Rantings & Ravings

The term "Postmodernism" is unique in that it sprung up part and parcel with the postmodern movement itself. It is an example of humans trying to interpret culture as it happens, and it is a dangerous practice–one that belies the problems in the social sciences. The physical scientist sticks to hard facts and merely observes. The same cannot be said of the philosopher or the sociologist. In an ideal state, we would attempt to define culture only after it has run its course, for tampering with the culture during its infantile stages can be hazardous to its adult life. So here we have Postmodernism, cursed at the outset by scores of scholars who couldn't help but theorize about its future. And then, flash forward thirty years, the Postmodern "movement" has nearly run its course, and still, no one has arrived at an agreed-upon definition.

It is seeming to me more and more attractive to accept the possibility that this whole attempt at definition is pure folly – which could, in the end I suppose, make me the one to eat my words. The postmodernists have always espoused that "postmodernism can only be described, not defined." And yet these same scholars still slap a label on the whole movement, which suggests the existence of a unifying factor. Harumph.

Unifying factor there may be, but all things are similar in at least one way. Everything is composed of matter, for instance. This doesn't mean that we should spend thirty years of our life trying to come to terms with the differences between every thing. Most people would agree on that. So what do these Postmodernists see in their loose collection of art, song, literature and cinema that so compels them to group them together? Is it wishful thinking or is there really something there? And, the ultimate question in cultural analysis–at what point does the scientist cease to merely observe and begin to actively affect that which he is observing?

So what can we conclude from all this? Cultural movements, like all things, must come and go organically. They cannot be created in the stiflement of the university. The cultural movement of Postmodernism ultimately exists as wishful thinking in the imaginations of a few upper-echelon docorates. Postmodernism was borne out of intellectualism, it remained in intellectualism for the course of its lifetime, and now, today, it dies in intellectualism. Cultural critics may identify change in their thought patterns, but the sad truth is that the extent of that change exists only in the initial identification. Nothing else has changed.

It is my opinion that cultural theorizing is dangerous when done for its own sake. Hassan, Lyotard, et al, were still feeling the after-effects of Modernism. They assumed that our labels would continue to evolve, as reflected by the de facto nomenclature "Postmoderism." But labels don't evolve, culture does.

The hypothesis that I've been hinting at, but haven't had the nerve to say outright, is that cultural periodization is meaningless at worst, extremely limited at best. People are born, people die. No matter what time period they are born in, they continue to find ways to express themselves with the tools available. To attempt to understand the forces that work upon the individual in a culture and then go on to identify how these forces evolve over time, is – quite frankly – impossible. Any systematic framework is automatically too vague, and can never address every force. We've all heard of the butterfly effect. Even the gust of air from a butterfly's wings can brew into a hurricane with time. The same applies to history. We can never look into the past and seperate from the great braid of time each individual strand and follow it into the present, because they're all wound together, inextricable.