Reddit reviews The Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change
We found 3 Reddit comments about The Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
Wiley-Blackwell
They do. Both are individualistic belief systems.
Post Modernism:
>Post-Modernism is, in essence, an individualist philosophy. Individualists encourage the exercise of an individual's goals and desires and therefore value independence and self-reliance. They also argue that the interests of the individual are more important than those of the state or of any social group. They therefore oppose external interference by society or the government on the interests of the individual.
Neoliberalism:
>When it comes to individualization, this idea is one of the fundamental aspects of neoliberalism. In fact, Bauman (2000:34) argues that in neoliberal states “individualization is a fate, not a choice.” As Amable (2011) explains, neoliberals have realized that in order for their ideology to be successful, a state’s populace must internalize the belief that individuals are only to be rewarded based on their personal effort. With such an ego-driven focus, Scharff (2011) explains that the process of individualization engenders a climate where structural inequalities are converted into individual problems.
The reason why feminism is what it is, is because of neoliberalism/postmodernism. Still love this talk about it.
But there are other critiques like The Condition of Postmodernity or Postmodernism, or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. I thought it was common Marxist logic that they were linked?
Don't you know all the serious analysis and critique of postmodernism has come from alt-right Youtube personas like Fredric Jameson and David Harvey?
Where? I listened to the first 5 minutes or so and got utterly bored as JP climbed aboard his usual rambling nonsensical bandwagon when he talks about things he has no understanding of.
He references Derrida and makes an assertion (phallo-logo-centric again) regarding his work without evidence or argument. Derrida was only one "postmodernist" among many in any case (and by no means all that interesting, either). He doesn't mention any other names of postmodern thinkers. He mentions Sartre, but Sartre was an existentialist (like JP) and also a Marxist. Read the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Paul_Sartre
So, nope. Nothing of substance there again. He again then makes some bizarre link between Marxism and Postmodernism again without evidence or explanation when, philosophically, they are opposed.
Here are two works by actual Marxists (David Harvey and Alex Callinicos) which critique postmodernity:
https://www.amazon.com/Against-Postmodernism-Critique-ALEX-CALLINICOS/dp/0745606148
https://www.amazon.com/Condition-Postmodernity-Enquiry-Origins-Cultural/dp/0631162941
What's funny is that he begins his talk by saying that he actually doesn't know much about it, and he hasn't read enough but then proceeds to make an argument as if he had! And you buy that! Without question!
Seriously. Read and think for yourself. Then decide if what he has to say has a leg to stand on.