Postmodernism discussion

I’m curious to understand more about this, so I thought I’d make a thread concerning the subject of postmodernism. What are its roots, and what is its true definition? From what I’m aware, it emerged in the 1940s/50s (followed by poststructuralism in the mid 60s/early 70s), tends to distrust scientific theories, and endorses subjective critique, yet its definition doesn’t seem entirely clear based on the terminology texts I’ve checked out. If it subscribes to the definition I think it does, it can absolutely be applied to NuWho (mainly in its re-writing of Hartnell’s original Doctor into a sexist chauvinist), although do many thinkers in postmodernism subscribe to the same cynical thought process? In principle, I don’t see a problem with endorsing subjective experience, but not at the expense of objective truth or reality.

I’ve always assumed that relativist theories played a strong role in its inception, given its alleged aversion to the concept of truth (the relativist idea of “truth is relative” being paradoxical by nature, given that it makes the absolute nature of the statement “relative” and therefore lacking in truth). However, as far as I’m aware, relativism has been used as a label attributed to the romantics and other figures who value autonomy in certain academic corners, including Ludwig Wittgenstein, who incidentally disagreed with relativism on a fundamental level.

Have I misunderstood this completely? Because I’ve always seen it as underpinning Moffat’s re-write and deconstruction of Hartnell’s Doctor and much of NuWho as a whole in a very cynical and anti-intellectual manner, but is postmodernism inherently immoral at its core, or has it been warped and distorted over the years?

The world is round

I've always taken it to mean art and entertainment that uses collage and mish-mash to juxtapose genres, and through that perhaps toys with, and subverts the old conservative, 'chauvinistic' certainties about heroes, anti-heroes and villains (is Aliens an action film or a horror, and if so, which protagonists of which genre are more likely to survive its rules? Likewise you could point to the part in Austin Powers where a random bad guy is killed and we actually are shown his mourning family and friends for a sustained scene), what's moral and what's sinful (such as the moral ambiguity of Fight Club or American History X in which its protagonists can be morally lost characters struggling to understand what being masculine means in the modern world. Likewise Buffy often featured a lot of sucker-punch moments where its heroes make a mistake that shakes their moral certainties to the core), what's the nature of film or narrative (i.e. the Scream movies chronicling the horror tropes).... and indeed what's reality, if everything we know comes down to our limited perspective and what we're told by the powers that be (i.e. The Matrix, The Truman Show).

I suppose in that sense you could say there's always been a recurring post-modern element to Doctor Who (I say recurring because there are also periods like the Pertwee era and Davison era where it's also been pretty sterile and conservative), ever since it turned a school drama into a sci-fi show and put a vast spaceship in a police box in a junk-yard. The Chase particularly seemed to juxtapose a Dalek story with Beatles, Dracula, Frankenstein. The Deadly Assassin and City of Death feature a lot of juxtaposition and discussion on the nature of art and the power of media narratives, whilst blurring the line between hero and villain with the likes of Goth and Scarlioni. Revelation of the Daleks and Ghostlight probably fit under that umbrella too, whilst Remembrance of the Daleks links the Daleks with commonplace racist attitudes of the past which were once accepted as the norm.

i relate to postmodernism to the extent that the fundaments of the universe/existence are probably absurd, but the philosoṗḣy itself is not particularly useful

plus, there is clear purpose to finding the machinery of the systems we can understand

it's our habiṫat

Postmodernism is different depending on whether you are talking about art, architecture of philosophy where it is sometimes referred to as poststructuralism. The later is the one to keep in mind when talking about aesthetics.

Lyotard's famous definition from his book The Postmodern Condition is "Simplifying to the extreme, I define postmodern as incredulity towards metanarratives", he then goes onto to discuss the sociologist Talcott Parons to justify his relativist stance, although it is never entirely clear if he is noting or advocating this rejection of metanarratives.

A people often say that postmodernism is a metanarrative so how can it deny other metanarratives? It isn't a metanarrative because metanarratives don't simply attempt to explain everything but all operate as teleologies. Also, PoMos don't deny objective reality, it's just that we can't experience directly because of the variation and limitations built into out sensory apparatuses.

Deleuze and Guattari defined postmodernism as bifurcation, heterogeneity, imbrication, and rhizomatic structures (these are all fancy words for different types of splitting, bascially PoMos celbrate difference). Deleuze and Guattari were twats.

Anyway, Postmodernism is partly a rejection of Marxism that the Postmodernists claim is totalizing. For example, in the USSR Lenn and Trotsky disempowered the workers' Soviets and centralised all power. Lenin dies Stalin bumps off Trotsky and steps into power. Lenin and Trotsky were cunts but Stalin was in another league.

In the UK we have separation of powers, no one body has complete control. Power is split between the judiciary, parliament and the executive (i.e. the PM), hence theoretically, we shouldn't fall under a dictatorship.

In terms of the aesthetics of Doctor Who, it is merely descriptive. You can call Moffat whatever you want but his writing was fundamentally shit in a way postmodernism wouldn't explain. Also, postmodernists use the word deconstruction in a very particular way to refer to a critical theory of Jacques Derrida. I think you used it as interchangeable with dismantle when referring to Hartnell. Also, I don't think PoMos are anti-intellectual, quite the opposite. What does objective reality have to do with Hartnell though?

It's also good to remember that PoMos are descended from sophists, they may argue a point knowing that it is or might not be true to generate ideas. I could bang on about the merits of empiricism vs relativism for a bit if it helps, but it isn't all that relevant to DW.

In terms of aesthetics:

1. The breakdown of the distinction between culture and society. To quote Derrida, “There is nothing outside the text”.

2. An emphasis on style at the expense of substance and content, maybe consider Fredric Jameson's idea of speaking dead languages.

3. The breakdown of the distinction between high culture (art) and popular culture. (But where does one end and the other begin?)

4. Confusions over time and space: adverts using ‘60s Rock or Blues music to sell beer or jeans in the ‘90s (Taylor et al., 2004). This is known as double coding, juxtaposing two asynchronous aesthetics.

5. Lyotard's rejection of Metanarratives. Baudrillard's the gulf war didn't happen, simulations, simulacra, so on...

Thanks for the response, Rawkuss. Concerning the question you propose, I was essentially proposing the possibility that through distorting how Hartnell’s character was objectively portrayed during his era and re-shaping it dishonestly in Twice Upon a Time, it dismisses the truth behind his characterisation in favour of a fraudulent approach which Moffat assimilates as truth. Deconstruction usually alludes to a more complex approach to breaking down the conventions of characters and/or genre metatextually, and less of a one-sided misunderstanding as Moffat displays, although I have similarly heard from advocates of “Star Wars: The Last Jedi” that this particular film deconstructs the lore of the series, in spite of actually “dismantling” it, which may have contributed to my misinterpretation of it.

(Side-note: The point you raise concerning our sensory apparatuses playing into how we perceive objective reality certainly reminds me of Immanuel Kant’s theories concerning the sublime).

To be honest, I’ve researched it more fervently since I made this thread, and I think I may have been a little misguided concerning the fundamentals behind the philosophy. I absolutely support avant-garde or juxtaposing narratives as an artistic method of storytelling, and such methods can be critiqued on their own merits. I also assert the belief that objectivity and subjectivity (empiricism and relativism) are both equally intrinsic to the human experience, though this is a discussion for another day. I just wasn’t really sure as to what else the philosophy truly entailed. Thanks for some further clarification, and I shall read “The Postmodern Condition” if I can obtain a copy- I am not especially well versed on this topic.