As a term ‘postmodernism’ has been used widely and in a variety of contexts in different fields, but there is no unanimity about its range and usage. In other words, while the term has come to occupy an important place in critical discussions, problems related to its definition, scope and possibilities remain. Ihab Hassan, one of the early commentators of postmodernism, has cogently situated the problems associated with the idea: ‘The question is in many parts, yet it comes to this: can we perceive a new phenomenon in contemporary culture generally, and in contemporary literature particularly, that deserves a name? If so, will the provisional rubric “postmodernism” serve? How does this phenomenon – let us call it postmodernism – relate itself to other concepts, such as modernism or the avant-garde? And what theoretical and historical difficulties does it conceal?’ (Hassan 1981, 30) Like many other terms in contemporary critical discourse, ‘postmodernism’ does not submit itself to a rigid or closed definition but is accommodative enough to encompass different positions. In approaching the term and its usage it is more fruitful to understand the situations that are closely connected to it than to bank on certain assumptions per se. Another feature of the term is that it has been appropriated by different disciplines, each engaging it to serve purposes that may be at cross-purposes with others. Historians, geographers, anthropologists, sociologists and architects have taken recourse to the term and situated it to address issues that are meaningful to their disciplines. At the same time, however, there is something common in the way ‘postmodern’ as a term has traversed across disciplines and negotiated the limits of conventional literature.
At a very elementary level, postmodernism – because of the very obvious prefix ‘post’ – suggests a break from the phenomenon recognized and understood as ‘modernism.’ Postmodernism, so far as it functions as a combinatory word bringing together ‘post’ and ‘modernism,’ inevitably invites comparisons with what just preceded it and inaugurates its own definition through a medium of difference. One could thus go so far ahead as to suggest that postmodernism involves a departure from what constituted modernism, a process that has now become characteristic of understanding the designation, by appreciating what it is not. This is an interesting way to begin analyzing the discourse of postmodernism – by coming to terms with what it is not – but this is by no means peculiar, for in previous ages too, terms have surfaced and consolidated in critical discourse by an emphasis on difference. Romanticism appeared on the English horizon as a reaction to the rigid demands of Neo-classical discourse and modernism itself sought to cultivate a distance from the principles that were understood as essential to the preceding aesthetics of Victorianism. One problem of following a strictly historical trajectory is to superimpose linearity upon developments that were neither necessarily engaged nor followed as a matter of course. Events and narratives about them do not happen in conditions that suit historians or critics, but follow circuitous paths which are not only extremely complex but also resist made-to-order summary structures. As one seeks to draw a map about developments constituting the prehistory of the postmodern condition, it is necessary to recognize this fact and remember it well. Whether we see postmodernism as a break or a continuity (as some critics have) we must work out our reading apparatus in a way that is consistent and engaged; in organizing the priorities of both modernism and postmodernism it is not necessary that the same status list will hold good for everybody, viewing positions will differ as will the imperatives involved in such exercises, but it is important to acknowledge that other perspectives may be valid as well. Postmodernism has thus inaugurated a newness in suggesting that hierarchical reading structures, canonical constructions, cultural privileges and customary givens be subjected to scrutiny.
In other words, one feature of postmodernism is the focus on the interrogative potential inherent in any phenomenon, including what constitutes itself. What this has amounted to, at least at a very immediate level, is the collapse of institutions, traditions and ideas which were previously not considered worthy of critique. Such has been the impact of postmodern thought that it has wormed into highly revered structures and highlighted aspects that weren’t seen to be residing within them. It has introduced an irreverence into haloed portals, questioned assumptions and debunked hierarchies. Postmodernism offers space to all but does not privilege any. It celebrates fragments and mocks origins or centres. It exerts pressure upon taken-for-granted foundations and calls for readings that does not submit to any one position, least of all to those conditioned by ‘tradition’ or ‘history.’ The recognition of the presence of plural perspectives must thus inform readings that seek to understand ‘postmodernism,’ something that defeats the idea of formulaic structures.
It is not surprising, in such a context, to see that there are many postmodernisms impacting areas as diverse as music and geography. Across disciplines, postmodernism has introduced the culture of critique so that ‘stable’ ideas and accepted theories are opened up for questioning. What this has meant for disciplines that relied on settled canons (of which literature is one) is the deflation of hierarchical placement as an absolute given. It must be borne in mind, however, that postmodernism does not suggest an alternative to a dominant version – it facilitates the movement of multiple discourses, incorporating those that in earlier critical paradigms did not circulate as easily. In situating such developments that have now acquired both consistency and acceptability in critical discourse it is important to address two questions: how and why did ‘postmodernism’ come about? The tracing of a genealogy of postmodernism is by no means an easy task. Technically, to arrive at a closure about ‘what postmodernism means’ would constitute a violation of its very character, for postmodernism desists categorization; instead it celebrates fragmentation and accommodates a variety of modes, some of which are at cross-purposes with one another. It must thus be agreed that any map charting the genealogy of postmodernist territory is one of many ways through which the subject may be approached and also an extremely provisional one. At a time when the absoluteness of definitions is questioned, it would be self-defeating to argue that postmodernism can be submitted to a rigid structure; this is because it resists theories and assumptions about its very ‘nature,’ which is one of the hallmarks of postmodernism. The presence of heterogeneous discourses within the rubric of ‘postmodernism’ points to a condition of fluidity that refuses to concentrate into one whole – it instead suggests that postmodernism affords and accommodates a variety of structures, some of them conflicting and contesting one another. In tracing the genealogy of postmodernism, then, it is necessary to appreciate that its prismatic multiplicity does not necessarily have just one centre, for centrality of any form is what postmodernism critiques. At the same time, however, there are certain conditions that qualify for inclusion within ‘postmodern discourse’ while others do not; this implies that postmodernism is not a mere container embracing all and sundry, a mode of accessing the world, one where hierarchies are put to test, ‘basic’ assumptions questioned and primacies reevaluated critically. The following commentary puts the matter succinctly: ‘Indeed there is a great deal more specificity to “postmodern” and related denominations than is often argued. The resistance to specificity is mobilized sometimes in order to avoid confronting the postmodern(ist) features of contemporary culture or, indeed, the world and thought. In other words, the idea of the “postmodern” designates a different way of living in, perceiving and understanding the world, or different ways of doing so.’ (Plotnitsky 2001, 263)
Works Cited:
Hassan, Ihab. “The Question of Postmodernism” Performing Arts Journal, Vol. 6, No. 1 (1981), 30-37
Plotnitsky, Arkady. “Postmodernism and Postmodernity: Literature, Criticism, Philosophy, Culture” in Julian Wolfreys ed. Introducing Literary Theories: A Guide and Glossary, Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press, 2001, 261-292
_____________________
© Bibhash Choudhury
