Posted on December 22, 2009 - by David
Is ‘Postmodernity’ a Reality?
It seems that any time I come across the word ‘postmodern’ in my reading, I wind up stopping for a minute to try to figure out what it actually means. I guess I’ve been conditioned to react this way ever since I began studying with Liah Greenfeld and the word ‘modern’ took on some real significance for me. Still, (out of laziness), I always wound up shrugging the question off without trying to answer it.
Yesterday, I finally went to the dictionary in hopes of finding some commonly agreed upon definitions.
From Merriam-Webster online:
Main Entry: 1mod·ern
Pronunciation: \ˈmä-dərn, ÷ˈmä-d(ə-)rən\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Late Latin modernus, from Latin modo just now, from modus measure — more at mete
Date: 1585
1 a : of, relating to, or characteristic of the present or the immediate past : contemporary b : of, relating to, or characteristic of a period extending from a relevant remote past to the present time
2 : involving recent techniques, methods, or ideas : up-to-date
3 capitalized : of, relating to, or having the characteristics of the present or most recent period of development of a language
4 : of or relating to modernism : modernist
Main Entry: post·mod·ern
Pronunciation: \ˌpōs(t)-ˈmä-dərn, ÷-ˈmä-d(ə-)rən\
Function: adjective
Date: 1925
1 : of, relating to, or being an era after a modern one <postmodern times> <a postmodern metropolis>
2 a : of, relating to, or being any of various movements in reaction to modernism that are typically characterized by a return to traditional materials and forms (as in architecture) or by ironic self-reference and absurdity (as in literature) b : of, relating to, or being a theory that involves a radical reappraisal of modern assumptions about culture, identity, history, or language <postmodern feminism>
Main Entry: mod·ern·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈmä-dər-ˌni-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1737
1 : a practice, usage, or expression peculiar to modern times
2 often capitalized : a tendency in theology to accommodate traditional religious teaching to contemporary thought and especially to devalue supernatural elements
3 : modern artistic or literary philosophy and practice; especially : a self-conscious break with the past and a search for new forms of expression
From Oxford College Dictionary, 2nd Ed:
modern history- n. history up to the present day, from some arbitrary point taken to represent the end of the middle ages
postmodernism- n. a late 20th century style in the arts, architecture, and criticism that represents a departure from modernism.
The two main causes of confusion are revealed in these definitions. First, there are no distinctive characteristics, and no clear time frame given to tell us what modernity is or when it takes place. Webster’s ambiguously refers to a “relevant remote past,” and the Oxford College Dictionary gives us “some arbitrary point taken to represent the end of the middle ages.” Another definition makes it more or less a synonym for ‘contemporary.’ Also, the definitions contain no distinction between contemporary societies that are modern and those that are not (i.e traditional societies).
Modernism and postmodernism refer to artistic movements and philosophies. The two definitions of postmodernism refer to it as “a reaction to modernism” and “a departure from modernism.” The question then becomes, if postmodernism is in fact a coherent movement or philosophy, does it correspond to an actual change in culture such that we should consider the period we are living in now as distinct from modernity? Is ‘postmodernity’ a reality?
Liah Greenfeld, in a chapter titled ‘Is Modernity Possible without Nationalism?’ in Michel Seymour’s book, The Fate of the Nation State, addresses the problem of modernity’s various meaningless or contradictory definitions. According to Greenfeld, modernity is a quality or characteristic of certain societies- what she calls “a species of society” (39). In general, modern societies have three distinctive features: an open class structure, “the impersonal and abstract, or state, form of government,” and an economy oriented to sustained growth (39) These features are not fully developed in all modern societies, but in all cases, she claims, their development is made possible by nationalism- a fundamentally secular and humanistic consciousness based on the principles of popular sovereignty and egalitarianism.
Now this definition of modernity is certainly not universally accepted, but it is nevertheless a definition which means something. [Rather than get into a more detailed description of different types of nationalism and modern societies, I encourage you to read the chapter in this free google books preview (p.38-50), as well as her essay, ‘Nationalism and the Mind’]. If we consider the term ‘postmodernity’ in light of Greenfeld’s definition, it would have to mean a fundamental change in the organization and consciousness of society. From everything I see, this has not happened.
I am not claiming to have said all there is to say about the modern vs. postmodern question, and I am not dismissing all postmodern theory out of hand. What I am saying is that it is important to have some definition of modernity, Greenfeld gives us this, and if we accept it, then the phenomena which some have characterized as postmodern can be considered as either new or modified developments in culture that are still consistent with nationalism and modernity.
5 Comments
What do you think?
Post a Comment
Exploring modern culture and its effects on the mind
Visit My Website
December 22, 2009
Permalink
Michael Lo Stracco said:
I’ve read (and I am paraphrasing here because I can’t recall the exact source or its veracity) that Kant once described Modernity as such that if someone walked in on you whilst you were praying on your knees, you’d be embarrassed. Of course, this is certainly debatable and I don’t know if I particularly agree, but nevertheless I thought it was a pertinent quip!
I would have to agree with Greenfeld’s definition of Modernity and its being a product of a larger cultural construction, i.e. the Nation-state or Nationalism. In agreeing with her assessment, I think it’s then reasonable to concur with your claim that Postmodernity is essentially not its own “reality” but, if anything, an offshoot or natural growth of Modernism, whose categorical-umbrella we still fall under today. Still, while the term “postmodern” itself may be meaningless and arbitrary (as your survey of dictionary entries points out) it is nonetheless useful for its descriptive quality, especially pertaining to contemporary art and philosophy. It stands to reason, then, that if we use this term to describe movements of art or systems of thought, does this not constitute some kind of reality? Certainly, a linguistic distinction is necessary here.
Also, the idea of Postmodernity is a hot-button topic among Evangelical leaders today, as they equate this term with such contemporary ideas as “relativism,” “constructivism,” “re-constructionism,” and “revisionism.” Many leaders, such as Ravi Zacharias, are concerned with how this relates to the church as a whole, particularly with the Emergent Church movement. Conduct a search on Youtube or Google to find some fascinating- and fiery!- sermons and discussions about Postmodernism and how it relates to contemporary American Christianity. These guys certainly think it is a REALITY, and a dangerous one at that.
Visit My Website
December 23, 2009
Permalink
Griselda Tomaino said:
I am thoroughly enjoying reading this blog. After having taken Professor Greenfeld’s seminar on Modernity this past semester, I realized how little I knew of the characteristics of modernism. It is easy for us to recognize that which is modern in terms of art, architecture, literature, music, etc., but there has been little analysis of the cultural factors that influenced the arts. The definitions that you describe above represent wider popular belief that view modernity as a term to describe a period of time. Greenfeld’s description of modernity through nationalism provides a great framework for connecting that which is represented in art to other areas of culture.
Visit My Website
December 23, 2009
Permalink
David said:
Thanks for the thoughts Michael. I’ll definitely take your suggestion and see what I can find in terms of sermons on the postmodern.
I do intend to explore these “postmodern” elements of modern culture in future posts. Though I haven’t delved too deep yet, my feeling is that this sense of “postmodernity” has a lot to do with the rapid advance of technology and the changes it has brought in the way people communicate and interact. The growth is exponential- new developments seem to occur at a constantly increasing rate, and this does seem a bit overwhelming. Nevertheless I think these changes have been quantitative rather than qualitative. Like Greenfeld in her analysis of globalization, I see “postmodern” developments as actually helping to foster and spread the ideas of nationalism and modernity.
Visit My Website
January 10, 2010
Permalink
will colwell said:
While I may be out of the loop here, for two reasons: 1. I have never taken Prof. Greenfeld’s classes. 2. I never liked Gellner’s work on nationalism. Gellner, although a keen student of Islam and the Eastern Orthodox, was still too euro-centric for me. — I prefer Benedict Anderson’s Imaginary Communities, which I feel was stronger on nationalism for several reasons. 1. it stresses the role of the media and civil society in creating the imaginary community of the nation (even creating the language itself). 2. Anderson stresses Latin America’s role in the birth of nationalism, not Europe like Gellner, Hobsbawm and others do without much reflection. 3. I feel a great strength of Anderson in connecting to various post-colonial discourse.
For much of the world, the nation state is a failed project. For example, most of Africa and Asia. remember, the relative successes of China and India as states comes from their histories as civilizations.
I just came from the Mashraq/middle east. And talked to people who identify as Muslims and Arabs AND their respective nations. This is not multi-culturalism, like our exploited immigrants and minorities who are supposed to get a place at the table, but an identity, a constructed subject if you will let me, that has multiple identities, loyalties, and histories.
Gellner’s materialism and weak Marxism can never adequately explain multiple identities that I have encountered.
Besides Benedict Anderson’s Imaginary Communities, I also recommend for multiple identity nationalism/trans-nationalism. Julia Kristeva’s Nations without Nationalism and Etienne Balibar’s We, the People of Europe.
Visit My Website
January 10, 2010
Permalink
David said:
Thanks Will, I’ll look into the books you recommended and maybe add them to the long list of things I should probably read but won’t for quite some time…
As far as Gellner and Greenfeld, if you read Nationalism in the Mind (which is actually the talk she gave at the 10th annual Gellner lecture in 2004) you’ll see where she departs from Gellner’s work. Most importantly, she is not a materialist. She writes, “While Gellner, like all the sociological structuralists and philosophical materialists, regarded society and history as essentially a continuation of the biological evolution, (though one must stress, Lamarckian rather than Darwinian), I have based my thinking on the empirical generalization that humanity constitutes a reality sui generis, distinguished from the rest of the animal species by the symbolic, therefore not material, instead of genetic, therefore material, transmission of its ways of life across generations.” While one of the three common features of nationalism that Greenfeld identifies is an economy oriented to sustained growth, it is important that Greenfeld doesn’t make a direct link between industrialization or the industrial revolution and modernity and nationalism. What is important is the culture, the consciousness, the identity, behind the nation. A society organized on the principles of egalitarianism and popular sovereignty will often result in the material manifestation of an active and competitive economy. The cultural precedes the material in Greenfeld’s thinking.
As far as the whole multiple identity issue, I plan on looking into this phenomenon in future posts. In a way, I’ve already started by looking at the Christian identity in the context of American identity. Now I do think the Middle East cases you’ve referred to differ in some ways from Christian/American identity, and deserve separate treatement. As a general statement, I would say that each national identity is different, and many of them allow for, (and possibly even require), a certain religious affiliation or identity. Looking at Greenfeld’s discussion of various types of nationalism and the role that religion sometimes plays in national identity may shed some light on this debate. Look for a post about this in the next few weeks.