Book123

    Free register and download UseNet downloader, then you can FREE Download from UseNet.

    Download without Limit " History/Military The Postmodern Condition (Theory & History of Literature): : Jean-Francois Lyotard (Editor) " from UseNet for FREE!

More

The Postmodern Condition (Theory & History of Literature): : Jean-Francois Lyotard (Editor)

Translated by G. Bennington and B. Massumi

Review: One of the must read works on postmodernism

This work, by Jean Francois Lyotard, is one of the signature works of postmodern theory. Say what you will of this perspective, this book is necessary reading in understanding the subject. This is not an easy work; however, those who persevere will be rewarded with interesting insights, whether or not one agree with postmodern thinking.

Lyotard defines Postmodern thought in contrast to modernism. Modernism, he claims, is ". . .any science that legitimates itself with reference to a metadiscourse of this kind [i.e., philosophy] making an explicit appeal to some grand narrative, such as the dialectics of Spirit, the hermeneutics of meaning, the emancipation of the rational or working subject, or the creation of wealth." Postmodernism, in turn, is ". . .incredulity toward metanarratives."

Science and technology, especially information sciences based on computers, are increasingly an important commodity and the focus of worldwide competition. Knowledge and political power have become linked. Thus: ". . .ho decides what knowledge is, and who knows what needs to be decided? In the computer age, the question of knowledge is now more than ever a question of government."

A central issue then becomes who has access to the information, since access will produce power. Lyotard sees it as inevitable that bureaucrats and technocrats will be the ones to master this basic resource of power, information. This will strengthen their hand in political circles. Research is expensive, and the pursuer of truth must purchase equipment to make the scientific process work. Thus, wealth begins to set the agenda for the scientist; scientists will go where the bucks are! The criterion for research becomes less the quest for truth and more "performativity," what is the immediate or intermediate payoff, performance value, of the scientific process and of technology. Power helps to shape what research gets funded.

Lyotard argues that the Postmodern moment should emphasize "paralogy," or dissensus. He argues: ". . .it is now dissension that must be emphasized. Consensus is a horizon that is never reached. Research that takes place under the aegis of a paradigm tends to stabilize; it is like the exploitation of a technology, economic, or artistic 'idea.'"

Postmodern science, in his view, encompasses: "The function of differential or imaginative or paralogical activity of the current pragmatics of science is to point out these. . .'presuppositions and to petition the players to accept different ones. The only legitimation that can make this kind of request admissible is that it will generate ideas, in other words, new statements." Thus, new statements, new presuppositions maintain science as an open system of discourse, characterized by paralogy (dissensus) as individuals strive to generate new knowledge, not imprisoned by existing consensus on what one should study and how one should study it.

This book is difficult reading, but to understand postmodernism, this is one of the works that demands that readers confront its arguments, whether in agreement or not.

Review: Challenging and relevant

The basic analysis is correct. For some time the conditions of information-overload, de-legitimation of authoritative sources, lack of acceptibility of grand stories about reality or human history, has resulted in a condition of dislocation/disorientation, reaction, and disempowerment that is very confusing, and very bound up in abusive power structures, the confusions of language and over-loaded symbols and games of language, and struggle to communicate.

The text is very difficult to process, it is a translation from French, and his use of very large conglomerate terms makes it difficult to join together the meanings contained within some of his terms, reading it often is an experience of information overload built into his language.

The challenge he presents is relevant whatever one may think about 'postmodernISM' itself. There is great value in the descriptiveness of his explorations and speculations. He saw years ago how the coming information overload and delegitimation of authoritative sources was coming, and now in the internet age he is as relevant as ever, particularly with the challenge faced between the dis-communication between Islamic culture and the West.

I do not affirm or endorse 'postmodernISM' or the sort of radical relativism or extreme focus upon language games that are associated with postmodernISM -- I find these troubling. But I also find the conservative reactions to postmodernism to be extremely troubling. The condition of information overload, delegitimation of what was once considered authoritative information, the erosion of confidence in grand metanarratives of human nature or history, the symbolic overload resulting from contact between cultures and symbol systems, all of these conditions are very real, and the internet age has made the crisis more acute. There is no hiding from it, yet it is not pleasant to behold, to affirm it/endorse it as good, or to try to deny it as if one can return to some past simplicity, is equally problematic/impossible to maintain.

I think this work is very important to sorting out the problems of our times, albeit the answer is not clear, and reading Lyotard makes clarity seem yet more distant. Yet read Lyotard we must, if we wish to deal with these issues.

Review: Provacative and significant work

I'm mostly taking it upon myself to write this review in response to much of the negative criticism it's been getting here. First, Lyotard's claim that metanarratives have been dismantled is an observation of the world he sees around him, NOT a political tactic that he's endorsing. The elements of specialization and performativity that function as tiny legitmating narratives are what have done this, and Lyotard feels that something should be done IN RESPONSE to it. In fact, what he says we should use as the major political touchstone in the somewhat fractured environment is in some sense a metanarrative: justice.

Second, it's simply disingenuos to say that the actions of science don't derive their legitimacy from the government or big business. Lyotard doesn't mean that empiricism as an epistemological framework comes from governmental authority, but scientists' opportunities to use it come from such authority. Evidence for this? The National Science Foundation, governmental grants to research universities--the evidence is all around us.

Finally, Lytoard doesn't exactly say all this is bad. There are negative consequences to it--dislocation due to specialization is one of the major ones--but he's not an ignorant man and isn't saying that we should destroy the methods of science or try to go back to the way things were in the sixteenth century.

And though there is some element of practical advice in this essay, it's not wise to come to it as if it were a manual for how to lead the revolution. That's not what it's intended to be; it was, after all, funded by the university system.

Buy Book at Lowest Price on Amazon

My other publications can be found Download Link (Here).

Rating:
2.5 out of 5 by Book123