|
CENTRAL ASIAN JOURNAL OF LITERATURE, PHILOSOPHY AND CULTURE
Volume: 03 Issue: 04 | April 2022
,
ISSN: 2660-6828
© 2022, CAJLPC, Central Asian Studies, All Rights Reserved
64
Copyright (c) 2022 Author (s). This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution
License (CC BY).To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
trilling‟s remarks approximately the main feature of modernist literature, that there may be no vital distinction
among modernist and postmodernist literature except their respective temporal eras.
This calls another not unusual entry into the controversy over the proper definition of postmodernism: the
linguistic make-up of the word „postmodernism‟. This debate concerns the connection of that word to the
generation to which its miles „post‟, modernism. It‟s useful to momentarily set „postmodernism‟ apart and
keep in mind what the term „modernism‟ refers to. Literary scholars use the period of modernism to explain
literary artwork created (as a solution to the technology of modernity). Modernity, although a generation
whose encompassing years are nevertheless controversial, is an idea greater consensually agreed upon. The
shock of the thoughts of Darwin, Freud, and Marx, industrialization and the following explosion of capitalism,
the full-size scale of the fantastic conflict, and lots of different signs and symptoms of acceleration in charge
of well-known exchange inside the global signalled this new era. 1 and the era, modernity, were observed
using a new sensibility in artwork: modernism. The sensibility had a foundation in exploring the profound
implications of human subjectivity, though the definition of this period is probable as arguable because of the
definition of „postmodernism‟. At a minimum, its relation to modernity is instructive.
The relationship between post modernity and postmodernism cannot be as genuinely formulated. There exists
an additional measurement to this latter relationship. Post modernity is, in component, the endurance of the
conditions of modernity both insidiously because the modernist project has failed and been established to be
harmful. However, it persists anyway, or without consummation, despite modernism‟s efforts to complete its
task. Whether or not one claims that modernism and its religion in the rational, enlightenment challenge has
failed, or whether one as an alternative asserts that its assignment is incomplete in all likelihood predicts one‟s
alignment relative to Jürgen Habermas and Lyotard, who‟s been embroiled in an excessive
‐
profile debate
over the role of the enlightenment in postmodernism, defined right here with the aid of Hutcheon:
Both agreed that modernity could not be separated from notions ofunity and universality or what Lyotard
dubbed „met narratives. ‟Habermas argued that the project of modernity, rooted in the context of
Enlightenment rationality, was still unfinished and required completion; Lyotard countered with the view that
modernity has-been liquidated by history, a history whose tragic paradigm was the Nazi concentration camp
and whose ultimate delegitimization force was that of capitalist „techno science‟ which has changed our
concept of knowledge (Hutcheon, 24) forever.
Each agrees that certain situations of modernity persist in post modernity, even though the degree to which
this is a beneficial circumstance and the degree to which its answer is rooted inside the enlightenment best is
up for debate. Lyotard sees the holocaust because the rational end of liberal humanism; Habermas sees it as
the occasion that has tragically interrupted the rational end of liberal humanism. Surely, as sensibilities,
modernism and postmodernism ought to have enough capacity for optimism and pessimism. Certainly,
Lyotard could see postmodernism as a good factor if it combats the one‟s met narratives he sees persisting.
Habermas would see postmodernism as a good issue best if it allows the project of modernity to its
completion.
The immediate point is that postmodernism is also a response to the historical era of modernity. So, because
modernity persists in post modernity, one relationship postmodernism has to modernism is that they every
respond to their ancient era, one in all of which (post modernity) carries elements of the opposite. The second
one courting is more linear: postmodernism is also an immediate reaction to the creative sensibility of
modernism. This courting is itself doubled: postmodernism each extends and rejects modernism. Ihab Hassan
calls this complex dating „a fourfold vision of complementariness, embracing continuity and discontinuity,
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
