Postmodern Social Theory Essay ⋆ Sociology Essay Examples ⋆ EssayEmpire

This Postmodern Social Theory Essay example is published for educational and informational purposes only. If you need a custom essay or research paper on this topic please use our writing services. EssayEmpire.com offers reliable custom essay writing services that can help you to receive high grades and impress your professors with the quality of each essay or research paper you hand in.

Postmodern social theory is a field which is both difficult to define and rejects being defined. It is, in fact, a field that struggles against definitions, against norms, against protocols. Instead, it seeks to deconstruct, decenter, and delegitimize scientific claims to universal truths. With these characteristics in mind, it is easy to understand why defining such a field would be a difficult, if not counterproductive, task. Various authors have sought to overcome this difficulty by relying on common characteristics of various postmodern theories, others have defined the field by those who work in it, and still others – particularly those who work in the field itself – have avoided any attempts to define it at all. Regardless of which of these approaches one takes, however, there is no denying that something called postmodern social theory was at one time a flourishing presence in sociology (and elsewhere). There is also little denying that that time has passed and that now postmodern social theory is little more than a memory of a past epoch in social thought. Despite this ”death” of postmodern theory, however, its short life has had profound effects on the way social theorists do theory, and will, no doubt, continue to have such an effect for a long time to come (Ritzer and Ryan 2007).

Few theories have had as meteoric a rise and fall in sociology as postmodern social theory. While it had various antecedents (most notably poststructuralism), it burst on the scene in sociology in the 1960s and within two or three decades observers were writing its obituary. In a sense it is dead because there have been few, if any, major contributions to it in the last few decades. The statement that postmodern social theory is dead is simultaneously controversial, cliched, and meaningless. It is controversial because there are still a few who believe themselves to be doing work in this area. It is cliched because it has been a taken-for-granted assumption by many for years, even among those who never realized it was born or what its life was like. It is also meaningless because many of those associated with postmodern thinking – Foucault, Baudrillard – would argue that such a theory has never existed to die.

Postmodern social thought shifts thinking from the center to the margins. It seeks to decenter, deconstruct, and delegitimize the center. Rather than seeking answers and the Truth, it seeks to keep the conversation going and denies the possibility of Truth. Above all, it represents the death of the grand narrative. It opposes theory (thus to speak of postmodern social theory is a bit paradoxical), is irrational, anti-science, and anti-essentialist. It directs attention toward consumption, the body, and signs. There is a loss of history, a disorienting sense of geography, and a breakdown between nature, culture, and society. Postmodernism emphasizes pastiche, the ephemeral, and play. Although not completely antithetical to modern social theory, postmodern social theory does present a radically different way of looking at the world.

In many ways the methodological ideas of the postmodern theorists were more important than their substantive contributions. Many of these methodological ideas were posed in critical terms. That is, the postmodernists were critical of the modernists’ propensity to think in terms of truth, of grand (or meta-) narratives,” to offer totalizations, to search for origins, to try to find the center, to be foundational, to focus on the author, to be essentialistic, to be overly scientistic and rationalistic, and so on. Many of these things went to the heart of modern theorizing and, after reading the critiques, it became very difficult to theorize in that way, at least unselfconsciously. But the postmodernists went beyond critiquing modern theory: they developed a variety of more positive ideas about how to theorize, including keeping the conversation going (instead of ending it with the truth”), archeology, genealogy, decentering, deconstructing, pastiche, differance, and so on. Involved here were new ways to theorize, and these had a more positive impact on social theory. Thus, in both positive and negative ways, postmodern thinking affected and continues to affect social theorists.

Postmodern social theory has given rise to or at least has significantly helped to pave the way for, a number of other theoretical orientations. The newly privileged periphery that found itself center stage with postmodern considerations allowed for the meaningful development and academic institutionalization of feminist studies, queer studies, multicultural studies, and postcolonial studies, among others. Additionally, many of the basic ideas and concepts (consumer society, simulation, implosion, hyperreality, hyperspace, governmentality, panopticon, schizoanalysis, dromology, etc.) associated with postmodern social theory have made their way into the heart of contemporary social theory.

Postmodern social theory quickly came under several attacks. It was argued that the theory itself represented the kind of grand narrative that it sought to oppose. It was argued that its methods failed to live up to scientific standards and that it offered critiques without a normative basis for judgment. Its lack of alternative visions for the future made it highly pessimistic, and a sense of agency is difficult to uncover. Perhaps most troubling for modern thinkers were the unresolved questions and ambiguities postmodernism left in its path.

Zygmunt Bauman developed a well-known distinction between postmodern sociology and a sociology of postmodernity, the former being a new type of sociology and the latter being sociology as usual but with postmodernity as the topic. While Bauman has been more affected by postmodern ideas than most modern theorists, and while he is far more sensitized to the realities of the postmodern world, he is still a modernist. In that sense, he epitomizes the point that while in one way postmodern social theory might be dead, in another it lives on in the work of contemporary modern (or late modern”) theorists. Those who fail to understand the critiques of the postmodernists, and who fail to at least think through some of the alternatives they offer, are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the modern theorists.

Bibliography:

Baudrillard, J. (1983) Simulations, trans. P. F. P. Patton & P. Beitchman. Semiotext(e), New York.
Baudrillard, J. (1998) [1970] The Consumer Society. Sage, London.
Bauman, Z. (1993) Postmodern Ethics. Blackwell, Oxford.
Bauman, (2000) Liquid Modernity. Polity Press, Cambridge.
Derrida, (1978) Writing and Difference, trans. A. Bass. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Featherstone, (1991) Consumer Culture and Postmodernism. Sage, London.
Lyotard, J.-F. (1984) The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, R. Durand. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN.
Ritzer, G. & Ryan, J. M. (2007) Postmodern social theory and sociology: on symbolic exchange with a dead” theory. In: Powell, J. & Owen, T. (eds.), Reconstructing Postmodernism: Critical Debates. Nova Science Publishers, New York, pp. 41—57.