Talk:Postmodernism

Section on "Origin of Term" Is Inaccurate

The statement that Chapman used the term "postmodern" in 1870 is unfounded. See Oxford English Dictionary for documented early uses of "postmodern" and related terms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.36.7.1 (talk) 03:19, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

structural issues

Hey all,

I'm looking at doing some edits to the top of this article (i.e., above Manifestations section) with stronger sourcing to academic works by actual subject-matter experts. There are also, however, some structural issues I wanted to check in on before beginning.

Is there a reason for treating Origin and History separately? I haven't yet worked through the material in detail, but I would default to combining these into one section, probably entitled Etymology, to precede Definition (or perhaps, as with the work I've been doing on Irony, something more along the lines of The Challenge of Definition).

The Theories and Derivatives section is confusing to me. Structuralism and post-structuralism are precursors to postmodernism that were after-the-fact co-opted under that umbrella term. This should be clear in the article. Post-postmodernism seems like it ought to belong to a Legacy section that does not exist (and so maybe should just be its own section after Manifestations until it does?).

I don't love that the header Manifestations suggests there is some one thing called postmodernism that has been theoretically articulated and appears under various guises in different media. My objection is not that this is contrary to postmodern theory, but just that it is a dubious claim that should not be presented as fact without strong sourcing. Lastly, shouldn't Philosophy, to the extent that it has not already been covered incidentally by Etymology and Definition, fall under this header (whatever the best term may be), rather than as its own section above what are currently presented as "manifestations"?

Any input appreciated!

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I have not abandoned this. The structure now makes sense to me except for the question of where to put the precursor movements of (post-)structuralism and deconstruction. The next thing on my agenda, which is arguably the main thing, is the section currently titled Definition. I might incorporate them there—although this would probably require condensing them a bit, which I haven't worked through, but don't love.

Right now, the Definition section is sourced primarily to Britannica, which is not a good source on philosophical topics, and to notes from an old PBS series with no authorship attribution. A few look good, but lack page numbers. I haven't checked all of them, but Bryant, Ian; Johnston, Rennie; Usher, Robin (2004), at least, does not support the claim for which it is cited. My plan is to start fresh, but incorporate as much of what is there as is verifiably and due. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 21:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Intellectual vs. Anti-Intellectual

72.197.187.131 made the following two edits: [1] [2], changing the first line from:

Postmodernism is an intellectual...

to:

Postmodernism is an anti-intellectual...

I explained on the the editors' talk page that we require sources, and eventually the editor provided this as a source:

Kuntz, Marcel (2012-10-01). "The postmodern assault on science". EMBO Reports. 13 (10): 885–889. doi:10.1038/embor.2012.130. ISSN 1469-221X. PMC 3463968. PMID 22986553.

I know enough about Postmodernism to know that the above source is not representing Postmodernism correctly; however, I am not familiar with the WP:RS in this article. I am hoping someone else who is more familiar with topic and the sourcing can explain the issues with the above source and why it would not be sufficient to make such a drastic change to the WP:LEDE. I also don't know enough about the publication to know if that source is reliable.

My assumption is that the author Marcel Kuntz is not an expert in an appropriate field, e.g. Philosophy, Semiotics, Critical theory, Literary criticism or Postmodernism. His expertise is in biotech. GMO is mostly what the article is actually about. The author seems to have no familiarity with the major issues with Subjectivity and objectivity (philosophy) that go back to the Ancient Greeks and probably before them. Although Nietzsche's work was the first thing we read in my Postmodernism class, anyone with knowledge of Ancient philosophy and Modern philosophy knows the problems of subjectivity, Metaphysics, and what can be known (Epistemology) with certainty. These issues have been with us a long time. Descartes pondered this. David Hume had a scathing attack on the use of inductive reasoning in Empiricism in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. And Kant came up with a fantastic response in Critique of Pure Reason where he posits the Thing-in-itself. All this long before Nietzsche's scathing criticism of Western morality in works like On the Genealogy of Morality, which caused Analytical Philosophers like Bertrand Russell to attack him and his works. Based on my knowledge and the sources I have read, Kuntz does not seem to be familiar with any of this (or inexplicably omits it). What I also find so puzzling in Kuntz's writing is that he makes no mention of Uncertainty principle or the subjectivity inherent in the Theory of relativity. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Author goes on about deconstruction at length, fails to mention Derrida once. Simonm223 (talk) 17:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

flagging weak entry

This description of postmodernism is poor: relies too much on thin accounts of postmodernism. Why isn't Fredric Jameson cited? I always ck wikipedia when writing lectures as some students will get info here. This account is misleading and unclear. 2600:1700:6237:D400:1885:E491:ACAC:E8E8 (talk) 16:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Great suggestion for improvement. Do you have some proposed text to bring Jameson in? He's definitely an appropriate source. Simonm223 (talk) 17:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs a lot of work, some of which I have been doing—at an admittedly plodding pace (see above). Jameson does appear in Criticism_of_postmodernism#Marxist_criticisms, but I agree he is important enough to merit mention as a critic in this article, perhaps also to be cited in a rewritten Definition(s) section. Left to my own devices, he probably will crop up somewhere. But if either of you have any specific language you want to see, please consider adding it yourself or sharing it here.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 17:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

This section from the start of his postmodernism book is a good place to start shaping something probably.

Thus, abstract expressionism in painting, existentialism in philosophy, the final forms of representation in the novel, the films of the great auteurs, or the modernist school of poetry (as institutionalized and canonized in the works of Wallace Stevens): all these are now seen as the final, extraordinary flowering of a high modernist impulse which is spent and exhausted with them. The enumeration of what follows then at once becomes empirical, chaotic, and heterogeneous

But it's rather too long to use as a quote. Simonm223 (talk) 17:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Later we have every position on postmodernism in culture— whether apologia or stigmatization—is also at one and the same time, and necessarily, an implicitly or explicitly political stance on the nature of multinational capitalism today. - which is an excellent turn of phrase. Simonm223 (talk) 17:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC)