2

Do followers of Lyotard consider modernism deconstructive? I ask only because I've read that

Furthermore, says Lyotard, a work can become modern only if it is first postmodern, for postmodernism is not modernism at its end but in its nascent state, that is, at the moment it attempts to present the unpresentable, “and this state is constant” (Lyotard 1984 [1979], 79). The postmodern, then, is a repetition of the modern as the “new,” and this means the ever-new demand for another repetition.

And I wonder what that has got to with 'deconstruction'?

0

The point he is making is analogous to this: Once you have the notion of culture, it means you are already multicultural. Prior to the concept of culture, there is yourself, and the barbarians or others. Mihima speaks of the Americans twice forcing the Japanese to look at themselves in the American mirror. The Japanese ceased to be a "mono-culture" and became one culture among many. This effects also their past, or, their current view of their history. Now it is grasped that history can be understood under a new mirror. The deconstruction of it is also gleamed in the past. It is now understood that this re-writing was always happening. It has simply come to more clear consciousness.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.