Kumar suggests that there is no useful distinction to be made between postmodernity as a socio-political concept and postmodernism as a cultural concept. All the instincts of postmodernists are against such a differentiation of spheres. For postmodernists, it is no longer useful to distinguish subsystems within the social world – culture, society, politics, economy are all collapsed together.
This does not lead, however, to an undifferentiated premodern social situation. The plurality of society is not denied (far from it – cf. Lyotard), but the modern notion that there was some controlling or directing power (economy, tradition, politics) is denied: “There is simply a more or less random, directionless flux across all sectors of society. The boundaries between them are dissolved, leading however not to neo-primitivist wholeness but to a post-modern condition of fragmentation.” The privileged site, if there is one, is cultural, and postmodernism is, by some definitions at least, primarily a reaction to cultural modernism.
Letters
Joshua T. Katz’s (“Pure Episcopalianism,” May 2025) reason for a theologically conservative person joining a theologically liberal…
The Revival of Patristics
On May 25, 1990, the renowned patristics scholar Charles Kannengiesser, S.J., delivered a lecture at the annual…
The Enduring Legacy of the Spanish Mystics
Last autumn, I spent a few days at my family’s coastal country house in northwestern Spain. The…