ABSTRACT
Postmodernism has become something of a buzzword in the social sciences and humanities, and one that often provokes very strong reactions: many oppose it, and those labelled ‘postmodernists’ also tend to reject the label. It is hardly surprising then that the student engaging with postmodern thought for the first time encounters a number of difficulties. First, the very term ‘postmodern’ creates some confusion. It is sometimes used to connote a cultural change, a difference (although not necessarily a purely temporal one) from modernism. In other contexts it is used synonymously with poststructuralism, which is a particular philosophical approach grounded in a critique of, but also building on, structuralism in linguistics. Second, postmodernism challenges, or subverts, many of the ideas central to International Relations theory. Relatedly, a third difficulty lies in the complexity of the work itself. The student needs a fairly sophisticated understanding of the political institutions, forms of social organisation and social practices associated with modernity, and the philosophical underpinnings of modern social and political thought, in order to fully appreciate postmodern critiques of IR. Finally, there is a question of definition. What is postmodernism? Is postmodernism a critical theory, and if so, how is it different from Critical Theory as discussed in chapter 4? Is postmodernism really synonymous with poststructuralism? Do these scholars share a distinctive approach to the study of world politics? Postmodernism is about more than wacky building design, and can be used to critique many central ideas and concepts in ‘mainstream' International Relations. https://s3-euw1-ap-pe-df-pch-content-public-p.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/9781315833811/cd4f0040-942a-4e83-9e93-a351fabd8de3/content/fig5_1_B.jpg" xmlns:xlink="https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"/> Source: Jose Fuste Raga/Corbis. Concept Box
Postmodernism or poststructuralism?
Often the terms ‘postmodern’ and ‘post-structural’ are used interchangeably. At this point it is useful to sketch out in simple terms the differences between them in the interests of clarity. Postmodernism is centrally concerned with the nature and consequences of modernity and develops a thoroughgoing critique of the Enlightenment project. In contrast, poststructuralism is more concerned with the nature, role and function or dysfunction of language — how social meaning is constructed and contested through language. In International Relations, the two terms entered the discipline through their US-American reception in Cultural Studies and other humanities, where their common theme of questioning grand, unified and universalist narratives had been combined. As it happens, scholars working from a ‘postmodernist’ or ‘post-structuralist’ perspective tend to not like such labels anyway. For you, as well, it should be more important at this stage to grasp the general critique of power relations, dominant forms of knowledge and social practices which arise from both post-structuralist and postmodernist insights.
