To think you clever lot can explain postmodernism

[FlamedToACrisp]

I've just come across postmodernism, and I can't get my head around it at all.

What am I to understand of sentences like: "Such reality as there is, according to postmodernists, is a conceptual construct, an artifact of scientific practice and language." (Encyclopedia Britannica) ?

If we reject the idea of reality, what does that leave? I mean, what's the point? Our 'reality' is experienced by us as real on every level, and, barring The Matrix or similar, surely it walks like a duck?

Is it just a load of pretentious bollocks, or have I missed an important point?

I remember reading 'The Death of the Author' by Barthes at A level and using it in first year degree. It was an essay that basically said that once the novel is written, every interpretation is valid, not just the interpretation of the author. Which makes sense - if you choose to write something ambiguous or unclear, and I read your book, I take from it whatever understanding I will, and if you meant something different, tough!
It works for films and books. As a pp said, not for safeguarding, or finance. And presumably law, I can't see it standing up in a court of law that I thought that a millionaire's will named me as a beneficiary and my view is as valid as anyone elses!
It seems to work for rape though, but not any other crime

How people in the South East of England view Margaret Thatcher will be very different to how she is viewed in mining villages

I think you'll find that she was loathed down here as well, although perhaps not necessarily from the same perspective. Incidentally, there were coal mines in Kent too.

Can you imagine starting this thread on Netmums?

Just marking my place to see the conversation as it evolves.. fascinating stuff !!

@QueenArseClangers

Can you imagine starting this thread on Netmums?

Try it. I can't as their layout defeats me.

@Goodoldfashionedploverboy

If you think of the spirit of the time of modernity, as in the 19th century, it is characterised by such things as empire, industrialisation, urbanisation, scientific advance, the growth of a number of social science disciplines such as anthropology, psychology, and sexology.

Post-modernism comes along and throws into question the neutrality, objectivity, and truth value of these “grand narratives“. It’s not so much about saying “nothing is real”, but about questioning the authority and authenticity of narratives of progress and asking whose interests they served.

At least that’s how it starts out in the academy with writers such as Frederic Jameson. It has sadly descended, in some social-political contexts, into a meaningless, reason-is-bad, feelings-and-individual-interpretations-are-everything free for all.

Wow! Thanks to you all - I didn't really expect any answers to this thread!

@Goodoldfashionedploverboy your explanation makes a lot of sense. Perhaps no one wants to be the first to suggest things have been taken too far? But presumably this is all theoretical argument, anyway? I mean, no one's going to go into a court of law and argue that ownership is a social construct rather than an absolute reality... or has that already been tried?

@FreiasBathtub but perhaps by some interpretations you actually got a good night's sleep? (Battle of Hastings made me laugh!)

A little bit of me is worried that I should now fuck off to Netmums as It haven't a clue what you're all talking about. I want to but can't.

@Love51 I see you're way ahead of me on the law thing - let me know if it works!

Your mention of the individual interpretation of a novel reminded me of a piece of art I saw at the Tate Modern. I forget the name of the installation, but it was basically a shed which had been blown up by some soldiers, then all the parts were collected and suspended on thin wires around a huge bright bulb... as we walked around it, our shadows joined the other shadows and our presence created a unique artwork which only we could perceive.

@Yester I'm with you (as you can see from my OP) but there are a whole load of very bright, very well-educated people on Mumsnet - maybe if we hang around with them long enough, some of it will rub off!

Is it just a load of pretentious bollocks*

It may be indistinguishable from pretentious bollocks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievancestudiess_affair

@Yester

A little bit of me is worried that I should now fuck off to Netmums as It haven't a clue what you're all talking about. I want to but can't.

The thing about MN is that there are always women around here who know massively more about something than I do. Better that than being the cleverest person in the room. That's just boring!

My interpretation is that postmodernists believe that there is no single overarching idea of the best way to live/build/govern/finance/interact etc., but that there can be nuggets of wisdom from each of history's thinkers, from Aristotle to Marx. They believe there is no definitive right or wrong, with no great rulebook or narrative.

An example of postmodernist architecture, for instance, is Brindley Place in Birmingham. It is built taking architectural ideas from different eras in history, both ancient and modern, to come up with something architecturally pleasing to many. Postmodern ethics works in a similar way.

In addition to all this...is it not also art that is aware that it's art? Like The French Lieutenant's Woman or several books by Martin Amis that bring him into it as a character and/or mess around with who is telling the story, and overtly tell the reader this is a novel or a book? So questioning the idea of the author/narrator as the one with the ultimate authority to dictate precisely what happens, what characters are like and how you should respond?

It seems to work for rape though, but not any other crime @Love51 - yes. Do you know, that was what I was thinking in terms of criminal justice.

I think you'll find that she was loathed down here as well, although perhaps not necessarily from the same perspective

And some people in mining villages loved her. Not many, and they remain very quiet about it. But then doesn't that illustrate this thread perfectly?

Marking place to read later

@ChangeThePassword many miners loved her. She was admired largely round our way too. Divisive characters that stand out would fit the perceived individual experiences and draw differing opinions. I was having a discussion with DH about this thread yesterday. This was around when we have had a spat, he says this, 'you always do this. The always intrigued me. As I said to him, nothing is always apart from that tree 🌳 in our garden. It lives, breathes, grows, but it is always there. If that makes any sense? Possibly not.

My interpretation is that postmodernists believe that there is no single overarching idea of the best way to live/build/govern/finance/interact etc., but that there can be nuggets of wisdom from each of history's thinkers, from Aristotle to Marx. They believe there is no definitive right or wrong, with no great rulebook or narrative

I could buy into this though.

They believe there is no definitive right or wrong, with no great rulebook or narrative

Of course they come adrift if they try to apply this in domains where there actually is a definitive right or wrong, not in a moral sense but physical reality. Physics, chemistry and biology have no 'narrative' but they do have 'rulebooks'. Humans may not yet know all the rules but we do know some of them.

I don't know if different perspectives on the same character is quite the same thing as postmodernism though? You can always have your own view of how a person is, there is rarely a total consensus. My understanding of postmodernism in art is that it's more about taking apart the entire concept of being told anything by the author at all as a reliable account, the very nature of a book or a painting. Hence Martin Amis inserting himself into the novel so even the author, supposedly the authority on it all, becomes a secondary character for whatever interpretation you like. Or London Fields, which turns the concept of a whodunit entirely on its head. I may have it wrong, I'm no expert.

I think postmodernism was, to an extent, a reaction against didactic art that tried to dictate to you precisely what to think and take away from it (I see a PP mentioned Barthes). So they tried to destabilise everything about it and make you question literally the very concept and nature of it. But of course, even just telling people to question the concept and destabilise everything is an imposition on how to think. If you destabilise the concept of morality and absolutes completely, then you've also invalidated your own right to tell your readers/viewers/listeners to destabilise everything. Plus, of course, as people have mentioned...crimes and major historical events?

It's a bit of a headfuck which is why I think I've never quite understood it properly.

I think it's taking the position that everyone in life and who has ever existed, including yourself, is an unreliable narrator.

I think it's taking the position that everyone in life and who has ever existed, including yourself, is an unreliable narrator

That's Mumsnet put to bed, then.

If a tree falls in a philosophy lecture, and (thanks to the pandemic) no one is there to deny objective reality, then what colour were Orwell's socks and is it even acceptable to theorise that he was wearing socks or is that post imperialist oppression of the diverse reality paradigm?

I am sure there are interesting theories and worthwhile threads of thought.

But so much of it seems to be using very long words and tortuous sentences in order to oversimplify the complicated and over complicate the simple. Ultimately it makes people feel clever without requiring them to genuinely think or truly challenge the "correct" lines of thinking (got to avoid "problematic" thoughts!)

In so far as I understand it, scentific/mathematical concepts such as Einstein's special theory of relativity also contributed to the development of postmodernism. In the early 20th cent, Einstein's ideas caused quite a stir in cultural as well as scientific circles.

Einstein's theory showed, for example, that "Two events, simultaneous for one observer, may not be simultaneous for another observer if the observers are in relative motion"

There is also the famous Schrodinger's cat 'thought experiment''.

Interesting brief article here: www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/05/did-quantum-physics-lead-to-postmodernism/340795/

Any Mumsnet mathematicians/physicists around to say more?