Charles Murray, a strong critic of postmodernism, defines the term:
"By
contemporary intellectual fashion, I am referring to the constellation of views
that come to mind when one hears the words multicultural, gender, deconstruct,
politically correct, and Dead White Males. In a broader sense, contemporary intellectual fashion encompasses as
well the widespread disdain in certain circles for technology and the
scientific method. Embedded in this mind-set is hostility to the idea that
discriminating judgments are appropriate in assessing art and literature, to
the idea that hierarchies of value exist, hostility to the idea that an
objective truth exists. Postmodernism is the overarching label that is attached
to this perspective." [1]
Though
One example is the figure of Harold Bloom, who
has simultaneously been hailed as being against multiculturalism and contemporary "fads" in literature, and also placed as an
important figure in postmodernism. If even the critics cannot keep score as to
which side of a supposedly clear line figures stand on, the best conclusion
that can be drawn is that conclusions about membership in the post-modern club
are provisional.
Central to the debate is the role of the concept of
"objectivity" and what it means. In the broadest sense, denial of
objectivity is held to be the post-modern position, and a
hostility towards claims advanced on the basis of objectivity its
defining feature. It is this underlying hostility toward the concept of objectivity,
evident in many contemporary critical theorists, that is the common point of attack for critics of postmodernism. Many
critics characterise postmodernism as an ephemeral
phenomenon that cannot be adequately defined simply because, as a philosophy at
least, it represents nothing more substantial than a series of disparate
conjectures allied only in their distrust of modernism.
This antipathy of postmodernists towards modernism, and their consequent
tendency to define themselves against it, has also attracted criticism. It has
been argued that modernity was not actually a lumbering, totalizing monolith at
all, but in fact was itself dynamic and ever-changing; the evolution,
therefore, between 'modern' and 'postmodern' should be seen as one of degree,
rather than of kind - a continuation rather than a 'break'. One theorist who
takes this view is Marshall Berman, whose book All That is Solid Melts into
Air (a quote from Marx) reflects in its title the fluid nature of 'the experience of
modernity'.
As noted above (see History of postmodernism), some theorists
such as Habermas even argue that the supposed
distinction between the 'modern' and the 'postmodern' does not exist at all,
but that the latter is really no more than a development within a larger,
still-current, 'modern' framework. Many who make this argument are left academics with Marxist leanings, such as Terry Eagleton, Fredric Jameson, and David Harvey, who
are concerned that postmodernism's undermining of Enlightenment values makes a
progressive cultural politics difficult, if not impossible. How can we effect
any change in people's poor living conditions, in inequality and injustice, if
we don't accept the validity of underlying universals such as the 'real world'
and 'justice' in the first place? How is any progress to be made through a
philosophy so profoundly skeptical of the very notion of progress, and of
unified perspectives? The postmodern vision of a tolerant, pluralist society in
which every political ideology is perceived to be as valid, or as redundant, as
the other; may ultimately encourage individuals to lead lives of a rather
disastrous apathetic quietism. This reasoning leads Habermas
to compare postmodernism with conservatism and the preservation of the status
quo.
Such critics may argue that, in actual fact, such postmodern premises
are rarely, if ever, actually embraced — that if they were, we would be left
with nothing more than a crippling radical subjectivism. That the projects of the Enlightenment and modernity are alive and
well can be seen in the justice system, in science, in political rights
movements, in the very idea of universities; and so on.
To some critics, there seems, indeed, to be a glaring contradiction in
maintaining the death of objectivity and privileged position on one hand, while
the scientific community continues a project of unprecedented scope to unify
various scientific disciplines into a theory of everything, on the other. Hostility toward hierarchies of value and objectivity becomes similarly problematic when postmodernity itself attempts to analyse
such hierarchies with, apparently, some measure of objectivity and make
categorical statements concerning them.
Such critics see postmodernism as, essentially, a kind of semantic
gamesmanship, more sophistry than substance. Postmodernism's proponents are
often criticised for a tendency to indulge in
exhausting, verbose stretches of rhetorical gymnastics, which critics feel
sound important but are ultimately meaningless. (Some postmodernists may argue
that this is precisely the point.) In the Sokal Affair, Alan Sokal, a physicist, wrote a deliberately nonsensical article purportedly
about interpreting physics and mathematics in terms of postmodern theory, which
was nevertheless published by Social Text, a journal which he called postmodernist. Sokal
claimed this highlighted the postmodern tendency to value rhetoric and verbal
gamesmanship over serious meaning. Sokal also
co-wrote Fashionable Nonsense, which criticizes the inaccurate use of scientific terminology in intellectual
writing and finishes with a critique of some forms of postmodernism.
Ironically, postmodern literature often self-consciously plays on the format
and structure of scientific writing, emphasizing the distinction between
the complex content of the world and its understanding in written form. That
is, some postmodern literature and art says "This is not a pipe", as would the study of semiotics.
Some critics feel that postmodernism is so strongly linked to politics
that it does not qualify as a philosophy. They argue that most of the adherents
of postmodern philosophy are Leftists. These critics claim that, inasmuch as
many postmodernist arguments rely on charges of racism and ethnocentrism in traditional Western science, it is little more than an attempt to
impose their own political agenda on the sciences.
Whatever its philosophical value, postmodern phenomena can be observed
in nearly all areas of Western capitalist cultures, and a postmodern theoretical approach can help explain much
of this cultural condition, irrespective of whether it offers a coherent,
functional epistemology.
In philosophy, where the term "post-modernism" is associated
very specifically with post-structuralism, and specifically with anti-foundationalist
tendencies, the term post-modernity is often used to describe the results of
being a post-modern, as opposed to the conditions which lead to being a
post-modern. This usage is generally a prelude to a critique of
post-structuralism or deconstructionism based on the perceived consquences of being a
post-modern. (See Critiques Below).