Why Post-modernism and Deconstructism represent a complete state of confusion in determining what they mean?
April 1st 2007 10:12
Post-modernism was coined by Jean-Francious Lyotard and at best quoted by Tony Cliff as “The theory of rejecting theories". While Deconstructionism based on Jacques Derrida’s coinage was about the abolition to one grand narrative theory to the arrival of the meta-grand narratives theory.
For me these two ism’s stand for same thing, ways of deconstructing and ways of eliminating distinct categorizing whereby anything goes. Considering both terms are about establishing more ism’s and striping everything bare of objective meaning. In addition, Post-modernism allows Deconstructionism to operate. Maybe it’s a question of which ism should come first. Thus the ‘post’ operates the same way in which to ‘deconstruct’ operates to create complete confusion, instability and uncertainty. Confused by any of this theoretical abstraction, cause I know I am (try reading pages and page of post-modernist and deconstructionist theoretical jargon and you’ll be doubly, triply confused). In which doing so we know what Derrida and Foucault sought to demonstrate, that their theory is proved in our confusion over distinguishing between these two ism’s whereby our deep uncertainty expands even further. It seems to determine a definition of Deconstructionism is to explain the process of post-modernity ‘whereby anything goes’. That meaning anything that becomes subjective becomes undefined and therefore remains always in a state of question and uncertainty like the distinction between Post-modernism and Deconstructionism.
With Post-modernist’s ‘where anything goes’ trademark philosophy and Deconstructionist’s attempts to ‘deconstruct’ all individual, institutional and social preconceived notions, they both proclaim to be different in positions. However, they seem both to stand for the same type theorizing. For there seems to be no one way of defining most post-modernism which doesn’t to epitomize what deconstructionism is about. That is there being no boundaries to anything, no clear distinctions between anything. As there are that many academic debates about what these two terms mean. Consider Post-modernism no clear unified definition is ever given, just a bunch of philosophical description attempting to clarify it. The only unity given is that it originated out of the process of modernity and is just a mere extension to processes of modernism and how it is understood. In addition Michelle Foucault should be considered within Jacques Derrida’s coinage of the term for it is Foucault’s social constructionism that helps in understanding how this concept is phrased and used by Deconstructionist’s. For both intend to demonstrate what post-modernity is exactly. That is through the way in which we as a society and individual construct our beliefs, instructions and ideologies they can be used to deconstruct the way in which we as a society and individual construct our beliefs, instructions and ideologies. Hence, the only way in which we can understand the way we think and how economic, social and political institutions bring about cause and effect to the individual is by deconstructing those very processes and institutions that make us who we are.
For me these two ism’s stand for same thing, ways of deconstructing and ways of eliminating distinct categorizing whereby anything goes. Considering both terms are about establishing more ism’s and striping everything bare of objective meaning. In addition, Post-modernism allows Deconstructionism to operate. Maybe it’s a question of which ism should come first. Thus the ‘post’ operates the same way in which to ‘deconstruct’ operates to create complete confusion, instability and uncertainty. Confused by any of this theoretical abstraction, cause I know I am (try reading pages and page of post-modernist and deconstructionist theoretical jargon and you’ll be doubly, triply confused). In which doing so we know what Derrida and Foucault sought to demonstrate, that their theory is proved in our confusion over distinguishing between these two ism’s whereby our deep uncertainty expands even further. It seems to determine a definition of Deconstructionism is to explain the process of post-modernity ‘whereby anything goes’. That meaning anything that becomes subjective becomes undefined and therefore remains always in a state of question and uncertainty like the distinction between Post-modernism and Deconstructionism.
With Post-modernist’s ‘where anything goes’ trademark philosophy and Deconstructionist’s attempts to ‘deconstruct’ all individual, institutional and social preconceived notions, they both proclaim to be different in positions. However, they seem both to stand for the same type theorizing. For there seems to be no one way of defining most post-modernism which doesn’t to epitomize what deconstructionism is about. That is there being no boundaries to anything, no clear distinctions between anything. As there are that many academic debates about what these two terms mean. Consider Post-modernism no clear unified definition is ever given, just a bunch of philosophical description attempting to clarify it. The only unity given is that it originated out of the process of modernity and is just a mere extension to processes of modernism and how it is understood. In addition Michelle Foucault should be considered within Jacques Derrida’s coinage of the term for it is Foucault’s social constructionism that helps in understanding how this concept is phrased and used by Deconstructionist’s. For both intend to demonstrate what post-modernity is exactly. That is through the way in which we as a society and individual construct our beliefs, instructions and ideologies they can be used to deconstruct the way in which we as a society and individual construct our beliefs, instructions and ideologies. Hence, the only way in which we can understand the way we think and how economic, social and political institutions bring about cause and effect to the individual is by deconstructing those very processes and institutions that make us who we are.
| 43 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
