In Which Way Postmodernism Influenced Contemporary Social Theory?

How postmodernism has influenced social theory
Student:
Professor:
Course title:
Date:
Abstract
In this essay, a detailed discussion of the way in which postmodernism influenced contemporary social theory is provided. Social theory is considered as a research program and a generalized discourse, and ideology is a vital part of it. During the crisis of modernism, there were wars and revolutions in third world nations, and dictatorship rather than democracy was spreading globally. The theory of modernity was a deflationary set of beliefs after an earlier heroic age of drastic quest. Additionally, modernity theory gave emphasis the local, the personal, as well as the private. The theory of modernization ended in the sixties. Postmodern theorists for instance Lyotard bring together postmodern and modern discourses and understand the postmodern mainly as a modality of the modern instead of construing it as its radical other. According to Lyotard, postmodernism is essentially a social theory – an explanatory one – which has created other models of epistemology, science, family relation, social action, class, gender, and culture. The phrase postmodern serves in a number of contemporary discourses as a marker for the new and that which does not fit into the earlier paradigms. Post-modernism has created an extensive theory of society through interlinking the levels of process and structure, macro and micro, with strong claims as regards the past, the current, as well as future of contemporary life. Lyotard and Baudrillard both want to be avatars of the postmodern whenever it goes well with them or their audiences, and to distance themselves from this concept whenever they wanted to.
Keywords: modernism, postmodernism, social theory
How postmodernism has influenced social theory
The expression modernity was initially utilized during the late 5th century so as to differentiate the present, which is Christianity, from the Roman and the pagan past. Modernism correspond to a significant seductive force, supporting the domination and ascendancy of the principle of unreserved self-realization, the subjectivism of an over-stimulated sensibility, and the demand for real self-experience (Habermas, 2006). For post-modern discourse to possess substantive cognitive content particular distinctions have to be made and the various terms of the postmodern should be differentiated from the discourses of the modern. This paper provides an in-depth discussion of how postmodernism influenced contemporary social theory.
Postmodern and modern theories are distinguished as 2 opposing theoretical discourses; postmodernity and modernity are differentiated as 2 dissimilar historical periods; and postmodernism and modernism as 2 conflicting cultural and aesthetic styles (Best & Keller, 1994). The post-modern is in fact a characteristic of the universe in which more definitions are not possible, as the extreme limit of these possibilities has already been reached. It has actually destroyed itself and deconstructed its whole universe and all that remains are pieces. What can now be done is to play with the pieces; that is the postmodernism. This statement is true. Actually, there are a lot of dissimilar versions of the postmodern theory. There is nothing like postmodern theory, instead, there are various postmodern theories. The phrase postmodern serves in several contemporary discourses as a marker for the new and that which does not really fit into previous paradigms, or for those novelties which the theorists are too lazy or not able to theorize (Best & Keller, 1991).
Crisis of modernism
According to Alexander (1994), the theory of modernization needs to be assessed as a scientific theory, but it should be evaluated in the postpositivist viewpoint. The ideal-typical features that characterized the modernization model include the following: (i) historical progress and growth was parsed into 2 kinds of social systems – modern and traditional –, that were maintained in order to establish the nature and disposition of their social sub-systems in a determinate way. (ii) Societies were envisaged as systems that were organized coherently whose subsystems were very much interdependent. (iii) The process of modernization involved change that was incremental and non-revolutionary (Alexander, 1994). (iv) The modern was delineated in connection with the culture and social organization of the West that were characterized as capitalist, stable, egalitarian, scientific, and secular. (v) The historical evolution to modernity, or simply modernization, was seen as having the possibility of being successful, therefore guaranteeing that the traditional societies would be given the resources for a general process of adaptive upgrading, which include financial takeoff to industrialization, science and secularization through education, and democratization through law (Alexander, 1994).
Social theory is seen as a research program and a generalized discourse; ideology is an integral component of social theory. Seidman (2001) stated that social theory is a type of existential truth and it functions well in an extra-scientific manner. In order to understand the theory of modernization and its fate, it is important to look at it from the Geertzian perspective. The theory of modernization was essentially an emblematic system which explained the world in a manner that was coherent and to understand the world in a way which gave motivation and meaning. In essence, it served as a meta-language which taught people the way to live (Alexander, 1994). Whilst realism was a key frame of mind during the postwar epoch, it was in fact not the leading narrative frame by which social science thinkers and scholars of the postwar era charted their times; on the contrary, romanticism was. Smelser (2004) stated that romanticism enabled postwar social science intellectuals in the United States to keep speaking the language of universalization and progress.
Anti-modernization
The theory of modernization ended in the sixties since the emerging younger generation of intellectuals never believed that this theory was factual. It is notable that in the 2nd postwar period, major reality problems started intruding on modernization theory. In spite of the existence of capitalist markets, poverty increased at home as well as in developing nations (Alexander, 1994). There were wars and revolutions outside of Europe and the United States, and dictatorship rather than democracy was spreading across the rest of the globe. New religious movements emerged in the West as well as in third world nations with ideology and sacralisation gaining ground over technology, science, and secularization (Alezander, 1994). These developments served to strain the key suppositions of modernization theory, even though they did essentially disprove it.
What pushed the theory of modernization over the edge resulting in its defeat was actually the obliteration of its discursive, mythological, and ideological underpinning. The challenge which at last was never met was existential. Instead of individualization and democracy, the modern contemporary period was represented as repressive and bureaucratic during the crisis of democracy (Seidman, 2001). Instead of a contractual society or free market, modern America turned out to be capitalist, no longer liberating, rational, interdependence, or modern but impoverishing, anarchic, and greedy (Alexander, 1994). This inversion of the symbols and signs related to modernity, in essence, served to pollute the movements that were linked to its name. Liberalism’s end was pronounced and its reformist birth during the initial years of the 20th century criticized as a disguise for broadening corporate control. Tolerance was linked to repression, immorality, and fuzzy-mindedness. It is notable that for the developing countries, democracy during the crisis of modernity was seen as a luxury, whereas powerful nations were seen as being essential (Alexander, 1994). Moreover, the starkness of Western religion was condemned and disparaged due to its exploitive modernity. Humanistic socialism during the crisis of modernism substituted welfare state capitalism as the decisive representation of good, and capitalist countries were considered to engender only substantial wealth and considerable poverty. Capitalist societies were also considered as being causes of fragmentation, alienation, and ethnic conflict. Socialism, rather than market society was viewed as something that would engender equality, wealth, as well as a restored community (Alexander, 1994; Parsons, 2000).
Birth of post-modernism
The notion of the postmodern is a theoretical and cultural construct; it is not a state of affairs or a thing. In essence, no phenomenon is intrinsically postmodern. Best and Keller (1991) reported that the concepts of postmodern are mainly conceptual constructs designed to carry out particular explanatory or interpretive functions. They are not neutral descriptive phrases which delineate predetermined states of affairs. Moderate postmodern thinkers such as Lyotard merge postmodern and modern discourses and construe the postmodern largely as a modality of the modern instead of interpreting it as its radical other (Best & Keller 1991). According to Lyotard, postmodernism could be considered as a social theory – an explanatory one – which has created other models of epistemology, science, family relation, social action, class, gender, and culture (Alexander, 1994). In all these areas, Alexander (1994) pointed out tha...