Talk:Postmodernism

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)

I finally got a draft into good enough shape to post to the mainspace. There is obviously a great deal that could (and should!) be added, but I think that it is nevertheless an improvement over the previous version—particularly with respect to sourcing.

I plan to give it a few days in case anyone has serious objections. Then I will rewrite the lead to summarize the current version of the article.

In the future, I also hope also to flesh out the philosophical part of the article as much as is appropriate when there is a child article, postmodern philosophy. I might also fiddle with the later parts of the article, but I have no plans to rewrite that material.

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 21:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Items for further improvement:

• "In various arts" should have a section devoted to film.
• The "In theory" section should be rewritten to focus on the influence of Derrida in the 1970s and Foucault in the 1980s. Probably coverage of Lyotard should be expanded beyond what is included in "Usage/Later developments". Baudrillard needs to be covered, and (per multiple sources) Richard Rorty. Barthes and Lacan would also be justified by the literature, but appear secondary. Anything more than this is probably best left to the postmodern philosophy child article.
• "In theory" should also have a subsection on postmodern theology.
• The "In society" section should have a subsection on the deployment of the term in non-academic political/cultural/popular discourse. It's remarkable that such a messy academic term should attain such currency outside of the academy. Suggestions for sourcing on this would be most welcome. I'm not even sure where best to look.
• Per overview sources, "Criticisms" should give a paragraph each to both Jürgen Habermas and Fredric Jameson. More detailed discussion is best reserved for criticism of postmodernism.

I'm not going to do all of this, but I welcome comments on the above or, as always, other suggestions. Even just establishing a good TOC enables and encourages productive edits.

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 20:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

still to do

Since I take the structural issues discussed above to be mostly resolved, I'm starting a new thread. Mostly what I'm interested in here is other improvements to the article could be made without too much research in a way that might encourage and facilitate contributions from those with more subject-matter expertise. Here's my current list:

• "In various arts" needs a section lead to provide even just a superficial explanation of why all these different things are grouped together as specifically postmodern.
  • It also needs a film section and a dance section. Even if these are very short, they can Wikilink out to their respective pages.
  • There are some mostly unsourced lists that need to be trimmed back or removed.
• "In theory" needs to be rewritten in view of the "Theoretical development" section above. It might go back to "In philosophy" since the article can now dispense with most of the material on poststructuralism already covered. There are a few other names that show up in the literature that should be at least mentioned: D&G, Rorty, Habermas (again), Jameson (again), and Baudrillard (again) and possibly a few others who appear in some surveys (but are completely ignored in others). But since the article has a child page and some of this has been partially covered above, I expect it to be shorter when I am finished.
  • Follow up: I have just done some of this in a limited way, mostly to create space for other editors with greater interest to contribute. I will try to also add a section on Jameson (maybe together with Harvey) if I can find an appropriately concise high-quality source to work from. Deleuze and Baudrillard, however, are going to have to wait for someone else—I've read only enough of their work to know that I do not care to read more. Redundancies in this section with earlier sections of the article remain an issue. I'll try to do something about this, but please step up if you have an elegant solution. Cheers, Patrick (talk) 17:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
• The "Criticisms" section is at least 80% criticisms of a specifically philosophical position (that, incidentally, very few people actually hold). I will probably move much of this to postmodern philosophy and see if there is anything at criticism of postmodernism that ought to be restored here to help keep this an appropriately general article.
• I removed the the rather useless sidebar from its place at the top of the article. Trying to put it at the bottom, however, I learned that to do this requires it be reproduced according to a different template. If I can cut-and-paste my way through most of that, I'll do it. Otherwise, it's on someone else.
• I'm pretty sure that postmodern theology is enough of a thing to merit inclusion somewhere.
• The article lead needs to be rewritten to properly summarize the article for a general audience. Once that is done, I believe the maintenance banner can be safely removed.

Is there anything obvious I am missing?

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 22:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I addressed "Criticisms" as per above. Probably even the remaining material should be integrated into sections above where applicable. It's difficult to meaningfully criticize such diverse phenomena in a general way. (And the problems with using "postmodern" as a general term are already highlighted near the top of the article.) Patrick (talk) 19:17, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

new article lead

I've drafted a new lead for the article. It's an imperfect summary of a far from perfect article. Please share ideas for improvement!

Keep in mind that the lead is just a plain-language overview of the content of the article. Anything that is conspicuously missing or wrong in the lead needs to be added to the body of the article with supporting sources before changing anything non-egregiously wrong at the top. For the same reason, per WP:CITELEAD, the body of the article is the source of the lead; individual citations are not recommended except to prevent interventions by editors not aware of this policy. (Probably that will prove to be the case here, but I suggest we wait and respond just to issues that actually emerge.)

Here's the draft that, absent objections, I will soon publish to the article:

Postmodernism is a term used to refer to a variety of artistic, cultural, and philosophical movements that claim to mark a break with modernism. What they have in common is the conviction that it is no longer possible to rely upon previous ways of representing reality. Still, there is disagreement among experts about its more precise meaning even within narrowly defined contexts.

The term began to acquire its current range of meanings in literary criticism and architectural theory during the 1950s–1960s. Building upon poststructural theory, postmodern thought defined itself by the rejection of any single, foundational historical narrative. This called into question the legitimacy of the Enlightenment account of progress and rationality.

In opposition to modernism's alleged self-seriousness, postmodernism is characterized by its playful use of irony and pastiche, among other features. Critics claim that it supplants moral, political, and aesthetic ideals with mere style and spectacle.

In the 1990s, "postmodernism" came to denote a general – and, in general, celebratory – response to cultural pluralism. Proponents align themselves with feminism, multiculturalism, and post-colonialism. Critics, however, allege that its premises lead to a nihilistic form of relativism. In this sense, it has become a term of abuse in popular culture.

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 00:47, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello Patrick Welsh, it seems some key points have been taken out of the lead.

• rejects the certainty of knowledge and stable meaning, and acknowledges the influence of ideology in maintaining political power. The idea of objective claims is dismissed as naïve realism, emphasizing the conditional nature of knowledge. Postmodernism embraces self-referentiality, epistemological relativism, moral relativism, pluralism, irony, irreverence, and eclecticism. It opposes the "universal validity" of binary oppositions, stable identity, hierarchy, and categorization.
• Critics argue that postmodernism promotes obscurantism, abandons Enlightenment rationalism and scientific rigor, and contributes little to analytical or empirical knowledge.

These appear to be important points. Do you know why they were taken out? Hogo-2020 (talk) 10:57, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Hogo-2020,

Thanks for checking in on the talk page! I will try to respond more promptly to future posts.

My primary issue with the material you've added is that it does not (or at least does not obviously) apply to most of postmodernism, just to some of the philosophy characterized as postmodern. This means that it is not part of the definition of the topic of the article.

I wrote most (all?) of the section you've retitled "Definition", and its point (emphasized in the previous title) is to establish that the term does not have a single definition, and it is not a unitary phenomenon. I did a fair amount of research for the editing I contributed to this article, and I do not believe any of the essays, monographs, or tertiary sources that I consulted failed to open with an explicit acknowledgement of this fact, the truth of which I believe is further substantiated by the rest of the article.

An unfortunate consequence of this that it is very difficult to make highly general or universal claims about postmodernism as such. There is a lot, however, that can be said about specific scholarly debates about the meaning of the term or the characteristics of postmodernism in specific arts, many of which have their own child pages. (Lots of work to be done here!)

You'll correct me if I am wrong, but your interest seems most focus on postmodern philosophy. This is great because this section of the article, and its child page, are extremely underdeveloped. Since diverse and incompatible philosophies have been called "postmodern" (though rarely by their proponents), my view is that it is best to focus upon the specific figures who are best represented in the high-quality tertiary literature (i.e., the sort of handbooks/companions/whatever edited by established scholars and published by university presses).

Nevertheless, generalizations are of course permissible, especially when sourced to high-quality secondary sources. An article that consists too much of such generalizations, however, does not serve readers if they are not then substantiated with some specifics.

If your interest is in criticisms of postmodernism, I'd be happy to provide some suggestions that could be presented as subsections of "In theory". Most conspicuously, the article needs an account of Habermas's arguments, which have probably been the most influential in the discipline of philosophy.

(Oh and, FYI, Britannica is not considered a consistently reliable source. Per WP:BRITANNICA, its articles generally need to be assessed on an individual basis. Since this one was not written by a subject-matter expert it probably flunks as a RS. Fortunately, we have lots of sources that are highly reliable, and so those can simply be used instead.)

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 00:51, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey again,

I've read the Sim essay from the collection you cited. I am going to cite it in the "In philosophy" section—although probably with attribution, given that it reads to me as an individual "take" that is unusually uncritical.

I am not, however, trying to suppress criticism. The most obvious non-Britannica claim that you've added, however, comes from a volume on educational theory that I am unable to obtain in order to verify. Could you perhaps email me enough of the text for me to do so? It is so categorically critical that I question its reliability—even though Routledge is generally a great press.

Also, there was another citation to a different volume on education that I removed because it was quoted out of context in a way that misrepresented the views of the author. Two academic collections on postmodern pedagogy or educational policy, however, suggest that this might deserve treatment in the article. If you're familiar with the literature, that would be a most welcome contribution. There would be no need in this context to go into any great detail.

With respect to the title I gave the section "The problem of definition" that you retitled "Definition", do you have any suggestions for something that captures a multiplicity of definitions, only some of which are in even potential conflict with one another? Because one of the earliest and most stable definitions is in the field of architecture, but this is hardly in conflict with definitions in literature, some of which are, however, in conflict with one another. And, it's hard to know where to begin with postmodern philosophy since almost none of the major scholars lumped together under this umbrella accept the label. Lyotard versus Habermas has now been mentioned twice, and Jameson, who needs more coverage, could be set off of others as well, but there is, for instance, no Derrida versus Foucault on the nature of the postmodern: they were each just doing their separate things and, to the best of my knowledge, made little effort to respond to the American academics who lumped them together first as poststructuralists and then as postmodernists.

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 21:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Patrick Welsh, and thanks for your responses.

I think that a number of important points well-supported by the literature are being overlooked.

• rejects the certainty of knowledge and stable meaning, and acknowledges the influence of ideology in maintaining political power.

Are there issues with Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy as a source?

Concerning "Adult Education and the Postmodern Challenge: Learning Beyond the Limits", published by Routledge, you can view some of its content through Internet archive. Here are some excepts from the book:

• "Postmodernism challenges and displaces this abstract, transcendental subject, arguing instead that subjects cannot be separated from their subjectivity, history and socio-cultural location. In the postmodern, there are no Archimedean points, the subject is, instead, decentred, enmeshed in the 'text' of the world, constituted in intersubjectivity, discourse and language. Equally, the separation of subject and object, objectivity and subjectivity, is itself a position maintainable only so long as the knower is posited as abstract and decontextualised and the object known posited as the 'other' unable to reflect back on and affect the knower. " (page 205)

• "Postmodersnism highlights the need for science to be much more varied and self-reflexive about its limitations. Science assumes a knowing subject, a known object, and an unambiguous knowledge. The postmodernist argument is that none of these can any longer be taken for granted, all are subject to incredulity." (page 206)

• "Postmodernism argues that all knowledge of the real is textual, i.e., always already signified, interpreted or 'written' and, 'reread'. Hence, there is neither an originary point of knowledge nor a final interpretation. Hence, there is neither an originary point of knowledge nor a final interpretation." (page 207)

Other points from the lead that were removed:

• It opposes the "universal validity" of binary oppositions, stable identity, hierarchy, and categorization.

• Critics argue that postmodernism promotes obscurantism, abandons Enlightenment rationalism and scientific rigor, and contributes little to analytical or empirical knowledge.

Regarding the section title you changed from "The problem of definition" to "An indefinable term," is this your personal perspective, or is there a scholarly consensus supporting this? (If the latter, please provide sources.) I had suggested simply "Definition" because, while definitions may differ, the term can still be defined in various ways. There's no need for us to editorialize the title to emphasize this point, especially if the scholarly consensus doesn't convey this outright.

I agree that it’s nearly impossible to make universal statements about postmodernism, but I feel that some significant points are being overlooked, particularly in the lead. Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey again!

My concern is that the lead adhere to the guidelines outlined in WP:LEAD, in particular, that it be maximally accessible to a general audience and that it includes only material covered in the body of the article—and does so in proportion to the weight it is given in the literature (which should already be reflected in the article itself). Technical language such as opposition to the abstract, transcendental subject or the "universal validity" of binary oppositions, stable identity, hierarchy, and categorization is obscure to pretty much everyone without a post-secondary education in the humanities.

More basically, arguments for changes to the lead cannot be based upon previous versions from the article history, but only on the body of the current article as supported by secondary sources. If, as you contend, there is a problem with the current lead, that probably means that there is a problem with the body that needs to be addressed first. In my assessment, most of what is currently there is well-supported, but some significant material is not covered at all (on which see my posts above). Your suggestions or direct contributions on this front would be most welcome, as would consequent modifications to the lead (although there summarized at more of a fifth-grade level).

As to the heading for the first section of the article, I'm opposed to "Definition" because there is no single definition. This is already supported by seven independent sources in just that section, which, if anything, is already overkill. (If you suspect I am cherry-picking sources, just take the top five search results of any academic database on postmodernism in general: at least four of them will say something along such lines in the first three paragraphs.) I do not, however, particularly love "The problem of definition" or "An undefinable term". So it would be great to collectively brainstorm to find something better.

My current plan for the article is to use the treatment of Derrida and Lyotard from the Sim article to rewrite the relevant sections of "In philosophy" and then to revise the first section (whatever we decide to call it), and then the lead—with an eye towards clarifying, as much as I am able, the points raised by Tsavage.

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 16:59, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Patrick, one possible solution would be to properly address this content in the body of the article. We could also revise the language to make it more reader-friendly. Besides that, these seem to be significant points in the literature. If you're fine with this approach, I'll include the points mentioned above in the body, and later reintroduce them to the lead. Hogo-2020 (talk) 06:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Of course I'm happy for you to help build out the body. Sorry if I seemed overly possessive. My main concern is just that criticisms — of which there are many with, in my assessment, considerable merits – be tied to the positions people actually hold.

It seems to happen less often than it used to, but sometimes postmodernism is invoked in a culture-war contexts as a sort of catch-all for the alleged perniciousness of higher education, as if Derrida were responsible for the decline in church attendance or some crazy thing like that. (Or, if that's true, then it should definitely be included—only I think it is not, and the sourcing would have to be very good.) Patrick (talk) 13:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I get what you're saying, and I agree that we should try to avoid the "culture-war" angle as much as possible. Thanks for explaining your thoughts—it really helps. I'll share my ideas here before making any edits so we can make sure we're on the same page. Hogo-2020 (talk) 05:53, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

re: "An indefinable term" -- perhaps simply "Definitions", plural, would work well, with a first sentence that immediately points out that there's no single overarching definition, though there are competing ones, as well as definitions specific to the many fields to which postmodernism is applied. Since there are...definitions. Tsavage (talk) 03:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

re: "An indefinable term", Renaming the title to something like "Definitions" would definitely improve it. Hogo-2020 (talk) 06:58, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm good with this. Thanks for making the change. Patrick (talk) 13:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Definitions

In discussing a "definitions" section as a way to develop the article intro, here's some text that's hopefully helpful, based on my understanding so far. I'm presenting it as an example of what seems to me like reasonable general audience readability that doesn't oversimplify - I'm not certain that it doesn't overreach or misrepresent.

Beginning roughly in the 1950s, postmodernist perspectives and practices emerged organically across a wide range of disciplines, including philosophy, the arts, anthropology, psychology, urban planning, digital technology, and many others. The concept of postmodernism defies a single, unified definition due to its diverse origins and applications. Instead, it's more accurate to speak of multiple postmodernist movements that share certain common characteristics, rather than one overarching concept.

Broadly speaking, postmodernism rejects the idea of universal objective views of reality, single correct explanations, and "right" ways to do things. Art, music, architecture don't have to fit into certain genres and styles, they're free to mix and match. In literature and film, stories need not follow set structures like beginning-middle-end. There is no separation between high art and low art. It is impossible for scientists to separate their personal interpretations from their research findings. Philosophers should reject grand narratives and universal theories and focus on smaller ideas. There is no right way to do, see, explain or judge, the exploration of multiple perspectives is always required.

In a historical context, postmodernism is also not easily described. It is generally viewed as following on from the modernism movement. It is variously viewed as a break from or a development, or even culmination, of modernist perspective. [have to explain moderism in more detail here]

ADDED: Perhaps for this section, relying on paraphrase and summary, and placing longer source quotes in the citations for improved context, rather than using brief in-text quotes, would provide a fuller context while keeping things concise, readable, and verifiable. The use of explanatory footnotes could also be useful for this slippery topic, for example, to at times briefly include several viewpoints summarized in the article, rather than try to fit them directly into the text.

Tsavage (talk) 18:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm on board with this. Please feel free to start editing that section as you've suggested, and if there's anything that needs to be reworked we can do it here. Hogo-2020 (talk) 06:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Patrick Welsh What do you think? I wrote that as an example to consider. Tsavage (talk) 18:02, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. I'm losing track of all these threads. This reads well, but I think there are a few problems. The main issue is the middle paragraph. I do not believe it is true that before postmodernism there was a widely held correct way of doing philosophy or science or of making art. Western philosophy has had staunch defenders of the particular since at least Aristotle. The novel was, on most accounts, a product of the modern age, and its various genres were themselves historical innovations, just as an example. Or, with respect to modernism specifically, Cubism in painting and Imagism in poetry embrace a multiplicity of perspectives and aesthetic fragmentation.

Smaller points: mixing high and low culture, or even attempting artistically or theoretically to undermine the distinction, depends upon acknowledging the distinction has some kind of reality. (Yes, I know: this is why a lot of people hate postmodernism.) Similarly, in science, even if a researcher cannot identify all of the preconceptions they bring to their research, they can still acknowledge this and make a meaningful effort to identify at least some potential issues. Otherwise, there just is no science, and that's a claim that I think would be rejected even by postmodernists whose positions would seem to commit them to such a view. So we should be cautious about how we treat it.

With respect to defining modernism, my best idea right now would be to flag near the top that "modernism" also means different things in different contexts. In philosophy it is associated by postmodernists with Enlightenment optimism about our ability to progressively advance both scientifically and socially by use of reason. In the arts, it is best to consider its meaning with respect to the various art forms individually. Modernism in literature, for instance, has few obvious similarities to modernism in architecture. [We would then have to try to say something about this in each of the arts when treated individually lower down in the article.] Patrick (talk) 20:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh, and hey, if you're continuing to work on a rewrite of this and want to consult with a source you can't access, please just email me. There's a good chance I can provide you with the relevant section.

Also, I do feel strongly that the article needs the first paragraph with all the sources on the disagreement about the meaning (or even basic coherence) of the term. If it works better as a footnote, however, that's fine. It should just be documented that there is a scholarly consensus against there being any one authoritative definition—and this not as some kind of postmodern epistemological stance, but just as an empirical fact about the way the term is used, even by supposed subject-matter experts. Patrick (talk) 00:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm continuing to work on this. I'm not trying to rewrite the section, just looking for a way to think, "Oh, OK, I think I see what they were up to" (that is also verifiable and not hugely oversimplified).

As it is now, the first two paras of Definitions do a great job in making clear the difficulties of defining the term, and how it is not just one thing.

It gets fuzzier (for me) in the third para, with Bertens: "a deeply felt loss of faith in our ability to represent the real, in the widest sense ... the representations that we used to rely on can no longer be taken for granted." That's clear and exciting, but I'm waiting for it to finish.

What are your thoughts about framing the idea of a definition initially in its historical context and in comparison with modernism? "Modernism grappling with... (technology, shock of WWI, urbanization, etc); postmodernism dissatisfied with modernist approaches in the face of even more across the board deep change." Tsavage (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I guess I was probably thinking that the rest of the article was the explication of the Bertens quote. It's entirely reasonable, however, to ask for something more in this section. I still have more work to do on the "In philosophy" section, but I will come back to this if no one else lands on a good solution in the meanwhile.

To your last paragraph, I have no problem in principle with defining it in relation to modernism, but in practice I'd expect a lot of difficulty in finding a concise and non-controversial definition of modernism. Great, though, if you can do it!

Separate from the definitions, however, additional discussion of the sociological conditions of the emergence of postmodernity, would be a great addition to the "Historical overview". If we gather enough material, it would be important enough to merit its own subsection. A good source for this would be David Harvey's The Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change. I haven't read it myself (though I know some of his other work), but it made enough of a mark to come up in the literature with some regularity. I'm sure there are reviews summarizing his central points. Patrick (talk) 18:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, wouldn't want to make the Definitions section a condensed version of the whole article. I'm only trying to find an additional little piece that would draw me into the rest of the article: "I think I'm getting it. Let's see if the rest confirms that, hopefully with some concrete examples." Tsavage (talk) 15:03, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

What do you think of this, as a rewrite of the second para from above?

Broadly speaking, postmodernism isn't a single theory but an attitude that questions universal explanations and "correct" ways of doing things. It emphasizes that knowledge and truth are relative and shaped by language, culture, and power structures. In art, literature, and architecture, it blurs boundaries between styles and genres, rejecting traditional distinctions like high versus low art. It encourages mixing elements freely and challenges conventional structures like linear storytelling with a beginning, middle and end. In philosophy and science, it pushes for acknowledging different ways of seeing things and the effect of personal interpretation in shaping findings. It celebrates diversity, plurality, and the breaking down of disciplinary boundaries. Postmodernism argues there's no single right way to see, do, explain, or judge – we should always explore multiple viewpoints (while recognizing this approach has its own limits). Although these ideas weren't entirely new, postmodernism amplified them, turning a playful attitude of skepticism about everything into defining features.

It's still mostly a style idea, trying for plain languag, but I could see it fitting as the last section of the existing Definitions section. It's also a little long... Tsavage (talk) 23:29, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

The closest movement that I can think of that insists upon something like a "right way" of doing things is (neo-)classicism, which fell from its position of European cultural dominance in the 18th century, and which is limited to the arts. So I don't think that this sort of language is going to be useful in specifying what postmodernism is because, although true of postmodernism, it is also true of modernism and many other movements as well.

If you cut there's no single right way to see, do, explain, or judge, however—and also mention that it can be quite serious, I think it's a correct description.

Since this section will be contentious, I believe we are going to want to source it as strongly as possible. Few editors have demonstrated interest in describing and explaining postmodern phenomena to develop the body of the article. Lots of editors, however, have very strong views on how readers should regard postmodernism. The article is the source of the lead, so the article itself must be well-sourced—and this goes especially for a section like "Definitions", which could easily attract as much controversy as the lead.

Have you tried looking at handbook/glossary/companion type resources in the Wikipedia Library (or wherever)? I've looked at and included some material from the resources there, but my searches were by no means exhaustive. There's a good chance you could find high-quality sources that use less technical language that we could use to improve the accessibility of the article. Patrick (talk) 19:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll adjust it and try sourcing, but also put it on the side and focus on adding sections to to arts and society. I agree, much easier to derive an overview from a more complete article. Tsavage (talk) 20:21, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Still on the side, but another version intended to follow Bertens:

In practice, postmodernism can be considered as an attitude, ever suspicious of universal explanations and "correct" ways of doing things. In art, literature, and architecture, it blurs boundaries between styles and genres, challenging traditional distinctions like high art vs. popular art. It encourages freely mixing elements and questions conventional structures like linear storytelling's beginning, middle and end. In philosophy and science, it emphasizes different ways of seeing things and how personal interpretation inevitably shapes "objective" findings. In law, education, history, politics, it pushes critical re-examination of established institutions and social norms. Postmodernism celebrates diversity and breaking down disciplinary boundaries. It contends there's rarely a single right way to see, explain, or judge – we should always explore multiple viewpoints (while keeping in mind this approach will have its own limits). Though these ideas weren't strictly new, postmodernism amplified them, turning an often playful, at times deeply critical, attitude of skepticism about everything into defining features. Tsavage (talk) 15:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Broadly speaking, postmodernism is an attitude skeptical of sweeping explanations and "correct" ways of doing things. In art, literature, and architecture, it blurs boundaries between styles and genres, challenging traditional distinctions like high art vs. pop art. It encourages freely mixing elements and questions conventional structures like stories with a beginning, middle and end. It embraces diversity and breaking down disciplinary boundaries. In philosophy and science, it emphasizes alternative ways of seeing things and how personal interpretation inevitably influences "objective" observation. In law, education, history, politics, it pushes critical re-examination of established institutions and social norms. It's concerned with the way language, culture, and the distribution of power in society shape our individual experience of the "real world". It sees the blending of simulated and actual as creating new realities where artificial versions can become more compelling than the originals. Postmodernism contends there's rarely a single right way to see, explain, or judge – we should always explore multiple viewpoints (while keeping in mind this approach will have its own limits). Though these ideas weren't strictly new, postmodernism amplified them, using an often playful, at times deeply critical, attitude of pervasive scepticism to turn them into defining features. Tsavage (talk) 19:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Working on sourcing pared down version. --Tsavage (talk) 02:57, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I appreciate the considerable work done on this page, but I want to object to the wholesale removal of the following information from the Definitions section:

Postmodernists are "skeptical of explanations which claim to be valid for all groups, cultures, traditions, or races, and instead focuses on the relative truths of each person". Postmodernism rejects the possibility of unmediated reality or objectively-rational knowledge, asserting that all interpretations are contingent on the perspective from which they are made; claims to objective fact are dismissed as naive realism. Postmodern thought is broadly characterized by tendencies to self-referentiality, epistemological and moral relativism, pluralism, and irreverence. Postmodernism is often associated with schools of thought such as deconstruction and post-structuralism. Postmodernism relies on critical theory, which considers the effects of ideology, society, and history on culture. Postmodernism and critical theory commonly criticize universalist ideas of objective reality, morality, truth, human nature, reason, language, and social progress.

It was certainly overly generalized and did not account for the ambiguity of the phrase, but the current iteration of this page seems entirely too ambiguous and vague in its definition. There are clearly some concrete qualities that are frequently identified in "postmodern" work which should be here and presented succinctly, not buried in the body. The current section correctly describes it as representing "a crisis in representation: a deeply felt loss of faith in our ability to represent the real, in the widest sense"--but then does nothing to elaborate succinctly on what this might mean i.e. rejection of universalist narratives of morality, truth, reason etc. rejection of objectivity and naive realism, etc. Kkollaps (talk) 23:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

For me, looking for answers with no background in philosophy, that paragraph is the opposite of clear and understandable. It reads to me like mainly a list of jargon, written in a way that emphasizes the impenetrability. I think we should be striving for general accessibility. It also seems to be addressing postmodern philosophy, which makes sense since it's sourced mostly from an Encyclopedia Britannica article that says so. The scope here is a a lot broader. Tsavage (talk) 16:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree on the need for further elaboration of the current "Definitions" section, but I also agree that this passage from the article history is a mostly unhelpful catalog of jargon that will be confusing to most readers. Even if the subject-matter is genuinely confusing, I'm confident we can do better.

(Additionally, Britannica is not a reliable source on philosophy and probably not on art and literary criticism either. They fact-check and everything, but they just don't have the expert knowledge found in many of the other sources currently cited in the article.)

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 17:34, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Terminology

A section, maybe a subsection under Definitions, that includes the most frequently encountered terms, could be an effective way to frame the rest of the article. A shortlist, not an extensive glossary: deconstruction, pastiche, metanarrative, pluralism, simulacrum, relativism, hyperreality, etc. Maybe 10 terms, with a sentence of description each (most or all will have their own articles to link to).

The following terms and concepts are often encountered in discussions of various postmodern movements.

Tsavage (talk) 04:17, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I think this is against best practices, which prefer definitions be integrated into the body in encyclopedic prose. If it's helpful, though, I have no problem breaking guidelines in the interest of making the article more helpful and accessible to readers. We would want to be very clear about inclusion criteria, however, otherwise well-meaning editors are likely to add just more and more stuff, diminishing its utility. Patrick (talk) 13:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree, sections that essentially appear as lists can break the flow of an article, and are targets for drive-by additions and undue expansion of existing items. While the article is being actively edited, waiting until the rest of the article supports the intro and seems roughly settled to assess the need for this seems like a good idea to me. Also, there may be a way to make it not a list, if the shortlist of terms can be meaningfully grouped into paragraphs.

For future consideration, here's a list of terms I've gathered and run into in my fairly superficial, overview-article reading that stand out for me as puzzling:

• deconstruction
• pastiche
• metanarrative
• hyperreality
• simulacrum
• intertextuality
• relativism
• pluralism

And possibly:

• irony
• fragmentation

Tsavage (talk) 17:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Many of these are strongly associated with particular figures and are probably best addressed in that way:

• deconstruction — Derrida. This is partially covered already. I'm going to add something about the "metaphysics of presence" in his section. His ideas have also been influential enough to appear near the top of the article in plainer language. I suppose we could mention différance, but I don't think we want to pursue this too far in such a general article.
• pastiche — I think Jameson brought this into the conversation. It could also be mentioned in a section-lead for "In arts", among, I'm sure other options.
• metanarrative — This is trademark Lyotard, but it has been influential enough to belong in the lead and the "Definitions" section
• hyperreality — This is Baudrillard. I'm not sure it's a popular enough term to merit discussion apart from the presentation of his ideas. That said, I don't particularly oppose giving it more coverage if someone else thinks it's important.
• simulacrum — Also Baudrillard. This one I see a lot more though. It's mentioned once, but more could be made of it.
• intertextuality — I'm not sure we need to say anything more than that it means including lots of references to other "texts" (in the structuralist sense according to which basically everything is a text—so that probably actually does need to be explained...).
• relativism — I'm pretty sure this is only being used in its dictionary sense, and in most cases, I believe, it is applied to postmodern philosophers by their critics. For if everything is relative to everything else in some kind of hand-wavy way, and that's all you have to say, then it does appear that truth goes out the window—perhaps even intelligibility itself. (This is a common theme of Habermas's criticisms and part of what he means with his accusation of "performative contradiction", assuming what one claims to reject.)
• pluralism — No special sense to my knowledge. It's just making space for differences, whether in art or society.

And possibly:

• irony — The major theorist here is Paul de Man, who was an icky man and an abstruse speaker and writer. Irony in its more familiar rhetorical forms, however, is also an important concept. I'm not sure what sort of further specification would be helpful, but we should certainly retain it near the top.
• fragmentation — I've never really thought about this as a technical term, even though I use it myself. I suppose its something like unreconciled pluralism, a felt loss of unity and cohesion. Or, put differently, social alienation generated by the loss of a stable metanarrative.

I would add:

• difference — Delueze, whose work I don't really know, is probably the biggest figure here, but we could also lean on Derrida. Butler's name didn't crop up much in the tertiary sources I looked at, but it does appear sometimes, and I'm betting it appears a lot more in what's being written closer to today. Their work on gender could be mentioned somewhere at least as an example.

There are a lot of resources in the Wikipedia library that will have entries on most of these terms. Some are already in the bibliography. These could be used to clarify overly technical secondary sources. My inclination is still to try to incorporate terms into the discussion. People who want more than a brief definition can always wikilink out the child articles.

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 21:24, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

The literature often associates Anti-realism with postmodernism, yet there's no mention of it in the article. Any thoughts on why that might be? Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:07, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

The "Literature" section is underdeveloped, but does include the sentence Postmodern literature often calls attention to issues regarding its own complicated connection to reality. If you can improve coverage with reference to that chapter, please by all means do. Patrick (talk) 18:54, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Perfect, I'll do that. I've gathered a lot of material on this. Would anyone object to adding it back to the lead once the content has been established? Hogo-2020 (talk) 09:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

There's currently room to add a full paragraph to the lead. In my ideal article, this would be mostly devoted to the arts—although, obviously, it should reflect whatever gets developed in the article, which could be the "In society" section or something else.

Based just on the abstract you link to, however, the anti-realism wikilink seems wrong. What is at issue seems to me to be the adequacy of our representations of reality, not whether there is something real—both philosophically and in the novel and the other arts. Baudrillard takes his concept of the real from Lacan, and so I do not know how to classify him. I know enough about the other philosophers mentioned, however, to say that none are metaphysical anti-realists. Or do you think I am wrong about this?

If anything you've found would help with the "Definitions" section, that would also be great. "Representation" has a lot of resonances in philosophy (Plato's divided line, Kant's Copernican Revolution) and in literary and art criticism that it cannot be assumed to have for the average reader. Anything that could help explain (or replace) the Bertens definition along such lines would be a help up near the top of the article.

Also, the abstract's mention of anti-humanist might be worth discussing—especially if it provides another through-line between the arts and philosophy.

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 17:23, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

While modernism was founded on idealism and reason, postmodernism arose from a critical stance towards reason. Postmodernism disputes the idea of universal truths, and this should be clearly articulated in the article, but it is not at present. Hogo-2020 (talk) 06:03, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I know what you mean, but I think that's broadly covered in the first paragraph of the intro: "the conviction that it is no longer possible to rely upon previous ways of representing reality". I also posted the latest version of a paragraph to go at the end of "Definitions" (new section below) that I think addresses what you're referring to.

What I've been trying to resolve for my non-expert self is the practical distinction between postmodernism in academic philosophy, and the labeling of things as "postmodern" that were created without any direct connection to formal philosophy. We have an article on Postmodern philosophy; this article with its broader scope should perhaps be careful with assigned technical jargon and definitions to...everything. Is the ultimate purpose of the article to show how things can be viewed in academic terms of postmodernism, or to describe a certain approach or attitude that has manifested itself across society in many different ways? Tsavage (talk) 18:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

While you’ve referenced postmodern philosophy previously, what leads you to conclude that these concepts don't relate to postmodernism outside of philosophy? I have some sources I’ve compiled; can you elaborate on why they wouldn’t apply to this article? Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:01, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

It was fun reading the explanations in your table, nice! They all apply to this article, what I was trying to get at is more of an editorial approach. The way I see it so far, there are these different aspects of postmodernism that're totally intertwined but not all one thing. To be a great article, this should be made clear in a way most general readers (like me) can easily grasp.

There's the historical time period when all sorts of rapid changes were happening in Western society, largely related one way or another to rampant tech advances (a term for that period seems to be postmodernity).

Then there's the effect on people of living in that situation, what could be called the postmodern condition (which is sometimes used synonymously with postmodernity). In various arts, there were all sorts of reactions and reflections that we now call "postmodern", but where the creators didn't necessarily have any theoretical influences, they were just doing their thing.

And then there's postmodernism as philosophy, with a more formal academic analysis of what was going on. This really came together after all the social and cultural changes were underway. So the philosophical analyses both described and labeled things already there -- that glam band is also a fine example of postmodernism in rock music -- and also contributed ideas and academic rationale for shaking things up in other areas, like law, education, science and so on.

So (as I see it at the moment), the formal philosophy both described things that existed without its influence (eg: in the arts), and also kinda helped create more postmodernisms (eg: in academia rippling outward).

Finally, there's just plain postmodern which as an adjective could be tagged onto anything, by anyone familiar with the a few general characteristics of postmodernist theory, like blurring lines and rejecting conventions and generally being skeptical of authorities. Any critic could call something postmodern, without being deeply engaged in the theoretical side. Postmodern as a kind of pop term. Pomo!

That's all I was getting at, hopefully having the article convey that whole swirly picture in plain accessible language, instead of framing everything throughout in formal, academic terms -- all metanarrative and intertextuality and...pastiche -- that, while accurate, can be distracting and even misleading in the context of this overview article. Formal philosophy is only one part. So far, the article seems to be well-balanced along those lines.

Sorry if that was a bit of a ramble, hahaha. Hopefully, though, made my point clearer. Tsavage (talk) 02:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, got your point now I think. Thanks very much for explaining! Hogo-2020 (talk) 05:33, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

@Hogo-2020, the sentence you added to "Historical overview" – Others argue that postmodernism utilizes compositional and semantic practices such as inclusivity, intentional indiscrimination, nonselection, and "logical impossibility." — needs clarification. For instance, it describes John Cage in a way that will be obvious to people who know who he is, but from the title of your source, I'm not sure what sort of techniques are being referred to. Edit: To clarify, it's the presence of "narrative" in the title that confuses me. Is at actually discussing someone more like Knausgård?

Also, should this be moved down into "Literature"? Or, if the claim is broader, it could maybe give us a start on a section lead for "In various arts". We should at least say something about postmodernism in the arts in general—even if we need to add various kinds of qualifiers.

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 18:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok, moved it down into "Literature". Hogo-2020 (talk) 05:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

References

In search of clarity

The article is hugely better now than when I came to it around five years ago, looking for a super-basic explanation of postmodernism, which it failed to deliver. Still, even now, it doesn't quite nail it for me. When I have to click the modernism link, I feel like I'm in a house of mirrors, and it's downhill from there.

Here's an explanation of postmodernism from Reddit that was really clear. Maybe it could be helpful here, for some ideas. Tsavage (talk) 21:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Tsavage,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts! The problem with providing a super-basic explanation is that — to the best of my knowledge, per scholarly consensus — there isn't any consensus: "postmodernism" means different things in different contexts/fields, and, even within specific contexts, there is sometimes no consensus about its meaning.

If, however, the invocation of the also polysemous term "modernism" generates perhaps unnecessary confusion, that might be possible to remedy. Could you elaborate or suggest, in even a very general way, what kind of additions might help to make the article more broadly accessible by clarifying this concept?

Also, with respect to film, if you could get some general (i.e., not just interpretations of individual films) references from the participants on that Reddit thread, I might be able to incorporate them into a subsection of "In various arts", in which film is conspicuously absent.

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 22:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

The current intro has gotten as far as, "What they have in common is the conviction that it is no longer possible to rely upon previous ways of representing reality." That's pretty easy to understand. Can these "previous ways of representing reality" be described more precisely, that statement can't be open-ended? Tsavage (talk) 01:06, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

In The Order of Things, Foucault links the crisis in representation to Kant's "Copernican Revolution", which he claims presents us with the challenge of representing the act of representation. But this alleged crisis, on his account, inaugurates the Modern Epistémè. ("Postmodernism" was not yet a philosophical term.) So to lean into this, which I'm not sure is supported by RS, would require reformulating postmodernism as an intensification of modernism, which some scholars say that it is, but others reject.

I'll review Bertens, which is the source of that language, to see if he provides a better answer. Because I do agree that the article ought to provide something more specific if it is at all possible; if it is not, then that statement should probably be removed from the lead. Patrick (talk) 21:34, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Re modernism: If it's possible, if it can be supported, extending the reference to modernism by summarizing what it is could work! For example, something like: "... claim to mark a break from modernism's belief that there is a proper way to do things."

Maybe developing "Although postmodernisms are generally united in their effort to transcend the perceived limits of modernism, "modernism" also means different things to different critics in various arts" a bit further would help with the intro. What are (some of) the perceived limits of modernism? Tsavage (talk) 01:22, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Skimming the modernism article and mulling it over, one way to make the distinction might be to say that, whereas modernism is marked by a sense of loss and alienation, postmodernism responds to the same situation with acceptance and often even joy.

Right now this is SYNTH, but it could probably be sourced to discussion of the loss/rejection of meta-narratives, which is a central concept in postmodernism that is currently only indirectly mentioned in the last paragraph of the lead. Postmodernism asserts as an empirical fact that meta-narratives have lost their authority—to which it adds that, not only do we not need them, we are actually better off without them.

I'm personally much more of a continuity guy than a rupture guy, so this is tough for me, but I fully agree that further specification would be helpful. Maybe we could illustrate this with a simple example presented as no more than one "for instance"?

I'll review the sources and see what I can turn up. In the meanwhile, further thoughts are most welcome!

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 21:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Doing a bit of online reading and skimming and came across this overview. The article was for me way easier to understand than, say, the postmodernism article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (which has too many words and terms I need to look up practically every sentence). This explanation worked particularly well:

For instance, Isaac Reed (2010) conceptualizes the postmodern challenge to the objectivity of social research as skepticism over the anthropologist’s ability to integrate the context of investigation and the context of explanation. Reed defines the context of investigation as the social and intellectual context of the investigator – essentially her social identity, beliefs and memories. The context of explanation, on the other hand, refers to the reality that she wishes to investigate, and in particular the social actions she wishes to explain and the surrounding social environment, or context, that she explains them with.

There's also (the article's emphasis):

The term “postmodernism” is somewhat controversial since many doubt whether it can ever be dignified by conceptual coherence. For instance, it is difficult to reconcile postmodernist approaches in fields like art and music to certain postmodern trends in philosophy, sociology, and anthropology. However, it is in some sense unified by a commitment to a set of cultural projects privileging heterogeneity, fragmentation, and difference, as well as a relatively widespread mood in literary theory, philosophy, and the social sciences that question the possibility of impartiality, objectivity, or authoritative knowledge (Boyne and Rattansi 1990: 9-11).

That was fairly effective in connecting the content with framing from my everyday experience. I don't think of things in terms of "heterogeneity, fragmentation and difference", so I'm interpreting that as something like favoring uniqueness and diversity (rather than one set "right" way)... Tsavage (talk) 00:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

We cannot use this as a source because it was written by grad students and has not been peer-reviewed. We could follow its citations, however, to fill in any gaps in the coverage of our article. Some are primary, but there are also a lot of secondary sources not currently represented here. Patrick (talk) 21:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

To the restatement in your own words, that seems fair to me. I think the postmodernist would prefer to say something like "acknowledging and celebrating" diversity (as a basic fact), rather than subjectively preferring it, but I'm nitpicking here. Richard J. Bernstein has a book, A New Constellation: The Ethical-Political Horizons of Modernity/Postmodernity, similar to Habermas's, in which he likewise engages directly with figures the postmodern tradition, similarly at odds with his own Enlightenment orientation. He finds Heidegger irredeemable, but otherwise was impressed to find such a deep ethical concern for those excluded from official discourse, even in philosophers like Derrida, who are too often dismissed as just engaged in pointless wordplay. Patrick (talk) 22:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Readability

These two New York Times articles could be helpful in the area of readability: The Promiscuous Cool of Postmodernism (1986) and Modern and Postmodern, the Bickering Twins (2000). They are both readable because they don't resort to subject-specific terminology as shorthand, which is where readers can get frustrated and lost. They maintain accessibility (maybe with the help of a dictionary here and there) to allow the reader to gain understanding from context. (Both articles, by their authors, would qualify as RS as well.) IMO. Tsavage (talk) 03:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for finding these! I like the Denis Donoghue (academic) piece in particular. I thought it would read as dated, but it seems still pretty on the mark to me—and sometimes funny to boot!

The other one would also be an acceptable source, although Wikipedia should not engage in the sort of open-ended rhetorical questions with which it concludes. Patrick (talk) 21:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

new subsections for "In philosophy"

Contrary to what I said above (and to my usual practice of avoiding writing about stuff when I don't know the primary literature), I decided to put together short sections on Deleuze and Baudrillard. They are based on just those parts of the SEP "Postmodernism" article that I felt confident I could summarize. My idea is just that it is much more likely for someone knowledgeable to fix an inadequate treatment than it is for someone to add a new section from scratch.

Somewhere I have a very short treatment of Jameson that I will also add as soon as I can find it. That would round out the cast of postmodernists consistently included in high-quality tertiary sources. Everything should be decided on an individual basis, of course, but additional figures probably belong in the "Postmodern philosophy" article instead. Similarly, although there is always room for improvement of the material here, longer treatments probably belong on that or one of the other child pages instead.

The headers are also now a bit out of control. I will probably try to reorganize, maybe confine the French poststructuralists to a single section, critics to another, and Rorty, I suppose, to stand on his own. In the meanwhile, though, I just want to get the material up for the review of other editors.

I still also plan to rework the material on Derrida and Lyotard in this section.

All this leaves the article as a whole more philosophy-heavy than I would like, but I think the problem is more the inadequacy of its treatment of postmodernity in the arts and in society than it is about including these philosophers.

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 23:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I've just started work integrating some of the philosophical material from "Historical overview" into "In philosophy" over in my sandbox. I don't generally do very many saves when I edit in this way, but I'll try to do some in case anyone is following. This move is the best way I can think to avoid redundancy in the article. It will also be helpful to readers just here for the philosophy part. Oh, and I found a serviceable source on Jameson that I will use to slightly expand coverage of his work. Patrick (talk) 19:48, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Proposed paragraph for "Definitions" section

Here's a draft of a para for the Definitions that hopefully provides a non-technical, jargon-free high level summary, intended to complement what's there as of now (other versions and discussion are in Definitions above).

In practice, across its many manifestations, postmodernism shares an attitude of skepticism towards grand explanations and established ways of doing things. In art, literature, and architecture, it blurs boundaries between styles and genres, and encourages freely mixing elements, challenging traditional distinctions like high art versus "popular art". In science, it emphasizes multiple ways of seeing things, and how our cultural and personal backgrounds shape our realities, making it impossible to be completely neutral and "objective". In philosophy, education, history, politics, and many other fields, it encourages critical re-examination of established institutions and social norms, embracing diversity and breaking down disciplinary boundaries. Though these ideas weren't strictly new, postmodernism amplified them, using an often playful, at times deeply critical, attitude of pervasive skepticism to turn them into defining features.

Tsavage (talk) 17:06, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Tsavage, Nice work! I don't like that two of the sources are self-published, but they are at least by named scholars in or adjacent to the field. I don't think anything in there, however, is controversial, and so we can probably swap in better sources at a later date. In the meanwhile, I support adding it to the article.

I have family in town right now, but I have not forgotten about my promised edits to the philosophical part of the article. I'm reorganizing a little bit and partially redoing Derrida to (I hope) better capture the postmodern dimension of his work. I'm also adding a little bit more about Jameson. Patrick (talk) 18:53, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Hahaha, yay! I'll add it. I'm continuing to look for sources that are easily verifiable by anyone by simply reading and comparing. Sources that concisely reflect a broad scope similar to the paragraph are harder to find, but I think what I'm including is defensible as credible (as you note). Also, a footnoted paragraph with citations might end up being a solid way to support, kind of an intermediary step from...jargon to jargon-free! Tsavage (talk) 19:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Hey there, Tsavage! "Definitions" reads well to me, but I'm concerned about WP:OVERCITE. Could some of the lower quality sources be removed? (E.g., the dictionary, the volume on evangelicalism? Unless authored by a subject-matter expert?) Maybe some could be targeted to individual sentences? Could the WP:RS U.Alabama reference be replaced with one or more of the HQRS secondary sources it includes? I don't mind helping, if you would like. Too many years in academia has made me a snob about source quality...

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

@Patrick Welsh Of course, it's fine by me if you improve the sources and citations. On my end, that was a temporary situation, including the quite long quotes, as I considered the best approach for citations, whether at sentence-level, or if I could find quality sources that kinda said it all. (I don't doubt that we're approaching writing (parts of) this article in entirely different ways! :) Tsavage (talk) 21:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Wherever there are more than a couple of citations, it's probably the case as above: work in progress, waiting for improvement. Tsavage (talk) 20:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Patrick Welsh Made adjustments to the citations in that paragraph. Still in progress. There are some important/critical entries left to do in the "In..." sections, particularly with various areas of science. Once those are in place, reviewing this paragraph as a kind of summary of the rest of the article, would be easier. WDYT? Tsavage (talk) 16:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

That sounds like a good plan. I still have two section leads to write for "In philosophy". After that, I don't have any immediate plans for further additions. So maybe we then can tag in the other editors who have recently expressed concern about the lead and see whether we can forge a stronger consensus around the language there.

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 17:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh, and just for your consideration: postmodernists have a reputation for making fools of themselves when they proclaim on math and the hard sciences. It seems not many folk who spent their grad years immersed in Derrida made the time to also acquire a genuine understanding of 20th-century physics (or whatever it may be). We should be sure to include criticism as appropriate. It might also be good to mention the Sokal affair, which has been widely covered and deserves mention somewhere in the article. Patrick (talk) 20:05, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Coverage gaps?

Does anyone see anything conspicuously missing from the article? If so, now, while we have multiple sets of eyes on it, would be a great time to get in at least a stub-section for anything our ideal article would cover.

The template sidebar, for instance, includes stubs on topics not mentioned in this article. And I confess that I am skeptical about some of these supposed areas of specialization. Can one, for instance, get a job as a postmodern psychologist? Somehow I think not. I'd be happy for these doubts to be shown unfounded—but I've got to think that at least some of this is just publish-or-perish topics made up by junior academics. It's hard to know what's what, though, without actual subject-matter experts in, e.g., criminology, which is way outside my wheelhouse.

The same goes for "Legacy", although to a lesser extent, as I think the current coverage is appropriately terse. Absent a robust literature to the contrary, I don't think readers of this article need to know much more than that academics have been adding an assortment of additional prefixes to "postmodernism" for over twenty years now.

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 22:11, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

The article seems to be in great shape right now, an active work in progress, well underway. The top level menu is easy to navigate and seem comprehensive enough to organize a good amount of expansion and improvement. I think once the "In..." sections are filled out, reviewing the whole article will make the next step clear, including any sense of gaps.

Not yet at the level of gap, because there's still quite a bit of more of the outline to complete, but I wonder about the global effect: the discussion now is Western-focused, America and Europe: what has postmodernism been like...elsewhere?

Re the sidebar listing and the many postmodernisms, I have a shortlist of around 40 "postmodern ____" fields as possibilities. The majority not already in the article fit under "In society". My loose criteria for inclusion in the article are whether there's a notable amount of theoretical work, and whether that work has had practical impact. For now, I don't think big real-world impact is that important IF the discussion part is significant. As long as nothing is given undue weight (word count...), it seems fun and useful to catalog a good bit that. At some point, the whole thing can be reviewed to see whether a more inclusionist approach helps the article.

"Legacy" and "Criticisms" should probably stay brief. This article is about postmodernism broadly, so the amount of "is it over", "what came next", and criticism that can be dug up is likely vast and seems best sorted into more narrowly focused articles like postmodern philosophy, postmodernity, and so forth.

Overall, I think filling in the current outline to a point of reasonable completeness, then reading it as a whole and assessing, seems like a solid approach. Tsavage (talk) 23:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

The only source I reviewed that I recall mentioning geographic culture is the Bertens monograph. He presents postmodernism as an American construct. But I don't think the language was strong enough to justify putting that in the article. If anyone has anything on this, though, I would support its addition.

One thing that does at least bear mentioning is the extent to which the French philosophies appropriated as "postmodern" were a product of the Left disalusioned by May of '68 and reporting on the Gulag. Lyotard's model of a "grand/meta narrative" was Marxism, not the Enlightenment. I don't have any specific theories about how this translates for an English-speaking world, where Marxism has never been a live political option, but I will incorporate the fact in somewhere in the article.

Also, postmodern theology has its own Cambridge Companion, and deserves a mention—but that's the only obvious gap to me.

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 23:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Lead for "In various arts"

The lead for "In various arts" might be a good place to briefly address how various artistic disciplines and particular artists and works come to be identified as "postmodern". For example, quite in-depth articles about artists often identified as "postmodern" describe and categorize their work without mentioning postmodernism. I'm not thinking about the usefulness of or justification for the label, only about the actual process of categorizing, who the authorities are. Maybe something along the lines of elaborating on "Artists didn't necessarily identify with, or were even aware of, the postmodern movement their work was identified as part of by critics and scholars, at times years after the fact" kind of thing. This seems to be more of a thing in the arts than with postmodernisms elsewhere. (I could be over- or underthinking this, or not well-enough informed, but it has come to mind a few times in my reading, so just putting it out there.) Tsavage (talk) 18:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Added a first pass at a brief into to the section. It doesn't (yet) address the above (if that's even necessary). Comments? Tsavage (talk) 18:05, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Added image: Andy Warhol Campbell Soup I. Not sure if this and more detailed mention in the intro text are giving him too much weight...? More images through the Arts section would provide balance and accessibility. Tsavage (talk) 18:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Expanding "In society"

To keep the article improvement moving along, I'm going to add to "In society" brief summaries adapted from the other Wikipedia "Postmodern ____" articles. This is in keeping with our summary style approach, working backward. Some of the articles I've looked at don't seem to be in great shape; I'll still use what's there as a starting point. Comments? Tsavage (talk) 22:01, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

As I said before, I'd be on the alert for fields made up by academics in a way that is not reflected in the actual training and practices of the disciplines. Right now, everything looks fine except psychology, which sounds like hogwash. I'd have no problem being wrong, but unless this terminology appears in standard textbooks or general introductions to the field, I do not think we should include it on the main postmodernism page.

Also, have you happened across anything on postmodernism as a "lifestyle"? We mention this a few times, and there should be a short subsection on it here. I could write a paragraph on irony, but the stuff I've read hasn't addressed it as a more general phenomenon circa the U.S. in the '90s (or where/whenever). Patrick (talk) 23:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Didn't notice till just now, after posting a new "Psychology" section, that you'd deleted a previous version. Not sure what the issue is, hogwash isn't too specific, and what terminology are you referring to? Both versions of the section stub are adapted from the Postmodern psychology article, so would seem be in keeping with Wikipedia summary style. Unless we want to propose deletion of the entire main article (I have no idea if there's a case for that).

In any case, it was posted as a section starter, to be developed and evaluated. Psychology is a popular general topic, so including postmodern perspectives in a broad, high level article like this seems appropriate. Perhaps direct real-world impact is less important a criterion here than in other areas. For instance, written in 2024 by a psych prof at Brigham Young U:

"Psychology is caught between scientism and postmodern activism, creating unique fault lines within the discipline ... As with all other disciplines routinely recognized as social sciences, psychology is perched in a peculiar and tense intellectual space, struggling continually to decide whether its true intellectual home is to be found among the humanities, especially philosophy and literature, or among the STEM disciplines. ... In addition to feeling the constant push and pull of the humanities and the natural sciences, psychology is a key site where the intellectual tug-of-war between modernism and postmodernism plays itself out in academia."

I don't think summarily deleting the stub is a good approach, without giving it some development time. Tsavage (talk) 04:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay. That's a good supporting quotation. I remain incredulous that one can research or practice in "postmodern psychology", but it's totally possible that this is just my ignorance.

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 17:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I believe postmodernism is like a Swiss Army knife, able to do anything! Tsavage (talk) 05:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Exhaustion: Barth vs Barthes

@Patrick Welsh There seems to be some confusion, re: [1]. The cited source for the paragraph says:

"Such writers as John Barthes, Donald Barthelme, and later, Thomas Pynchon, responding to the great stylistic and conceptual breakthrough of James Joyce’s Finnegans Wake and the work of Samuel Beckett." and later in the same para, "Barthes also spoke of the exhaustion of the novel as a genre and raised the question in his work of what it means to write in an exhausted art form (the question of the one who comes too late)."

There's no mention of "Roland Barthes" in the article, so I assume the second Barthes is referencing the "John Barthes", which I think is a typo and should read John Barth. Barth wrote an essay, "The Literature of Exhaustion" in 1967 in The Atlantic that seems to have been a big deal (influential, controversial, a "postmodern manifesto"):

"By 'exhaustion' I don’t mean anything so tired as the subject of physical, moral, or intellectual decadence, only the used-upness of certain forms or exhaustion of certain possibilities — by no means necessarily a cause for despair."

So I'm assuming the exhaustion reference is to Barth, even though it may be reflecting/copying/similar to work by Barthes? And the source has a typo, either with "John" or "Barthes"? Tsavage (talk) 18:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay, that is confusing. The source mentions both, and I don't think its a typo. While I have not read Barth, the reference to Barthes is appropriate.

Did the edit I just made fix the issue? Patrick (talk) 18:57, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I had thought the reference was to the discussion generated by "The Death of the Author". But the two pieces were published the same year, and Barth's does seem a much closer fit. Maybe we just remove mention of Barthes for now? Patrick (talk) 19:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Agree. Doesn't seem like what the source was getting at with its focus on three American fiction writers. (Should I email Oxford and tell them they have a typo, are they likely to take offense?) Tsavage (talk) 20:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

The way Barthes is mentioned right after Derrida makes me confident that the name is correct. The use of the term from Barth's book, however, is confusing. Maybe it is Barthes responding to Barth? I don't know. Let's just get rid of Barthes here. We can add him back later with reference to a clearer source if we want to.

You could contact the editor about making a change in the next edition (or however they do things with such online editions) or go to the author just for clarification. It's a minor point, however, and they probably don't want to hear about it post-publication. Patrick (talk) 21:09, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Reading Barth's essay, The Literature of Exhaustion, the reference in the source seems pretty direct. Although, importantly, I don't know what Barthes said on the subject! Tsavage (talk) 02:28, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

A format of sorts?

The paragraph on Blade Runner in the Film section seems to me like a good loose template for these subsections. The writing is still clunky because it was pieced together, but it does capture what seems to me "all the postmodern elements". It discusses postmodernism using a well-known film, ties the theoretical to specific examples, and addresses the fluidity of the whole thing, the labeling ("sales pitch") and how different critical lenses can produce different results. I'm trying to get a good part of all of that in each subsection. Not literally all points in every one, but enough that a theme or pattern is established when one reads through the whole thing" "This is what the theory looks like here, how it translates, and this is how far it got in the wider context." WDYT? Tsavage (talk) 02:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

To point-form the above, for each postmodern field/movement/discipline:

• broad characteristics in non-technical language
• key theoretical terms incorporated with contextual explanation ("intertextual references included the use of...")
• concrete examples: eg: "multiple valid interpretations of the Bible", "fusing traditional British cuisine with hot dog cart staples"
• representative sampling of proponents and works
• historical context anchored with dates: what it stood against, what immediately preceded it
• social context: level of practical impact on culture, people
• relationship between theory and practice (essentially, which drove which)

The idea is absolutely not to try to explicitly cover every point for every field (like in a table), only to keep all of them in mind. For example, from "Film", this sentence covers several of the points: "Viewers are reminded that the film itself is only a film, perhaps through the use of intertextuality, in which the film's characters reference other works of fiction." Tsavage (talk) 16:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Can't imagine anyone objecting to any of this! Patrick (talk) 22:48, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments on "Historical overview"

Read through the section, and what jumped out for me was the need for section lead that in plain language deals with what modernism is, and briefly situates structuralism and poststructuralism in that context. Maybe something like "Postmodernism [has to be seen|is most easily seen|...] in the context of modernism..." kind of thing. Having that would significantly change how I read the rest. Tsavage (talk) 02:37, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Here's a quick take on part of that, a rough summary of what I've gathered from the sources I've read (hopefully not critically oversimplified):

Modernism and postmodernism can be seen as profound social adaptations in the Western world responding to a rapidly changing environment. The Industrial Revolution, urbanization, the unprecedented devastation of World War I, sweeping technological advancements, World War II, and globalization all reshaped society and demanded new reactions. Beginning in the late 1800s, modernism sought to provide new frameworks for understanding and organizing life, emphasizing progress and rationality. In contrast, starting in the 1950s, postmodernism rejected these modernist solutions, along with the very notion of grand narratives and universal explanations. Instead, it opted to embrace the complexities, contradictions, and fragmentation of evolving techno-cultural realities rather than attempting to reconcile them.

It doesn't really capture that both were both primarily umbrella movements, and the range of things they encompassed. Tsavage (talk) 17:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I downloaded a few items from this search[2] on David Harvey's postmodernism book. He's an urban geographer by training and a Marxist political theorist. A paragraph on his account, given with attribution, would help to connect the cultural dimension to material socioeconomic developments. More detailed discussion of this debate, however, I think would be more properly treated in the postmodernity article. Patrick (talk) 23:06, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion of structuralism and poststructuralism is in the "In philosophy" section, where it seemed most appropriate. Some stuff needs to be mentioned multiple times, but I try to avoid repetition as much as possible.

With respect to postmodernism's relation to modernism, I think there is a reason that HQRS don't say very much about this: at such a high level, it's all abstractions that aren't of much help explaining anything (also, it's always easy to find a counter-example). If anyone finds a great source on this, I would fully support inclusion. But it's not our responsibility to make the connections ourselves. Patrick (talk) 22:59, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Not sure I understand the "respect to postmodernism's relation to modernism" part. Do you mean, not taking sides as it were, saying that postmodernism is a rejection of modernism, or extends it, or whatever else? Tsavage (talk) 21:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Partially, yes. The problem is that modernism itself is a contested term, and so it's not really helpful in explaining anything else (at least to me, anyways). No opposition in principle, just not sure we can write and source it responsibly—as you said, "umbrella terms". Patrick (talk) 17:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Another version

An adjusted version of the above, again, written according to my understanding at the moment (based on reading reliable sources, of course!):

Historical overview

Postmodernism is often situated as what came after modernism. Both can be seen as periods of profound social adaptation in the Western world, responding to a rapidly changing environment. The Industrial Revolution, urbanization, the unprecedented devastation of World War I, sweeping technological advancements, World War II, and globalization all reshaped society and demanded new reactions. Modernist movements, emerging in the late 1800s, challenged conventions across many fields. They often embraced a 'less-is-more' philosophy and emphasized progress and rationality. In contrast, postmodernism, emerging in the 1950s, rejected or reshaped modernist approaches and questioned the very idea of universal truths. Instead, the postmodernist attitude embraced the complexities, contradictions, and fragmentation of the evolving techno-cultural environment rather than attempting to reconcile them.

Tsavage (talk) 02:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm concerned this is too much synthesis of super complicated cultural history. Some modernism is definitely "more", e.g., Ulysses, even if some of it is also the "less" of monochrome paintings. I just don't think we should generalize like this without attribution (which I've really only seen from Marxists, whose metanarrative is a lot of what gave rise to poststructuralism—and so postmodernism). Patrick (talk) 17:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I had like three WP:NOTFORUM jokes that I could play off that comments but I'll save those and just say that I concur that we don't want to be reductionist of a social phenomenon that is very nearly defined by complexity and irreconcilability. I agree that attribution is critical. But if the truth is that most reliable commentary on the phenomenon comes from Marxists and post-Marxists like Jameson and Lyotard then we should simply use those sources with attribution. Of course. Simonm223 (talk) 18:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Jameson and Lyotard are already in the article. I will also be adding David Harvey.

What are your jokes? Patrick (talk) 18:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Of course it's mostly Marxists whose work defines Postmodernism - it's because they operate within the Eternal Science. Simonm223 (talk) 18:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

How many Marxists does it take to define Postmodernism? All of them; pity they can't agree on a definition. Simonm223 (talk) 18:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes Marxists are mostly responsible for defining postmodernism. They just all wish they could have found a different definition. Simonm223 (talk) 18:27, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I like the middle one. I'm planning to build out the mostly unstated opposition between Marxists and poststucturalists in the "In philosophy" section. But only a little bit. And I would not be at all mad if you or someone else beat me to it. Patrick (talk) 18:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Looking at what we have regarding poststructuralism I'm wondering if anything about the debate between Deleuze and Baudrillard regarding the significance of simulacra might be a useful addition. Simonm223 (talk) 18:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I confess don't know that debate. Some of the folks covered in the article I know pretty well, but those two hardly at all. My hope was just that stub sections might attract someone with expertise. Sources for even including Deleuze could go either way. If there's a relevant discussion, however, please do add!

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 18:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

So the nutshell version is that Deleuze, in his later books, was developing an approach to simulacra that emphasized them as a point of generative production which he described, in his Cinema books, as the powers of the false. This almost optimistic perspective on simulacra was contrary to the more pessimistic approach of Baudrillard that saw them as ultimately breaking down the meaning of the signified under the weight of repeated significations upon signifiers. It is a later post-structuralist disagreement as Deleuze didn't publish Cinema 2 until 1985 and Simulacra and Simulation was published in 1981. But I think the locus of disagreement between them kind of gets at how poststructuralism got away from the signified It was either so over-coded that you could hardly see it underneath all the layers of signification or it was just wholly irrelevant.

And it's also kind of interesting that you can loosely lump Deleuze in with the Marxists (controversial but I would defend it) while Baudrillard was very much post-Marxist. Simonm223 (talk) 18:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@Patrick Welsh Are you referring specifically to "less-is-more", or that the whole paragraph is too much synthesis? I take your point about oversimplification. It's still a work in progress. I'm trying to address what's introduced in the first sentence of the article (not to mention in the word postmodernism): "claim to mark a break from modernism". It's not taken up until "Theoretical development", beginning with "a general account of the postmodern as an effectively nihilistic response to modernism's alleged assault on the Protestant work ethic and its rejection of what he upheld as traditional values". Tsavage (talk) 05:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

It's modernism as "less-is-more" that I think does not generalize. For instance, Kafka is considered a major modernist writer, but so is Proust. Patrick (talk) 16:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

About the only modernist writer who could probably be more the poster child for literary modernism than Proust that I can think of would be Joyce. And neither Finnegan's Wake nor Ulysses is really a "less is more" book either. So I do agree. Simonm223 (talk) 17:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

And another version

Historical overview

Two broad cultural movements, modernism and postmodernism, emerged in response to profound changes in the Western world. The Industrial Revolution, urbanization, secularization, technological advances, two world wars, and globalization deeply disrupted the social order. Modernism emerged in the late 1800s, seeking to redefine fundamental truths and values through a radical rethinking of traditional ideas and forms across many fields. Postmodernism emerged in the mid-20th century with a skeptical perspective that questioned the notion of universal truths and reshaped modernist approaches by embracing the complexity and contradictions of modern life.

Tsavage (talk) 19:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I do like the phrasing on this. Simonm223 (talk) 19:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree. This is well done. Great work! Patrick (talk) 22:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Cool! Added paragraph with citations. Still working on citations. Tsavage (talk) 18:29, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

"Science wars" subsection

Here's a rough first attempt at a "Science wars" subsection, intended for the end of "Historical overview". This draft is probably quite overly long as is, an is intended for general comment. It appears like a good way to complete the history part, tying in an example of significant real-world impact, and bringing the story up to the present.

During the 1990s, postmodernism's critique of certain scientific claims and methodologies erupted into a well-publicized clash with science – the STEM fields – known as the "science wars." Among the contested issues were objectivity, the universality of the scientific method, and the social constructed nature of knowledge, among other core concerns, in an effort to situate the sciences in a broader cultural and philosophical context. This conflict was set against a backdrop of growing public skepticism towards science, influenced by various antiscience movements, and its political ramifications, affecting research funding and leading to increased scrutiny of scientific institutions. In 1996, physicist Alan Sokal launched a hoax (later known as the "Sokal affair") intended to discredit postmodernist criticisms of science. He submitted a deliberately nonsensical paper titled "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity" to Social Text, a leading journal of cultural studies, for a special "Science Wars" edition.

The paper was accepted and published. Intended as a parody, it made such assertions such as "a liberatory science cannot be complete without a profound revision of the canon of mathematics" and declared that "the content of [science and mathematics must be] enriched by incorporating the insights of feminist, queer, multiculturalist, and ecological critiques." Sokal then publicly revealed the hoax in the literary magazine Lingua Franca. Social Text's editorial board, which included influential scholars such as Fredric Jameson and Andrew Ross, did not withdraw the paper. They argued that it was accepted in good faith from a respected scientist and was of interest regardless of the author's intent. The incident drew significant media attention.

Two decades later, in 2018, a similar attempt was made to critique what the authors saw as ideological bias in certain academic fields. This project, known as the "Grievance Studies affair," involved three scholars submitting 20 hoax papers to various journals in cultural, queer, race, gender, fat, and sexuality studies. By the time the hoax was revealed, four papers had been published, three had been accepted but not yet published, seven were still under review, and six had been rejected.

The heated debates between postmodernist critics and defenders of traditional scientific methods have largely cooled since the 1990s, while the underlying questions remain relevant. Overall, the science wars contributed to a more reflexive approach to scientific practice and communication, with increased awareness of the social and cultural contexts in which scientific knowledge is produced and disseminated. As one scholarly summary, "The Quiet Resolution of the Science Wars" (2021), put it: "The 'science wars' were resolved surprisingly quietly. ... Today, there are few absolute relativists or adherents of scientific purity and far more acknowledgment that science involves biased truth-seeking. ... [there are] some key agreements: tests of scientific claims require clarifying assumptions and some way to account for confirmation bias, either by building it into the model or by establishing more severe tests for the sufficiency of evidence. This sedation was accompanied by shifts within social science disciplines ... nearly everyone became theoretically and methodologically pluralist in practice."   

Comments? Tsavage (talk) 17:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Quick comment:

While Sokal is pretty damning for the journal, which apparently is not even peer-reviewed, it's not clear to me that it says anything about the artists, critics, and philosophers named in the article. I somehow missed or forgot about "Grievance Studies", but it sounds like it too should be treated as a stunt in some kind of culture war about higher education. (Quite a list of topics to target for ridicule!) It's definitely worth covering in the article, but not in the way, or at the same length, as we treat serious criticisms like those of Habermas or Jameson—or, you know, any other actual scholarly responses.

(Also, I'm editorializing here, but claiming to refute Foucault in some general way with a manufactured media event is arguably more postmodern than anything Foucault himself actually wrote. Excellent prank, but still just a prank.)

With respect to positioning in the article, I would maybe make this its own section to be presented on either side of "In society". I'm sure there are more serious criticisms of postmodern takes on the sciences, and it would be good to carve out a space for them.

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 22:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree, there's way too much focus on the hoaxes in this draft. I'm still reading, but what's stands out as interesting, particularly in a historical sense, is the backdrop of growing public skepticism towards science, influenced by various antiscience movements part, and the final paragraph that says the effects of postmodernist critique of the sciences did result in what seem like kinda common sense adjustments.

"Science wars" (not the "Sokal affair") does seem important in a historical overview, maybe even critically anchors postmodernism for a general reader. It seems to be when postmodernism kinda peaked, both in terms of core theoretical ideas breaking into mainstream/broad public attention to a significant degree, and for its main event nature in appearing to take on the new religion of science. Tsavage (talk) 16:37, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

My editorial instinct would be to make "Science wars" a section somewhere after "In philosophy" and then add just a short paragraph or two to the "Overview". But I'm sure whatever decision you make based on what you have when it's ready to publish will be fine.

I also think it's important not to conclude the "Overview" with something that seems to say that "actually all these people were complete charlatans speaking nonsense the whole time." I know this is not what you're saying, but it's what presenting a few hoaxes as the end of postmodernism very much suggests.

Oh, and I too like the concluding 2021 source in your draft. Admirably even-handed.

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 17:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I do think the "science wars" topic is relevant in this article, but I am concerned about the nuances of how it is presented here. While some culture warriors may have framed their interventions as, "postmodernists who talk about discursive construction don't believe in empirical reality or accept that science is real", I don't think is the main framing of this debate in the relevant literatures. It would be unfortunate (and ironic) if that narrow view were to become the metanarrative framing this article. Much more interesting things than that were going on in the "science wars", IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 17:37, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Can you elaborate and maybe offer a few sources (of manageable length)? Cheers, Patrick (talk) 18:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, if I understand correctly, suggesting that postmodern theory is all about "no fixed truths, anything goes" would be a kinda silly and major misrepresentation. With "science wars", what I think of (as the self-designated representative of the non-expert general reader with interest but no philosophy background) is the goal/perception of science being deliberately guided in the later 1800s from a noble cause conducted on behalf of humankind, to a proprietary business pursuit. How this was made a culturally worthy and ethically acceptable thing.

In my reading, I'm wondering if I'll find a more direct connection with postmodernism addressing the turning of science into what seems to be largely a for-profit business enterprise (eg: what determines research funding, protection of intellectual property as a barrier to research, companies hiring away top talent, which findings get turned in what sort of products, science lobbying on behalf of commercial interests for government priorities and regulation, that sort of thing).

If there's a connection that's well-sourced, it should be condensable into a couple of summary sentences that would fit under science wars! Tsavage (talk) 19:26, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

You could certainly find something like that within the disciplines of "science studies", "sociology of science" and "philosophy of science" broadly construed. The Venn diagram relating those disciplines to postmodernism, though, would be complicated - and quite possibly rhizomatic :). Newimpartial (talk) 20:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

"from a noble cause conducted on behalf of humankind, to a proprietary business pursuit" A bit of oversimplification here, but the era of the independent scientist/"gentleman scientist" had ended by the late 19th century. By that point, science increasingly depended on "large-scale government and corporate funding". Several of the pioneering technologies in fields like telecommunications and electrical engineering were largely funded by corporations in pursuit of profits. Dimadick (talk) 01:28, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I have a lot of knowledge about the Grievance Studies hoax. One important bit of context which we should mention, and for which I'm sure there are sources, is that (with at least some of) the accepted papers there was falsified research data included in the submitted papers to make them look more legitimate. Simonm223 (talk) 19:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, just from Wikipedia's coverage, this does not really seem to be about the quality of scholarship in the humanities. They could have done a study, but instead they did a stunt. One author is aggrieved about student attitudes in general, another is a conspiracy theorist deemed too toxic even for pre-Musk Twitter, and the third does not have a research degree and does not work as an academic. If we decide to cover this second hoax, we should do so with care. Patrick (talk) 23:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, science funding is complicated (even if we were to restrict ourselves to just the U.S., where most of this debate is taking place). Unless you've got a particularly good source that uses this as an example and makes an important point we haven't touched on (or to make it better), I would steer clear of the topic. Patrick (talk) 22:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

As I continue my light literal reading in this area, the one thing that made me lol so far: What did the physicist say he liked best about the end of the science wars? He wouldn't have to look up "hermeneutics" in the dictionary for the nth time. Same. Tsavage (talk) 17:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Philosophical hermeneutics is a very real area of specialization, in which Gadamer remains the dominant figure. I agree, however, that it is routinely abused. When called upon to specify my own philosophical "methodology", for instance, I would always just say "critical hermeneutics". An idiotic question deserves an idiotic answer. Patrick (talk) 20:59, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Another paragraph for "Definitions"?

This is a quick rough take on a paragraph for "Definitions" that could help with clarifying why "postmodernism" is difficult to define. I'm not sure if this is already (sufficiently) implied in the rest of the article, if it can be picked up from bit and pieces in context. I have run into similar explanations in more than one reliable source:

While a single overall academic definition and a standard set of rules or criteria to identify instances of the postmodern in the world are impossible to pin down or come to consensus on, hence the indefinable nature, many different postmodern theories and schools of thought are individually well-defined (and often enough contradict, conflict with and oppose each other, or at least, don't even use the same terms in the same way). Theorists in diverse disciplines such a law, marketing, anthropology, urban planning and so forth, could propose "postmodern projects" based on particular postmodern theories -- the nature of these projects could vary significantly depending on which postmodern approach was taken. In addition, commentators in various fields -- art and literary critics, music writers, and so forth -- often engaged in critique from more popularized perspectives, without deep engagement with or understanding of the theoretical side.

Comments?

Tsavage (talk) 18:25, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I mean not just art and literary critics, music writers, etc. but also some people who really should have known better. Simonm223 (talk) 18:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

If you have a source on the ways the term is abused by culture warriors, I would strongly support its inclusion. I find it to be rather useless as a descriptor, but it quite certainly is not an academic conspiracy against truth and reality. Patrick (talk) 20:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I'll dig around and see what I can find. A big problem is that most of the targets of the culture warrior "postmodernist" attacks are either dead or are embarrassed by the term and so the most we generally get is people pointing out that Jordan Peterson is very postmodernist. Simonm223 (talk) 23:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Peterson's "postmodern neo-Marxist" might deserve a mention, simply due to the coverage it received. In the last 10 years, there haven't been too many wide public uses of any variation of "postmodern" that I've heard, actually probably only that one. Tsavage (talk) 02:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

There might be some smoke here: lots of hits on Scholar for criticism of Peterson's "postmodern neo-Marxist" claim. Simonm223 (talk) 16:47, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Peterson is a social media influencer with no relevant expertise, and I oppose introducing him without very strong sourcing to establish his relevance. Patrick (talk) 16:53, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

This is the best source I've seen so far: [3] Simonm223 (talk) 17:14, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm maybe just not sufficiently "online" to appreciate the significance of this, but I really don't see how it is a remotely serious conversation. If someone wants to add such material with appropriate sourcing, I won't stand in the way. I do not, however, think it is a good idea. Patrick (talk) 17:21, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that, unless we limit ourselves to critiques of Hicks, there's not much that's encyclopedically notable about pop-cultural critiques of postmodernism... except for those of Peterson. Because of his high profile and his claim to academic bonafides there's quite a lot of criticism of his weak definition of postmodernism. So, if we decide that discussion of pop-cultural criticism of postmodernism is worth inclusion, the 'postmodern neo-marxist' approach of Peterson is the one for which academic literature, you know, exists. Simonm223 (talk) 17:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I should have been more gracious in receipt of your informed response to my direct inquiry. If you or anyone else thinks we should add this, I will not interfere. If we do so, however, I would just ask that we make an effort to avoid attracting disruptive editing by fanboys. Patrick (talk) 17:33, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh absolutely. Simonm223 (talk) 17:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@Patrick Welsh Haha, I TOTALLY understand your concern, there's always the risk of...disruptive editing. As far as I've noticed, the one way to protect against that is to have a really solid article, that reads well and just "makes sense" to "most readers/editors". Well-explained, comprehensive, solid sourcing, and cohesive as a whole. That way, undue weight, which what in large part it tends to come down to – quibble over a few words can be easily resolved – usually stands out quite clearly and can be countered.

The pop-cultural aspect I find important, it's kinda the point of contact for many people, like myself. I don't think Peterson's invoking of "postmodern" can be parachuted in right this moment, but it probably in some way fits in the "science wars" area. The notability for our purposes of Sokal's hoax seems to be in the same pop-cultural area. So that whole thing has to be...well-balanced. IMHO. :) Tsavage (talk) 17:50, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. I have just a few more things I will (eventually!) add to the part of the article about academic philosophy. The YouTube culture-war nonsense just makes me groan. But if it's an actual topic of conversation, I'm happy for other folks to add it. Patrick (talk) 18:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

The Peterson phenomenon was rather huge at the time, a few years ago. Related to the "postmodern neo-Marxist" bit, one of his kinda taglines at the peak, "actual philosophers" got involved, even as far a in sold-out public debates with (low) thousands in paid attendance, and probably millions eventually viewing on YT. So to dismiss it intellectually is of course fine, but if postmodernism seems to fit significantly in there, any coverage here would deserve your scrutiny! :) Tsavage (talk) 18:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

My opening paragraph in "Definitions" could be partially or entirely demoted to a footnote supporting a more discursive presentation along the lines of what you propose. I'm somewhat concerned, though, that this draft might be presenting social manifestations of postmodernism as more prominent than they actually are in their fields. I have not inspected the sourcing for "In society", but I remain skeptical that it's much of a thing outside of the humanities.

Oh, and it would also be worth noting that the one field in which "postmodern" has a well-defined and historically stable meaning is architecture. Patrick (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

The "Definitions" section as it is seems to do a great job of establishing the proper weight between indefinability and attempting a general definition regardless. For me, it frames the rest of the article well.

Re degree of actual impact outside of humanities, I've had that in mind since it was mentioned in the earlier discussion about the psychology entry. How would that be established? It seems like reading through the sources is the only way here in Wikipedia. For now, I'm trying to follow the format I mentioned above. Tsavage (talk) 03:02, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

My objections are not based on Wikipedia policy, but just on the way that disciplines organize and describe themselves. For instance, the most wide-spread form of psychotherapy in the U.S. is cognitive behavioral therapy. Is this approach modernist or postmodernist? To me the question makes no sense, and this suggests to me we maybe shouldn't be imposing the term. But I don't have a source expressly saying that we shouldn't. Patrick (talk) 16:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree, overemphasizing postmodernism's impact in various disciplines (or even presenting that impression in the text) would be a big problem: it would mislead the reader. Navigating that, though, is trickier. Exclusion doesn't seem viable, not without some sort of criteria that's made plain within the structure of the article. Particularly in "In Society", my best effort so far is to try to give a balanced impression for a bunch of fields, through choice of examples and wording. In the case where main articles exist (even though some of them are barely articles), I've been starting with what's there and working through it, rather than rejecting it straight away.

For example, the second paragraph in "Marketing" (Journal of Business Research), I checked that the journal seemed basically reputable (peer-reviewed, published by Elsevier), the subject matter seemed engaging to a general reader (Madonna, Taylor Swift), and it connected with an apparently broader postmodernism influence in the marketing field by identifying "five themes and characteristics of postmodernism consistently found in marketing literature". Without all of that, especially the last bit, I wouldn't have included it on its own. Hopefully, all of the "In society" sections can meet that rough standard.

By "wording", I mean things like the difference between saying "postmodern psychology" and "postmodern influences in psychology".

Also, the intro to that section is just a stub, it should make clear the various ways in which "postmodernism" could be attached to a discipline. That's what I've come up with so far – no doubt improvements can be made to this approach? Tsavage (talk) 18:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Over-quotation?

I noticed the recent {{overquotation}} article tag. It may refer to the quotes within citations. It's not clear from the template documentation, or from WP:QUOTE guidelines, whether citation quotes are considered in the same way a quotes in the body text. In any case, I added quite a number of citation quotes, and some seem fairly long (though I haven't found a guideline for "long" either). My working reasoning is to include explanatory quotes whenever it seems useful at the moment of writing, for easier verification or for clarifying context. My intention is to review both the citation quotes and the citations themselves when I've finished editing.

Comments? Tsavage (talk) 00:51, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sure you're right about the tag.

Honestly, I don't like embedded quotes either, but I don't have good reasons for this (unless used a workaround for NPOV or DUE, which I don't see as the case here).

Maybe when you're finished we make just those quotes suitable for inclusion into footnotes instead? Probably it will turn out that a fair bit of material is unnecessary. Patrick (talk) 19:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I got a little addicted to adding quotes. Was doing so for different ends, depending: clarifying, more context, for verification. I think part of liking quotes is that, even if only in a tiny amount of cases, one does find apparent misuses of citations frequently enough (in Wikipedia), to the point where, for me, just seeing an authoritative-looking citation doesn't automatically instill confidence in the text. And then there's the problem of accessing cited material. Having those chunks of quotes, for this wiggly subject at least, seems...helpful! I'm not entirely clear of the line between this use of quotes and creating footnotes, would footnotes involve more paraphrasing? Anyhow, I've begun to curb the impulse to quote, and will start paring back what's there... Tsavage (talk) 17:41, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I absolutely see that.

I'm pretty sure the main reason I want to separate notes from the citations and bibliography is because that is how books are organized, and I grew up with print books. Obviously this is not a reason binding on anyone else—and not even a great reason for just me.

More to the point, though, I will probably convert everything to sfn and harv format once the article is stable. This makes a page much cleaner, to my eyes, and it allows people familiar with the literature to assess the quality of sourcing at a glance, which ref tags tend to obscure. To my knowledge, however, these templates do not allow for embedded quotes, which would require converting them into footnotes.

My own practice on Wikipedia is to use footnotes for basically two purposes. The first is for stuff that I think shouldn't need to be said, but apparently does. The second is to include information too technical for the general reader, but of likely interest to those already knowledgeable (this often in anticipation of objections that I know to exist but that I believe the sources establish to be without merit).

Obviously, though, you don't need to adhere to my philosophy of WP footnoting practice. Sometimes I can be quite pedantic (see, e.g., Georg_Wilhelm_Friedrich_Hegel#Notes). Patrick (talk) 18:45, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Footnotes can be fun to read all on their own -- like little side stories and subplots. I dunno if there'll be a big need for many here, but maybe. I've read the philosophy section, of course, but not really for full easy comprehension by the uninitiated -- there could be some sticky points! :)

For different quotes in multiple instances of a citation, I've been using harvnb. Works inside ref tags, so you can include text. Tsavage (talk) 03:14, 1 December 2024 (UTC)