Critical Theory in the Postmodern

Abstract

Whether there is such a thing as humanity, for whose better future condition the youth of today, or of any day, for that matter, ought to, or are able to, be educated, is something that has been called into question by theoretical developments in the past few decades. Philosophers as varied as Althusser, Foucault, Lyotard, Baudrillard, and Derrida, inter alia, espousing a theoretical anti-humanism, have taken exception to the claim that there is something that can even be called humanism, and even if there was, that it was oppressive, unhelpful, and should be combated, or that it was something that would be erased “like a face drawn in sand at the edge of a sea” (Foucault 1971). The aforementioned authors, if one is still allowed to call them that in an age of the trace, simulacra and simulation, hyperreality, intertextuality, and the creation of subjectivity by complexes of power and knowledge, could certainly not be called apologists for the existing order, since they were, and are still, seen as radical, critical, and concerned with liberation from subjugation in their varied ways. Though they are all, other than Althusser, who is labeled a structural Marxist, brought into any discussion having to do with postmodernism or poststructuralism, and their theories are by any account critical of existing society and its oppressive nature, other authors, who carry the flame of critique, have nevertheless labeled them as young conservatives, who, “emancipated from the imperatives of work and usefulness, and with modernistic attitudes...justify an irreconcilable anti-modernism (Habermas and Ben Habib 1981). While Habermas strives to complete the unfinished project of modernity, which could still perhaps be salvaged by a Theory of Communicative Action (Habermas 1981), he dismisses postmodern or poststructural approaches as liquidating any hope of ever completing this project, thus diametrically opposing himself, as the heir of the Frankfurt School of Critical Theory, against more recent theoretical developments. Whether it is fair to call an aspect of French philosophical thought post les evenements des Mai 1968 conservative is not exactly clear, as postmodern approaches are able to be interpreted as radical, concerned with liberation, anti-establishment, and, above all, critical. Althusser was a convinced Marxist; Lyotard was a member of socialisme ou barbarie before becoming the founder of postmodern discourse; Foucault famously fought for the rights of prisoners and against institutions such as psychiatry; Baudrillard (1995) thought that existing society was not even real; and even Derrida came around to see Spectres of Marx (Derrida 1994) in his later years. Nevertheless, it can be discerned that postmodern or poststructural theoretical developments can be appropriated by conservative forces, as poignantly pointed out by Karl Rove, the presidential aide, who infamously stated that the Empire created its own reality. One of the difficulties postmodern approaches pose is the lack of foundation and thus, at first glance, the validity of any approach being as good as any other. The lament of progressives is exactly that by destabilizing philosophy, postmodernism has opened the door to equivocation by vested interests. Thus the question poses itself, whether a critical theory of society is still possible in the postmodern world, or whether any reality is as good as any other reality, and one should consequently abide to the power of those who have the ability to create it.