The
Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge [Introduction]
by Jean Francois Lyotard
[Critical
Summary of the ‘Introduction’]
Introduction
Sir Arnold Toynbee was one of the first scholars to
use the term ‘postmodernism’. In his famous study of twenty-six world civilisations,
in the course of human history, ranging from Ancient Rome to imperial China, from
Babylon to the Aztecs, Toynbee concluded that any civilisation flourished and
prospered by responding successfully to challenges under the leadership of elite
leaders. At the same time, civilizations declined when their leaders stopped
responding creatively, or in other words, they were unable to find creative
solutions, says Toynbee. Such societies in disintegration suffer from a kind of
‘schism of the soul’, he observes.
In like fashion, in his Postmodern Condition:
A Report on Knowledge, Lyotard undertakes
a major study of the notion of knowledge in postmodern society. Lyotard then concludes
his study by putting forth the proposition that, the postmodern era is one that
is characterised by a loss of faith in all grand, totalizing “metanarratives”, resulting
in the end of all such ‘grand narratives’ or totalising narratives!
Condition of Knowledge in Highly Developed Societies
The object of this study is the condition of knowledge
in the most highly developed societies, says Lyotard. The status of knowledge
is radically altered even as societies enter the postindustrial age, and
cultures enter the postmodern age, and these technological transformations can
be expected to have a considerable impact on knowledge, he observes.
Incredulity towards Metanarratives
Lyotard then proceeds to define postmodern as incredulity
toward metanarratives.
In the past, when one framework for knowledge was
thought to be inadequate, it was replaced by another framework. The goal of postmodernism,
hence, is to do without frameworks for knowledge altogether. In postmodernist terminology,
‘metanarratives’ are stories about stories, ‘large scale theoretical interpretations
purportedly of universal application, or universal worldview’.
However, postmodernism is a worldview that denies all worldviews.
Metanarratives were hence seen as ‘totalising discourses’,
which are associated with oppression. In the words of the neo-Marxist Terry
Eagleton, ‘Postmodernism signals the death of such metanarratives whose
secretly terroristic function was to ground and legitimate the illusion of a ‘universal’
human history’.
The belief in a universal humanity, usually thought of
as an ennobling vision of human equality and dignity, is described in
conspiratorial language as ‘secretly terroristic’.
Postmodernism As Anti-foundationalism
Postmodernism dismisses foundationalism, which is defined
as ‘the idea that knowledge is the reflection of truth and that we can discover
a stable foundation for it in God, History or Reason’.
Hence Postmodernism is also called
anti-foundationalist.
The grand intellectual systems of the past (such as
Platonism, Christianity, Marxism, science etc.) have always had specific
foundations (rational ideals; God; economics; empirical observation), etc. However,
Postmodernism seeks to destroy all such objective foundations and seeks to
replace them with nothing.
Patricia Waugh defines this anti-foundationalist
stance of Postmodernism thus –
Central to the ‘postmodern condition’, therefore is a
recognition and account of the way in which the ‘grand narratives’ of Western
history and, in particular, enlightened modernity, have broken down.
Postmodernists Dissolve History
Postmodernists also seek to dissolve history. They no
longer see it as a record of objective facts, but as ‘a series of metaphors
which cannot be detached from the institutionally produced languages which we
bring to bear on it’.
And since there is no objective truth, history may be
rewritten according to the needs of a particular group. Patricia Waugh hence
says that, ‘We can make no distinction between ‘truth’ and ‘fiction’.
Postmodern Knowledge: NOT a Tool of the Authorities
According to Lyotard, in the postmodern era of delegitimation
of metanarratives, local determinism or mininarratives are celebrated, and
hence knowledge is not a tool of the authorities.
In this mode, knowledge is no longer seen as an absolute
truth; rather, knowledge is seen as rearranging information into new paradigms.
Human beings construct their respective models from their own perspectives, to
account for their own experiences. These models are ‘texts’ that are constantly
being revised. Hence any claim to grand narratives have no validity.
Postmodern scholars therefore seek to dismantle those paradigms
of the past, and bring the marginal into the centre, rewriting history in
favour of those who have been excluded from power – women, homosexuals, blacks,
Native Americans, and other victims of oppression. Hence to most people, this dismantling
or the death of the grand narratives, is not only inclusive, but also quite liberating.
When we construct our own realities, there are no limits to our freedom, they
observe.
And since invention is always born of dissension, Postmodern
knowledge is not simply a tool of the authorities. it refines our sensitivity
to differences and reinforces our ability to tolerate the incommensurable.
Its principle is not the expert’s homology, but the
inventor's paralogy, observes Lyotard.
Conclusion
Lyotard ends his introduction by stating that, this
book is a ‘Report on knowledge in the most highly developed societies and was
presented to the government of Quebec at the request of its president’.
He concludes by observing that, the author of the report
is a philosopher, not an expert. The expert knows what he knows and what he
does not know: the philosopher does not.
“The expert concludes, the philosopher questions” - two
very different language games, says Lyotard, which again seeks to beautifully foreground
one of the essential postulates of postmodern thought.
Texts Referenced
Guide to Contemporary Culture
by Gene Edward Veith
Postmodernism: A Reader
by Patricia Waugh
image courtesy: claremontindependentdotcom
.png)
