Talk:Postmodernity

Sociology High‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy High‑importance

	Philosophy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

Sociological content

Postmodernity has now got some sociology- related bits from postmodernism; but it still needs a lot of work. --Flammingo^Hey 13:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And it needs a lot of encyclopedia, obviously. --Flammingo^Hey 14:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Postmodernity v Postmodernism

I am not too sure how these two Wikipedia articles are differentiated / supposed to be differentiated. I would have liked to contribute to the Postmodernism article but did not want to "dig a deeper hole". Can anyone help? Mike Milligan (talk) 13:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be easier to respond to your query if you provided a more concrete explanation of what you want to contribute. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me this article is superfluous owing to the far superior one at postmodernism. --Fliptank po (talk) 08:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing This Article

This article is too long, unorganized and needs more references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OregonD00d (talk • contribs) 09:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I don't understand anything! I came in here to get an idea of what "postmodern" meant, and this doesn't make any sense? What is postmodern? Can somebody give me an example?

I have inserted into the lead somewhat of a definition of postmoderism in the Jameson sense, hopefully that helps. KingHiggins (talk) 12:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The section on religious objections

There are several problems with the text below:

One of America’s premier Christian leaders, Dr. James Dobson, sees postmodernism as a system of thought that negates moral certainty. As of 2/2008 his webpage states: "Here at Focus on the Family, we understand the noun 'postmodernism' to refer to a philosophy or mindset that rejects the value of rational thought, denies the existence of moral and spiritual absolutes, and affirms the right and power of the individual to invent his or her own 'reality.' This way of thinking is incompatible with the Christian perspective because it denies the existence of a truth that is valid for all people at all times. In other words, it rejects the claims of the Gospel on principle, without even granting it a hearing." In the introduction to his Treatise on Twelve Lights, Robert Struble, Jr. states: "The postmodernist worldview dismisses all forms of absolutism from eras past, especially Judeo-Christian faith and morals; yet the postmodernists idolize absolutely their new secular trinity of tolerance–diversity–choice. Since 1963 they have employed a gradualist and stealthy top-down revolution to make this inanimate deity the governing paradigm of America’s culture and future society. We see much the same ongoing pattern of power plays imposed upon once Christian cultures in Europe and elsewhere."

1. First of all, Dobson is most certain not a "premier" Christian leader (there have been Christian leaders in the United States since before the Revolutionary War, and there have continued to be many since then), so it's probably a safe bet for that description to be removed. 2. Struble is most likely not notable, and the quotation of him in this article doesn't really add much - in fact, it's debatable whether or not that it is postmodernity, rather than modernism, that he is against. 3. Dobson's quotation might be more germane, except for the fact that if we are to take his words at face value, it's postmodernism, rather than postmodernity, that he is talking about. Also, I have a tough time figuring out if he is really grasping what either of those two terms are (what he describes as postmodernity sounds like a strawman.)

I'm only fixing the first problem right now, but what do you all think about the other problems with this passage in the article? Could things be clarified and the content kept but reworded? --Benfergy (talk) 23:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On second glance, the "postmodernism" and "postmodernity" confusion by the figures in this section only add to difficulty in grasping the article. Struble and Dobson's quotations are to be taken out, and I'll look further at McDowell's in the meantime as well.Benfergy (talk) 07:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes

Why is James Dobson's illiterate and ignorant view of postmodernity notable? Also, what does Chuck Colson's quote have to do with the postmodern at all? This section should be deleted. --Fliptank po (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The first quotation is about postmodernism, not postmodernity, and thus is inappropriate for this page. The latter is just plain absurd. I'll delete both.--Benfergy (talk) 00:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Period

Pls someone pay attention to end of modernity in the late 20th - this is too extended in my opinion and sure it is not sourced. --Aleksd (talk) 07:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History section incredibly off topic

Most of the "History" section concentrates on defining and comparing two time periods in the twentieth century, by describing different cultural changes and technological advances. I don't see how this relates specifically to postmodernity: previous eras also had cultural changes and technological advances; what is so special about "digitality", for instance, that it characterizes postmodernity? Frankly, it doesn't.

All the author has done is relate contemporaneous events--the time frame of postmodernity and increased marijuana use, for example--and left it at that. This is terrible. The author might as well have described late postmodernity as being defined by global warming! Just because something occurred during a period of time doesn't mean that it is a defining characteristic of the period.

I think most of this entire section should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.206.17.97 (talk) 17:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Frankly, it doesn't" What is your source? For Lyotard digitality is central to postmodernity, and he practically wrote the book on the topic. The problem with this section is, specific views are unattributed and unsourced. This does not call for deleting the section, it calls for adding specific sources and attributing them appropriately. But the section explicitly tells us whose views it is presenting - principally Lyotard, Baudrillard, Bauman and Giddens, and also Fukuyama. And (apart from the notable and unfortunate absence of Harvey) this is in fact a pretty good list of the major theorists of postmodernity, very notable authors with the kind of significant views on the topic NPOV tells us we must include in the article, and they do make historical arguments and it makes perfect sense to have a section providing an account of where they locate the break between modernity and postmodernity and how they periodize postmodernity. yes, this section definitely belongs in the article. I hope whoever wrote it will go over it and add the necessary sources and make clear where all these theorists have a common view, and where they disagree with one another, providing specific attribution of views as necessary. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Postmodern era redirects here

Is this a correct redirect? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:21, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Postmodernity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]