Postmodernism: A Very Short Introduction

This is an excellent installment in a very useful series. Butler’s ‘very short introduction’ to postmodernism packs in a great deal of information and successfully characterizes the movement/phenomenon. This is no mean feat, since postmodernism is sometimes used as a philosophic nexus, one that is associated with capital-T Theory and the work of the French Nietzscheans (though Lacan receives no attention here). ‘Postmodern’ is also used to characterize fiction, photography, conceptual art, architecture (especially) and, to a lesser degree, music. Butler gives examples of all of these and attempts to make sense of a notion that is quite slippery. For example, Jameson’s famous account of the Westin Bonaventure hotel in downtown Los Angeles as quintessentially ‘postmodern’ is debatable. It does not, for example, have features that call attention, obstreperously, to function, as the Frank Gehry house on the west side of town does. The Bonaventure is ‘reflexive’ to the viewer because the viewer sees his reflection in the exterior but it is not reflexive in the sense that John Barth’s novels (or, for that matter, TRISTRAM SHANDY) are/is. In other words, this is a thicket and Butler leads us through it with great skill and lucidity.The overall characteristics of postmodernism are discussed in detail; it is anti-humanist, anti-foundational, intensely skeptical, relativist and deeply suspicious of traditional notions of truth, meaning and reasoning. It is anti-empirical and jealous of science’s cultural positioning as well as its truth claims. It denies the reality of the ‘individual’ and is anxious to deconstruct any remaining faith in the reality and authenticity of ‘history’. Like the internet it collapses history into the momentary and substitutes imagery for argument.Some of the Amazon reviewers have considered Butler to be contemptuous of postmodernism and, in effect, an unfair judge. I disagree; I find him to be quite fair. There are many commentators who see postmodernism as closer to the armament of the antichrist than a philosophic/cultural current. Since we are now 14 years beyond the publication of Butler’s book it has become increasingly clear that postmodernism’s impact has waned significantly. English department applicants to graduate specialties in Theory have shrunk to almost none and current graduate students are often heard to say that they feel lucky that they escaped this particular time in literary studies. Many believe that Paul Boghossian has cut the heart out of relativist/constructivist approaches in his FEAR OF KNOWLEDGE: AGAINST RELATIVISM AND CONSTRUCTIVISM (2007).Of course, it has long been a staple of those who would criticize relativism that those who would aspire to be relativists must stand somewhere. You cannot assert the authority of relativism without, simultaneously, undercutting your own argument. The same is true of Derridean deconstruction. The endlessly sliding signifier problem and the inherently contradictory nature of language problem are often dissolved by simple context. Deconstructionists are troubled by the fact that the Greek word for medicine is also the word for poison, but as Donald Greene has pointed out, we have no confusion with regard to the meaning of the word when we see one person with a sore back take a single Valium and another desperate individual take 50, washing them down with Scotch. Similarly, ‘cleave’ means to both join and separate, but we have no trouble understanding this when we hear a minister urging a marrying couple to cleave to one another and when we see an Amsterdam diamond expert preparing to cleave a large stone. Postmodernists have urgently informed us of the weakness of Enlightenment rationality but used Enlightenment tools to defend themselves against their critics. As Thucydides put it, “it is a habit of mankind to entrust to careless hope what they long for, and to use sovereign reason to thrust aside what they do not desire” (noted by Victor Davis Hanson in his brilliant new book on WWII).Butler attributes the postmodernists’ contempt for the Enlightenment to the fact that reason, logic and the empirical method have deflated the claims of both Marx and Freud (which, for them, are essential): “Postmodernists are by and large pessimists, many of them haunted by lost Marxist revolutionary hopes” (p. 114), a point explored at length by Stephen R. C. Hicks in his very important EXPLAINING POSTMODERNISM (2004). Frederick Crews has now deflated the claims of Freud once and for all (try to find his influence on a contemporary Psychological Sciences department) and the numbers are in on the number of people slaughtered in Marxist states. Hence the argument that the use of Enlightenment principles and techniques has undercut Marx; thus, the postmodernists attempt to undercut the Enlightenment and get back into Marxist business.Ultimately, Butler concludes, “the enduring achievements of postmodernism are therefore likely to be found not within philosophy or politics, or even in moral thought, but within the artistic culture” (p.123). In short, it will be remembered in the way that Dadaism and Surrealism are remembered. It will provide influences here and there and a few of its principles will be seen in our information technology but it will not displace Platonic idealism, Aristotelian empiricism or other foundational philosophic structures. I believe that this is spot on.Highly recommended.

The worst thing about the book is that it's not an introduction. It presupposes the reader already has an in depth knowledge of several recent philosophical movements/thinkers like Foucault. If that was the case, one would surely have a good idea of what postmodernism was. Rather than an introduction, the book seems to be a condensing of an already very advanced level book. I found the book put quite a large emphasis on the artistic aspect of the movement, which is least interesting, according to modern socio-political movements and culture wars. The book also failed to discuss how the ideas of post-modernism have been heavily mainstreamed into western academic institutions since at least the 1990s, which is essentially why postmodernism ideas have become so widespread. Also unfortunate, is that the book fails to have a warning that it contains a photo of a topless almost nude women; not the kind of book you want sitting around the house for kids to discover nor to take it to another country where such material can place you in legal trouble (I travel/work abroad). Finally, the author is quite anti-postmodernism, and while I don't agree with a lot of postmodernist ideas, postmodernism is presented in quite a negative way and accordingly it also fails to explain why some of those ideas developed. Such one-sided books fail to appreciate aspects of ideas that are important or valid (like the wielding of power in society), even if they've been analyzed or acted on incorrectly.

I really liked reading Butler little book here. Enough said of postmodernism's thinking. If I was to offer again some kind of course in the humanities --I would now require three readings. 1) Yuval Noah Hatari --Sapiens A Brief History of Humankind 2) British Liberal Party journalist (I don't think they have any seats in Parliament currently) Edmund Fawcett Liberalism The Life of an Idea. This man can write a sentence. 3) And this little digest of postmodern concepts and reasoning Glenn Ward Postmodernism (Teach Yourself)These would allow me to ramble on with my brilliant fravorite notions, such as:Liberalism is the definition of what's modern. The American Liberal Way is all of Washington DC. All of it --layer on layer, the whole thing --the Supreme Court, the Legislature, The President and his dozens of agencies, millions of bureaucrats, and the millions in the Lobby --the Lobbyists. And then more layers of our State and locals governments. Samuel Adams idea --more layers of government --definitely not less --to drown everyone's special interest. Jefferson was satisfied to separate and balance power into the three branches. Adams was delighted to go further and drown power interests in more layers and power entities. The more layers the better to offset each other.What is modern, liberal, in America is all of our government and all of our economy --Wall Street, Madison avenue marketing, Modern liberal America is all of the huge Washington DC and all of the huge New York City. The beginning of the Age of Abundance. Huge and growing. We expect Science, Technology, the Economy --Abundance --will solve some problems. The World Bank says that finally less than a billion humans lived in extreme, dire poverty last year. And they believe all will be lifted above this horrible measurement by 2030. What can America do with a medium household income of $100.000? That is just twice what we already enjoy --$52,000/year. The center of American politics and culture is not some kind of bell shaped curve of lots of half-ignorant people in the center between left and right wing extremists. The center, the heart, of American politics and culture is Corporatism --the corporations and their opinion maker --television. The television commercials. Let's face it --the Center of America is us corporate lackeys. With good paying college educated jobs and about s many much poorer paying No-College-Degree jobs. The old Bourgeois and Proletariat. The political parties particularly, corporate America's television, and TV's supporting journalism and intellectual efforts --do like the sentimental idea of ignorant America seriously listening to TV and the newspapers to tell them what issues are important and what important posture candidates are holding. We are supposed to be undecided. No one is "undecided'. Ever since high school we know the difference between Republicans and Democrats. The Party job holders and TV needs the nearly billion dollars spent on campaigning. It's a sweet myth --like so many bad ideas all cultures have suffered --and could not change. All people have suffered bad ideas --America is licked in the wretched notion of a right to too many very high powered and uncontrolled guns. It's deeply a part of us.There is so much to talk about. And this Postmodernism is part of the stuff needed today to begin to build their own knowledge base and opinions.

The first point of merit is the fact that the publishers of this series has elected to add this to the collection. The question of 'what is postmodernism' has been a much contended question. Butler gives consideration to notable figures/illuminaries, the question of what is modernism, and the apparent commonality postmodernists share in realms of philosophy, aesthetics, perspectives, among other considerations from pertinent fields.

This book was the perfect tool for my studies in Fine Art at University. Written in simple to understand terms, it offers the reader a condensed version of events surrounding Postmodernism. Handy small size too, for carrying around.

See my comments on Foucault. The same limitations apply really.

A good read on this complex issue.

Excelent summary of the situation