Modernism Vs Postmodernism

It is usually easy to identify the discrepancies which subsist in one period of political thought from another but explaining the divergence of postmodernism from its predecessor, modernism, may be a lot more complicated than usual. This is because first, etymologically, postmodernism does not necessarily mean “the period right after modernism” but rather an “effective reappropriation of memory” (Brann, 1992). More than that, it is a reaction to modernism (ibid). According to Lyotard, postmodernism should be understood in the context of the paradox of the future coming after the just now in a sense that the work is not “composed in accordance with any previous universal rules, or, as he calls it, any metanarrative” (ibid). Simplified, postmodernism

As it is, this paper shall focus mainly on two points: one, how the modernist and postmodernist thinkers differed in terms of their conception of the state, civil society, and freedom; and two, how this “break” from modern to postmodern became visible in their concepts . Also, this paper shall only focus on the works and ideas of modernist thinkers Karl Marx and John Stuart Mill compared to the ideas of postmodernists Friedrich Nietzsche and Max

He was the one who started the “break” of ideas from the modern period when he started criticizing the pre-existing or pre-established concepts by earlier philosophers. Nietzsche’s ideas emphasized skepticism (Shaw, 2007). He questioned the intentions and legitimacy of the modern state, seeing it as an impediment to the development of culture (Cristi, 2010) and hampers the individual from maximizing his potential, making him mediocre instead (Jelkie, 2006). He believes that the modern state, which is founded on democracy, fosters a ‘herd morality’ which is morality in the context of submission (Lacewing, n.d.). This kind of morality, which feeds on democratic ideals (i.e. equality), leads to the degeneration of the human race and the irrational promotion of suffering as a means to achieve salvation (ibid). Also, the very notion of equality among each other provides an excuse for individuals to only act “when it coincides with their own interest” (Cristi, 2010) which leads to Nietzsche’s point that hierarchy is essential within a society, basing his argument on the acceptance of slavery as a necessary precondition for the development of the “Greek state” in contrast with the modern “liberal” state (ibid). Similarly, Weber views the state in a domination-submission line of thought (Shaw, 2008). The modern state, according to him, is “a relation of men ruling men” as it