September 2010 Archives

            In order to depict how the following sentence illustrates concepts of postmodernism, the definition must first be understood. Postmodernism is a concept in which originated in the arts and architecture and criticized aspects of modernism, such as distrust of theories and ideas and skepticism of the arts.

       The definition of postmodernism is quite broad because it touches on many different things. Postmodernism is not easily defined. Defining Postmodernism even goes against postmodernism. A main concept of Postmodernism is that it has no boundaries and truths; because of this, defining Postmodernism becomes a contradiction to what it actually is. The struggle to define postmodernism says a lot about postmodernism. The following quote describes Suzy Gablik's observations about postmodernism. "Floating images ... maintain no relationship with anything at all, and meaning becomes detachable like the keys on a key ring." (S. Gablik) She describes that postmodernism is about disconnecting relationships with the past or any links that tie art with logic or theories. This is essentially postmodernism.

      The following quote exemplifies that Postmodernism could partly be defined as innovation. Postmodernism is essentially against the idea of innovation but postmodernism was an innovation from modernism. "Indeed the concept of Postmodernism implies some theory of innovation, renovation, or simply change?" (39)

        If the sentence states that there is no logical purpose to it this shows that the sentence is not innovative. Postmodernism demonstrates criticism and distaste towards technology and innovation. This sentence isn't innovative and that helps to demonstrate Postmodernism. Postmodernism was an innovation from Modernism, so you could say that the sentence could also demonstrate that it is innovative to say that it isn't logical when it is already known. "The Postmodern reply to the modern consists of recognizing that the past, since it cannot really be destroyed, because its destruction leads to silence, must be revisited: but with irony, not innocently." (44)

       A main theory to Postmodernism is deconstruction. The sentence structures currently in use today were developed in the 1870's. Even though postmodernism illustrates rejection of innovation, it must be understood that sentence structure is an innovation. Proper sentence structure allows for cooperative communication. This sentence: "This sentence serves no logical purpose."  Displays that although this statement is not innovative, the structure of the sentence itself is innovative.  This exemplifies the major complexity of Postmodernism: it continually contradicts itself.

          To continue to try and define Postmodernism it often helps to look at what it was innovated from: Modernism. Modernism as defined by Britannica Encyclopedia is, "in the arts, a radical break with the past and the concurrent search for new forms of expression." (Britannica.com)

The definition above only defines the art aspect of Modernism.  Modernism concepts include: theories and ideas explain everything, unity of self and individualism, often trust in faith an investment in opinions, libraries as great source of information. Quite similar to Postmodernism, Modernism is broad to define. Postmodernism happened in spite of Modernism. Contrasting Modernism and Postmodernism helps to display the broad area of topics they both cover.

         "This sentence serves no logical purpose" Is not easily depicted as a Postmodernist statement but after some picking through. There are certain ways that it can illustrate a Postmodernism statement. The sentence can be taken many different ways by different people, because of all of the different ways people would interpret one sentence it shows the fragmentation and disunity within Postmodernism. Another concept of Postmodernism is loss of centralized control. If the sentence, "this sentence serves no logical purpose." Causes different perspectives to rise then that will affect the unity. It will cause fragmentation and disunity.

  When it all comes down to it, Postmodernism is too broad to define. The parameters are far too many. When looking to define Postmodernism it can be helpful to also look at Modernism and see why Postmodernism came about.   

Modernism encouraged the re-examination of every aspect of existence, from   commerce to philosophy, with the goal of finding that which was 'holding back' progress, and replacing it with new, progressive and therefore better, ways of reaching the same end. 

"Postmodernism is a response, or as some say, an extension of modernism into contemporary times." (Daire)

Postmodernism will continue to puzzle and confuse people throughout the ages. If it can be kept in mind a couple of things: it is broad, it came after modernism came so Postmodernism is heavily influenced to the concept it is because of the Modernists.

Postmodernism will forever be an unsolved mystery. 

     "It often seems to me as if History was like a child's box of letters with which we can spell any words we please. We have only to pick out letters as we want, arrange them as we like, and say nothing about those which do not suit our purpose," (Froude). This represents an analogy that in my opinion; is a truthful case for the study of History.  I believe that everyone is a historian; as human beings we are constantly analyzing the events of our own lives and everything that goes on around us. We are contemplating events that affect us personally . . . conflict is bound to arise.

    The metaphor of the tiger in the grass describes Collingwood's opinion of the two types of history. The tiger in the grass metaphor is much like a metaphor for the difference between legal methods and historical methods. The tiger in the grass metaphor analyzes the problem of the decision to use which tools at which times. Collingwood describes one side of the metaphor: you can have a rifle but the rifle will only shoot the tiger, it won't find it. The other side: if you are sure your going to see the tiger in the grass and then shoot it then okay, but what if it isn't really a tiger?

     The main problem for a historian is: to know how to question witnesses, how to test the evidence spoken of, and to see that the testimony is reliable and correlative to the wanted answer. "It is relevant to how the historian works as a detective, but even more relevant to how the historian also seeks for himself within his work" (Collingwood) This past year in US Government class, I said that the United States is compromised of 52 states. Yes, I know that the United States is only made up of 50 states but I had an 'off' moment and ignorantly read what the sheet said. After the chagrin moment where the whole class laughed it off, I knew I had changed history. I reflected on the event and knew I had changed the path I thought I was on. My peers heard what I said and formed opinions, asked questions, and resorted to new conclusions based on what I mistakenly blurted. Did I change history? In a sense: yes. I'd like to think that if I can influence other opinions that will indirectly change other opinions and so the cycle continues.

     In Collingwood's article about John Doe, we are set up to believe that there are two different types of history. Collingwood says that the methods of criminal detection and scientific history are not always corresponding because the ultimate goal is not the same.  Thomas Spencer Jerome wrote, "The basis of all right knowledge about anything is accuracy and completeness of observation."(Jerome) This passage is completely contradictory to Collingwood's views of history and his job as a historian. Collingwood believes that as a historian he can't just take events and acknowledge them, he supports the analyzing and interpreting the events of history. Jerome discusses his perspective on observation and how he believes in precision and accuracy being the key goal.

     Historians are under no sort of timeline to make up their minds about events and evidence. This is what differs the legal methods and the historical methods. Historians knowing this must always keep this in mind and learn to realize that time may be a factor in how they analyze the occurring history. When a robbery occurs in a neighborhood, is it still going to be important a week later if the investigators decided to let it sit? No. The case will no longer be relative to what everyone else is surrounding himself or herself with. Another endeavor that historians face is the factor of time. Can time affect the history of something? History is organized like no other science. "Meteorologists and astronomers will make arduous and expensive journeys in order to observe for themselves events of the kinds in which they are interested, because their standard of observation is such that they cannot be satisfied with descriptions by inexpert witnesses; but historians do not fit out expeditions to countries where wars and revolutions are going on." (Collingwood) This is purely because historians would not benefit the kind of information they need to know.

     After reading and absorbing the possible ways of history I have found that I agree more with Collingwood's thoughts on history. I think it is crucial to always be inquisitive and drawing conclusions based on history. If I decided to log events down and attach a date to them they wouldn't have any meaning to me. If I witness an event and it changes the way I think, that's when history will reconstruct itself.