Editing Postmodernity (section)

=== Distinctions in philosophy and critical theory ===
The debate on postmodernity has two distinct elements that are often confused; (1) the nature of contemporary society and (2) the nature of the critique of contemporary society. The first of these elements is concerned with the nature of changes that took place during the late 20th century. There are three principal analyses. Theorists such as [[Alex Callinicos]] and [[Craig Calhoun]] offer a conservative position on the nature of contemporary society, downplaying the significance and extent of socio-economic changes and emphasizing a continuity with the past.<ref>{{cite magazine |last=Callinicos |first=Alex |author-link=Alex Callinicos |date=1991 |title=Marxism and imperialism today |url=https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/callinicos/1991/xx/imperialism.html |magazine=[[International Socialism]] |volume=2 |number=50 |pages=3–48 |via=[[Marxists Internet Archive]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=Calhoun |first=Craig |author-link=Craig Calhoun |date=1995 |title=Critical social theory: culture, history, and the challenge of difference |series=Twentieth-century social theory |publisher=[[Wiley-Blackwell]] |location=Cambridge, MA |isbn=9781557862884}}</ref> Second a range of theorists have tried to analyze the present as a development of the "modern" project into a second, distinct phase that is nevertheless still "modernity": this has been termed the "second" or "risk" society by [[Ulrich Beck]],{{sfn|Beck|1992}} "late" or "high" modernity by Giddens,{{sfn|Giddens|1990|pp=163–164}}{{sfn|Giddens|1991|p=3}}  "liquid" modernity by Bauman,{{sfn|Bauman|2000}} and the "network" society by [[Manuel Castells]].{{sfn|Castells|1996|pp=xviii–xix}} Third are those who argue that contemporary society has moved into a literally post-modern phase distinct from modernity. The most prominent proponents of this position are Lyotard and Baudrillard.

Another set of issues concerns the nature of critique, often replaying debates over (what can be crudely termed) [[Universality (philosophy)|universalism]] and [[relativism]], where modernism is seen to represent the former and postmodernity the latter. [[Seyla Benhabib]] and [[Judith Butler]] pursue this debate in relation to feminist politics,{{sfn|Benhabib|1995|p=?}}{{sfn|Butler|1995|p=?}}  Benhabib arguing that postmodern critique comprises three main elements; an [[Anti-foundationalism|anti-foundationalist]] concept of the subject and identity, the [[The End of History and the Last Man|death of history]] and of notions of [[teleology]] and progress, and the death of [[metaphysics]] defined as the search for objective truth. Benhabib argues forcefully against these critical positions, holding that they undermine the bases upon which feminist politics can be founded, removing the possibility of agency, the sense of self-hood and the appropriation of women's history in the name of an emancipated future. The denial of normative ideals removes the possibility for utopia, central for ethical thinking and democratic action.

Butler responds to Benhabib by arguing that her use of postmodernism is an expression of a wider paranoia over anti-foundationalist philosophy, in particular, [[post-structuralism]].

{{quote|A number of positions are ascribed to postmodernism – Discourse is all there is, as if discourse were some kind of monistic stuff out of which all things are composed; the subject is dead, I can never say "I" again; there is no reality, only representation.  These characterizations are variously imputed to postmodernism or poststructuralism, which are conflated with each other and sometimes conflated with deconstruction, and understood as an indiscriminate assemblage of French feminism, deconstruction, Lacanian psychoanalysis, Foucauldian analysis, Rorty's conversationalism, and cultural studies ... In reality, these movements are opposed: Lacanian psychoanalysis in France positions itself officially against poststructuralism, that Foucauldian rarely relate to Derridideans ... Lyotard champions the term, but he cannot be made into the example of what all the rest of the purported postmodernists are doing.  Lyotard’s work is, for instance, seriously at odds with that of Derrida}}

Butler uses the debate over the nature of the post-modernist critique to demonstrate how philosophy is implicated in power relationships and defends poststructuralist critique by arguing that the critique of the [[Subject and object (philosophy)|subject]] itself is the beginning of analysis, not the end,  because the first task of enquiry is the questioning of accepted "universal" and "objective" norms.

The Benhabib-Butler debate demonstrates that there is no simple definition of a postmodern theorist as the very definition of postmodernity itself is contested. [[Michel Foucault]] rejected the label of postmodernism explicitly in interviews yet is seen by many, such as [[Seyla Benhabib|Benhabib]], as advocating a form of critique that is "postmodern" in that it breaks with utopian and transcendental "modern" critiques by calling universal norms of the Enlightenment into question. Giddens rejects this characterisation of "modern critique", pointing out that a critique of Enlightenment universals was central to philosophers of the modern period, most notably [[Friedrich Nietzsche|Nietzsche]].{{sfn|Giddens|1990|pp=46–49}}