Postmodernism for the uninitiated © 1999 Clare O’Farrell in Daphne Meamore, Bruce Burnett, Peter O’Brien (eds) Understanding Education: Contexts and Agendas for the New Millennium, Sydney: Prentice Hall. pp. 11-17.

————————————————————————–

You may have heard the joke: ‘what do you get when you cross a mafiosi with a postmodernist?’ The answer of course is ‘someone who will make you an offer you can’t understand’. It is the pinnacle of trendiness in much contemporary writing including the latest theory on education to attach the word ‘post’ to as many ‘isms’ as you can lay your hands on: postcolonialism, poststructuralism, postindustrialism, postfordism. Feel free to invent your own ‘posts’! The term ‘postmodernism’, however, has the advantage of being able to encompass just about all of the aforementioned ‘posts’, and it is my aim here in the face of what might seem to be insurmountable difficulties occasioned by the undeniably weighty concrete boots of ‘theory’ to attempt to bring some clarity to the situation.

A quick trip to the library in search of enlightenment only brings more confusion. Opening a book with the hermetic title Postmodernism and Heterology, one reads: ‘the paradigmatics of and pragmatics of the game, the philosophies of erotics, and the privilege accorded the work of art and literature-as players in the critical/theoretical field-have to be related to the question of writing in post-structuralism’ (Pefanis, 1991 p.5). One need not leave this book open too long! Things are no better when one opens a book titled Postmodern Education by well known educational theorists Stanley Aronowitz and Henry Giroux (1991, p.59) one reads: ‘briefly put the postmodern condition refers to the various discursive and structural transformations that characterise what can be called a postmodernism culture in the era of late capitalism’. In short, postmodernism is postmodernism, so there!! Another major problem apart from the mind boggling obscurity of some of these proponents of the postmodern, is that none of them, it would seem, can agree over what the term ‘postmodern’ actually means. Indeed, many would argue that this very lack of agreement is in itself one of the distinguishing features of the ‘postmodern’.

Modernism But all is not lost, it is in fact possible to throw some light on this confused state of affairs and the best place to start is historically, at the beginning. The term ‘postmodern’ originally appeared in the domains of art and architecture and has since spread to the areas of literary and cultural theory, philosophy and political and educational theory. As you will note, the word is made up of two components: ‘post’ (after) and ‘modern’. (Incidentally, one can only wonder what comes after the postmodern: the post-postmodern?, postmodernism cubed? But, I will leave aside such frivolous speculation for the moment.) It might be best to start with some definitions of what is meant by ‘modern’ and then move on to define how the postmodern differs from this. Generally philosophical commentators tend to situate the birth of the Modern in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries with the Age of Enlightenment or the Age of Reason as it is often called. However, I might point out that The New Cambridge Modern History (1957-79) locates the birth of the Modern in the fifteenth century with the Renaissance. But, for the sake of convenience here, I will locate the birth of the modern just prior to the Enlightenment in the seventeenth century with philosopher René Descartes’ (1596-1650) famous dictum ‘I think, therefore I am’. This dictum in fact sums up the whole ‘Enlightenment project’ as it is often referred to. It is this project that postmodernism declares is dead and whose final death agonies began in the 1960s. Modernism has not ceased to expire since then and the collapse of the Soviet Empire and communism in 1989 has added a further nail to the coffin of a not quite dead corpse.

So just what is the ‘Enlightenment project’? It can in fact be summed up quite neatly by Descartes’ aphorism. This expresses the idea, that through the use of intellect and reason, principally in the form of science, humanity can understand the universe and find solutions to all the problems which plague existence. In other words, the judicious use of reason and our powers of rational science will eventually solve all our political and social problems as well as allow us to master our physical environment in the form of our own bodies as well as the broader natural environment. The Enlightenment project subscribes to the idea that we can build on our knowledge as we build a wall with bricks. As the nineteenth century poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge (1772-1834) would have it knowledge proceeds by stepping on the shoulders of the giants who went before us: ‘the dwarf sees farther than the giant, when he has the giant’s shoulder to mount on’. This is progress.

Intellectuals, writers, artists, scientists, educators, political theorists and militants, are all architects of the modern-forever pushing forward the frontiers of knowledge and experience. The most adventurous pioneers of the modern are the avant garde who react against the dead weight of tradition and all that resists the general progress of rational human enlightenment. Modernism, therefore could be described as an optimistic project of hoisting ourselves up by our own bootstraps.

But have we in fact hoist ourselves on our own petards? In other words where has all this ‘progress’ actually got us? Apart from a more comfortable life style for a fraction of the world’s population, things seem no better, no more certain than they were before, even after two centuries of mammoth effort. And what exactly does the idea of ‘certainty’ mean? If the modernist project promotes a gradual brick by brick approach to knowledge, it also promotes the idea that we can eventually work out the ‘reason’ for the way things are, the ‘truth’ of the matter. That is, if we think hard enough and collect enough information then we might just find that principle of scientific and social order which would make everything clear and solve all our problems. If we could just find that one rational and ‘unbiased’ curriculum, that infallible method of school discipline the new could educate children for a perfect society. Further to this, the whole notion of the ‘right’ political system (for example ‘democracy’ or ‘communism’) and of the possibility of a definitive ‘political solution’ for social problems is a modernist one. The totalitarian regimes which have characterised the twentieth century are all prime examples of the modernist approach.

Postmodernism Hence it was that two World Wars, several revolutions and dictatorships later, some thinkers began to have their doubts. Very well, they argued, so we have got rid of God and other such unfounded ‘superstitions’. We are using our intellects to the maximum and science is forging ahead, but something is still wrong. Things are not working out as planned. The idea of a unified rational explanation, of a political or scientific solution, far from bringing a promised utopia, has instead resulted in mass slaughter and vast numbers enslaved and excluded from mainstream society on a scale unprecedented in human history. A schooling system which promised social equality and enlightenment for all has done little more than reinforce social division and entrench new forms of conformity, ignorance and exclusion. Was this the happiness and social harmony promised by the Enlightenment philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) and nineteenth century economist Karl Marx (1818-1883)? Was a devastated natural environment the only outcome of the scientific search to improve our physical living conditions? Clearly there was something very wrong indeed with the whole idea that unaided Reason and rationality could save us, and this is the kind of criticism that the French thinker Michel Foucault (1926-1984) put forward in his classic 1961 (trans. 1970) work Madness and Civilisation: A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason.

In this book Foucault argues that Reason created its own power base by brutally excluding a whole section of the population – the insane, the debauched, defrocked priests, homosexuals, criminals, prostitutes, single mothers and any number of other ‘unreasonable’ people. In the old religious regime of the Middle Ages, salvation had always been possible because ultimately only God could judge and read the hearts of men. There was always the possibility of communication with God and a life beyond death if all transaction with the rest of the human race failed. In short, the excluded still had some value, even if only in the eyes of God. Further to this, those still integrated into society could save their own souls by acting charitably towards the poor and excluded. But the Age of Reason violently destroyed even this kind of belonging for the excluded. To be human was to be rational, therefore those who were not rational were no longer human. They had no value of any kind except as a warning to those tempted not to conform, or if they were still physically and mentally able, as a cheap labour force, little better than subhuman slaves.

In 1967 (trans. 1976), another French thinker Jacques Derrida (1930-) announced the project of ‘deconstruction’, in which he set out to show that at the deepest level, there is no system, no theory, no science or political system which rests on entirely rational foundations. There is always a point which precedes reason, a point where one makes an assumption, a declaration of belief or faith. Even physics is based on an assumption, namely the belief that matter exists and that it is possible to discover at least some of its ‘laws’. With such damning indictments the postmodern era was born. As the word ‘post’ indicates, the claim is that the ideas of the ‘modern’ era are no longer valid-that the notion of a central unifying truth is no longer operative.

But it was Jean François Lyotard (1924-1998), yet another French thinker, who first popularised the word ‘postmodernism’ in the domain of social theory. His book The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge (trans. 1984) was originally delivered as a report to the Universities Council of the government of Quebec in 1979 and focuses extensively on current and future trends in the areas of knowledge and education. This extraordinarily influential book is perhaps even more relevant today than it was in 1979.

The big story (‘grand narrative’) of modernism, he says, has been replaced by a whole range of competing ‘small stories’. No longer, for example, can the call: ‘a free and equal education for all’ provide a universal rallying point. Instead, we have a collection of quite separate and isolated groups often with conflicting or even mutually exclusive beliefs and goals: groups which might include feminists, homosexuals, environmentalists, neo-Nazis, Christian and Islamic fundamentalists or any number of other interest groups. It is very hard to mount a modernist universal call for justice and truth when so many cannot agree over what these things are or indeed over whether they exist at all.

The term ‘postmodern’ further describes the rejection of certain types of ‘totalising historical or social schemas’ particularly as they have been inherited from Hegel (1770-1831) and Marx and other nineteenth century thinkers. It also rejects such notions as the idea that there can only be one form of education, one form of curriculum suitable for all students and that all students are rewarded or punished according to their just desserts by this system. Strictly speaking one could describe postmodernism as a form of anarchism. It is a rejection of any overarching orderly schema and explanation. If postmodern fragmentation frees society at least to some extent from the tyranny of one voice, one ideology and one set of meanings it also produces a number of other, perhaps less desirable, effects in the way knowledge and education are perceived and organised. The transition from modernism to postmodernism is not an easy one and the clash of the two work views can be seen particularly clearly in the arena of education. As Lyotard argues, the question asked by the state, by students, by schools and universities is no longer ‘is it true’ but ‘is this knowledge useful?’ In an environment where money is all, this question also becomes ‘how much money be made out of this knowledge?’ and further ‘will this knowledge make the process of making money more efficient? In short , knowledge is no longer assessed in terms of its truth or falsity or its promotion of justice, but in terms of its efficiency at making money. AS Lyotard continues, it is only in the context of the big story of modernism, of ‘-the life of the spirit and/or the emancipation of humanity-that the partial replacement of teachers by machines may seem inadequate or even intolerable’ (Lyotard 1984, p.51)

That other great icon of postmodern thought, French sociologist Jean Baudrillard (1929-), takes the postmodern logic to its radical extreme. Baudrillard’s (1993) work concentrates on the famous ‘crisis in representation’. What this means is that signs-words, concepts and so on-no longer refer to real material things, they only refer to each other. This is of course in line with the notorious proclamation by another nineteenth century philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) that ‘there are no facts only interpretations’. So, for example when I go to the supermarket to buy a can of dog food, I am not so much buying the real dog food as the labeled product: I am buying all those happy television canines bounding through the fields towards their well groomed, well adjusted masters and mistresses. Baudrillard argues that there are no longer any links between our sign systems, or our languages and a central reality or meaning. Advertising companies sell the image of a car, rather than the car itself. For Jean-François Lyotard there is still a monolithic system which must be resisted and fought against. For Baudrillard, this system no longer exists. All boundaries have already disappeared as the sign ‘is liberated for any archaic obligation to designate anything at all’.

This process can be seen emerging very clearly in the current context of the ‘marketisation’ of schooling. In a climate of increasingly reduced government funding, schools are forced to market themselves to attract ‘clients’ and money. Glossy brochures, prospectuses and websites all advertise an ‘image’ of a school. Prospective ‘clients’ depending on their niche in the postmodern diaspora can buy the image of ‘tradition’, disciplined middle class respectability and quietly displayed old money. Alternately they might decide to opt for high tech glitz with all its promise of excitement, money and membership of a club that excludes others in its adoption of technobabble code. Or in a world where performance and representation is all, these prospective clients may choose a school which offers the tantalising possibility of an entrée into the exclusive and glamorous world of the performance arts and the media. For the more communitarian minded, other schools may offer the possibility of a tightly knit community where all may belong and be cared for. The day to day grind of actual educational practice is absent here-one buys not an education but a lifestyle.

Conclusion It is too late to be either ‘for’ or ‘against’ postmodernism-there is little point in being nostalgic for the old modernist world view (‘truth, justice and the American way’) in a society where information technology and globalisation have set the parameters for performance. Indeed, it has become increasingly clear in recent years that modernism itself has become nothing more than one of the many ‘small stories’ in circulation. Rather than harking back to old models it might be better to take up the challenge and ask ‘what now?’ How can one work to ensure one’s freedoms (ability to choose) in this scenario? A whole range of exciting new possibilities open up before us. Perhaps we need to go beyond the notion of any rigidly fixed social identities, no matter how countercultural these might be, and to engage in an ongoing and open ended process of negotiation. The aim of this negotiation would not be the kind of vague consensus which is the modernist ideal, but a negotiation which recognises (rather than merely tolerates) differences of all kinds and not simply those which are the current flavour of the month. To speak in even more utopian terms (particularly in a society which is subject to more and more intense forms of surveillance and regulation), it should perhaps be a form of negotiation which aims to maximise the choices (freedoms) of all participants. This is a project which can be implemented at the most everyday classroom level. Instead of using education to train students to calmly accept their fate as specialised and highly regulated workers mindlessly perpetuating an increasingly complex and hierarchically ordered economy, students should be invited at every possible to consider and imagine alternative scenarios no matter how seemingly impractical. After all yesterday’s dream is today’s reality. If the education system can be used to train, to prepare willing and competent workers, it can also be used to invite people to ask questions about what competence means and about why ‘work’ and material production is currently such a high social priority. In short, if education can be a machine for social conformity, it can also be a machine for the investigation of new horizons and new possibilities. The proliferation of ‘difference’ and uncertainty in the postmodern world, far from being a problem, is a constant invitation to imagine the unimaginable.

————————————————————————–

References

Aronowitz, Stanley and Giroux, Henry A. (1991). Postmodern Education: Politics, Culture, and Social Criticism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Baudrillard, Jean (1993). Symbolic Exchange and Death. Translated by Iain Hamilton Grant; with an introduction by Mike Gane. London: Sage

Derrida, Jacques (1976). Of Grammatology. Translated by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Foucault, Michel (1970). Madness and Civilisation: A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason. Translated by Richard Howard, Introduction by David Cooper. London: Tavistock.

Lyotard, Jean-François (1984). The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Translation from the French by Geoff Bennington and Brian Massumi Manchester: Manchester University Press.

The New Cambridge Modern History (1957-79). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pefanis, Julian (1991). Heterology and the Postmodern. North Sydney: Allen & Unwin.