"Who Are These ‘Postmodernists’?
The list of scholars whose works are – directly or indirectly, explicitly or implicitly, rightly or wrongly – associated with the rise of postmodern thought is long. In alphabetical order, we may mention the following scholars who – in many cases, contrary to their will, or, in some cases, posthumously and, hence, without their knowledge – appear to have played a noticeable role in the construction and development of postmodern thought:
Perry Anderson (1938–), Jean Baudrillard (1929–2007), Zygmunt Bauman (1925–), Steven Best (1955–), Judith Butler (1956–), Gilles Deleuze (1925–95), Jacques Derrida (1930–2004), Mike Featherstone (1946–), Michel Foucault (1926–1984), Francis Fukuyama (1952–), Félix Guattari (1930–92), Donna J. Haraway (1944–), Sandra Harding (1935–), Nancy Hartsock (1943–2015), David Harvey (1935–), Ihab H. Hassan (1925–), Martin Heidegger (1889–1976), Ágnes Heller (1929–), Linda Hutcheon (1947–), Andreas Huyssen (1942–), Luce Irigaray (1932–), Fredric Jameson (1934–), Keith Jenkins (1943–), Douglas Kellner (1943–), Ernesto Laclau (1935–2014), Scott Lash (1945–), Bruno Latour (1947–), David Lyon (1948–), Jean-François Lyotard (1924–98), Michel Maffesoli (1944–), Doreen Massey (1944–), Chantal Mouffe (1943–), Linda J. Nicholson (1947–), Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900), Richard Rorty (1931–2007), Steven Seidman (1948–), Hugh J. Silverman (1945–), Edward Soja (1940–), Keith Tester (1960–), John Urry (1946–), Gianni Vattimo (1936–), Robert Venturi (1925–), Wolfgang Welsch (1946–), Ludwig Wittgenstein (i.e. the later Wittgenstein) (1889–1951), Iris Marion Young (1949–2006), and Slavoj Žižek (1949–).
Of course, the above list is necessarily selective and, thus, not exhaustive."
(Susen, Simon. The ‘Postmodern Turn’ in the Social Sciences. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015. pp. 22-3)
———
"One can classify the scholars whose works are associated with the ‘postmodern turn’ in terms of their discursive positioning. (a) Posthumous and unwitting participants are those scholars whose works began to be linked to postmodern thought long after their death. (b) Reluctant and non-proselytizing participants are those thinkers who do not explicitly identify with the label ‘postmodern’, or – in some cases – even reject it, but whose works are nevertheless associated with this term. (c) Moderate sympathizers are those theorists who, while they do not necessarily proclaim the advent of postmodernity or of the ‘postmodern turn’, endorse the postmodern project, no matter how vaguely defined. (d) Enthusiastic supporters and contributors are those who explicitly advocate, and actively participate in, the creation of a postmodern paradigm and the construction of a postmodern society. According to this categorization, it is possible to classify the scholars whose works are associated with the ‘postmodern turn’ as follows:
* posthumous and unwitting participants (e.g. Heidegger, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein);
* reluctant and non-proselytizing participants (e.g. Butler, Deleuze, Derrida, Foucault, Fukuyama, Guattari, Harvey, Heller, Irigaray, Jameson, Laclau, Latour, Massey, Mouffe, Rorty, Urry, Young);
* moderate sympathizers (e.g. Anderson, Baudrillard, Bauman, Best, Haraway, Harding, Hartsock, Hutcheon, Huyssen, Kellner, Lash, Lyon, Maffesoli, Tester, Vattimo, Venturi, Welsch, Žižek);
* enthusiastic supporters and contributors (e.g. Featherstone, Hassan, Lyotard, Jenkins, Lyotard, Nicholson, Seidman, Silverman, Soja).
What is noticeable when considering the above classification is the following: although there are only a handful of posthumous and unwitting participants, given that they are widely regarded as ‘classical figures’ of Western intellectual thought, their works are of canonical significance to the postmodern project. Furthermore, the vast majority of thinkers whose writings are linked to the ‘postmodern turn’ can be described either as reluctant and non-proselytizing participants or as moderate sympathizers. Ironically, then, the principal intellectual figures whose names are associated with postmodern thought do not unambiguously identify with this label. Critics may legitimately argue that, in this light, the ‘postmodern turn’ is a project that lacks explicit, strong, and widespread support among those who are considered to be key representatives of its intellectual spirit. It comes as no surprise, therefore, that self-declared, open, and whole-hearted supporters of the ‘postmodern turn’ represent a clear minority."
(Susen, Simon. The ‘Postmodern Turn’ in the Social Sciences. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015. pp. 26-7)
———
"More controversially, one can classify – and, indeed, rank – the scholars whose works are associated with the ‘postmodern turn’ in terms of their intellectual influence:
* highly influential (established ‘classics’, ‘paradigm inventors’, and ‘game changers’) (e.g. Foucault, Heidegger, Nietzsche, later Wittgenstein);
* very influential (very prominent contemporary scholars) (e.g. Anderson, Baudrillard, Bauman, Butler, Deleuze, Derrida, Fukuyama, Guattari, Jameson, Laclau, Latour, Lyotard, Maffesoli, Mouffe, Rorty, Žižek);
* influential (prominent contemporary scholars) (e.g. Best, Featherstone, Haraway, Harding, Hartsock, Harvey, Hassan, Heller, Hutcheon, Huyssen, Irigaray, Jenkins, Kellner, Lash, Lyon, Massey, Nicholson, Seidman, Silverman, Soja, Tester, Urry, Vattimo, Venturi, Welsch, Young).
Surely, league tables aimed at capturing the impact of particular scholars in academic fields and subfields are not only contentious and relatively arbitrary, but also potentially dangerous and counterproductive. If we are willing to accept, however, that – for the right or the wrong reasons – some intellectual figures are, overall, more influential than others, then we are confronted with a striking phenomenon when examining the wider significance of scholars whose works are associated with postmodern thought: only some of them may be characterized as ‘pioneering’ early modern or modern thinkers; quite a few of them may be conceived of as ‘pioneering’ late modern or postmodern thinkers; yet, a noticeably large proportion of postmodern advocates and sympathizers can be classified as influential ‘commentators’ and ‘recyclers’, rather than as ‘paradigm inventors’, within contemporary intellectual disputes."
(Susen, Simon. The ‘Postmodern Turn’ in the Social Sciences. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015. p. 31)
———
"One can classify the scholars whose works are associated with the ‘postmodern turn’ in terms of their oppositional attitude(s):
* the critique of anthropocentrism (e.g. Best, Foucault, Latour, Lyotard);
* the critique of binaries (e.g. Butler, Foucault, Haraway, Hartsock, Irigaray, Latour, Nicholson, Rorty, Young);
* the critique of (and a certain fascination with) consumer capitalism (e.g. Best, Featherstone, Harvey, Jameson, Kellner, Lash, Tester, Urry);
* the critique of disciplinary power and surveillance (e.g. Foucault, Lyon);
* the critique of essentialism (e.g. Butler, Deleuze, Derrida, Foucault, Guattari, Haraway, Harding, Hartsock, Irigaray, Mouffe, Nietzsche, Seidman, Young);
* the critique of foundationalism (e.g. Butler, Foucault, Latour, Nietzsche, Rorty, Seidman, Silverman, Young, Žižek);
* the critique of heteronormativity (e.g. Butler, Foucault, Haraway, Harding, Hartsock, Irigaray, Nicholson, Seidman, Young);
* the critique of logocentrism and representationalism (e.g. Derrida, later Wittgenstein);
* the critique of metanarratives (e.g. Lyotard, Seidman);
* the critique of metaphysics (e.g. Heidegger);
* the critique of modern reason (e.g. Foucault, Guattari, Heidegger, Lyotard, Nietzsche, Rorty, Seidman, Silverman);
* the critique of modernity (e.g. Bauman, Foucault, Hassan, Heidegger, Hutcheon, Huyssen, Lyotard, Maffesoli, Seidman, Tester, Vattimo, Venturi, Welsch, Žižek);
* the critique of orthodox Marxism (e.g. Anderson, Deleuze, Foucault, Fukuyama, Guattari, Harvey, Heller, Jameson, Kellner, Laclau, Lash, Lyotard, Massey, Mouffe);
* the critique of traditional notions of sociality (e.g. Maffesoli, Seidman);
* the critique of teleologism (e.g. Foucault, Fukuyama, Jenkins, Laclau, Lyotard, Mouffe, Nietzsche, Seidman, Silverman, Welsch);
* the critique of the instrumental organization of space (e.g. Harvey, Massey, Soja, Venturi).
* the critique of the political economy of the sign (e.g. Baudrillard);
* the critique of the subject (e.g. Foucault, Heidegger, Laclau, Latour, Lyotard, Mouffe, Nietzsche, Rorty, Seidman, Silverman, Žižek).
As illustrated in the above list, the cultivation of an eclectically minded ‘oppositional attitude’ is crucial to the ‘postmodern spirit’. In this sense, the postmodern endeavour is an attempt to break away from the canonical presuppositions of Enlightenment thought. While the opposition to orthodox Marxism is vital to the ‘postmodern spirit’, it is striking that most Francophone thinkers whose writings are brought into connection with the postmodern project come – both politically and intellectually – from a Marxist tradition and are, as a result, often described as ‘post-Marxists’. Of course, as demonstrated above, the subversive nature of postmodern thought has many facets. Its opposition to the grand narrative of ‘scientific socialism’, however, is particularly important for the following reason: it indicates that the crisis of Marxism and the rise of postmodernism, in the early 1990s, historically coincide."
(Susen, Simon. The ‘Postmodern Turn’ in the Social Sciences. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015. pp. 27-8)