Well, after reading this, I think I'm even more confused than I was before to what postmodernism actually is. Hebdige discusses how postmordernism is a term that is used nowadays frequently and widely in our society. Why then is there no exact determination for what is and what is not postmodern, because to me, it seems it is down to the own individual interpretation, which defines it's true meaning.
Hebdige argues too that postmodernism is referred to as the 'buzzword', because it has so many distinctions. One point he does make is that there are three negotiations, which are as follows -
1. Against Totalisation
2. Against Teleology
3. Against Utopia
His point being that postmodernism applies to several different cultural aspects. Marxism still plays a valid role, in what Hebdige describes as 'explicit renunciation of marxism. Power and structure, and a hierarchical command are present in postmodernism, the guidelines are there, and there are certain rules to follow, yet there is still a sense of ambiguity and inconclusivenss. Which can be slightly unhelpful/ confusing when analysing media texts, yet, bearing that in mind, aren't all media theories just that, theories? Left wide open for discussion and arguement?
"Within this model, there is no 'science' to be opposed to the monolith of ideology, only prescience: an alertness to possibility and emergence - that and the always imperfect, risky, undecidable 'science' of strategy".
"To say 'post' is to say 'past', hence questions of periodisation are inevitably raised. There is, however, little agreement as to what it is we are alleged to have surpassed, when that passage is supposed to have ocurred and what effects it is supposed to have had".
No comments:
Post a Comment