Here’s a few notes toward a defintion of post-modernism or post-structuralism.
Post-modernism starts with anti-foundationalism. The whole idea of linguistic reference is suspect. There is no certain ground upon which to build knowledge. All statements are flawed and opened to criticism. “All interpretations are misinterpretations”–Derrida. Don’t ask how it is that you can understand that statement; it’s a straightforward liar’s paradox. This doesn’t phase anyone, though.
There’s a guy on these boards called “postmodern” who keeps claiming that we should discard all language as artificial and suspect–perfectly postmodern–and turn “within” to find the “truth”–not postmodern at all. A real postmodernist would deny that there is a “within” as opposed to a “without” and would also dispute the notion that some priviledged presence of truth could be found there as opposed to anywhere else.
You see, all language is a pattern of differences, of distinctions, and all distinctions are politically motivated. When I say “West,” regardless of what I intend, I am asserting my identity against the “East.” That is, I am a racist imperialist and I have no choice in the matter; language and its pattern of distinctions makes this so. When I say “I love you” I am also saying “I hate that other guy.” Nietzsche thought that heaven was invented in order to de-sanctify the world, and that when a priest blesses something, he is, in effect, cursing the rest of the world, giving himself a monopoly on meaning and value.
In this, it is built upon a long tradition of critical philosophy–Freud, Marx, Nietzsche principally–that claims to see beyond the mundane meaning of statements into their hidden psychological, ideological, or affective content (respectively). In this tradition, you no longer engage in a conversation with other thinkers in the tradition, you merely overhear and diagnose them.
Because there is no “truth,” all statements must be evaluated on political grounds. That is, nothing is “true” or “false,” “good” or “evil.” Statements are analyzed based on whether they support or undermine power structures, ideologies, etc.–in other words, whether they are more or less politically correct. Art becomes evaluated not on the basis of its quality–quality, like all values, is a mask of power!–but on the basis of how it depicts oppressed social classes, etc.
A friend of mine recently summed postmodernism up pretty well: “If you believe O.J. killed his wife, you’re a racist. If you believe he didn’t, you’re a sexist.”
You will note Foucault runs away from all questions about the truth or falsity of the “discourses” he analyzes. They are merely unique relations of power that exist in a particular place for particular purposes. It doesn’t matter whether someone is right or wrong, but rather how his words galvanized the society, government, classes to certain actions, creating certain institutions, enacting certain laws. That is, the operative dimension of language.
The Achilles heel–and great appeal–of all this is that it elevates the intellectual to a godlike position. Only he is able see beyond the naivete that “words” actually “mean” things. Except the referential and semantic dimension of language is absolutely essential in reading and understanding these authors in the first place! And also, without it, the world and history become incomprehensible–we can’t understand why certain ideas might have moved people to do the things they did. To my way of thinking, it is a kind of bad faith, an attempt to pretend that one is not human.
Nietzsche, and even Marx and Freud were already much smarter than many postmodernist writers about these things, but their ideas have been caricatured and placed in the service of an absurdity that any 1st year philosophy student could dismiss were he able to withstand the sheer weight of all those tedious volumes and multitudinous polysyllabic neologisms.