Postmodernism is routinely identified with political radicalism.

From one angle, it is easy

enough to see why this is so, for many of the leading theorists of postmodernity hail from
that side of the political spectrum (such as Jean-Franois Lyotard, Jean Baudrillard, and
Fredric Jameson). From another angle, though, it is much less obvious that
postmodernism is itself a radical social and political concern. Indeed, the opposite might
plausibly be argued. What has happened with the advent of so-called postmodern society
is the collapse of modernist rationality, core community values, and ethical and moral
foundations. The sociological message in this reading is that postmodernism, in fact,
spells a repressive reorganisation of everyday life within the ideological structures of the
global capitalist economy itself. Thus the advent of postmodernism with its dazzling
globalisation of social relations, its deconstruction of metaphysical foundations, its
reifying of technology and its cult of consumer hedonism fits hand in glove with the
imperatives of a market logic in which everything goes but nothing much counts. Or so
the story goes.

This course examines the emergence of the concept of postmodernism and the claims it makes
about
irretrievable and fundamental changes to society in the late 20th century. In particular, the course
considers postmodernism's claim that sociology as a way of knowing society is now outmoded.
The course
examines the intellectual origins development of postmodernism, its claims that recent changes in
society
render previous sociological theory irrelevant and, finally, the questioning of these claims by
current
sociological theory and research. The course provides students with the opportunity to critically
assess the
claim that diversity and difference have created a radically new social environment in the new
century.
Incompatible: 2050HUM Sociology and Postmodernity

1
SECTION A TEACHING, LEARNING AND ASSESSMENT
COURSE AIMS
In mainstream sociology, the idea of social futures is best understood using the most complete but
nevertheless imperfect - recent cutting-edge theory: postmodern social theory. In addition to this,
there is
also a sub-field of futures research, combining interdisciplinary approaches based upon
sociology, social
geography, demography, economics, and others. This course draws upon both theoretical
traditions.

The topic of postmodernity is not something that should be too difficult, highly abstract,
confusing and fear
inducing. Rather - if it is to be anything at all - it describes a series of recent social, economic and
cultural
changes that are amenable to sociological observation and study. Thus, the fundamental goal of
Sociology
and Future Societies is to describe, analyse and evaluate the nature of contemporary social
change. The
course deals with debates and issues surrounding these changes in a range of cultural,
economic, political
and social domains. While the emphasis is on cultural phenomena and the practice of cultural
methods of
inquiry in the context of postmodern theory, the realm of culture cannot be considered completely
separate
to economic and structural contexts.
Recent debates about the nature of social change have been directed by two broad interrelated
agendas
globalisation and postmodernisation. Globalisation is a necessary condition for
postmodernisation, but
alone is not sufficient, as postmodernisation calls into question a much broader range of social,
cultural
and political values. Because of its radical challenge to fundamental social processes and
patterns and to
the basis of modern forms of knowledge, postmodernisation processes will be our key topic for
inquiry.
In providing a sociological perspective on postmodernisation, this course considers a range of
topical
issues. It first establishes theoretical foundations by looking at social change and transformation
from
traditional to modern and late modern or postmodern societies. Then, we take a closer look at
the nature
of postmodern cultural change within a variety of domains or sites: cities and spaces,
complementary and
alternative medicines, consumption and consumerism, new religions and spiritualities,
globalisation and
the global cosmopolitan citizen, art and aesthetics, and sex and relationships.

Un principe central des dfinitions du postmodernisme est l'effacement de la frontire

entre la soi-disant "haute" et "basse" culture. On prtend que des formes autrefois
autonomes et diffrencies tendent maintenant se mler et s'embrouiller-

caractristique associe un modernisme dpass. De telles affirmations sembleraient

offrir aux critiques de la SF la possibilit d'chapper aux limitations d'arguments tels que
"canon" ou "ghetto" littraires, ou d'autres termes quivalents. Pourtaut, si l'on examine
de prs ce que disent certains critiques postmodernes qui traitent la SF, on dcouvre qu'en
dpit de ce gommage, il y a toujours une rinscription de la frontire. Il ne s'agit pas, en
fin de compte, d'effacer les dmarcations mais plutt de maintenir une vigilance
constante en ce qui concerne le fonctionnement des frontires dans la production de
valeurs tout en s'interrogeant sur la possibilit de distinguer d'un ct ce processus et de
l'autre l'acceptance de frontires ncessaires la formulation d'un discours significatif
sur le genre de la SF.

Consider, for example, the powerful alternative position that post-modernism is itself
little more than one more stage of modernism proper (if not, indeed, of the even
older romanticism); it may indeed be conceded that all the features of
postmodernism I am about to enumerate can be detected, full-blown, in this or that
preceding modernism (including such astonishing genealogical precursors as
Gertrude Stein, Raymond Roussel, or Marcel Duchamp, who may be considered
outright postmodernists, avant la lettre). What has not been taken into account by
this view, however, is the social position of the older modernism, or better still, its
passionate repudiation by an older Victorian and post-Victorian bourgeoisie for whom
its forms and ethos are received as being variously ugly, dissonant, obscure,
scandalous, immoral, subversive, and generally "antisocial." It will be argued here,
however, that a mutation in the sphere of culture has rendered such attitudes
archaic. Not only are Picasso and Joyce no longer ugly; they now strike us, on the
whole, as rather "realistic," and this is the result of a canonization and academic
institutionalization of the modern movement generally that can be traced to the late
1950s. This is surely one of the most plausible explanations for the emergence of
postmodernism itself, since the younger generation of the 1960s will now confront
the formerly oppositional modern movement as a set of dead classics, which "weigh
like a nightmare on the brains of the living;" as Marx once said in a different context.
As for the postmodern revolt against all that, however, it must equally be stressed
that its own offensive features-from obscurity and sexually explicit material to
psychological squalor and overt expressions of social and political defiance, which
transcend anything that might have been imagined at the most extreme moments of
high modernism-no longer scandalize anyone and are not only received with the
greatest complacency but have themselves become institutionalized and are at one
with the official or public culture of Western society.

Postmodernismul i Teoria cultural

Trim ntr un timp post-modern, se spune frecvent. Prin ce se deosebete timpul
modern, din care venim noi, cei influenai de generaiile nc mai vechi, de timpul
post-modern, al vieuirii de-acum ?
Omul postmodern nu dovedete credulitatea omului modern fata de metanarativ. Altfel
spus, omul postmodern dovedete "l'incrdulit l'gard des mtarcits", l-am citat chiar
pe Jean-Franois Lyotard, inventatorul conceptului de metanarativ. Aici este vorba,
bineneles, despre marile poveti europene ale timpului modern: revoluia de la
1848, independena de la 1877, i revoluiile anului 1989.
n virtutea nencrederii fa de metanarativ, postmodernismul nu posed agend, nu
construiete strategii. Totui, dup 1989, Romnia a semnat i ratificat, prin cei mai nali
demnitari, i prin cele mai mari puteri ale sale, Agenda 21, care stabilete planul cadru
pentru dezvoltarea durabil. Atunci, cum este posibil totui dezvoltarea durabil n
timpul postmodern?
Dezvoltarea durabil este o dezvoltare uman centrat pe economia de pia a
produselor de calitate, att n sensul calitii ontice, ct i al calitii statistice.
Calitatea ontic a produsului nseamn racordarea produsului la nclinaia ontic a
individului, constatat de el prin faptul c achiziionarea produsului duce la creterea
forelor personale, a capacitilor individuale. Iar calitatea statistic a produsului este
controlat de instrumentul managerial Sixsigma aplicat n industrii, --patentul aparine
firmei Motorola--, dar n cultura romn ea este controlat cu metodologia Ioan
Plcineanu pentru prelucrarea datelor numerice dintr-un laborator si dintr-o industrie.
Odat cu intrarea n Uniunea European, produsele de calitate ontic total trebuie s fie
nsoite, atunci cnd sunt oferite pe pia, de etichete ecologice care certific valoarea
lor pentru durabilitatea noastr holistic. Dar nu este suficient s oferi pe pia produse
de calitate ontic, dac etichetele ecologice nu sunt sprijinite de Teoria cultural.
S ne lmurim ce-nseamn cuvntul cultur, nainte de a defini, -- nu riguros, ci
ostensiv--, Teoria cultural. Termenul cultur se refer la diverse activiti umane,
fie, --printr-o unificare holistic a diversitii--, la activitatea uman n general,
incluznd toate aciunile antropice de control i dominare a naturii.
Cuvntul cultura provine din latinescul colere, ceea ce se traduce fie a locui, fie a
cultiva, fie a onora. Definiiile diferite ale culturii reflect teorii felurite ale
cunoaterii, ale inelegerii, sau criterii diverse n evaluarea activitilor antropice. Scriind
o carte cu titlul Culture: A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions, n 1952 Alfred
Kroeber i Clyde Kluckhohn compilau un inventar cu peste 200 intrri ale cuvntului
cultur.
n secolul XVIII i nceputul de veac XIX, crturarii Occidentului postulau congruena
ntre Cultur i Civilizaie, amndou fiind opuse Naturii. ntrebuinarea popular a
termenului cultur reflect de multe ori stratificarea social. Adesea cuvntul "cultur"
este utilizat ca o referire la activitaile unei elite bogate, la consumerismul exclusivist al
acestor elite, i nu neaprat n perspectiva naiv din mprat i proletar (n cupe vin de
ambr), ci haute couture, fine cuisine, arhitectura locuinelor, achiziionarea
operelor de art.

Ctre sfritul de veac XIX, n Belle Epoque i dominarea pozitivismului, antropologii

propun o definiie a culturii pe care Occidentul putea s-o aplice la o palet mai larg de
societi. Atunci se exprim clar ideea relaei, i chiar identificarea culturii, cu firea
omeneasc, cu natura intrinsec a omului. Astfel, rdcinile culturii par a se ascunde
n universala capacitate uman de a clasifica experienele, de a le codifica i comunica
simbolic. Grupuri de oameni aflate la mari distane dezvolt culturi distincte i
caracterizate prin unicitate, ns elemente ale diverselor culturi se pot propaga de la un
grup de oameni la altul.
n general, se tie, exist cultur material i cultur simbolic, nu doar prin reflectarea
unor tipuri diferite de activiti umane, ci i pentru c ele constituie tipuri distincte de
date, cu metodologii de tratare diferite. Ca regul, arheologii ce studiaz perioadele de
nceput ale epocii industriale i focalizeaz cercetarea pe cultura material, iar
antropologii culturali ai aceleeai epoci sunt interesai de cultura simbolic. Ambele
grupuri se arat preocupate, ntr-un final integrator, de relaiile ntre cele dou dimensiuni
ale culturii. Mai mult, antropologii neleg prin cultur nu doar bunurile materiale de
consum, ci i procesele foarte generale prin care astfel de bunuri se obin, semnificaiile
lor pentru om, relaiile i practicile sociale n care sunt prinse i surprinse obiectele ori
procesele de consum.