Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
ABSTRACT
Political analysts often dismiss postmodernism, claiming that it is self-contradictory or simply
irrelevant to the social sciences. While claims about the self-contradictory nature of
postmodernism have some grounding, the latter assertion is more difficult to justify. In this
article, I consider the main contributions of postmodernism to the discipline of political science
and why these contributions are still highly relevant. The postmodern critique of positivism has
important implications for all analysts working within a ‘scientific’ framework. Moreover,
postmodernism’s exposal of the hidden values and assumptions underlying much political
thought, including the development of a methodology for interrogating these values and
assumptions, has value both to critical analysts and to members of disempowered social groups.
KEYWORDS: Postmodernism, social sciences, political science, critical theory, deconstruction,
positivism.
INTRODUCTION
Terry Eagleton aptly sums up postmodernism as ‘a style of thought which is suspicious of
classical notions of truth, reason, identity and objectivity, of single frameworks, grand narratives
or ultimate grounds of explanation’ (Eagleton, 1996: vii). However, there is no one unified
theory of postmodernism. Rather, it should be regarded as a mode of interrogation that seeks to
problematise the epistemological assumptions and notions of ‘ rationality’ which characterise
much of social science.
While postmodernism has been highly influential in areas such as literary criticism and the study
of international relations, it has not made a huge impact on the discipline of political science
(Hay, 2002: 234). In fact, many authors have dismissed postmodernism as irrelevant, despite the
serious challenges it poses (Lee, 1999: 739). This criticism is not entirely unjustified.
Postmodern scepticism can be used to legitimate political and social inaction. Moreover, the call
for the end of grand narratives and of claims about truth and progress rests on a contradiction. As
Hay expresses it, postmodernists advance ‘the metanarrative to end all metanarratives’ (2002:
247). Nevertheless, postmodernism should not be ignored. It has questioned the notions of
progress and emancipation, attacked the philosophical position of traditional political science,
denied the possibility of objective research and emphasised the socially-constructed nature of
reality (Vasquez, 1999: 215-24). These are important contributions to a critical approach to
political science. Whatever one’s opinion of the postmodern project, its challenges to orthodoxy
should not simply be dismissed.
The critique of positivism is one of these contributions. While most sociologists are not
explicitly positivist, their work often embodies positivistic tenets, such as the belief that it is
possible to reflect the world without relying upon presuppositions and assumptions (Agger,
1991: 106). Postmodern social theorists have attacked this tendency and argued that claims to
objectivity are misleading and dangerous. Their work has exposed some of the assumptions and
bias underlying supposedly objective studies. Postmodern critiques also highlight what is
excluded from or marginalised in traditional political theory (women, ethnic minorities, etc.) and
as such ‘allow the other to speak’ (McQuillan, 2002: 6). This makes postmodernism a potent tool
for feminists and others wishing to empower their own social groups.
The method of deconstruction is a final significant contribution to political science. While it is
often associated more with post-structuralism than postmodernism, the two approaches overlap
and cannot easily be separated (Agger, 1991: 111-12). Deconstruction is certainly in line with
postmodernism’s suspicion of claims of truth and objectivity, and its emphasis on discourse
supports the postmodern view of the socially constructed nature of reality. It aims to
problematise the fundamental premises and assumptions of a text by undermining
generalisations, dichotomies and binaries (Rosenau, 1991: 121), and thus aids postmodernism’s
emphasis on what theory marginalises or ignores.
CONCLUSION
Postmodernism is, on the whole, problematic. Its ontology of difference and epistemological
scepticism can legitimate political inaction, because without the existence of a shared reality, it is
hard to speak meaningfully of any sort of collective action or policy aimed at change or
emancipation. What is more, postmodernism’s insistence on the lack of validity of truth claims
or metanarratives is a contradiction. The critique of the metanarrative is itself a metanarrative;
the critique of notions of ‘truth’ is itself a claim to truth. In short, postmodernism’s
antifoundationalism and scepticism make it inconsistent and unreliable. This does not mean that
postmodernism has not made any useful contributions to political science as a discipline,
however. While its input has largely been ignored or dismissed, it has the potential to greatly aid
critical theory and analysis.
Postmodernism’s first great contribution to the discipline has been its appraisal of positivism.
Postmodern theorists have exposed the hidden values, assumptions and generalisations
underpinning supposedly objective, value-free research. Theorists such as Derrida and Foucault
have shown social and political theory and research to be founded upon subjective principles,
and that this research in turn helps to legitimate the existing political order. As such,
postmodernist work is a valuable resource for those wishing to critique and challenge power
relations in society. Postmodernism has also brought attention to the ‘other’: those who are
marginalised, ignored or repressed. By emphasising what political theory and discourse excludes
or relegates to the sidelines, the postmodern approach shows how unequal power relations are
created and provides a way of tackling them. This is an especially important contribution for
feminists, minority groups and anyone desiring to confront social exclusion and marginalisation.
Finally, the postmodern method of deconstruction has an important role to play in critique. While
it does not offer a sound basis for political action, it can aid political theory by forcing a rethink
of what the ‘political’ is and by uncovering the hidden values and assumptions mentioned above.
To conclude, it may be said that while postmodernism may not have had a huge impact on the
discipline of political science, it has certainly made some positive contributions. These
contributions should not simply be dismissed because of the flaws inherent in the postmodern
perspective. Rather, they have much to offer critical political analysis, and postmodernism can
teach critical theorists a great deal.
Notes
[1]Fran Amery is a third year Anthropology and Political Science student at the University of
Birmingham. Following graduation she plans to undertake a PhD in Political Science.
REFERENCES
Agger, B. (1991), ‘Critical theory, post-structuralism, postmodernism: their sociological
relevance’, Annual Review of Sociology, 17, 105-31
Bernstein, R. (1992), The New Constellation: The ethical-political horizons of
modernity/postmodernity, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Bhabha, H. (1990), ‘The other question: difference, discrimination and the discourse of
colonialism’ in Ferguson, R. (ed.), Out There: Marginalization and contemporary
culture,Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 71-87
Cox, R. (1981), ‘Social forces, states and world orders: beyond international relations
theory’, Millennium, 10 (2), 126-55
Derrida, J. (2001), Writing and Difference, London: Routledge
Eagleton, T. (1996), The Illusions of Postmodernism, Oxford: Blackwell
Foucault, M. (1977), ‘Nietzsche, Genealogy, History,’ in Bouchard, D. F. (ed.), Language,
Counter-Memory, Practice: Selected essays and interviews, Ithaca: Cornell University, pp. 139-
64
Foucault, M. (2007), Madness and Civilization, London: Routledge, originally published in 1964
Garfinkel, H. (1967), Studies in Ethnomethodology, Eaglewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall
Giddens, A. (1974), ‘Introduction’ in Giddens, A. (ed.), Positivism and Sociology, London:
Heinemann, pp.1-22
Giddens, A. (1977), Studies in Social and Political Theory, London: Hutchinson
Habermas, J. (1981), ‘Modernity versus postmodernity’, New German Critique, 22, 3-14
Habermas, J. (1998), ‘What is Universal Pragmatics?’, in Habermas, J. and M. Cooke (eds), On
the Pragmatics of Communication, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 21-103, originally published
in 1976
Hay, C. (2002), Political Analysis, Basingstoke: Palgrave
Lee, J. (1999), ‘The utility of a strategic postmodernism’, Sociological Perspectives, 42 (4), 739-
53
Lorde, A. (1990), ‘Age, race, class and sex: women redefining difference’, in Ferguson, R.
(ed.), Out There: Marginalization and contemporary culture, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp.
281-87
Lyotard, J.-F. (1984), The Postmodern Condition: A report on knowledge, Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota
McQuillan, M. (2002), ‘Introduction: five strategies for deconstruction’, in McQuillan, M.
(ed.), Deconstruction: A Reader, Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Press, pp. 1-43
Murphy, J. (1988), ‘Making sense of postmodern sociology’, British Journal of Sociology, 39
(4), 600-14
Norris, C. (2002), Deconstruction: Theory and practice, 3rded., London and New York:
Routledge
Readings, T. (2002), ‘The deconstruction of politics’, in McQuillan, M. (ed.), Deconstruction: A
Reader, Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Press, pp.388-96
Rosenau, P. (1991), Post-modernism and the Social Sciences: Insights, inroads and intrusions,
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press
Sayer, A. (2000), Realism and Social Science, London: Sage Publications
Schutz, A. (1974), ‘Subjective and objective meaning’, in Giddens, A. (ed.), Positivism and
Sociology, London: Heinemann, pp. 33-52
Seidman, S. (1991), ‘The end of sociological theory: the postmodern hope’, Sociological Theory,
9 (2), 131-46
Seidman, S. (1997), Difference Troubles: Queering social theory and sexual politics,
Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press
Simons, J. (1995), Foucault and the Political, London and New York: Routledge
Spivak, G. (2002), ‘Practical politics of the open end’, in McQuillan, M. (ed.), Deconstruction: A
Reader, Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Press, pp. 397-404
Vasquez, J. (1999), The Power of Power Politics: From classical realism to neotraditionalism,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Wittig, M. (1990), ‘The straight mind’, in Ferguson, R. (ed.), Out There: Marginalization and
contemporary culture, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 51-57