Postmodernism

H. Bertens
{"title":"Postmodernism","authors":"H. Bertens","doi":"10.1093/obo/9780190221911-0081","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The terms “postmodern” and “postmodernism” first of all referred to new departures in the arts, in literature, and in architecture that had their origins in the 1950s and early 1960s, gained momentum in the course of the 1960s, and became a dominant factor in the 1970s. After their heyday in the 1980s, postmodern innovations had either run their course or were absorbed by the mainstream, if not commercialized by the advertising industry. On a more intangible level, the terms referred to the new “postmodern” sensibility that had given rise to those innovations, but that also manifested itself more broadly in, for instance, the so-called counterculture of the later 1960s. This postmodern sensibility was irreverent, playful, and ironic. It rejected the distinction between high art and popular culture and demystified the status of art and the artist. Its articulation in the form of literary criticism—where the label “postmodern” first gained wide currency—prefigured the theory-driven criticism that arose in the course of the 1970s and that was heavily indebted to French poststructuralism. In the next decade, this postmodern criticism or critique, an amalgam of poststructuralist ideas and assumptions, branched out into all directions, making itself felt in historiography, ethnography, musicology, religious studies, management and organization studies, legal studies, leisure studies, and other areas that unexpectedly experienced a postmodern moment, or even a more lasting postmodern reorientation. Finally, and at its most encompassing level, the term postmodern was applied to late-20th-century Western society as a whole. The argument here was that somewhere in the postwar period modernity had given way to a postmodernity that recognizably constituted a new economic and sociocultural formation. There was not much agreement as to the exact turning point, or on the nature, of the new “postmodern condition,” but its theorists, most of whom saw it as inextricably entangled with capitalism, even if some emphasized its emancipatory pursuit of heterogeneity and difference, argued that it was here to stay. If it did, it soon was left to its own devices. We have since the turn of the century not heard much about postmodernity. Postmodern criticism has fared better and though it, too, would seem to have run out of steam in the new millennium, it has fundamentally changed our perspectives on literature, architecture, the arts, and a host of other subjects, not the least of which is the rational, self-determined subject of Enlightenment humanism.","PeriodicalId":119064,"journal":{"name":"Literary and Critical Theory","volume":"6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Literary and Critical Theory","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780190221911-0081","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The terms “postmodern” and “postmodernism” first of all referred to new departures in the arts, in literature, and in architecture that had their origins in the 1950s and early 1960s, gained momentum in the course of the 1960s, and became a dominant factor in the 1970s. After their heyday in the 1980s, postmodern innovations had either run their course or were absorbed by the mainstream, if not commercialized by the advertising industry. On a more intangible level, the terms referred to the new “postmodern” sensibility that had given rise to those innovations, but that also manifested itself more broadly in, for instance, the so-called counterculture of the later 1960s. This postmodern sensibility was irreverent, playful, and ironic. It rejected the distinction between high art and popular culture and demystified the status of art and the artist. Its articulation in the form of literary criticism—where the label “postmodern” first gained wide currency—prefigured the theory-driven criticism that arose in the course of the 1970s and that was heavily indebted to French poststructuralism. In the next decade, this postmodern criticism or critique, an amalgam of poststructuralist ideas and assumptions, branched out into all directions, making itself felt in historiography, ethnography, musicology, religious studies, management and organization studies, legal studies, leisure studies, and other areas that unexpectedly experienced a postmodern moment, or even a more lasting postmodern reorientation. Finally, and at its most encompassing level, the term postmodern was applied to late-20th-century Western society as a whole. The argument here was that somewhere in the postwar period modernity had given way to a postmodernity that recognizably constituted a new economic and sociocultural formation. There was not much agreement as to the exact turning point, or on the nature, of the new “postmodern condition,” but its theorists, most of whom saw it as inextricably entangled with capitalism, even if some emphasized its emancipatory pursuit of heterogeneity and difference, argued that it was here to stay. If it did, it soon was left to its own devices. We have since the turn of the century not heard much about postmodernity. Postmodern criticism has fared better and though it, too, would seem to have run out of steam in the new millennium, it has fundamentally changed our perspectives on literature, architecture, the arts, and a host of other subjects, not the least of which is the rational, self-determined subject of Enlightenment humanism.
后现代主义
“后现代主义”和“后现代主义”这两个术语首先指的是艺术、文学和建筑领域的新背离,它们起源于20世纪50年代和60年代初,在60年代获得了发展势头,并在70年代成为主导因素。后现代创新在20世纪80年代的鼎盛时期之后,如果没有被广告业商业化,那么它们要么走了自己的路,要么被主流所吸收。在更无形的层面上,这些术语指的是新的“后现代”情感,这种情感引发了这些创新,但也更广泛地体现在,例如,20世纪60年代后期所谓的反主流文化中。这种后现代的情感是不敬的、好玩的和讽刺的。它拒绝高雅艺术和流行文化之间的区别,并消除了艺术和艺术家的神秘地位。它以文学批评的形式表达出来——“后现代”这个标签第一次得到广泛使用——预示了20世纪70年代兴起的理论驱动的批评,这在很大程度上归功于法国的后结构主义。在接下来的十年里,这种后现代的批评或批判,融合了后结构主义的思想和假设,扩展到各个方向,在史学、民族志、音乐学、宗教研究、管理和组织研究、法律研究、休闲研究和其他意想不到地经历了后现代时刻的领域,甚至是更持久的后现代重新定位。最后,在其最广泛的层面上,“后现代”一词被应用于整个20世纪后期的西方社会。这里的论点是,在战后时期的某个时候,现代性已经让位于一种公认构成了一种新的经济和社会文化形态的后现代性。对于新“后现代状态”的确切转折点或本质,人们并没有达成太多共识,但它的理论家们认为它与资本主义有着千丝万缕的联系,尽管有些人强调它对异质性和差异的解放追求,但他们认为它将继续存在。如果有,它很快就会自生自灭。自世纪之交以来,我们就没怎么听说过后现代。后现代批评表现得更好,尽管它在新千年似乎也失去了动力,但它从根本上改变了我们对文学、建筑、艺术和许多其他学科的看法,其中最重要的是理性的、自主的启蒙人文主义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信