Postmodernism
Establishing the relationship between Postmodernism and feminism becomes imperative in the understanding of the two issues. They have varying standpoints on the socio-political conception of issues. Feminism exalts the idea of emancipation while Postmodernism relishes in non-standardization- abolition of historical or political foundations. Therefore it can be safely said that the two are not conceptual or political allies. Postmodernism does not only negate but is also incompatible with feminist theoretical articulation and emancipation of women. Feminism offers women theoretical bases on which to interrogate the issues of womanhood while Postmodernism takes this away by arguing for the “death of subjects”. abolition of the foundations of the ideals of reality.
Postmodernism has some inherent vagueness that makes it too broad to be applied meaningfully in situational analysis. It functions as a historical characterization, a theoretical position, an aesthetic description and a social theory. For instance, it cannot be adequately espoused on feminism -a social theory since it (postmodernism) incorporates a number of positions as a social theory. It is a paternalistic disdain towards “the irrational” usually represented in Classical and Modernists’ view of the universe. Its use heralds a warning, usually “elimination of normative foundations” for instance death of man, death of history and death of metaphysics. As such in its strong version, Postmodernism reduces the socio-political universe to some logically worked out plan- a retreat from utopia. The utopian perspective, according to Butler, is the critical theoretical basis of issues. With this kind of relationship is it really possible that Postmodernism can adequately be used to critically interrogate the theory of feminism? And if so what would be the possible outcomes of such an analysis?
Within the broader trends-cultural, historical, philosophical or even political issues the views and understanding of Postmodernism are as varied and as diverse to be useful in the discussion of feminism. Feminism looks at the realities and fantasies lived by the woman to construct a non-violent relationship with others and attempts to include this other within itself. It demands to reveal that women cannot be judged in terms of phallogocentric ideals, which fixes them to realms of biology and role. On this feminism comes closer to Postmodernism. However, its possible to transform rather than negate fixed/ultimate principles gives us the ability to differentiate them. Feminism transforms by bringing to fore insights for liberation with which women learn more about their world, social relationships.
Postmodernism weakens the practices that have formed the core of western philosophies and purportedly develops a “stable state” of politics without contingencies. However, to claim that a subject is stable is to claim that there can be no opposition to this stance. It seeks to eliminate all these foundations that are basic in the modernist’s understanding of issues. This understanding is unthinkable without a foundation. The feminists believe that a blanket overhaul of these foundations or original philosophies as desired by Postmodernists is not in order. Postmodernists believe that historical narratives should be universal truth free from any contingencies. Feminism trusts in embedded or interrelated subjects within culture and history. Thus for feminists the issue of “death of subjects” is what ought to be rejected since it is fallacious. We must always have an origin for our ideas, ideals and beliefs.
This elimination of the possibility of subjects is dangerous to the ideals of autonomy (man), emancipation (history) and philosophy (metaphysics). Also, reflexivity and accountability which are essentially necessary are eliminated from the social analysis. The postmodernist death of subjects undermines attempts by womenfolk to theoretically speak on their own. This is because it dismisses ideological foundations when women need it especially now that they have to emancipate themselves from this patriarchal society. Truth is that to speak about an issue one must first have it, plus gain the right and insight to speak about it. Women must first learn the subjects to demystify them before articulating them.
The author, Butler simply want some carefulness while using either feminism or Postmodernism, in establishing the effect of making claims and, be they political or otherwise. We need theories to explain how things are or become possible. She asserts that there are certain philosophical presuppositions required in making any emancipatory claims. That said, are the Postmodernist idea of the death of the subjects of man, history, metaphysics plausible? Can a society function without a particular referential origin such that there is no reality but just representations. And anyhow what is reality and in what way is it presented. This question is imperative because, seemingly, that is the core of Postmodernism and from that, we can understand it. I ask this because I don’t think it is really logical the idea of “death of subjects” If it’s possible i cannot begin to imagine how. I understand that any idea, person or institution has to have a particular point of reference.
References
Butler, J. (1992) Contingent Foundations: Feminism and the Question of ‘Postmodernism’ ” New York: Route ledge.