Mapping the Post-Modern - Literature review Example

Mapping the Post-Modern Student Name Course Institution Date Mapping the Post-Modern Introduction A postmodern practitioner aims at developing work, creating that piece of work better than the way it initially was and also being able to overcome the boundaries that are preventing it into becoming present. This is mostly seen in the entertainment industry. The practice is mainly carried out for adaptation purposes because the past needs to be recycled so that it may be made present. Everything postmodern is said to have some freedom, the ability to express through theory, creativity, relevance and enhancing what is considered already excising. The passage below discusses two themes by postmodern practitioners. The paper compares and contrasts the arguments researched by different authors on the two themes. There are arguments on gender by Judith Butler against one Baudrillardean and Marilouse Kroker analyzing ideas on gender. Among the topics discussed are sex and sexuality. According to Judith Butler, gender trouble finds the identity of gender having the same expressions that are the results and normally don’t surpass gender expressions. Butler however differs with this saying that he does not find any relations in gender as a suitable social and as an accepted expression of a sexed body. Instead it’s a fluid body that is always in a rearranged state not exciting fully at any point in time (Norris, 2010). She does not trust the idea that a stable and important identity of gender manifests itself through external activities instead of the anti foundation list that is the radical perception. She challenges the idea that gender existed before because of cultural performance and questions it all the way through the given’s of the body. She argues that heterosexuality is a cruel force meant to eradicate difference and that it is not native, neither is the original expression of human sexuality. A key area is the perfomativity. She argues that the references on gender, sex and sexuality are rhetoric. Gender practice is usually based on uncontentious and theories by feminists stating the cultural gender expressions. Her perception on the differences in sex is brought by the creation of heterosexuality trying to legalize and make its existence look normal. She adds that what separates male and female are creations that are self legitimizing heterosexuality. The evidence that one is man or woman is within and needs a stable and oppositional heterosexual. The idea of gender assumes a casual relationship among sex, desires and gender. She says that desires show gender and vice versa. Her argument on the performance and repletion shows the way gender has been built. Postmodernism however deferes with butlers view on gender. Eagleton (1996) argues that Butler not being the founder render heterosexuality not being a fact, but a fantancy that is not capable of a solid argumentative theory. Her arguments are based on stereotypes that are shallow. She further argues that gender behaviors are as a result of repeated cultural norms of heterosexuality. The problem with gender imitating argument is that imitation does not signify originality. It instead focuses on shallow elements of female and shows ordinary impersonations therefore undermining its power through its exposure virtue. It clearly seen that Butler is relating heterosexuality to homosexuality. She has ignored to do some scientific research, feminist views that are considered traditional and the truth according to what has been experienced. Her research does not advance the project to test the nature of socially creation (Marono, 2011). There are also other practitioners that researched on the same theme. Arthur and Kroker Marilouise (1989) in their book Panic Encyclopedia raise questions on gender, sex and sexuality. They start by enlightening us on the idea of living in an era where there’s simulation installed. They argue that gender, sex and sexuality stopped existing and the experience that are connected to it are nothing but mere fiction. They believe in some force that produces huge referents considered hegemonic. They are said to adopt exaggerated tone that is more sober. Contributing to cultures by social feminists and is also, therefore an utopian of a world with no gender refuses the term of being female by looking down on issues of patriarchy, humanitarian issues, colonialism, science and positivism among other issues. Those not being founders make them reject the difference that has been created between men and a woman that is not evidenced by culture but also science. He came up with a theory on transexuality arguing that transsexuals make obvious the stereotype that the male account constitute gender by putting emphasis on a double and oppositional mode which identifies gender. Their conclusion is that gender, just like apartheid is a disease and a cult that is not original. Their preference is on the term biological gender to sex terminologies. To them, transsexuals have transpired to being natural persons passing through becoming either male or female. Therefore them saying challenges experienced to gender, sexuality and sex norms are as a result of transsexuals. With time this has become post sexual therefore becoming a threat to them. This research being analyzed clearly shows that there is no evidence to support the work. It is instead based on assertions. They do not engage themselves in the question of gender but rather get into dismissive views by combining claims that are not supported and with shallow attitude to the defenders of fiction that lack some view on reality. Their arguments when promoting the utopian socialist are full of propagandas. This is an illustration of postmodern supporting methodology and determining the results earlier. They also advocated for social constructionalism by ensuring that the gender being constructed by the society is restrictive and that the genetic questions are put aside. This shows some aspects of irony. The absence of credibility and no evidence is not reason enough to seclude it from being commendable to the academic community which is considered postmodern (Bornstein 2005). They have refused all scientific and sociological findings that do not match their concept. They appeal to political mentalities and they have shallow arguments that add credibility to their project. Both authors Butler, Arthur and kroker approaches to gender issues have accepted a programmer that naturalizes things to make them real. They do this with an intention of creating a meaning to what is biological that has been dissolved and perhaps replaced social creations. The two forms of gender have a vague look that is biased on obfuscation and exaggerations instead of arguments that are clear. The arguments are full of vocabulary and hardly have content. We discuss the second theme being the death of the author. In Roland Barthes book death of the author, he gives an argument that is against classic critics. His argument is that classic critics have limits on the message being passed and that it concentrates on the author instead of the message. To him, there are no authors instead there are scriptures who usually do not have an original idea. He says the author is usually influenced by various issues therefore raising questions to the reader on the influences. He further says that that it is important to do an analysis on the language of the message since it is not the voice that speaks but the language. The text only has meaning to the reader, this therefore reduces he existence of the author because the message becomes open to various interpretations that might not have been written by the author. The author’s death brings the importance of the reader since they become the force that gives creativity to the message instead of the author. He says the writing usually begins that time that the author dies, (Bathes 185). In the book ‘The Death of the Author’, there is the question of who then speaks? He gives the story of Sarrasin as narrated by Baltic. This example shows how writing deconstructs every original point. He involves this to bring up the question if this is knowledge that is known or just an expression done by Baltic. He says the language usually is vital. He uses tragedies by Greeks to show why the author is usually dead, most Greek tragedies experience words that have several meanings. This therefore leaves the reader with an option of interpreting that word therefore affirming Bathers point that the author is indeed dead. We realize that Bathes believe in the language more than the author (Barthes 186). He refuses the classic critics thought and said that it is important to brush aside the idea that when a reader takes the story the author then is as good as dead (Bathes 189). Conclusion The two themes show some comparison and contrast on the themes by postmodern practitioners. In both themes there are some instances where something is being made better. There are trials to modify it from its original status that eventually makes it fit into what is current. Bibliography Norric, C. (2010). The deconstructive turn: essays in the rhetoric of philosophy. Abingdon, Oxon, Roultedge Bornstein, J., & Goldstein, A. (2005). Jennifer Bornstein. Museum of Los Angeles, contemporary Art. Burke, S. (1998). The death and return of the author criticism and subjectivity in Barthes, Foucault and Derrida. Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press. Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: feminism and the subversion of identity. New York, Roultedge. Kroker, A, Kroker, M., & Cook, D. (1989). Panic encyclopedia: the definitive guide to the postmodern scene. New York, St. Martin’s Press. Kroker, A., Kroker, M., & Cook, D. (1989). Panic encyclopedia: the definitive guide to the postmodern scene. Basingstoke, MacMillan. Kelertas, V. (2006). Baltic Post colonialism. Amsterdam, Rodopi. Bottom of Form Read More