Critical review of Lyotards The Post Modern Condition: On the Post-modernism of Jean Francois Lyotard - Essay Example

? Critical review of Lyotard’s “The Post Modern Condition On the Post-modernism of Jean Francois Lyotard I. Introduction The book of Jean-Francois Lyotard was written in 1979 in French. However, the translation from French was published 1984. Thus, Lyotard (1984) is actually Lyotard (1979). Gane (2002) considered Lyotard’s book as an important book in sociology and this is why Gane (2002) compared Lyotard’s perspective side by side with Max Weber’s. Of course, part of Gane’s motive in comparing Weber and Lyotard emerged from Gane’s belief that the collapse of communism in the late 20th century vindicated Weber’s analyses and that Weber and Lyotard share a common reservation against Marxism. Weber had criticised historical materialism and so did Lyotard (Gane 2002). On the other hand, post-modernism has great influences on music, poetry, architectural and other areas of knowledge. Many writers attribute to Lyotard and a few writers the origin of post-modernism. In particular, Lyotard is particularly cited for his articulation of the post-modernist perspective in the 1970s. Hart (2004, p. 2) described Lyotard as someone “who made a generation attend to the word ‘postmodern’.” According to Bereiter (1994, p. 3), “postmodernism makes itself felt most dramatically through its passionate concern with equity and multiculturalism.” According to Bereiter (1994), postmodernists tend to consider theology, science, and magic to be on equal footing because the three “represent different ways of perceiving, defining, and organizing knowledge of life experiences.” II. Overall argument and key themes and perspectives in Lyotard’s book In the introduction section of his book, Lyotard (1984, p. xxiii) declared the object of his study is to report “the condition of knowledge in the highly developed societies.” His working hypothesis is that “the status of knowledge is altered as societies enter what is known as the postmodern age” (Lyotard 1984, p. 3). According to Leotard, the transition “has been underway since at least the end of the 1950s, which for Europe marks the completion of reconstruction” (p. 3). Lyotard asserted that the pace of postmodernization “is faster or slower depending on the country, and within countries it varies according to the sector of activity” (p. 3). Lyotard (1984, p. 3) emphasised that “scientific knowledge is a kind of discourse.” Lyotard (1984, p. xxiii) said that “science has been always in conflict with narratives.” As to what has happened to the narratives, Lyotard said that “judged by the yardstick of science, the majority of them proved to be fables.” Science, according to Lyotard (1984, p. xxiii), has been “obliged to legitimate the rules of its own game” through philosophy (Lyotard 1984, p. xxiii). Lyotard (1984, p. xxiii) used the term modern “to designate any science that legitimates itself with reference to a metadiscourse of this kind making an explicit appeal to some grand narrative, such as the dialectics of the Spirit, the hermeneutics of learning, the emancipation of the rational or working subject, or the creation of wealth.” According to Lyotard, the postmodern perspective on social bond is that it is exists in fabric of relations that is best understood in terms of language games. The language game “immediately positions the person who asks, as well as the addressee and the referent asked about” (1984, p. 15). The effects of a message or of a language vary depending on whether the languages used are “denotatives, prescriptives, evaluative, performatives, etc.” (Lyotard 1984, p. 16). In the language game, antagonism is given and there are rules (Lyotard 1984, p. 16-17); there are “orders in the army, prayer in church, denotation in the schools, narration in families, questions in philosophy, performativity in business” and bureaucratization serve as the boundary (Lyotard 1984, p. 16-17). Lyotard asserted that “knowledge is not the same as science” (1984, p. 18). According to Lyotard (1984, p. 18), science requires that “objects to which they refer must be available for repeated access.” In contrast, knowledge cannot be generally reduced to science as “learning is the set of statements which, to the exclusion of all other statements, denote or describe objects and may be declared true or false” (Lyotard 1984, p. 18). Further, according to Lyotard (1984, p. 27), “narrative knowledge does not give priority to the question of its own legitimation.” Postmodern science is a “search for instabilities” (Lyotard 1984, p. 53). At the same time, Lyotard asserted that “the pragmatics of scientific research, especially in its search for new methods of argumentation, emphasises the invention of new ‘moves’ and even new rules for language games” (1984, p. 53). According to Lyotard, postmodern science has concerned itself “with such things as undecidables, the limits of precise control, conflicts characterized by incomplete information, ‘fracta,’ catastrophes, and pragmatic paradoxes---is theorizing its own evolution as discontinuous, catastrophic, nonrectifiable, and paradoxical” (1984, p. 60). Post modern science is about the “changing meaning of the world knowledge, while expressing about ho such a change can take place” (Lyotard 1984, p. 60). It is also about identifying the unknown not the known (Lyotard 1984). In summary, in my opinion, the three most important postmodernist perspectives of Lyotard are as follows. First, Lyotard held that scientific knowledge is a discourse in which there is objective truth does not exist. He did not believe that objective knowledge is possible as objective knowledge is not possible According to Bereiter (1994), the postmodernist rejection of a possibility of an objective stance logically result into the postmodernists view that science is “a progressive discourse.” Second, Lyotard held that science merely legitimises the rules of its own game. Third, Lyotard believe that social relations are best understood in terms of language games. We criticise these three key perspectives in the next section. III. Critique of the Lyotard perspective In this section, we critically review the three key features of Lyotard’s postmodernism as discussed in the earlier section. On the first, as pointed out by Bereiter (1994, p. 3), “postmodernism rejection of the possibility of objective stance has led some educators to begin treating scientific knowledge as elite consensus.” According to Bereiter (1994, p. 5), “their strongest argument is that, because there can be no objective basis for judging theory Y to be better than theory X, there can be no grounds for regarding the replacement of theory X by theory Y.” Yet, while it is true that the scientific community frequently hold scientific hold conferences to review scientific research and sometimes arrive at a consensus, scientific knowledge is all about following the cannons of science or following the prescribed scientific method formulated or prescribed by the scientific community. The cannons of science or what can be deemed as scientific may have imperfection but for knowledge to advance, men have to reach an agreement on what knowledge to consider as scientific so people can have a way of finding out what knowledge can be considered more reliable if not “reliable.” Treating all knowledge as equal---vodoo, magic, withcraft, medicine and science----is dangerous because we are unable to classify knowledge that are more reliable or those with at minimum reliability. Further, as pointed out by Gane (2002, p. 92), “postmodern science is ‘founded’ upon the principle of dissensus rather than consensus, but at the same time presupposes some degree of local agreement between its players (scientists) over the rules of the game (science).” As pointed out by Gane (2002, p. 92), Lyotard proposed “that postmodern science is quite different from its modern counterpart, for it is not governed by a general metalanguage but it is the outcome of an open conflict between heteromorphous language game or ‘little narratives’.” If we allow too much of this, men will have a difficulty moving close to a common understanding and having a common action or response to things. On the second, it must be pointed out that while science legitimises the rules of its own game, legitimation is necessary humanity will have a way of identifying what knowledge may be reliable. Finally on the third or with regard to social bonds being best understood in terms of language games, it must be pointed out that there is no rational reason for social bonds to follow the language game and, thus, being the case, any type of similarity can only be treated as accidents or coincidences and similarity in one aspects need not imply complete similarity. Thus, any extension of knowledge based on the assumed similarity between social bonds and language games should not be considered to have a valid basis because it is a product of mere coincidences. IV. Lyotard’s concerns compared with other writers Meanwhile, in this section, we compare the Lyotard perspective with the perspective of key writers in sociology. We compare Lyotard with several writers in sociology. Lyotard versus Weber. Gane(2002) has a good discussion differentiating the work of Lyotard from Weber. In differentiating the work of Lyotard from Weber, Gane (2002, p. 89) described that “the work of Weber, on one hand, is of a typically modern nature, centring on the power politics of the nation-state, the meaning of social action and the affinity between religious ethics and the rationalization and disenchantment of the world.” In contrast, the work of Lyotard “attacks modern forms of representation, authority, power and justice” (Gane 2002, p. 89). As pointed out by Gane (2002, p. 95), “Lyotard, like Weber, sees the transition to modernity as characterised by a movement towards cultural sameness, for it involves the effacement of local differences by the authority of political and philosophical metanarratives.” Metanarratives are “something that overarches all human activities and serves to guide them” (Hart 2004, p. 2). Unlike Weber, however, Lyotard believe “that with the advent of the postmodern condition this process is undone, for with the collapse of all metanarratives, postmodern culture while resting upon a social bond, is differentiated into an infinite number of competing local narratives or language games which are not necessarily tied to a quest for performativity” (Gane 2002, p. 95). Lyotard versus Harvey. While the emphasis of Lyotard on postmodernism appear to be on postmodern science, metanarratives, social bond in terms of language game and legitimation, the emphasis of Harvey on postmodernism are “total acceptance of the ephemerality, fragmentation, discontinuity, and the chaotic that formed the one half of Baudelaire’s conception of modernity” (Harvey 1989, p. 44). Given all these, Harvey (1989, p. 44) said that the response of postmodernism is “not try to transcend it, counteract it, or even to define the ‘eternal and immutable’ elements that might lie within it.” Harvey (19889, p. 44) emphasised that “postmodernism swims, even wallows, in the fragmentary and the chaotic currents of change as if that is all there is.” Lyotard versus Jameson. Jameson’s brand of postmodernism focuses on postmodernism as a “cultural logic” or thinking of late capitalism (1997, p. title page). The postmodern view emerged as “an inverted millenarianism in which the premonitions of the future, catastrophic or redemptive, have been replaced by senses of the end of this or that (the end of ideology, art, or social class; the “crisis” of Leninism, social democracy, or the welfare state, etc., etc.)” (Jameson 1997, p. xxii). Thus, in a sense, according to Jameson (1997), postmodernism can also be described as one of general disillusionment with the Marxist movements even as there is also disillusionment with capitalism. The disillusionment in both the Marxist movements and capitalism gave rise to postmodernist architecture in the form of “aesthetic populism” (Jameson 1997, p. 2). Lyotard versus Habermas. For Habermas, postmodernity is anti-modernity, representing “an emotional current of our times which has penetrated all spheres of intellectual life” (Habermas 1981, p. 3). According to Habermas, “the project of modernity formulated in the 18th century by the philosophers of the Enlightenment consisted in their efforts to develop objective science, universal morality and law, and autonomous art, according to their inner logic” (Habermas 1981, p. 9). Habermas (1981, p. 9) continued that the project “intended to release the cognitive potentials of each of these domains to set them free from their esoteric forms.” Further, “the enlightenment philosophers wanted to utilize this accumulation of specialized culture for the enrichment of everyday life, that is to say, for the rational organization of everyday social life” (Habermas 1981, p. 9). In contrast, Habermas’ view of postmodernity consist of “differentiated relinking of modern culture with an everyday praxis” (Habermas 1981, p. 13). Yet, Habermas recognizes the existence of the “premodernism of the neoconservatives” (Habermas 1981, p. 13). The premodernism of neo-conservatives “welcome the development of modern science, as long as this only goes beyond its sphere to carry forward technical progress, capitalist growth and rational administration” (Habermas 1981, p. 13). According to Habermas (1981), there are three perspectives among postmodernists. The first holds that science has become meaningless. The second holds that “politics must be kept as far aloof as possible from the demands of moral-practical justification” (Habermas 1981, p. 13). The last group or the third “asserts the pure immanence of art, disputes that it has utopian content, and points to its illusory character in order to limit the aesthetic experience to privacy.” Lyotard versus Chomsky. Noam Chomsky is “dismissive” of the postmodernist view (Chomsky 1995). Chomsky claims that the scholarship of the postmodernist is “appalling” because of their supposed lack of evidence or solid basis for their postmodernist views (Chomsky, 1995). Chomsky even stress that he pays no attention to postmodernism. Lyotard versus Edward Said. Like Noam Chomsky, Edward Said does not subscribe to the postmodernist perspective (Harman 2009). Said criticised postmodernism for ignoring the “lived experience of people” and for stressing the “formal or linguistic elements in literature” (Harman 2009). According to Said, postmodernism studied language divorced from reality and the study of the text as “something to be judged only in its own terms” (Harman 2009). According to Said, post-modernists “deny any reality outside language” (Harman 2009). V. Lyotard’s and Post-modernists: Are they right or wrong? Evidence? Let us consider Lyotard’s or postmodernist perspectives on the issue of globalization, consumer society, and gender. On the issue of globalization, Arxer (2008) provided evidence that contrary to the expectations of postmodernist, nation states are not disappearing with globalisation. Despite the existence of the European Union, for example, individual states within the European Union have remained, providing strong evidence of the persistence of nation states. Postmodernist believe that nation-states will disappear as identities are supposedly not built up in isolation. Another post-modernist perspective is that societies will move to become consumer societies and all will have to seduce customers in order to profit (Fukugawa 2002). This is a fallacy because consumers can also influence business through environmental standards, ethics, and corporate responsibility. The evidence on this is available to all. The postmodern view on gender seems correct: that it is also constructed by language. The words “sexy”, for example, is usually associated with women and is a language that can perpetuate the women’s role as sex objects. As for the specific views articulated by Lyotard, it is easy to see that there are objective truths such as the evidence of climate change (now the issue is not climate change but whether the climate change is anthropogenic or natural), science is not about legitimising although some legitimising takes place. The evidence for this is that every scientific finding is being challenged and this is indicated by the scientific journals. As for Lyotard’s view that social relations are best understood in language games, this is easy to refute as all the schools of thought in sociology were able to produce journals providing empirical evidence for their perspective. VI. Summary and conclusion It is a valid conclusion to make that while the postmodernist perspective can help us understand better our world, only some of its assertions are supported by strong evidence. Thus, the value of postmodernist theory is simply as important as all the other theories of sociology and should not be overrated. References Arxer, S., 2008. Addressing postmodern concerns on the border: globalization, the nation-state, hybridity, and social change. Tamara Journal, 7 (2), 179-199. Bereiter, C., 1994. Implications of postmodernism for science, or science as progressive discourse. Educational Psychologist, 29 (1), 3-12. Chomsky, N., 1995. On postmodernism. Retrieved 9 January 2013 from http://masi.cscs.lsa.umich.edu/~crshalizi/chomsky-on-postmodernism.html Fukugawa, M., 2002. Socio-economic inequality in the post-modern society. Retrieved 9 January 2002 from http://www.fukagawa.or.jp/research/pdf.file/socio.pdf Gane, N., 2002. Max Weber and postmodern theory. New York: Palgrave. Habermas, J., 1981. Modernity versus postmodernity. New German Critique, 22, 13-14. Harman, C., 2009. Edward Said, post colonialism and post-modernism. Retrieved 9 January 2013 from http://chrisharman.blogspot.com/2009/03/edward-said-post-colonialism-and-post.html Hart, K., 2004. Postmodernism: A beginner’s guide. Oneworld Publications. Harvey, D., 1989. The condition of postmodernity. Blackwell. Jameson, F., 1997. Postmodernism. 7th Printing. Duke University Press. Lyotard, J., 1984 (1979). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge. Translation from French by Geoff Bennington and Brian Massumi. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Read More