Is postmodernism pessimistic or optimistic?

Question

The way I understand it: Modernism has been associated with optimism, with belief in possibility of progress and improvement, using logic and rationality, for instance. It notices fragmentation but tries to make sense of it according to narratives of progress and rationality.

Postmodernism, however, is pessimistic, it doubts all metanarratives, doubts progress, and so forth. Yet at the same time, I've read about postmodernism being about playfulness, somehow taking comfort in pluralism and idea that anything goes, taking joy in pointing out the absurdity of things.

Therefore I'm finding it difficult to believe postmodernism is pessimistic, while modernism is optimistic, as an author had suggested. Perhaps I'm misinformed. Appreciate your help.

Answer 1

I don't think when anyone uses "pessimism" or "optimism" in these ways that they mean modern philosophers were happy people who always look on the bright side or that postmodern philosophers are glum. Instead, they mean they are optimistic or pessimistic about what many see as the project of philosophy.

I think it's fair to say that modernism is, in general, "optimistic," but we need to be careful about how we are defining optimism. By optimism here, I mean that modernism is optimistic that (a) we can have true knowledge of some sort, (b) that we can share a concept of the world and knowledge, and (c) that logic or reason or something like it is universal.

Post-Modernism is harder to pin down. The big problem here is that since it's still in progress, it's not entirely clear what the term refers to. Postmodern philosophies are, in general, pessimistic about the possibilities listed above. That is to say they don't think we have a shared universal concept of reason or that we can attain true knowledge or that there is a universal valid form of reasoning that isn't limited.

Now, the paragraph about postmodernism above needs to be qualified with a nearly endless string of qualifiers. There may be some post-modern thinkers who think there's something like universal true reason (I can't think of any off the top of my head who traditionally fit the label -- but in part that's how the label gets diced). People who I'd say squarely seem to reject on the surface the modern project: Foucault, Derrida, Lyotard, Rorty. I'm sure there's many more. But even in putting say Derrida's name on the list, that greatly depends on which texts we're talking about and whether his critique of the use of concepts like "justice" is because he believes and hope for a deeper justice or because he believes there's no hope.

To give further fuel to the question, is Jean-Luc Marion a post-modern philosopher? Is Emmanuel Levinas? Paul Ricoeur? Merold Westphal?

Answer 2

I want to try answering this question in a different direction: modernity is specifically western, originating from the Enlightment.

Post-modernity, by taking into account other perspectives on the margins - I've read for example, that Foucault, Derrida and Deleuze are philosophers of the margins and of difference (which doesn't make them marginal philosophers) - come to doubt the project of European modernity, and therefore of all grand narratives.

But another perspective that might be useful here, is the Jain concept of Anekantevada (not one view); this tradition rather than tearing down traditions looks for what is of significance in each tradition: the emphasis being not on doubt, but on significance: it adds, rather than subtracts.