Bové, Paul A.. Early Postmodernism: Foundational Essays. United Kingdom, Duke University Press, 1995, pp.1-39. Link, https://www.google.com/books/edition/Early_Postmodernism/OiowPzKwscwC?hl=en&gbpv=0
The first post-modernist terms appeared in writings on architecture, and by writers such as Philip Johnson, Michael Graves, John Portman, James Stirling, and Robert Venturi. Such writers were critical of modernism from a conflict theory perspective and sought to defend new claims about the redistribution of wealth. In The Detective and the Boundary, William V. Spanos remarks on postmodernism as a revolution in literature. He concludes that new literary artists of his time must follow the traditions of Becket, Ionesco, Sartre, Kafka, and in particular Shakespear’s King Lear. He proposes that such artists must “unhome Western man” by embracing “anxiety” and the unknown.
This text is a revealing historical depiction of the origin and continuity of postmodern philosophy. It is a fair representation of the intentions of early postmodern writers. It plainly describes the eastern leanings of postmodern writers, and properly challenges western minds to consider another perspective. Overall, it is an excellent source of knowledge about the facts on postmodernist history.
This excerpt is an invaluable discovery, as there is not much immediately available online regarding the origins of postmodern thought. Understanding the approach of postmodernists can be essential to both those who agree, as well as those who disagree- as to avoid confusion. Students researching postmodernism are sure to enjoy the frank expose.
Stuart Hall: Critical Dialogues in Cultural Studies. United Kingdom, Taylor & Francis, 2006, pp.151-71. Link, https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=ISuIAgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA151&dq=postmodern+history&ots=Og3Nuwdk-Y&sig=26ZWG1Sw3X4p1Lu0OuCeWkbx8iY#v=onepage&q=postmodern%20history&f=false
In Chapter 7 of this book, Lawrence Grossberg assesses the writings of Stuart Hall in relation to the spread of postmodernism in America. He explains the importance of Hall’s work for Communications scholars and semiotics, and the way in which colleges and universities of that time were “politicized,” starting a propagation of Marxist ideas. Hall is described as a founding member of The New Left in England, one crucially responsible for the term “Cultural Studies” while at the Birmingham Center for Contemporary Cultural Studies, and a leading figure in the attempt to define a “new Marxism.” Grossberg distinguishes between three domains of postmodernism: that in culture, theory, and history. He reveals the fundamental concept that the “post-humanistic” personal identity is “nomadic,” in that it has “become a site of struggle” and “ongoing articulation.” He overviews what he finds to be “failures” of postmodernism, as well as Cultural Studies, and the foundation of postmodernism as an examination of subject-positions and relations (ontology).
This chapter is an invaluable secondary source of information about the positions of early postmodern thinkers. It introduces the reader to a wide array of such thinkers and surveys their positions adeptly. It critiques such critics and encourages them and others like them to continue to reveal a clearer message to their audiences.
Students of postmodernism can use this text for reference to further readings and gives a glimpse of some analysis of them. It offers food for thought to those in favor of, and those opposed to, postmodern thought. Overall, this is a great starting point for any person seeking more clarity on postmodernism.
Latour Bruno. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. Open University Press, 1987, pp. 1-17; 179-81.
Latour uses three stories of scientific developments, Whittaker’s work on DNA modeling, Watson and Crick’s work on DNA modeling, and West’s work on the Eagle computer prototype, to demonstrate his perspective on the progress of technology in science. He introduces the Black Box concept, which is a subject so complex people become only concerned with inputs and outputs. He describes the two Janus faces of general approaches to understanding science, as either “ready-made” or “in the making.” He describes the production of technology as having social origins, bring light to the “context and contents,” and showing the inextricability of “hydrogen bonds” and “deadlines,” or “authority” and “money,” or “debugging” and “bureaucratic style.” He claims efficiency is a consequence of the outcome, rather than the motivation, for tech’s creation. He claims a domain exists called “science, technology, and society.” He appears to have defined technoscience in a postmodern light, saying it “has the characteristics of a network…resources concentrated in a few places” and that “the construction of the centres requires elements to be brought in from far away- to allow centres to dominate at a distance.” As such he appears to reject technological determinism and embrace social determinism.
Latour’s book is insightful regarding the many facets of technology’s creation. It is an interesting depiction of history, from the point of view of scientists themselves. It gives food for thought to those who look at science and see only a black box.
This reading is helpful in identifying postmodern trends in sociology. It gives a lot to work with for starting conversations on rhetoric used in the study of technology. Overall, it is helpful in assessing the trend towards postmodernism in western education and semiotics.
Feenberg, Andrew. “Democratic Rationalization”. Readings in the Philosophy of Technology. David M. Kaplan. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield, 2004. 209-225
Feenberg begins by claiming that government-made corporations, military leaders, and regulatory agencies, are more powerful than government, and that such figures have power which allows them to dominate others in society. He proposes that industries should be further subjected to governmental authority. He lauds the ex-Soviet Union for its authoritarian dictates and aggression against private property. He rejects technological determinism, in trade for social determinism.
Feenberg’s diatribe is a perversion of reality, with so many twists and turns as to cause one’s head to spin. He is right to say that corporations, standing armies, and regulatory agencies are a threat to individual liberty, but he is wrong to suggest that more government will somehow magically solve the issue. He cherrypicks his arguments, strawmans his opponents, and presents the irrational as if it were rational. There is little-to-no value in reading Feenberg’s ideas.
A student studying postmodernism might find some value in reading Feenberg, if only to properly respond to such criticisms with logic and reason. Students might use Feenberg’s writings as a beginner for discussion in Austrian economics, for one example. Economists might find it hard to forgive him for writing such wild claims eight decades after the labor theory of value was debunked. Politicians might want to use his claims to justify the redistribution of wealth from the poor to the ultra-rich, again.
Adibifar, Karam. “Technology and Alienation in Modern-Day Societies.” International Journal of Social Science Studies, vol. 4, no. 9, September 2016, pp. 61-68. HeinOnline.
Abdifar describes technology as causing “mass alienation” as having a “social cost.” He argues that technology is the cause of much conflict in society. He blames “capitalists” for their use of technology, which he characterizes as suiting a capitalist’s “imagination” and to “maximize profit.” By claiming users are “captors of our own creations” he appears to mirror Heidegger and McLuhan. He argues modern goals for technology are not mere survival, but profit. He projects the Dialectical Materialism of Marx onto the subject of technology. He portrays property ownership as an immoral form of control. He laments that people’s chosen usage of technology can lead to absurdity, and a detriment to one’s life, and blames technology itself rather than usage. He proposes the solution is for government to violently capture private property and distribute it according to the desires of government.
Abdifar’s writing is riddled with contradictions, equivocations, and outright lies about the nature of reality. He blames capitalists where he should blame corporate monopoly and blames individual people where he should blame government. He decries a government captured by special interest groups but proposes that more government is the solution. He fails to recognize the superior nature of a free market, and while admonishing control of any sort, he proposes a far stricter control than exists currently.
Proponents of postmodernism would likely cringe at the attempt Abdifar makes in asserting his ideas and would perhaps seek to fill in the gaps and fix the errors in his arguments. Opponents of postmodernism would likely cringe at having to untangle the Christmas lights for so long that it would have been easier and cheaper to buy a whole new set of lights. The careful observer may properly credit Abdifar with identifying real social problems, however incorrectly. Ultimately, working through his arguments can result in a person knowing better how to criticize modernism more appropriately.
Roy, Arundhati. The End of Imagination. The Cost of Living, 1999, pp.91-127. New Jersey Institute of Technology.
Roy proposes that India’s development of the nuclear bomb in the 1990’s was “fascism.” They insist the bomb is an act of war against common people and oppose the fear instilled by its very existence. Roy dismisses the Indian nation-state as a fiction that did not represent its people and called the bomb a “betrayal” by the “ruling class.” They ultimately call for the Indian public to reject government’s use of the nuclear bomb.
Roy’s work is very moving, and filled with graphic rhetoric that tugs at the emotions and fear within the reader. Their assertions about the nature of authoritarian protection rackets is a fair examination of centralized governments. Roy’s writing is impactful, humanistic, and represents the real struggle of individuals against domination by government monopoly on force.
Students of the rhetoric of technology will benefit from the stark contrast between Roy’s writings and those of other postmodern thinkers, since Roy identifies a social problem without offering solutions that cause more of the same problems. Students of technology will benefit from learning human ethics, and accepting humanism will make the world a better place, even if slightly. Overall, everyone can benefit from reading Roy’s words, as they are almost more important now than ever before.
Trilling, James. “A Modernist’s Critique of Postmodernism.” International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society, vol. 9, no. 3, 1996, pp. 353–71. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/20019842.
Trilling defines postmodernism as the displacement of individuals by groups, in terms of self-identity, and claims it is ”committed to erasing the heritage of western white male dominance on every level of thought and action,” and represents an assault on both liberalism and conservatism; neither left nor right, but a separate force. He uses Marion J. Levy Jr.’s definition of modernization, which is “the replacement of animate with inanimate sources of energy,” which occurs in such a way that even “a slight reduction from those sources” is impossible. He defines “two great modernist ideals” in the “universalist and puritanical” as well as the “individualist and libertarian.” He remarks on the details of both modernism and postmodernism in art, sex, language, and literature. He reveals that Nazism was the “murder of modernism,” and reveals this may have been a product of Hitler’s disdain for modernist art. He concludes that postmodernism is the result of “fear,” and is an “fundamentalist reaction.”
Trilling’s critique is impressive and profound; a return to sanity in a world turned upside down and spun around, by postmodernist ventures. He uses conventional language, which is refreshing compared to his postmodernist counterparts who make up words and their meanings to suit their own arguments. While lamenting the failures of postmodernism, and those who focus on one form of imperialism while ignoring others, he is also fair in his conclusion that modernism has its own trappings. Trilling brings light to the dark recesses of history and the narratives that confound and dismember the mind of the individual. Reading his work leaves one wanting for more.
The student of postmodernism would do well to mind the critique from the position of a modernist, albeit an admitted internationalist and universalist such as Trilling, because he makes an exceptional case. Students opposed to postmodernism would do just as well, to pay attention to the conclusion which includes an admission of modernism’s faults, and of uncertainty. A person who feels like an individual going through a process of self-realization might be tempted to take on the identity of a group, or vice versa, depending on how they read Trilling. Overall, everyone can benefit from his work.
Joshua Ray Jongema 