Iqra’i

This probably isn’t the best way to introduce myself (EDIT: okay, maybe it is) but I differ with 2/3 of Nicola’s characterization of modernism, postmodernism and “post-postmodernism”:

1. Postmodernism isn’t the denial of meaning; it’s the denial of Meaning. Any postmodernist (and most reflexive conservatives, whether they consider themselves postmodern or not) will admit that the arbitrariness of meaning doesn’t make it any less important to the individuals who have created or inherited that meaning for themselves.

2. “Post-postmodernism” is only a good term insofar as it’s reminiscent of “postapocalyptic” — and even that’s more an asset of style (”postapocalyptic” is an AWESOME word) than of sense. Because there’s no inherent contradiction between meaning (properly understood as arbitrary but still valued), the recreation of meaning isn’t something we have to move beyond postmodernism to accomplish — it’s just another take on the postmodern agenda. This is why I prefer the term “creative postmodernism” to “post-postmodernism.”

I’d also add that conservatism isn’t the only type of creative postmodernism, though it’s unusually well-developed. While the postmodern liberals who think that in pointing out the arbitrariness of oppression they are promoting autonomy have it all wrong, in my opinion, some non-conservative ideologies — such as feminist theory, perhaps — could be construed as creatively postmodern without being conservative by most standards.