Chomsky who is anti-postmodernism believes humans have a nature which makes them inherently creative which can be achieved in a free society. This is in opposition to Foucault who talks bout the invention of the human as part of a discourse from the dominant practices in the episteme. Jordan Peterson meanwhile attacks postmodernism for denying human nature(although his reading of postmodernism is very questionable)

However, Baudrillard in Symbolic Exchange, defends Bataille's description of Human Nature, where humans are inherently lavish and love expenditure and excesses.

Finally, Chomsky seems to agree with Dewey on Human nature, whereas Rorty calls himself a devout Deweya but is widely considered a post-modernist, so wouldn't he oppose a grand truth about inherent human nature ? Since concept of truth comes from language but language has meaning only based on how its used at a given moment in pragmatism ?

So there's this opposition to postmodernism based on its conception of human nature, while different post modernists have different conceptions of/regarding it. The Britannica Encyclopedia states however that postmodernists view all human nature as a social construct ? Is this correct ? What does post modernism tell us about human nature ?


You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .