Modernism vs. Postmodernism: A Critical Analysis of the Impacts on People Without Knowledge and Economic Power

Before postmodernism, there was modernism. Modernism, according to scholars who believe in it, focuses on idealism and reasons for judging knowledge (re)production and/or representing culture. These parameters are opposed by postmodern vanguards such as Michael Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Jean-Francois Lyotard, Richard Rorty, Stanley Fish, Frank Lentricchia, Catherine Mackinnon, Andrea Dworkin, Jacques Lacan, Robert Venturi, Andreas Hussysen, challenging the notion that there are universal certainties or truths. Therefore, postmodernism is premised on philosophical thoughts of anti-foundationalism, anti-essentialism, anti-representationalism and anti-dualism (Hicks, 2004).

These scholars or philosophers set direction and tone for postmodern intellectual world in the areas of art, cultural, literary and legal criticism, philosophy, psychology among others (Hicks). Hicks argues that “many of these scholars believe that in the name of reason, truth and reality Western civilisation has wrought dominance, oppression and destruction”. Thus, rectifying the wrongs of modernism is highly imperative through postmodernism. As the conversation continues on the two concepts, in this piece our analyst focuses on the historical evolution, similarities and differences using the views of two of the vanguards regarding how the concepts have evolved.  According to our analyst, the benefits of both ideologies remain the exclusive “right” of people and countries wielding knowledge and economic power.

Intellectual Ideas and Movement

From Jameson (1979) to Lyotard (1979), the emergence of postmodernism is documented differently and similarly. Jameson builds his narration of the concept on radical distinction and cultural dominance of the logic of late capitalism. The two approaches have led to moral judgment evaluation (positive and negative) and genuinely dialectical attempt to think about our present time in history. The moral judgement evaluation becomes imperative as some western citizens continue to see the consequences of what their political and business leaders (the capitalists) did to “third world countries” as morally wrong, not conforming with natural ethics and laws of God.

Therefore, vanguards of modernism should not be complacent about benefits of post-industrial society. The dialectical approach, on the other hand, focuses on discerning issues associated with modernism using discourse. Jameson points out that “Marx powerfully urges us to think about postmodernism positively and negatively all at once, a thinking that is capable of grasping baleful features of capitalism along with its extraordinary and liberating dynamism simultaneously within a single thought.” With this thinking we would be able to see that capitalism is both the best and worst thing that has ever happened to human race (Jameson). In general, Jameson associates “late” with the pervasive condition of age, which resonated with our rapidly changing economic and cultural structures. Jameson disagrees with the term “postindustrial society,” as it implies a radical departure from the forms of capitalism that prevailed in the nineteenth century (and, implicitly, a departure from Karl Marx’s conception of capital). Jameson is more concerned with recognizing continuity from earlier forms of industrial society (while acknowledging differences) and affirming Marx’s theories’ continuing relevance.

In Lyotard’s text titled The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, I discovered that postmodernism is historicised and explained through 14 chapters. Before postmodernism, Lyotard believes that knowledge derived from lengthy discourse was at the heart of philosophical scientific debates. He presented this as a metanarrative that allows for constant change and growth in knowledge over time. The trend that allows scientists to commercialize their knowledge. As a result, metanarrative no longer exists.

Zuboff (2019) later aligns with Lyotard’s position with the idea of surveillance capitalism which stresses how capitalists with technological power aggregate and commodify people’s digital traces for commercial purpose. “In postindustrial and postmodern age, science will maintain and no doubt strengthen its preeminence in the arsenal productive capacities of the nation-states” (Lyotard), concluding that the gap between the developed and developing countries will grow ever wider in the future…In other words, knowledge economy would be one of the significant factors for gaining political power, where fight for control of information would be dominant like what happened in the past centuries in which countries fought for control over territory, control of access to and exploitation of raw materials and cheap labour.

When this occurs, with his rhetorical question of “who decides what knowledge is, and who knows what needs to be decided”, in our analyst’s view, he becomes worried about the future of people and organisations who do not have control over knowledge creation and protection. Lyotard discusses this concern under his legitimisation concept in relation to problematization of postmodernism. According to Lyotard, in a civil context, legitimisation is the process by which a legislator is authorised to promulgate that a given category of citizens must perform a specific kind of action…In a scientific context, legitimisation is the process by which a “legislator” dealing with scientific discourse is authorised to prescribe the stated conditions (in general conditions of internal consistency and experimental verification) determining whether a statement is to be included in that discourse for consideration by the scientific community.

This description indicates that performing specific actions related to knowledge requires having motive power and authority to do so. Lyotard places this in different modes of discourse. For instance, he stresses facts of language and most importantly its pragmatic aspect. Speakers are in knowing position because of specific authority and power they command. While addressees are in unknowing positions because they lack the required elements (power and authority). However, addressees are in position of giving consent or refuting knowers’ statements. Therefore, methodological approaches are needed in understanding society. Lyotard captures this in his section which focuses on the nature of the social bond in modernism and postmodernism eras.

Citing Talcott Parsons & Marx, Lyotard lists functional whole and division models as two means of understanding society. The functional whole model, which is dominated in the minds of founders of French school, wants us to see society as an indivisible entity in which everyone performs actions or engages in activities for society to survive, while Marx suggests society division into two model (accepting the principle of class struggle and dialectics as a duality operating within society).

These approaches are predominant in modernism era. In the postmodernism era, as Lyotard questioned earlier, emerging technologies have revolutionised ways of performing actions, creating and regulating knowledge. People do not really have control over their personalized generated data. Hence, in Lyotard’s views it is imperative to find answers to the question of who has access to the machines for purposeful use of the knowledge and guarantee that the right decisions are made? Lyotard reiterates that access to data will be exclusive right of experts and capitalists, while the ruling class will continue to be the class of decision makers. When this becomes dominant states, administrators, professionals and sociopolitical organisations will be losing their historical traditions.