This article is classified "Real"
Postmodernism has been the buzzword in academia for the last decade. Books,
journal articles, conference themes and university courses have resounded to
the debates about postmodernism that focus on the uniqueness of our times,
where computerization, the global economy and the media have irrevocably
transformed all forms of social engagement. As a professor of sociology who
teaches about culture, I include myself in this environment. Indeed, I have
a great interest in postmodernism both as an intellectual movement and as a
practical problem. In my experience there seems to be a gulf between those
who see the postmodern turn as a neo-conservative reupholstering of the same
old corporate trappings, and those who see it as a long overdue break with
modernist doctrines in education, aesthetics and politics. Of course there
are all kinds of positions in between, depending upon how one sorts out the
optimum route into the next millennium.
However, I think the real gulf is not so much positional as linguistic.
Posture can be as important as politics when it comes to the intelligentsia.
In other words, it may be less important whether or not you like
postmodernism than whether or not you can speak and write postmodernism.
Perhaps you would like to join in conversation with your local mandarins of
cultural theory and all-purpose deep thinking, but you don't know what to
say. Or, when you do contribute something you consider relevant, even
insightful, you get ignored or looked at with pity. Here is a quick guide,
then, to speaking and writing postmodern.
First, you need to remember that plainly expressed language is out of the
question. It is too realist, modernist and obvious. Postmodern language
requires that one uses play, parody and indeterminacy as critical
techniques to point this out. Often this is quite a difficult requirement,
so obscurity is a well-acknowledged substitute. For example, let's imagine
you want to say something like, "We should listen to the views of people
outside of Western society in order to learn about the cultural biases that
affect us". This is honest but dull. Take the word "views". Postmodern-
speak would change that to "voices", or better, "vocalities", or even
better, "multivocalities". Add an adjective like "intertextual", and you're
covered. "People outside" is also too plain. How about "postcolonial
others"? To speak postmodern properly one must master a bevy of biases
besides the familiar racism, sexism, ageism, etc.
For example, phallogocentricism (male-centredness combined with
rationalistic forms of binary logic). Finally "affect us" sounds like plaid
pajamas. Use more obscure verbs and phrases, like "mediate our identities".
So, the final statement should say, "We should listen to the intertextual
multivocalities of postcolonial others outside of Western culture in order
to learn about the phallogocentric biases that mediate our identities".
Now you're talking postmodern!
Sometimes you might be in a hurry and won't have the time to muster even
the minimum number of postmodern synonyms and neologisms needed to avoid
public disgrace. Remember, saying the wrong thing is acceptable if you say
it the right way. This brings me to a second important strategy in speaking
postmodern, which is to use as many suffixes, prefixes, hyphens, slashes,
underlinings and anything else your computer (an absolute must to write
postmodern) can dish out. You can make a quick reference chart to avoid
time delays. Make three columns. In column A put your prefixes; post-,
hyper-, pre-, de-, dis-, re-, ex-, and counter-. In column B go your
suffixes and related endings; -ism, -itis, -iality, -ation, -itivity, and
-tricity. In column C add a series of well-respected names that make for
impressive adjectives or schools of thought, for example, Barthes
(Barthesian), Foucault (Foucauldian, Foucauldianism), Derrida (Derridean,
Derrideanism).
Now for the test. You want to say or write something like, "Contemporary
buildings are alienating". This is a good thought, but, of course, a
non-starter. You wouldn't even get offered a second round of crackers and
cheese at a conference reception with such a line. In fact, after saying
this, you might get asked to stay and clean up the crackers and cheese after
the reception. Go to your three columns. First, the prefix. Pre- is
useful, as is post-, or several prefixes at once is terrific. Rather than
"contemporary buildings", be creative. "The Pre/post/spacialities of
counter-architectural hyper-contemporaneity" is promising. You would have
to drop the weak and dated term "alienating" with some well suffixed words
from column B. How about "antisociality", or be more postmodern and
introduce ambiguity with the linked phrase, "antisociality/seductivity".
Now, go to column C and grab a few names whose work everyone will agree is
important and hardly anyone has had the time or the inclination to read.
Continental European theorists are best when in doubt. I recommend the
sociologist Jean Baudrillard since he has written a great deal of difficult
material about postmodern space. Don't forget to make some mention of
gender. Finally, add a few smoothing out words to tie the whole garbled
mess together and don't forget to pack in the hyphens, slashes and
parentheses. What do you get?
"Pre/post/spacialities of counter-architectural hyper-
contemporaneity (re)commits us to an ambivalent recurrentiality
of antisociality/seductivity, one enunciated in a de/gendered-
Baudrillardian discourse of granulated subjectivity".
You should be able to hear a postindustrial pin drop on the retrocultural
floor.
At some point someone may actually ask you what you're talking about. This
risk faces all those who would speak postmodern and must be carefully
avoided. You must always give the questioner the impression that they have
missed the point, and so send another verbose salvo of postmodernspeak in
their direction as a "simplification" or "clarification" of your original
statement. If that doesn't work, you might be left with the terribly
modernist thought of, "I don't know". Don't worry, just say, "The
instability of your question leaves me with several contradictorily layered
responses whose interconnectivity cannot express the logocentric coherency
you seek. I can only say that reality is more uneven and its
(mis)representations more untrustworthy than we have time here to explore".
Any more questions? No, then pass the cheese and crackers.