Literature Review of Postmodernism

Postmodernism was a cultural tendency that occurred in the second half of the twentieth century
predominantly in the West and has spread itself to other regions of the world later. It succeeds
modernism and initially surfaced itself as a cultural force with its peak in the 1960’s and
1970’s.The term “postmodernism” was popularized by Jean-Francois Lyotard (1979) in his work
The Postmodern Condition and its Appendix in the English speaking community (Mirchandani
2005). The difficulty in defining ‘postmodernism’ is due to its wide range of usage both in
cultural and critical contexts. Postmodernism had its presence felt in different fields such as arts,
music, culture, philosophy, and literature. What characteristics makes a certain idea or form
postmodern or how postmodernism evolved through time are essential to address for the
understanding of Postmodernism. How did the shift from modernism to postmodernism occur?
What features distinguishes it from modernism? The ‘post’ in the ‘postmodernism’ means ‘after.
In order to reach a certain conclusion about ‘postmodernism’ the aforementioned questions
demand consideration.
While periodizing the time frame of postmodernism historians have associated different
names to it, such as the “Cold War Culture,”“neoliberal culture,” and “postmodern culture.” The
term “postmodern” was first used in the 1870s by the English painter John Watkins who
“suggested any art going beyond Impressionism,” the existent style of the period, “as
revolutionary and thus, ‘postmodern painting.’” In the first half of the twentieth century an
author Rudolf Pannwitz gives new meaning to the term ‘postmodern’. Pannwitz while
describing the militaristic and anti-humanist culture of the Europe, which developed as a result
of the ruins caused by war, choose the term ‘postmodern.’ The meaning of the term
‘postmodern’ shifted with connotation from positive to negative until it take a precise meaning in
the second half of twentieth century “of a reaction against modernism and modernity.” The term
took on a negative connotation in the work of A Study of History by a historian Arnold Toynbee.
Toynbee took on a pessimistic view and spoke of the period after 1875 as the ‘post-Modern Age
of History.’ The British historian concluded this while observing the cultural decline that
occurred as a result of the two world wars. The term ‘postmodern’ after all has taken its
conceptual meaning in the discipline of architecture; a shift in meaning occurred from being anti-
modern to ‘ultra-modern’ in the writings of architectural theorist Joseph Hudnut.
The term ‘postmodern’ has been made more popular by Charles Jencks, an architectural
theorist, who severely criticized the modern architecture that is spreading across the globe with
cities having tall and steady buildings all over. Jencks criticized the modern architecture for two
reasons: one that it has lost touch with the general public, and second due to the lack of
ornamentation. For Jencks, modern architecture has it fall when one of its representative styles,
an award winning Pruitt-Igoe housing complex in St Louis, Missouri, was demolished in 1972.
This, according to Jencks, has some symbolic historical significance which is that the public had
rejected the modern architecture. Hence, architects were warned of such modern architecture.
The challenge was to come up with architectural buildings in which public feel comfortable
rather than alienated. Thus, with postmodernism a tendency towards eclecticism in architecture
had developed.
The postmodern has been best understood in opposition to the aspects of modernity and
modernism yet there are similarities among the two concepts as well. Modernism as a concept
has brought innovation and progress in fields of music, writing, and art. Postmodernism which
comes as a response to modernism is stripping the notion of innovation and progress and is
promoting pluralism and a pastiche of the previous styles. Thus, postmodernism has inter mixed
the old with the new, the high and the low, the past and the future, and based itself on the notion
of eclecticism. Just as postmodernism has left its mark on the architectural setup of the late
twentieth century, it had also its effects on the cultural, social, critical, literary, and philosophical
domains as well. Though the differences among the two concepts are in multitude they also share
few similarities as well such as both modernism and postmodernism had rejected the rigid
boundaries and the works produced during the time period was mostly fragmented. The
incoherent and incongruent evident in the writings led to multiple interpretations rather than a
singular one. In most literary works, produced during that time period of postmodernism, the
literary technique of decentralization i.e. the lack of central meaning had been applied by writers
and as a result the individual characters had become dehumanized, often lost their individuality
per say, and had become the representative of a certain age. However, modernism had also
implied almost the same techniques in their literary works as well, and thus remained similar.
The idea of difference between modernism and postmodernism is in their approach to the
happenings of the twentieth century. The twentieth century Europe had seen too much of disaster
and destruction after a period of ruling the world in the form of extending powers to colonizing
nations. Both modernism and postmodernism had voiced the insecurities and the traumatization
that shadowed Europe in the back drop of the horrific two major World Wars. The distinguishing
mark between the modernism and postmodernism is that while modernists had projected the de-
centeredness and fragmentation as something tragic, the postmodernist had brought the notion of
fragmentation and disorientation to focus and projected it as a celebration. Modernism as a
cultural phenomenon had attempted to mend the fragmentation and tried to overcome the
disorientation of the twentieth century Europe. For instance, the modernists had seen art as a
source of unification and continuity to the disruptive aspects of life. In fact, modernists have
attempted to bring coherence through art in their fragmented lives. In contrast to modernism,
postmodernism had done no such efforts either of bringing unity or of mending the fragments;
rather the postmodernists had seen the disorientation and fragmentation as a way of existence
and thus, didn’t attempt to escape it. Thus, modernism and postmodernism had approached the
horrific incidents and occurrences differently.
Modernism has established another trait of being structural and claimed the inter-
connectedness of the world of ideas or forms. The point on which modernism stand supported
has to do with the structural organization that the modernists introduced. The one theoretical
framework that has surfaced during modernism is the theory of structuralism. Structuralism, as a
theoretical framework, perceived the way of the world in term of structures. The notion of
structuralism has first been noticed in the works of anthropologist Levis Strauss and the
prominent literary critic Ronald Barthes. For the Structuralists, “things cannot be understood in
isolation, they have to be seen in the context of larger structures they are part of”. Different
philosophers and cultural theorists have reacted to the theory of structuralisms on the basis of its
essential premise of interconnectedness of structures. Thus, according to structuralism, the world
is working based on an internal dynamics that are interlinked in the form of deep structures; such
structures has dictated the working of the world.
Structuralism has carried one major criticism and that is it seemed to have limited the
freedom of will in the human society. Ronald Barthes has referred to this notion in his study of
language and remarked “[language] it spoke through human beings, suggesting that we were no
more than channels for the action of mysterious external forces.” The dominance of
Structuralism in the mid-twentieth century, particularly in France, had given rise to an extremely
influential and increasingly popular theoretical frameworkof post-structuralism. Post-
structuralism posed a challenge by going against the assumptions on which structuralism is
based. While structuralism stressedon the inter-connectedness and similarity, post-structuralism,
on the other hand, put emphasis mainly on the open-endedness and difference of the ideas. Post-
structuralists have rejected the underlying structural principle that structuralists have recognized
as an important factor in explaining their theory. Thus, the theory of post-structuralism has in
aspects of explanation reached a common point with postmodernism about the possible way of
existence: that’s to say existence is fragmented and disorientated at the same time.
Both postmodernism and post-structuralism has identified the lack of universal, coherent,
and a unified (common) center. In fact, they have come out, to use Derridean terminology, ofthe
binary opposition and thus avoided the conundrum of the signifier and signified. In a
postmodernist context, the center and periphery (which is a binary opposition)is constantly
changing its positions. In other words, the center is moving towards the periphery and vice versa.
With the constant change the center, which is often powerful, is both losing and retaining power.
Similarly, the periphery, which is often powerless, is trying to acquire power of the center. So, in
a postmodernist context, one can say that “either there is no center or that there are multiple
centers” in the given case. Derrida has referred to this act of postponement by the center of
losing and retaining its power as differance. Postmodernism, according to some theorists, has an
underlying belief in difference. Thus, in postmodernism’s celebration of fragmentation a
constant postponement of the meanings, unity, and coherence occur. In a postmodern text there
always is a disbelief in term of unity and coherence, that being the case, it has led to another
important distinction between the two concepts of modernism and postmodernism.
Modernism, with its belief in the possibility of unity and coherence, emphasizes the
importance of order and rationality. In contrast, postmodernism has carried a disbelief in the
possibility of unity and coherence. The basic assumption that modernism seemed to carry is that
with rationality comes order which lead to better functioning of a society. So, to establish the
Order, modernism creates a sort of Disorder in the form of ‘Other’. The ‘Other’ includes non-
male, non-heterosexual, non-rational and non-white. In this way, modernism establishes the
superiority of Order in the society. The ‘Other’ which consist of the marginal and non-male
become a sort of contaminated thing for modernists and thus it led to the impression of Disorder
in the ‘Other.’ Postmodernism, however, did no such claim of bringing order to the society. They
don’t consider the order and disorder as essential to their explanation. In fact, postmodernism has
critiqued the binary oppositions and consider that everything is disorder. For postmodernists the
fragments carries meaning as they are mostly concerned with the ‘mini-narratives’ as opposed to
‘metanarratives.’ Postmodernism explains and celebrates the local as opposed to the universal.
The debate about modernism and postmodernism surround a wide range of ideas which
includes the socio-cultural, economics, political and philosophical domains. Both modernism and
postmodernism extends our understanding of the reality by focusing on the ‘metanarrative’ and
‘mini-narrative’ respectively. The postmodernist thinker Lyotard calls the modernists’ belief in
unity and order as metanarrative. The concept of modernism works on metanarrative while the
postmodernismdeconstructs and questions the metanarrative. The postmodernists consider the
grand narrative as deceitful to the public and realizes that history, culture, and politics are the
narratives which based itself on falsehood and untruthfulness. Postmodernism in deconstructing
the notion of a stable reality moves in forward direction with no emphasis on the deep structures.
In the field of language the postmodernists didn’t lag behind and have their influence on the
some aspect of language. For modernists language is a transparent tool of representing reality.
The idea of language is considered as rational and its working is taken as the activities of a
rational mind. The notion of language, in postmodernist tradition, is not seen in terms of binary
oppositions just as the language in modernist tradition consider a representation of thought and
thing. In the case of modernism, which works in binaries, there is a signifier to a signified while
the postmodernist consider no such relation of signifier and signified. In postmodernism there is
no reality to signify thus the meaning of a postmodern text idea lies on surface with no depth.
Postmodernism limits our understanding of the reality and has erased the boundaries
between the real and abstract. The postmodern tradition stripped reality of its meaning by giving
an alternate source of production in the form of media. The French philosopher Baudrillard in his
take on postmodern culture has conceptualized the idea of simulacrum. The idea of simulacrum
is distinguished as the virtual or fake reality simulated by the ideological apparatuses or by
media. The simulacrum is a substitution of real (original) by simulated fake image. It is not an
imitation or duplication of the original. The representation of reality in postmodernism has
remained sharply different from that in modernism. The postmodern condition has turned “the
contemporary world is a simulacrum, where reality has been thus replaced by false images.”The
media houses, in postmodernist cultures, has turned into outlets for the distribution of fake news.
Thus, in postmodern conditions, “there are no originals, only copies, no reality, only
simulation.”When Baudrillard rejects the reality of the Gulf war on the basis of its images
floating in the media he didn’t do it to bring the artificiality of the postmodern rather he also
implied that the postmodern tendency has made humans incapable of distinguishing the real from
the artificial.
The postmodernist tradition extends its horizon toinclude the socio-economics
conditionsof the time period and thus touched upon the notion of consumerism in the modern
day capitalist society. In terms of the economics progress the capitalist system has its phases of
evolvement initiallyfrom the “Market Capitalism” which occurred in 18th – 19th centuries, to
“Modernism” which started with the making of electrical and internal combustion motorsand
then to “Postmodernism” which is the time period of nuclear and electronic technologies. The
postmodern tendency with its focus on the Consumer Capitalism i.e. an emphasis on the
consumption as opposed to production and on marketing and selling of products gives rise to a
dehumanized global world with no place for individuals and national identities. So if the media
forms one aspect of the postmodern tendency as is represented by Baudrillard, globalization and
multicultural capitalism are another forms of the postmodernist principle. Postmodernism in the
aforementioned paragraphs have taken different directions with Lyotard focusing on the
“metanarrative” and “mini-narrative” aspects of the culture, Baudrillard who focuses on the
representation for reality in media, and Jameson who emphasized on the reality of consumer
goods, the dehumanization of the individuals. Thus, postmodernist principles carries no finality,
rather it’s build on the idea of plurality which is the also considered as the very constitutions of
the postmodernist theory.
The approach of multiplicity in postmodernism puts the ‘postmodern being’ to the denial
of objectivity and objective truths. In other words, postmodernism pushed itself over the lines of
constructivism by strictly maintaining the premise that our realities are shaped by external
factors and thus constructed. Just as Baudrillard’s approach to images makes the essential point
of the shrinking space or the eraser of boundary lines between the real and artificial images
thepostmodernism emphasized that media shapes our identities. What is being shown to us in a
certain social settings forms our identities.Thus,postmodernism puts a lot more responsibility on
the role media plays in our life. In fact, postmodernism has developed in reaction to the boom in
communication and electronics technologies.In the postmodernism condition, the reality
becomes subjective to the person as it’s constructed and transformed time and again. Thus, it
leads to a subjective interpretation of reality as opposed to the objective reality. The idea of
postmodern turns into a form of subjective interpretation which is pluralistic and provincial. It
focuses on the local and values the indigenous experiences rather than the universal and abstract.
The subjectivity in the postmodern condition creates multiples identities, truths, and moral codes
thereby giving us a diverse picture of reality. The capture of the local experience makes the idea
of postmodernism as one focusing on the mini-narrative as opposed to the meta-narrative.
The approachadoptedby postmodernism for analyzing the socio cultural situations is what
distinguishes it from that of modernism.The postmodernism uses deconstruction as a tool to
dissect the modernist’s view of coherence and stability. Although, deconstructionism of Derrida
is considered as poststructuralist theoretical framework, many philosophers see it as a response
to the structuralists’ phenomenon of interconnectedness and stability. Although, post-
structuralism has remained an influential part of the historical cultural tendency of the 1960’s it
has moved in a different direction. The post-structuralism, in contemporary times, has changed
into a force against the authoritarian ideologies political system. Just as post-structuralists rejects
the existence of a coherent center, the postmodernists, through the tools of deconstructionism,
has tried to deconstruct the coherent into fragmented parts and this brings the two theoretical
ideologies together. This similarity of tendencies in post-structuralism and postmodernism is
such that theorists have considered post-structuralism as a part of the postmodernist theory.
The primary feature of the postmodernists’ technique is the disbelief and negation of the
social and personal experiences of the beings. Although, the postmodernists’ idea of disbelief has
made the negation of certain historical events possible by bringing an artificial reality to distract
the public body and hide the actual causes behind those events, but how does one account for the
loss associated with those historical events such the loss of humans in a war or the pains of those
who have come out alive of such victimization. The second feature of postmodernism is that it
develops a critical attitude towards the meta narratives in society. For instance, postmodernism
carries a deeply cynical notion about culture as it keeps the society intact. Postmodernism serves
to reverse the order that is being established in the form of meta narratives as they believe that it
has misled the people by not showing the reality. While postmodernists consider the order and
coherence as a bad thing in a society, they too have been critiqued by others in turn. In their
deconstructionism of the meta narratives, it is argued, that postmodernism has stripped away the
base on which the human civilization is built and thus pushes men towards the walls, plagued
humanity of their ideological presumptions, making human race as insecure and surrounded by a
lack of feelings.
Modernism emphasizes on innovation, the creation of new principles of style in literature,
of aesthetics in arts, and of creative enterprises in other fields but the same would be rendered
obsolete with the creation of next one. Thus, modernism in moving forward has distanced itself
from the previous creation, features its temporality and its desire to attain the “ever-renewing
newness” as a form. If modernism has to adopt temporality as its necessary feature, the
postmodernism would have to adopt a different temporality. In this regard, the possibility for
postmodernism is to choose a model of stasis as an opposing feature to modernism’s dynamism
either in the form static neoclassicism as opted by the architectural theorist Charles Jencks in his
postmodernist architecture or in the form of catastrophe as the end of history. Postmodernism,
out of all the possibilities, has practiced many alternatives both of stasis and apocalypse. Other
alternative possibility for postmodernism is that of adopting the frantic pace with which
modernism has excelled. The dominant tendency of postmodernism, according to John Frow, has
also considered the alternative of non-synchronicity, of uneven times. The change of tense in
Frow’s essay “What was Postmodernism?” is not intended at the notion that postmodernism has
“dead or gone” but it has continued just as it goes for others concepts.
 The non-synchronicity has remained a common feature in term of coexistence of the
ideologies all at one time. The co-existence of pre-modernism, modernisms, and postmodernism
contradicts the notion of certain theorists about postmodernism especially Jencks and Jameson.
Moreover, the aspect of “uneven development” as common in the world regions has been true in
the case of postmodernism as well. Just as some regions of the world are developed while others
undeveloped, in other words, out of sync, the same goes for the socio-cultural tendency of
postmodernism in the twentieth century. In the same manner, not all cultural domains have
developed within a uniform period of time, rather some domains have post-modernized earlier
while others are post-modernized as later. The notion to post-modernize the cultural domains, in
postmodernism, is not backed by a priori principle. In other words, the postmodernism of one
domain of culture is not the same in another domain. It is not one and the same everywhere. The
postmodernism of every cultural domain differs even if it happened under the same “cultural
logic” of a historical movement as cultural change differs from one field to another due to the
internal dynamics of a particular field. This notion of difference in postmodernism in the shape
of “uneven development” and non-synchronicity made the postmodern tendency difficult to grab
in its particularities, its beginning and end.
In the field of art, postmodernism recognizes itself by challenging the dominant narrative
explicit in the art-works of modernism. In the modernist art, the expression of human thought
and reason is seen in a particular order and all advancement – particularly mechanical – are the
seen as the right tools. By dismissing such narrative, postmodernists reject the possibility of
elitist rules and application in the field of art; thus, it opens ways for the inclusion of the local,
the indigenous, and the sample. The dismissal of the strict narratives by the postmodernists
incorporates the possibility of imaginative advancement for men in the field of arts. The
postmodernist tendency in arts is based on the subjectively defined principles as opposed to the
objectively determined ideas and rules of art. Postmodernism rejects the one-dimensional
perspective of creating art, giving access to the common man to make art as a creative person,
and thus, it breaks the binaries opposition of the good and the bad pinned down by the white
Europeans. The installation of Duchamp’s fountain is the beginning of modernist era in art. The
postmodern tendency in art dismisses the authoritative control over the creation of artworks and
thus, it provides space for the non-white to create and practice art in any of its form.
The postmodern condition allows the art from the periphery such as the feminist art and
minority art to question the dominant perspectives and rules. The concept of “postmodernism”
toppled the possibility that there was one intrinsic importance to a work or that this significance
was dictated by an artist at the hour of creation rather, the watcher turned into a significant
determiner of importance. The postmodernist idea of art is anti-authoritative. It is a refusal to
recognize any single style or medium as the only definition or way of what an art piece should
look like. In the postmodern condition, the boundaries of distinction between high culture and
popular culture diminishes, and the art and everyday life became interchangeable. The post-
modernization in art is a deliberate condition of going back to the earlier popular styles and
eclectic mixing of different genres, techniques, and mediums.Different artists went further by
making works that necessary viewer intercession to make or potentially complete the work.
Breaking down differentiation among high and low art especially with the consolidation of
components ofmainstream society, was additionally a key component of postmodernism that had
its foundations in the late-nineteenth and mid twentieth centuries in crafted by Edgar Degas,
forinstance, who painted on fans.In Cubism, an art movement, Pablo Picasso remembered the
verses of well-known tones for his canvases. This, though all visual culture isn’t just
similarlysubstantial, however, that it can also be valued and delighted in, undermines ideas of
significant worth and aesthetic worth, much like the utilization of ready-made.
In sociology, the terminology of postmodernism is cast by the danger of being replaced
with late modernism, radicalized modernism and reflexive modernism. However, the danger of
replacement is weak as these terminologies more or less address the common tendencies of what
postmodernism has addressed in itself, this makes all to reconsider the concept of postmodernism
(Agger 2002; Delanty 2000; Callinicos 1999; Allan 1998). The changing aspect of postmodern
from one form to another, from what R. Mirchandani referred to as a shift from epistemological
postmodernism to empirical postmodernism (Mirchandani 2005). The epistemological
postmodernism talked about the possibility of knowledge and substitute way of interrelating and
gathering data. Whereas the empirical postmodernism analyses the empirical world and look into
ways of changing the world (Mirchandani 2005) and this shifting trend is much more visible in
recent sociologists. Defining the word postmodernism and creating subcategories for its other
possible definitions in sociological context is speculative even today. Lyotard in his work The
Postmodern Condition and its Appendix argues that it is rather to analyze the state of knowledge
in developed societies. From that time till now the postmodernist thinkers are pondering the
epistemological questions. This debate is not just limited to one discipline. Since then it has
extended into philosophy, social theories, and other disciplines (Mirchandani 2005). In current
times, the postmodern sociologists are bringing about some of the core theme of social theory,
the emphasis on the nation state, the debate of industrial society and communal ties and ethics.
According to Mirchandani (2005), postmodernism was employed early on in the 1980’s
and 1990’s by sociologists as an epistemological theory, whereas, by now we have seen the
substantial development of empirical methods based on these epistemological insights.
Postmodernism is highly relevant to sociology and has made significant contributions to it.
Especially in the case of the study of sexuality, discourse, culture and social control (Agger,
1991).  Pescosolido & Rubin (2013) argue that the rapid social transformations accompanied by
rise of new social problems led to the formation of social sciences in the 18th and 19th centuries
which is similar to the rise of postmodernism as a response to rapid social transformation in the
wake of the information revolution in the Post-war period and towards the end of the 20th
century. Similar to critical theory and post-structuralism, one of the defining characteristics of
postmodern theory, is the disputation of social science methodologies which claim impartiality
as a possibility or even very achievable goal (Agger, 1991). Postmodernism began as a theory in
architecture but moved from there towards philosophy, particularly epistemology, to empirical
social science. It became increasingly significant for sociology during this shift/development
(Agger, 1991). Michel Foucault and Lyotard are considered one of the early, foundational and
most important postmodern thinkers.
Postmodern theory in social sciences examines the world from different identity and
group subjective positions including class, race, and gender and so on. In the process, it rejects
‘meta-narratives’ like Marxism which apply specific axioms and laws to all social and historical
phenomena.It rejects essentialism, it is anti-reductionist, reifies the multiplicity and
heterogeneity of identities and rejects universality of knowledge/discourse by assuming context
to all knowledge/discourse (Singleton, 1996).It resists reductionism and seeks to provide space
for a pluralism of ideas and narratives. It prioritizes anti-reductionism and meta-narratives
(Agger, 1991). In this way it becomes less radical and more of what we can call ‘liberal’. For
example, Foucault believed that resistance is not only marginalized but suited to the margins. As
soon as a narrative assumes central power, it becomes totalitarian and creates its own margins
and outcasts. Therefore, there is a tendency in postmodernism to reject radical political theory
and action, which seek to gain central power through revolutionary transformation. The neo-
Marxist/critical theorist Habermas claims that postmodernism is ‘neo-conservative’ (Habermas,
1981a). However, it is also a champion of the knowledge and perspectives of ordinary people
who engage in resistance through their own ways arising from lived experiences.
Postmodernism attacks the view that scientific knowledge can be produced and
disseminated in a universal way. It leads to challenging of most Enlightenment traditions.
Especially, social sciences begin to deconstruct the euro-centric or euro-originary characteristics
of scientific knowledge. It also provides a chance to deconstruct other biases underlying so-
called ‘scientific’ knowledge about society including those based upon class, race and gender.
Therefore, it decenters the ‘universality’ of ‘reason’ and ‘rationality’. Furthermore, it also
provides methods through which social knowledge can be contextualized and ‘de-totalized’
(Agger, 1991).Therefore, the most important contribution of postmodernism to methodology and
empirical studies in sociology and other social sciences is the challenge to the underlying value
positions, so that, the social scientist or sociologist or the reader can then be aware of their
position (Agger, 1991). In addition, Foucauldian postmodernism revolutionized theory of crime
and deviance by uncovering deviance as a socially constructed category that is situated in
historical and cultural territories (Foucault, 1975). He makes use of extensive data from cultures
and history, in order to do so. Labelling theory has particularly gained stronger foundation due to
his work. Moreover, he also points towards the resistances that individuals engage in, with the
labels of deviance. Therefore, his analysis works at both the structural and micro levels.
Furthermore, Baudrillard cemented the foundations of sociology of science, knowledge and
culture by highlighting the autonomy of symbols and interpretations (Baudrillard, 2019). It is
interesting to note that he also wedded Marxist political economy with this theory. Moving from
Baudrillard and Foucault, narrower currents including feminist postmodern theory are able to
analyses discourses including film, marketing and so on, according to their value position and
deconstruct their socio-political motives as well as implications (Mulvey, 1989).
The concept of postmodernism in critical theory remains as a trend, has drawn much
from the developments in contemporary arts during the late twentieth century, and has been an
object of analysis too. Critical theory goes back to the first half of twentieth century in terms of
its roots when it first come out under the Frankfurt School. Critical theory, which is an
interdisciplinary theoretical approach, encompasses the works of humanities, social sciences, and
structuralism as a basis and develops critical understanding of the socio-cultural phenomenon.
Just as postmodernism rejects the high modernism and abstract expressionism in the category of
art, and developed an anti-authoritative stance, it emphasizes on the eclectic formulations, the
mixture of different techniques and time period, in the making of artwork. The common topic of
debate, in the context of critical theory, is whether an idea or a movement to be taken as modern
or postmodern. The debates around the concept of postmodernism and the distinction of modern
from postmodern in critical theory occurred multiply but one that features a sort of an intellectual
feud between the two titans – Lyotard and Jürgen Habermas – has rather focused on the political
aspects of the postmodernism. The critical theory of the Frankfurt School which addresses the
political and social relations among the public body has looked for an answer to the difficult
problems that arose out of the failures of modernism.
The development of postmodernism as a set of cultural, social, political and intellectual
tendencies, which serves as a response to the perceived modernist failures, occurs to be variable,
contradictory and sometime even paradoxical due to the sheer diversity of modernism. The
debates organized in and around the failures of modernism and the coming up of postmodernism
as the answer to the problem have often led to addressing other issues associated. Lyotard who
was referring to the horrendous legacies of the twentieth century, such as the bloodshed caused
by World Wars, genocide and concentration camps, which has left deep imprints on the psyche
of men of that time, has caught by a disbelief in the utopian promises of modernism and the
grand narratives associated with it, and thus emphasized on the need for change in perspective in
the practicing of postmodernist art. Jürgen Habermas, on the other hand, contends that the
horrors of modern times cannot be considered as the failure of modernism rather he maintains
that since modernism as a thought is based in the Enlightenment ideology the Enlightenment
ideals have yet to be given a chance. The diverse nature of the postmodernism occurs due to the
distinction between the cultural postmodernism and socio-historical postmodernity and Lyotard
in referring to the specific ‘condition’ of our time refers a singular term for both: postmodern.
The philosophical thought of Enlightenment gives rise to idealism and perfection in the
modern world. The postmodernism which succeed the modernism faces a different scenario in
the form of ‘postmodern age’. The ‘postmodern age’ Lyotard explains in his work The
Postmodern Condition corresponds to “the advent of post-industrial society in Bell’s sense” on
the one hand, and on the other, it refers to “a generalized loss of faith in the ‘grand narrative of
modernism’ that had seen the West through its heydays of industrialization, colonization, and
capital accumulation” (Abbeele, 19).
The philosophy of postmodernism is not new a theory itself; rather it has its roots in the
history, before the term was used by academics in 1930s where the Spanish Literary Period
(1905-1914) was given the name of post-modern work. The philosophical debate on
postmodernism, however, originated in 1979-80 with the publication of Lyotard’s pamphlet and
Habermas organizing conference on modernity, respectively. Not limited to the origin of debate,
the philosophy of postmodernism has its roots in the philosophical thought of Enlightenment and
idealism particularly when this project became modernized and then tried to go beyond the inner-
contradictions of modernity; this is where “post-modern philosophy” originated. Although it
remained as a localized discipline in which the thoughts evolved around architecture, literature
and art but it gains international recognition with the series of debates in the 1970’s and
1980’s.According to Habermas, “postmodernism is not something new but the crisis of
modernity gave rise to it, and, therefore, the project of modernity, which has its basis in
Enlightenment, shall be completed through postmodernist approach, in order to eliminate and
further prevent the rise of conservatism or obscurity” (Ferraris, 15). Postmodernism brought
together many philosophical concepts that includes; Enlightenment, Idealism, meta-physics
along with technology, the projects of secularization and progress.
The philosophy turned to be ‘skeptical about the meta narratives that were put forward by
modernism; objective realities and universal truths started being questioned. Hence, it can be
said that delegitimizing started taking place at this stage. In this era, humans started questioning
the established order of things and the philosophical conditions given in support of the grand
narrative, deconstructed and reconstructed everything that had an accepted status in human lives
in modern era.The after crisis of modernity that came to surface in the late twentieth century has
pushed the critical thinkers, historians and philosophers to look for solution to the crisis at hand.
The dynamism of modernity led to a situation where an alternative philosophical movement was
required and thus, “Postmodernism became a new area of research and philosophical inquiry that
placed an end to modernism” (Abdolsalami, Farhangpour, 4). The basis for postmodernist
thought were various cultural sources rather than mere traditions or intellectual arguments
because the very notion of argument that is based on ‘reason’, no longer, served as an accepted
tradition for the humans. Reason had lost its objective or metanarrative concept. Postmodern
philosophy entered a journey that combined the old genres with the modern ideas and by this
way covered the loopholes of modernism; it tried to discover a new path for way-forward.
Post-modern philosophy has a universal scope and therefore it was perceived mainly in
four contexts, although culturally different; (i) French post-structuralism by Derrida and Lyotard,
(ii) Critical version of postmodernism by Habermas, (iii) Pragmatism by Rorty and Fish and (iv)
‘Weak thought’ by Vattimo, which had the roots in Heidegger’s philosophy. According to
Lyotard, the recite of Enlightenment and idealism failed which gave rise to postmodern
philosophy. However, Habermas thinks otherwise; he thinks that postmodernism is actually
destined to complete the incomplete project of modernism; that is to be completed by the
deconstruction and reconstruction of the modern philosophy. For American pragmatists: Rorty
and Fish, postmodernism is the exclusion of philosophy and modernism; for him philosophy had
no more any practical significant-use; by tracing Nietzsche he refers to the ‘death of philosophy’
concept. Vattimo, on contrary, rejects the arguments of these previous thinkers and suggested
that postmodernism has no philosophical or historic role but rhetorical role; since, for him, it was
impossible to overcome modernism and philosophy could never play an exclusionist role.

Work Cited

Agger, B. (1991). Critical theory, post-structuralism, postmodernism: Their sociological

relevance. Annual review of sociology, 17(1), 105-131. Retrieved from
http://www.uta.edu/huma/illuminations/agger2.htm 
Baudrillard, J. (2019). For a Critique of the Political Economy of the Sign. Verso Books.
Retrieved from http://web.mit.edu/allanmc/www/baudrillard.theartauction%20.pdf 
Foucault, M. (1975). Discipline and punish. A. Sheridan, Tr., Paris, FR, Gallimard.
Retrieved from
http://www.joycerain.com/uploads/2/3/2/0/23207256/foucault_discipline_punish.pdf
 Habermas, J., & Ben-Habib, S. (1981). Modernity versus postmodernity. New German
Critique, (22), 3-14. Retrieved from
https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/30208009/habermas-modernity-versus-
postmodernity.pdf?response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename
%3DModernity_versus_postmodernity.pdf&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-
Amz-Credential=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A%2F20200226%2Fus-east-
1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20200226T072140Z&X-Amz-Expires=3600&X-
Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-
Signature=8f50794e93dff95023f134e5b02f91275f5e562930f97b543be1a93e3a906025
McHale, B. (2015). The Cambridge companion to postmodernism. Cambridge UP.

Mirchandani, R. (2005). Postmodernism and Sociology: From the Epistemological to the

Empirical. Sociological Theory, 23(1), 86-115. Retrieved February 25, 2020, from
www.jstor.org/stable/4148895

Mirchandani, R. (2005). Postmodernism and sociology: From the

epistemological to the empirical. Sociological Theory, 23(1), 86-115.
Mulvey, L. (1989). Visual and other pleasures. Springer. Retrieved from
http://academic.uprm.edu/sanderlini/Docs/05a-Visual%20and%20Other%20Pleasures.pdf
Sim, S. (2013). The Routledge companion to postmodernism. Routledge.