No PoMo (Part 2)
RIP Postmodernism, 1972-2023 (not as an aesthetic or sensibility but the whole f**ing condition, baybeee)
Forensic Marker C3: Skepticism of Diversity and Relativism
Jordan Peterson’s attacks on postmodernism in the late 2010s inspired many to rightfully question whether he knew what postmodernism meant. This is far and away the best response.
The difference between postmodernism and identity politics hinges on the former’s skepticism of all constructs (ethnicity and race as well as gender) and the latter’s inclination towards essentialism. Yes, postmodernism is not the same as idpol.1 But they are linked. The goal of living without constructs simply leads to new constructs being built. The lack of stable constructs that Foucault encouraged simply created a blank space for constructs and narratives that painted blacks, Latinos, Asians Arabs and Jews as oppressed and non-Jewish white males as the oppressor. Initially, the goal was to include these voices, as if to prove the validity of cultural relativism and foster a more colorful playground. But people like heroes and villains and it wasn’t long before skepticism of racial constructs led to skepticism of white men only.
Or, if I can give the floor to Coleman Hughes from The End of Race Politics:
Robin DiAngelo […] explicitly argues that race is a social construct. Ibram X. Kendi instead argues that race is a ‘power construct,’ but a construct nonetheless.” This objection overlooks an important point […] [they] say they believe that race is a social construct, their actions point in exactly the opposite direction.
Up until very recently, postmodern skepticism of constructs was at its absolute peak. Judith Butler’s theory of gender performativity made her a household name, with people on Zoom calls stating their pronouns. Yes, the pronoun issue may have rankled not only older white men but gays, TERFs and ethnic communities with strong religious traditions, but gender performativity was mainstreamed and pronoun proficiency became a fashionable way to show you were educated and cosmopolitan.
This gradually changed after 2020. No one asked for a rollback on this, but the pinkwashing of advertising campaigns meant that pronoun proficiency was not the white hat that proved you were the good guy after all. And yes, with all the talk of constructs being “queered,” there we were again with the oldest ones in the book: good and bad.
An unspoken assumption of DEI was that promoting minorities, women and LGBTs to positions of power would promote more fairness and justice (constructs again). Nope. It didn’t even lead to greater equity and diversity. From the WaPo:
For the past four months, people of color serving in top roles in the Biden administration have been among the most high-profile defenders of Israel as it obliterates the homes and institutions of Palestinians, whom Israel had already been oppressing in numerous other ways. That’s a clear example of a broader reality: having more minorities and women isn’t always the path to a more progressive country and, in some cases, it obstructs that goal.
Hard to believe there was a time when diversity was such a revolutionary concept. In the ‘90s, Benetton ads were considered revolutionary with their multiracial pictures and messaging. This very message was a high-watermark for postmodernism. Brands were no longer about products: they were about messages.
What was revolutionary in the ‘90s became SOP after George Floyd’s murder in 2020. But the #antiwork movement matched the onslaught. Were we supposed to support Starbucks’ union-busting just because they had a trans man in a print ad?
Forensic Marker D4: Return of Metanarratives
The video linked to at the very top of the essay also neglects to mention another gaping hole in postmodern theory: much like atheists still need to fill the God void with something, a refusal to buy into any metanarratives will only ensure that you buy into one that you are unaware of. Postmodern thinkers like Foucault and Derrida intended to include marginalized voices not in order to prop them up but to undermine constructs like identity. Instead, the marginalization narrative ran amok and, globally, the guiding ethic online was to be inclusive and tolerant.
But the diversity religion metanarrative wasn’t the only one proselytized globally, From 2008 (when Obama was first elected) to 2016 (when Trump was first elected), progress was celebrated socially and technologically simultaneously. Obama was the first Black leader of a Western nation and the most powerful man in the world because of the young, tech-savvy voters and campaign staff that made the magic happen. Old white men in red states were coded as technologically inept and socially backwards. Young ethnic women and gays were accelerating the revolution technologically and otherwise with their tweets on their smartphones.
By 2016, another metanarrative gained popularity in America: socialism. But this was a hindrance to the giddy euphoria of the New Progress metanarrative. STFU Bernie Bros we are about to have our first female president. When this failed, the liberal media and voters woke up and realized that they were living in a technopoly that they helped create. From 2016 to today, the center-left has been desperately trying to reign in the technopoly with countless attempts to censor and deplatform. By the time they tried to course correct the Israel narrative, it became clear even to some Democrats that there was a narrative that the DNC was trying to push, constituents be damned.
Can we really be said to live in an age of incredulity to metanarratives and a focus on local, diverse voices when we look at how the media has been treating Gaza? Even universities, now afraid of being labelled antisemitic, have rolled back not only on pro-Palestinian rhetoric, but against pro-Palestinian protests. And yes, many pro-Palestinian voices may have grown out of the world of Edward Said and postmodern diversity. But how many have called not for a diverse state to replace Israel but for Palestine instead of Israel?2 No greater metanarrative than a nation fighting for its sovereignty. That goes for Israel and Palestine, incidentally.
Forensic Marker E5: End of Poptimism/Consumerist Aura
Before we get too deep, let’s look at the meaning of “consumerist aura,” a term which is not as widespread but is still (was still) relevant. As simply as can be put, “consumerist aura” is when an object is so mass-produced and popular that the original has a value beyond compare. Example: all the prints of Warhol’s Marilyn Monroe diptych makes the original that much more valuable. It was this very logic that was used to explain the value of NFTs. An NFT of Jack Dorsey’s first tweet was supposed to be more valuable than simply seeing it online because its non-fungibility would preserve its consumerist aura as the authentic, original tweet because its an NFT. It didn’t take. What was 2.9 million dollars in 2020 was now $280.
It’s not just the consumerist aura that has declined. If I may refer back to Forensic Marker A1, for much of the postmodern era, consumerism was voting and voting was a revolutionary coup. But now, as per
, “You no longer make an active or physical choice when it comes to picking the music, movies, or television. This passivity makes us as audiences, as people, less engaged with what we’re doing.” Or, as I commented on that same post, “We are at a point with consumerism where it's not the romantic rock star junkie high anymore. We are like glassy eyed hospice patients absent-mindedly pressing the button of the morphine IV.”And this necrotic, narcotic numbness is not only manifesting internally. Even the Vatican has a McDonald’s now. Again capitalist realism (there is no alternative) has devolved into capitalist surrealism (there must be an alternative). Some say “Free Palestine because Palestine freed us.” One reason they say that is the exuberance of how the boycotts are affecting global brands. I also see a parallel with those in recovery from drug addiction who ride a pink cloud of euphoria by getting rid of the toxins. Boycotting Hulu means…yeah, contrary to what all those nameless hacks at HuffPo and Buzzfeed tell you, you do NOT need to watch the latest show they are raving about.
Which brings us to pop culture and poptimism. In the early ‘80s, as postmodern theory trickled down from the academy to the British music press, the term “rockism” was invented to show how rock music was coded as white, hetero and male. The idea came back in a 2004 Kelefa Sanneh piece in the New Yorker along with a new term: “poptimism.” The term gathered steam during the Obama technopoly and was yet another shiny manifestation of the cheery zeitgeist.
From Status and Culture:
“The avant-garde is now an arrière-garde,” concluded Simon Reynolds in his 2011 book, Retromania. Thanks to digitization, consumers in the twenty-first century could “access the immediate past so easily and so copiously” that they became more interested in the “cultural artifacts of [the] immediate past” than those of the immediate future. The “pioneers and innovators” of the creative class took up new roles as “curators and archivists.”
This has been the tone for pop culture from the 2000s up until now. From movie reboots to the incessant retreads of disco (the latest being Dua Lipa’s “Dance the Night Away”), the unspoken agreement was that poptimism was a vote for the status quo, which may have been cute during the Obama Youth years. But many who look back now — whether it’s the Retvrn neoreactionaries that like Trump or the many on the left who are disillusioned with Biden and party politics — do not see much in the past that they want to perpetuate anymore.
OK so are there any alternatives? Perhaps. Americans may need to look abroad though. This years Oscar’s have not been this international since the ‘60s. The article I just linked to is also meant to move attention away from the fact that Barbie’s director and star (Greta Gerwig and Margot Robbie) got robbed. It appears that way only if you focus on popular Hollywood films. But can it really be said that Anatomy of a Fall’s director and lead actress (Justine Triet and Sandra Huller) did not deserve to be nominated instead? I also don’t think it’s an accident that the last time European films were so highly regarded, there was an enormous amount of disillusionment with the US government and mainstream American culture.
Woop woop, suck it Jordan!
For the record I do not agree with this