From the Trenches: Postmodernism Explained

Chris La Cava is a Massachusetts native who is a fellow member of the Works’ User Interface team. He is from Carver, near Cape Cod. This is rural, cranberry bog country. Chris attended college at Hampshire, a school renowned for letting its students shape their own curriculum. He also took advantage of the five college consortium. He majored in Anthropology and mostly attended classes at Hampshire, UMass and Mount Holyoke. Chris later worked at MIT and applied for a Fulbright grant. He was MIT’s first choice in a three-tier acceptance process. The award was denied in the second tier (Fulbright’s Central Office). Though Fulbright doesn’t officially release their reasons for a denial, it was learned that an undergraduate trip to Cuba raised a red flag. Also, his proposal was to study religious-based resistance movements in the Yucatan, which was was “pretty intense at the time because of Chiapas.” It is likely that Fulbright was concerned about his safety–and their ass. Perhaps more significant than his educational accomplishments and travels in Central America, is his status as leader of the Greatest American Heroes, Austin’s favorite surf/ TV theme song band (stiff competition in this category).

I knew Chris had some insights on postmodernism and was interested in his perspective. He agreed to answer a few questions via email. Nothing below has been edited.

What does postmodernism mean to you? (Not looking for Webster’s definition here just a general feeling about what people mean when they speak of this)

Postmodernism was actually first articulated in architectural theory. It relates to postindustrial uses of space, both public and private, where form and cultural context are no longer dictated purely by function. This has since been abstracted and, in some cases appropriated, by social theorist and literary critics. Fredric Jameson has done the most complete “historical” account of the postmodern movement in his book [url=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0822310902/qid%3D1017936460/sr%3D2-1/ref%3Dsr%5F2%5F1/104-9557078-4036743]”Postmodernism, Or, the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism.”[/url] It is a mouthful and sounds rather pompous but it is a great account of what postmodernism actually means. Postmodernism is a complex set of theories that has become in a lot of ways a reaction or rejection of the modernist movement. It really is, at least in social theoretical circles, a disillusionment with modernist leftist theories, chiefly brought on by the failure of Marxism in the late 20th century (see [url=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0415910455/qid%3D1017936899/sr%3D1-1/ref%3Dsr%5F1%5F1/104-9557078-4036743]Specters of Marx : The State of the Debt, the Work of Mourning, and the New International[/url] by Jacques Derrida) . Unfortunately it has also become a pop culture buzz word, watered down and fractured into meaningless jargon. That is why it is often equated with bratty gen x nihilism, making Jameson’s articulation of postmodern principles so vital.

Are things like desconstructionism and deconstructivism academic fads or are these sorts of techniques for questioning the ideological biases behind a book’s premise, scientific theory, work of art, etc. here to stay?

Modern Literary Criticism, and by proxy deconstructionism, have been around for a century. So it is definitely not a fad. Deconstructionism is merely a method of divining social relevance out of a piece of fiction by both understanding the historical and culture context in which that book was written as well as using contemporary theory as a lens to apply meaning to current academic debates. The theoretical “filters” that one uses to extract meaning from literature could very well be a fad. The act of deconstructing these pieces are not.

Has Marxism been replaced with a handful of concepts that fall under postmodernism or is this something different?

In a lot of ways, Yes. A lot of academics refer to something called the “Crisis of the Left.” This was the disillusionment with Marxism as social theory. This shouldn’t be confused with the collapse of Marxist regimens in the 20th century, although the two are related in some ways. Volumes have been written on this topic, but to obtusely sum it up, Marx brilliantly explained the asymmetries that an industrial, capitalist society produces. The ultimate remedy to this asymmetry was class based struggle. He failed to fully realize the importance and insolubility of ethnic, racial and gender differences. Modernists thought this chiefly colloquial cultural artifacts would be replaced with industrial and eventually post industrial society. Academics as well as activists began to chip away at Marxism’s limitations and were often branded postmodern simply because they were articulating their positions as against modernity. Again, things got convoluted and lumped under postmodernity for lack of a better term.

What are some good things about postmodernist thinking? Bad things?

Chiefly, what I mentioned above. Marxism went a long way to explain post-colonial conditions but it failed to take into account cultural factors. As a student of Anthropology, postmodern theories gave me a much more robust theoretical toolbox to draw from.

Bad thing: It is hard to keep from sinking into black hole of total relativism realizing that there is a measure of subjectivity in everything can lead to political paralysis.

Did you discuss these concepts at Hampshire? What kind of classes were you taking that touched on these things? Speak on any college-related experiences with this stuff if you would like.

This was all I discussed at Hampshire to the point of neglecting traditional studies. I felt like I was getting was well versed in the theories that were at the forefront of social and political thought but wasn’t really totally familiar with the established principles they were rebuking. I ended up taking a bunch of classes at UMASS just to nail down the principles in Anthropology that postmodern thought was calling antiquated. I did take plenty of science classes at Hampshire, where postmodernity was not explicitly discussed, so I don’t want to give the idea that Hampshire is a postmodern think tank. Even in the Social Science realm, I found that the majority of students that took classes like “Postmodernity and Political Movements” really didn’t have a grasp of what postmodernism was all about. Many students rejected postmodernity as a legitimate academic platform al together. I would say that postmodernism both in faculty and student population was thought as relevant to a vast minority. It actually created some tension among faculty members on my own senior thesis committee.

You mentioned once that your parents were slightly conservative (I think). Were they concerned about you being at Hampshire or totally supportive?

My parents are more than slightly conservative. They were extremely concerned about me going to Hampshire, it was a tough sell that ultimately came down to finances. Hampshire gave me a free ride. UMASS would have cost too much money. They were, however, also extremely supportive. My parents have always taught me to think for myself, even when the conclusions I come to are in conflict with their sensibilities. They have always respected my opinions as long as I did the due diligence to explore for myself what I thought was right. My choice to go to Hampshire was no exception.

Do you agree think there is a climate on campus now where students may be afraid of searching for “truth” because it may result in being “intolerant”?

That is hard for me to answer since I had a very atypical experiences at very atypical schools. I can tell you that Hampshire was a very volatile place. Aspects of it served as a haven for many that felt they were oppressed by mainstream society. Since they used college as a safe place to explore their counter cultural tendencies they often became combative when those things were called into question. Balancing tolerance with no-holds-barred inquiry is hard. It inevitably produces volatility, but both are integral to a good educational environment. By and large Hampshire provided that. I have found that on other campuses that I’ve been on, there is more a lack of debate of any kind. A lack of curiosity or social activism (right, left, or center) rather than an atmosphere of intolerance.

Any predictions on where some of this stuff is heading?

I’ve been pretty removed from academic surroundings or stimuli for a while so I’m not sure. My feeling was at the time that leftist thinking really lacked a coherent ideology. While Marxism was once that ideology it was clearly flawed. Postmodernity affectedly explained the lack of coherence but did not fill the void. I feel like a lot of just causes that the left once took up have been abandoned by faction squabbling and counterproductive arguments mired in identity politics. While I think things have probably evened out some since I was in school, people on both sides of the political fence must be taking time out to survey the dramatic change in political landscape post 9/11 to see what ideologies are still relevant and what was of thinking just don’t apply.