Postmodernism (question mark)

I recently was asked a very simple question that nevertheless blindsided me. I initially wanted to include my response here as a simple Q&A, but in the interest of the well-rounded dialogue I'm always talking about these days, well-rounded in that it is open and clearly communicated, I think I'd rather include the actual conversation, especially since it models so nicely the disclosure of motive that I'm so passionate about furthering in academic circles.

Actually, I've already written about this incident for Proseminar, stating,

"I wanted to hear about Dubois as a thinker and Reed’s perspective on him. Class discussion gave us a sense of Reed’s background, sort of, and then plunged into a definition of double consciousness (I liked one senior's answer that asking Rockers to define double consciousness was like asking us to define postmodernism; while I think double consciousness actually isn’t that hard to explain, I resonated with the assertion about postmodernism; a friend from the Midwest asked me to define it earlier in the week because she kept reading about it in anthropology articles but had no idea what it referred to; I penned, well, typed, an explanation, but I wonder if I even captured it at all, or accurately…planning on blogging the questions and my answers, as well as my concerns about the proper way to go about defining such a daunting term), and finally emerged with some dialogue about the canon."

The conversation, which, of all spaces, unfolded through facebook (uff):

Maria: "this is entirely random, and i'm sorry. late night + long paper + caffeine = are you a post-modernist?"

me: "Random entirely okay. Long nights, lots of homework, and caffeine = my life right now, too. I read a lot of writing for my classes that assumes a postmodernist viewpoint. I took a class on Foucault, and related thinkers get referenced a lot in class discussions (also at panels at the APSA politics conference I had to attend the first week of school). I did read and discuss a short piece by Bruno Latour the other day about actor-network theory--apparently we've never been modern? But I'm not really sure where I stand. I don't really know if I keep a fixed position with the different -isms. I try (trying being a hopelessly helpless kind of thing) to analyze arguments individually, on their own merits, logics, and weak points/strong points. I'm spending so much time figuring out what matters to me and what I think in relation to the swirl of thoughts in the world (academic and otherwise) that I can't say what I "am" as far as fitting into an -ism. But I can talk about postmodernism, sure."

Maria: "alright! to clarify: i have not the slightest idea what post-modernism is unless i happen to know it by a different term. far too early sunday morning i was reading an anthropology article that kept mentioning it, and i took a guess that you might know something about it! so if you don't mind, what is it?"

me: "Oh, okay. I'm still trying to parse it out myself, but let's see if I can do it justice. One of my entrance essays four years ago was about modernism and the experience of mystery, after all. This might take two installments--sorry I'm so wordy. The problem is that there are about a gazillion ways to define modern; apparently the Romans used the term. Most often, it refers to the period of the last 500 years or so since Columbus explored [or some other, more fitting verb?] his way to the New World. That powerful 1492 journey opened an era of biological genocide, colonialism, chattel slavery, independence movements, the Enlightenment, and the Industrial Revolution. Well, as if the havoc of colonialism and subsequently the colonized throwing off the oppressors wasn't enough drama, the Industrial Revolution gave us the machine gun and helped greatly to produce fleets of trains, planes, and cars, and lots of other brand new items. That's a lot of technology to shake up the world in a short time. And, well, it did.

Archduke Ferdinand is un-fortuitously shot, and off the countries of Europe go, galloping into the Great War, blaming each other for the tragic event. Ungodly amounts of people die. Thank you, machine gun creators (uff!). It's ugly, Europe's a mess, lots of post-traumatic stress disorder. Think Verdun, where plenty of bombs still haven't been dug up. Nobody really knows what happened, how it could be so horrible, what the world is coming to, how rationality, the greatness of Western civilization, could get us to this inhumane point. So you get post-traumatized artists taking up the banner of the German Expressionist art movement. You get Piet Mondrian and Neo-Plasticism. James Joyce's Ulysses. Intellectuals swearing off the apparent greatness of modernity because of the results. And then it happens again. Worldwide depression, widespread panic, Hitler takes advantage of it. The different methods used by the Nazis in the Holocaust are so deadly because of the technology. [Hitler’s staff is very efficient; they time the trains to maximize deportations. The killing squads tear through Poland in very little time.]

World War II, then, changes the nature of the widespread disillusionment. You get Existentialism, Hannah Arendt’s writing, the United Nations. Oh, and a bunch of people swear off God (Where was s/he amidst all this needless suffering and senseless violence? What is god’s ethic?). America emerges as a superpower, props up Europe, which is utterly devastated.

Whatever postmodernism means, as a reaction and casting off of modernism, in its nebulous forms of philosophy, art, literature, history, theory, etc., it attempts to dig deep, to uncover assumptions, to deconstruct, to expose the structure of institutions, to show what is a sham, to tell truths, to find meaning when there doesn’t seem to be much left in the world. Postmodern philosophers write about meaning, semantics, punitive systems, postcolonialism, sexuality, and a lot about power, about who has it, who has agency, and who it objectifies, makes voiceless."

Maria: "alright, that makes a lot of sense with what my anthro class did last week (theories on chimpanzee violence). it'll probably come into play this week, too--we're doing how morality vs. objectivity should be used in research. i love contentious issues classes! and a million thank-yous! i'm certainly not sure where i stand on any of it yet, but this is fun stuff."

me: "Yay! I'm intrigued... please, if you have a moment, will you share a bit about these theories on chimpanzee violence? I'm also interested to hear about your discussions of morality and objectivity as it relates to anthropological research."

Maria: "it's your birthday tomorrow--happy birthday! my brother's birthday is tuesday; he wants me to get him an expensive [Nebraska] hat. weirdo.

the chimpanzee violence stuff is mainly centered around chimpanzee warfare, general primate infanticide, and other such violent displays and whether such behaviors are natural or caused by human influence/pressure. there's even one anthropologist who denies they happen intentionally at all. and, of course, it all ties in to theories of how human warfare and violence evolved, though my class didn't discuss those much.

as for morality and objectivity, postmodernists have a tendency to claim that anthropology, by virtue of devoting itself to the study of human meanings, cannot be objective and therefore is not a science. if it is not an objective science, then it must be a bunch of generalizations lumped together by selfish interests (Western, white, and male are common candidates) to be used for the domination and oppression of minorities.

because oppression and domination are bad, generalizations are also bad, and so is anthropological science. some take this further to say that anthropology therefore has an obligation to take an active political and moral part in deciding issues surrounding native peoples. others disagree. that's a pretty general overview; if you want to know more, [i have a link to the class's website...] or if you want a more detailed overall summary i can send you my reaction papers. they're probably fairly dry, but they cover all the bases in about 4 pgs. my personal stance on each is that chimpanzee violence is natural; human influence in the cases where it applies is only causing natural behaviors that were already evolved to deal with similar stresses. and morality is an objective science; its use of the scientific method assures this as much as it can ensure objectivity for any science.

and i find active political/moral participation in ethnic issues by anthropologists to be at best risky and at worst imperialistic. but that's just me."

The conversation turns more towards the status of anthropology at the end, which is a perfectly adequate topic on its own, which I've been meaning to explore in these virtual pages anyhow, but I will probably be writing more on that later, not now, since there is just not enough time and too much going on.

So? Have I adequately defined the background of the term? I doubt it, since I was mostly just pulling ideas from what I already (think I) know, not intensely researching its etymology and different uses of the term. How would you define it? What would you say must be included to properly contextualize the term postmodernism? A definition of modernism, perhaps, in order to distinguish post-? Which architectural, literary, and otherwise cultural milestones, which historical and scientific shifts must receive mention? How to explain it more simply, differently? What rhetorical devices to use to achieve this aim?

The concerns I mentioned in the beginning about accurate definition center around that constant companion of late, inadequacy. I think it's all too unfortunate that students feel too overwhelmed by disparate threads of information that they can't weave together definitions of the simplest terms. Though it's no good having someone presume that you don't know a term, it is even worse if you actually cannot put it into words, even if simply on your own time, not under heated pressure. Inadequacy's grip cannot paralyze students so completely that they cannot complete even the simplest of academic tasks, reciting definitions. I am not claiming this is in any way an easy feat; I struggle with it myself, but neither do I want Academia to zap me of all the talent I might have. My only other concern is the one expressed above. Because it's such an unprepossessing term that nevertheless refers to a very broad scope, what to include and what to exclude? How do you actually come up with a definition instead of a five-hundred page detailed history? To what extent does it matter what you include? At what point have you lost some sense of sanity, lost some of the word's actual meaning and reach, lost your respectability because you have in some way failed to be honest, failed to stay committed to the truth? And does that matter, either?