The Value of Postmodernism

The Value of Postmodernism

In the words of F.R.Ankersmit “It is not easy to define the concepts of postmodernism satisfactorily.” The challenge of postmodernism is that Historiography as we know it does not refer to a tangible, objective past. The nuances of language mean that every text, whether historiography or source, can be interpreted differently. Nietzsche argued that the “being” of the world is essentially different from every perspective, that it is only from a perspective that a world can be seen – and so we must make do with what is relative. The most extreme postmodern position is that objective knowledge is impossible– and that nothing exists outside of the language we use to signify the past.

How can this benefit history without straying into a philosophic discussion about knowledge? Well, postmodernism is often applied as criticism of the Modernist ideologies. For example the perceived failure of Marxist premonitions (where is Socialism/Communism?) and the perceived dominance of Liberal democracy (the ‘End of History?’) are ideas which postmodernism are most appropriately applied to. The point is three fold;

First; that overarching meta-narratives (like that of Marxist history, and Whiggish Liberalism) are usually wrong, or at the least skew the possible interpretations of events disproportionately.

Second; that narrative as a way of writing history also focuses on the author’s bias, whether consciously or unconsciously.

Third; that words have relative and evolving meanings that different people will interpret differently. Often the use of a word requires discussion as to what it actually is, or what it actually means in the mind of the reader (and writer).

A particular example is ‘woman,’ which many postmodernists argue contains oppressive connotations and images in the same way that ‘man’ comes loaded with its own characteristics we immediately imagine. Just try to apply this in real everyday life- when does one go from being a boy/girl to becoming a man/woman? Or what is the difference between a woman and a lady? This is what gives birth to deconstruction; the process of showing that a term has had its positive and/or negative aspects constructed around it by society rather than being objectively true.

This is why Nietzsche’s criticism that “Historiography itself impedes our view of the past” is not unfair. Does this mean we should dismiss all historiography? Should we conclude as the postmodern position does that History is nothing but fiction? No, History can still try to reflect a past reality but the point is that it is extremely difficult.

The point of the postmodern challenge is that we should be aware of the inherent bias in every text, that history is an ongoing process, that meta-narratives are dangerous constructs that can lead us to ignore the truth or manipulate it instead of trying to discover it. In the words of F.R. Ankersmit; “Postmodernism does not reject scientific historiography, but only draws our attention to the modernists’ vicious circle which would have us believe that nothing exists outside it.”

By K. Buchanan, 11/03/2012