Postmodernism

Eng Seminar Post-colonialism – is an academic discipline that comprises methods of intellectual discourse that present analyses of, and responses to, the cultural legacies of colonialism and of imperialism, which draw from different post-modern schools of thought. Post-colonial Literature – addresses the problems and consequences of the de-colonization of a country and of a nation. The characters of his novels are mainly among the immigrants, the colonized, and the oppressed that are suffering from the loss of true self and identity.

Therefore, it is demonstrated that colonialism will continue its banal effects on individual’s lives and identities by entangling them in an unhealthy state of mind like double consciousness. In the novel, In the Skin of a Lion, Patrick who is the main character finds himself an outsider in the society and tries to measure himself through the other’s look ————————————————- Top of Form Bottom of Form Postcolonial criticism, like postmodern criticism, rejects the universal and large scale in preference for the local and specific.

In In the Skin of a Lion Ondaatje challenges the dominant narratives and gives a voice to the untold stories of the colonized. Ashcroft et al in Key Concepts in Post-Colonial Studies define post colonialism as dealing with “the effects of colonization on cultures and societies” (p. 186) and post colonial reading as “a way of reading and rereading texts… to draw deliberate attention to the profound and inescapable effects of colonization on literary production; anthropological accounts; historical records; administrative and scientific writing” (p. 92). A postcolonial reading also rejects the universalism inherent in the liberal humanist readings of traditional criticism in favour of an acceptance of issues of cultural difference in literary texts. Culture itself is seen as a web of conflicting discourses. Thus it champions a celebration of hybridity and encourages a writing back from the margin or periphery to the centre. Canada has a history of resistance to colonialism.

If you are applying a postcolonial reading then you should examine the novel for what it says about the dominant political and economic structures and how these serve the interests of the dominant class. Of course this leads us into a Marxist reading of the novel which would focus on the conflict of class interest and the oppression of the working classes. Marxist critics would say that all texts must be read in relation to the society in which they were composed and because writing is a political act criticism should be political as well. Patrick sat on a bench and watched the tides of movement, felt the reverberations of trade. He spoke out his name and it struggled up in a hollow echo and was lost in the high air of Union Station. No one turned. They were in the belly of the whale” (54) “The form of a city changes faster than the human heart” (109) “The southeastern section of the city where he now lived was made up mostly of immigrants and he walked everywhere not hearing any language he knew, deliriously anonymous. The people of the street, the Macedonians and Bulgarians, were his only mirror.

He worked in the tunnels with them” (112) Temelcoff is a navy: “a man is an extension of hammer, drill, flame” (Ondaatje 26) Nicholas Temelcoff is famous on the bridge, a daredevil. He is given all the difficult jobs and he takes them. He descends into the air with no fear. He is a solitary. He assembles ropes, brushes the tackle and pulley at his waist, and falls off the bridge like a diver over the edge of a boat. The rope roars alongside him, slowing with the pressure of his half-gloved hands.

He is burly on the ground and then falls with terrific speed, grace, using the wind to push himself into corners of abutments so he can check driven rivets, sheering valves, the drying of the concrete under bearing plates and pad stones. (34) “I will tell you about the rich,” Alice would say, “the rich are always laughing. They keep on saying the same things on their boats and lawns: Isn’t this grand! We’re having a good time! And whenever the rich get drunk and maudlin about humanity you have to listen for hours. But they keep you in the tunnels and stockyards. They do not toil or spin. Remember that. ” (132)

TY 170 February 23, 2009 Grenz Review As time passes, different themes are presented throughout society. These themes tend to make attempts at disproving its predecessor. In Stanley J. Grenz’ book, A Primer on Postmodernism, he discusses the two most recent ideas supported by the public; modernism and postmodernism. The opposition is apparent between the eras of modernity and postmodernity. As described by Grenz, modernity focuses on the individual, using reasoning as a source of the truth. This belief causes truth to be relative.

Postmodernity’s focal point is the group, rather than the individual. Truth, in the postmodern view, is created by intuition and feeling, causing it to be constructed. Grenz also discusses both the problems postmodernity pose on Christianity and the similarities between postmodernism and Christianity. Grenz’ portrait of postmodernism is accurate for what society is facing today. In order to understand the differences between modernism and postmodernism as Grenz has defined them, first understanding of how each was created is needed.

Modernity is based around meta-narratives; stories that connect everyone together. The most profound meta-narrative of modernity is the universal truth of science. One of the most important constructs of modernity is individualism, upon which all modern thinkers based their work. “Most historians suggest that the modern era was born when the Enlightenment brought new hope to war-ravaged Europe” (57). The Enlightenment had four principles; “Reason, nature, autonomy, and harmony” (68). These principles created the foundation for modern thinkers.

Many modern thinkers throughout the era, regardless of their discipline, “Turned to the reasoning subject rather than divine revelation as the starting point for knowledge and reflection” (65). Through these foundations set for modernity, the modern philosophers turned to science in support for their hypotheses. “Thinkers such as Descartes, Newton, and Kant provided the intellectual foundation for the modern era” (80). Rene Descartes was one of the first modern thinkers of his time, “often being referred to as the father of modern philosophy” (63). When Descartes irst set out on his journey for knowledge, he set out with doubt, in search of absolute truth that doubt could not deny (64). Like many other thinkers of that period, he “Attempted to introduce the rigor of mathematical demonstration into all fields of knowledge,” because he believed that the truths of mathematics were more concrete than knowledge based on observation (64). Descartes eventually reached the destination of his searching; the one thing that could not be doubted was one’s own existence. His new way of thinking led to a different outlook of the human person.

His work defined “The human being as thinking substance and the human person as an autonomous rational subject” (64). This new definition supported Augustine’s philosophy; “Cogito ergo sum – ‘I think, therefore I am,” (64). Although Descartes’ work did not discover subjectivity, “the chief importance of his contribution lies in his emphasis on personal experience and personal knowledge, on knowledge arising from the individual’s unique point of view” (64). His role in the Enlightenment paved the path for his modern-thinking successors.

Following Descartes’ work, Newton began making his own imprint on the world, emphasizing the importance of science. His work focused on trying to explain the workings of his universe that he saw as a “Grand, orderly machine,” (67). Newton’s idea of the world as a machine provided the framework for modernity. Newton believed that by viewing the world as a machine, he would be able to know its movements because it would follow a set of distinct laws (67). His design led modern thinkers to have a mechanistic understanding of the world, as opposed to a natural view (50).

Although Newton looked at the scientific explanations of the world, his intent was to explain the existence of God. Similar to Descartes, Newton used the power of reason to enhance the meaning of theology. “The modern world turned out to be Newton’s mechanistic universe populated by Descartes’ autonomous, rational substance” (67). Through Newton’s work, other philosophers had the foundation needed to make their own impressions on the world of modernity. Eventually, philosophers began questioning the Enlightenment and modernity as a whole.

Through Immanuel Kant’s work, he strengthened the ties between society and modernity, which associated himself with the beginning of the Enlightenment. Kant’s most important contribution to modernity was his publication of Critique of Pure Reason (57). His critique strengthened the support of modernity and terminated all questioning of it. Kant sought to create a more concrete platform for metaphysics through his writing (76). He hypothesized that the mind is systematical in organizing sensations from the external world. “According to Kant, the human person is not only a creature capable of sense experience bus also a moral being” (77).

Kant believed that by living morally, one lives the way he wishes all people would live. He argued that the moral aspect of human existence is essentially rational (78). This view of existence created the realm of practical reason, which encouraged other modern philosophers to concentrate on the individual self. This attentiveness came from Kant introducing the idea that the self is “not just the focus of philosophical attention but the entire subject matter of philosophy” (79). Through this notion, Kant directed his attention to the individual imposing reality.

Kant’s work provided future philosophers with the concepts needed to understand and eventually deconstruct modernity. Johann Gottlieb Fichte operated off of Kant’s discoveries. He accepted Kant’s work but also “Was enabled to explode it from the inside” (87). Fichte did not want to eliminate Kant’s ideas, but instead wanted “To expose the Kantian ‘fiction’ of an objective world existing in its own right beyond the self,” (87). Through his work, Kant emphasized the idea “that the self creates and determines the objects that constitute its own external world” (87). Hence, the realm that Kant claims to know through ‘pure’ reason, Fichte claims to produce through the exercise of ‘practical’ reason” (87). His work has created a freedom that “is important because it holds the potential of liberating us from a single way of understanding the world,” (88). Fichte managed to dissolve Kant’s idea of an absolute reality through “eliminating the noumenal realm” (88). Although he worked against Kant in many ways, Fichte managed to uphold Kant’s concept of the absolute self (87).

Fichte, along with other thinkers’, beliefs led to what is now considered to be the postmodernism era by questioning the context of modernity and its constructors. Postmodernism is the mere rejection of the ideas that modernism and the Enlightenment support. The main theory that postmodernism rejects is the construct of individualism. In its denunciation of modernism, it also rejects the modern theme of meta-narratives, except for its own. The postmodern world does not believe that all knowledge is good, nor that knowledge is objective. They view life on earth as fragile and believe that the continued existence of humankind is dependent on a new attitude of cooperation rather than conquest” (7). Postmodern beliefs have a more pessimistic view on the world, as opposed to the modern idea. Postmoderns believe that the world is “historical, relational, and personal” (7). The main postmodern view is that everything is different from everything (7). “Many voices have joined the postmodern chorus. But of these, three loom as both central and paradigmatic – Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, and Richard Rorty.

They constitute a trio of postmodern prophets” (123). Michel Foucault was persistent in the rejection of the modern worldview. He argued that “reason and rational discourse are problematic.. , because they require that we squeeze the variety of reality into the artificial homogeneity that accommodates our concepts” (127). His intentions were not to present the ideas of a better society, but to understand order. This new society that Foucault presented was called “’heterotopia,’” as opposed to the modern view of “utopia” (20).

Foucault focused on the connection between knowledge and power in regards to social systems, stating that “every interpretation of reality is an assertion of power” (6). Foucault believed that this power was “the power of violence” (59). He used genealogy to gain a better understanding of how we arrived to the beliefs supported by society (135). “According to Foucault, the practice of genealogy informs us that history is not controlled by destiny or some regulative mechanism but is the product of haphazard conflicts” (136).

He reveals himself to be the model postmodern by making the assertion that “no natural order lies behind what we invent through our use of language” (137). Foucault provided a new outlet for the newly formed notion to be interpreted by future philosophers. Subsequent to Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida reinterpreted some ideas of postmodernism. Unlike Foucault, Derrida had different views on what was in correct about modernism. He focused on defying logocentrism: “The philosophical method that looks to the word as the carrier of meaning” (141).

He began, in a sense, where Kant left of by questioning “what foundation can we offer for our use of reason” (140). Derrida was critical of Western philosophers in saying that they view writing as a demonstration of speech. He spent his lifetime of work trying to deconstruct the idea that written language represents reality. Unlike Foucault, Derrida did not try to create new ideas for postmodernism on the basis of old ideas; he rather deconstructed or disproved the foundations of modernism. Derrida wanted to demolish the modern construct that “views philosophy as pure, disinterested inquiry” (148).

Along with that, he also wanted to renounce the popular idea that there is a clear link between language and the external world, (148). “Derrida’s primary goal is to divest us of logocentrism by showing the impossibility of drawing a clear line between reality and our linguistic representations” (148). Overall, Derrida’s target for deconstruction was Western philosophy as a whole. The ideas represented by the philosophy were viewed as hopeless by Derrida. The notions that Derrida brought to the table allowed thinkers to move past the modern ways and seek refuge in postmodernism.

After Derrida, came a philosopher with a new way of thinking, Richard Rorty. Unlike his predecessors, Rorty expressed his belief in a clear style. Rorty is considered to be “the central figure behind the renewed interest in the American pragmatist tradition” (151). His pragmatist outlook abandoned an Enlightenment idea; “The mind is the ‘mirror of nature’” (151). In pragmatism, the view of truth is that it is a result of human convention, thus it is constructed. Similar to Derrida, Rorty believes that language does not have the capability to represent the world accurately.

He views language as a device used to satisfy one’s wants and needs. Working against modernism, he also states that “we give up the idea that the goal of science is to produce models that correspond perfectly with reality” (154). Rorty believes that science is just one way to view the world, but there are many other ways to perceive it. Through the work of Foucault, Derrida, and Rorty, a new way of thinking was born which opened the world up for questioning. Postmodernism and Christianity have a working relationship. That is, Christians support and also disagree with some postmodern concepts.

When postmodernism was first presented as an idea, Christians did not know how to approach it. A concern that Christians have with the postmodern view is the rejection of meta-narratives. The concept of stories uniting a group as one is the foundation for Christianity. As Grenz states, “We simply do not share the despair over the loss of universality that leads to the radical skepticism of the emerging era” (165). In addition to the rejection of meta-narratives, postmodernism focuses on the inability to discover an all-encompassing truth. Here lies the major dilemma Christianity has with postmodernity.

Christians believe that God includes the truth about everything, but postmodern thinkers do not believe that an “all-encompassing truth” is possible to reach (163). The postmodern rejection of individualism worries Christians because they “must always keep in view the biblical themes of God’s concern for each person, the responsibility of every human before God, and the individual orientation that lies within the salvation message” (168). On the other hand, Christians support the rejection of the Enlightenment idea that “the rational, scientific method is the sole measure of truth” (166).

Also, the postmodern denial that all knowledge is good and objective strengthens the ties between Christianity and postmodernism (168). Christians also support the postmodern finding that no person can be separate from creation. As years pass, Christians are more accepting of postmodern concepts and are more rejecting of the modern ideas they once supported. Grenz’ view of the postmodern world is acceptable for what society faces today. The postmodern views have been mirrored throughout the public. Even in school, teachers focus more on group projects and group activities rather than the individuals.

Children judge each other on the amount of time they spend with others, as opposed to the ability to spend time alone. Now, it is a must for children to always be with their friends. It is also represented in the working world. Bosses would prefer group presentations rather than individual. Most people do not like to be alone or even to be singled-out. Also, as the economy is closer to being in a recession, the postmodern idea that the world is not getting better every day is strengthened. People no longer believe “that humanity will be able to solve the world’s greatest roblems or even that their economic situation will surpass that of their parents,” (7). Every day it seems as though the world is not capable to overcome what it has started, such as wars. It seems as though the world is no longer a “happy” place at most times. The postmodern pessimistic view is presented daily. It is awkward for others when people are optimistic about their life. Overall, people seem accepting to the postmodern views. Over the years, the world has seen different phases sweep through, and each one is eventually accepted. The most current themes are modernity and postmodernity.

The modern views were set forth by Rene Descartes, Isaac Newton, and Immanuel Kant. Modernism is the idea of focusing on the individual in means of scientific explanations. Also, modern thinkers believe that all knowledge is inherently good. Johann Gottlieb Fichte is partially responsible for the beginning of questioning modernity. Once Fichte opened the doors, Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, and Richard Rorty put an end to the modern way of thinking. What their idea created was postmodernity. The postmodern thinker steps away from the individual, focusing more on group relations.

Also, postmodernism denies that all knowledge is essentially good. This new way of thinking has made Christians question how to respond. Christians agree, but also disagree with some of the postmodern views. As a whole, the world has come to terms with postmodernism by accepting it. What is going to happen when philosophers begin to question postmodernity? How will the world be viewed once people stop accepting postmodernism? Works Cited Grenz, Stanley J. A Primer on Postmodernism. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996.

The “node” and “place” balance and spacial public presentation.

“Stations, as incorporate “nodes” of conveyance web and “places” in the metropolis can increase the possibilities for physical human interactions in and around them, which in bend feed societal and economic activities that still require them” ( Bertolini,1999 )

Here can see the potency for livability of the infinites in station countries are high. For “place” have maps where it devoid with its original maps. Their high handiness is a favourable status for the development of diversified activities, for the concentration and interaction of different people in them. On the other manus it is beef uping the activities and increases the demand for connexions. The balance between these two dimensions “node” and “place” can bring forth societal, economic and environmental benefits. In other words it can better the sustainability public presentations in station countries.

“There is in these locations an tremendous potency ( albeit mostly undeveloped ) for physical, societal and economic interaction and this potency could be realized in a comparative sustainable manner, as it could let the bunch of trips and a more efficient usage of land” ( Bertolini, L.2000 )

The dependance on the grade of balance between the two dimensions gives the realisation of the potency for livability or sustainability.

Harmonizing to the thought of Bertolini ( 1999 ) , he explains handiness in a broader sense which can allow this possible balance between the two elements in the station countries. He highlights the human interaction, handiness of the conveyance node, how many finishs which can be easy reached with in a clip period in an country, and the handiness of the topographic point for activities, how many and how diverse are the activities that are performed in an country. Addition to that he mentions that the users who are accesses the country is besides of import.

“The sweetening of handiness facilitates the existent realisation of human interaction and therefore the livability of station country. The possible dealingss between “node” and “place” contents’ strengths at station country, and their effects for likeability of these locations are depend on the node- topographic point model” ( Martines, 2012, p.38 )

This theoretical account allows for the appraisal on the grade of livability of a station country, and besides the grade of sustainability. This mainly analysis and associate the conveyance and non-transport related activities at station countries, with the potency for sustainable development.

“Balancing “node” and “place” dimensions of a station country is, in fact basically a spacial problem” ( Pakusukcharern, 2003 in Martines, 2012, p.39 )

In add-on to that it is necessary to research the spacial dimensions in order to follow sustainable solutions for bing jobs of railroad Stationss and its’ urban surrounding. Harmonizing to Martins, ( 2012 ) the node- topographic point theoretical account does non give indicants on how to make the balance which is explained by spatially. It relates conveyance and non-transport related activities present at the station countries, but non their physical support. It is necessary to turn to node and topographic point balance in spacial footings.

Node and topographic point balance does non merely depend on the entree to transport and non-transport related activities in the given specific location or the diverseness of their different users. The infinites that support these activities and let the user is besides contribute diverseness of the balance. The infinite must supply the best conditions for the development of the node and topographic point activities, through the physical human interaction, finally to better societal, economic and environmental public presentations and livability

physical environment in one of the chief factor that influence the activities in and around of a topographic point. As St. martins, ( 2012 ) discussed the quality of a topographic point relates with the type of activities, which the users are willing to execute. For illustration a hapless or low quality infinite people tend to make merely the particular and necessary activities and besides a topographic point which has high quality a broad scope of optional and societal activities occurs within and around them.

When there are jobs in station countries, the scope of activities facilitated by them is reasonably narrowed down to necessary activities particularly to transport related 1s. Consequently the topographic point dimension of the station country has fewer conditions than the node dimension, which affects to better development in quality infinite. So the happening of balance has a less opportunity. For quality infinites, the infinites that should hold to execute good, leting for human physical interaction. Within this model, which spaces of station countries facilitate node and topographic point balance is referred in this research as spacial public presentation. Here infinite quality can be seen as an index of good spacial public presentation. For the balance the layout and the relationships of station infinites activities ( conveyance related or non ) should reciprocally profit from each other.

“The spacial discontinuities of station countries should be mitigated, as the physical integrating of the station in the metropolis is desirable, in order to make a good spatial performance” ( Paksukcharern, 2003 N Martins, 2012 )

Factors influence the infinites of station countries

The conceptualisation or reconceptualization of station countries is a argument that is traveling on for recent old ages. Station operators, riders, states users, communities of occupants and politicians have put forward their position on how station countries should develop. But no 1 has presented a specific model particularly associating the local context. The function of renovation of infinites in station country is less discussed even though recognized its importance.

Several spacial issues were forced in the renovation undertakings in station countries. The barrier consequence of the paths, and particularly considers the environing country the station has been in the centre. This shows the reconnecting or linking the station with its environing in order to extenuate their spacial jobs. The articulation of different conveyance manners and besides the other maps, within and around the edifice was besides approached solutions in different degrees.

For the successful development and the betterment of spacial public presentation of station countries the planning procedure and spacial design, both are of import. Here should hold to see chief two sides, station country renovation or development and their influence on their spacial results. This research does non forces on the factors which are bounded with the planning procedure and their influences on the design of spacial ballad out of station milieus. The research chiefly approach the internal factors of public infinites of station countries witch influence its spacial public presentations. Those are bounded with spacial design the specific sphere of architecture in station country development undertakings. In those factors architecture can influence/ control, and relevant for the part can give towards the betterment of spacial public presentation of station countries.

As mentioned before, to accomplish livability it is required a good degree of spacial quality to the designed infinites. To accomplish the needed quality must understand the city’s context where it operates. The context is subjected to alter in clip and the cognition on that is indispensable in development.

The concept of medicalisation Originally, the concept of medicalisation was strongly associated with medical dominance, involving the extension of medicine’s jurisdiction over erstwhile ‘normal’ life events and experiences. More recently, however, this view of a docile lay populace, in thrall to expansionist medicine, has been challenged. Thus, as we enter a post-modern era, with increased concerns over risk and a decline in the trust of expert authority, many sociologists argue that the modern day ‘consumer’ of healthcare plays an active role in bringing about or resisting medicalisation.

Such participation, however, can be problematic as healthcare consumers become increasingly aware of the risks and uncertainty surrounding many medical choices. The emergence of the modern day consumer not only raises questions about the notion of medicalisation as a uni-dimensional concept, but also requires consideration of the specific social contexts in which medicalisation occurs. In this paper, we describe how the concept of medicalisation is presented in the literature, outlining different accounts of agency that shape the process.

We suggest that some earlier accounts of medicalisation over-emphasized the medical profession’s imperialistic tendencies and often underplayed the benefits of medicine. With consideration of the social context in which medicalisation, or its converse, arises, we argue that medicalisation is a much more complex, ambiguous, and contested process than the ‘medicalisation thesis’ of the 1970s implied.

In particular, as we enter a post-modern era, conceptualizing medicalisation as a uni-dimensional, uniform process or as the result of medical dominance alone is clearly insufficient. Indeed, if, as Conrad and Schneider (1992) suggested, medicalisation was linked to the rise of rationalism and science (ie to modernity), and if we are experiencing the passing of modernity, we might expect to see a decrease in medicalisation