Games of Despair and Rhetorics of Resistance: postmodernism, education and reaction

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
In the first part of the paper, we begin by attempting to establish the parameters of the eclectic concept of postmodernism. We then evaluate what have been described as two different strands of postmodernism; postmodernism of reaction’ and postmodernism of resistance’ and conclude that, while there are clear differences in intention and in emphasis, the ‘two postmodernisms’ have too much in common to be thought of as separate discourses. Next, we try to identify some key problems with postmodernism per se. Our central argument is that, contra the postmodern rejection of the metanarrative, a Marxist analysis still has most purchase in explaining economic, political, social and cultural changes and current developments in capitalist societies. We argue that postmodernist analyses in general, in their marginalisation and/or neglect of the determining effects of the relations of production, are essentially reactionary. While noting a range of problems with postmodernism, we focus on its methodology and on its politics. In particular, we suggest that postmodernism, whether unwittingly or not, by denying the notion of ‘emancipation in a general sense’, serves to disempower the oppressed. In the second part of the paper, we look at postmodernism and education. We argue that recent major processes of restructuring, underpinned by market‐led strategies, are in line with the latest requirements of capitalism. This is either denied, ignored or underplayed, or else the changes are designated merely as ‘postmodern’, in the discourse of postmodernism. In rejecting the determining effects of capital, or in denying or underemphasising the dualism of social class inherent in capitalism, postmodernism, we argue, serves to uphold the Radical Right in its two nation hegemonic project.