In my last video, I told everyone to ask some basic questions they have about postmodern philosophy.
This is going to be a three part video series answering some of them.
I hope that it will clear up some misconceptions and help some people start getting into it.
All the reading recommendations and videos I mentioned will be listed in the description,
as well as timestamps for specific questions.
Because postmodernism is used both to refer to a set of theoretical frameworks,
and a historical or cultural condition, I should specify that this video is going to be more about the theory,
while the postmodern condition will be the topic of one of the other parts of this FAQ.
[♪ jingle plays ♪]
So, let's start with a very simple, but nonetheless important question.
Do most postmodern philosophers usually label themselves as such,
or do others sometimes give them this title?
The answer is the latter.
Postmodern philosophers often either didn't label themselves postmodernists,
or explicitly rejected the label. Even theorists who did use the term postmodernism like Lyotard and Baudrillard
used it more to describe a certain cultural or social condition rather than to self-identify.
People grouped under postmodernism were often grouped as such only after the fact,
and had major disagreements with one another.
This is just one of the reasons for why it's wrong to see postmodernism as some kind of carefully orchestrated and unified movement.
It's very different from, say, Marxism.
The theoretical origins of Marxist ideas are easy to identify as stemming primarily from Marx and Engles,
and Marxists actually use the term to describe themselves.
Now of course, different kinds of Marxists still have major disagreements with one another,
but they do not disagree over the Marxist label itself, which is not the case for postmodern philosophers.
One may then say, as some have in the comments, that we shouldn't use postmodernism as a label for philosophers at all.
Although personally, I think that it's a useful term...
It's up to you to decide if you want to use it as a descriptor or not.
There's certainly flaws with it.
The main one is that, despite every postmodern theorist being very different,
people are led to reject all of them in one swoop because they heard that postmodernism equals bad.
Perhaps in a perfect world we would talk about specific theorists rather than "postmodern theory,"
but this is not a perfect world.
That being said, if you think we, for the above-mentioned reasons, should not use the term postmodernism, consider a comparison.
Most people think existentialism is a useful term.
When one says it, one immediately thinks of certain specific philosophers,
as well as certain philosophical concerns and approaches, and perhaps a particular cultural context.
Despite all this, most existentialist philosophers rejected the existentialist label,
and also had major disagreements with one another.
What I'm getting at is, you could make the case against using the term postmodernism as a theoretical descriptor,
but a very similar case could be made against the term existentialism.
This brings us to our next question, which naturally follows from my previous answer.
Okay, so let's say postmodern philosophers do not identify as such, and have very different concepts and approaches.
But there still are some similarities that make the term useful.
What are those similarities?
In order to answer that question, perhaps we should first address another important and very good question
asked in different forms in the comments.
Essentially, what is structuralism, what is poststructuralism, and how is it related to postmodernism?
Structuralism first emerged as structural linguistics,
developed by Ferdinand de Saussure, one of the most important figures in all of 20th century European thought.
One of the main tenets of structuralism is the way it views "signs."
A sign is made up of a "signifier" and "signified."
The signifier is a word, symbol, or image that refers to something,
while the signified is the thing being referred to.
For example, the sign "tree" is made up of the word "tree" and the actual concept of a tree.
One of the basic notions in structuralism is that the relationship between the signifier and the signified is arbitrary.
The concept "tree" could, in principle, be signified by any other word, as it is in other languages.
So, if the relationship between the signifier and the signified is arbitrary,
how was the signs meaning determined?
This brings us to another basic notion in structuralism, that meaning of a sign is not defined positively,
but differentially based on how it differs from other signs.
Here's how I explained it in my video on American Psycho and the postmodern condition:
>> Imagine, for example, that you're trying to learn a new language.
>> One without any reference to any other language you know.
>> Your language instructor, trying to teach you a word, points to a tree and says "X."
>> Now, you might intuitively assume that "X" means "tree" in this language.
>> But this is not so clear.
>> Does "X" refer to all trees, or this specific type of tree?
>> Does it perhaps refer only to the tree bark, or does it include leaves, branches, and roots?
>> Perhaps "X" refers to all plants, or nature as a whole.
>> With only this one word to go by, we have no way of knowing.
>> We can only find out what the meaning of "X" is by learning other words,
>> and finding out how "X" differs from these other words.
>> So, to understand the word "tree," we cannot just point out a tree.
>> We must learn how this word differs from the words leaves, bushes, plants, and oaks.
>> In structuralism the entirety of language forms such a system
>> where words receive their meaning only by differing from other words.
So that's the core of structuralism. It's simple, but extremely influential.
It was applied to linguistics, anthropology, psychology, literary theory, film theory, and philosophy, among other things.
In short, structuralist approaches studied structures and the laws by which they work.
So, for example, while some people analyzing a novel might focus on the psychology of the author,
the historical development behind the novel, or the emotions that it evokes, a structuralist approach
would try to examine the form of the novel rather than its content.
Highlight the structure on which it is built.
This gave theorists the hope that different kinds of structures could be analyzed rigorously and objectively.
Eventually, however, some theorists saw that although aspects of structuralism were valid,
it was either limiting or did not take its conclusions far enough.
Such theorists came to be known as poststructuralists,
and so poststructuralism forms a major theoretical background for postmodern theory.
This is most clearly seen with Derrida.
See, the way structuralism functions is that it isolates the structure of a given system of signs,
and analyzes how the signs within the structure relates to each other.
However, if the meaning of a sign is given only differentially, that is in how it differs from other signs,
then the overall meaning of the structure being examined will also depend on signs outside of that structure.
The conclusion of this is that no structure is ever independent or self-enclosed,
and the chain by which a word is defined is potentially infinite.
No system is ever complete, because no signifier is ever fully defined.
In general, poststructuralists are more interested in the things that escape a given system of signs,
or threaten to destablize or change it.
I understand that my explanations might be difficult to some, so here are some resources.
I will link to a video on structuralism and a video on poststructuralism.
If you'd like to read about structuralism, you could read "Structuralism and Semiotics" by Terence Hawkes,
while "Literary Theory: An Introduction" by Terry Eagleton
has both a chapter on structuralism and one on poststructuralism.
Finally, you may try "Poststructuralism: A Very Short Introduction" by Catherine Belsey.
As you can see, the structuralist heritage is one of the things that most of the French
postmodern theorists had in common,
because structuralism was a huge in French academia at the time.
And this also explains a bit of the historical context behind the rise of postmodern theory.
Poststructuralism is tightly linked to postmodernism,
but it is a more specific term and doesn't have the connotations of
a certain historical stage or cultural condition that postmodernism has.
Some people use poststructuralism and postmodernism interchangeably,
but strictly speaking they're not the same.
For instance, I would say that Richard Rorty is a postmodern philosopher,
however, his educational background did not involve structuralism or poststructuralism.
And although he came to similar conclusions as the French postmodernists,
he did not use the same theoretical approaches.
And so to answer this comment,
poststructuralism is a broad theoretical grouping,
while deconstruction is a term specifically coined by Derrida, who was also a poststructuralist.
If you'd like a very basic introduction to deconstruction,
check out my video on Sonic Adventure 2.
And also Then & Now's video on Derrida, which is great.
Now, there are some similarities among postmodern theorists besides the historical context of structuralism.
Mostly negative ones that I'll try to list here.
First of all, rejection of meta-narratives.
[Lyotard], who introduced the term post-modernism into philosophy, famously wrote:
[narrates quote]
Now, this quote is really popular because people like it when things are simplified to the extreme.
But it has also led to some confusion.
First of all, Lyotard's philosophy involves both a descriptive claim, a claim about how things are,
and a normative claim, a claim about how things should be.
The descriptive claim is that metanarratives have, in fact, become less important in our lives.
More and more people are incredulous towards them.
The normative claim is that this is a good thing, and that we should be incredulous towards metanarratives.
Now, for example, MacKeeper asks:
[narrates comment]
I think this misunderstands how metanarratives are understood, at least by postmodernists.
I would say that metanarratives have two unique features:
First of all, a metanarrative unites several different fields of study to make all of them into a coherent narrative.
So, saying that the world is composed of atoms or subatomic particles is not a metanarrative,
because it's purely a statement made within physics.
Marxism, on the other hand, is a metanarrative because it unites several different fields into a coherent whole.
For example, it explains how certain political arrangements or religious and ideological beliefs
are to a large extent determined by the economic mode of production in a given society.
Further, it portrays changes in these various fields as a coherent narrative by tying it all into a single progressive march of history.
Another function that metanarratives have is that they legitimize certain institutions and courses of action.
For instance, the Marxist metanarrative may legitimize certain Marxist parties or the revolutionary activity of the working class,
because it sees them as bringing about the next stage of history.
Or, a Christian metanarrative may legitimize certain rituals, religious practices, or political arrangements
backed by Christian institutions.
Again, saying that everything is about power, just as saying that everything is composed of atoms, does not do this.
Next, there is antifoundationalism.
Foundationalism is the idea that there is some single center or source from which all knowledge is derived.
Probably the most famous example of this is Descartes' "cogito, ergo sum,"
in which the Descartes believed that all knowledge could be built upon certain self-evidently true statements.
For example, "I think therefore I am."
Postmodernists tend to reject viewing the world in terms of a single center or origin,
instead favoring plurality and multiplicity.
Essentialism is the idea that each thing has some kind of essence,
typically understood as necessary and sufficient properties,
which make it the thing that it is.
If you recall the previous discussion about poststructuralism,
you'll remember how signs are not defined positively, but in terms of how they differ from other signs.
In other words, there are no inherent essences.
The way things are defined always depends on external circumstances.
Teleology is the idea that there's an inherent purpose to things.
For example, Hegelians and Marxists believe that history has an inherent purpose.
For the former, the point of history is the development of objective spirit,
while for Marxists, It's the establishment of a classless society.
And for Christians, it may be salvation.
Aristotle believed that every single object has an inherent purpose.
The purpose of a knife is to be good at cutting, and the purpose of a human being is excellence.
Postmodernists, following Nietzsche, believed that there is no pregiven and predetermined purpose to things.
There is no certainty to what the future will bring, and what we make of this life is up to us.
Finally, related to all of these, there is a suspicion of universals,
and of the idea that you could derive a final and complete interpretation of the world,
because no system is ever fully complete or self-sufficient.
Note that none of these traits on their own are inherently postmodern,
and there are many analytic philosophers who also share one or more of these traits.
They do, however, run counter to many major Enlightenment thinkers,
who did often see things in terms of metanarratives, foundations, purpose, and essences.
Now, what about the whole relativism accusation?
A lot of people are concerned about that.
Well, if by relativism you mean the view that any claim is as good as any other,
no major postmodern theorist holds this view,
and I'm kind of embarrassed when I see people who think that they have
"debunked" all postmodern theory by giving us that argument you learn in an undergrad philosophy class
about how relativism is self-defeating.
Derrida himself explicitly pointed out that deconstruction does not entail relativism,
and that relativism is self-defeating.
The thing is, most postmodern theorists simply did not put forth a theory of epistemology.
A lot of them were more interested in the somewhat sociological questions of how
information functions and circulates in a given society.
To the extent that postmodernists do have prescriptive epistemological views,
they tend towards views akin to pragmatism, coherentism or some other variant, but never relativism.
The postmodern philosopher who, perhaps more than any other, engaged with the literature on
Epistemology was Richard Rorty.
And this is because he received his education in a very Anglo-Saxon context.
His suggestion was that the whole enterprise of epistemology was misguided, and that capital-T "Truth"
does not have any criteria of content that are not already captured by terms such as warrant and justification.
If you're interested in that, the go-to book is Rorty's "Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature",
but be warned that it does have very technical language.
Perhaps one of the ways in which postmodernism has been misconstrued as relativist
is its focus on the way in which what claims are seen as valid is significantly context-dependent,
but this does not make it relativist.
Related to the question about relativism, a lot of people wonder if it's true that postmodernists reject science.
No, they don't.
Many of them, especially Derrida, simply never wrote about the hard sciences.
Some, for example Deleuze, who is a poststructuralist,
although it's debatable whether he should be listed as a postmodernist or not,
had a deep interest in science and even said that his book "Difference & Repetition" was an attempt
to give 20th century science the metaphysics that it deserves.
Many people have criticized postmodern theorists for misusing scientific terminology, and that may be true.
I simply do not know enough about the scientific terms in question to give an authoritative answer,
and it would have to be looked at case-by-case.
In any case, it does not render their wider theoretical postulations invalid,
nor have I ever seen any major postmodern philosopher deny the validity of scientific findings.
One thing I should mention is that Sokal and Bricmont, in their book that intended to show that
postmodern theorists have no grasp on the scientific concepts they employ,
have themselves been shown to misunderstand several of the citations they used.
I will link some of the relevant sources in the discussions in the description as well.
One thing that might wrongly give people this impression is that post modernists tend to have an anti-realist view of science.
But again, this leads neither to the denial of scientific claims nor relativism, and many scientists themselves hold this view.
As XRXaholic states in a comment,
PoMo doesn't in fact deny the existence of scientific facts,
it merely places them in a social and skeptical context.
How those facts are constructed/discovered, particularly when you deal with statistical and social models,
and how they are interpreted by human endeavors just like the rest of science.
These endeavors have cognitive, philosophical, social, and even linguistic limitations that are pointed out by PoMo.
Just as Derrida states:
[narrates quote]
I'm just kidding. That's not a real quote. Please don't write it up on Goodreads.
What Derrida actually says is:
[narrates quote]
In other words, postmodern theorists are not at all concerned with invalidating science,
but merely contextualizing it and theorizing the conditions that make it possible as a practice.
Some people wonder about postmodernism and its relation to ethics.
Now, as your second plan B correctly speculates,
The reason postmodern theory is often characterized as "negative," as merely the rejection of something,
is that the positive views that postmodern theorists have greatly differ.
So, when talking about specific ethical views we have to focus on specific theorists,
because there is no unified postmodern ethics.
One generalization we can however make, is the distinction between morality and ethics.
A lot of people use these terms interchangeably, but when talking about postmodern theory it's an important distinction.
Foucault, in a forward to Deleuze and Guattari's book "Anti-Oedipus," wrote that:
[narrates quote]
As Brent Adkins, in his book about Deleuze's book "A Thousand Plateaus" writes:
[narrates quote]
So, while postmodern theorists do not produce systems of morality, some of them do propose an ethics.
Not the kind that simply gives you a set of rules or principles that you have to obey,
like the Ten Commandments, but rather suggestions about how to approach life or ethical dilemmas—
ways of conceptualizing your ethical decisions.
For a postmodern theorist, a simple dry list of specific rules could never to justice to
the diversity of the ethical decisions we have to make in our actual lives.
In addition, many postmodern theorists stress being open towards the future and how it might change us.
And imposing a strict set of moral rules could be seen as contrary to this,
which is also why postmodern theorists typically don't propose political programs.
Postmodernism is often characterized as being nihilistic, and although I can see why some people come to this conclusion,
I don't think that that's the case.
In his later works, one of Derrida's central concerns were ethical notions like justice.
he event went so far as saying that deconstruction is justice.
If you are interested in postmodern ethics, "The Continental Ethics Reader" has a good selection.
Be warned that the language is very technical, but if you find it too difficult
you can simply use the selection as a suggestion for further reading
and find easier secondary literature on the topics discussed.
Before I end this video, I will give you some suggestions on books about postmodernism in general, as many people asked for that.
If you're interested in the purely philosophical side of it, there's "French Philosophy in the Twentieth Century" by Gary Gutting.
I gotta warn you that it's expensive and written with philosophy students in mind because it's used as a textbook, but it's reliable.
It gives you the theoretical context for 20th century French thought in general, and starting with chapter 8,
recounts the structuralist and poststructuralist turns with all the big names associated with it.
For more broad, general, and accessible reading I have two book recommendations.
However, read these with a grain of salt.
First of all, being entry-level books, they necessarily have to simplify certain things and be a little bit selective,
sometimes provide specific interpretations that not everyone would agree with.
Additionally, postmodernism touches on a great number of different fields such as philosophy,
literary theory, architecture, film, history, sociology, and others.
Because of this, it is likely that a book about postmodernism written by one person won't be correct about everything.
So, see these books more as starting points for further reading rather than the arbiters of truth.
This should go without saying, but unfortunately people do need to be reminded of it.
All in all, at least rest assured knowing that they are more reliable than Stephen Hicks.
The most accessible one, just kindergarten-level accessible, is "Postmodernism for Beginners" by Jim Powell.
And then there is "Teach Yourself Postmodernism" by Glenn Ward.
Now, time for some extra questions from my patrons.
[narrates question]
To understand postmodern thought in general, psychoanalysis is not necessary.
Although if you want to read primary literature from the original postmodernists, you might want to know the basics.
The extent to which 20th century postmodern theorists utilized psychoanalysis might be strange to us now,
but back then psychoanalysis was huge, both in academia and as clinical practice,
and it was seen as revealing certain insights about our unconscious mind.
Even today, certain poststructuralist or generally continental philosophers find a lot of value in psychoanalytic theory,
even if they see large chunks of Freudian psychoanalysis as pseudoscience.
If you want to read up on psychoanalysis before getting into postmodern theory,
the aforementioned book by Terry Eagleton has a chapter on psychoanalysis as well.
If you're interested in these topics in general as they relate to literary theory,
you might also want to take a look at the Yale open lecture series on literary theory,
which includes lectures on structuralism, poststructuralism, psychoanalysis, and other things you might find interesting.
[narrates question]
This is not something I know much about. Most postmodern theorists did not write much on religion.
However, Derrida did engage with apophatic theology, also known as negative theology,
which is a form of theology that only attempts to speak of God in terms of that which God is not,
and so lends itself to what Derrida would call a "metaphysics of absence."
If you're interested in this, there's the book "Derrida and Negative Theology,"
but it's not written with beginners in mind, so keep in mind that the language is extremely dense.
If you want something shorter and more accessible,
there's a chapter in "Jacques Derrida: Key Concepts" on religion, which you may find useful.
[narrates question]
Well, one of them is Richard Rorty.
French philosophers do tend to have a writing style that is difficult to a lot of people, so Rorty might feel more accessible,
although he does use technical philosophical terminology.
In addition to the books I've already recommended, another English-speaking author that I love for being especially clear in his writing is Todd May,
who has a book on Foucault and one on Deleuze.
His books still have parts that a lot of people would find difficult, but that's because of the nature of the topics discussed.
Finally, there are the lectures by Rick Roderick, which are amazing and everyone should watch through.
He has specific ones on Foucault, Derrida, and Baudrillard,
as well as a lecture series on Nietzsche and the Postmodern Condition.
So, that's all for Part I. For Part II we will be talking about how postmodern theory relates to other theoretical frameworks.
So if you're interested in how it relates to Marxism, critical theory, or if postmodernism can be right-wing
[♪ jingle plays ♪]
And of course, I'd like to thank my Patreon supporters.
[reads Patreon supporter names]
Thank you to all my other patrons as well,
I greatly appreciate you and I'm sorry that there's too many of you to read out loud.
I might still take in questions for the upcoming parts of this FAQ, so feel free to keep asking.
If I didn't answer your question in this video, I might in the next ones.
Remember that I'm also making notes for all of my patrons on the videos I make,
which you might find helpful if you want to learn about the topics I discuss.
Shout out all the patrons who've been with me since day one.
Who remembers...
[reads patron names]
I love you, and thank you.
