Talk:Postmodernism/Archive 6

Critical theory, Frankfurt School, and Postmodernism
The role of the Frankfurt School seems neglected in this article on postmodernism. I would think a section on critical theory would provide some context, including the history of the development of critical theory by the Frankfort School. Here's a relevant book. Sbelknap (talk) 18:24, 30 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm confused by your use of sources. According to Google books, that work doesn't mention "postmodern" even once. That's a very bad sign that this is WP:OR, and I'm hoping this isn't indicative of your other changes. We are attempting to summarize the topic according to reliable sources, not our own assessments with sources added after the fact. Linking to Critical Theory is one thing (although the connection should be better explained in the body, with solid sources, before being used in the lede) but assuming that this connection must also mean it's connected to the Frankfurt School is WP:SYNTH. Again, using weak sources to fill-in the gaps is backwards. Both Postmodernism and the Frankfurt School are dense, complicated topics. Attempting to summarize them is always going to risk over-simplifying, or worse, cherry-picking. Neither Frankfurt School, nor Marxism, nor Marxist philosophy mention "postmodernism". The Frankfurt School is Marxist, and Marxism's connection to postmodernism is tense, to put it lightly. Conflating two movements just because they overlap in some approaches isn't helpful for readers trying to get a grasp on a complicated idea. It's not a good way to explain anything, in other words. Using sources which don't directly mention "postmodernism" for the lede of an article on postmodernism is a non-starter, for more reasons than I care to explain. Grayfell (talk) 19:24, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Jürgen Habermas is a proponent of the critical theory of the Frankfurt School and *also* a critic of postmodern theory. There are important similarities between how critical theory and postmodern theory critique earlier understandings of cultural production. Cf this. Sbelknap (talk) 21:03, 30 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Have you read that chapter? The part that's online suggests that it's more complicated that that. The context of those two pages is that they opposed each other despite "some interesting similarities". The first page also says "There are, of course, many differences between critical theory and postmodern theory". Saying that "of course" there are differences suggests that this is a starting assumption shared by the authors and their readers. This context shouldn't be ignored, especially not when dealing with something that is so closely associated with WP:FRINGE issues. We have to be careful to look at the larger picture.
 * So for Wikipedia's purposes, who is saying these similarities are important? In what ways are they important? There are similarities (important or not) between lots of movements and concepts. In some contexts mentioning this is helpful, and sometimes it's misleading or distracting. Just because two movements have similarities and share some of the same critics doesn't mean that it's useful to link them in such broad, suggestive terms. Grayfell (talk) 22:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * What are the fringe issues?Sbelknap (talk) 03:16, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I assume you have read Cultural Marxism. As that section indicates, "postmodernism" has become part of a badly-defined but often anti-Semitic conspiracy theory that's too tedious to explain here. If you can forgive the inflammatory first paragraph, this article is also a good explanation of why this term doesn't mean the same thing to its adherents as it does to many of its detractors. The term is now widely, and incorrectly, misused for political purposes. Even if you disagree with that source, it should indicate that there is no single agreed upon connection between the two. Not even close. Grayfell (talk) 03:23, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * News to me. I was not aware that the existence of cultural Marxism was in question, or that it was controversial, or that it was considered somehow antisemitic. Is it really a matter of dispute that there has been an expansion of Marxism from consideration of class to consideration of race, sex, ethnicity, religion, and various guises of intersectionality? It seems to be happening quite openly. Isn't that a core idea of modern progressivism? There is certainly a legitimate literature on cultural marxism, (e.g. ). This section on cultural Marxism in the article on the Frankfurt School seems incredibly alarmist and rather over the top. Sbelknap (talk) 04:51, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I recall attending a lecture many years back where the 1958 Notting Hill race riots were framed in a cultural marxist context. The lecturer was an academic Marxist, definitely not an alt-right conspiracy theorist! Sbelknap (talk) 05:09, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you've misunderstood what this conspiracy theory is about. Just about anything could be framed in a Marxist context, and that's not limited to Marxism. It's not that the existence of Cultural Marxism is in question, exactly. The concept, and the phrase specifically, are being intentionally misrepresented, or perhaps just severely misunderstood, by some outspoken observers. Considering that "Cultural Marxism" has now been directly cited as justification by multiple recent mass shooters, saying it's "alarmist" misses the mark a bit.
 * Any discussion of the scope of Marxism, and its current status, would belong at one of the many articles on Marxism. As the above source says The conflation of postmodernism and Marxism may come as some surprise to those who identify as belonging to either side of the equation. and Today, it is not uncommon to see condemnations of postmodernism ... in the pages of Jacobin and so on. I'm not necessarily saying this source needs to be cited here, but I hope it explains that postmodernists do not typically consider themselves Marxists, and Marxists don't consider themselves postmodernists. Prominently mentioning the Frankfurt School without any of this context only adds confusion to an already difficult, obtuse article. The lede isn't the place to try and explain all of this. Grayfell (talk) 06:24, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I'm being obtuse. If I understand you correctly, there are dueling conspiracy theories, one a left wing theory that the alt-right is using the idea of cultural Marxism to induce mass shootings and the other a right wing theory which is some sort of new red scare. If so, wouldn't it be useful to have a section in the postmodernism article that would explain all this? (If explanation is possible. The whole thing sounds entirely irrational to me…) Sbelknap (talk) 16:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it would be relevant to include discussion of Oswald Spengler’s Die Untergang des Abendlandes? Sbelknap (talk) 16:34, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * What? No, you didn't understand me correctly. Multiple recent mass shooters have directly named "Cultural Marxism" as justification for their murders. These shooters were believers in a conspiracy theory, but the fact that they have directly and unambiguously named "Cultural Marxism" as a motive is not in dispute. If you think Anders Behring Breivik's manifesto was a "left wing conspiracy theory" than perhaps we'll have to take this discussion to a noticeboard. If you have a reliable source which explicitly connects any of this to postmodernism, let's see it, otherwise this is a waste of time. Grayfell (talk) 20:43, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Why should such great attention be paid to persons that are mentally unstable and violent? This reminds me of those who overreacted to Lyndon LaRouche. The best course is simply to ignore such people, as they are not serious intellectuals. There *was* a Frankfurt School, that is not a fantasy. Critical theory *is* a didactic tool. Cultural Marxism *does* exist. It is a serious error to confuse real phenomenonae with the delusions of those who are mentally unstable, or the deliberate misrepresentations of those who are ill-intended, or the ideas of those who are ignorant or misinformed. Wikipedia ought to describe what was and is, with these side issues considered as side issues, or perhaps ignored. Sbelknap (talk) 22:19, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The burden is still on you to provide reliable sources which directly explain the connection between the "Frankfurt School" and "postmodernism". Not just Critical Theory in general, but the Frankfurt School specifically, since you are the one who is attempting to add this to the lede. So far you have presented some WP:SYNTH and some very obscure, very light-weight sources. If Oswald Spengler (d. 1936) or The Decline of the West (1918) have anything to do with a movement which began in the 1950s, you should summarize the sources which explain the connection. I am explaining why sources need to be held to a high standard because this term, and the connection to the Frankfurt School specifically, is commonly misinterpreted or misrepresented by fringe outlets. If you don't understand why this matters, so be it. You will still need reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 23:08, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

postmodernism and feminism
There isn't much in this wikipedia article on feminism, although many sources describe this as an important aspect of postmodernism. An expert is needed to contribute to this.Sbelknap (talk) 23:31, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Lead issues
The lead does not currently serve its primary function as a summary and intro. According to WP:LEAD, The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. Another problem is that there is much material which is unique to the lead, and is not a summary of anything in the article body. This is contrary to the guideline: Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. It also points out how the average article visit is just a few minutes, and most people never get past the lead, and so one should pay particular attention to accessibility: It should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view. The current lead fails all of these points.

Another indication of a problematic lead imho, is having many footnotes; this one, has twenty-eight. In reality, a well-written lead needs no footnotes at all, because it is a summary of well-sourced material in the body, and does not need to duplicate footnotes which already are present there. I think there's some information which is also much too complex for the lead, and should be moved to the body, where it can be explained in more detail.

I don't wish to start off by removing sourced information from the article which is now present in the lead, or starting a big discussion of what belongs and what doesn't.  Rather, I think this can be solved in stages. For starters, we can recover an earlier, simpler lead as the new lead, and add a section title like Introduction above the current lead to make it the new, first body section of the article. That leaves all the content currently in the lead unchanged, except for some unbolding and other stylistic changes to smooth the segue.

This solves several problems at a stroke: all the complexity of the current lead is moved to the body, where it is more acceptable (although, an "Introduction" should still be simpler than the main part of the body, even if more detailed than the lead, by definition), the presence of multiple footnotes is appropriate, even necessary; we've created a space for those intermediate readers who manage to get past the lead but may not read much further into the body, unless we give them an accessible introduction, and finally, a properly chosen or rewritten lead will have no unique information, and footnotes may be dispensed with. Hopefully, it will also be simple, and readable.

To deal in advance with the issue of readability: postmodernism is not a simple subject. And yet, it can, with careful writing, be rendered much more simply and intelligibly than the current lead (or even, past leads). For starters, one could have a look at Postmodernism at "Simple Wikipedia" as an example. I'm not saying this is perfect, nor should we copy it; there are numerous problems with it as well. Simple is also a Wikimedia project, and is written by volunteers, so it's going to have problems, starting with its length, and being overly simple and reflecting a didactic tone which is appropriate for en-wiki. Nevertheless, it shows that it is possible to approach the lead in an attainable way. I think our lead should be something a high school or bright middle school student (or middling-level non-native English speaker) can get through. As it is now, I think we're far from that bar, and the article would be much improved if we could manage that. And I'm sure we can, and look forward to helping out. Mathglot (talk) 05:59, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Have taken a first crack at this. It's still rough and needs work, but I think reads better than before, and is more reader-friendly now. Also did some work on the Thinkers section as well, but only just started. Mathglot (talk) 11:17, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Definitions and terminology
Looks good so far, to me, who has only poor knowledge of the subject, but wants to learn more. One thing that would be extremely helpful for anyone (like me) looking for a basic understanding, is a plain English definition: what is postmodernism? For example, from the Simple English Wikipedia: "Postmodernism says that there is no real truth people can know. It says that knowledge is always made or invented and not discovered. Because knowledge is made by people, a person cannot know something with certainty - all ideas and facts are 'believed' instead of 'known'." Regardless of whether it's accurate enough for some, it's an illustration of what I mean by plain English. Having something simple to hang things on makes reading all the rest way more accessible. --Tsavage (talk) 17:12, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Tsavage, the Simple wiki def is a bit too simple, but hits a couple of main points ("no objective truth; man-made, not discovered; no certainty). But I totally agree with you that it needs a plain English definition. Part of that definition, or possibly the very next sentence, needs to say that hardly anybody can agree on the definition.  This is one article, where I'd like to see a "Terminology" section that talks about the fact that so many definitions have been proposed, and maybe list some of the ones garnering the most attention.  One of the things I'm seeing consistently definition-wise, is that it's a rejection of Modernism, although that's more about what it's not than what it is, so not very satisfactory, and that that in turn is based on ideas going back to the Enlightenment about the nature of knowledge, how things are knowable, and how it's good and right that we discover things and know them. This turned around in postmodernism (as I understand it) which is pessimistic about both whether things are knowable in the end, and whether you should bother trying to figure any of it out.
 * I'm not claiming any great knowledge of the subject, either. But sometimes non-experts are just what you need, because really what is needed here, are editors who are willing to look at what has been written about postmodernism and the definition of it in reliable sources, and to summarize that, without bias, which comes from preconceived notions. For that, all you need is someone with sufficient intelligence, who is willing to take the time to find the sources and go through them, and summarize what they are saying in the article.  There's absolutely no reason any decent editor can't do that here.
 * So, I have a proposal for you: will you work with me, in order to create a new "Definitions and terminology" section, to be placed probably right before the "Introduction" section as the first section of the body? After all, how is one supposed to read an article about a complex topic, without a roadmap?  (Naturally, this invitation is open to everybody.) Once we have a Definitions section in place, we can add something to the lead (since the lead is supposed to summarize the body) and come up with a defining sentence in the lead.  What's there now, is really pretty poor.
 * Another thing the lead fails to do, imho, is to put postmodernism in context in a debate that has been going on since Plato about the nature of knowledge. The word "scientist" is a relatively recent term, before that, they were called "natural philosophers", so there's a natural overlap.  The things that postmodernism concerns itself with, and their "newfound" rejection of knowledge (at least as Englightenment philosophers saw it), in my opinion is merely the lastest battle in a war that's been going on since at least Plato and the Sophists about the nature of knowledge, which is probably the very first war in Western philosophy, or near to it.  Afaic, it's scandalous that the article mentions neither of them, nor the connection.  That's another story, for another section of the article, maybe, "Origins in antiquity" or something like that.  For the time being, creating a "Definitions" section should be a lot easier than that; we just have to find a few definitions by some of the top names which we can quote, and a bunch more definitions with commentary in secondary sources, and summarize those for the new section.  When that new section is done, hopefully we will see a pattern, or some irreducible commonality, which can then be summarized in the defining sentence of the article.  I think it will hit some of the main points mentioned at Simple, but I don't have any preconceptions, so we'll see where it goes.
 * Will you accept the challenge? Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 09:34, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * P.S., I took the liberty of adding a subsection header just above your post and reindenting, because I thought it deserved its own section; hope that's okay. If not, feel free to revert.  Mathglot (talk) 09:39, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oops, just realized after posting, that this overlaps quite a bit the very next section. Too late to fix now; I might move this subsection down there, if you have no objection, or feel free to do so yourself (I waive WP:TPO for this Definition subsection, if you wish to move it.) Mathglot (talk) 09:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Mathglot: Yes, I will help. I will read all edits and everything in Talk, and at the least input on that, and research as I can! I fully agree and think the same about "someone with sufficient intelligence, who is willing to take the time to find the sources and go through them, and summarize what they are saying in the article. There's absolutely no reason any decent editor can't do that here." :) --Tsavage (talk) 16:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Multiplicity of definitions
I don't think the article adequately expresses the multiplicity of definitions of postmodernism, depending on who you ask. Might we add a section, "Definitions", or similar, to contain it? We could have some dictionary or encyclopedia defs, as well as quotations by important thinkers, if they gave one, such as Lyotard's "incredulity towards meta narratives" and definitely Hebdige's "buzzword" comment about it meaning everything and nothing. Once that is in, the lead should definitely refer to it, because I think it's an important factor that if not entirely missing, is not really identified in one place. Mathglot (talk) 11:13, 12 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Try it! Maybe somehow combine with History and/or Origins of term, as having Introduction, Origins of term, Definitions, and History just seems at first glance like a lot of possibly redundant set-up, from a reader's POV. --Tsavage (talk) 17:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, good idea. There are some definitions with citations of the American Heritage Dictionary and Oxford Dictionary in the first sentence of what is currently the Introduction. One rather striking observation is that "postmodernists" themselves do not agree on what postmodernism is, and many who are called "postmodernist" themselves deny being postmodernist. One of my colleagues suggests that texts that are postmodernist texts be written with every single word written with surrounding quotation marks, which I believe is an allusion to something that a postmodernist wrote, but that I can't seem to find. Also, there is a nice diversity of perspectives in the critics section that could be mined for definitional content. It would be good to have some balance with a section on proponents of postmodernism quoted, if such proponents exist. I note that there have been many essays and chapters written that claim that "postmodernism is dead" going back many years. Notably, there seems to be a rather precipitous decline recently in assertions that "postmodernism is alive and well." I wonder what this could mean? Sbelknap (talk) 03:19, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the decline might have something to do with the Sokal affair. But of course, we can't *know* that for sure. For endless amusement, go to Postmodern generator, and when you think you've digested that article, just refresh your browser, and you'll get another one.  Have fun! Mathglot (talk) 09:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * My snarky Marxist comment would be that the full flourishing of postmodernism not only coincided with, but rested upon the material foundation of, neoliberalism. It therefore could not be expected to outlive neoliberalism by more than one "academic generation" - about 15 years. I'm sure someone more reliable has made this point, which also depends on being able to distinguish between postmodernism and intersectionality/standpoint theory (which isn't hard to do since they are nearly opposites, but some people have difficulty seeing the obvious). Newimpartial (talk) 15:15, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Newimpartial, now you've given me some more reading I have to do... Mathglot (talk) 17:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Agree with your comment that having four sections like that is too much set-up. Not *too* concerned about that at the outset, until we actually have the definitions in place.  Mathglot (talk) 17:36, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Plain English summary definition
Working from what's there now, putting this phrase (bolded) into more clear, self-explanatory language would seem to go a long way to establishing a widely accessible starting point:


 * postmodernism is generally defined by an attitude of skepticism, irony, or rejection toward the meta-narratives and ideologies of modernism

What does this mean? --Tsavage (talk) 17:21, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not starting from what's there now; I'm starting off from scratch finding clear definitions elsewhere, which I plan to list. If you want to fiddle with the existing one to make it clearer, great; but I hope we find much better than what's there now. But to answer your question: I've changed toward to of because it's simply the wrong preposition. If it's not any clearer, I can help interpret it some more, I think, but I'd rather work on a new version. Undoubtedly, though, the expression "rejection of modernism" will remain in some form, and, I have a feeling, if there's only one concept that is common to all definitions of postmodernism, I bet that's it. Mathglot (talk) 07:57, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * All good! I'm operating on a much more basic, parallel level, trying to pinpoint where my problems are, literally, as a reader who came here and was unsatisfied. Otherwise, I'm mainly reading the updates for now, and anticipating the grand overhaul. :) --Tsavage (talk) 19:48, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything wrong with that sentence, metanarrative is blue linked for further reading, don't think lead should dwell too deep on it.Sourcerery (talk) 21:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * User talk:Sourcerery: I tried that. Metanarrative immediately points to critical theory (and back to this article):
 * "A metanarrative in critical theory and particularly in postmodernism is a narrative about narratives of historical meaning..."
 * I went to critical theory, which begins:
 * "Critical theory is the reflective assessment and critique of society and culture by applying knowledge from the social sciences and the humanities. As a term, critical theory has two meanings with different origins and histories..."
 * Say what? As a Wikipedia user, I rely on articles being self-contained and understandable enough that I can get an idea of what a subject is about from the one article. For postmodernism, is that an unreasonable standard? --Tsavage (talk) 00:29, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Tsavage, it's not an unreasonable standard, especially for the WP:LEADPARAGRAPH, and even more so for the WP:FIRSTSENTENCE. Mathglot (talk) 01:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. And it's possible. As a comparative example, Britannica's Postmodernism intro, and also the reply to Top Questions: What is postmodernism? just below the intro, are both clear to me. I'm not looking to make big changes to the lead, though, so this shouldn't be a distraction. :) I think/agree, the lead should be easily derived from the body. Identifying problems in the lead can help structure the article. --Tsavage (talk) 06:03, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Philosophy or movement?
Please correct my ignorance here, but... In the first instance, is postmodernism a movement or a philosophy? The first sentence of the lead says it's a "broad movement that developed in the mid- to late 20th century across philosophy, the arts, architecture, and criticism", and then, the "Influential thinkers" section links to Postmodern philosophy, while the "Manifestations" section doesn't have a lead, so no explanation of the connection between the philosophy and all the other...manifestations (if PM is a movement, then why isn't philosophy under Manifestations?). Back to the lead, there's "broad movement" and "encompassing a wide variety of approaches", but I can't really see how they all fit. Are all these manifestations parallel and not totally connected? Do the influential thinkers influence art, architecture, etc? The Origins of term section came closest for me to sort of pulling things together, it seems more like a History section... (I don't expect a literal answer to all that, I'm mostly pointing out my confusion arising from reading the article.) --Tsavage (talk) 06:35, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I know I've been lax getting back, too many irons in the fire, plus RL. Anyway, one of my concerns is that it isn't really one thing, and all the different -isms or compound words that contain postmodern in them, are only loosely connected by some common themes (what they are, is t.b.d.). For that reason, this article might be a good candidate for conversion to a WP:Broad concept article (a.k.a., WP:BCA). Then we wouldn't have to decide at the top, exactly what it is, just say that it's a lot of things related by XYZ, and then describe each of them (philo, lit, art, architecture, etc.) in their own section of the BCA. Mathglot (talk)
 * WP:Broad concept article sounds right. Seems like that's more or less what it is already, except needs work.
 * This is a good summary, a two-paragraph glossary entry from the web site for a 1995 PBS documentary, so, seems a reliable source, as well:
 * Postmodernism A general and wide-ranging term which is applied to literature, art, philosophy, architecture, fiction, and cultural and literary criticism, among others. Postmodernism is largely a reaction to the assumed certainty of scientific, or objective, efforts to explain reality. In essence, it stems from ...  – Postmodernism
 * It describes the movement (unlike the Britannica quote I linked to, which is clear, but about the philosophy specifically).--Tsavage (talk) 01:40, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Heidegger?
Why does the section on Influential postmodern thinkers begin with an irrelevant subsection filled with original research on Heidegger? Is Heidegger even a postmodernist? Delete entirely? Sbelknap (talk) 04:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * He is postmodern, mostly because of existentialism. His section can and should be improved.Sourcerery (talk) 14:54, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This is an idiosyncratic view of the history of philosophy, which traces postmodernism back to its origin in the tradition of skeptical philosophers. Why not start instead with Nietzsche? Or Hume? Or Pyrrho of Elis? Or Buddha? It seems OK to me to have a (brief) separate section that discusses the influences of the skeptics on the development of modernism and postmodernism. But it doesn't seem reasonable to me to assert that postmodernism began with Nietzsche, Heidegger, or their intellectual predecessors.Sbelknap (talk) 21:42, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Nietzsche is indeed huge influence on postmodern philosophy so I would support adding section about him. It is what it is, philosophy doesn't require continuity, if some contemporary philosopher was influenced by Plato and developed philosophy entirely on Platonist idea that people want to be united with Good, his entire philosophy would start with Platonist, not with him. That's how RS treat it, that's how should we as well. I support trimming down Heidegger section, but we still need to keep it, Heidegger is also important for his understanding of Nietzsche which further supports addition of Nietzsche. And no, Buddha is irrelevant for postmodernism, for Western Buddhism go to Schopenhauer and don't make Nietzsche angry.Sourcerery (talk) 22:30, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that Nietzsche ought be mentioned in the postmodernism article. But to call him a postmodernist is absurd. Lets put him in the new section where Heidegger now resides.Sbelknap (talk) 23:37, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I never called him postmodernist? Don't think he should be in Heidegger section, we should rename that section "Origins" or "Precursors" but cover everyone broadly without subsections. Contemporary philosophy also needs to be looked at.Sourcerery (talk) 10:21, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Good idea. In addition, note that many of those who have been called postmodernist themselves deny being postmodernist, while others strongly assert that these "postmodernist deniers" are, in fact, post modernist. I'm not sure how to sort that out exactly, but it seems important…Sbelknap (talk) 19:41, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

* Comment per WP:OR, I have removed this section for which only PRIMARY sources are given. Secondary sources would be required to show that this treatment is DUE. Newimpartial (talk) 18:51, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * By the way, citing a discussion between two editors who do not actually agree on the content in question as "consensus for inclusion" is a bit rich, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 19:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)


 * You can't remove entire section you can only remove sentence in question, and we have consensus for section and further additions, namely Friedrich Nietzsche. Since you can't read plain english I will direct you to WP:CIR and ask you to refrain from editing this article. Probably good idea to stay clear of philosophy in general since you seem unable to read with understanding.Sourcerery (talk) 20:25, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Please be WP:CIVIL and respect No personal attacks. Some of the sources in the new section are terrible, but at least there is an attempt at sourcing, so I will leave it and see what develops per WP:NODEADLINE. Newimpartial (talk) 10:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm saying how it is, calling out someones for CIR isn't personal attack. Section isn't new and all sources are good, calling them terrible without explaining why they are terrible and countering them with better is unproductive WP:WIAE.Sourcerery (talk) 20:57, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This and this are terrible references in this context. And this comment - "I'm saying how it is, calling out someones for CIR isn't a personal attack" - is not compliant with WP policy. Please comment on article content, not on contributors! No Ad Hominem comments, please. :) Newimpartial (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Why exactly are they terrible in this context? Are they not RS?Sourcerery (talk) 23:38, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Correct. The first is a piece of humanist ethical writing, and the second represents a project towards computational metaphysics. There is a lot of decent writing by now on the origins of postmodern philosophy, but these sources are totally unreliable in this context. Newimpartial (talk) 02:53, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope, they are reliable, that's not how RS works. Sources directly support the information as it is presented in the article WP:RSCONTEXT. Reputable tertiary sources, such as introductory-level university textbooks, almanacs, and encyclopedias, may be cited.WP:WPNOTRS I'm questioning your good faith editing, sinc you came on this topic after being schooled on Franfurt school article and started deleting sections that you thought that I have added (I didn't). But you ignored completed unsourced parts etc. I think you are being spiteful and maybe some authority will need to regulate since you are engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND.Sourcerery (talk) 10:17, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a talk page discussion in which I am exhibiting neither BATTLEGROUND nor OWNership behaviour, as you are, Sourcerery. I deleted the section previously not because it was "yours", but because it was sourced entirely to primary materials, against policy. And a PASSINGMENTION in an introductory text on another topic is no substitute for a good secondary or tertiary source, but I am waiting patiently for the current sourcing to be improved. Also, please WP:AGF or you are bound to run into CIVIL infractions in the future. Newimpartial (talk)
 * Yes you do, you were even edit warring and it can easily be seen in history of this page, contrary to consensus on talk. AGF isn't end all be all, especially when opposite is demonstrated.Sourcerery (talk) 16:22, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Stop the WP:ASPERSIONS, man. They're not WP:CIVIL. I'd rather not have to take you to a noticeboard on a conduct dispute, but actual Competence Is Required in adhering to the talk page guidelines and to thr pillars of thr project, including WP:AGF. Newimpartial (talk) 16:47, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Pretty rich from you to link CIR.Sourcerery (talk) 16:51, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Dude, you've been here two months and you've already launched yourself on the losing side of content disputes in the articles Fascism, Alt-right, Communism and Political Correctness (possibly others; I got bored looking) as well as Frankfurt School; you've made a bad AfD nom and engaged in COPYVIO. You might want to slow down just a little. Newimpartial (talk) 17:13, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, stalking someones history and describing discussions they have been engaged in as "losing" really sounds like someone who doesn't have BATTLEGROUND behavior and mentality.Sourcerery (talk) 17:21, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikistalking has a precise meaning, and checking the pattern of another contributor's edits isn't it. And given that "Frankfurt School" is the only one of those discussions I participated in - which you mentioned earlier as me "being schooled" even though there is a very clear consensus for my position in our mutual dispute, which makes your characterization laughable - those other four (plus?) articles are neither my battlegrounds nor my circus. Though I am following all of them now. :) Newimpartial (talk) 19:41, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep, you are still salty and are further proving my point, carry on.Sourcerery (talk) 19:47, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Reorganizing sections
With WP:Broad concept article in mind, here's a first pass at reorganizing what's there now, without any rewrites, for a start. Having a simple top level structure can maybe help guide the process. It can also possibly make it easier for more editors to contribute, given a clearer outline. Reading the Overview, and the main section leads (History, Manifestations, Criticisms) should provide a more detailed summary, after the article lead, and keep the subsections focused. --Tsavage (talk) 03:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)


 * lead
 * Definitions (new section)
 * Overview << Introduction
 * History
 * Precursors to postmodernism
 * Origins of term
 * Manifestations
 * Architecture
 * Art
 * Graphic design
 * Literature
 * Music
 * Philosophy << Influential thinkers
 * Theories and derivatives
 * Structuralism
 * Deconstruction
 * Post-postmodernism
 * Urban planning
 * Criticisms

Lead for Manifestations
Can someone write even a starter sentence of a lead for the Manifestations section? --Tsavage (talk) 02:59, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Necessary merge?
Since Postmodernism has been moved away from art history and toward philosophy, I think a merge with Postmodern philosophy may be necessary; the question is whether a merge is entirely necessary or if we could just turn the latter into a redirect targeting this page? Simonm223 (talk) 12:44, 19 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm still struggling to understand and connect all the bits of postmodernism. What it seems like to me so far is that the current structure makes sense: postmodern philosophy is a distinct topic that merits its own article, while this article needs to integrate the more formal philosophy on the same level as the other manifestations. For example, the main sections as they are now can give the impression that the influential thinkers (philosophy) inspired or gave rise to the manifestations, which doesn't seem to be the case. A timeline, might help (Origins of term is already a timeline of sorts). --Tsavage (talk) 02:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I would support this article being a portal of sorts into other topics related to postmodernism including Postmodern philosophy, Postmodern literature, Postmodern architecture and Postmodern art. But it seems like recent edits have taken away a lot of the discussion of art and architecture in favor of making this page mostly about philosophy. This may require a small course correction. Simonm223 (talk) 12:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Agreed that Postmodernism should survey the terrain rather than narrow-boring on theory. The article should also engage more actively in the relationship to Postmodernity, beyond the boilerplate disambiguation, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 16:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC)


 * All of the above makes sense to me (I'm going by what I've already gleaned, and where that seems to point to for learning more). I'm not aware of how the article was in earlier versions (re more on art, architecture). I'll look back. If there are better sections in the history that can be dropped in here without having to completely overhaul things as they are now, restoring them could be a good start at improvement. --Tsavage (talk) 02:39, 22 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I just realized that, while I came to this article thinking I wanted to know more about postmodern philosophy, I realize that what I really want is a good, concise "survey of the terrain". The full scope, with philosophy in context, seems way more interesting and useful. Hope this gets done! :) --Tsavage (talk) 03:04, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. 💵Money💵emoji💵💸 20:23, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Re. postpostmodernism
I offer my apologies to any and all who were affected by and had to deal with my most recent edit re. the recursive nature of postpostmodernism. This is not my field, and I had no right to make the that edit. It was frivilous and counterproductive. All I can say is ... I was having a bad edit day. Again, apologies offered. Jimmy Hers (talk) 10:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Unnecessary Repetition?
The following 6 sentences appear in the Lead Section and then are repeated immediately afterward in the Introduction:

"Common targets of postmodernism and critical theory include universalist notions of objective reality, morality, truth, human nature, reason, language, and social progress.

Postmodernist approaches have been adopted in a variety of academic and theoretical disciplines, including political science, organization theory, cultural studies, philosophy of science, economics, linguistics, architecture, feminist theory, and literary criticism, as well as art movements in fields such as literature and music.

Postmodern thinkers frequently call attention to the contingent or socially-conditioned nature of knowledge claims and value systems, situating them as products of particular political, historical, or cultural discourses and hierarchies.

Accordingly, postmodern thought is broadly characterized by tendencies to self-referentiality, epistemological and moral relativism, pluralism, and irreverence.

Postmodernism is often associated with schools of thought such as deconstruction and post-structuralism, as well as philosophers such as Jean-François Lyotard, Jacques Derrida, and Fredric Jameson.

Criticisms of postmodernism are intellectually diverse, and include assertions that postmodernism promotes obscurantism, and is meaningless, adding nothing to analytical or empirical knowledge."

The last sentence is reprised for a third time under Criticism:

"Criticisms of postmodernism are intellectually diverse, including the assertions that postmodernism is meaningless and promotes obscurantism."

In the interests of concision, my suggestion is to delete these from the Lead Section and leave them in the Introduction as elaboration on the subject. This would reduce the Lead Section to 3 paragraphs:

"Postmodernism is a broad movement that developed in the mid- to late 20th century across philosophy, the arts, architecture, and criticism, marking a departure from modernism. The term has been more generally applied to the historical era following modernity and the tendencies of this era.

While encompassing a wide variety of approaches and disciplines, postmodernism is generally defined by an attitude of skepticism, irony, or rejection of the grand narratives and ideologies of modernism, often calling into question various assumptions of Enlightenment rationality.

Criticisms of postmodernism are intellectually diverse, and include assertions that postmodernism promotes obscurantism, and is meaningless, adding nothing to analytical or empirical knowledge."

Peaceandlonglife (talk) 13:31, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * People often just read the lead. These are important points. I would rather they be left in the lead and deleted from the following section. -Crossroads- (talk) 13:34, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * And in that case, the references should be moved up, but I am not really convinced the repetition is a problem. The lead summarizes the article, and may repeat certain things. See MOS:LEAD. -Crossroads- (talk) 13:38, 29 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm opposed to removing that information from the body of the article. For one thing, the WP:LEAD introduces and summarizes the content of the article body, it does not contain unique information. Per MOS:LEADNO, Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.. A better approach, imho, is to expand the body section (if necessary), and then summarize it in the lead. If the body section is complete and comprehensive, and cannot or should not be expanded, then it's not wrong to duplicate it (without references) in the lead, although that would be an unusual approach;  better is to summarize it, in simpler language (if possible).  See also WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY.
 * In a related, but separate, issue, I think the Lead is a mess, and too long as it is; even so, it does not sufficiently summarize sections 4 or 5. Much of the current lead should be moved to the body, either in the Intro section, or perhaps a new section on the multiplicity of definitions. The long section in the lead talking about the definition should be cut way back, giving the most central portion of the definition which is a common denominator among most descriptions, and just mention that there are lots of other definitions, perhaps alluding to the most major one or two alternatives in just a couple of words each. Anyone interested in postmodernism more seriously, can go find 25 definitions in the body; but the lead is not the place for that. Mathglot (talk) 23:50, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

References screwed up
The reference block at the end of the following sentence is screwed up:

Postmodernism developed in the mid- to late-twentieth century across philosophy, the arts, architecture, and criticism as a departure or rejection of modernism.[7][17][17][18]

Besides the repetition of [17], the pop up references may be malformed. Without knowing the original sources, I'm not confident in trying to fix this. Over to the experts... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malsmith2 (talk • contribs) 09:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Walter Truett Anderson?
Is the following text correct?

"In 1996, Walter Truett Anderson described postmodernism as belonging to one of four typological world views, which he identifies as either (a) Postmodern-ironist, which sees truth as socially constructed, (b) Scientific-rational, in which truth is found through methodical, disciplined inquiry..."

This describes (b) as postmodernist when, from the rest of this article, I'm getting that postmodernism is opposed to the scientific rational world view. Either I'm missing something, and would request someone spell things out for me, or that someone with the source text fixes this paragraph. (It may be that Anderson looks at postmodernist as meaning, simply, "after the modernist period" in which case the paragraph makes sense. But we can't have postmodernism meaning that, can we?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malsmith2 (talk • contribs) 09:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

John Cage?
John Cage is so problematic, maybe best not mentioned in a general article on postmodernism (?) So I think the questionable comment on him should be deleted. Or maybe the whole music section should be expanded using a serious source like:

"Postmodernism is best understood as an ensemble of discourses that is not only internally diverse but also contradictory in its relationship to modernism. For postmodernism is both a rejection of modernism, because it jettisons the modernist fascination with system and form, and a transformation, in the sense that it reveals aspects of modernism that were previously undervalued. Given that the range of influences which contributed to the career of John Cage is as tangled as the diverse currents that feed postmodernism, it is not difficult to find parallels between Cage's aesthetics and the postmodernist ethos. Add to this Cage's apparent appetite for unresolved paradoxes, and it is tempting to argue that this is the sense in which Cage is most consistently postmodernist. However, not all Cage's contradictions are postmodernist contradictions. Indeed the difficulties presented by trying to decide whether Cage is modernist or postmodernist, demonstrate just how hard it is to draw a rigid line between the two mindsets.

Before considering further the affinities between Cage and postmodernism, it is necessary to map some of the salient features of postmodernism, while noting that Cage's activities are not only described by this category but also contribute to its formation. The postmodern response to the rationalizing processes of modernity falls into two main strands. One offers an intensification of modernity, drawing on the energy of post-industrial new technologies and comfortably inhabiting the increasingly manufactured worlds we have created. The other strand counters the incursions of technocratic systems on nature and communities and is characterized by, for example, the ecology movement and new-age beliefs. Of course, there are many shades and variations of opinion between these hyper-modern and anti-modern extremes."

Williams, A. (2002). Cage and postmodernism. In D. Nicholls (Ed.), The Cambridge Companion to John Cage (Cambridge Companions to Music, pp. 227-241). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CCOL9780521783484.014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malsmith2 (talk • contribs) 12:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Terrible sentence, not supported by the source


I suggest reverting.

jps (talk) 02:32, 15 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I have removed it. Strictly judging by Google Books, the source doesn't support this claim, at least not in this kind of blunt, nuance-less language. The source specifically says that postmodern scientists are not concerned with metaphysical speculation, but with facts that are socially constituted. If they are not "concerned" with this, then it is not accurate to say they are bluntly describing facts as socially constructed, or that this is a defining trait. An underlying assumption here is that some or all facts are socially constructed, but if that was the point, the disputed sentence wasn't a good explanation, and this isn't unique to postmodernism anyway, so it's more confusing than helpful. Grayfell (talk) 03:44, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That's my evaluation as well. jps (talk) 04:14, 15 May 2020 (UTC)