someone clarify this for me (1 Viewer)

[xinxin89]

so what exactly does postmodernism mean? not interms of art or philosophy or wtv, jsut in the context of history! someone give me a proper definition and what postmodernist historians views are...plz i'm really confused

 

[ari89]

so what exactly does postmodernism mean? not interms of art or philosophy or wtv, jsut in the context of history! someone give me a proper definition and what postmodernist historians views are...plz i'm really confused

Yeah I never found a definition for what post modernism is. Within history ext you need to be able to apply the principles of postmodernism to the source (of course only if it applies) as opposed to just saying 'this is a postmodern historical biography because it says and at the end of the sentence'.
Hopefully someone here will elaborate on the actual point, namely - what is postmodernism?

 

[zaqwerty]

Could it possibly be too hard to define in a few sentences?

All I could give is the main ideas behind postmodernism, i.e.
- History is non-referential
- History is interpretation
- History cannot be objective

Postmodernism is just an attack on empirical and objective history... I guess there's no set definition for it.

 

[bored6]

so what exactly does postmodernism mean? not interms of art or philosophy or wtv, jsut in the context of history! someone give me a proper definition and what postmodernist historians views are...plz i'm really confused

The revolt against modernism; incredulity - at least thats what i've always thought.

 

[steph999]

we had a whole 2 hour lesson on post-modernism and i hav 2 say my head was spinnin' so badly... lol.

Post-modernism is simply the belief that there is no truth in history. They believe that history can not be written in an unbiased way, no matter how hard the historian tries, they will always be influenced by their beliefs. It is the post-modernists belief that the history that we hear is not the truth, because it was delivered (written or otherwise) by one person, therefore you will neva find the whole story!

My teacher (in the confusing as hell leson) then tried 2 get us 2 understand the post-modernist way of thinking and it kinda helped, but u really hav 2 think bout it.

she basically said that; (pointin' 2 a piece of gum) what we call 'gum' can, from a po-mo pov, also be called an 'umbrella', because gum is just a word which WE hav' given that value 2. If you, for example, told a child from birth, that a gum was actually caled umbrella, or white was actually black, they would think this and not know the difference. So the post-modernists refute the idea that history is real, because:

-there is no such thing as reality, only what ppl believe 2 b real (there is no objective truth)

There was also a really good arguement by the French writer Michel Foucault which our teacher gave us, which showed the development of mental illness:

-Today we accept the existence of mental illness; this is accepted as FACT!
- Two hundred yrs ago ppl were simply mad
- Before that they were village idiots
- Before that they were possed by evil spirits

-Each explanation of mental illness would hav been taken as the truth 'IN IT'S TIME'!!!!!!!!

more 4 u 2 no =

-Po-mo questions the search for & existence of authority
-it questions the historian as an authority
-It questins what the historian says as truth
-Truth after all is relative
-it states that; what society claims as objective knowledge (a version of the past) is really nothing more than the version that those in power have decided is the truth.
-Those in pwr decide what makes true knowledge & then control who can hav access to it.

Hope this helps... lol! I hav a few pgs more but i seriously can't b bothered 2 type them out atm, but if u want them just ask and i will.

 

[2ndbest]

ah I think you kinda missed the point of post modernism in a historical context Steph999. I don't think gum and stuff will be assessed in our course. And also, according to Jencks, Falck and about a million others Post Modernists don't all believe that there is NO truth in history, may have to read over your notes on this one.

In order to get a real understanding of what post modernism is just read and read and read about it. You will probably get so confused to the point of cutting your eyes out rather thsn reading the word PoMo again but the light will eventually come on. I am still waiting for my light....

 

[xeuyrawp]

There is seriously the best article on postmodernism in the Berkshire Encyclopedia of World History.

Would people like it if I posted it up? I'll have to scan it first.

 

[ari89]

There is seriously the best article on postmodernism in the Berkshire Encyclopedia of World History.

Would people like it if I posted it up? I'll have to scan it first.

Can you post it up for me?
After u suggested it I searched heaps of eresources but couldn't find it

 

[xeuyrawp]

Can you post it up for me?
After u suggested it I searched heaps of eresources but couldn't find it

I don't think they've put it online yet, if they ever will. I'll scan it when i'm in uni next - I want to have a copy on reference as well.

Edit: I just looked at another book which has a chapter on it, but it's not very clear. There's nothing good online about postmodern historiography, either, which is annoying.

 

[xeuyrawp]

Argh, it's $500 USD. Not even the Oxford Encyc. Ancient Egypt is that much, and it has equally awesome contributors. Look at the Berkshire lineup, though, very good:

• Michael Adas, Rutgers University
• Al Andrea, University of Vermont
• L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza, Stanford University
• Mark Cohen, State University of New York, Plattsburgh
• Ralph Croizier, University of Victoria
• Alfred Crosby, University of Texas, Austin
• Derek Davis, Baylor University
• Ross Dunn, San Diego State University
• Reuben Firestone, Hebrew Union College
• Donna Gabaccia, University of Pittsburgh
• Marnie Hughes-Warrington, Macquarie University, Australia
• Martin Marty, University of Chicago
• John Mears, Southern Methodist University
• Kenneth Pomeranz, University of California-Irvine
• Andrew Sherratt, Oxford University
• Peter Stearns, George Mason University
• Ian Tattersall, American Museum of Natural History
• Norman Yoffee, University of Michigan
• Immanuel Wallerstein, Yale University
• Bin Wong, University of California, Los Angeles.

I'm so surprised, though, that it isn't online. Usually publishers of volumed encyclopedias sell the hard copy itself to the library for x price, then sell online subscriptions for x*10 price per annum, or something.

>_<

Argh, and now Macquarie hasn't renewed its online subscription in International Encyclopedia of Linguistics. I'll have to nag them.

 

[ari89]

I don't think they've put it online yet, if they ever will. I'll scan it when i'm in uni next - I want to have a copy on reference as well.

Edit: I just looked at another book which has a chapter on it, but it's not very clear. There's nothing good online about postmodern historiography, either, which is annoying.

Thanks for that. It was such an annoying topic that I don't believe the teachers did justice for in their explanations.

I have no clue about the authorts, sorry i can't share your enthusiasm At least Mac has a decent history collection

 

[xeuyrawp]

Thanks for that. It was such an annoying topic that I don't believe the teachers did justice for in their explanations.

I have no clue about the authorts, sorry i can't share your enthusiasm At least Mac has a decent history collection

I still don't fully understand it, to be honest.

I think the biggest problem is that no postmodern/structuralist historian will ever label themselves as such.

 

[xinxin89]

hey pplz........just say the historians that u learn cant be applied to the stimulus in the exam....i mean wat the hell do u do then?!

like non of the historians u've memorised fits into the stimulus, that means u have nothing to bloody base ur essay on.....

and also....is it just me, sometiems i find the views in teh stimulus too obscure, i cant pindown exactly what the authot is saying...... sigh.....so getting a band 3 for this subject....=.=

 

[xeuyrawp]

hey pplz........just say the historians that u learn cant be applied to the stimulus in the exam....i mean wat the hell do u do then?!

like non of the historians u've memorised fits into the stimulus, that means u have nothing to bloody base ur essay on.....

and also....is it just me, sometiems i find the views in teh stimulus too obscure, i cant pindown exactly what the authot is saying...... sigh.....so getting a band 3 for this subject....=.=

Aren't you going over this kind of stuff in class? You should be chosing a good selection of historians and historical camps to study.

If you're not getting the point of one of the texts, post here what you've got so far and what you don't understand.

 

[zaqwerty]

Is it bad that I find Post-Modernism reasonably easy to understand?

 

[ari89]

Is it bad that I find Post-Modernism reasonably easy to understand?

It's reasonably easy to understand basic points to brand postmodernism from someone elses perspective, but then you're not really understanding postmodernism rather just little aspects to define it.

 

[zaqwerty]

It's reasonably easy to understand basic points to brand postmodernism from someone elses perspective, but then you're not really understanding postmodernism rather just little aspects to define it.

But that's all you've really got to know doing History Ext. don't you?

 

[xeuyrawp]

But that's all you've really got to know doing History Ext. don't you?

Well that's all I knew, and I did well.

And sorry, guys, I'll copy the article tomorrow when I head in to uni.

 

[ari89]

But that's all you've really got to know doing History Ext. don't you?

Yeah but it doesn't mean you understand postmodernism in its entirety
The basics to do well in History extension are merely basics and thats all you need so goodluck

 

[mandas2choc]

we got told in my class that postmodernists believed you cant substitue opinion into truth & that the truth can be anything as long as 'creditable' evidence is supplied. eg, the americans had every right to bomb vietnam b/c they posed a political threat to the freedom of americans.

the post modernists would agree. but do you? did they really have to right? & jst because an explanation is provided, does it back it up entirely? postmodernists would belive so.

post modernists never admit to being a post moderninst, but then again, Marx said he wasnt a marxist.

looking for someone to label themselves can never happen entirely. you need to use the principles of the type of historian, eg post moderninst, modernist, political, ancient, and apply it to the historians way for thinking to determin your own evaluation of the historian. making sense?

well. thats what we got told.

hope it kinda helps?