Modernism and Postmodernism

Introduction

The paper attempts to bring to light clear demarcations between modernism or modernity and
postmodernism or postmodernity: Whether the latter is the development or the counter-revolution of
the former.

As a context, it sets the tone and situates the framework by which the succeeding philosophers are
treated in this paper. The aim is simple: to locate the discourse of the following philosophers in the
postmodern horizon. This brief discourse, therefore, on the understanding of Modernism and
Postmodernism presents the bias the author would like to read and understand the postmodernist
importation or incorporation of the selected philosophers. Although, the time-space duration of
modernism and postmodernism can be clearly demarcated, it seems that such clear-cut physical
demarcation is vague if not insecure in the theoretical realm as clearly manifested in my existential
discourse with the selected philosophers.

Simon Malpas, in his book “The Postmodern” emphasizes the impossibility of defining Postmodernism
or Postmodernity. Definition is a given meaning, following traditional logic, it includes the genus and
the specific difference. Thus, man is traditionally defined as a rational animal. Animal is the genus,
while rational is the specific difference. In this definition, it is clear that ‘rational animal’ is the
parameter by which man must be understood. In a sense, definition is the delimitation, the circle by
which the term defines is to be understood. As such, the definition serves as the prison by which,
around its four corners, the concept defined must revolved around and around. It is clear, therefore,
that in definition, specific, singular and categorical understanding are made. It is this framework,
deriving the viewpoint of Malpas, that Postmodernism or Postmodernity’ cannot be imprisoned into a
static and permanent,--if not pervading—categories. That it is impossible to define does not mean
however that it can not be described. Care should be undertaken, however, that in describing
Postmodernism or Postmodernity, the framework in such a way that description is made should deny
any possibility of imprisonment. To do so is against the animus of postmodernism or postmodernity.

Another visible presentation of Malpas is his penchant of using the phrase Postmodernity or
Postmodernism. Throughout his preface and introduction, these terms are used interchangeably to
mean after Modernism and Modernity. The postmodern literally is after modern. The after indicates a
division between modern and postmodern, and such a division is in need of clarity and understanding.
It is because after could refer to mean either development or a reaction of what was. Either way, the
after indicates an essential relation between the two that understanding postmodernity is impossible
without its reference to modernity. Malpas’ penchant of using the phrase Modernism or Modernity and
Postmodernism or Postmodernity initially indicate the commonality of understanding the concepts in
each phrases. This indicates, therefore, that there is a clear distinction between the two—Modernism
or Modernity v.s. Postmodernism or Postmodernity. However, towards the conclusion the of the
introduction which is used as the framework in the entire book, the concepts will obtain specific
application.

The specification, for clarity of understanding, can be made by distinguishing the use of “ism” and
“ity” in both Modernism or Modernity and Postmodernism and Postmodernity. ‘Ism’ indicates the
philosophical or aesthetic discourses, while ‘ity’ would refer to historical periods or era. In a sense,
Malpas claims that Modernity is an era which would usher to Postmodernity, the era after Modernity.
On the other hand, Modernism is a philosophical attitude, a framework of understanding the world that
is characterized by the strict categorization, while Postmodernism refers to the denial or explosion of
categorization. At this juncture, what is needed to be emphasized is the presence of the basic
distinctions concerning the linguistic functions of the abovementioned key concepts.

What is Modernism?

There is an essential link between Modernism and industrial revolution according to Crowther.
In his book, Critical Aesthetics and The Postmodern, the link precisely is that it is the industrial
revolution that paved the way of the Modernism philosophical attitude brought about by the division of
labour. According to him:

The first stirrings of Modernism can be traced to new patterns of production

inaugurated by the industrial revolution. At the heart of these is a single phenomenon—
the division of labour. In the productive processes which embody this relation, artifacts
are not made by a single producer. Rather, the process of production is rigidly
compartmentalized into stages and tasks, which are assigned to different individuals.
This division brings with it a quantum leap of efficiency. Likewise in the sphere of
knowledge and culture. From the late eighteenth century (notably in the work of Kant),
attempts are made to radically separate different forms of knowledge and culture and
experience one another: to separate say, metaphysical thinking from scientific method,
or aesthetic experience from ethical judgment.1

An Indonesian Scholar, Ignatius Bambang Sugiharto, traces “modernism” in the philosophical context
as “the movements of thought originating Descartes and the Enlightenment, and which perpetuated
itself up to the twentieth century.”2 The Enlightenment period is known as the age of reason. This
towering of rationality is related to the industrial revolution, as Crowther claims, in its fruit which is the
division of labour. The division of labor is the compartmentalization of work, thereby allowing
workers to be specialists of the different parts of the whole. This paves the way to efficiency. In
rationality, such efficiency engenders the “dualistic point of view which divided reality into subject and
object, spiritual-material, man and the world, etc.” 3 This is what Crowther refers to as the separation
between metaphysical thinking and scientific method or aesthetic experience from ethical judgment.

Modernism, therefore, is a philosophical attitude that sets itself to specific and clear-cut categories,
with the aim that each categories can efficiently uncover the universality and absoluteness of its truth
claim. This modernist attitude ushers in to the era of modernity. Modernism is the philosophical
orientation or attitude, while modernity refers to the name of the period from which such attitude
flourishes. “Modernism’s rigid categories and striving for efficiency and control have an ultimately
authoritarian outcome.”4 The rigid categorizations, in the end, leads to its closure, the fundamental
assertion and assumption that each category, with efficiency brought about by specialization, is the
final guardian of its truth-validity claim. Inherent with this claim is the promise of ultimate
emancipation from want and ignorance. The “closure” of the different fields lead therefore to
dichotomies of the different sciences as Sugiharto expressed, or if I may put in impolitely, the
incommunicability of the different fields to one another. It is because one field is in no need of the
1
Paul Crowther, Critical Aesthetics and Post Modernism (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993), p. vii.
2
Ignatius Bambang Sugiharto, The Primacy of Metaphor in Postmodern Philosophy (Romae 1994), p. 12.
3
Sugiharto, p. 12.
4
Paul Crowther, viii.
other to proceed towards the emancipation. It is the triumph of autonomy.

What is Postmodernism?

Simon Malpas traces the rise of postmodern back to the 1950s and 1960s, and even by some critics to
much earlier than this. It was in the late 1970s and 1980s and the early 1990s that the terms
‘postmodernism’ and ‘postmodernity’ became pervasive in European and North American Culture.
This is brought about by the proliferation of the many literary, cultural and artistic movements. 5 The
crisis of Modernism, Crowther clearly describes in the following sentences:

In the economic and social sphere, patterns of industrial production have changed
racially with the introduction of new technologies. In turn, familiar social structures
(such as class identity) and political groupings have undergone fragmentation and
complex realignment. In the sphere of knowledge and culture, the rigid categories
established by Modernism have been questioned by the various strains of post
structuralism.6

Postmodernism, in a sense, is characterized by fragmentation, explosion of categories and destruction

of accepted dominant social structures. In the words of Malpas, Postmodernism brings immediately to
mind ideas of fracturing, fragmentation, indeterminacy and plurality.”7 With these descriptions,
Postmodernism is the manifestation of irony, disruption, difference, discontinuity, playfulness, parody,
hyper-reality and simulation. In contrast to Modernism, Postmodernism promises nothing other than
the uncertainty and insecurity. In fact, at its deepest level, postmodernity is itself a discourse that is
fractured and fragmentary. It is because it has to continually and forever sustain the dissolution and
destruction of the boundaries between such things as philosophical, literary, historical knowledge and
etc.

Conclusion:

I am tempted to proceed to the idea that postmodernism, because of the explosion and implosion of
rigid categories leading to the refusal and denial of categories itself, is a dependent-independent
schema. That one category cannot claim autonomy nor authority over the other indicates the
dependence to another either negatively or positively. Negatively in the sense that one category can no
longer assert a closure mentality hence, it is in its very nature imperfect and always wanting. The
presence of absence indicates its incompleteness ontologically hence it primordially signifies
dependence in the negative sense. Negative dependence is precisely the recognition of insecurity and
uncertainty in whatever stage including its task. Positively, of course, readily refer to its inability to
make any truth-claim without its dependence on the assertion of the other. Seen in this manner, it must
be understood, that a certain category remains, though dependent, is equally independent at the same
time. That in itself, because of its ‘dependence’-as understood here—is inherently fractured and
fragmentary. These inherent characters precisely make postmodernism in itself an independent
category. Its incompleteness is its completeness, its very nature as postmodern attitude. The
proliferation and flowerings of this attitude is called postmodernity.

References:
5
Simon Malpas, The Postmodern (New York: Routledge Company, 2005), 5.
6
Paul Crowther, viii.
7
Simon Malpas 5.
Crowther, Paul. Critical Aesthetics and Postmodernism. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1993.

Blocker, H. Gene and Jennifer M. Jeffers, Contextualizing Aesthetics: From Plato to Lyotard
(Canada: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1999

Ignatius Bambang Sigiharto, The Primacy of Metaphor in Postmodern Philosophy. Romae 1994.

Simon Malpas, The Postmodern. New York: Routledge Company, 2005.