Postmodernism and its critical perspective in political theory

Introduction

The question asks what is meant by postmodernism and whether it brings out the critical perspective in political theory. I answer that it does supply a sharp critical perspective, with limits, as set out below.

Meaning of postmodernism

Postmodernism began as a reaction to modernism, the product of the industrial era in which reason and science replaced traditional explanation and produced grand narratives and all-embracing theories. It sees modernism as centralised and monolithic, suppressing minor identities and voices, and it rejects the idea of a single meaning of truth; it favours a multiplicity of narratives and denies that meta-narratives are possible. It cannot be reduced to a single definition, since it resists definition by nature, and there is disagreement even on whether it is a break with modernity or a continuing critique of it. Eagleton characterises it as a mode of thinking that distrusts the traditional ideas of truth, reason, identity and objectivity, doubts universal progress and emancipation, and rejects single frameworks, grand narratives and final grounds of explanation; set against Enlightenment norms, the world appears contingent, diverse and unstable. The syllabus places it with feminism as a critical perspective in Unit IV.

Main thinkers. Lyotard defined the postmodern condition as "incredulity towards metanarratives" and said that knowledge has become a commodity; Derrida developed deconstruction, which reads texts to reveal their internal conflicts, and attacked logocentrism and fixed meaning; Foucault analysed discourse and the link between power and knowledge; Laclau and Mouffe proposed a post-Marxist "radical democracy".

Postmodernism as a critical perspective

Postmodernism brings out the critical side of political theory by exposing what claims to neutrality conceal. (1) Knowledge and power. Foucault holds that power and knowledge are mutually constitutive, that power is diffused through the social body and acts in institutions such as the family, school, prison and hospital, and that disciplinary power works through observation, normalising judgement and examination. This directs political theory away from the sovereign and the state alone to the micro-practices of rule; he said it was time to "cut off the king's head" in political theory. (2) Deconstruction. Reading texts to bring out their silences and contradictions makes it possible to criticise the canon and the hierarchies that it assumes. (3) Voice for the marginal. By questioning single narratives it makes room for minor identities and voices; Laclau and Mouffe's radical democracy joins anti-racist, environmental, human rights and civil rights struggles. (4) Contemporary context. It asks how globalisation weakens the nation-state and produces plurality and fragmentation.

It is therefore critical in a real sense, but its critical edge has been questioned. Habermas and Eagleton argue that it undermines the emancipatory role of social science, and Foucault's reply is that emancipatory projects often reveal new power-knowledge regimes. The prudent conclusion is that postmodernism sharpens the questions that critical theory asks, while leaving it to other approaches to supply the normative standards by which to answer them.

Postmodernism and the other critical strand. Feminist theory, the other perspective of Unit IV, shares part of its critical agenda: the postmodern feminists make the largest departure from earlier feminism by arguing that language constructs gender, and that no single factor explains women's oppression. Post-Marxists such as Laclau and Mouffe apply the same logic to class.

Criticisms of postmodernism

1. It has become a grand narrative itself, and it intensifies personal and social disintegration and despair. (2) Chomsky holds that it is meaningless because it adds nothing to empirical and analytical knowledge. (3) Rosenau points out that it stresses the irrational yet freely uses the instruments of reason, and criticises modernism's inconsistency while refusing to be bound by consistency. (4) It leaves deeper questions about the roots of oppression and marginalisation unanswered. (5) Habermas and Eagleton complain that scepticism about truth and norms makes the emancipatory role of social science doubtful. (6) Its relativism and diffusion are not always well suited to political projects. (7) Its obscurity: it is a heap of ambiguities that offers no clear direction, as the unit itself concedes.

Conclusion

Postmodernism does provide a critical perspective: it unsettles claims to universality, exposes the working of power through knowledge and discourse, and makes room for plural and marginal voices. Its critical force is best used together with other approaches, because it supplies questions more readily than standards.