{"id":8755,"date":"2017-05-19T05:32:28","date_gmt":"2017-05-19T10:32:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/hilbertthm90.wordpress.com\/?p=8755"},"modified":"2022-06-21T12:26:55","modified_gmt":"2022-06-21T17:26:55","slug":"critical-postmodern-readings-part-1-lyotard","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/amindformadness.com\/2017\/05\/critical-postmodern-readings-part-1-lyotard\/","title":{"rendered":"Jean-Francois Lyotard: Postmodern Condition"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

This series of articles will critically examine many of the fundamental readings on postmodernism. Today, we’ll look at The Postmodern Condition<\/em> by Jean-Francois Lyotard.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A Brief Aside on my Views<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

I’m over nine years into this blog, so I think most readers know my opinions and worldview on many issues in philosophy. I roughly subscribe to a Bayesian epistemology, and in practical terms, this amounts to something like being a rational humanist and skeptic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I believe there is an objective world and science can get at it, sometimes, but we also have embodied minds subject to major flaws, and so we can’t experience that world directly. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Also, with near 100% probability, we experience many aspects of physical reality in a fundamentally different way than it “actually” exists. This puts me somewhat in line with postmodernists.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I believe there are valid and invalid<\/a> ways to interpret art. This puts me in stark contrast to postmodernists. Postmodernism, as a school of thought, seems to have made a major comeback in academic circles. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

I’ve also written about the dangers posed by these types of ideas. For more information, search “philosophy” on the sidebar. These opinions have been fleshed out over the course of tens of thousands of words.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I first read famous postmodernists and proto-postmodernists like Baudrillard, Foucault, Lyotard, Derrida, Hegel, and so on as an undergrad (i.e. before this blog even existed). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

At that time, I had none of the worldviews above. I basically read those philosophers with the reaction: “Whoa, dude, that’s deep.” I went along with the other students, pretending to understand the profound thoughts of continental philosophy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I’ve never returned to them because I didn’t think they were relevant anymore.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Post-truth<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

I kind of thought we were past the idea of “post-truth.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

Now I’m not so sure. This whole intro is basically a way to say that I want to try to tackle some of these texts with a more critical approach and with the added knowledge and experience I’ve gained.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I know this will ruffle a lot of feathers. Part of postmodernists “thing” is to dismiss any criticism as “you’re not an expert, so you just don’t understand it.” <\/p>\n\n\n\n

That’s fine. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

I’m going to make an honest effort, though, and if you love this stuff and think I’m misunderstanding, let me know. I’m into learning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Jean-Fran\u00e7ois Lyotard Postmodern Condition<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Today we’ll tackle Jean-Fran\u00e7ois Lyotard’s The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge<\/a><\/em>. This is arguably the most important work in the subject, and is often cited as the work that defined “postmodernism.” <\/p>\n\n\n\n

I recall having to read the Introduction for a class, and I’m pretty sure that’s the extent we covered Lyotard at all.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Introduction<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The Introduction is primarily focused on giving an explanation of what Lyotard means by “the postmodern condition,” and how we know we are living in it. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is something important and subtle here. The section is descriptive rather than prescriptive. Modern (liberal arts) academia tends to think in prescriptive terms. We’ll get to that later.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I guess I’ll now just pull some famous quotes and expound on them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Science has always been in conflict with narratives.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

I don’t think this is that controversial. He’s saying science is one narrative for how we arrive at knowledge. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The narrative might be called the Enlightenment Values narrative. It’s based on empiricism and rational argument.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This narrative is so pervasive that we often forget it is a narrative. We usually equate science with knowledge, but these values didn’t always exist in the West. There is a substantial body of work from Descartes to Kant that had to make the case for rationality and empiricism as a foundation for knowledge. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

That’s the definition of a narrative.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The fact that science comes into conflict with other narratives should be readily obvious. There are science vs religion debates all the time to this day. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Institutional Forces<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Lyotard also points out another vital concept we often overlook. There are lots of institutions and political forces behind what we call science, and each of these has its own metanarrative that might come into conflict with forming knowledge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I define postmodern<\/em> as incredulity toward metanarratives. This incredulity is undoubtedly a product of progress in the sciences: but that progress in turn presupposes it.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

This is a bit deeper than it looks, but only because I know the context of Lyotard’s writing. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Taken with the first quote above, one might just think that he’s saying the progress of science has led to people questioning the metanarratives of their lives, like the religion they were brought up in.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Technology During Modernism<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Part of the reason Lyotard has chosen the term “postmodern” to describe this condition is because of the artistic movements known as postmodernism. The utter destruction of World War I and World War II brought a destabilization to people’s lives.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Technology created this destruction, and it was fueled by science.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"lyotard
Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com<\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

Artistic Traditions<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Not only did people question the traditions they were brought up in, but they began to question if science itself was good. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Much of the postmodern art produced in the decades after WWII focused on highly disjointed narratives (Lost in the Funhouse<\/a><\/em>), the horrors of war (Gravity’s Rainbow<\/a><\/em>), involved utter chaos and randomness (Dadaism), or emphasized futility and meaninglessness (Waiting for Godot<\/em>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

All these aspects overthrew narratives and traditions. They weren’t just radical because of the content, they often questioned whether we even knew what a novel or a play or a poem or a piece of music was. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

If we no longer knew what these longstanding artistic forms and narratives were, how could we trust any of the narratives that gave our life meaning?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And I’ll reiterate, there is a pretty direct link from the science that brought the destruction to this “postmodern condition” people found themselves in.
The rest of the Introduction gets pretty jargony.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Where, after the metanarratives, can legitimacy reside?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Legitimacy<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

There is a danger that people will seize upon any stabilizing force once in this position. Authority figures can even ride this to power (we just watched this happen in the U.S.). They tell us stories that make sense and make us feel better, so we put them in power. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is an endless cycle because once in power, they control the narrative.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

How do we form truth and knowledge in such a society? That is the subject of Lyotard’s book and is not answered merely in the Introduction.
I’ll end the discussion of the Introduction by pointing out something very important. Lyotard seems to believe in truth and knowledge and science. He seems concerned by people’s rejection of these concepts due to the postmodern condition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When people self-describe themselves as a postmodernist, they tend to mean they reject the notion of truth. They say that all we have are narratives, and each is equally valid. Maybe this is because Lyotard isn’t a postmodernist? He merely describes what is going on.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I think more likely it’s that this label has changed from descriptive to prescriptive. Current postmodernists think of the postmodern condition as being good. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

If science starts to dominate as a narrative, these people want to reject that. In some sense, they see this as “liberation” from the “imperialist white capitalist patriarchy” that has dominated the West and caused so much suffering.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Chapter 1 of The Postmodern Condition<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

That introduction already contained much of what gets fleshed out in the rest of the short book, so I’m going to mostly summarize stuff until we hit anything that requires serious critical thought.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The first chapter goes into how computers have changed the way we view knowledge. It was probably an excellent insight that required argument at the time. Now it’s obvious to everyone. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Humans used to gain knowledge by reading books and talking to each other. It was a somewhat qualitative experience. The nature of knowledge has shifted with (big) data and machine learning. It’s very quantitative. It’s also a commodity to be bought and sold (think Facebook\/Google).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is a little creepy to understand Lyotard’s prescience. He basically predicts that multinational corporations will have the money to buy this data, and owning the data gives them real-world power. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

He predicts knowledge “circulation” in a similar way to money circulation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here’s a part of the prediction:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The reopening of the world market, a return to vigorous economic competition, the breakdown of the hegemony of American capitalism, the decline of the socialist alternative, a probable opening of the Chinese markets …<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Other than the decline of the socialist alternative (which seems to have had a recent surge), Lyotard has a perfect prediction of how computerization of knowledge actually affected the world in the 40 years since he wrote this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lyotard’s Ideas in Chapter 2<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Chapter two reiterates the idea that scientific knowledge (i.e. the type discussed above) is different than, and in conflict with, “narrative” knowledge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is also a legitimation “problem” in science. The community as a whole must choose gatekeepers seen as legitimate who decide what counts as scientific knowledge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I’ve written about why I don’t see this as a problem as Lyotard does, but I’ll concede the point that there is a legitimation that happens, and it could<\/em> be a problem if those gatekeepers change the narrative to influence what is thought of as true. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

There are even known instances of political biases making their way into schools of scientific thought (see my review<\/a> of Galileo’s Middle Finger<\/em> by Alice Dreger).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Next Lyotard sets up the framework for thinking about this. He uses Wittgenstein’s “language game” concept. The rules of the game can never legitimate themselves. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Meaning<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Even small modifications of the rules can greatly alter meaning. And lastly (I think this is where he differs from Wittgenstein), each speech act is an attempt to alter the rules. Since agreeing upon the current set of rules is a social contract, it is necessary to understand the “nature of social bonds.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This part gets a little weird to me. He claims that classically society has been seen either as a unified whole or divided in two. The rules of the language games in a unified whole follow standard entropy (they get more complicated and chaotic and degenerate). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The divided-in-two conception is classic Marxism (bourgeoisie\/proletariat).
Even if it gets a bit on the mumbo-jumbo side through this part, I think his main point is summarized by this quote:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For it is impossible to know what the state of knowledge is—in other words, the problems its development and distribution are facing today—without knowing something of the society within which it is situated.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

This doesn’t seem that controversial to me considering I’ve already admitted that certain powers can control the language and flow of knowledge. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Being as generous as possible here, I think he’s just saying we have to know how many of these powers there are and who has the power and who legitimated that power before we can truly understand who’s forming these narratives and why.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Institutional Metanarratives<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

In the postmodern world, we have a ton of different institutions all competing for their metanarrative to be heard.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Society is more fractured than just the two divisions of the modern world. But each of these institutions also has a set of rules for their language games that constrains them.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

For example, the language of prayer has a different set of rules from an academic discussion at a university.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Later Chapters<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Chapters 7-9 seem to me to be where the most confusion on both the part of Lyotard and the reader can occur. He dives into the concept of narrative truth and scientific truth. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

You can already feel Lyotard try to position scientific truth to be less valuable than it is and narrative truth more valuable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"jean-francois
Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com<\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

Lyotard brings up the classic objections to verification and falsification (namely a variant on Hume’s Problem of Induction). <\/p>\n\n\n\n