Contradiction - Philosophy vs. Style - WebCT #5

After reading and researching postmodernism, I am struck by its vastness. It seems that postmodernism is both philosophical and stylistic. In trying to understand its value and implication within the literary realm, I feel somewhat baffled. On one hand, I have been able to identify several stylistic elements that are attributable to postmodernism. On the other hand, in reading Lyotard, Deleuze, and Foucault, I am struggling to keep the philosophical aspects aligned with the stylistic aspects of the literature. For one who is just beginning his study of postmodernism, it seems that its vastness is problematic, especially with regard to the connection between philosophy and literature.

To illustrate this problem I will provide a few definitions and quotes, while attempting to connect the dots. From our class handout, one sees that “… with postmodernism there is a shift of emphasis from content to form or style,” (Wexler 8-6) and one would imagine specific stylistic elements that define postmodernism, of which there are several. Some of these elements include fragmentation of time and space, eclecticism, reflexivity, self-referentiality, quotation, artifice, randomness, anarchy, pastiche, and allegory. History, philosophy, jurisprudence, sociology, etc. are treated as optional “kinds of writing” (Wexler 8-6). This definition of the stylistic components behind postmodernism is problematic in its vastness. It seems that if a text is missing one or several of these components, but has a few of the remaining it is still postmodern.

There seem to be so many contradictions within the definitions of postmodernism. For example, the class handout contains a list of binaries that describe postmodernism as simultaneously incoherent and concrete, as irrational and political, as meaningless and anarchical. In trying to understand these descriptors, one is struck by the contradictory nature that is inherent in such words. This contradiction lies not in the relationship between the signifier and signified, but in a literal sense. For, how can something contain all of these features simultaneously without being a contradiction within itself?