Theories of the Information Society, Third Edition - Cryptome

INFORMATION AND POSTMODERNITY
1
1
1
2
1
1
something that denies the reality of essences! Finally, I shall comment on discussions
of postmodernism that present it as the outcome of social and economic
changes. Here thinkers such as David Harvey and, more ambiguously, Zygmunt
Bauman and Fredric Jameson identify postmodernity as a condition that is consequent
on changes that are open to examination by established social analysis.
It needs to be made clear right away that these scholars who conceive of a
postmodern condition (what might be called postmodernity) differ from postmodern
thinkers such as Baudrillard who reject the entire approach of those who
endeavour to explain the present using the conventions of established social
science. That is, we may distinguish the position of David Harvey (1989b), who
argues that we may conceive of a reality of postmodernity, from that of postmodern
thinkers, who argue that, while we do indeed inhabit a world that
is different – and hence postmodern – from what has gone before, this very
difference throws into doubt the validity of orthodox social explanation. This
somewhat philosophical point may not appear important at this moment but,
when we come to analysis of postmodern scholars, it will become evident that
the openness to examination of their descriptions of contemporary society by
orthodox – one might say modern – social science significantly influences one’s
willingness to endorse their points of view (Best and Kellner, 1997).
Postmodernism
Postmodernism is at once an intellectual movement and something which each
of us encounters in our everyday lives when we watch television, dress to go out
or listen to music. What brings together the different dimensions is a rejection of
modernist ways of seeing. This is, of course, an enormous claim, to announce that
postmodernism is a break with ways of thinking and acting which have been
arguably supreme for several centuries.
Much of the claim depends, of course, on what is meant by the terms postmodern
and modern. Unfortunately, many of the relevant thinkers either do not
bother to state precisely what they mean by these words or concentrate only
upon certain features of what they take them to be. That said, within the social
sciences modernity is generally understood to identify a cluster of changes – in
science, industry and ways of thought that we usually refer to as the rise of the
Enlightenment – that brought about the end of feudal and agricultural societies
in Europe and which has made its influence felt pretty well everywhere in the
world. Postmodernity announces a fracture with this.
Some commentators have argued that postmodernism ought to be considered
more a matter of culture than the above, because its concerns are chiefly about
art, aesthetics, music, architecture, movies and so forth (Lash, 1990). In these
cases the couplet modernism/postmodernism is less overarching than the
distinction between modernity and postmodernity. Moreover, if we restrict ourselves
to this cultural arena, then there is less of a willingness to announce a break
with modernism since, of course, Modernism – with a capital M – refers to movements
of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries – Impressionism,
229