I told my older daughter yesterday that I had a real desire to want to drop the word “postmodernist” into a conversation — seamlessly, or as if I use it all the time. The result, of course, was that I had to go down the google rabbit hole to find out what it even means. I landed on a literary website that — no surprise — assumed a certain degree of prior knowledge. I don’t have that.
If I stated that in order to understand postmodernism — as an era or sensibility or cultural style — one needs to first consider modernism; then all of you (or, rather, I should say, all of us) would instantly lose our way. I made a valiant effort to make sense of it all, but after tripping over words such as metanarrative and philistinism, I became hopelessly lost in even the most general statements. Consider this premise: modernism, which flourished during our grandparents’ and parents’ time, was shaped by a suspicion of all things popular*. I just couldn’t get past the idea that what became popular was a rejection of that which was popular. (So, who was making it popular? A different set of people than the ones who were eschewing it?) I arrived at the end of one article being less clear than when I began.
Modernism, at its most negative, was characterized as puritanical and uptight, cleaving rigidly to historical truth and objective reality. That movement gave way to postmodernism right around the time that the civil rights movement was taking firm hold of the collective conscience. By the time I was graduating from high school, it was in full flower. To compare the two “movements”, all one really needs to do is examine how our parents’ lives (if they came of age just prior to WW2) were different from our own, and make generalizations. Looking at just one aspect — livelihood — tells us a lot. Manufacturing and constructing things with one’s hands no longer made sense (or cents, for that matter.) The Information Age was already under way, re-shaping not only work-related skills, but attitudes, as well.
Without getting all high-brow, I think I can safely say that postmodernism in some way claims that reality is relative, and nothing should be taken seriously. Your reality is different from mine. So, if I claim that gluten is a baker’s best friend, that reality may hold true for select bakers, but not others. (I like gluten.) It gets worse. There is no objective reality, so say the postmodernists. In this way, science and “historical truth” — according to britannica.com — are invalid measures. As such, they are merely dartboards for muzzy-headed Fox News pundits and guest personalities, the Fauci deniers, if you will. Even death loses its objective nature. If you have watched (and liked. . . as millions of viewers do) “Shaun of the Dead”, you will have a great appreciation for postmodernism.
I come away from my examination of cultural eras with these thoughts, questions, and conclusions:
- A term like “postmodern” makes me reflexively think that it applies to a period that we’ve yet to enter or experience (because I can’t help but think that “modern” applies to now.)
- Who gets to name the eras/movements?
- Have they got our era wrong? I tend to think that it’s the loud minority — as always — that is paid attention to.
- If we buy the notion that “reality is subjective” (and that maybe we all place too much emphasis on historical truth,) then the behavior of certain members of Congress and a certain past president vis-a-vis January 6 makes a lot of sense to me.
- In a post-modern setting, irony rules.
- We’ve exited the post-modern era and are now in what someone has decided to call “meta-modern”. If you’re willing to accept the defining features of this new movement, they are a reaction to all the chaos and cynicism of post-modernism. . . naturally.
(I promise you I will not return to this discussion. Honestly, learning about postmodernism was painful, and it is highly unlikely that I will ever slip the word “postmodernist” (or any of its related parts of speech) into a conversation. It was not a carefully considered idea, even if I wanted to sound smarter by using it.)
*from “Literary Theory and Criticism” (literariness.org)
JT McKenna Writes 
Hi Joyce, So, are we supposed to be postmodern? labels only make sense if everyone is exactly same. One thing that I have learned as a Dental Hygienist is everyone is the “same” but everyone is “different” at the “same time”. Just reviewing my many patient’s medical histories, for example, proves that an amazing antibiotic or painkiller may do wonders for one patient and kill or seriously harm another. Some people LOVE having their teeth cleaned, others hate it. Some people have meticulous oral hygiene, while others….YIKES!! Just in my little world of dental hygiene there of so many differences in people…..several labels that I can pin on them. To try and label the thought processes of an entire generation of people is a bit too simplistic, in my opinion.
LikeLike
I agree. As soon as some philosopher or literary expert slaps a label on a time period, it results in everyone being categorized in a certain way. I’m sure sociologists study data carefully and can draw some conclusions, but trends and generalized behaviors speak too broadly. To think that I might be lumped in with a generation that has a “whatever” attitude makes me bristle. I’ve never been a “whatever” type of person. . . and I don’t think reality is subjective. . . or that historical truth is something that can be negotiated.
LikeLike