The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge by Lyotard - Book Report/Review Example

 What is truth? a mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, anthropomorphisms . . . Truths are illusions about which it has been forgotten that they are illusions - Nietzsche Lyotard, J-F. (1984) The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Manchester: Manchester University Press Introduction Knowledge can be referred to as a state of awareness or cognizance by which we can assess information – both by empirical and corollary means. This information may be new or passed on from earlier times; but what matters most is how our knowledge can lay the foundation for the crucial exegesis of information obtained by empirical means and of experience accumulated through historic progression. In the context of postmodernism, however, knowledge, courtesy of scientific advancements, is perceived to have an all-encompassing insight into the ways of the world. The validity of this conjecture is precisely what Jean-François Lyotard analyses in his magnum opus The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. This essay will review the 1986 edition of Lyotard’s work. Body of Review Lyotard argues in the book that knowledge in the postmodern era has made a transitional shift from its preceding times. Stressing on the term ‘postmodern’, Lyotard makes it clear that socio-cultural factors post 1950 have played a major role in defining our perception of knowledge. Knowledge within the framework of postmodernism renders an intellectual barrier to humane understanding of what we experience. But at the same time, it strives to justify its superior sense of awareness rooted in modernism not “at its end but in the nascent state, and this state is constant” (Lyotard 1984: 79). This inherent dichotomy in the placing of knowledge is central to Lyotard’s starting conjecture in the book. He draws on from the postulate that knowledge is a dynamic attribute to societal and cultural epochs. Time acts as a teleological means by which accumulation and sharing of knowledge are evaluated in both homogenous and heterogeneous social setups. This assessment, however, is not aimed at producing a uniform metric system upon which cultural notions can be justifiably linked up with the characteristics of a given era: The pace is faster or slower depending on the country, and within countries it varies according to the sector of activity: the general situation is one of temporal disjunction which makes sketching an overview difficult (Lyotard 1984: 3). What happens with the dissociative nature of time is that it does not allow for comprehensive synthesis of knowledge. Knowledge gained in one period is subject to modification or change in another. Lyotard regards this to be the intrinsic fallacy of scientific approaches to legitimise performances. He, therefore, introduces the concept of neutral ‘performativity’ to define the postmodern condition of knowledge in its true hue. David Harvey, the eminent social theorist, underscores the lack of credibility in the way time is generally attributed to epistemic frameworks: Space and time are basic categories of human existence. Yet we rarely debate their meanings; we tend to take them for granted, and give them common-sense or self-evident attributions. We record the passage of time in seconds, minutes, hours, days, months, years, decades, centuries, and eras, as if everything has its place upon a single objective time scale. Even though time in physics is a difficult and contentious concept, we do not usually let that interfere with the common-sense of time around which we organize daily routines (Harvey 1989: 201). Defining postmodernism accurately presents a challenge to scholars. The term encompasses a broad spectrum of correlated phenomena that have been constantly developing since the birth of human civilisation on earth. Lyotard posits that a flurry of technological inventions since 1950s have radically altered the worldviews of knowledge from the times of industrial revolution. He carefully scrutinises the evolution of science, technology, art and linguistic schools to support the grounding rationales of his arguments. Particular emphasis is given on language as an important medium of communication in postmodern times. The author keenly observes that communication in systematic and well governed societies needs to be transparent as much as possible. Knowledge is not an abstract entity which can be kept under cover for gaining political mileage; it should be disseminated across various socio-cultural offshoots for the sake of transparency and accountability: “It is from this point of view that the problem of the relationship between economic and State powers threatens to arise with a new urgency” (Lyotard 1984: 5). In essence, Lyotard’s point of view is underlined by the Marxist construct of social change. The process of change is gradual and marked by trial and error methodologies rather than straightforward developments. Therefore, it can be quite rigorous and slow, causing non-functional operative to interfere into the process itself. When such a scenario arises, change is tantamount to repositioning of the existing system in order to either ameliorate the prevalent situation or make it conducive to coping with lost information. So in the event of knowledge sharing, it is imperative to make the necessary adjustments so that balance between social regulators and their subsequent impacts on the regime is maintained. It might be noted in the context of Marxism that the author does not discard the theoretical doctrine altogether. He merely asserts that implementation of Marxist analogy is a precarious task in the context of postmodern political systems. On one hand, the open-ended tools of Marxism do not fit into systems which give too much liberty to administrative models. On the other hand, communist nations too have denigrated the changing impact of globalisation and economic liberalisation on mass culture and psyche. This has led to the unfortunate development of a pseudo-totalitarian system which is neither credible for its own existence nor capable of sustaining the requirements of living. Regarding scientific knowledge as a discourse is the most illustrious claim made by Lyotard in the book. What we understand by discourse is that a philosophical school of thought which is non-reductive in its final disposition. In other words, a discourse may be analogous to a methodology that is of fundamental virtue. Now this precondition of science immediately entails a liability upon the author to justify his stance, which he does successfully. He alludes to the concept of metanarrative techniques that scale greater heights than the erstwhile narrative techniques used in artistic and literary works. While the traditional narrative methods have a pragmatic limitation in disseminating information and knowledge, metanarratives have a far-reaching impact on the same. Once again, Lyotard brings back the elements of Western scientific explorations and shows how societies and political systems have continually strived to attain legitimacy of purposes and intentions. The exclusivity of scientific knowledge, as the author argues, is on the summit of all probable knowledge avenues. Narrative knowledge, on the other hand, only corresponds to its peers. Hence, there is an implied analogy of power relations between these two types of knowledge. We would be able to understand the nature of this hierarchical relationship if we trace back to the times of imperialism. The synopsis of the occidental history, as a matter of fact, is typified by imperialistic aggressions by the superior over the inferior. This is where the primacy of scientific knowledge comes to the fore. Science being a stupendous leveller is capable of divulging information without passing any judgment based on value and personal opinion. Narrative methodologies of storytelling are not programmed to fulfill this ominous task. The author makes a discerning comment on the condition of knowledge in postmodern cultural contexts – an ‘incredulity toward metanarratives’ (Lyotard 1984: xxiv). What he means is that knowledge has grown in scientific stature in the past few decades to have a legitimate bearing upon ‘human freedom and well-being’ (Vanhoozer 2003: 10). After analysing the nature of knowledge dissemination for the last few decades, Lyotard draws the conclusion that scientific metanarratives have disposed with the Enlightenment narrative or grand narrative dealing with human resurrection and improvement (Nola and Irzik 2002). Speaking of social change post 1950, Lyotard identifies two major areas, namely, technology and economics. A host of related subgenres are also included in these two broad segments. Linguistics, computational techniques, informatics, telematics, and cybernetics fall in the first category. What is common to all these subgenres is their overt dependence on technological advancements that have only taken place in the last 25 years from the publication of The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. The author masterfully depicts how language has evolved in the given timeframe and has left its indelible footprint on knowledge production. The term ‘production’ must not be confused with ‘distribution’ or ‘sharing’. It is quite obvious that the rapid growth of science and technology has inspired humanity to explore the uncharted horizons of communication. Hence, prevalent knowledge has nearly been reproduced with tinges of sophistication and postmodernity. This process of production and reproduction of knowledge in the light of scientific glory renders a futuristic dimension to our collective wisdom and reach. To elucidate on this point furthermore, the author cites the example of research undertakings. The essence of change in postmodern times is synonymous to dynamism and fluidity of thoughts. Now since everything is subject to change through processes of further investigation, research initiatives ought to be taken with a lenient mindset. The same may be said about the evolution and literature studies pertaining to linguistics. The incredible growth of computational linguistics in the past 25 years bears testimony to the fact that there is no normative guideline as such to centralisation and institutionalisation of practical knowledge. Even if we take into account the problem of how to deal with theoretical knowledge, we would still be tempted to hypothecate that learning itself is flexible enough to adjust to changing contexts of scientific knowledge. What is acquired in one era is not insurmountable in terms of its innate inertia. We can only say that if such a situation ever occurs, it would definitely be our failure to accept the transformation of knowledge in the spirit of change. Based on the broad differentiation between technology and knowledge, Lyotard addresses the issue of dissociative rejection, a theory more famously substantiated by Fredric Jameson. Lyotard purports the viewpoint that whatever knowledge is left behind on account of being redundant is bound to be reinstated through scientific efforts. This is one important area where metanarratives outdoes traditional narratives. It also facilitates the postmodern understanding of the hegemony of relative knowledge. To quote Jameson (1991), “The various logical possibilities, however, are necessarily linked with the taking of a position on that other issue inscribed in the very designation postmodernism itself, namely, the evaluation of what must now be called high or classical modernism. Indeed, when we make some initial inventory of the varied cultural artifacts that might plausibly be characterized as postmodern, the temptation is strong to seek the “family resemblance” of such heterogeneous styles and products not in themselves but in some common high modernist impulse and aesthetic against which they all, in one way or another, stand in reaction” (55). It is quite evident from the quoted passage that the properties of the postmodern tend to reach a level of meta-discourse in that legitimisation of the grounding rules of science is never possible just with conventional grand narratives. Such narratives are inherently faulty in terms of their capacity to validate the existing laws of ethics, psychology and neo-realism. Lyotard envisions with the precision of a prophet the futuristic implications of knowledge building. He claims that knowledge in the coming days will assume the status of a commodity which will be thoroughly used up by the consumers, but without imbibing any trace of it within individual grooming models: “The relationship of the suppliers and users of knowledge to the knowledge they supply and use is now tending, and will increasingly tend, to assume the form already taken by the relationship of commodity producers and consumers to the commodities they produce and consume – that is, the form of value” (Lyotard 1984: 4). The conceptualisation of knowledge as a commodity having a consumer-centric outcome is quite unique to say the least. If we analyse the current trend of consumer societies and cultural pluralism, it would be quite clear that modern high-end consumers are compulsively motivated to embrace anything but radically new. It might be noted that not all consumers behave in ways similar to what is conceived of in Economics as the demonstration effect of consumerism. That type of behaviour is only limited to the mass. But high-end consumers having exposure to different cultural values and etiquettes do prefer to stick to the basics and seek improvements thereof. After all we can never deny that the postcolonial age in the Western countries is marked by a scrupulous attitude ‘to have the best delivered by the proven’. The driving agent in Jean-François Lyotard’s basic rationale remains to be his steadfast denial of grand narratives. He pinpoints that the postmodern age has turned scientific knowledge into a positive catalyst for the developed nations and has exercised a reversal of roles for the developing nations. Developed countries have made headways into technology only to strengthen its overall cause. Subsequently, they have expedited both manpower development and scientific processes to their own benefits. But on the other hand, failure to orbit technological scopes has created ‘the major bottleneck for the developing countries’ (Lyotard 1984: 5). Again, our author’s presupposition of economic liberalisation in the postmodern period is tangibly grounded on available knowledge at any given timeframe. He argues that effectual performance of any nation-state system depends on its peripheral operatives such as administration, politics, diplomatic controls, and even military powers. Therefore, the working paradigm of knowledge in the last two decades has complied with a symmetric correlation between what is being fed and what is being generated in turn (Lyotard 1984: 6). However, one of the seminal thinkers of modern times Noam Chomsky does not share similar views with Lyotard over the process of economic exchange. Chomsky (2003) argues that the complicated nature of globalisation has brought about a distinct convergent effect with regard to consummation of products and services. The long held ethics of market economy is thus gaining an ascendance over divergent trends (325). It might be noted that Chomsky’s logic does not render an all-inclusive perspective of knowledge across all branches of a societal regime. Lyotard, however, remains more on the side of theoretic conjectures on this issue of economic relaxation of knowledge. Unlike Chomsky who dwells on the subversion of public will by anti-anarchists, Lyotard focuses on technical nitty-gritty centering on communicational liberalisation to promote transparency and to facilitate capital inflow both within and outside institutions. His stance in this regard can be reviewed as modest compared to Chomsky’s radical notion. Coming back to the premise of legitimisation of scientific narrative, the author makes one remarkable attempt to distinguish between knowledge acquired through scientific legitimisation and the same through civic awareness. It won’t be an overstatement to claim that the genesis of societies and their prescriptive bondage is based on mutually conscientious principles. These principles are drawn on from perpetual learning. Knowledge in this regard acts as a pragmatic cushion for mitigating the risks of turmoil and generic instability. The fact that scientific knowledge seeks to establish truth through tried and tested methods stands in sharp contrast to the amassment of social knowledge. Quite interestingly, we can draw the inference based on Lyotard’s conjecture that both types of narratives are, after all, grounded on a narrative framework. There cannot possibly be an exterior data storehouse exclusive to scientific narratives other than, of course, the narrative itself. What is notable here is how Leotard first projects the documentation and then deconstructs the practical base of the same. Conclusion The acceptance of The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge is so prominent among current socialist thinkers that it is often considered to be a handbook for further researches on the pluralistic aspects of postmodernity. The book does not for a single moment fails to grapple the readers’ consciousness about the integral shortcomings of a universalist overview of knowledge. The sheer conviction in the way scientific discourses have been incorporated in the arguments calls for an esoteric approval as well. As Landry (2000) aptly argues, Lyotard blends diverse coefficients together in a continuous flow of thought. Arraying from the Nietzschean antisubjectivism and perspectivism to Derrida and Foucault’s theories, the book encapsulates in a macroscopic manner all the key elements of social, cultural and aesthetic determinants of postmodernity (85). Language games in the postindustrial era do form a structural cohesiveness in the context of how we view and interpret the intellectual aftermaths of the Classical times. The objectivity of truth, which was wholeheartedly espoused by earlier thinkers, comes under serious epistemological debate in this classic treatise. List of References Chomsky, N. (2003) Radical priorities. Oakland, California: AK Press Harvey, D. (1989) The condition of postmodernity: an enquiry into the origins of cultural change. Cowley Road, Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell Jameson, F. (1991) Postmodernism, or, The cultural logic of late capitalism. Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press Landry, L. Y. (2000) Marx and the postmodern debates: an agenda for critical theory. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Publishing Group Nola, R., and Irzik, G. (2002) ‘Incredulity towards Lyotard: a critique of a postmodernist account of Science and Knowledge.’ Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 34, (2003) 391-421 Vanhoozer, K. J. (2003) Postmodern Theology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Read More