Postmodernism for the uninitiated
Mark T
© 1999 Clare O'Farrell
in Daphne Meamore, Bruce Burnett, Peter O'Brien (eds)
Understanding Education: Contexts and Agendas for the New Millennium,
Sydney: Prentice Hall. pp. 11-17.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
You may have heard the joke: 'what do you get when you cross a mafiosi
with a postmodernist?' The answer of course is 'someone who will make you an
offer you can't understand'. It is the pinnacle of trendiness in much
contemporary writing including the latest theory on education to attach the
word 'post' to as many 'isms' as you can lay your hands on: postcolonialism,
poststructuralism, postindustrialism, postfordism. Feel free to invent your
own 'posts'! The term 'postmodernism', however, has the advantage of being
able to encompass just about all of the aforementioned 'posts', and it is my
aim here in the face of what might seem to be insurmountable difficulties
occasioned by the undeniably weighty concrete boots of 'theory' to attempt
to bring some clarity to the situation.
A quick trip to the library in search of enlightenment only brings
more confusion. Opening a book with the hermetic title Postmodernism and
Heterology, one reads: 'the paradigmatics of and pragmatics of the game, the
philosophies of erotics, and the privilege accorded the work of art and
literature-as players in the critical/theoretical field-have to be related
to the question of writing in post-structuralism' (Pefanis, 1991 p.5). One
need not leave this book open too long! Things are no better when one opens
a book titled Postmodern Education by well known educational theorists
Stanley Aronowitz and Henry Giroux (1991, p.59) one reads: 'briefly put the
postmodern condition refers to the various discursive and structural
transformations that characterise what can be called a postmodernism culture
in the era of late capitalism'. In short, postmodernism is postmodernism, so
there!! Another major problem apart from the mind boggling obscurity of some
of these proponents of the postmodern, is that none of them, it would seem,
can agree over what the term 'postmodern' actually means. Indeed, many would
argue that this very lack of agreement is in itself one of the
distinguishing features of the 'postmodern'.
Modernism
But all is not lost, it is in fact possible to throw some light on
this confused state of affairs and the best place to start is historically,
at the beginning. The term 'postmodern' originally appeared in the domains
of art and architecture and has since spread to the areas of literary and
cultural theory, philosophy and political and educational theory. As you
will note, the word is made up of two components: 'post' (after) and
'modern'. (Incidentally, one can only wonder what comes after the
postmodern: the post-postmodern?, postmodernism cubed? But, I will leave
aside such frivolous speculation for the moment.) It might be best to start
with some definitions of what is meant by 'modern' and then move on to
define how the postmodern differs from this. Generally philosophical
commentators tend to situate the birth of the Modern in the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries with the Age of Enlightenment or the Age of Reason as
it is often called. However, I might point out that The New Cambridge Modern
History (1957-79) locates the birth of the Modern in the fifteenth century
with the Renaissance. But, for the sake of convenience here, I will locate
the birth of the modern just prior to the Enlightenment in the seventeenth
century with philosopher René Descartes' (1596-1650) famous dictum 'I think,
therefore I am'. This dictum in fact sums up the whole 'Enlightenment
project' as it is often referred to. It is this project that postmodernism
declares is dead and whose final death agonies began in the 1960s. Modernism
has not ceased to expire since then and the collapse of the Soviet Empire
and communism in 1989 has added a further nail to the coffin of a not quite
dead corpse.
So just what is the 'Enlightenment project'? It can in fact be summed
up quite neatly by Descartes' aphorism. This expresses the idea, that
through the use of intellect and reason, principally in the form of science,
humanity can understand the universe and find solutions to all the problems
which plague existence. In other words, the judicious use of reason and our
powers of rational science will eventually solve all our political and
social problems as well as allow us to master our physical environment in
the form of our own bodies as well as the broader natural environment. The
Enlightenment project subscribes to the idea that we can build on our
knowledge as we build a wall with bricks. As the nineteenth century poet
Samuel Taylor Coleridge (1772-1834) would have it knowledge proceeds by
stepping on the shoulders of the giants who went before us: 'the dwarf sees
farther than the giant, when he has the giant's shoulder to mount on'. This
is progress.
Intellectuals, writers, artists, scientists, educators, political
theorists and militants, are all architects of the modern-forever pushing
forward the frontiers of knowledge and experience. The most adventurous
pioneers of the modern are the avant garde who react against the dead weight
of tradition and all that resists the general progress of rational human
enlightenment. Modernism, therefore could be described as an optimistic
project of hoisting ourselves up by our own bootstraps.
But have we in fact hoist ourselves on our own petards? In other words
where has all this 'progress' actually got us? Apart from a more comfortable
life style for a fraction of the world's population, things seem no better,
no more certain than they were before, even after two centuries of mammoth
effort. And what exactly does the idea of 'certainty' mean? If the modernist
project promotes a gradual brick by brick approach to knowledge, it also
promotes the idea that we can eventually work out the 'reason' for the way
things are, the 'truth' of the matter. That is, if we think hard enough and
collect enough information then we might just find that principle of
scientific and social order which would make everything clear and solve all
our problems. If we could just find that one rational and 'unbiased'
curriculum, that infallible method of school discipline the new could
educate children for a perfect society. Further to this, the whole notion of
the 'right' political system (for example 'democracy' or 'communism') and of
the possibility of a definitive 'political solution' for social problems is
a modernist one. The totalitarian regimes which have characterised the
twentieth century are all prime examples of the modernist approach.
Postmodernism
Hence it was that two World Wars, several revolutions and
dictatorships later, some thinkers began to have their doubts. Very well,
they argued, so we have got rid of God and other such unfounded
'superstitions'. We are using our intellects to the maximum and science is
forging ahead, but something is still wrong. Things are not working out as
planned. The idea of a unified rational explanation, of a political or
scientific solution, far from bringing a promised utopia, has instead
resulted in mass slaughter and vast numbers enslaved and excluded from
mainstream society on a scale unprecedented in human history. A schooling
system which promised social equality and enlightenment for all has done
little more than reinforce social division and entrench new forms of
conformity, ignorance and exclusion. Was this the happiness and social
harmony promised by the Enlightenment philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau
(1712-1778) and nineteenth century economist Karl Marx (1818-1883)? Was a
devastated natural environment the only outcome of the scientific search to
improve our physical living conditions? Clearly there was something very
wrong indeed with the whole idea that unaided Reason and rationality could
save us, and this is the kind of criticism that the French thinker Michel
Foucault (1926-1984) put forward in his classic 1961 (trans. 1970) work
Madness and Civilisation: A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason.
In this book Foucault argues that Reason created its own power base by
brutally excluding a whole section of the population - the insane, the
debauched, defrocked priests, homosexuals, criminals, prostitutes, single
mothers and any number of other 'unreasonable' people. In the old religious
regime of the Middle Ages, salvation had always been possible because
ultimately only God could judge and read the hearts of men. There was always
the possibility of communication with God and a life beyond death if all
transaction with the rest of the human race failed. In short, the excluded
still had some value, even if only in the eyes of God. Further to this,
those still integrated into society could save their own souls by acting
charitably towards the poor and excluded. But the Age of Reason violently
destroyed even this kind of belonging for the excluded. To be human was to
be rational, therefore those who were not rational were no longer human.
They had no value of any kind except as a warning to those tempted not to
conform, or if they were still physically and mentally able, as a cheap
labour force, little better than subhuman slaves.
In 1967 (trans. 1976), another French thinker Jacques Derrida (1930-)
announced the project of 'deconstruction', in which he set out to show that
at the deepest level, there is no system, no theory, no science or political
system which rests on entirely rational foundations. There is always a point
which precedes reason, a point where one makes an assumption, a declaration
of belief or faith. Even physics is based on an assumption, namely the
belief that matter exists and that it is possible to discover at least some
of its 'laws'. With such damning indictments the postmodern era was born. As
the word 'post' indicates, the claim is that the ideas of the 'modern' era
are no longer valid-that the notion of a central unifying truth is no longer
operative.
But it was Jean François Lyotard (1924-1998), yet another French
thinker, who first popularised the word 'postmodernism' in the domain of
social theory. His book The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge
(trans. 1984) was originally delivered as a report to the Universities
Council of the government of Quebec in 1979 and focuses extensively on
current and future trends in the areas of knowledge and education. This
extraordinarily influential book is perhaps even more relevant today than it
was in 1979.
The big story ('grand narrative') of modernism, he says, has been
replaced by a whole range of competing 'small stories'. No longer, for
example, can the call: 'a free and equal education for all' provide a
universal rallying point. Instead, we have a collection of quite separate
and isolated groups often with conflicting or even mutually exclusive
beliefs and goals: groups which might include feminists, homosexuals,
environmentalists, neo-Nazis, Christian and Islamic fundamentalists or any
number of other interest groups. It is very hard to mount a modernist
universal call for justice and truth when so many cannot agree over what
these things are or indeed over whether they exist at all.
The term 'postmodern' further describes the rejection of certain types
of 'totalising historical or social schemas' particularly as they have been
inherited from Hegel (1770-1831) and Marx and other nineteenth century
thinkers. It also rejects such notions as the idea that there can only be
one form of education, one form of curriculum suitable for all students and
that all students are rewarded or punished according to their just desserts
by this system. Strictly speaking one could describe postmodernism as a form
of anarchism. It is a rejection of any overarching orderly schema and
explanation. If postmodern fragmentation frees society at least to some
extent from the tyranny of one voice, one ideology and one set of meanings
it also produces a number of other, perhaps less desirable, effects in the
way knowledge and education are perceived and organised. The transition from
modernism to postmodernism is not an easy one and the clash of the two work
views can be seen particularly clearly in the arena of education. As Lyotard
argues, the question asked by the state, by students, by schools and
universities is no longer 'is it true' but 'is this knowledge useful?' In an
environment where money is all, this question also becomes 'how much money
be made out of this knowledge?' and further 'will this knowledge make the
process of making money more efficient? In short , knowledge is no longer
assessed in terms of its truth or falsity or its promotion of justice, but
in terms of its efficiency at making money. AS Lyotard continues, it is only
in the context of the big story of modernism, of '-the life of the spirit
and/or the emancipation of humanity-that the partial replacement of teachers
by machines may seem inadequate or even intolerable' (Lyotard 1984, p.51)
That other great icon of postmodern thought, French sociologist Jean
Baudrillard (1929-), takes the postmodern logic to its radical extreme.
Baudrillard's (1993) work concentrates on the famous 'crisis in
representation'. What this means is that signs-words, concepts and so on-no
longer refer to real material things, they only refer to each other. This is
of course in line with the notorious proclamation by another nineteenth
century philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) that 'there are no facts
only interpretations'. So, for example when I go to the supermarket to buy a
can of dog food, I am not so much buying the real dog food as the labeled
product: I am buying all those happy television canines bounding through the
fields towards their well groomed, well adjusted masters and mistresses.
Baudrillard argues that there are no longer any links between our sign
systems, or our languages and a central reality or meaning. Advertising
companies sell the image of a car, rather than the car itself. For
Jean-François Lyotard there is still a monolithic system which must be
resisted and fought against. For Baudrillard, this system no longer exists.
All boundaries have already disappeared as the sign 'is liberated for any
archaic obligation to designate anything at all'.
This process can be seen emerging very clearly in the current context
of the 'marketisation' of schooling. In a climate of increasingly reduced
government funding, schools are forced to market themselves to attract
'clients' and money. Glossy brochures, prospectuses and websites all
advertise an 'image' of a school. Prospective 'clients' depending on their
niche in the postmodern diaspora can buy the image of 'tradition',
disciplined middle class respectability and quietly displayed old money.
Alternately they might decide to opt for high tech glitz with all its
promise of excitement, money and membership of a club that excludes others
in its adoption of technobabble code. Or in a world where performance and
representation is all, these prospective clients may choose a school which
offers the tantalising possibility of an entrée into the exclusive and
glamorous world of the performance arts and the media. For the more
communitarian minded, other schools may offer the possibility of a tightly
knit community where all may belong and be cared for. The day to day grind
of actual educational practice is absent here-one buys not an education but
a lifestyle.
Conclusion
It is too late to be either 'for' or 'against' postmodernism-there is
little point in being nostalgic for the old modernist world view ('truth,
justice and the American way') in a society where information technology and
globalisation have set the parameters for performance. Indeed, it has become
increasingly clear in recent years that modernism itself has become nothing
more than one of the many 'small stories' in circulation. Rather than
harking back to old models it might be better to take up the challenge and
ask 'what now?' How can one work to ensure one's freedoms (ability to
choose) in this scenario? A whole range of exciting new possibilities open
up before us. Perhaps we need to go beyond the notion of any rigidly fixed
social identities, no matter how countercultural these might be, and to
engage in an ongoing and open ended process of negotiation. The aim of this
negotiation would not be the kind of vague consensus which is the modernist
ideal, but a negotiation which recognises (rather than merely tolerates)
differences of all kinds and not simply those which are the current flavour
of the month. To speak in even more utopian terms (particularly in a society
which is subject to more and more intense forms of surveillance and
regulation), it should perhaps be a form of negotiation which aims to
maximise the choices (freedoms) of all participants. This is a project which
can be implemented at the most everyday classroom level. Instead of using
education to train students to calmly accept their fate as specialised and
highly regulated workers mindlessly perpetuating an increasingly complex and
hierarchically ordered economy, students should be invited at every possible
to consider and imagine alternative scenarios no matter how seemingly
impractical. After all yesterday's dream is today's reality. If the
education system can be used to train, to prepare willing and competent
workers, it can also be used to invite people to ask questions about what
competence means and about why 'work' and material production is currently
such a high social priority. In short, if education can be a machine for
social conformity, it can also be a machine for the investigation of new
horizons and new possibilities. The proliferation of 'difference' and
uncertainty in the postmodern world, far from being a problem, is a constant
invitation to imagine the unimaginable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
Aronowitz, Stanley and Giroux, Henry A. (1991). Postmodern Education:
Politics, Culture, and Social Criticism. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
Baudrillard, Jean (1993). Symbolic Exchange and Death. Translated by
Iain Hamilton Grant; with an introduction by Mike Gane. London: Sage
Derrida, Jacques (1976). Of Grammatology. Translated by Gayatri
Chakravorty Spivak. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Foucault, Michel (1970). Madness and Civilisation: A History of
Insanity in the Age of Reason. Translated by Richard Howard, Introduction by
David Cooper. London: Tavistock.
Lyotard, Jean-François (1984). The Postmodern Condition: A Report on
Knowledge. Translation from the French by Geoff Bennington and Brian Massumi
Manchester: Manchester University Press.
The New Cambridge Modern History (1957-79). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Pefanis, Julian (1991). Heterology and the Postmodern. North Sydney:
Allen & Unwin.