Philosophy

What's the difference between post-modernism and critiques of modernity?

Comments

Not an easy question to answer since(i) both terms are used in a variety of different ways, and not veryoften by the various philosophers who are categorised in these ways;and (ii) these terms cross boundaries (and peryhaps even originate there) well beyond philosophy(literary studies, music, visual arts, cultural theory, etc.).

Anyway, try this out as a startingpoint: let us define a 'critique' as an analysis of X (presumably inthis case a negative evaluation, but it needn't be) but in terms thatX would recognise. A critique of a argument in economics, forexample, would employ economic concepts that are also the horizon ofthe original argument. 'Critique', then, is an operation that one canperform WITHIN a certain type of intellectual milieu, an ordinaryform of debate. In this sense, a critique of modernism (whatever thatis) is still modernism. 'Post-modernism' (whatever that is) would bean attempt (perhaps successful) to move beyond the horizon ofconcepts, forms of analysis or what-have-you that characterisemodernism.

Now, my original definition of'critique' is a bit impoverished or restrictive, I think. What Kantmeant by 'critique' would certainly not fit this definition! So,there is an argument that post-modernism is not really post-, butjust a carrying out of modernism is a more thorough way. One examplewould be Rodolf Gasche's The Tain of the Mirror (1986),which makes a very plausible case that we should see Derrida asperforming a kind of transcendental critique very much akin to Kant.

Read another response by Douglas Burnham

Read another response about Philosophy