working papers
No. 40. "Postmodernism as Pseudohistory," Craig Calhoun, 1991. In the present paper, I want to question how much the genuinely
dramatic cultural changes which are going on around us are a real
departure from previous trends, and to the extent that they are,
whether this is part of a social transformation sufficiently basic to
warrant an argument that modernity is dead or dying. I will argue
generally against the postmodernist view. Though changes are real and
major, they do not yet amount to an epochal break. Indeed, many of them
reflect continuing tensions and pressures which have characterized the
whole modern era. Underlying my account of the problems of the claim
that postmodernity is upon us, is the counterclaim that the two basic
organizing forces in modernity--capitalism and bureaucratic power--have
hardly begun to dissolve. Rather than narrowing our notion of the modern
in order to justify the use of the prefix "post," I will argue that we
need to incorporate the insights of postmodernist thinkers into a richer
sociological approach to the entire modern era. In the first part
of the paper, I will very briefly and sketchily introduce the notion of
a postmodern condition. Since this is a position argued by a variety of
thinkers on somewhat different grounds, and since some scholars--like
Foucault--are claimed as part of the movement though they never
proclaimed themselves postmodernists, my sketch will inevitably conceal
a good deal of complexity.... Constrained by space not to go into
all the ramifications of the postmodernist argument or its implications
for sociology, in the second part of this paper I will take up one
particular instance. This is the conceptualization of "new social
movements." It is an advantageous one for discussion because it links
nearly all the different discourses contributing to the postmodernist
potpourri, and has been a topic of discussion outside of the
postmodernist debate as well. As in my more general treatment of
postmodernism, I want to argue here that novelty is being overstated,
and the modern era itself being poorly conceptualized by a picture which
flattens out its own internal diversity. The "new" social movements
appear to be quite new, in other words, only because they are understood
through a contrast to a one-sided, hypostatized account of the "old"
labor movement. Click here to order a copy from the
author.