.
Welcome to the twenty sixth lecture of the
course on sociological perspectives on modernity.
As you know we are discussing the sixth module
of this course I mean deconstruction of modernity
in this module on deconstruction of modernity
we have discussed the feminist challenge to
the critical modernist paradigm in sociology.
We have also discussed the the response of
this scholars drawn from cultural studies
to the critical modernist paradigm in sociology.
And in the last lecture we started with the
post modernist challenge to the critical modernist
paradigm in sociology ok this is very important
ok.
And in the last lecture we have discussed
how post modernism as a perspective on our
economic, culture, and polity responding to
or or thematically rejected the central philosophical
and political foundations of modernity namely
holism or totality, ok reflexivity, rationality
and social movements ok.
The Central ideas we have discussed that post
modernism always tries to operate to with
ok include culture, society, and the meta
narratives I mean culture has produced and
received is postmodern informant content that
is how we tend to look at the controversies
between modernist and post modernist aesthetics.
Then society I mean especially political economic
and we seen as having moved into a postmodern
condition I mean the debates between modernity
and post modernity.
And for a variety of reasons the meta narratives
which legitimate the knowledge of modern intellectuals
that can no longer be sustained.
I mean here post modernism rejects the claims
that the enlightenment project propounded
I mean all rationality industrial revolution,
development, critical thinking, reasoning
capacity, critic to, the dominance of religion,
and so on ok.
Post modernism tried to reject such claims
that the enlightenment project propagated
ok.
Then we have discussed post modernist aesthetics
I mean post modernity as a historical condition
and then we have discussed how different developments
within social and political theory can be
presented as a series of contrasts I mean
Fordist ah production methods in contradistinction
with post Fordist organization of production.
We have also discussed there is a shift from
the material production to the production
of symbols cultural artifacts and so on.
And then we have also discussed how against
the post second world war, welfare state compromised
there is a shift to a neo conservatism based
on the decline of collective bargaining and
the weakening of the nation state.
We have also discussed the Distinction between
old social movements and new social movements.
We have discussed against the high cultural
and low culture division of modernist culture
there is general shift to a fragmented and
pluralist post modern cultural configuration.
There is a shift from socialization and determination
of social relations to individualization and
interaction above all with the spectacle and
there is a shift in the social construction
of time and space or in their meanings I mean
history, place, community, identity we have
discussed in the context of Giddens also ok.
Then we have discussed the postmodern condition
I mean Lyotard's.
Then we have also discussed one is a David
Harvey and the other Frederic Jameson ok their
approaches ok.
And today we are going to discuss post modernism
as ontology not simply ontology, but also
post modernism as epistemology this is very
important and I say post modernism as ontology
or epis and epistemology to go back a little
as you know what is ontology or what is epistemology
to know ontology or to know epistemology we
must understand the kind of questions the
kind of central philosophical and political
questions that epistemology addresses or ontology
of addresses ok.
What are the questions what are the central
philosophical and political questions that
epistemology addresses?
What is knowledge?
How is knowledge produced?
What counts as knowledge and so on perhaps
for this reason epistemology is also known
as a body of knowledge or a theory of knowledge.
Then what kind of questions that ontology
addresses what is being what is existing perhaps
for this reason ontology is also known as
a study of being, a study of existing, a study
of nature.
In some ways the claims of post modernists
to identify a specific historical condition
which could be described as postmodern are
incoherent in that they contradict some of
the most important claims of post modernism
as a philosophy, as a matter of philosophical
investigation.
The the identification of post modernity as
a historical condition we have discussed this
earlier post modernity as a historical condition
ok.
Now, you are trying to locate post modernity
as a historical condition in terms of ontological
and epistemological questions that is why
when I say the identification of post modernity
as a historical condition implies firstly,
a notion of a general and underlying social
reality.
And secondly, the claim that this reality
can be described in holistic terms in other
words as forming a whole bounded in time and
probably in space and in this sense post modernist
philosophy in fact, forms a kind of anti ontology
or antisocial theory in which both the idea
of a holistic theory and the idea that this
could have a rational relationship to some
social totality are rejected.
In some authors this contradiction is resolved
more or less convincingly.
For example Lyotard's account of the postmodern
condition explicitly uses the idea of a shift
towards information technology as a useful
hypothesis which ultimate truth status is
apparently irrelevant.
Lyotard's key argument is that these apparent
shifts in social reality undermine the possibility
of belief in the modernist view of the world
and pushes into post modernism.
And the difficult is here is that if this
is.
In fact, what is happening it does not enable
us to distinguish which of these two views
of the world is in fact, more valid and while
Lyotard's himself might claim not to find
this problematic there is quite a strong implication
in post modernist philosophy that it is antisocial
theory or anti theory is more valid than the
previous modernist theory it it critics this
is very important if this is true .
Nevertheless not only does it need legitimation
by a historical account of how we have arrived
at this new and more valid perspective, but
that perspective itself would prevent us from
offering such an account.
In other words it may well be that post modernism
is necessarily faced with a choice between
treating postmodern philosophy as simply and
effect of post modernity as a historical condition
and effectively ditching that the historical
accounting favor of the philosophy and this
later approach seems rather more promising
I mean ditching the historical account in
favor of the philosophy ok ok this is this
is very important .
And and postmodern philosophy is effectively
an extension and radicalization of post structuralist
thought sharing a number of features notably
the rejection of holistic theories that no
theory can be holistic, no theory can have
ah the element of totality ok.
And the idea of totality in favor of theories
of multiplicity the rejection of the idea
of the unitary subject in favor of theories
of heterogeneity or of intersecting language
games in the case of Lyotard.
Now let us first see what does it imply when
we say that no post modernism is not in favor
of any holistic theory precisely because for
post modernists there is nothing called the
truth unlike modernists for modernists there
is the truth.
But for post modernists know truth maybe ah
if something is true if something constitutes
the truth ok maybe from a single vantage point
from a single perspective, from a single lens,
we have multiple lenses here what I see as
truth what I see as constituting the truth,
may not be truth, may not be true, for you
that is a different dimension.
Now now the critics to post modernists also
say that no there is only one truth, but from
from from multiple dimensions.
There is only one truth, but from multiple
dimensions ok critics to post modern, but
postmodernists suggested no there are multiple
truths that is why there are multiple forms
of knowledge production let us why the rejection
of the idea of such ah unitary subject in
favor of theories of heterogeneity of intersecting
language games I mean that what is the theory
of heterogeneity.
I mean the way post modernists tried to eject
the idea of homogenization of cultures, try
to reject the the idea of any sort of homogeneity
because the in this world, in our society
in our economic culture and quality we dont
see only one way to produce knowledge.
We see multiple sources of production of knowledge
.
Our sources of production of knowledge are
also pretty heterogeneous they are not homogeneous
ok this is very important ok that is why postmodern
philosophy is effectively an extension and
radicalization of post structuralist thought
sharing the number of features namely the
rejection of holistic theories and the idea
of totality in favor of theories of multiplicity
and secondly, the rejection of the idea of
the unitary subject in favor of theories of
heterogeneity and so on.
And idea which is not unchallenged in post
structuralism , but becomes an orthodoxy in
post modern , but becomes becomes quite orthodox
in postmodern philosophy is the primacy of
the text over the social . Text is more important
than the social theory that you find or social
reality that you find.
Now how to define a text it depends on the
author as well as the reader we have seen
how Foucault retains and interest in institutional
analysis and the organization of social relations.
In postmodernist writing with some exceptions
like Mc Robbie I mean texts are taken to be
the sole constituent of reality so that the
assumption of a deep social reality underlying
these everyday surfaces is rejected.
I mean when I say Mc Robbie angular Mc Robbie
suggests that no texts which can include things
like television advertisements or everyday
conversations and and so on are taken to be
the sole constituent of reality that is why
post modernists tried to post modernists.
For example, McRobbie they try to put more
emphasis on texts than the social they try
to put texts on a higher pedestal visa vie
the social reality texts are more important
than the social theory or social reality ok.
And when I say the television advertisements
or everyday conversations or the ah assumption
of a deep social reality underlying these
everyday surfaces is rejected.
I mean these surfaces in one version of things
are reality and the idea that there is anything
behind them is akin to the belief in God.
This is of course, only really sustainable
on the basis of a rejection of determination
and causality so that the texts of the everyday
conversations carried out at the stock exchange
or of administrative regulations are treated
as having no greater influence over events
than the texts of conversations in the pub
or of the latest movie.
This is in in fact version of the post structuralist
in emphasis as the signifier as opposed to
the signified or in other words of ah of language
rather than the subject objects of language
which are human beings ah talking about their
relations with one another.
In the Foucauldian approach the separation
between signifier and signified is effectively
denied so that administrative regulations
for example, are seen as being at one and
the same time statements about reality and
statements which constitute a particular reality.
Now what is signifier what is signified we
have discussed this earlier in the context
of Derridas deconstruction and sorry and such
approach such Foucauldian approach has some
strong methodological support although it
restricts us to an examination of only some
aspects of reality and is likely eventually
to prevent us from making necessary distinctions
between ah distinctions such as the distinction
between practice and not ideology and practice
or from identifying patterns of determination.
When I say ideology and or norm on the one
hand and practice on the other when I say
ideology or norm I mean what is said what
is prescribed, but when I say practice actually
what is done in this sense other post structuralists
along with postmodernist tend to deny the
existence of the signified at all and this
is the meaning of the emphasis on surface
appearances and the denial of any deep realities.
And these surfaces themselves are then interrogated
within a particular set of assumptions, notably
their status as texts which derive at a greater
or lesser remove from literary criticism and
literary philosophy.
This dramatically logo centric approach which
has no place for meanings or practices other
than those embodied in language points to
one of the central origins of post structuralist
and post modernists thinking which is I think
to be found within a particular intellectual,
trajectory, intellectual historical trajectory
for much of the twentieth century.
In particular under the influence of Marxism,
but more generally under the influence of
historical and sociological thought the the
knowledge of literary ah intellectuals has
been devalued.
In practice at the same time literature has
retained a high degree of status for example,
in in Webers terminology in part precisely
because of it is luxury status, the legitimation
of art, has non instrumental activity and
of a literary education as the hallmark of
those who could afford not only an education,
but also an education which was not immediately
professional or vocational in nature I mean
alterative ok.
Then such situation has of course, been challenged
by dissident literary intellectuals such as
Raymond Williams in the case of cultural studies
we have discussed.
But here Raymond Williams also is becoming
important in the case of post modernism as
ontology and epistemology.
Thus the literary intellectuals I have had
a high degree of status, but a declining amount
of power in society as a whole and a declining
intellectual credibility in intellectual circles
. In effect their knowledge has been dramatically
devalued over the past half century by comparison
with historical and sociological knowledge
much of the subtext of the arguments not just
around post structuralism and post modernism,
but also around for example, cultural studies
or feminist writings is about literary intellectuals
attempting to revalue range their knowledge
as a substitute for sociological knowledge
and socialists attempting to keep them out
.
In other words it is about what counts as
valid knowledge.
If the social world only consists of texts
then literally knowledge has priority if the
social world has a reality of it is own then
literary knowledge ah cease his to exist .
In this sense and the most characteristic
element of post modernism nevertheless is
what has becoming known as the skepticism
towards meta narratives or grand narratives.
In other words the accounts of reality which
are claimed to underpin modern thinking modernist
thinking whether it is affirmative or critical
.
This is often formulated as a direct or indirect
ah polemic against Habermas arguments about
the enlightenment project as something which
remains to be completed against the irrationality
of the dominant structures of society and
the two discourses on modernity I mean ah
and idea he uses to contrast the dominant
version of affirmative modernity with the
counter discourse of critical modernist paradigm
in sociology.
For example Lyotard phrases the argument in
this way modernist thought depends on one
of the two myths or Meta narratives.
What are those means the myth of truth that
there is nothing called the truth there is
nothing called this a single truth that is
why it is a myth for Lyotard, the myth or
post modernists, the myth of truth represents
the dominant technical scientific approach
or in terms of this course affirmative modernism.
Then what is the counter that that counter
discourse of critical modernity that is it
has I mean then will will come to this point
I mean such the myth of such myth of truth
has to do with the assumption of an unproblematic
objective and external truth which can be
discovered by the scientists and who is progressive
discovery will enable a greater and greater
control of the world and hence an improvement
of living standards and so on .
This the second myth or the second ah meta
narrative that is the myth of liberation is
clearly related to critical modernist paradigm
in sociology or to Habermass counter discourse
of the enlightenment project that the myth
of liberation has to do with the ideas of
emancipation from our social conditions with
the development of critical and reflexive
thought processes and with social movements
as the agency of our self emancipation.
Both of course, both these myths myth of truth
and myth of liberation ok they relate to some
idea of the social hall or totality in both
this relationship is rationally informed .
And such I attack on these myths or meta narratives
myth of truth and myth of liberation . Then
makes use of such attack on these meta narratives
makes use of the different points that I have
mentioned earlier I mean I reject the the
way post modernists rejected the idea of holism
or totality.
The way post modernists rejected the idea
of the subjected who is such for truth for
or emancipation these narratives are grounded.
I mean in terms of reflexivity and in terms
of their legitimation and also a rejection
of the idea of hidden depths to be understood
. What we are then presented with a is a mixture
of anti realism or anti rationalism and Nietzschian
relativism, Friedrich.
I want to explain each one of these points
very briefly.
Firstly, anti realism ok.
Then we will discuss anti rationalism and
then we will discuss Nietzschian relativism
.
What is this anti realism?
firstly anti realism I mean realism is a technical
term implying the assumption of the existence
of a deeper reality than the surface reality
we are immediately presented with as we have
seen post modernism rejects the idea for example,
of capitalism as an underlying reality which
we can know either eventually or indirectly
and replaces this by an ontology of surfaces
in which what you see is what you get .
Clearly if this is accepted sociology if it
survives at all has to give up any claims
at analysis or discovery in favor either of
simple description power of formalist games.
Secondly, why anti Nationalism the they attack
on rationalism mixes elements of Foucault's
charge that humanist ideals of reason are.
In fact, the governing ideologies of a disciplinary
society with the Frankfurt school skepticism
towards instrumental reason instrumental rationality
ok of all kinds as well as with more general
and philosophical statements about the failure
of region .
In effect what is said is that logic is.
Firstly, internally inconsistent in mathematical
terms and secondly, this argument cannot legitimate
itself , but that particularly the second
one that this argument cannot legitimate itself
is probably true by definition.
If internal legitimitaions are taken as circular
and external legitimations are only accepted
if they are fully consistent with the system
of thought under discussion we are effectively
looking for an external justification which
is also an internal one and we will get nowhere.
And when we say this such logic is internally
inconsistent in mathematical terms this is
perhaps more serious because it is important
to stress that it only applies if and this
is a very big if if you know it if we tricked
reason or rationality in as identical with
a particular set of logical and mathematical
operations .
In other words if we assume that rationality
exists in the abstract separate from any social
grounding and thirdly however these charges
are brought together in a return to Nietzsche's
relativism it to make a crass oversimplification
Nietzsche was already arguing at the end of
the 19th century that the idea of an absolute
truth was a myth.
And that intellectual conflict was in effect
a power struggle to determine which way of
viewing the world should prevail this is relativist
insofar as it rejects the idea of any priority
of one way of thinking over another . It treats
rationality as just one imperfect way of thinking
about things among others and it rejects the
idea of an external reality to which we can
appeal.
Something like this is also suggested in at
least some post modernist writings and there
has been something of a return to Nietzche
in philosophy what is perhaps missed in the
rust to use niche against critical modernist
paradigm in sociology is that Weber's critical
modernist paradigm in sociology was already
built on this kind of skepticism about rationality.
Just as postmodern tends to ah post modernism
ah tends to squash Marxism or modernity into
boxes which live out a lot of their real complexity
so some of the complexity of other critical
modernisms get signal ok.
Then in this section we have tried to look
at post modernism post modernity post modernism
as ontology as well as epistemology ok.
How texts are more important than the social
reality for post modernists ok .
Now, we will we will complete this lecture
by looking at feminism and post modernism
as a text case the last thing that I would
like to mention is the encounter between feminism
on the one hand and post structuralism .
And post modernism on the other which is by
any standards one of the key encounters in
contemporary intellectual politics that is
the issue being whether the two form part
of a common assault on the tenets of both
critical and affirmative, modernist paradigm
in sociology or whether it transpires that
the two are incompatible and that feminism
is effectively a removal and transformation
of critical modernist paradigm in sociology.
That is by now a large literature on this
subject books such as Barrett and Phillips
destabilizing theory or Linda Nicholson's
feminism post modernism are obvious places
to start with , but the issue is a central
one in much if not ah most contemporary feminist
theory and cultural studies .
Initially a large number of feminists were
attracted by the by the project of post structuralism
and post modernism for a number of reasons
I mean it it legitimated feminism and legitimated
the idea of a multiplicity of relations of
power rather than a single dominant totality.
The proponents of modernity suggested they
rejected this and on this point feminism joints
post modernist thought that feminism legitimated
the idea of multiplicity of relations of power
ah rather than a single dominant totality.
This implies that issues of gender class and
ethnicity could be taken separately rather
than ah requiring for example, a subordination
of the women's movement to the struggle against
capitalism or a subordination of black women
struggles to a single struggle against patriarchy
such that category of difference must be identified
must be understood .
Thirdly the anti essentialist argument that
the category that women was a cultural construct
rather than an ontological reality related
to earlier arguments about the social nature
of gender.
Fourthly the delegitimation of reason was
simultaneously a delegitimation of a particular
kind of knowledge within which women had been
either excluded or subsumed into a single
universal account.
Fifthly for essentially contingent reasons
women were rather more likely to possess literally-critical
knowledge than sociological knowledge, although
the field of literary criticism as a whole
is dominated by men.
Nevertheless there has been an increasingly
a sharp reaction by other feminists against
such development for a number of regions.
First the deconstruction of the subject and
the essentialist category women makes any
feminist account let alone one geared towards
social movements extremely difficult to sustain
.
Secondly post modernisms relativistic attitude
to truth and ethics makes it difficult either
to maintain that the issues raised by feminist
research were more significant sociologically
than on than other possible subjects or that
they had any greater moral legitimacy . Thirdly
the focus of texts enable certain kinds of
women's experiences to come through, but excludes
others effectively placing the premium on
articulacy articulation and fourthly last
not, but not the least most; obviously, on
any account of concept of patriarchy is a
meta narrative which underpins much if not
most feminist intellectual activity where
their academic or political post modernisms
rejection of meta narratives in effect undermines
not just the enlightenment project, but also
the feminist project .
And these issues are still highly debated
once on both sides the outcome is crucial
for the survival of critical modernist paradigm
in sociology as an intellectual and political
project.
What is at stake of course, is the question
of whether the feminist critic points towards
the need for a restructuring and rethinking
or whether it points towards the need to scrap
the paradigm in favor of a very Marty postmodern
future.
Then in this module what we have discussed
we have discussed the challenges to critical
modernist paradigm in sociology or the way
critical modernist paradigm in sociology was
deconstructed through 3 different lens lenses
feminism, cultural studies, and post modernism
ok.
And in this particular lecture we have discussed
post modernism as ontology and epistemology
and feminism and post modernism as as a test
case and in the lectures to follow what we
are going to do we are going to to discuss
I will be looking at authors working within
a critical modernist perspective, I mean how
different authors ah working within a critical
modernist perspective ah have come to terms
with the challenge offered by post structuralism
and post modernism on the one hand and feminism
on the other.
The argument which is offered is generally
an acceptance of acceptance both there have
been changes in the social organization and
that sociology needs to consider new feminist,
methodological, philosophical, issues; however,
it is claimed, all of this ah claim that all
of this can be done without abandoning the
critical modernist paradigm in sociology.
I mean all those four central pillars of modernity
holism or totality reflexivity rationality
and social movements without rejecting them
how we can redesign different methodological,
philosophical, feminist, post colonial, post
modernist perspectives . So, the three intellectual
questions are not whether patriarchal relations
have to form a central part of social theory,
but whether this can be done with a critical
modernist approach not one of whether economic
organization has moved beyond foraging or
not, but of whether this means that we have
moved out of modernity .
Not one of whether technological rationalities
problematic, but one of whether modernist
perspectives reduced down to that only then
we tend to forge a new totality . The next
lecture we are going to discuss a new totality
and then we will discuss radicalized modernity
.
And then we will discuss some ah one hour
lecture we will discuss ah through different
authors from India how India looks at modernity
ok maybe Gandhi maybe Tagore and so on we
will see maybe Amartya Sen, ok the argumentative
Indian and so on, maybe Dipankar Gupta mistake
in modernity ok.
Now in the next lecture we will we will discuss
a new totality I mean empirical responses
to the post modernist tradition, then totality
I mean all four elements have to be evaluated
in this in the context of new totality ok.
I mean totality holism or totality or social
movements and reflexivity and rationality
ok.
Then we will try to evaluate such account
of a new totality ok.
Thank you .
