Is Postmodernity a Useful Concept - Literature review Example

Is Postmodernity a Useful Concept? By Is Postmodernity a Useful Concept? Introduction The terms postmodernism and postmodernity are increasingly appearing in all different fields of study and are used in a virtually any context (Smart, 1990). Even so, postmodernity has given rise to significant debate over its definition and whether or not it is a useful term or merely some “irrelevant and frivolous” concept (Lee, 1999, p. 739). Despite the debate over the definition and utility of the concept of postmodernity across many disciplines, sociological theories of postmodernity have remained essentially the same. Sociological theories of postmodernity explain and rationalize the realities of current “social conditions” (Cockerham, 2007, p. 286). Thus from a sociological perspective, the term postmodernity is a useful concept. This paper demonstrates how and why postmodernity is a useful concept by first identifying the common themes attributable to definitions of postmodernity and by analyzing sociological theories of postmodernity. Common Themes in Definitions of Postmodernity Drolet (2004) informs that postmodernity and postmodernism do not have concise definitions because the terms are used to convey various concepts depending on the field of discipline using the terms. For instance, in 1926, theologian Bernard Iddinggs Bell published a series of essays on postmodernism in which he expressed ideas that he thought were more sophisticated than modern ear ideas of faith. During the 1950s, the term postmodernity was used to explain works submitted by artists and poets who were challenging conventional thought and created new genres in their fields (Drolet, 2004). Thus a common theme in the various uses of the term postmodernity can help to narrow down its definition. The common theme is a tendency to use the term in connection with a departure from conventions and enlargements of modern ideas as demonstrated in the two examples provided for by Drolet (2004). As Spencer (2001) explains: Postmodernism can be seen as an extension of the critical, skeptical, dissenting – even nihilistic – impulse of modernity (p. 128). Spencer’s (2001) explanation of and grouping together or concepts and definitions of postmodernity therefore tends to identify common themes that reflect a frivolous and meaningless connotation. Lawson (2003) however, gives the common themes in postmodern definitions greater utility. According to Lawson (2003), although many postmodern supporters do not generally agree on its definition, these differences are quite inconsequential, although theoretical perspectives “may be very far apart” ( p. 12). According to Lawson, postmodernism is typically attributed to the thinking of philosophers such as Friedrich Nietzsche, Martin Heidegger, Jacques Derrida and Michel Foucault and as such is associated with the link between power and knowledge. Thus the common theme that runs throughout is: The rejection of objective truth and, as a corollary, or firm foundations for knowledge, including moral knowledge (Lawson, 2003, p. 12). In this regard, postmodernism is associated with radicalism in terms of “ethical relativism” or at a minimal “offering only negative critiques of other foundational theories” (Lawson, 2003, p. 12). It therefore follows that common themes binding various definitions of postmodernism point toward movements or shifts away from convention and established norms. Ryan’s (1988) compartmentalization of the term postmodernity reflects its usefulness as a concept or rather as a conceptualization of a movement. For Ryan (1988) postmodernity in all its various definitions can be narrowed down to a “movement in advanced capitalist culture” (p. 559). The common characteristics of postmodernity are best expressed in the arts and literature as “reflexivity, irony, artifice, randomness, anarchy, fragmentation, pastiche and allegory” (Ryan, 1988, p. 559). Postmodernity emerges as a pessimistic in connection with the progress of modernity which was intended to steer culture in terms of technology, industrialism and the sciences. Postmodernists embrace the view that these truths are no longer relevant and that its relationship to society is changing in radical ways (Ryan, 1988). Postmodernity is therefore a useful concept for understanding how formal values are superseded by substantive value (Ryan, 1988). In other words, postmodernity is another way of conceptualizing changes occurring in the modern era. It invites new ways of interpreting change in the modern era. Beck et al (2003) maintains that postmodernity is a term used in various forms and contexts to reflect how modernity “has begun to modernize its own foundations” and thus “modernity has become reflexive” (p.1). Postmodernity is about “deconstruction and reconstruction” (Beck et al, 2003, p. 1). The common themes emerging in postmodernity concepts, theories and definitions point toward the utility of postmodernity as a concept. As a concept, postmodernity gives expression to rejection of current conditions and realities. Thus postmodernist identify the uselessness of norms, truths, practices, technologies, sciences and industries. In this regard, postmodernity is just as useful as modernity was throughout history. It represents a turning away from exhausted practices and conventions. When concepts of modernity are brought to light, the utility of postmodernity as a concept is obvious. In this regard, the concept of modernity is deeply entrenched in history. In fact, the Latin word modernus was first observed in recorded history in the 5th century and was used to explain how Christianity superseded paganism. Thus the term modernity derives its utility from the fact that it was used to distinguish current realities from antiquated perceptions, trends, norms, practices, policies, consciousness, awareness and the like. Modernity thus represented the “transition from the old to the new” (Haberman and Ben-Habib 1981, 3). Beck’s (2008) use of the phrase second modernity in place of the term postmodernity is no different from the concept of modernity. Where modernity looks represents a change and movement away from the old and toward the new, the second modernity/postmodernity represents a transition from modernity to postmodernity. Looked at in this way, postmodernity is useful as a term of reference representing the transition from the modern to the postmodern. Sociological Theories of Postmodernity Sociological theories of postmodernism are particularly useful for understanding and interpreting social change and social realities. Sociological theories of postmodernity typically took the position that: Postindustrial society’s traditional centers of authority were disintegrating and giving way to the emergence of a new social modernity – the postmodern (Cockerham, 2007, p. 286. Modern ways of look at social cohesion and the macro-level models uses for explaining society lost currency among sociologists who adopted a concept of “multiplicity, plurality, indeterminacy, and fragmentation” (Cockerham, 2007, p. 287). Sociological theories of postmodernity commanded a shift away from theories that embraced all-encompassing narratives of society and turned away from formal constructions of society (Cockerham, 2007). As Cockerham (2007) explains, the conventional theories of sociologists such as Marx, Durkheim, and Weber were looked upon as increasingly inconsistent with current realities. It therefore followed that what was needed was a conceptualization of society and this in turn called for a deconstruction and reconstruction of society for the purpose of composing a new social reality (Cockerham, 2007). Thus from a sociological perspective, postmodernity as a concept was entirely useful for understanding and constructing society by referenced to social conditions and realities. Bauman’s (2000) construction of a sociological theory of postmodernism, the term is not only lucid, but serves a useful purpose for conceptualizing the current realities and conditions of society. According to Bauman (2000): The term postmodernity renders accurately the defining traits of the social condition that emerged throughout the affluent countries of Europe and of European descent in the course of the twentieth century, and took its present shape in the second half of that century (p. 27). Postmodernity as a concept is accurate because it emphasizes both the continuation and the cessation of all aspects of the intimate connection between current social conditions and the origins that both “preceded and gestated it” (Bauman, 2000, p. 27). Thus postmodernity conjures up and identifies the blood ties between the modern and the postmodern social conditions. The ties were previously formed in Europe during the 1600s and were later more precisely formed to create the sociological framework for modern societies. This formation and modification of a social framework represents the: passing of certain crucial characteristics in whose absence one can no longer adequately describe the social condition as modern in the sense given to the concept by orthodox (modern) social theory (Bauman, 2000, p. 27). Bauman’s (2000) sociological theory of postmodernism also argues that postmodernity can be construed to reflect the idea that modernity has run its course in terms of accounting for all of the results of history. Postmodernity in turn, is perceived as modernity reaching the apex of its real nature (Bauman, 2000). Ritzer (2011) refers to Bauman’s (2000) sociological theory of postmodernity as conceptualizing that we are currently living in a “late modern age” that is vastly different from the modern era that was prevalent in previous years (p. 103). Ritzer (2011) argues however, that even so, Bauman (2000) is unable to put to rest the idea that postmodernity is merely just another perspective or at its highest, an expansion of modernity itself (Ritzer, 2011). Thus, Ritzer (2011) suggests that Bauman’s sociological theory of postmodernity represents a concept of understanding social conditions in a way that is not new and therefore not useful. However, Bauman’s (2000) sociological theory of postmodernity goes beyond merely expanding the concept of modernity. Bauman (2000) argued that we have crossed over from the modern era into a postmodern era. Several changes have indicated that concepts of modernity were exhausted. One of these changes obviating the usefulness of postmodernity in terms of sociological theories is globalization. Globalization has threatened and virtually nullified the concept of that modern nation state. Beck (2007) referred to the modern state as a “zombie concept” (cited in Ritzer, 2011, p. 105). The modern state was entirely consistent with conditions existing in previous decades, prior to the proliferation of globalization. Globalization reduced the effectiveness of the concept of the nation state. In reality, globalization has proven a formidable constraint on the nation state’s ability to “stem or control a wide array of global flows, many of which freely pierce its borders” (Ritzer, 2011, p. 105). In fact, a number of “global flows” particularly commerce have emerged as far more significant than the concept of the nation state (Ritzer, 2011, p. 105). According to Ritzer (2011) a number of theories that inform sociologists can be classified as zombie theories thereby necessitating the use of postmodern theories. Zombie theories are theories that are either dead or dying because they no longer appropriately define or apply to current social conditions. For example, structural functionalism was regarded as the most significant sociological theory (Ritzer, 2011). Functionalism regards society as a stable system characterized by cooperation and existing as a constructive institution (Godwyn & Hoffer, 2010, p. xix). Functionalism theorists are guided by the concept that society: …working well and tacitly assumes the point of view of those who benefit from the organizational structure and objectives (Godwyn & Hoffer, 2010, p. xix). However, functionalism has become stagnant with little or no new assumptions and arguments that can account for radical changes in societal constructs (Ritzer, 2011). Conflict theory which functions as a theory that is applied to fill in gaps left by structural functionalism is no less consistent with current societal realities (Ritzer, 2011). Conflict theory emphasizes ideas and concepts relative “social order” and social control” (Godwyn & Hoffer, 2010, p. xvii). Thus conflict theory does not accept that societies are always stable systems. Thus conflict theory acknowledges members making up a society compete with each other and order and control is maintained by reference to an hierarchal order (Godwyn & Hoffer, 2010, p. xvii). According to Ritzer (2011), with the death of structural functionalism, conflict theory suffered the same fate. These theories are no longer able to explain current social conditions and are thus zombie theories (Ritzer, 2011). Ritzer (2011) explains that although societies may be explained by reference to conflict and competition, it does not mean that societies are consistent with conflict theories. Conflict and competition are no longer generated out of the same factual basis that previously informed conflict theorists. The reality is that conflict and competition is now generated out of current postmodern conditions such as technological advances, globalization, economic realities and many other factors that grew out of profound changes emanating out of the latter part of the modern era which is now referred to by many as the postmodern era. Another popular sociological theory is referred to as “symbolic interactionism” (Ritzer, 2011, p. 105). Symbolic interactionism takes the position that people form perceptions, goals and attitudes based on their own experiences and interpersonal interactions with others (Cronk, 1973). However, Ritzer (2011) maintains that while symbolic interactionism is still alive, “it is on life support” (p. 105). Ritzer (2011) maintains that there are a number of sociological theories that are either dead or dying as they not only fail to explain current social conditions but are bereft of explanations and “new developments” (p. 106). It is therefore clear that sociological theories of postmodernity are poised to gain currency since these theories account for current social conditions and more appropriately define and explain social conditions. Even where current social conditions can be explained away by classical sociological theories, explanations are only partial and cannot entirely take account of all realities. For example Marx’s sociological theories may be appropriate for understanding and explaining the recent global financial crisis, a number of Marxian theories such as economic determinism can appropriately be classified as zombie theories (Ritzer, 2011). Conclusion The various ways in which postmodernity is conceptualized and defined have given rise to perceptions among scholars and theorists doubts about the utility of the term. However, a closer examination of the definitions and conceptualizations of postmodernity reveal that there are common themes embedded in these definitions and conceptualizations. The most common theme is the perception that post-modernity is a necessary response to the redundancy of modern era concepts. Thus the common theme indicates that postmodernity is necessary for explaining and understanding current politics, socialization and current conditions generally. Sociological theories in particular are either dead or dying and thus a sociological theory of postmodernity is appropriate. Bibliography Bauman, Z. (2000). “A Sociological Theory of Postmodernity.” Cited in Nash, K. (Ed.). Readings in Contemporary Political Sociology. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers, Ltd. Beck, U.; Wolfgang, B. and Christoph, L. (2003). “The Theory of Reflexive Modernization: Problematic, Hypotheses and Research Programme.” Theory, Culture & Society, Vol. 20(2): 1-33. Beck, U. (March 2000). “The Cosmopolitan Perspective: Sociology of the Second Age of Modernity.” The British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 51(1): 79-105. Cockerham, W. C. (2007). “A Note on the Fate of Postmodern Theory and its Failure to Meet the Basic Requirements for Success in Medical Sociology.” Social Theory and Health, Vol. 5: 285-296. Cronk, G. (Spring 1973). “Symbolic Interactionism: A “Left-Meadian” Interpretation.” Social Theory and Practice, Vol. 2(3): 313-333. Drolet, M. (2004). The Postmodernism Reader: Foundational Texts. London, UK: Routledge. Godwyn, M. & Hoffer Gitell, J. (eds) (2010) Sociology of Organizations: Structures and Relationships. Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Haberman, J. and Ben-Habib, S. (Winter 1981). “Modernity vs Postmodernity”. New German Critique, No. 22: 3-14. Lawson, S. (2003). International Relations. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Lee, Janet. (Winter 1999). “The Utility of a Strategic Postmodernism.” Sociological Perspectives, Vol. 42(4): 739-753. Ritzer, G. (2011). The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Sociology. West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Ryan, M. (1988). “Postmodern Politics”. Theory, Culture & Society, Vol. 5(2): 559-576. Smart, B. (1990). “Modernity, Postmodernity, and the Present.” Cited in Turner, B.S. (Ed.) Theories of Modernity and Postmodernity. London, UK: SAGE Publication, 14-30. Spencer, L. (2001) “Postmodernism, Modernity, and the Tradition of Dissent.” Cited in Sim, S. (Ed.) The Rougledge Companion to Postmodernism. London, UK: Routledge. . Read More