Talk:Postmodernism

Terminology

A section, maybe a subsection under Definitions, that includes the most frequently encountered terms, could be an effective way to frame the rest of the article. A shortlist, not an extensive glossary: deconstruction, pastiche, metanarrative, pluralism, simulacrum, relativism, hyperreality, etc. Maybe 10 terms, with a sentence of description each (most or all will have their own articles to link to).

The following terms and concepts are often encountered in discussions of various postmodern movements.

Tsavage (talk) 04:17, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I think this is against best practices, which prefer definitions be integrated into the body in encyclopedic prose. If it's helpful, though, I have no problem breaking guidelines in the interest of making the article more helpful and accessible to readers. We would want to be very clear about inclusion criteria, however, otherwise well-meaning editors are likely to add just more and more stuff, diminishing its utility. Patrick (talk) 13:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree, sections that essentially appear as lists can break the flow of an article, and are targets for drive-by additions and undue expansion of existing items. While the article is being actively edited, waiting until the rest of the article supports the intro and seems roughly settled to assess the need for this seems like a good idea to me. Also, there may be a way to make it not a list, if the shortlist of terms can be meaningfully grouped into paragraphs.

For future consideration, here's a list of terms I've gathered and run into in my fairly superficial, overview-article reading that stand out for me as puzzling:

• deconstruction
• pastiche
• metanarrative
• hyperreality
• simulacrum
• intertextuality
• relativism
• pluralism

And possibly:

• irony
• fragmentation

Tsavage (talk) 17:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Many of these are strongly associated with particular figures and are probably best addressed in that way:

• deconstruction — Derrida. This is partially covered already. I'm going to add something about the "metaphysics of presence" in his section. His ideas have also been influential enough to appear near the top of the article in plainer language. I suppose we could mention différance, but I don't think we want to pursue this too far in such a general article.
• pastiche — I think Jameson brought this into the conversation. It could also be mentioned in a section-lead for "In arts", among, I'm sure other options.
• metanarrative — This is trademark Lyotard, but it has been influential enough to belong in the lead and the "Definitions" section
• hyperreality — This is Baudrillard. I'm not sure it's a popular enough term to merit discussion apart from the presentation of his ideas. That said, I don't particularly oppose giving it more coverage if someone else thinks it's important.
• simulacrum — Also Baudrillard. This one I see a lot more though. It's mentioned once, but more could be made of it.
• intertextuality — I'm not sure we need to say anything more than that it means including lots of references to other "texts" (in the structuralist sense according to which basically everything is a text—so that probably actually does need to be explained...).
• relativism — I'm pretty sure this is only being used in its dictionary sense, and in most cases, I believe, it is applied to postmodern philosophers by their critics. For if everything is relative to everything else in some kind of hand-wavy way, and that's all you have to say, then it does appear that truth goes out the window—perhaps even intelligibility itself. (This is a common theme of Habermas's criticisms and part of what he means with his accusation of "performative contradiction", assuming what one claims to reject.)
• pluralism — No special sense to my knowledge. It's just making space for differences, whether in art or society.

And possibly:

• irony — The major theorist here is Paul de Man, who was an icky man and an abstruse speaker and writer. Irony in its more familiar rhetorical forms, however, is also an important concept. I'm not sure what sort of further specification would be helpful, but we should certainly retain it near the top.
• fragmentation — I've never really thought about this as a technical term, even though I use it myself. I suppose its something like unreconciled pluralism, a felt loss of unity and cohesion. Or, put differently, social alienation generated by the loss of a stable metanarrative.

I would add:

• difference — Delueze, whose work I don't really know, is probably the biggest figure here, but we could also lean on Derrida. Butler's name didn't crop up much in the tertiary sources I looked at, but it does appear sometimes, and I'm betting it appears a lot more in what's being written closer to today. Their work on gender could be mentioned somewhere at least as an example.

There are a lot of resources in the Wikipedia library that will have entries on most of these terms. Some are already in the bibliography. These could be used to clarify overly technical secondary sources. My inclination is still to try to incorporate terms into the discussion. People who want more than a brief definition can always wikilink out the child articles.

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 21:24, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

The literature often associates Anti-realism with postmodernism, yet there's no mention of it in the article. Any thoughts on why that might be? Hogo-2020 (talk) 08:07, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

The "Literature" section is underdeveloped, but does include the sentence Postmodern literature often calls attention to issues regarding its own complicated connection to reality. If you can improve coverage with reference to that chapter, please by all means do. Patrick (talk) 18:54, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Perfect, I'll do that. I've gathered a lot of material on this. Would anyone object to adding it back to the lead once the content has been established? Hogo-2020 (talk) 09:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

There's currently room to add a full paragraph to the lead. In my ideal article, this would be mostly devoted to the arts—although, obviously, it should reflect whatever gets developed in the article, which could be the "In society" section or something else.

Based just on the abstract you link to, however, the anti-realism wikilink seems wrong. What is at issue seems to me to be the adequacy of our representations of reality, not whether there is something real—both philosophically and in the novel and the other arts. Baudrillard takes his concept of the real from Lacan, and so I do not know how to classify him. I know enough about the other philosophers mentioned, however, to say that none are metaphysical anti-realists. Or do you think I am wrong about this?

If anything you've found would help with the "Definitions" section, that would also be great. "Representation" has a lot of resonances in philosophy (Plato's divided line, Kant's Copernican Revolution) and in literary and art criticism that it cannot be assumed to have for the average reader. Anything that could help explain (or replace) the Bertens definition along such lines would be a help up near the top of the article.

Also, the abstract's mention of anti-humanist might be worth discussing—especially if it provides another through-line between the arts and philosophy.

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 17:23, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

While modernism was founded on idealism and reason, postmodernism arose from a critical stance towards reason. Postmodernism disputes the idea of universal truths, and this should be clearly articulated in the article, but it is not at present. Hogo-2020 (talk) 06:03, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I know what you mean, but I think that's broadly covered in the first paragraph of the intro: "the conviction that it is no longer possible to rely upon previous ways of representing reality". I also posted the latest version of a paragraph to go at the end of "Definitions" (new section below) that I think addresses what you're referring to.

What I've been trying to resolve for my non-expert self is the practical distinction between postmodernism in academic philosophy, and the labeling of things as "postmodern" that were created without any direct connection to formal philosophy. We have an article on Postmodern philosophy; this article with its broader scope should perhaps be careful with assigned technical jargon and definitions to...everything. Is the ultimate purpose of the article to show how things can be viewed in academic terms of postmodernism, or to describe a certain approach or attitude that has manifested itself across society in many different ways? Tsavage (talk) 18:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

While you’ve referenced postmodern philosophy previously, what leads you to conclude that these concepts don't relate to postmodernism outside of philosophy? I have some sources I’ve compiled; can you elaborate on why they wouldn’t apply to this article? Hogo-2020 (talk) 07:01, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

It was fun reading the explanations in your table, nice! They all apply to this article, what I was trying to get at is more of an editorial approach. The way I see it so far, there are these different aspects of postmodernism that're totally intertwined but not all one thing. To be a great article, this should be made clear in a way most general readers (like me) can easily grasp.

There's the historical time period when all sorts of rapid changes were happening in Western society, largely related one way or another to rampant tech advances (a term for that period seems to be postmodernity).

Then there's the effect on people of living in that situation, what could be called the postmodern condition (which is sometimes used synonymously with postmodernity). In various arts, there were all sorts of reactions and reflections that we now call "postmodern", but where the creators didn't necessarily have any theoretical influences, they were just doing their thing.

And then there's postmodernism as philosophy, with a more formal academic analysis of what was going on. This really came together after all the social and cultural changes were underway. So the philosophical analyses both described and labeled things already there -- that glam band is also a fine example of postmodernism in rock music -- and also contributed ideas and academic rationale for shaking things up in other areas, like law, education, science and so on.

So (as I see it at the moment), the formal philosophy both described things that existed without its influence (eg: in the arts), and also kinda helped create more postmodernisms (eg: in academia rippling outward).

Finally, there's just plain postmodern which as an adjective could be tagged onto anything, by anyone familiar with the a few general characteristics of postmodernist theory, like blurring lines and rejecting conventions and generally being skeptical of authorities. Any critic could call something postmodern, without being deeply engaged in the theoretical side. Postmodern as a kind of pop term. Pomo!

That's all I was getting at, hopefully having the article convey that whole swirly picture in plain accessible language, instead of framing everything throughout in formal, academic terms -- all metanarrative and intertextuality and...pastiche -- that, while accurate, can be distracting and even misleading in the context of this overview article. Formal philosophy is only one part. So far, the article seems to be well-balanced along those lines.

Sorry if that was a bit of a ramble, hahaha. Hopefully, though, made my point clearer. Tsavage (talk) 02:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, got your point now I think. Thanks very much for explaining! Hogo-2020 (talk) 05:33, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

@Hogo-2020, the sentence you added to "Historical overview" – Others argue that postmodernism utilizes compositional and semantic practices such as inclusivity, intentional indiscrimination, nonselection, and "logical impossibility." — needs clarification. For instance, it describes John Cage in a way that will be obvious to people who know who he is, but from the title of your source, I'm not sure what sort of techniques are being referred to. Edit: To clarify, it's the presence of "narrative" in the title that confuses me. Is at actually discussing someone more like Knausgård?

Also, should this be moved down into "Literature"? Or, if the claim is broader, it could maybe give us a start on a section lead for "In various arts". We should at least say something about postmodernism in the arts in general—even if we need to add various kinds of qualifiers.

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 18:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok, moved it down into "Literature". Hogo-2020 (talk) 05:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

References

Proposed paragraph for "Definitions" section

Here's a draft of a para for the Definitions that hopefully provides a non-technical, jargon-free high level summary, intended to complement what's there as of now (other versions and discussion are in Definitions above).

In practice, across its many manifestations, postmodernism shares an attitude of skepticism towards grand explanations and established ways of doing things. In art, literature, and architecture, it blurs boundaries between styles and genres, and encourages freely mixing elements, challenging traditional distinctions like high art versus "popular art". In science, it emphasizes multiple ways of seeing things, and how our cultural and personal backgrounds shape our realities, making it impossible to be completely neutral and "objective". In philosophy, education, history, politics, and many other fields, it encourages critical re-examination of established institutions and social norms, embracing diversity and breaking down disciplinary boundaries. Though these ideas weren't strictly new, postmodernism amplified them, using an often playful, at times deeply critical, attitude of pervasive skepticism to turn them into defining features.

Tsavage (talk) 17:06, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Tsavage, Nice work! I don't like that two of the sources are self-published, but they are at least by named scholars in or adjacent to the field. I don't think anything in there, however, is controversial, and so we can probably swap in better sources at a later date. In the meanwhile, I support adding it to the article.

I have family in town right now, but I have not forgotten about my promised edits to the philosophical part of the article. I'm reorganizing a little bit and partially redoing Derrida to (I hope) better capture the postmodern dimension of his work. I'm also adding a little bit more about Jameson. Patrick (talk) 18:53, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Hahaha, yay! I'll add it. I'm continuing to look for sources that are easily verifiable by anyone by simply reading and comparing. Sources that concisely reflect a broad scope similar to the paragraph are harder to find, but I think what I'm including is defensible as credible (as you note). Also, a footnoted paragraph with citations might end up being a solid way to support, kind of an intermediary step from...jargon to jargon-free! Tsavage (talk) 19:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Hey there, Tsavage! "Definitions" reads well to me, but I'm concerned about WP:OVERCITE. Could some of the lower quality sources be removed? (E.g., the dictionary, the volume on evangelicalism? Unless authored by a subject-matter expert?) Maybe some could be targeted to individual sentences? Could the WP:RS U.Alabama reference be replaced with one or more of the HQRS secondary sources it includes? I don't mind helping, if you would like. Too many years in academia has made me a snob about source quality...

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

@Patrick Welsh Of course, it's fine by me if you improve the sources and citations. On my end, that was a temporary situation, including the quite long quotes, as I considered the best approach for citations, whether at sentence-level, or if I could find quality sources that kinda said it all. (I don't doubt that we're approaching writing (parts of) this article in entirely different ways! :) Tsavage (talk) 21:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Wherever there are more than a couple of citations, it's probably the case as above: work in progress, waiting for improvement. Tsavage (talk) 20:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Patrick Welsh Made adjustments to the citations in that paragraph. Still in progress. There are some important/critical entries left to do in the "In..." sections, particularly with various areas of science. Once those are in place, reviewing this paragraph as a kind of summary of the rest of the article, would be easier. WDYT? Tsavage (talk) 16:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

That sounds like a good plan. I still have two section leads to write for "In philosophy". After that, I don't have any immediate plans for further additions. So maybe we then can tag in the other editors who have recently expressed concern about the lead and see whether we can forge a stronger consensus around the language there.

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 17:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh, and just for your consideration: postmodernists have a reputation for making fools of themselves when they proclaim on math and the hard sciences. It seems not many folk who spent their grad years immersed in Derrida made the time to also acquire a genuine understanding of 20th-century physics (or whatever it may be). We should be sure to include criticism as appropriate. It might also be good to mention the Sokal affair, which has been widely covered and deserves mention somewhere in the article. Patrick (talk) 20:05, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Coverage gaps?

Does anyone see anything conspicuously missing from the article? If so, now, while we have multiple sets of eyes on it, would be a great time to get in at least a stub-section for anything our ideal article would cover.

The template sidebar, for instance, includes stubs on topics not mentioned in this article. And I confess that I am skeptical about some of these supposed areas of specialization. Can one, for instance, get a job as a postmodern psychologist? Somehow I think not. I'd be happy for these doubts to be shown unfounded—but I've got to think that at least some of this is just publish-or-perish topics made up by junior academics. It's hard to know what's what, though, without actual subject-matter experts in, e.g., criminology, which is way outside my wheelhouse.

The same goes for "Legacy", although to a lesser extent, as I think the current coverage is appropriately terse. Absent a robust literature to the contrary, I don't think readers of this article need to know much more than that academics have been adding an assortment of additional prefixes to "postmodernism" for over twenty years now.

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 22:11, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

The article seems to be in great shape right now, an active work in progress, well underway. The top level menu is easy to navigate and seem comprehensive enough to organize a good amount of expansion and improvement. I think once the "In..." sections are filled out, reviewing the whole article will make the next step clear, including any sense of gaps.

Not yet at the level of gap, because there's still quite a bit of more of the outline to complete, but I wonder about the global effect: the discussion now is Western-focused, America and Europe: what has postmodernism been like...elsewhere?

Re the sidebar listing and the many postmodernisms, I have a shortlist of around 40 "postmodern ____" fields as possibilities. The majority not already in the article fit under "In society". My loose criteria for inclusion in the article are whether there's a notable amount of theoretical work, and whether that work has had practical impact. For now, I don't think big real-world impact is that important IF the discussion part is significant. As long as nothing is given undue weight (word count...), it seems fun and useful to catalog a good bit that. At some point, the whole thing can be reviewed to see whether a more inclusionist approach helps the article.

"Legacy" and "Criticisms" should probably stay brief. This article is about postmodernism broadly, so the amount of "is it over", "what came next", and criticism that can be dug up is likely vast and seems best sorted into more narrowly focused articles like postmodern philosophy, postmodernity, and so forth.

Overall, I think filling in the current outline to a point of reasonable completeness, then reading it as a whole and assessing, seems like a solid approach. Tsavage (talk) 23:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

The only source I reviewed that I recall mentioning geographic culture is the Bertens monograph. He presents postmodernism as an American construct. But I don't think the language was strong enough to justify putting that in the article. If anyone has anything on this, though, I would support its addition.

One thing that does at least bear mentioning is the extent to which the French philosophies appropriated as "postmodern" were a product of the Left disalusioned by May of '68 and reporting on the Gulag. Lyotard's model of a "grand/meta narrative" was Marxism, not the Enlightenment. I don't have any specific theories about how this translates for an English-speaking world, where Marxism has never been a live political option, but I will incorporate the fact in somewhere in the article.

Also, postmodern theology has its own Cambridge Companion, and deserves a mention—but that's the only obvious gap to me.

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 23:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Lead for "In various arts"

The lead for "In various arts" might be a good place to briefly address how various artistic disciplines and particular artists and works come to be identified as "postmodern". For example, quite in-depth articles about artists often identified as "postmodern" describe and categorize their work without mentioning postmodernism. I'm not thinking about the usefulness of or justification for the label, only about the actual process of categorizing, who the authorities are. Maybe something along the lines of elaborating on "Artists didn't necessarily identify with, or were even aware of, the postmodern movement their work was identified as part of by critics and scholars, at times years after the fact" kind of thing. This seems to be more of a thing in the arts than with postmodernisms elsewhere. (I could be over- or underthinking this, or not well-enough informed, but it has come to mind a few times in my reading, so just putting it out there.) Tsavage (talk) 18:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Added a first pass at a brief into to the section. It doesn't (yet) address the above (if that's even necessary). Comments? Tsavage (talk) 18:05, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Added image: Andy Warhol Campbell Soup I. Not sure if this and more detailed mention in the intro text are giving him too much weight...? More images through the Arts section would provide balance and accessibility. Tsavage (talk) 18:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Expanding "In society"

To keep the article improvement moving along, I'm going to add to "In society" brief summaries adapted from the other Wikipedia "Postmodern ____" articles. This is in keeping with our summary style approach, working backward. Some of the articles I've looked at don't seem to be in great shape; I'll still use what's there as a starting point. Comments? Tsavage (talk) 22:01, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

As I said before, I'd be on the alert for fields made up by academics in a way that is not reflected in the actual training and practices of the disciplines. Right now, everything looks fine except psychology, which sounds like hogwash. I'd have no problem being wrong, but unless this terminology appears in standard textbooks or general introductions to the field, I do not think we should include it on the main postmodernism page.

Also, have you happened across anything on postmodernism as a "lifestyle"? We mention this a few times, and there should be a short subsection on it here. I could write a paragraph on irony, but the stuff I've read hasn't addressed it as a more general phenomenon circa the U.S. in the '90s (or where/whenever). Patrick (talk) 23:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Didn't notice till just now, after posting a new "Psychology" section, that you'd deleted a previous version. Not sure what the issue is, hogwash isn't too specific, and what terminology are you referring to? Both versions of the section stub are adapted from the Postmodern psychology article, so would seem be in keeping with Wikipedia summary style. Unless we want to propose deletion of the entire main article (I have no idea if there's a case for that).

In any case, it was posted as a section starter, to be developed and evaluated. Psychology is a popular general topic, so including postmodern perspectives in a broad, high level article like this seems appropriate. Perhaps direct real-world impact is less important a criterion here than in other areas. For instance, written in 2024 by a psych prof at Brigham Young U:

"Psychology is caught between scientism and postmodern activism, creating unique fault lines within the discipline ... As with all other disciplines routinely recognized as social sciences, psychology is perched in a peculiar and tense intellectual space, struggling continually to decide whether its true intellectual home is to be found among the humanities, especially philosophy and literature, or among the STEM disciplines. ... In addition to feeling the constant push and pull of the humanities and the natural sciences, psychology is a key site where the intellectual tug-of-war between modernism and postmodernism plays itself out in academia."

I don't think summarily deleting the stub is a good approach, without giving it some development time. Tsavage (talk) 04:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay. That's a good supporting quotation. I remain incredulous that one can research or practice in "postmodern psychology", but it's totally possible that this is just my ignorance.

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 17:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I believe postmodernism is like a Swiss Army knife, able to do anything! Tsavage (talk) 05:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Exhaustion: Barth vs Barthes

@Patrick Welsh There seems to be some confusion, re: [1]. The cited source for the paragraph says:

"Such writers as John Barthes, Donald Barthelme, and later, Thomas Pynchon, responding to the great stylistic and conceptual breakthrough of James Joyce’s Finnegans Wake and the work of Samuel Beckett." and later in the same para, "Barthes also spoke of the exhaustion of the novel as a genre and raised the question in his work of what it means to write in an exhausted art form (the question of the one who comes too late)."

There's no mention of "Roland Barthes" in the article, so I assume the second Barthes is referencing the "John Barthes", which I think is a typo and should read John Barth. Barth wrote an essay, "The Literature of Exhaustion" in 1967 in The Atlantic that seems to have been a big deal (influential, controversial, a "postmodern manifesto"):

"By 'exhaustion' I don’t mean anything so tired as the subject of physical, moral, or intellectual decadence, only the used-upness of certain forms or exhaustion of certain possibilities — by no means necessarily a cause for despair."

So I'm assuming the exhaustion reference is to Barth, even though it may be reflecting/copying/similar to work by Barthes? And the source has a typo, either with "John" or "Barthes"? Tsavage (talk) 18:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay, that is confusing. The source mentions both, and I don't think its a typo. While I have not read Barth, the reference to Barthes is appropriate.

Did the edit I just made fix the issue? Patrick (talk) 18:57, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I had thought the reference was to the discussion generated by "The Death of the Author". But the two pieces were published the same year, and Barth's does seem a much closer fit. Maybe we just remove mention of Barthes for now? Patrick (talk) 19:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Agree. Doesn't seem like what the source was getting at with its focus on three American fiction writers. (Should I email Oxford and tell them they have a typo, are they likely to take offense?) Tsavage (talk) 20:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

The way Barthes is mentioned right after Derrida makes me confident that the name is correct. The use of the term from Barth's book, however, is confusing. Maybe it is Barthes responding to Barth? I don't know. Let's just get rid of Barthes here. We can add him back later with reference to a clearer source if we want to.

You could contact the editor about making a change in the next edition (or however they do things with such online editions) or go to the author just for clarification. It's a minor point, however, and they probably don't want to hear about it post-publication. Patrick (talk) 21:09, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Reading Barth's essay, The Literature of Exhaustion, the reference in the source seems pretty direct. Although, importantly, I don't know what Barthes said on the subject! Tsavage (talk) 02:28, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

A format of sorts?

The paragraph on Blade Runner in the Film section seems to me like a good loose template for these subsections. The writing is still clunky because it was pieced together, but it does capture what seems to me "all the postmodern elements". It discusses postmodernism using a well-known film, ties the theoretical to specific examples, and addresses the fluidity of the whole thing, the labeling ("sales pitch") and how different critical lenses can produce different results. I'm trying to get a good part of all of that in each subsection. Not literally all points in every one, but enough that a theme or pattern is established when one reads through the whole thing" "This is what the theory looks like here, how it translates, and this is how far it got in the wider context." WDYT? Tsavage (talk) 02:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

To point-form the above, for each postmodern field/movement/discipline:

• broad characteristics in non-technical language
• key theoretical terms incorporated with contextual explanation ("intertextual references included the use of...")
• concrete examples: eg: "multiple valid interpretations of the Bible", "fusing traditional British cuisine with hot dog cart staples"
• representative sampling of proponents and works
• historical context anchored with dates: what it stood against, what immediately preceded it
• social context: level of practical impact on culture, people
• relationship between theory and practice (essentially, which drove which)

The idea is absolutely not to try to explicitly cover every point for every field (like in a table), only to keep all of them in mind. For example, from "Film", this sentence covers several of the points: "Viewers are reminded that the film itself is only a film, perhaps through the use of intertextuality, in which the film's characters reference other works of fiction." Tsavage (talk) 16:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Can't imagine anyone objecting to any of this! Patrick (talk) 22:48, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments on "Historical overview"

Read through the section, and what jumped out for me was the need for section lead that in plain language deals with what modernism is, and briefly situates structuralism and poststructuralism in that context. Maybe something like "Postmodernism [has to be seen|is most easily seen|...] in the context of modernism..." kind of thing. Having that would significantly change how I read the rest. Tsavage (talk) 02:37, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Here's a quick take on part of that, a rough summary of what I've gathered from the sources I've read (hopefully not critically oversimplified):

Modernism and postmodernism can be seen as profound social adaptations in the Western world responding to a rapidly changing environment. The Industrial Revolution, urbanization, the unprecedented devastation of World War I, sweeping technological advancements, World War II, and globalization all reshaped society and demanded new reactions. Beginning in the late 1800s, modernism sought to provide new frameworks for understanding and organizing life, emphasizing progress and rationality. In contrast, starting in the 1950s, postmodernism rejected these modernist solutions, along with the very notion of grand narratives and universal explanations. Instead, it opted to embrace the complexities, contradictions, and fragmentation of evolving techno-cultural realities rather than attempting to reconcile them.

It doesn't really capture that both were both primarily umbrella movements, and the range of things they encompassed. Tsavage (talk) 17:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I downloaded a few items from this search[2] on David Harvey's postmodernism book. He's an urban geographer by training and a Marxist political theorist. A paragraph on his account, given with attribution, would help to connect the cultural dimension to material socioeconomic developments. More detailed discussion of this debate, however, I think would be more properly treated in the postmodernity article. Patrick (talk) 23:06, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion of structuralism and poststructuralism is in the "In philosophy" section, where it seemed most appropriate. Some stuff needs to be mentioned multiple times, but I try to avoid repetition as much as possible.

With respect to postmodernism's relation to modernism, I think there is a reason that HQRS don't say very much about this: at such a high level, it's all abstractions that aren't of much help explaining anything (also, it's always easy to find a counter-example). If anyone finds a great source on this, I would fully support inclusion. But it's not our responsibility to make the connections ourselves. Patrick (talk) 22:59, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Not sure I understand the "respect to postmodernism's relation to modernism" part. Do you mean, not taking sides as it were, saying that postmodernism is a rejection of modernism, or extends it, or whatever else? Tsavage (talk) 21:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Partially, yes. The problem is that modernism itself is a contested term, and so it's not really helpful in explaining anything else (at least to me, anyways). No opposition in principle, just not sure we can write and source it responsibly—as you said, "umbrella terms". Patrick (talk) 17:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Another version

An adjusted version of the above, again, written according to my understanding at the moment (based on reading reliable sources, of course!):

Historical overview

Postmodernism is often situated as what came after modernism. Both can be seen as periods of profound social adaptation in the Western world, responding to a rapidly changing environment. The Industrial Revolution, urbanization, the unprecedented devastation of World War I, sweeping technological advancements, World War II, and globalization all reshaped society and demanded new reactions. Modernist movements, emerging in the late 1800s, challenged conventions across many fields. They often embraced a 'less-is-more' philosophy and emphasized progress and rationality. In contrast, postmodernism, emerging in the 1950s, rejected or reshaped modernist approaches and questioned the very idea of universal truths. Instead, the postmodernist attitude embraced the complexities, contradictions, and fragmentation of the evolving techno-cultural environment rather than attempting to reconcile them.

Tsavage (talk) 02:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm concerned this is too much synthesis of super complicated cultural history. Some modernism is definitely "more", e.g., Ulysses, even if some of it is also the "less" of monochrome paintings. I just don't think we should generalize like this without attribution (which I've really only seen from Marxists, whose metanarrative is a lot of what gave rise to poststructuralism—and so postmodernism). Patrick (talk) 17:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I had like three WP:NOTFORUM jokes that I could play off that comments but I'll save those and just say that I concur that we don't want to be reductionist of a social phenomenon that is very nearly defined by complexity and irreconcilability. I agree that attribution is critical. But if the truth is that most reliable commentary on the phenomenon comes from Marxists and post-Marxists like Jameson and Lyotard then we should simply use those sources with attribution. Of course. Simonm223 (talk) 18:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Jameson and Lyotard are already in the article. I will also be adding David Harvey.

What are your jokes? Patrick (talk) 18:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Of course it's mostly Marxists whose work defines Postmodernism - it's because they operate within the Eternal Science. Simonm223 (talk) 18:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

How many Marxists does it take to define Postmodernism? All of them; pity they can't agree on a definition. Simonm223 (talk) 18:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes Marxists are mostly responsible for defining postmodernism. They just all wish they could have found a different definition. Simonm223 (talk) 18:27, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I like the middle one. I'm planning to build out the mostly unstated opposition between Marxists and poststucturalists in the "In philosophy" section. But only a little bit. And I would not be at all mad if you or someone else beat me to it. Patrick (talk) 18:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Looking at what we have regarding poststructuralism I'm wondering if anything about the debate between Deleuze and Baudrillard regarding the significance of simulacra might be a useful addition. Simonm223 (talk) 18:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I confess don't know that debate. Some of the folks covered in the article I know pretty well, but those two hardly at all. My hope was just that stub sections might attract someone with expertise. Sources for even including Deleuze could go either way. If there's a relevant discussion, however, please do add!

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 18:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

So the nutshell version is that Deleuze, in his later books, was developing an approach to simulacra that emphasized them as a point of generative production which he described, in his Cinema books, as the powers of the false. This almost optimistic perspective on simulacra was contrary to the more pessimistic approach of Baudrillard that saw them as ultimately breaking down the meaning of the signified under the weight of repeated significations upon signifiers. It is a later post-structuralist disagreement as Deleuze didn't publish Cinema 2 until 1985 and Simulacra and Simulation was published in 1981. But I think the locus of disagreement between them kind of gets at how poststructuralism got away from the signified It was either so over-coded that you could hardly see it underneath all the layers of signification or it was just wholly irrelevant.

And it's also kind of interesting that you can loosely lump Deleuze in with the Marxists (controversial but I would defend it) while Baudrillard was very much post-Marxist. Simonm223 (talk) 18:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@Patrick Welsh Are you referring specifically to "less-is-more", or that the whole paragraph is too much synthesis? I take your point about oversimplification. It's still a work in progress. I'm trying to address what's introduced in the first sentence of the article (not to mention in the word postmodernism): "claim to mark a break from modernism". It's not taken up until "Theoretical development", beginning with "a general account of the postmodern as an effectively nihilistic response to modernism's alleged assault on the Protestant work ethic and its rejection of what he upheld as traditional values". Tsavage (talk) 05:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

It's modernism as "less-is-more" that I think does not generalize. For instance, Kafka is considered a major modernist writer, but so is Proust. Patrick (talk) 16:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

About the only modernist writer who could probably be more the poster child for literary modernism than Proust that I can think of would be Joyce. And neither Finnegan's Wake nor Ulysses is really a "less is more" book either. So I do agree. Simonm223 (talk) 17:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

And another version

Historical overview

Two broad cultural movements, modernism and postmodernism, emerged in response to profound changes in the Western world. The Industrial Revolution, urbanization, secularization, technological advances, two world wars, and globalization deeply disrupted the social order. Modernism emerged in the late 1800s, seeking to redefine fundamental truths and values through a radical rethinking of traditional ideas and forms across many fields. Postmodernism emerged in the mid-20th century with a skeptical perspective that questioned the notion of universal truths and reshaped modernist approaches by embracing the complexity and contradictions of modern life.

Tsavage (talk) 19:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I do like the phrasing on this. Simonm223 (talk) 19:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree. This is well done. Great work! Patrick (talk) 22:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Cool! Added paragraph with citations. Still working on citations. Tsavage (talk) 18:29, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

"Science wars" subsection

Here's a rough first attempt at a "Science wars" subsection, intended for the end of "Historical overview". This draft is probably quite overly long as is, an is intended for general comment. It appears like a good way to complete the history part, tying in an example of significant real-world impact, and bringing the story up to the present.

During the 1990s, postmodernism's critique of certain scientific claims and methodologies erupted into a well-publicized clash with science – the STEM fields – known as the "science wars." Among the contested issues were objectivity, the universality of the scientific method, and the social constructed nature of knowledge, among other core concerns, in an effort to situate the sciences in a broader cultural and philosophical context. This conflict was set against a backdrop of growing public skepticism towards science, influenced by various antiscience movements, and its political ramifications, affecting research funding and leading to increased scrutiny of scientific institutions. In 1996, physicist Alan Sokal launched a hoax (later known as the "Sokal affair") intended to discredit postmodernist criticisms of science. He submitted a deliberately nonsensical paper titled "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity" to Social Text, a leading journal of cultural studies, for a special "Science Wars" edition.

The paper was accepted and published. Intended as a parody, it made such assertions such as "a liberatory science cannot be complete without a profound revision of the canon of mathematics" and declared that "the content of [science and mathematics must be] enriched by incorporating the insights of feminist, queer, multiculturalist, and ecological critiques." Sokal then publicly revealed the hoax in the literary magazine Lingua Franca. Social Text's editorial board, which included influential scholars such as Fredric Jameson and Andrew Ross, did not withdraw the paper. They argued that it was accepted in good faith from a respected scientist and was of interest regardless of the author's intent. The incident drew significant media attention.

Two decades later, in 2018, a similar attempt was made to critique what the authors saw as ideological bias in certain academic fields. This project, known as the "Grievance Studies affair," involved three scholars submitting 20 hoax papers to various journals in cultural, queer, race, gender, fat, and sexuality studies. By the time the hoax was revealed, four papers had been published, three had been accepted but not yet published, seven were still under review, and six had been rejected.

The heated debates between postmodernist critics and defenders of traditional scientific methods have largely cooled since the 1990s, while the underlying questions remain relevant. Overall, the science wars contributed to a more reflexive approach to scientific practice and communication, with increased awareness of the social and cultural contexts in which scientific knowledge is produced and disseminated. As one scholarly summary, "The Quiet Resolution of the Science Wars" (2021), put it: "The 'science wars' were resolved surprisingly quietly. ... Today, there are few absolute relativists or adherents of scientific purity and far more acknowledgment that science involves biased truth-seeking. ... [there are] some key agreements: tests of scientific claims require clarifying assumptions and some way to account for confirmation bias, either by building it into the model or by establishing more severe tests for the sufficiency of evidence. This sedation was accompanied by shifts within social science disciplines ... nearly everyone became theoretically and methodologically pluralist in practice."   

Comments? Tsavage (talk) 17:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Quick comment:

While Sokal is pretty damning for the journal, which apparently is not even peer-reviewed, it's not clear to me that it says anything about the artists, critics, and philosophers named in the article. I somehow missed or forgot about "Grievance Studies", but it sounds like it too should be treated as a stunt in some kind of culture war about higher education. (Quite a list of topics to target for ridicule!) It's definitely worth covering in the article, but not in the way, or at the same length, as we treat serious criticisms like those of Habermas or Jameson—or, you know, any other actual scholarly responses.

(Also, I'm editorializing here, but claiming to refute Foucault in some general way with a manufactured media event is arguably more postmodern than anything Foucault himself actually wrote. Excellent prank, but still just a prank.)

With respect to positioning in the article, I would maybe make this its own section to be presented on either side of "In society". I'm sure there are more serious criticisms of postmodern takes on the sciences, and it would be good to carve out a space for them.

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 22:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree, there's way too much focus on the hoaxes in this draft. I'm still reading, but what's stands out as interesting, particularly in a historical sense, is the backdrop of growing public skepticism towards science, influenced by various antiscience movements part, and the final paragraph that says the effects of postmodernist critique of the sciences did result in what seem like kinda common sense adjustments.

"Science wars" (not the "Sokal affair") does seem important in a historical overview, maybe even critically anchors postmodernism for a general reader. It seems to be when postmodernism kinda peaked, both in terms of core theoretical ideas breaking into mainstream/broad public attention to a significant degree, and for its main event nature in appearing to take on the new religion of science. Tsavage (talk) 16:37, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

My editorial instinct would be to make "Science wars" a section somewhere after "In philosophy" and then add just a short paragraph or two to the "Overview". But I'm sure whatever decision you make based on what you have when it's ready to publish will be fine.

I also think it's important not to conclude the "Overview" with something that seems to say that "actually all these people were complete charlatans speaking nonsense the whole time." I know this is not what you're saying, but it's what presenting a few hoaxes as the end of postmodernism very much suggests.

Oh, and I too like the concluding 2021 source in your draft. Admirably even-handed.

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 17:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I do think the "science wars" topic is relevant in this article, but I am concerned about the nuances of how it is presented here. While some culture warriors may have framed their interventions as, "postmodernists who talk about discursive construction don't believe in empirical reality or accept that science is real", I don't think is the main framing of this debate in the relevant literatures. It would be unfortunate (and ironic) if that narrow view were to become the metanarrative framing this article. Much more interesting things than that were going on in the "science wars", IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 17:37, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Can you elaborate and maybe offer a few sources (of manageable length)? Cheers, Patrick (talk) 18:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, if I understand correctly, suggesting that postmodern theory is all about "no fixed truths, anything goes" would be a kinda silly and major misrepresentation. With "science wars", what I think of (as the self-designated representative of the non-expert general reader with interest but no philosophy background) is the goal/perception of science being deliberately guided in the later 1800s from a noble cause conducted on behalf of humankind, to a proprietary business pursuit. How this was made a culturally worthy and ethically acceptable thing.

In my reading, I'm wondering if I'll find a more direct connection with postmodernism addressing the turning of science into what seems to be largely a for-profit business enterprise (eg: what determines research funding, protection of intellectual property as a barrier to research, companies hiring away top talent, which findings get turned in what sort of products, science lobbying on behalf of commercial interests for government priorities and regulation, that sort of thing).

If there's a connection that's well-sourced, it should be condensable into a couple of summary sentences that would fit under science wars! Tsavage (talk) 19:26, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

You could certainly find something like that within the disciplines of "science studies", "sociology of science" and "philosophy of science" broadly construed. The Venn diagram relating those disciplines to postmodernism, though, would be complicated - and quite possibly rhizomatic :). Newimpartial (talk) 20:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

"from a noble cause conducted on behalf of humankind, to a proprietary business pursuit" A bit of oversimplification here, but the era of the independent scientist/"gentleman scientist" had ended by the late 19th century. By that point, science increasingly depended on "large-scale government and corporate funding". Several of the pioneering technologies in fields like telecommunications and electrical engineering were largely funded by corporations in pursuit of profits. Dimadick (talk) 01:28, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I have a lot of knowledge about the Grievance Studies hoax. One important bit of context which we should mention, and for which I'm sure there are sources, is that (with at least some of) the accepted papers there was falsified research data included in the submitted papers to make them look more legitimate. Simonm223 (talk) 19:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, just from Wikipedia's coverage, this does not really seem to be about the quality of scholarship in the humanities. They could have done a study, but instead they did a stunt. One author is aggrieved about student attitudes in general, another is a conspiracy theorist deemed too toxic even for pre-Musk Twitter, and the third does not have a research degree and does not work as an academic. If we decide to cover this second hoax, we should do so with care. Patrick (talk) 23:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, science funding is complicated (even if we were to restrict ourselves to just the U.S., where most of this debate is taking place). Unless you've got a particularly good source that uses this as an example and makes an important point we haven't touched on (or to make it better), I would steer clear of the topic. Patrick (talk) 22:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

As I continue my light literal reading in this area, the one thing that made me lol so far: What did the physicist say he liked best about the end of the science wars? He wouldn't have to look up "hermeneutics" in the dictionary for the nth time. Same. Tsavage (talk) 17:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Philosophical hermeneutics is a very real area of specialization, in which Gadamer remains the dominant figure. I agree, however, that it is routinely abused. When called upon to specify my own philosophical "methodology", for instance, I would always just say "critical hermeneutics". An idiotic question deserves an idiotic answer. Patrick (talk) 20:59, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Another paragraph for "Definitions"?

This is a quick rough take on a paragraph for "Definitions" that could help with clarifying why "postmodernism" is difficult to define. I'm not sure if this is already (sufficiently) implied in the rest of the article, if it can be picked up from bit and pieces in context. I have run into similar explanations in more than one reliable source:

While a single overall academic definition and a standard set of rules or criteria to identify instances of the postmodern in the world are impossible to pin down or come to consensus on, hence the indefinable nature, many different postmodern theories and schools of thought are individually well-defined (and often enough contradict, conflict with and oppose each other, or at least, don't even use the same terms in the same way). Theorists in diverse disciplines such a law, marketing, anthropology, urban planning and so forth, could propose "postmodern projects" based on particular postmodern theories -- the nature of these projects could vary significantly depending on which postmodern approach was taken. In addition, commentators in various fields -- art and literary critics, music writers, and so forth -- often engaged in critique from more popularized perspectives, without deep engagement with or understanding of the theoretical side.

Comments?

Tsavage (talk) 18:25, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I mean not just art and literary critics, music writers, etc. but also some people who really should have known better. Simonm223 (talk) 18:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

If you have a source on the ways the term is abused by culture warriors, I would strongly support its inclusion. I find it to be rather useless as a descriptor, but it quite certainly is not an academic conspiracy against truth and reality. Patrick (talk) 20:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I'll dig around and see what I can find. A big problem is that most of the targets of the culture warrior "postmodernist" attacks are either dead or are embarrassed by the term and so the most we generally get is people pointing out that Jordan Peterson is very postmodernist. Simonm223 (talk) 23:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Peterson's "postmodern neo-Marxist" might deserve a mention, simply due to the coverage it received. In the last 10 years, there haven't been too many wide public uses of any variation of "postmodern" that I've heard, actually probably only that one. Tsavage (talk) 02:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

There might be some smoke here: lots of hits on Scholar for criticism of Peterson's "postmodern neo-Marxist" claim. Simonm223 (talk) 16:47, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Peterson is a social media influencer with no relevant expertise, and I oppose introducing him without very strong sourcing to establish his relevance. Patrick (talk) 16:53, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

This is the best source I've seen so far: [3] Simonm223 (talk) 17:14, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm maybe just not sufficiently "online" to appreciate the significance of this, but I really don't see how it is a remotely serious conversation. If someone wants to add such material with appropriate sourcing, I won't stand in the way. I do not, however, think it is a good idea. Patrick (talk) 17:21, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that, unless we limit ourselves to critiques of Hicks, there's not much that's encyclopedically notable about pop-cultural critiques of postmodernism... except for those of Peterson. Because of his high profile and his claim to academic bonafides there's quite a lot of criticism of his weak definition of postmodernism. So, if we decide that discussion of pop-cultural criticism of postmodernism is worth inclusion, the 'postmodern neo-marxist' approach of Peterson is the one for which academic literature, you know, exists. Simonm223 (talk) 17:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I should have been more gracious in receipt of your informed response to my direct inquiry. If you or anyone else thinks we should add this, I will not interfere. If we do so, however, I would just ask that we make an effort to avoid attracting disruptive editing by fanboys. Patrick (talk) 17:33, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh absolutely. Simonm223 (talk) 17:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@Patrick Welsh Haha, I TOTALLY understand your concern, there's always the risk of...disruptive editing. As far as I've noticed, the one way to protect against that is to have a really solid article, that reads well and just "makes sense" to "most readers/editors". Well-explained, comprehensive, solid sourcing, and cohesive as a whole. That way, undue weight, which what in large part it tends to come down to – quibble over a few words can be easily resolved – usually stands out quite clearly and can be countered.

The pop-cultural aspect I find important, it's kinda the point of contact for many people, like myself. I don't think Peterson's invoking of "postmodern" can be parachuted in right this moment, but it probably in some way fits in the "science wars" area. The notability for our purposes of Sokal's hoax seems to be in the same pop-cultural area. So that whole thing has to be...well-balanced. IMHO. :) Tsavage (talk) 17:50, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. I have just a few more things I will (eventually!) add to the part of the article about academic philosophy. The YouTube culture-war nonsense just makes me groan. But if it's an actual topic of conversation, I'm happy for other folks to add it. Patrick (talk) 18:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

The Peterson phenomenon was rather huge at the time, a few years ago. Related to the "postmodern neo-Marxist" bit, one of his kinda taglines at the peak, "actual philosophers" got involved, even as far a in sold-out public debates with (low) thousands in paid attendance, and probably millions eventually viewing on YT. So to dismiss it intellectually is of course fine, but if postmodernism seems to fit significantly in there, any coverage here would deserve your scrutiny! :) Tsavage (talk) 18:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

My opening paragraph in "Definitions" could be partially or entirely demoted to a footnote supporting a more discursive presentation along the lines of what you propose. I'm somewhat concerned, though, that this draft might be presenting social manifestations of postmodernism as more prominent than they actually are in their fields. I have not inspected the sourcing for "In society", but I remain skeptical that it's much of a thing outside of the humanities.

Oh, and it would also be worth noting that the one field in which "postmodern" has a well-defined and historically stable meaning is architecture. Patrick (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

The "Definitions" section as it is seems to do a great job of establishing the proper weight between indefinability and attempting a general definition regardless. For me, it frames the rest of the article well.

Re degree of actual impact outside of humanities, I've had that in mind since it was mentioned in the earlier discussion about the psychology entry. How would that be established? It seems like reading through the sources is the only way here in Wikipedia. For now, I'm trying to follow the format I mentioned above. Tsavage (talk) 03:02, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

My objections are not based on Wikipedia policy, but just on the way that disciplines organize and describe themselves. For instance, the most wide-spread form of psychotherapy in the U.S. is cognitive behavioral therapy. Is this approach modernist or postmodernist? To me the question makes no sense, and this suggests to me we maybe shouldn't be imposing the term. But I don't have a source expressly saying that we shouldn't. Patrick (talk) 16:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree, overemphasizing postmodernism's impact in various disciplines (or even presenting that impression in the text) would be a big problem: it would mislead the reader. Navigating that, though, is trickier. Exclusion doesn't seem viable, not without some sort of criteria that's made plain within the structure of the article. Particularly in "In Society", my best effort so far is to try to give a balanced impression for a bunch of fields, through choice of examples and wording. In the case where main articles exist (even though some of them are barely articles), I've been starting with what's there and working through it, rather than rejecting it straight away.

For example, the second paragraph in "Marketing" (Journal of Business Research), I checked that the journal seemed basically reputable (peer-reviewed, published by Elsevier), the subject matter seemed engaging to a general reader (Madonna, Taylor Swift), and it connected with an apparently broader postmodernism influence in the marketing field by identifying "five themes and characteristics of postmodernism consistently found in marketing literature". Without all of that, especially the last bit, I wouldn't have included it on its own. Hopefully, all of the "In society" sections can meet that rough standard.

By "wording", I mean things like the difference between saying "postmodern psychology" and "postmodern influences in psychology".

Also, the intro to that section is just a stub, it should make clear the various ways in which "postmodernism" could be attached to a discipline. That's what I've come up with so far – no doubt improvements can be made to this approach? Tsavage (talk) 18:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Over-quotation?

I noticed the recent {{overquotation}} article tag. It may refer to the quotes within citations. It's not clear from the template documentation, or from WP:QUOTE guidelines, whether citation quotes are considered in the same way a quotes in the body text. In any case, I added quite a number of citation quotes, and some seem fairly long (though I haven't found a guideline for "long" either). My working reasoning is to include explanatory quotes whenever it seems useful at the moment of writing, for easier verification or for clarifying context. My intention is to review both the citation quotes and the citations themselves when I've finished editing.

Comments? Tsavage (talk) 00:51, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sure you're right about the tag.

Honestly, I don't like embedded quotes either, but I don't have good reasons for this (unless used a workaround for NPOV or DUE, which I don't see as the case here).

Maybe when you're finished we make just those quotes suitable for inclusion into footnotes instead? Probably it will turn out that a fair bit of material is unnecessary. Patrick (talk) 19:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I got a little addicted to adding quotes. Was doing so for different ends, depending: clarifying, more context, for verification. I think part of liking quotes is that, even if only in a tiny amount of cases, one does find apparent misuses of citations frequently enough (in Wikipedia), to the point where, for me, just seeing an authoritative-looking citation doesn't automatically instill confidence in the text. And then there's the problem of accessing cited material. Having those chunks of quotes, for this wiggly subject at least, seems...helpful! I'm not entirely clear of the line between this use of quotes and creating footnotes, would footnotes involve more paraphrasing? Anyhow, I've begun to curb the impulse to quote, and will start paring back what's there... Tsavage (talk) 17:41, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I absolutely see that.

I'm pretty sure the main reason I want to separate notes from the citations and bibliography is because that is how books are organized, and I grew up with print books. Obviously this is not a reason binding on anyone else—and not even a great reason for just me.

More to the point, though, I will probably convert everything to sfn and harv format once the article is stable. This makes a page much cleaner, to my eyes, and it allows people familiar with the literature to assess the quality of sourcing at a glance, which ref tags tend to obscure. To my knowledge, however, these templates do not allow for embedded quotes, which would require converting them into footnotes.

My own practice on Wikipedia is to use footnotes for basically two purposes. The first is for stuff that I think shouldn't need to be said, but apparently does. The second is to include information too technical for the general reader, but of likely interest to those already knowledgeable (this often in anticipation of objections that I know to exist but that I believe the sources establish to be without merit).

Obviously, though, you don't need to adhere to my philosophy of WP footnoting practice. Sometimes I can be quite pedantic (see, e.g., Georg_Wilhelm_Friedrich_Hegel#Notes). Patrick (talk) 18:45, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Footnotes can be fun to read all on their own -- like little side stories and subplots. I dunno if there'll be a big need for many here, but maybe. I've read the philosophy section, of course, but not really for full easy comprehension by the uninitiated -- there could be some sticky points! :)

For different quotes in multiple instances of a citation, I've been using harvnb. Works inside ref tags, so you can include text. Tsavage (talk) 03:14, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

French Theory?

Been peering down the apparent rabbit hole of French Theory, and am wondering if it merits mention here in this broad overview. As I've grasped it so far (correct me if I've got it wrong), the well-established umbrella term refers to a kind of American brand of postmodernism, constructed (concocted?) from (re)interpretation of a variety of French thinkers' work in the 1960s, centered around what's now identified as post-structuralism, but including lots of other stuff. My impression is that it's an overall at least somewhat disputed homegrown interpretation of the original ideas, driven in good part by academic market forces (eg: new areas of study) influencing rigorous academic analysis. So, a general theoretical approach with its own academic support, that became globally widely influential in all sorts of areas, through the power of America. Something in that region? Tsavage (talk) 19:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I think this is already covered by Postmodernism#The_influence_of_poststructuralism and Postmodernism#Poststructuralist_precursors. We could add a parenthetical with a wikilink to French theory, but I wouldn't do more than that unless there's a strong source arguing in favor of that term rather than just "poststructualism" (which, like "postmodernism", is also a largely American category imposed on diverse French academics). Patrick (talk) 19:53, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, cultural differences in interpretation are too detailed and nuanced for me to confidently grasp so far, so I’ll put this aside for now. However, I’m still left wondering about what seems like a significant difference in the application and trajectory of the same core concepts, as well as the significant debate surrounding that idea. Shouldn't the article address this curiosity? For example, if I come across a mention of "French Theory," which has a substantial body of literature, I would expect it to be at least briefly situated in this high-level article. Is a parenthetical link equating it with 'post-structuralism' entirely accurate? Tsavage (talk) 19:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

In this context I think they're interchangeable. After the sentence Although few themselves relied upon the term, they became known to many as postmodern theorists. We could add In the U.S., practitioners are sometimes described more generally as doing "French theory". — or something along those lines.

Do you have a source to support this? I don't think it's controversial, and it shouldn't be difficult to find one. Patrick (talk) 21:17, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

"Legacy"?

Is "Legacy", implying that postmodernism has pretty much exited the stage, an appropriate heading for a section covering the last couple of decades? My impression from at least a couple of streams of light reading is that "Ongoing influence" or something similar is more accurate. It seems to me that the "death of pomo", according to commentators at the time, related to the dying down of two things:

1. (American?) academic product: decline in academic works labeled as postmodern;
2. Cultural product: reduction of cultural works identified as postmodern in substance or style.

A perspective other than death or diminishment is that much of what was being discussed was absorbed into everyday culture: if everything is postmodern, then what do we distinguish as postmodern?

Other points that appear to favor "ongoing influence":

• The theoretical aspects in all their diversity are still useful for describing and analyzing the world as it is now.
• There is reporting and activity from maybe the later 2010s that suggests a resurgence of what is identified as postmodern thinking and theoretical application.
• What were considered core characteristics in the late 20th century have in various ways transcended their US and Western contexts and gone global..

It's quite possible that I've constructed a situation from too few...data points. Still, from my understanding so far, it doesn't seem accurate to suggest that postmodernism just up and died, or withered away, around 2000. Tsavage (talk) 18:00, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I support this. Experts, such as they are, disagree about whether or not postmodernism is over. In this respect, the header "Legacy" is a violation of NPOV. Patrick (talk) 18:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

OK! I've changed it for now to "Ongoing influence", pending any additional feedback. Tsavage (talk) 19:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Editing update

Continuing to work on "In various arts" and "In society". My plan is to get the existing entries to a reasonably finished state – there are a few more to go – without adding additional ones (I think there are a few other interesting areas, but for me, that can come later). I think some of the entries may be a little long – I'm trying to include what seems relevant for a balanced view, and then with an overall reading of the article, can edit down from there. That is my intention! Tsavage (talk) 20:04, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

@Patrick Welsh Continuing to work on six of the "In arts"/"In society" sections. But, I've already made some notes on things that were unclear to me, or could maybe be improved, or seemed to be missing entirely. Should I post that rough list now, would that be helpful, or wait and edit it down? Tsavage (talk) 18:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Please do share! Feedback on my previous contributions might be just what I need to also re-motivate me to finish up the small amount that I still intend to add. Patrick (talk) 18:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Hahaha, careful what you wish for! I'll reread and touch up a bit and post today.... (Yeah, for me, doing all this fairly superficial and lateral reading, but in good quantity for "hobby editing", it's not been boring, more like blur-iniducing. So many combinations of words, all fighting it out, like a battle royale, and me periodically thinking, Yeah, and...so what?! :) Tsavage (talk) 19:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Some overall comments

I cleaned up a bit and removed some, but still notes-to-self and probably not what I'd write as comments on a "finished" version. Also, some items may already have been resolved (at least, in my opinion). In any case, in no particular order:

• I'm interspersing initial responses below in turquoise. If you object to this departure from procedure, please revert.

• I'll go turquoise-free. - Ts

• science wars / science (scientific method, empiricism, rationality) and the popularized and sensationalized coverage (primarily in America?) of the "no fixed truth, anything goes" reductionist characterization in the later 1990s

• Yes. The article should include this. I could not find good sources, however, and my inquiry at the Wikipedia reference desk was to no avail.

• address broad perception that postmodern means "no truth, anything goes" (see science wars note)

• Same as immediatly above

• clarifying the distinction between theory, aesthetics/art and related critiques, and social condition, particularly in that the term "postmodern" often doesn't appear in coverage of creators and their works, even while the discussions clearly fit postmodern perspectives and are widely labeled as such

• I will keep this in mind the next time I do a thorough review of the article.

• Expanded a bit. Ts

• critical journalism and analytic journalism: risks of reductive errors being reincorporated in academia ie: in education (esoteric for here, maybe, but seems likely to apply at least in some disciplines like marketing, the "quality" popular coverage informs future theory and practice)

• I don't follow. Could you provide an example from the article?

• Should have left this off for now. It's about how "high-quality" public distillations of theory, like an NYT feature written by a noted scholar, can get cycled back into the education stream and introduce unwanted oversimplifications and biases. Something like that. Everything here is from at least a couple of different encounters, but this was just a memo to revisit. Ts

• clarify sameness and differences between poststructuralism and postmodernism and that Foucault, Deleuze, Beaudrillard and Derrida all considered both post-structural and postmodern theorists

• As far as I can discern, these are both external, rubbish categories with extremely limited conceptual justification. I can expand in response to more specific concerns. Otherwise the justification is just that we're following HQRS.

• Maybe that should be made explicit, the often/largely American inventions? Ts

• not just key philosophers, but maybe key books taken together, with notes (eg: Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,", Hal Foster’s anthology, "The Anti-Aesthetic" "The Postmodern Condition")

• Could you clarify/expand this comment?

• Eg: a para somewhere mentioning that certain books were catalysts, such as... For instance, I've run into several mentions of Kuhn's book. Ts

• "Historical overview" needs a "Cultural development" subsection to precede "Theoretical development"

• As above, I agree, but I have been unable to find adequate supporting sources.

• gap between theory and practice: misapplication and too few practitioners properly implementing theory; also, theory that analyzes practice rather than situating it in theoretical context and history

• Could you clarify/expand this comment? Expert practitioners should not defer to theory developed in a practical/intellectual vacuum.

• Not the "Sokal stuff", the idea of theory properly building on theory (not solely by researching practice), and of practice effectively implementing theory. This was partly addressing the not necessarily obvious to everyone differences between theoretical and practical development, and how they often/usually aren't well-integrated and are also confused with each other in various ways. Haha, make sense? Ts

• idea that the modernism/postmodernism cycle recurs through history, a condition that arises in times of profound societal change?

• This could be supported by HQRS, but it is controversial and, in my judgment, an unnecessarily contentious claim about history that might distract readers from the main topic of the article.

• Yeah, read mentions in a couple papers in a couple of disciplines, but if not popping up all over the place, I agree. Ts

• in the arts, modernism's "art for art's sake", pure creativity without social, moral, political concern, leading to inaccessibility and eliteness vs postmodernism situating itself with regard to the past and across styles (accessibility)

• Could you elaborate? To take examples just from the areas I know best, Gravity's Rainbow and Infinite Jest both have high barriers to entry. This is even more the case with the philosophical works covered by the article.

• The impression I have atm from sources is of the artist on a (selfish) quest for pure expression as a big modernism thing, and postmodernism pulling that back down to earth. An aspect of high vs low art/culture. (only thinking one-sentence mentioin of something that I found core interesting.) Ts

• global situation: a Western phenomenon (North America, Europe), and that in specific fields a lot of it came from America

• global impact: how it spread, particular manifestations in different disciplines in varioius countries

• different approaches based on language (eg: Anglophone archaeology), culture, politics

• role of (consumer) capitalism?

If anything is just not clear, please let me know! --Tsavage (talk) 20:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks for the detailed comments!

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

As I mentioned, these were notes to myself, so they're not all necessarily well-grounded. I also just added above what I think of as, as a curioius reader, a big area: the local vs global. In all these areas, I'm generally thinking of sentence/paragraph summary coverage, mentioins, not extended exploration. Tsavage (talk) 21:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Article image

I think that the top of the article looks better in this[4] less busy version. But someone took the trouble to add the other two images together with informative captions, and I didn't want to simply delete their work. Maybe at least one, if not both, can be moved elsewhere in the article?

I don't believe I've ever seen an article with multiple images in the lead—or with that long of a caption.

Also, if other editors prefer an image other than the Neue Staatsgalerie, I don't feel strongly about this. I do, however, think that we should default to a preference for something architectural, since this is one of the earliest and most stable forms of postmodernism. (Also, lots of visually great images!)

Thoughts?

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 00:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree, a single architectural image, that looks good unexpanded on mobile or laptop page, would be good. The current collection looks messy, and none of the images are too engaging at in-page size. I have a couple of suggestions, based on appearance:

PPG Place [5] [6]

SIS Building [7] << British Secret Service, MI6

Also, a dedicated infobox with a photo might be good, with custom fields. There's an example on Surrealism. For this article, it would likely require a lot of decision-making, what fields and what to include in them. The plus is, with such a kinda sprawling topic, and infobox could be helpful as a lead-in and mini-overview. Tsavage (talk) 05:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd be cool with the SIS building. Can you provide a caption with a sentence briefly describing what is postmodern about it?

I'm a bit more wary of an infobox. But this is mostly because they are prone to becoming bloated with content added by editors who don't know (or don't care about) the relevant policies governing what should be included. My preference would be to stick with the navbox near the bottom or an expanded navbar at the bottom.

If you feel strongly enough to create something, though, I'm not opposed.

Cheers, and Happy New Year! Patrick (talk) 14:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Made the change.

Not sure why the nav sidebar was moved down? Especially for an umbrella article, it seems useful in an easily accessible spot.

Happy New Year! :) Tsavage (talk) 17:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

That looks good. As much as I love Bond, though, I would suggest removing mention of it in this prominent place. I see how the source could justify it, but it reads as trivia in caption text.

For placement of the sidebar, see WP:SIDEBAR. They are discouraged in leads. The most important information is already in the TOC. Also, it doesn't make sense to me to direct people away from the article before they've had a chance to read at least some of it. Patrick (talk) 17:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I removed the Bond reference because it's confusing: the photo's vertical format and closer view seem to work for first-image purposes, but the image doesn't clearly remind of the familiar/iconic full river view, which is what's familiar from Bond. Otherwise, the Bond reference I see as engaging context for the general reader (like me!). It is supported in the source, and it's inclusion seems in the postmodern spirit of eclecticism. Aren't Bond-like blockbuster franchises a big part of the fabric of our culture?!

I overall agree with your view re the navbox. The article as it is now, as outlined in the ToC, already provides much of that high level view, in a more integrated way. And those sidiebar navboxes are distracting, lots of links but nowhere to start. My concern was that some sort of box is likely to be added back to an overview article like this. That could be guided by a comprehensive infobox as suggested earlier, that could make some of the navbox redundant. (From my reading, ,the WP:SIDEBAR/MOS:LEAD discouragement is only against placing a sidebar navbox as the first embedded item, before an article image and infobox, so doesn't apply to the way this navbox was positioned.) Tsavage (talk) 18:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

harv error

@Tsavage, there is a harv error with one of the Dear & Flusty citations. Either one of the dates is wrong or they have a second work together that needs to be added to the Bibliography. Could you look at this? (Assuming you added it, that is.) Thanks, Patrick (talk) 17:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Haha, pretty sure I know exactly what it is. Had a chat a day or so ago in a template talk page. Basically, ps= and loc= can hold additional text, but shouldn't be used for that, semantically wrong and can cause errors. Even though using them is sometimes promoted in various ways, <ref>{{harvnb}} "blah-blah"</ref> is apparently the right way to do that when it needs to be done. And it's ok to mix {{sfn}} and {{harvnb}} on the same page. Will fix. Tsavage (talk) 18:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Fixed. In this case, seems it was just the wrong publication date. Tsavage (talk) 19:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Criticism of postmodernism in theology

I undid this reversion made with the comment, "This seems UNDUE. In general, this article is principally about postmodernism, not responses to postmodernism."

The article is not principally about criticism of postmodernism, but it does (and I believe, should) incorporate mention of criticisms. For example, the article should have coverage of the "science wars" period in the 1990s, which was entirely about criticism, an brought aspects of postmodernism to wide mainstream attention – this seems significant in postmodernism's history.

Regarding the paragraph in "Theology", I find that it presents an aspect specific and unique to the discipline. There's essentially a different postmodernism for each area covered; trying to succinctly describe these differences in the article seems like a good and necessary approach.

In Christian theology, a conventional view is that Scripture is fact. How that interacts with postmodernism would seem to be central to a high level overview, therefore, not UNDUE. There don't seem to be any single dominant, fixed positions with regard to any aspect of postmodernism in any area. The theology section notes at least seven distinct postmodern movements. It's a case of: 1) here's how postmodern ideas have been broadly applied; 2) here are some of the many specific approaches; 3) here is how the unique situation of Scripture in Christian theology has been defended.

That's my reasoning. I'm open to seeing it otherwise if my reasoning seems unsound! Tsavage (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Overview sources usually ignore theology altogether. I consider that a mistake because this is a living debate quite important to the people involved. But debates about the status of Christian scripture or what it even means to "directly follow the principles of the Triune God" are too niche, in my view, for inclusion in such a general article.

I moved the deleted paragraph to be its own section: Postmodern_theology#Disputes. (For this is a case where readers specifically interested in Christian theology probably will follow the wikilink and so just read it there instead.)

Does this seem like an acceptable compromise? Patrick (talk) 20:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I can see the perception issues of "directly follow the principles of the Triune God". To a general reader unfamiliar with Christianity, it can perhaps give the impression of veering off into...religion. But isn't that a matter of wording?

My intention with the (well-sourced) paragraph was to convey something like: "Christian theology is unique among disciplines in that one core view is the Scripture is literal fact. Postmodernist approaches attempt to modify and reinterpret that, and this is a way in which that conflict has been approached head-on, ie: postmodernism doesn't apply." It doesn't really seem like a dispute, rather a core position.

Again, I'm absolutely open to seeing the error of my reasoning. Tsavage (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

The view that the Bible is literal fact is hotly contested among Christians. (Remember the debates about the compatibility of Creationism and evolutionary theory?)

Additionally, philosophical hermeneutics emerged in the 18th century as an extension of hundreds of years of scriptural exegesis by monks unable to agree about what the Bible has to say about even major theological issues. So raising these kinds of issues is not a postmodern innovation.

More generally, I agree with @Newimpartial that going into such specific debates in a sub-field that positions itself outside the central conversation in the arts and about politics and society seems to me undue. Patrick (talk) 20:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I absolutely see your (and NewImpartial's) view. STILL, I think the core topic is Biblical literalism, which is a huge deal these days in places like America. In a section on postmodernisms "In society", I can't see how this topic can be dismissed as too specific, or niche, when we're mentioning feminist theology and radical orthodoxy. This is a a broad overview article, where cultural relevance is as editorially important as formal philosophy.

Considering the UNDUE claim, I can see that on a length basis. How about something like this:

Regarding literalism in Christian theology, where Scripture is held to be propositional truth that is objective, universal and factually accurate, Vanhoozer articulates the risk of correlating theology with postmodernism: reinterpretations challenge the doctrines of the Bible, in effect "exchanging the scandal of the cross for the pottage of intellectual respectability." Tsavage (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I was the one who originally proposed the inclusion of a section on postmodern theology, and some of the language I added to the child article has migrated onto this one. Just to clarify that I support its inclusion here.

The contrast with feminism, however, is instructive. So far from being confined to women's studies departments, this has been influential in the arts, in cultural criticism, in political discourse, and in various culture wars. By contrast, barely anyone cares about postmodern theology except professional theologians.

If "postmodernism" is just another term the religious right uses to condemn, to varying degrees, secular culture — and, sometimes, basically everyone outside their particular sect – then I find that unremarkable and non-encyclopedic. These attitude predate Christianity itself (and we should maybe just be grateful that these folks are using their keyboards instead of their riffles).

But if you feel strongly, and absent further objections, go ahead and insert the shortened version. Please just be sure throughout that you do not make any generalizations of Christianity that would raise the hackles of any members of the many various Christian sects. I don't want an edit war breaking out sometime down the line about what Christianity really is.

Also, that quote needs to be rephrased in more literal language. Either "pottage of intellectual respectability" is a colloquialism I've never encountered, or else he is using "pottage" in an archaic sense. Patrick (talk) 21:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

In "The contrast with feminism, however, is instructive" are you referring to Feminist theology?

|| If "postmodernism" is just another term the religious right uses to condemn

I'm not using material from the religious right, only presumably properly academic scholars in journals by reputable publishers.

|| if you feel strongly,

Not in a LIKE/DON'T LIKE sense. I feel that (in the trimmed form, I agree, given the current text in the section) it is significantly relevant and interesting, and fits with the overall "sampling" overview of these subsections For me, it adds context, flavor, differentiation that would help a reader (at least, one like me) to connect dots, not just absorb bits of information.

(The reversion approach in this case seemed...uncollegial. I'm not just randomly tossing in stuff.)

Pottage as in in "the lowly, sludgy stew of intellectual respectability"? I'll paraphrase and post. Tsavage (talk) 22:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

When I mentioned feminism, I meant postmodern feminism(s) in general.

All I meant by the reference to the far-right is that if we're going to cover their usages, which I agree we should, then that material belongs elsewhere in the article.

I did not intend to be uncollegial, obviously. But another editor boldly removed text with an explanation in the edit description, and you just immediately reverted without discussion. WP:BRD does not include the "undo" step that you added in your earlier comment (at the bottom of this thread). Three people made one edit each. That's not an edit war, just a disagreement that needed to be discussed. Patrick (talk) 23:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarifications.

Re BRUD (boldly revert, undo, discuss), it was only referencing BRD while extending it into the practical, based on my experience. Unless it's copyvio or a BLP issue or other potential legal issue, boldly reverting an entire policy-compliant paragraph with minimal explanation in the edit summary is (in my opinion) generally not a good approach to collaborative editing.

In my undo, I said, "A discussion is started on the Talk page, please pursue there," and promptly started the discussion. Your immediate second reversion just compounded the issue. When editing gets more seriously contentious, edit warring tends to be broadly construed.

This is so far not a big deal, though annoying – it's kinda how Wikipedia works. We all react in different ways to dealing each other's opinion, which is perhaps why it does seem to overall hold together. Tsavage (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

The thing is, the critique of postmodernism by biblical literalists is identical to the critique of modernism by biblical literalists roughly a century earlier. Explaining the critique in detail doesn't add anything of relevance, that I can see, to readers' understanding of postmodernism.

If anything, there might be something that can be reliably sourced concerning the post-science-wars attacks on (usually caricatures of) postmodernism as part of a "culture war", of which the attack on postmodern theology by biblical literalists seems to be a component. Something in that domain probably should be added to this article, at some point.

(That said, I have no problem with the inclusion of more detailed content in the child article, of which I had been unaware.) Newimpartial (talk) 21:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, Patrick invoking the monks made the general "nothing new here" argument plain. However, we have to remember, this is for a general audience who can't be expected to know about the monks or the biblical literalist's critique of modernism. And if it's not reasonable as common knowledge, the question is of relevance and interest. (I use myself as a measure, and I would find the literalist response to po-mo new, interesting, relevant.)

Science wars/culture wars is a big area that will be fun to condense into 2-3 paragraphs! There's the aspect you mention, and then there's the HQRS trail from the science wars to the various popular denialisms, supposedly argued using, or at least well-support by, postmodern ideas.

How are you with the trimmed version of the para in question? I will paraphrase the quote per Patrick, and post. Tsavage (talk) 22:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

To answer your question: I don't think any such paragraph belongs in this article, per DUE. I think it only belongs in the child article. Newimpartial (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Newimpartial To move this forward, could we consider it in terms of core policy issues?

Your view is that this content doesn't fit here – This seems UNDUE. In general, this article is principally about postmodernism, not responses to postmodernism) – an issue of scope, not misleading emphasis of a particular viewpoint.

Another editor agreed with you regarding the article's scope. I presented my view and edited a substantial paragraph down to a single sentence, and compromise was reached.

The content complies with core polices: NOR, verifiable in reliable cited sources, neutral tone, and it directly concerns the topic, "postmodernism", and specifically, "postmodern theology". The content provides a balanced perspective by mentioning various postmodernist theological movements.

Biblical literalism has broad cultural relevance, for instance, Gallup US polling in 2022 indicates that 20% of adults and 25% of Christian adults believe the Bible "should be interpreted literally"[8].

As an editor, I believe giving the general audience diverse points of reference through various areas and disciplines is an effective editorial approach to this wide-ranging topic.

You have no issue with the content in question appearing in a child article, so it should also be possible in the parent article, consistent with Wikipedia's hierarchical structure.

Here's the current proposed version; please reconsider:

Regarding literalism in Christian theology, where Christian scripture is held to be propositional truth that is objective, universal and factually accurate, Vanhoozer articulates the with correlating theology and postmodernism: reinterpretation subverts scripture, in effect trading challenging doctrines for academic approval

Tsavage (talk) 19:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC) Tsavage (talk) 19:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

To answer your question: yes, of course we should carry on a policy-based discussion. I would draw your attention to the essay WP:CRITICISM, which in the first instance is about article sections but the logic of which also applies to individual paragraphs. In particlar, I would draw your attention to the third bullet,

The prominence and proportion of coverage on negative or positive materials should reflect those of what is published in reliable sources. Prominence among Wikipedia editors or the general public are irrelevant.

The present article is about postmodernism in various fields. The prominence of the criticism of postmodern theology by biblical literalists, in this context, is minimal to (relatively) nonexistent.

Also, I think you may be misunderstanding Wikipedia's hierarchical structure. The principle of WP:DUE implies that what might be justified as proportionate in a child article is not necessarily justified in a parent article. In the current instance, criticism of postmodernism theology by biblical literalists may be justified in some form in an article on postmodern theology, but that doesn't imply that it should be included in an article about postmodernism in general. (The same is true of criticism of various other aspects of postmodernism - likely relevant in more detailed articles but not in this survey article). Newimpartial (talk) 20:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

One might even argue that, if indeed "postmodernism doesn't apply" is a core position in postmodern theology, then excluding it is giving undue weight to the various postmodern movements mentioned. :) Tsavage (talk) 20:34, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't follow. Patrick (talk) 20:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

See my comment at 21:10, re cultural relevance. Tsavage (talk) 21:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

This?:

Regarding literalism in Christian theology, where Scripture is held to be propositional truth that is objective, universal and factually accurate, Vanhoozer articulates the risk of correlating theology with postmodernism: reinterpretation subverts Scripture, in effect trading the challenging doctrines of Christianity for conventional academic approval

Tsavage (talk) 22:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Unless Wikipedia has a house style to the contrary, there are no caps on "scripture". Also needs a serial comma.

Otherwise this is fine with me. Thanks for discussing so patiently.

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 23:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

No need to start edit warring. BOLD revert, undo, discuss, no? :) Tsavage (talk) 20:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)