Postmodernism, Power and Discourse - Essay Example

Postmodernism, Power and Discourse Postmodernism Postmodernism is a term whose meaning and implications range across various disciplines and spheres of life including architecture, philosophy, art, literature, nationalism, politics, religion, war, fiction, literary criticism and culture (Nealon & Giroux, 2012). Postmodernism emerged as a reaction to the use of the assumed certainty of scientific and objective efforts to explain reality. It originated from the realization that reality is never merely reflected in peoples’ perception and understanding of it; rather reality is constructed as human beings’ minds try to understand their particular personal realities (Nealon & Giroux, 2012). Consequently, postmodernism is principally unconvinced of explanations which claim to be valid for all groups, cultures, traditions or races. Instead, postmodernism focuses on the comparative truths of each person or situation. Therefore, to the postmodern perception and understanding, all which is important is interpretation. The implication being that reality only exists through the interpretations of what the world means to individuals. As a matter of fact, the term ‘post’ in postmodernism implies that it opposes the existence of any ultimate principles, in its place emphasizing that the results of an individual’s experiences could be imperfect and relative as opposed to assured and universal. Western world, politics, truth, right and wrong are some of the core subjects tackled in postmodernism discussions. With regards to the Western society, postmodernists suggest that it is just a society of outdated lifestyles concealed under impersonal and faceless bureaucracies. Such a society, according to postmodernists, should move beyond their primitiveness of ancient traditional thoughts and practices (Nealon & Giroux, 2012). Specifically, postmodernists oppose certain Western practices such as the building and the use of weapons of mass destruction, which only encourage unlimited consumerism and fosters a wasteful society at the expense of the earth’s resources and environment. What is more, such practices fail to serve the fair and equitable cultural and socioeconomic needs of the populace. With regards to right and wrong, postmodernists believe that there isn’t such a thing as absolute truth since truth shaped by the error-prone outside world. That is, no one has the authority to define truth or impose personal ideas of right and wrong on others. Politically, postmodernists assert that the West’s tendency to suppress equal rights should be protested at since its capitalistic economic system lacks equal distribution of services, goods and remunerations (Nealon & Giroux, 2012). The reason for this political stance by the postmodernist is that whereas just a few rich prosper, the mass populace remains impoverished not to mention the many democratic constitutions, which are flawed in their substance, are impossible to uphold and unfair in principle. Because of these stances, postmodernism has become a hotly debated issue not only in current academic and professional circles but also during historical times. At the center of these debates on postmodernisms are scholars of great renown such as Stuart Hall, Sara Mills and Michel Foucault. In its basic senses, postmodernism calls for the rejection of the sovereign and/or autonomous individual and the emphasis of anarchic collective, anonymous experience (Ward, 2011). There are several core elements with which postmodernism is identified. First, it is associated with the notion that people are all born free and the same. That is, the belief in the universality of human nature. Second, postmodernism is based on the notion that certain human truths are collective and apply across time, space, and cultural difference (Ward, 2011). The third cornerstone of postmodernism is that there is a real set of facts that are true and people just need to look earnestly and use the rational mind to find this set of facts. In other words, postmodernism believes in the existence of certain truths, which are not only innate but also singular. The other core principle of postmodernism is that the individual is unified and autonomous, thus people govern their actions and environment. Finally, postmodernism is characterized by non-hierarchical, anti-essentialism, uncertainty, lack of absolutes and the collapsing of binary oppositions, contingency, constructivism and wariness (Ward, 2011). Power One postmodernist that has been rather influential in shaping the idea of power as known to the world today is Michel Foucault. Unlike other postmodernists, Foucault’s definition of the power moves away from the concept of defining power by the actors who employ control or supremacy to coerce others or by the structures and mechanisms by which the said power wielders operate. Instead, Foucault proposes the notion that ‘power is everywhere. In other terms, he argues that power is rather diffused and embodied in knowledge, regimes of truth and discourse (Stuart, 1992). Thus, power is what makes people to be what they are. Accordingly, Foucault’s views and definition of power is based theories that work at a level different from that adopted by other theories. Therefore, evidently, there is a new notion of power derived from Foucault’s work. First, he departs from the earlier methods of perceiving power by asserting that power is diffused rather than concentrated and that power is enacted and embodied instead of being possessed. Further, power is discursive and not entirely coercive and comprises of agents rather than being deployed by agents. Consequent to the influence of Foucault and other scholars of the same school of thought, the notion that power is possessed and wielded by individuals and groups as sovereign actions of domination and coercion has been challenged. In its place, there has been the alienation towards the idea that power is dispersed and pervasive, hence everywhere. That power is everywhere implies that it comes from all over. Hence neither an agency nor a structure but a regime of truth that permeates throughout society creates power (Foucault, 1998). Power is also in a constant mode of negotiation and change as knowledge, scientific understanding and ‘truth’, which are some of the forms in which power is constituted. Power should then be perceived and recognised not as something used to force people to do things against their will or wish but as something necessary, positive, and productive for society’s benefits (Foucault, 1998). Accordingly, power and its effects should no longer be defined and described negatively using phrases such as “it excludes, represses, censors, abstracts, and masks and/or conceals.” Instead, power creates reality, domains of objects and rituals of truth. Power has also been identified as a core source of conformity and discipline in society. An example is the disciplinary power encountered in social service sectors and in administrative systems such as schools, mental hospitals and prisons. In these institutions and systems, surveillance, assessment and disciplinary systems no longer necessitate the use of force or violence; rather, people have learned to restraint themselves and behave in recommended ways (Mills, 2003). It is the mechanisms that these institutions’ authorities have put in place for prison surveillance, school discipline, populations’ administration and control, and for the promotion of norms about bodily conduct, including sex that fascinate writers and philosophers such as Foucault. It is this fascination that prompted the adoption of the view that power is not just coercive, oppressive and counterproductive (Foucault, 1998). Discourse The other issue on which Foucault has extensively written is discourse. Reportedly, discourses have been looked at as either subservient to power or are often raised against power. Notably, there is need to create room for the myriad complex and unstable processes involved in discourses. For instance, while some processes may be instruments and effects of power, others may be hindrance, a stumbling point, resistance or/and starting point for opposition (Stuart, 1992). Therefore, discourse could produce or transmit, reinforce, undermine or expose power. Moreover, discourse could make power more fragile and/or thwart it. In its fundamental form, discourse refers to the mechanisms by which knowledge, social practices, subjectivity and power and the relationship among them are constituted (Foucault, 1998). Discourse’s meaning thus extends beyond ways of thinking and methods of producing meanings; rather, discourse covers not only the body but also the unconscious and conscious mind and emotional nature life of people (Mills, 2004). In regards to these elements, discourse could be defined as type of power, which circulates in the social field and attaches to strategies of domination and those of resistance. Thus, power is the dynamic of control and lack of control between discourses and the subjects and is exercised within discourses in the ways in which they constitute and govern individual subjects. More specifically, Foucauldian discourse emphasises power relationships in society through language, power and on the basis of theories such Michel Foucault’s. Since this type of discourse (discourse based on Foucault’s theories) attempts to analyze the effects of power sources on the social world through language, it could be said to be close to social constructivism. References Foucault, M. (1998) Method,’ in the History of Sexuality, Volume one: The Will to Knowledge. London: Penguin. Mills, S. (2003) Power and institutions,’ in Michel Foucault. London and New York: Routledge. Mills, S. (2004) Discourse and power,’ in Discourse. London and New York: Routledge. Nealon, J., and Giroux, S. S. (2012) Posts,’ in The theory toolbox: critical concepts for the humanities, arts, and social sciences, second edition. Plymouth: Rowman and Littlefield. Stuart, H. (1992) Discourse and power,’ in Hall, S. and Geiben B. (eds.) Formations of modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press in association with the Open University. Ward, G. (2011) Postmodernisms,’ in Understand postmodernism: a teach yourself guide. New York: Mc-Graw Hill. Read More