The State of Postmodernism Today
Postmodernism has outlived itself. By announcing the end of the future, and replacing it with the eternal present, postmodernism has tried to play a God-trick and create its own immortality. The remains which linger are decaying and rotting. Yet the academy has yet to realize that postmodernism as the totalizing theory that it denied being, although very much was, is no longer an interesting or efficient theoretical paradigm. The name and legacy of postmodernism remain, hanging on desperately to the present, which has transformed itself once again into the future. Postmodernist theorists remain at the top of the academic elite, continuing to produce theory that even they may no longer believe in; unfortunately, postmodernism as academic currency still carries a hefty profit. The result is an environment where knowledge of postmodern theory is no longer a sign of intellectual and theoretical achievement. Postmodernism is no longer an innovative paradigm at the forefront of theoretical knowledge. Instead, today, postmodernism is an overused and overstated concept. As a result, those who insist on continuously attempting to breathe life into an eternal postmodernism must become more and more complicated in attempts to appear innovative.
What is right and wrong with Postmodernism (mostly wrong)?
Even the very words ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ are glaringly out of place in a discussion of postmodernism. Postmodernism began and has continued to be portrayed by those who create its theory as a most innovative and advanced concept of the world. Postmodern rhetoric of diversity, plurality and multiplicity resonates nicely with the political climate of today. However, despite its superficial appearance of an inclusive theory, postmodernism masks its maintenance of the status quo in high theory and complicated jargon. The phrase is already cliché – once you get to the table, the table disappears. This critique has been applied to postmodernism by many marginal groups. Presenting itself as an inclusive theory, postmodernism has not only disappeared the table, but the whole house. In the guise of plurality, postmodernism has attempted to dismantle any universal concept of right and wrong, fair, just or equitable. In a postmodern age, systems such as human rights, equitable trade and even peace are not only difficult, but not even desired from a postmodernist perspective. For in a framework of absolute relativity, how could anyone argue that genocide in Rwanda or female infanticide in China or rampant domestic violence in the United States is wrong? Audre Lorde argued that the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house; now even the tools are gone. The result – the masters living in the theoretical ivory tower house will never be forced to leave. The vision of inclusivity that many find attractive in postmodernism is the very paradigm that simply reinforces status quo. Postmodern plurality and multiplicity will never include the margins, until and unless the margins themselves redefine and recuperate the potential in the rhetoric without continuing to rely on the maintenance of the Other.
Prognosis for the future of Postmodernism (or perhaps a prescription)
Postmodernism must be dead soon, and it is we who must kill it. Postmodernism must be toppled from its lofty position in the academy. A once attractive theory with transformative potential has become simply rhetoric and academic currency. France, the country that has produced several of the most prominent postmodern theorists, has acknowledged postmodernism’s decline. Baudrillard, Lyotard, et. al., are now more popular outside their own country than perhaps they ever were in France. Why has the rest of the academic community been so reluctant to move beyond postmodernism? The answer cannot be simply that the awe of postmodernism has overwhelmed us. Perhaps we are enthralled in the vision of an eternal present, a vision which can then enable us to ignore the reality of the tomorrow we have created and which threatens continuously to destroy us. Yet tomorrow will come – a tomorrow of global inequalities, famine, political upheavals, genocide and unprecedented violence. In fact, the future, despite postmodernism’s attempt at resistance, has arrived. We relish in a dying postmodernism of the past in order to blind ourselves to our own complicity in the realities of the present. Only with the complete death of postmodernism and the accompanying death of absolute relativity can we transform reality. Postmodernism no longer holds any transformative potential (perhaps it never really did). The question then remains – are we to remain complicit in the decaying reality surrounding the barely breathing corpse of postmodernism, or will we kill it outright, through the heart, and move on?