Postmodernism- I don't get it

Post Reply New Topic

So I'm in university studying animation. However I'm also doing a class that is based on what is known as 'critical theory'. From what I've read, it's about critiquing ideas perpetuated in society and challenging our truisms/biases. I'm guessing it's some sort of thought exercise - open-mindedness, I guess.

The problem is that, from what I've read about postmodernism (which is something we will cover in this class), it seems to claim that objective truth doesn't exist, which makes little sense to me. Maybe it's just the aspergers talking, but the definition is so vague and I'm worried that my lecturers are going to dogmatically preach this to me.

In college, we talked about semantics, ideology, how culture and media reflect each other, etc, but we looked at different ideologies and different schools of thought. We were never told to dogmatise what we learned in class. We were always taught to be intellectually curious and to substantiate our convictions with facts and take into account that we may be factually wrong about something.

I understand that there are societal norms that should be challenged and shouldn't just be accepted, but how far should we go before it turns into nonsense? Like, language; is that an oppressive tool to control the masses because there are rules on how to use it properly? Is the whole concept of communication making us slaves of the patriarchy (or some other system of oppression)?

I mean, a lot people who are into postmodernism claim to be open minded, but they actually perpetuate new biases. For example, many feminists read everything in society through a feminist lens (understandably). These are people that think that Alien is sexist because femininity is portrayed as evil (the alien) and Ripley has to 'act masculine' to be able to survive. I'm dead serious, people have actually said this. These are the people who will say the film 'Black Swan' is a misogynist film because of how it 'exploits the female figure' and that it has 'the male gaze' all over it. It seems people have these pet theories about how society, culture and-well- life works and can't seem to put aside for one minute to look at it from a different perspective.

I don't want to be one of these art snobs that thinks they're so non-conformist and intellectual because they "challenge societal norms". Critical thinking - actual critical thinking- is about looking at the facts without bias. This seems to be about having a bias and then looking for facts to fit your bias (which is intellectually dishonest).

I'm not saying that all postmodernism is bad. I'm just worried that I'll fail if I don't parrot what has been said by my lecturers and that makes me feel very dirty inside.

PS: Please forgive me if I've been ignorant on this topic. Perhaps I'm just not looking at good sources on the topic of postmodernism and maybe I'll 'get it' eventually.

I also want to point out that I think there is more nuance to this subject, but it's been poisoned by lazy intellectuals (aka Tumblr feminists) who oversimplify every social issue to it's most basic elements, without looking at the totality of the issue at hand. So I apologize, again, for ignorance.

I find this sort of thing very interesting and enjoyable to think about, but exhausting to talk about - there are so many terms people use (and seemingly loosely) that I need to be sure of the definitions, and I'm always having to check what people mean by a particular word or term.

As I understand such thinking, it is about seeing biases around us, and seeing our own bias - there is no unbiased human observation, no 'view from nowhere'. To get us what we are thinking when we talk about 'objective truth' or 'fact', and what's more to do so in good faith. Doubtless the subject attracts a lot of those who don't engage in good faith, who merely want to posture and pose. This is a shame, but I don't think it should detract from serious engagement.

Regarding Alien (the film, possibly the series), my take of this sort of thinking on it was it's Ripley who sees off the rapist-Alien, and the (mostly) men who always fall victim. The Alien itself - and Giger's designs - is/are a fascinating mix of phallic and, well, Google told me the female equivalent would be 'yonic'.

ETA: I realise none of this is likely helpful, though. As with most intellectual things, my advice would be to approach it with openness, talk and respond in good faith, and, when someone is making a proclamation, don't be afraid to question it - 'what do you mean when you say, 'sexist'?' etc. Doubtless all the preceeding was obvious, but I felt I had to say something that actually responded!

I'd say being critical and challenging just for the sake of challenging has a destructive side. I mean, I think our culture values openness and challenging norms, but a lot of people like to pretend they have some kind of inside scoop on things when in reality they are being just as mindless as the people they like to call mindless. A lot of people these days are too quick to delve into cynical conspiratorial type thinking and there's a lot of this stupidity on both left and right. It's hard to fight for a better world when you're so focused on "hidden evils" and demean people as mindless sociopolitical/cultural pawns controlled by evil forces beyond reach. To solve real problems I think requires empathy and understanding of the human condition, not just demonization.

The kernel of your concern seems to be the claim from postmodernism that objective truth does not exist.

Now start looking for the objective truths in everything that follows in your post. Almost every subject that you touch on is inherently subjective.

Is Alien sexist? Is Black Swan misogynist? Well, clearly someone thinks so, and someone has put together an argument to support that claim. I don't happen to agree with it, but my argument to the contrary is, frankly, no better.

Postmodernism is as valid--and as flawed--a lens through which to understand artists and their art as any other. Postmodernism doesn't invalidate modernism, just as modernism didn't invalidate romanticism, and romanticism didn't invalidate neoclassicism.

Hopper - I agree. We can't know with 100% that anything is true or false. It's kind of like the concept of a deity- it's an unfalsifiable hypothesis. Even reality itself is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. However, with the limited tools that I have, I can observe what is around me and come to a conclusion based on what I've studied. If I've continued to study and experiment and the results continue to be similar, I can come to a conclusion about the reality of X. I can have strong convictions, but I don't have to be 100% certain about them.

So here's my problem with postmodernism; postmodernism is not immune from criticism, yet so many self proclaimed postmodernists push it as if we are all just meant to accept that, say, that I have internalized misogyny because I use the word 'b***h'* in a pejorative sense (even if I'm not using it as a gendered word, but rather comparing someone's harshness to a dog on heat). Some of these people even perpetuate these 'norms' that they speak of. Sorry for picking on feminism, but a lot feminists (who are also postmodernists) seem to perpetuate the idea that women are victims and men are perpetrators. Well, if you want to challenge societal norms and fight 'rape culture', why aren't you allowing the MEN to be perceived as victims of society and acknowledging the agency that women have?

But, again, maybe these people really don't understand what postmodernism actually is and maybe I've been mislead by someone's hubris.

marshall - *applause* I think you expressed my feelings much more eloquently than I ever could. One time I was talking to my friend about this and she couldn't wrap her head around the idea that you can absolutely loathe someone's ideological viewpoints, but still love them as a person or can still find common ground with them. I think that only viewing someone as an agent for some system of oppression is dehumanizing them and is purposefully avoiding any real discussion over that particular societal issue. Know your enemy, I guess (if they even are your enemy).

marshall - yup. I think a certain type of postmodernism can lead one to inaction and non-engagement politically. As someone who thinks a lot of (broad sense) political action needs taking, I don't like that. I think cultural critiques are helpful, if only as illustrative examples. And, as I said, I enjoy hearing them and considering them.

And there can be a trend to a one-upness of either cynicism or, in conspiracy, 'true' knowledge. That self satisfied sneer of, 'ah, you still believe in x. You immature fool', or the 'I see they've duped you, too. Tut.'.

Serious critical thinking is important, but without action it just ends up some sort of new age/buddhism-lite crap.

You are not supposed to "get it" You are expected to swallow it.

ruveyn

A modernist would say 'what did the director want this movie to say'?
A post modernist would say 'what does this movie say to me'?

The latter may come to a different (or the same.. not many movies are that deep these days) conclusion, which to him is just as 'true' as anything else... hence the denial of a universal single truth - what's true for you may be different to what's true for me.

I heard most people under 25 have a post modern worldview now. As you go up the age range people are more likely to insist on a single truth (I've had this discussion with our accountant who is in her late 50's and she and can't understand how you could get to a state where two people who believed opposite things were both right - the concept of a personal truth is alien to her).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair

I think Critical Theory is interesting before it is useful, and as a liberal democracy has to constantly critique itself, so should Critical Theory. I think it's better appreciated and approached as a poetry or psychoanalysis.

I think subtext is an interplay between ourselves and the film (or play/book etc), and I think where there is a consensus of sorts, it can shine light on things we didn't previously know we knew about ourselves and the world around us. Re Hamlet - I was listening to an interview podcast the other day, and they were talking how Hamlet was initally seen much more as a man of action, the indecisiveness only being interpreted later.

Re Feminism - as I understand it, an argument could be made that a lot of men are victims - though in a different sense - of patriarchy. As to 'b***h', there is in-our-head use of language, and public use of language. You yourself may attach no misogyny to the word, but others around you would. The latter being so, at what point is it decided to be a misogynistic word?

As to 'absolute' or 'objective' truth, a lot depends on what you mean by those terms.

Visagrunt - yes, part of art is how an audience interacts with and experiences it and I agree that the meaning of something can change based on how someone perceives it. To one person, Twilight is escapist romance and to me, it's a sexist piece of crap. I don't deny the reality of that person's perspective. However, authorial intent still exists and to have a full appreciation of a work, you need to read their intention and how well they have executed it as well as how everyone(including yourself) perceives it or its impact on society.

But I guess it also depends on the work itself. Don Hertzfeldt and David Lynch are great examples of filmmaker's whose work is all interpretive. I actually went to a Don Hertzfeldt screening and he mentioned how audiences react very differently to his films depending on the culture. He was especially interested in how Scottish people were laughing throughout the whole thing (this was in Edinburgh, btw). Part of the experience is what it symbolizes to you. Both filmmakers have stated that they're not about pushing a meaning on people, but that meaning can find people.

That's fine. However I refuse to believe that, say, Winnie the Pooh supports the slave trade or some ridiculous interpretation like that. Not without some damn good explanation, anyway.

Not that people aren't allowed to think that Winnie the Pooh supports slavery - just don't expect me to take your analysis seriously.

AspieRogue- Couldn't agree more. In the world of art, you can debate about meaning and themes and stuff like that without doing any real harm (besides annoying people), but in science that's a huge NO. There are things we can be very certain about, such as the colour spectrum, evolution, DNA, gravity, etc. There will always be debates within science about certain topics, but these issues are not a matter of 'how one perceives the origin of the species'. I've heard postmodernists claim that evolutionary science is sexist and a product of the patriarchy because it explains why we may have developed gender roles in the first place. I've heard these people say that medicine is a form of colonialism because the medical community don't really take "alternative" medicine seriously or because it "tries to erase how other cultures heal their wounded". So basically, to a postmodernist, science is bunk and witch are just as valid as your GP.

I can't really stand relativism, especially cultural relativism. No, sorry - something isn't correct just because you feel it is or because your culture says so. Mainstream medicine is mainstream because it works - not because the medical community want to enslave you.