Customer Reviews

Postmodern Theory

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I remember my first encounter with postmodernism over 10 years ago when I started college and wished for a more gentle introduction. Pomo authors are notoriously difficult to understand not so much because their work is diffucult, but their texts are seldom self containted. To understand Foucault, you must know something about Nietszche, Heidigger, and to a smaller extent, Satre. In fact, to understand Foucault, you would have to read quite a bit of Foucault's canon because each text in each period of his writing is a collage of a much bigger picture.
I think this is the best introduction to postmodernism on the market. The authors discuss several seminal figures in pomo: Foucault, Baudrillard, Lyotard, etc. Their summaries and analysis are frequently good but at times flawed. This book is a good primer into pomo but I would not end with this book.

I agree with one of the other reviewers of this book. If you don't have a knack for sorting out the often convoluted writing styles of postmodern theorists, this book would not be a good introductory text for the novice. That aside, the book successfully, for me, meandered through the postmodern junkpiles of many of the more well known postmodernists of the last 30 years: Lyotard, Jameson, Baudrillard, Foucault, Deleuze & Guattari, and Habermas, to name a few. I liked it that Best and Kellner's politics and goals were always unappolagetically evident. Their effort to systematically conceptualize each theorist's contribution to "postmodernism", and to explore the points at which different theorists cross path, depart in different directions, and/or altogether miss each other, is to hypothesize the possibility and need of a critical postmodernism - one that reflectively grounds and ungrounds itself in the traditions of critical theory and postmodernism. The translucencency of their analysis makes them not so much an objective observer of postmodernist writings, but situatuates them within the debates as participants. I believe that their review and arguments were cogent and progressive. It is a great book for exploring the primary texts you plan to hit.

Anyone who's studied only a few of the major thinkers in postmodern thought may find themselves losing touch with the larger picture-- that is, what constitutes postmodernism? Or even, what are the major themes and problems of this subject matter? Answering these questions is fundamental in order to assist a reader of postmodernist texts in knowing simply just what to look for while reading as well as understanding the value of postmodernism in its effectiveness to critique modern conditions. Best and Kellner have written the only book I've found with an attempt to answer these questions. It's written for serious beginners or well-read intermediate-level students, not with the implicit assumption of a lazy reader (as in titles like 'Kant in 90 Minutes' or 'Postmodernism for Dummies').

Both Terry Eagleton ('After Theory', 'Literary Theory') and these writers have been accused of oversimplification or misleading readers on the meaning of certain concepts. I'm not in a position to assert these claims, but I make it a habit not to treat any text as Biblical truth. Certianly, as I read more I will develop my own ideas about the precise meanings of concepts described by Foucault, Deleuze and others. With that in mind, I've found Postmodern Theory to be an outstanding overview of the authors under discussion. It is a difficult book, but written with a clarity such that the language is no impediment to following the discourse. That is, I can read it on a crowded bus :)

Early on, the authors differentiate between poststructuralism and postmodernism. The thinkers under discussion all fall into the latter school. Poststructuralists like Derrida are therefore not covered under the book's scope. Many major thinkers have chapters dedicated to them: Foucault, Deleuze, Guattari, Baudrillard, Lyotard; other chapters discuss the critical theory of the Frankfurt School: Marxism, Jameson, Adorno, Habermas, and finally, a chapter looking "toward the reconstruction of critical social theory" which describes where postmodernism succeeds and fails in its critique of the problems it wishes to analyze. Primarily, Kellner and Best focus on postmodernism's overriding themes: micropolitics, irrationalism, and the attack on the grand narratives of modernist or structuralist philosophies. The authors endorse the critical theory of the Frankfurt School as a more effective groundwork methodology to analyze capitalism and other modern dilemma and finally, conclude that for all postmodernism has to offer, its methods are fundamentally useless and its course, a dead-end. Read postmodernism, they say, learn from it, enjoy it, but take it with a grain of salt. This 'conclusion' is not a surprise finale to the book, but is a criticism that pervades the text.

Rather than the chronological histories found in many histories of philosophy, the book's organization is mostly topical, while the writers do provide information on the timelines and relationships between authors, including influences and comparative analyses of authors' thoughts. The thrust of the book is to give readers a sense of the variegated governing principles of postmodern thought and reference the sources of these ideas, assisting the reader immeasurably in sifting through your bookstores' section of cultural theory to find the books you're ready to dive into. The principles discussed by Best and Kellner typically revolve around the postmodern interpretations of history and the organization of society. They illuminate obtuse ideas such as those found in the frustratingly (and wonderfully) cryptic works of Deleuze and Guattari, and provide descriptions of the overall patterns of thought for many postmodern thinkers.

For me, this was a diamond in the rough and is certain to vastly improve my reading comprehension in the future, as well as help me to choose between authors I may or may not be interested in. Highly recommended for those who feel lost in the dense reams of postmodern theory.

This is a very useful introduction to some highly provocative thinking. The strengths and weaknesses of each theorist's position are laid out, and there is an extensive list of references at the back to direct further inquiry. A worthwhile read for those interested in the subject.

You want to get right to the point when trying to understand something, generally speaking...
unlike the authors whose complicated "theory" and awful, obscurantist writing this book clearly, rationally, nonsensically deals with?

Then this is a useful book for you.
I don't have taste or time for the verbal ballet Continental thinkers have been committed to since, I don't know, Christian Wolff.
The big thinkers/gurus of po-mo are mostly here and given a nice, systematic analysis. You'll get familiarized with Foucault, Deleuze and Guattari, Baudrillard, Lyotard, Laclau and Mouffe, and Jameson as well as feminist theory and identity politics and an overview of the historical origins and development of postmodernism in various fields of study.
Read this book years ago, it still holds-up, and it is still perhaps the best introductory text on so-called "postmodern theory" around. And by the way some of the book is free online along with many excellent essays by authors Douglas Kellner and Steven Best. Google 'em.

If this book shows anything, it shows that it is impossible to make sense of postmodern thinkers from Foucault, Lyotard, and Baudrillard, as well as members of the Frankfurt school (viz. Habermas), in a one shot deal. These thinkers are very complicated to sort out . . . and the reader is left half wondering how much if any of this stuff/garbage/inspired works of genius should he take seriously. Even the authors admit as much. And, while their blatantly ultraliberal political opinions shine through the entire work, at the end (the last five or so pages) they wrap things up kind of nicely. Nevertheless, I feel compelled to give this book the full five good rating to any book that tries, 2. I kinda think they did a good job of sorting through this complicated mess (at least as good a job as is possible), and 3. my rating system requires that I give them the full five stars. So, there ya go.

So here's my advice. If you're sitting around one day and find yourself wondering just what exactly has been popular in the French intellectual scene during the past twenty or so years, then maybe you should pick up this book and find out for yourself. Or if you're wondering just who is this Foucault character and why should or shouldn't I forget him, then again you might want to check this book out. If you're thinking who are these maniacs (that's a term of endearment btw) Guattari and Deleuze and what's the deal with their advocacy of schizophrenic modes of thinking you might consider reading this book. So, that's the best I can do. Its really impossible for me to write a better review than this in the space given, I mean afterall what am I supposed to say . . . ummm "the book was well written". I guess I'm taking the advice on the cover of the book, which among other things says, Who laughs last? Ha ha!

Arrived in good time. As a gift I could not rate its quality. Consider revising this form.

Good book, but sometimes hard to read; not because the subject is obscure or difficult, but because it seems to have been written not for the layman but for "Academia."

I have an interest in philosophy, but no background in the subject. I grabbed this book in hopes that it would act as a good primer. I've not finished it, but I've gotten far enough through it to see that it's not very helpful to me. It starts out with what amounts to a laundry list of names that mean nothing to me, and overly self-important language that is meant more to demonstrate the intelligence of the authors than to convey much meaning. The book utterly fails to define what postmodern theory is, except to say that it is different from modern theory, and there may be some tension between the two schools.

I'm not quite sure who the audiance for this book is. People who already know philosophy won't need it, and people who aren't already hip can't understand it.

I'm going to continue to plow through the work, and will report back if my opinion changes upon completion.