On Meta-Narrative
- Alessandro Pennini
- Jun 21, 2016
- 3 min read
Post Modernism has never had one concrete definition, as every academic definition gives an explanation of “a departure from modernism” or “after modernity” which only asks the reader to question the authorial intent. Jean-Francois Lyotard defined postmodern as “incredulity towards metanarratives” and by the term metanarrative, he referred to “making an appeal to some grand narrative, such as the… emancipation of the rational or working subject, or the creation of wealth”.
Lyotard defined postmodern as “incredulity towards metanarratives” and by the term metanarrative, he referred to “making an appeal to some grand narrative, such as the… emancipation of the rational or working subject, or the creation of wealth”.
A great deal of the post modern readings place an importance on skepticism towards metanarrative, and encourage original thought on subjects that are considered concrete and truth.
He ordained that history has a narrative superimposed over the top of it to create meaning for the present, and he suggested that too often we talk about the past as though everything was meant to lead up to this moment, a narrative of sorts but the reality is that history is completely unordered and random.
Throughout his work and the discourse about meta-narrative, he suggests that there is no grand narrative, things didn’t happen to further us, things happened randomly and disconnectedly and it is by slim odds and chances we are all here today.
Rather; a metanarrative is a self-imposed narrative upon history and it exists to create meaning as we see it.
A large number of Post Modernist thinkers place an importance on skepticism towards metanarrative, and encourage original thought on subjects that are considered concrete and truth. There are a number of theorists who were considered to be Post-Modernist thinkers, like Heidegger, Foucault and Derrida, and the theories they suggest and outline are not ones with concrete explanation. A significant proportion of Post Modernism revolves around deconstructing pre-asserted notions about society, everything from sociological hierarchy to linguistic structure to base instinct and the semiotic meanings behind these actions.
History is often thought to be revisionist in nature. So what Post Modernism COULD be about is a re-examination of the examination process. As mentioned prior, things like language can be broken down as much of it evolved on top of other pre-existing words. Derrida examined this during his later years in the post student revolts in Paris.
Derrida looks at the idea of deconstruction in regards to language, most of all in his approach to logocentrism. Logocentrism is what Derrida considered to be one of the defining elements of Western Culture, as it was a quest for an authoritative language that can reveal truth, moral rightness and beauty. It would disclose what is real, true and right,
Social thinkers like Rousseau and Levi-Strauss aimed to disclose the order of society – how it is and how it ought to me. Derrida disagreed with this, giving an example of binary opposites in Western thought which he though were paramount to establish an order of truth.
At the core of western culture, dualisms define and reappear over and over like man/woman, presence/absence, literal/metaphorical, cause/effect. Usually the former is consider superior to latter, and Derrida and the rest of his post-modern ilk have spent a long period of time debating this.
Comentarios