End of Postmodernism?

Status
Not open for further replies.

morngnstar

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 9, 2014
Messages
2,271
Reaction score
297
It seems to me the democraticization of literature via self-pub and the opening up of formerly strict gatekeeping channels may eventually make the whole thing a pointless game. Consider that past lit movements were defined by (usually) groups in power, who wrote what they wanted (typically excluding vast swaths of their own people), and were of course only concretely defined post-event.

It's always possible that there's a high and a vernacular segment to things. Modern and postmodern and post-postmodern architecture haven't had much impact on vernacular architecture, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. We can argue whether they're more or less relevant than they purport to be. The generous view is that the high art somehow exerts subtle influences on the vernacular, and keeps it from getting stale.

"Literary" writing, with its stylistic trends, will survive for some time, even if they aren't barring the gates to writers not aware of or participating in those trends. I don't think they have been for some time, anyway. Genre trade publication is not required to follow academic trends, and I think has largely ignored postmodernism.
 

America's Proust

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 23, 2016
Messages
84
Reaction score
2
Location
Honolulu, HI
Yes, though postmodernism doesn't have a lock or a first-claim on this, Tolstoy built a whole big book (can't remember the name offhand) around it.

It seems to me the democraticization of literature via self-pub and the opening up of formerly strict gatekeeping channels may eventually make the whole thing a pointless game. Consider that past lit movements were defined by (usually) groups in power, who wrote what they wanted (typically excluding vast swaths of their own people), and were of course only concretely defined post-event. Postmodern also is falling apart as a term because casual commenters use it to mean a time period, putting everything post WWI into it despite the fact that the end of a dominant literary movement does not, of course, eliminate its practitioners. You can write a romantic text, a realist text, a symbolist text, a formalist text, and maybe nobody will read it or make it famous, but you can write and publish it. That has to have some effect on the paradigm, yes?



Of course, anywhere, but perhaps the more relevant question--what movement will define itself mainly as a reaction to and repudiation of postmodernism? History suggest that is the form that we will remember as the next to follow. If, as I said above, there is even a single one which can be identified as such.

I'll address these in order:

1. The book you're thinking of is War and Peace. Read it thrice, and only on the third time did I really understand it.

2. That part about the men in power is mostly true, and I will say this: When the old people in power (mostly at the Big Five) retire or die, there will be new blood to come in and publish the new material sent to them. The gatekeepers are going to be around for a long time yet. I'll tell you that right now.

3. The democratization won't last for one major reason: There's not a lot of money in it for the writers. That's the biggest reason I could imagine. This isn't me being against self-publishing or anything, and I understand that a few people have indeed found success with self pub, but the operative word is "few." It is categorically not for everybody. Gore Vidal said it best, "Art isn't a democracy, it's the very enemy of democracy."

4. New Sincerity is catching on quickly, particularly notable is the success of Jonathan Franzen. The men who follow his lead will be the successors to postmodernism, and in fact have already been described as such. Postmodernism, though, has a small amount of fuel left in the tank, so to speak.
 

America's Proust

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 23, 2016
Messages
84
Reaction score
2
Location
Honolulu, HI
This in particular rubbed me the wrong way:

Remodernism embodies spiritual depth and meaning and brings to an end an age of scientific materialism, nihilism and spiritual bankruptcy.

Scientific materialism has taken us a long way. We shouldn't throw it out. There are objective scientific truths based on a materialistic conception. I'd even say we should take this as far as we can go with it, and explain as much as we can with scientific materialism. But it doesn't have to be the only source of truth.

I don't think that's what this was trying to get at. I think it was trying to say that replacing spirituality with physical materialism doesn't end well, as apparently has to be demonstrated consistently, both in the past and the present. I think what he was trying to say was that "scientific materialism" is not a replacement for the important things in life: love, reason, spirituality, and all the good stuff that comes with 'em. Anything to the contrary ends almost exclusively in disaster. (Roman Empire for 800, Alex.) I also think that what he was trying to get at was that scientific or self-proclaimed "scientific" materialism is consistently used to attack religion and spirituality.

"Apologies if I have hijacked the thread again. I also don't have my own literary movement. I don't consider myself a literary writer. I just write what's in my heart. I'm sure I'm influenced by the times and culture I live in, and it might turn out that I'm in a movement after all. I don't think most people know what movement they're part of. Such categories are defined after the fact."

Not a problem at all, braddah. I don't have my own literary movement either. The men who write from the heart are the guys that get remembered, esp. the men who write from their time and culture. It's classic "write what you know." I'm half-white and half-Hawaiian, so I'm obviously gonna know a lot about da kine. Mahalo plenty for replying. Gonna be some major thing to think about. Good thing there's a low surf today.
 

morngnstar

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 9, 2014
Messages
2,271
Reaction score
297
This in particular rubbed me the wrong way:

Remodernism embodies spiritual depth and meaning and brings to an end an age of scientific materialism, nihilism and spiritual bankruptcy.

Scientific materialism has taken us a long way. We shouldn't throw it out. There are objective scientific truths based on a materialistic conception. I'd even say we should take this as far as we can go with it, and explain as much as we can with scientific materialism. But it doesn't have to be the only source of truth.

I don't think that's what this was trying to get at. I think it was trying to say that replacing spirituality with physical materialism doesn't end well, as apparently has to be demonstrated consistently, both in the past and the present. I think what he was trying to say was that "scientific materialism" is not a replacement for the important things in life: love, reason, spirituality, and all the good stuff that comes with 'em.

That all may have been what it was trying to say, but what it did say was to call for an end to scientific materialism. Or charitably you could read it as only calling an end to the combination of materialism, nihilism, and spiritual bankruptcy. But it should try to be more clear if that's the case.

I didn't even think until now about how colloquially "materialism" is a bad word that some people think has to do with Madonna being a "material girl". That may have had something to do with the manifesto thinking it could get away with casually demonizing it. Materialism doesn't have to do with being "materialistic".

I also think that what he was trying to get at was that scientific or self-proclaimed "scientific" materialism is consistently used to attack religion and spirituality.

Yes, and I'm not on board with a movement that would want to turn back the victories scientific materialism has had in those attacks. Or do you want to go back to the sun going around the Earth?
 

America's Proust

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 23, 2016
Messages
84
Reaction score
2
Location
Honolulu, HI
I think the combination interpretation is more accurate, but I agree in that he could (and probably should) have worded it better. The operative clause there is that he did indeed combine all of them into one category instead of attacking them one by one. He isn't condemning science, he's condemning the idea that scientific experimentation is the only source of knowledge and the only source of truth. Found this, it actually defines scientific materialism a lot better: http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/philosophy/scientific-materialism.php
 
Last edited:

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
38,197
Reaction score
4,544
Location
The End of the World
I don't think science is inherently materialistic at all.

Rejecting materialism needn't mean rejecting science.

There is plenty of room for spirituality in science.
 
Last edited:

Helix

socially distancing
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 31, 2011
Messages
11,695
Reaction score
12,079
Location
Atherton Tablelands
Website
snailseyeview.medium.com
From America's Proust's link:

But religion is not the only victim of this worldview. If we fully accept scientific materialism, we would also have to discard art, literature, music, and many other fields of human endeavor that are essential aspects of our modern world.

Straw everywhere.
 

Dawnstorm

punny user title, here
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,752
Reaction score
449
Location
Austria
Irony has various forms, but what's common among them is the juxtaposition of an idea and its contradiction. I think what's meant by sincerity, here, is a clear and committed choice between the two.

You can have a sincere belief that an idea can coexist with its contradiction, but this is kind of a meta-sincerity.

That's sort of the point of post-modern irony, though, and it's also why metafiction is such an important part of the movement: Commitment is always premature, but that would mean that you can never say anything. Irony, in that sense, is a life-line that rescues you from silence, and allows you to treat your belief as a work in process. It's been one of the strategies that minorities have at their disposal, not only to talk, but also to think about their place in society. Language hasn't developed first and foremost with them in mind.

In other words: What ever you say will be wrong in some way, but if you shut up because of that you'll let others be wrong for you. "Wrong", here, is more politcal than true.

An example: When you insist that treating "God Almighty" ironically is inherently disrespectful, that puts me as both a social relativist and atheist in a bind. You may be expecting a sincere commitment to "God does not exist." That's what being "an atheist" is all about, right? The problem here is that "God does not exist," is not - per se - a positive belief item. It's not something I can say with any more sincerety than "God exists." Doesn't that mean I'm an agnostic? No, it doesn't. I am that, too, but when I say I am an atheist what I really mean is "I do not believe in God." Ideally, I wouldn't talk about God at all, but since I'm living among Catholics, God will come up, and then I will either have to react or hold myself back and accept because-god-says-so arguments - insincerely. There is not good way for me to respond to "Do this because God wants you to." The closest I get to sincerity would be "leave me alone with God", but that would only be sincere to the extent that it expresses frustration. Since I'm living in world that has you in it, too, I actually want to get along, and so I don't actually want you to hold back. I could maybe say "Please respect that I don't believe in God," or something like that, but you'll sound like a broken record, and eventually people will stop talking to you altogether. As an atheist who lives among Catholics (in Austria), let me tell you, irony is a life line. It helps keep conversations going, where a more commited response would only foster frustration. I may respond ironically, but by responding with content (even if not commited to a clear a position) I signal that I'm listening with interest, and without hostility. I like using absurd examples that no-one can take seriously, precisely to get at the structural point in an argument that I'm interested in.

But if people react to my irony with frustration, puzzlement, or (rarely) hostility, then there's really nothing left for me to say. Because I feel that what really causes offense is me "not knowing my place". People who believe in God have the home advantage in any of those conversations. Whenever I have to speak about God, there's part of me that must pretend. I can't commit to any statement about God other than that I don't believe in Him.

Since I'm a social relativist, what kicks in when talk ironically about God, is a review of the things I can't see because I'm taking them for granted. At times, I will have to say what "I believe instead". But there's really nothing. Does that mean I'm a nihilist? No, it doesn't, because I won't commit to the idea that there's no meaning to anything either. So whatever I'm going to say is necessarily situational. I'm a soical, and not a moral relativist, so that means that I see the regularities in my behaviour, and I assume that I have blindspots as well as selective attention to certain details over others, etc. When I define myself in opposition to theists, I'll end up with slightly different beliefs, than when I define myself in opposition to secular humanists, for example. Because what I'll be saying is determined in part by where the conversation leads my attention (situational, remember?). And the conversation we're having (about God) is a conversation we'd not be having if you hadn't brought up the topic first. I would never bring up God - God is a topic I'd never come up with on my own accord. Theists are theists because they belive in a god/Gods; I'm an atheist, because theists believe in a God/gods (and I don't).

Defining yourself over what you're not is a weak position to argue from. You need something positive to hold against God, so you can anchor yourself: this is why some positions - social relativist, for example - are attractive to me. I can sort of identify with that. But it's not really a belief as much as it is a hypothesis about my lived morals (assuming I acquired some consistency behaviour-wise). However, situationally you still have to show committment or you're - quite simply - going under.

Irony is the bracket that holds situational believe, social expectations of consistency and a perceived distance between what you say and what you are togher. That was a very long-winded way of saying if you want me to talk about God, and if you want me to be sincere, then an ironic attitude towards what I'm saying about God is the only possibility. Without an attitude of irony I literally have nothing at all to say to you in a conversation about God.

But saying nothing often means that I will either have to defer to "God's" authority, or that I have to fight back from a position I hate (and thus won't be able to keep up emotionally).

So when I read the Remodernist manifest, and come across "the failure of post modernism to answer or address any important issues about being a human being", I have the strong urge to shut up and hide in bed and wait for death. Post modernism hasn't answered any important issues about being a human being, but that's not failure - that's the point. And it most certainly adresses important issues. All the time. Of course, that comes from someone who can't talk about post-modernism unironically.

***

For what it's worth, here's what I think about how post-modernism relates to literature:

An employee of the chocolate company Milka is handing out free samples of their I love Milka brand. If people spend 25 seconds looking the box's name ("I Love Milka"), they can have the box for free. A classical, a modernist and post-modernist character drop by. After looking at the box's name for 25 seconds:

The classical character extols the virtue of Milka in a loud voice. A nearby character (also classical in nature) takes issue, championing Lindt. They decide to settle issues through a duel. In the morning, the place the box of chocaletes (still wrapped in plastic so the due won't hurt it) on the ground, then turn around and walk each in the opposite direction. Lindt guy wins the duel. He walks over to the other guy, picking up the box Milkas. As he looks down at the corpse and declares: "Though you have been wrong, I admire your dedication." As the sun rises, he unwraps the box and eats the chocolates in tribute.

The modernist character is about to unwrap the chocolates, but then thinks it might be nice to share them with his with wife. On his way home, though, he suddenly notices advertisments everywhere: bilboards, shop window, in the streets, in the subways. He can't get rid of the image of the box and the line "I love Milka". A forced first person pronoun. Milkas certainly taste good, but is it fair to say he loves them? He participated because he wanted the chocolates, sure, but... It's not like the company pursuaded him, but at same time, what if... To what extent does he really like the chocolates? When he gets home he is in a strange mood. His wife asks what's wrong, but he just shrugs. Then he absentmindedly hands her the box. "I got these for free." His wife takes the box. "Mm, Milkas." She unrwaps them and pops one in her mouth. "Mm, they're good." This makes smile. He takes one, too. "They are, aren't they?" he says.

The post-modernist character unwraps the box immediately. He recites one love poem per praline. Originally, they're all supposed to be different genres, but he runs out of poems and cheats. When all pralines are gone, he launches into a blues number and sings how Milka always leaves him. He disappears around the corner.
 

America's Proust

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 23, 2016
Messages
84
Reaction score
2
Location
Honolulu, HI
I don't think science is inherently materialistic at all.

Rejecting materialism needn't mean rejecting science.

There is plenty of room for spirituality in science.

Which is exactly what the remodernism manifesto was trying to get at.
 
Last edited:

morngnstar

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 9, 2014
Messages
2,271
Reaction score
297
He isn't condemning science, he's condemning the idea that scientific experimentation is the only source of knowledge and the only source of truth. Found this, it actually defines scientific materialism a lot better: http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/philosophy/scientific-materialism.php

the belief that physical reality, as made available to the natural sciences, is all that truly exists

That's a decent definition, although I think that link goes on to all kinds of incorrect conclusions. That definition does not preclude art, religion, love. That definition also doesn't say science is the only source of truth (unless you read "as made available to the natural sciences" very strictly). It just says physical reality is all that exists. How you know what exists in physical reality is left open.

I think it's unnecessarily exclusive, and the idea that at least much or most of what exists is physical reality subject to scientific law is a pretty valuable one. We might take this for granted now, but that's to forget that there was a time before scientific materialism when this was not recognized. To suggest that the entire era of modernism was a wrong turn is shortsighted.

I don't think science is inherently materialistic at all.

Rejecting materialism needn't mean rejecting science.

Science isn't inherently materialistic. The inherent nature of science is to seek knowledge through repeatable experimentation. It just turns out that the conclusion reached by following this principle has consistently been that the world is made of physical substances.
 

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
38,197
Reaction score
4,544
Location
The End of the World
Which is exactly what the remodernism manifesto was trying to get at.

That doesn't seem to be in contradiction to postmodernism, either.

As a religious person from a non-Western, non-Abrahamic religion, I don't really get this whole remodernist thing about god.

Western philosophic movements that address god and spirituality tend to be rather Abrahamic-centric, and I don't relate to their arguments very well one way or the other, despite being religious myself.
 

morngnstar

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 9, 2014
Messages
2,271
Reaction score
297
Commitment is always premature, but that would mean that you can never say anything. Irony, in that sense, is a life-line that rescues you from silence, and allows you to treat your belief as a work in process.

When I said commitment, I didn't mean in the sense of marriage, i.e. something irrevocable. More like in the sense of "commit murder". A commitment is something you're willing to act on. You're right, irony is not incompatible with that state, but on its own irony does not include that commitment to one side or the other. Leaving it at raw irony is an uncommitted, insincere position.

As I think I said, irony and sincerity are not incompatible, but they are at odds with each other.

An example: When you insist that treating "God Almighty" ironically is inherently disrespectful, that puts me as both a social relativist and atheist in a bind. You may be expecting a sincere commitment to "God does not exist." That's what being "an atheist" is all about, right? The problem here is that "God does not exist," is not - per se - a positive belief item.

I think it's perfectly possible to commit to a negative belief.

I respect your ironic approach to talking about God. I have a different approach.

My way of dealing with people talking about God is to participate in their discussion, offering my opinion on what positive messages their religion has to offer. In this sense, I can speak sincerely about God, though I don't believe in Him. When people bring up God, I don't talk about Him not existing. They didn't ask. If people talk about cosmology, I can talk about the origin of the universe, and God will not come up.
 

Dawnstorm

punny user title, here
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,752
Reaction score
449
Location
Austria
When I said commitment, I didn't mean in the sense of marriage, i.e. something irrevocable. More like in the sense of "commit murder". A commitment is something you're willing to act on. You're right, irony is not incompatible with that state, but on its own irony does not include that commitment to one side or the other. Leaving it at raw irony is an uncommitted, insincere position.

As I think I said, irony and sincerity are not incompatible, but they are at odds with each other.

I get all that. There's a socially acceptable action called "changing your mind" for example. It's not about it being irrevocable; it's about never being certain to enough to commit: you can't live that way, so you make your decision while fully aware that you're more likely to be wrong than right. You perform an action but without commiting to it. Without irony, that act is empty, and you feel a sense of alianition when doing that. But with irony, doing something that's likely wrong feels right. Basically, what I'm saying is that - with irony in your psychological tool box - you can decide on an action without committing to it, and also without feeling like a hypocrit (though, by experience, you're prepared for such allegations).

One of my abandoned drafts contains a "guild of gamblers", which is an expression of that philosophy. The real bet is always with yourself, and the odds are always against you, but life has a habit of rendering your bet meaningless and rewarding you through a principle that may or may not be arbitrary (which is it? willing to bet?).

I think it's perfectly possible to commit to a negative belief.

I respect your ironic approach to talking about God. I have a different approach.

Absolutely. I was strictly talking about myself. (I re-read what I wrote, and I made a mess out of the pronouns. The eyes "Is" always are short for "Dawnstorm". At least two of the "you's" are short for "Dawnstorm imagining himself as someone else's conversation partner", but most of the you's mean "Dawnstorm's hypothetical conversation partner, modeled after a loose impression of Amerca's Proust's posts [which brought up "God Almighty".

It's hard to take yourself seriously when you talk like that. I'm probably not serious, but I'm more likely than not sincere.

As for the ability to commit to a negative: it's certainly possible, but only if you know it exists. Atheists need theists to be atheists. Theists don't need atheists to be theists. It strikes me that's an important difference.

My way of dealing with people talking about God is to participate in their discussion, offering my opinion on what positive messages their religion has to offer. In this sense, I can speak sincerely about God, though I don't believe in Him. When people bring up God, I don't talk about Him not existing. They didn't ask. If people talk about cosmology, I can talk about the origin of the universe, and God will not come up.

My problem with talking about "God" at all is twofold: I'm never sure I get what theists are actually saying, and my own position is all the vaguer for it, because I have more trouble adapting to something I don't understand (when compared to something which I have a better idea of but don't necessarily find all that useful either [such as "post-modernism"]).

I'm certainly not going around saying "Bah, humbug!" to everyone as soon as they bring up God.
 

America's Proust

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 23, 2016
Messages
84
Reaction score
2
Location
Honolulu, HI
That doesn't seem to be in contradiction to postmodernism, either.

As a religious person from a non-Western, non-Abrahamic religion, I don't really get this whole remodernist thing about god.

Western philosophic movements that address god and spirituality tend to be rather Abrahamic-centric, and I don't relate to their arguments very well one way or the other, despite being religious myself.

I'll address these in order:

1. The contradiction to postmodernism is that (not all, but enough) postmodernists have a very negative, if not outright hateful, view of pretty much religion in general, and the Remodernists argue that Man's soul is the greatest wellspring of the arts. (That's what I got from their manifesto.)

2. The Remodernists did get their start in Britain as a subset of the Stuckists, so it's not unreasonable that they're Abrahamic-centric, considering most of the European-Western world is Christian, one denomination or another. This is a Western philosophical movement by Western artists, raised in Abrahamic traditions and cultures.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.