Is postmodernism outdated? On the relevance of the concept at the beginning of the 21st century

Zhernosenko Irina Aleksandrovna ORCID: 0000-0002-8571-6205 Professor; Department of Humanities; Altai State Institute of Culture 656055, Russia, Altai Territory, Barnaul, Yurina str., 277, room 306 irina.jernosenko@gmail.com Other publications by this author

Dunilov Ivan Mihailovich ORCID: 0009-0007-6726-5088 Independent researcher 656055, Russia, Altai Territory, Barnaul, Yurina str., 277, office 310 2200imd@gmail.com

Before starting the research, it is necessary to define what we mean by the concept of "postmodernity" / "postmodernism". In the 21st century, Russian humanities faced the problem of choosing a language and tools for describing the cultural realities of our time. The widespread concepts of postmodernism, postindustrialism, etc., rooted in the twentieth century, are losing their relevance today. Additional difficulties are associated with the peculiarities of transferring Western concepts to the Russian soil (rather amorphous and vague from the beginning), which, having adopted some conventional forms for Russian academic science, were practically not subjected to revision or critical reflection until recently. As a result, the debates that took place mainly in the literary departments of American universities in the 1970s and 1990s, and formed the general discursive space of postmodernism, are poorly known in Russian science, which is dominated by the idea of postmodernism as an aesthetic phenomenon, the philosophical basis of which is French poststructuralism. Ilya Ilyin, a well-known Russian researcher, even proposed the concept of a "poststructuralist-deconstructivist-postmodern complex" ^[1].

In the article, we use the paired concept of "postmodernity" / "postmodernism" because it is impossible to distinguish clear criteria for both terms: "postmodernity" and "postmodernism". This is due, among other things, to their inconsistent use by different authors, as well as the peculiarities of translation from English into Russian. At the same time, in Russian humanities, "postmodern" is usually referred to as the period of modern history that formed after the end of the industrial era — "after modernism", and the term "postmodernism" refers to the culture of that time, characteristic artistic styles and philosophical trends.

The debates of the 1980s marked the highest degree of interest in "postmodernism" / "postmodernism", when the author's versions of Fredrik Jamieson ^[2] and David Harvey ^[3], based on unorthodox economic theories, turned out to be the most elaborated and comprehensive. They linked cultural changes with changes in capitalism (Jamieson's famous "postmodernism, or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism"). However, at the turn of the century, there is a certain fatigue both from the term itself and from discussions about it. We will not touch upon the competing theories of post-postmodernism, which are perhaps most fully represented in the book by the Russian social theorist Alexander Pavlov "Post-Postmodernism" ^[4] and the collection "Supplanting the Postmodern" ^[5] edited by David Radram and Nicholas Stavris, but only try to summarize some results. To clarify, "post—postmodernism" is a collective term used by A. Pavlov for theories whose authors seek to reflect the features of modernity, which differs from postmodernism of the late twentieth century.

As already noted, many leading philosophers and theorists, including Fredrik Jamison, David Harvey, Ihab Hassan, Linda Hutcheon, and Sigmund Bauman, later moved away from developments within the framework of the postmodern paradigm. Perry Anderson's book "The Origins of Postmodernism" ^[6] also became a kind of finale, suggesting the end of the project of theorizing "postmodernism" / "postmodernism", which is connected with the very finiteness of the period, if, of course, postmodernism is considered as a chronologically limited period (and postmodern culture of this period), and not as a metahistorical cyclical phenomenon.

Here are just a few examples of why various authors consider the term "postmodernism" outdated, obsolete and to be replaced, or, conversely, quite working even today.

The "father" of theoretical postmodernism, literary critic Ihab Hassan in his 2001 essay "From Postmodernism to Postmodernity: The Local/Global Context" ^[7] first provides examples of the use of the word "postmodernism" before giving arguments in favor of rejecting the concept. So, according to Hassan, "postmodernism" is used to refer to: an eclectic architectural style that mixes historical and aesthetic elements (for example, the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao by architect Frank Gehry, the Tsukuba Space Center by architect Arata Isozaki, etc.; an extreme degree of relativism in the field of values and beliefs, denial of any possibility of truth; an apolitical and even politically incorrect double neocolonialism; a set of various phenomena of popular culture from singer Madonna and artist Andy Warhol to Japanese slot machines-pachinko.

What do all these things have in common? Fragmentation, hybridity, relativism, play, parody, stylization, ironic, anti-ideological position bordering on kitsch and camp. Why is the term initially unsuccessful? It doesn't just get in the way, it's outdated optics. Postmodernism cannot be separated from modernism. Postmodernism is very "modernist" rather than "postmodern", as it assumes a linear time scale, whereas, for example, poststructuralism rejects such an interpretation. Postmodernism has no clear chronological framework. For example, some old writers (I. Hassan cites Nabokov and Beckett as examples) relate to postmodernism, while some modern ones (for example, Updike) do not. Moreover, the iconic techniques of self-reflection and black humor for postmodernism can be found even in the 18th-century writer Lorenz Stern ("The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman"), even in Euripides. That is, the conditional 1960s cannot serve as a chronological boundary. Finally, postmodernism applies only to rich societies.

What does Ihab Hassan suggest, other than repeating his old ideas about immanence and uncertainty, and relying on pragmatism? He proposes to replace the outdated concept of postmodernism with postmodernity, which is becoming a global (or local) phenomenon. Hassan suggests developing a sense of self, involving coexistence with other cultures and the universe itself. The theorist suggests that this is not an easy path for a divided humanity, for which group identities are of paramount importance. In any case, the survival of humanity depends on the ability to engage in dialogue and develop a new ecological identity. Ihab Hassan went from a fairly positive attitude towards postmodernism to its rejection and transition to the position of posthumanism.

Anyway, the return to the topic of postmodernism and the indicative rejection of this term by the creator of one of the very first attempts at its systematization is very symptomatic.

The American literary theorist Brian McHale, who devoted many pages to postmodernism in general ^[8] and postmodernism in literature in particular ^[9], admits in his article ^[10] that he overestimated the homogeneity of the cultural landscape and, conversely, underestimated cultural differences. For example, South American magical realism predated American postmodernism in time, and Russian and Eastern European postmodernism(s) differ significantly from Western. As a result, McHale was forced to admit that he had overestimated the level of cultural homogeneity, combining rather heterogeneous phenomena under this collective concept. Brian McHale himself was initially inclined to the version about the origin of postmodernism (primarily in literature), related to the innermost logic of the development of this creative field. Other theories found external causes: the crisis of metanarratives in J.F. Lyotard, the peculiarities of the evolution of capitalism in F. Jamison and D. Harvey. However, Brian McHale now holds the view that external or internal causes alone are not enough, and postmodernism was a more complex phenomenon. It was the overestimation of the importance of the internal laws of the genre that led McHale to false universalization ^{[10, pp. 53-54]}.

But now the situation began to change, and what existed more as a mechanistic unification in the constructions of theorists began to take on flesh.

B. McHale identifies the following mechanisms for the spread of postmodernism: economic globalization, the actual circulation and export of ideas and texts; a true dialogue of cultures, chaotic contacts that do not fit into the logic of spreading from the center to the periphery, and contribute to the emergence of a global aesthetic ^{[10, p. 58]}.

A scientist influenced by the ideas of Christian Moraru (professor of humanities and English literature from Greensboro, USA) suggests abandoning the term "postmodernism" when postmodernism "won", that is, it really became global, replacing it with "post-postmodernism", "cosmodernism", "planetarity" ^{[10, c.59]}.

The famous British literary critic and Marxist philosopher Terry Eagleton analyzes the social foundations of postmodernism in his highly polemical article "Where do postmodernists come from?" ^[11]. According to T. Eagleton, postmodernism was the result not only of the amazing defeat of leftist alternatives, but also of the "success" of capitalism, which established itself as an alternative reality, including speech, which turned old forms of resistance into anachronism. New adapted resistance strategies have emerged, taking into account that fighting is possible, but only on the periphery of the system, in various faults and in certain local areas. Hence the attention to otherness, physicality, sexuality, the unconscious, the marginal, that is, a kind of non-political radicalization, combined with an increased interest in culture and language. Moreover, the generational change has affected: after all, younger left-wing intellectuals have no experience of political activism and participation in mass movements, which have faded by our time. Thus, Eagleton confirms that the philosophy of postmodernism has a certain initial political orientation. The juxtaposition of internal and external blocks action, since being inside the system means complicity, and being outside means impotence.

An anarchist response to the challenge of the totality of capitalism did not become an alternative, because the totality itself was questioned as a kind of cultural construct. Cultural determinism is as limited as biological and economic determinism. A typical style of thinking for such a situation, T. Eagleton believes, would be libertarian pessimism, that is, a combination of a dream of something other than today's reality and simultaneous pessimism about the possibility of change. If there are no traditional political agents, then one can imagine that the system could deconstruct itself. If there is no way to know reality, but there are only options for interpretation, only relativism and pragmatism remain. But pragmatism, pluralism, heterogeneity, and mobility are intrinsic to capitalism. The old logic is being reproduced, but on a new level. Postulating the randomness of history and the impossibility of collective action means impotence, the impossibility of organizing it in new conditions.

Although postmodernism can be called the experience of the political defeat of the left, its origins lie in modernism, the cultural avant-garde, the reaction to the commodification of culture, the rise of new political forces (for example, feminism, local and regional movements), etc. Nor is postmodernism a cultural failure. Postmodernism is internally contradictory: antagonistic attitudes prescribing both pluralism and the affirmation of certain values as universal (for example, a preference for otherness and differences to uniformity) undermine postmodernism, as well as the rejection of historical roots and their own history.

The refrain "turning necessity into virtue" characterizes the entire text quite well. The scientist describes postmodernism as a kind of project of left-liberal intellectuals, designed to somehow compensate for political defeat and justify their own retreat into the field of culture and text. Why does Terry Eagleton consider postmodernism to be a symbol of the "success" of capitalism? Because postmodernism attaches universal value to the problems of a certain part of the intellectuals of the richest regions of the world, the so-called global West/North.

In his lecture "The Aesthetics of Singularity" in 2012 (the eponymous essay ^[12] was published in 2015), Fredrik Jamieson addresses the global context (he was often criticized for focusing on Western countries), making some adjustments to his previous constructions, but leaves the basis unchanged. Jamison notes that the cultural style, which he called postmodernism, has gone out of fashion over time, while the era (postmodernity) continues, while Linda Hutcheon believes exactly the opposite ^{[4, p. 155]}. Thus, the third stage of capitalism, late capitalism (Jamieson relies on the periodization of the Belgian economist Ernest Mandel ^[13]), can be designated by the term "globalization", and "postmodernity" acts as a description of a new global culture in a broad sense. Since then, the Soviet system has ceased to exist, the old model of industrialization has become obsolete, new information technologies have appeared, but this does not change the essence of the system.

Jamison describes the changes that have taken place over 30 years in culture, economics, and politics. In art, this is a decrease in the difference between forms, the appearance of unclassifiable objects: combinations of video, sculpture, photography, performance, etc. Oil painting has lost its position. Photography, which has become a real discovery, is experiencing an upsurge. The role of institutions and supervisors has increased. The exhibited object turns into a work due to its placement in the museum space ^{[12, p. 116]}.

The financialization of the economy is the main trend of this stage. The philosopher refers to the theory of cycles by Giovanni Arrigi ^[14] and describes it as follows: the spread of capitalism to new regions, the development and saturation of the regional market; the stage of financial speculation, when capital no longer finds enough targets for investment in the real sector. At the same time, the story is accompanied by a change of center, with leadership shifting from Genoa to the Netherlands, from the Netherlands to the United Kingdom, and finally from the United Kingdom to the United States. But the new territories to which capitalism can spread have ended, which leads to collapse ^{[12, p. 123]}.

In previous stages of capitalist development, national identity was based on opposition to another, xenophobia. But soon, within large nations, various national minorities began to develop their national and ethnic projects. During the time of imperialism, otherness spread to the conquered, the colonized, and the "underdeveloped." Decolonization paved the way for cultural unification. The traumatic experience of identity loss can be compensated by regression to older forms of group identity. The debate about universals is also returning, which is most acutely manifested in the problem of feminism and national and ethnic cultures. The essentialism of universal human rights versus gender essentialism against the background of American imperialism.

According to Jamison, the politics of postmodernity boils down to the seizure of spaces, whether it's about Palestine or about gentrification in American towns. Capitalism began with the enclosure and seizure of the lands of the Aztec and Inca empires. We are always talking about one thing – private ownership of land ^{[12, pp.126-129]}.

Linda Hutcheon ^{[15, 16]}, who does not use Marxist optics, sees the reasons for the decline of postmodernism in a different way. L. Hutcheon was originally a proponent of the union of the postmodern approach (and in her understanding postmodernism is inextricably linked with poststructuralism) with feminism. The problem of the destruction of agency, that is, the ability to choose and act independently, was compensated by the presence of a positive program in feminism. However, she believes that in the 21st century, postmodernism has been left behind. And the reason for this lies in the fact that the same thing happened to him as with modernism — he underwent institutionalization in science, art, architecture, book publishing, the film industry, etc. This is evidenced by the presence of canonical texts, anthologies, various interpretations and introductions, dictionaries, and even publishing houses. During its existence, postmodernism has become, in the words of Linda Hutcheon, "a kind of general counterdiscourse" ^[16], intersecting but not coinciding with feminism, postcolonial theory, etc. As a result, he turns into a doxa. Theorists cannot go beyond representations, so gender, class, religious, professional and other differences form a rather motley picture of postmodernity as a discursive space. At the same time, the boundaries of the more general concept of "postmodernity" / "postmodernism" as a description of phenomena in art are rather blurred. Due to the interpenetration and the general emphasis on culture, these concepts are mixed.

Nevertheless, Linda Hutcheon still believes that deconstruction, demystification of seemingly inviolable categories, and recognition of differences are the first step, which is why postmodernism is still relevant in politics.

Or maybe postmodernism is just outdated? This is exactly what the British literary and cultural critic Alan Kirby thinks. In his article "The Death of Postmodernism and what Comes after" ^[17], published for the first time in 2006 in the journal Philosophy Now, A. Kirby writes that key texts and postmodern works of art were created decades ago, and the creators of these works could not even imagine what the future would be, i.e. our present. The scientist sees no noticeable signs of postmodernism either in modern popular culture or in the academy. Postmodernism, according to Kirby, has become "a source of marginal philistine gags aimed at preschoolers, collected in pop culture" ^[17].

Modern popular culture interacts with viewers and collaborators in a completely different way.: it's really interactive. This also applies to television and radio shows, where viewers and listeners can interfere in various ways; and, of course, to computer games on the Internet. Even the way they interact with music has changed: now listeners are not tied to physical media, but are free to create their listening lists by mixing a variety of tracks.

It was modern culture, which Kirby calls "pseudo—modernism" (later this concept became the basis of the theory of one of the types of post-postmodernism - "digimodernism" ^[18]) that did away with the author of the work, not postmodernism. Now the text, the cultural product, does not come out ready, but is literally created by the consumer, who becomes the true author. The old division, when the author defined the content and form, and the reader or viewer was left with only an interpretation, has been lost. Now, without a consumer, a text or a show simply cannot exist.

However, one should not think that Alain Kirby is an apologist of "pseudo-modernism", his position is rather moralizing. Democratization and the dictate of the market have led to a total decrease in quality, intellectual impoverishment, and consumer activity is ephemeral, virtual, like the texts, films, and shows themselves, which constantly appear and disappear. And here A. Kirby borrows the vocabulary of Jamison and Baudrillard, speaking about the loss of a sense of history, the replacement of doubt in reality, characteristic of postmodernism, and the transition to self-citation and the momentary nature of pseudo-modernism. For example, in cinema, modern effects do not create a realistic picture, on the contrary, they turn the film into a kind of computer game. The genre of pseudo-documentary cinema also seems to be characteristic. The very foundations of these changes were laid in the past. In relation to pseudo-modernism, postmodernism already acts as a high culture, and related feminism, postcolonialism and other critical trends, as Alain Kirby believes, are "isolated" in the academic environment ^[17].

Kirby significantly overestimates the democratization of modern popular culture. After all, it is the transmission format and script, as well as the capabilities provided by the developers of computer games and programs, that determine how the user can or cannot interact./the consumer with the content. Does the description of modern cultural phenomena cancel out the analysis proposed by F. According to J. Jamieson, D. Harvey and other scientists, has technological development really changed the cultural situation so much that it requires the introduction of a new term to correctly describe it?

Of course, Kirby tries to link the changes to capitalism, but he does not consider the changes that have occurred with capitalism. And the analysis itself is rather superficial.

But not everyone agrees that postmodernism is outdated. In 2021, the famous left-wing English-language publishing house "Verso" published a book by British journalist Stuart Jeffries "Everything, always, everywhere. How we became postmodernists" ^[19]. Prior to that, Jeffries had written a book on the Frankfurt School ^[20].

Stuart Jeffries tries to connect diverse phenomena in the field of high and mass culture and philosophy with the political and economic trends of our time. Jeffries' text combines a variety of names and phenomena: from J. Deleuze and J.-F. Lyotard (who, in Jeffries' interpretation, is a critic of postmodernism), the work of artists Sidney Sherman, Sophie Kall, Jenny Holzer, Jeff Koons, to construction projects under the patronage of Prince Charles (now King Charles III), from the punk band Sex Pistols and David Bowie, singer Madonna, to Margaret Thatcher, from Netflix and Apple to Salman Rushdie's fatwa, and from the 9/11 terrorist attack to the GTA series of computer games. But all these pieces, collected in 3 episodes in 10 chapters, form a single puzzle. Stuart Jeffries' book has a very solid conceptual framework.

We can say that for Jeffries, postmodernism is the cultural logic of neoliberalism, and Margaret Thatcher, Deng Xiaoping, Augusto Pinochet, and Ronald Reagan may well be considered postmodern politicians.

In the world of Stuart Jeffries, Deleuze's rhizome may well be similar to the dismantling of social guarantees and rising social elevators. Jeffries' strength lies in this combination of analysis of socio-economic, artistic and philosophical phenomena.

The journalist offers various interpretations of postmodernism. This is what came after modernism, and the rebellion against its "dehumanizing" influence, and the "semiotic black hole." But also "a more or less cynical form of capitulation and reconciliation with a new mutation of capitalism." Postmodernism has a dual nature: "it is both evidence against the neoliberal order and its alibi. Even worse, indictments can serve as alibis" ^{[19, p. 8]}.

Here are just a few examples of how postmodernism works from the book. Take for example "Truisms", a series of works by Jenny Holzer in the style of public art. She placed short inscriptions on various surfaces in the city. The content of these maxims ranged from philosophical to common wisdom of life. For example, the luminous composition "Protect me from my Desires," which, it would seem, carries some kind of subversive meaning and enters into a correspondence dispute with Deleuze's philosophy (with a certain effort from interpreters), or the inscription "Enjoy, because you can't change anything anyway," which exudes hopelessness. These inscriptions were repeated on clothing prints (they could be purchased on the artist's personal website) and were even placed on a BMW car. Of course, a high-status artist (Holzer, for example, was the first woman to represent the United States at the Venice Biennale ^{[21, pp. 145-146]}) does not wear T-shirts with her slogans. Is there any political or social position behind all this?

According to S. Jeffries, Andy Warhol's pop art still had some kind of subversive power (A. Hussen agrees with this statement, but not F. Jamison), whereas postmodern irony is the most toothless kind of criticism, if it is criticism at all.

As another example, we can cite the activities of Apple, or rather the absolute discrepancy between the image and the real business. In 1984, Apple loudly announced itself in one of the most famous commercials in the history of video advertising, which was shown during the broadcast of the Super Bowl ^[22]. This is a promotional video referring to George Orwell's "1984" and laid the foundations of Apple's image, which have remained unchanged to this day. With a hammer throw, a young athlete smashes a screen broadcasting "big brother" in front of a crowd of shaved and robed people. The company and its Macintosh computer (Mac) product acted as saviors from the suffocating corporate world that was associated with such a "boring" company as IBM.

The video was shot by Ridley Scott, a director who is very significant for understanding postmodernism in cinema. His classic cyberpunk film Blade Runner (1982) based on Philip K. Dick's book "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" is one of the most favorite objects of cultural analysis by various scientists, including geographer and social theorist David Harvey ^{[3, pp. 491-501]} and the master of Russian sociology Alexander Filippov ^[23]. Scott's other fantasy film, Alien, 1979, is almost not far behind in popularity among researchers.

Anyway, since then, Apple has made several more revolutions in the field of consumer electronics: it has led to the digital revolution in music, which has changed not only the media market, but also user practices related to listening to music, which today in no way resemble what it was at the beginning or even the middle of the twentieth century. centuries. However, the company missed another revolution when digital ownership of recordings began to be replaced by streaming with a subscription to the service. Jeffries argues that Netflix currently has the most advanced content selection algorithms that take into account consumer tastes, in other words, the history of search and consumption ^{[19, pp. 291-295]}. She also produces television shows, of course, using this knowledge. It's easy to believe that many of Jean Baudrillard's statements, which seemed too bold and scandalous, turned out to be prophetic. The dystopia of total surveillance was realized, but not at all in the way that J. R.R. Tolkien had envisioned. Orwell. And Apple's personal convenience devices played an important role in this.

So is postmodernism outdated? If we accept the point of view of a British journalist, then new technologies have not buried postmodernism, but rather prolonged its existence.: "Postmodernism is not just one of the architectural styles that served neoliberal business until it was discarded, only to be extracted again for the colonization of historical heritage by the industry — although it includes all of this. Postmodernism is not only a ghostly modernism that haunts us with faded bright colors and pathetic childish playfulness. His spirit is still alive and shows no signs of dying. He lives among us, expressing himself in the politics of post-truth, in gender theory, in the overthrow of the values of high art. Digital technologies and social networks have hardly made postmodernism obsolete, rather they have breathed new life into it" ^{[19, p. 355]}.

In our opinion, the waning of interest in postmodernism at the end of the last century and the beginning of this century is largely due not to the loss of heuristic potential in changed conditions or its general initial vagueness, but to the "fatigue" of the term caused by both its institutionalization and association with political passivity. Postmodernism has become a widespread or even universally recognized "counter-discourse", if we accept L. Hutcheon's point of view, which deprives it of its sharpness and oppositional potential. The lack of a positive program that goes beyond the criticism of representations, the promotion of "subversive" discursive practices, etc. Also played a role. The latest technological shifts are unlikely to undermine the potential of the theoretical core of postmodernism, because the foundations of today's technological changes were laid decades ago, and for their analysis, various authors are forced to turn to the intuitions of leading postmodern theorists. Thus, "postmodernity" / "postmodernism" turns out to be included in theories that are designed to cancel and replace it both as a negativity present and at the level of methodology. Such an upgrade and renaming of postmodernism (for example, Jamison's replacement with "globalization" while maintaining the argument) clearly shows that only significant socio-economic and environmental shifts can sufficiently change "modernity", for which the next versions (post) describepostmodernism will be irrelevant.