categories (style, character, image, etc.) must be understood ultimately as an aspect of the critic's own historical situation" (Selden, 113). Given the nature of the concept of postmodernism, it is not surprising that there is diversity among the critics of postmodernism as an approach to literature (Selden, 201).

Much of postmodern criticism serves to reexamine past ideas that were based on thoughts of universal truth. According to Jean-François Lyotard, a skeptic of Marxism who wanted to find new ways of interpretation, "The results of modernization have been bureaucracy, oppression and misery as the Enlightenment narrative of liberation and equality has ground into its opposite" (Selden, 209). Some critics, like Brian McHale, focus on the way that postmodern works are often de-centered, and that "neither the world nor the self any longer possesses unity, coherence, meaning" (Selden, 202). Some theorists combined postmodern ideas with feminist theory. According to Linda Nicholson, this "can help to avoid the tendency to construct theory that generalizes from the experiences of Western, white middle class women" (Selden, 213). These are only a few views of the varied discourse of postmodernism in literature.

Postmodernism is a suggestion of ways to view the world without focusing on what is considered "main stream." In fact, the concept could be illustrated as the idea that there is no one main stream, but many streams which may cross paths and flow in various directions. There is no common starting point or end, but the entire mess can make one beautiful, chaotic experience. To me, this is a way to approach life with an open mind, allowing oneself to recognize the diversity of cultures on this planet without assuming an egocentric approach that any one is better than the rest. This may seem idealistic, but I believe that if everyone realized they did not have to be "right" all the time, if people could embrace the differences that are part of reality, the world could be a much more peaceful place.

References

Altieri, Charles. Postmodernism Now. The Pennsylvania State University Press. University Park, Pennsylvania: 1998.

Caputo, John & Yount, Mark. Foucault and the Critique of Institutions. The Pennsylvania State University Press. University Park, Pennsylvania: 1993.

Diamond, Jared. Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. W. W. Norton & Company. New York, NY: 1999.

Gaggi, Silvio. Modernism/Postmodernism: A Study in Twentieth Century Arts and Ideas. University of Pennsylvania Press. Philadephia: 1989.

Grenz, Stanley. A Primer on Postmodernism. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. Grand Rapids, Michigan: 1996.

Lehman, David. The Big Question. The University of Michigan Press. Ann Arbor, Michigan: 1995.

Lehman, David. Operation Memory. Princeton University, Princeton, NJ: 1990.

More, Sir Thomas. Utopia. Dover Publications. Mineola, NY: 1997.

Quinn, Daniel. Ishmael. Bantam Turner Books. New York, NY: 1992.

Selden, Raman; Widdowson, Peter; Brooker, Peter. A Reader's Guide to Contemporary Literary Theory. Prentice Hall. London: 1997.