Is There a Sociology of Postmodernism?

U ovom tekstu autor nastoji utemeljiti pojam postmodernizma i iznalazi da on ima smisla ukoliko zastupa novu samosvijest intelektualca, odnosno, da se ovaj pojam ne može odrediti iz pojma modernizma jer rasprava o postmodernizmu generira vlastiti pojam modernizma. Koncept postmodernizma javlja se iz svojevrsne »krize statusa« suvremenog intelektualca. Ova kriza može se objasniti urušavanjem etnocentrične glorifikacije zapadnjačkog načina života, krizom legitimiteta suvremene države u kojoj procesi sedukcije i represije čine legitimizaciju suvišnom, te dominacijom tržišta u svim sferama življenja. Oslobađanje političkih snaga od ovisnosti o legitimnosti omogućuje oslobađanje od političkog uplitanja, ali ne rezultira slobodom za intelektualnu kreativnost jer s povlačenjem države nastupa novi zaštitnik-i-cenzor: tržište. Tržište postiže ono za što su se intelektualci borili uzalud: pretvara potrošnju informacija u ugodnu i zabavnu razbibrigu čime obrazovanje dostiže vrhunac svoje popularnosti i najnižu razinu svoje vrijednosti jer ga prosuđuju novostvoreni standardi intelektualaca. Postmodernizam stoga proklamira kraj sociologije i socijalne psihologije »kakove ih poznajemo« i označava nove situacije i prodore za ponovno razmatranje i ponovno određivanje zadataka i strategija sociologije i socijalne psihologije. Autor, stoga, smatra da bi sociologiju u uvjetima postmodernizma trebalo od tradicionalne razlikovati ne po procedurama i namjeri sociološkog nastojanja, već po novom objektu istraživanja.The author tries to establish the concept of postmodernism and thinks that it makes sense only if it represents a new self-assertion of an individual. In addition, he says that the name itself cannot be determined from the concept of modernism, because postmodernism as such, generates the concept of modernism. The concept of postmodernism stems from the »status crisis« of a modern intellectual. Such crisis can be explained by destruction of ethnocentric glorification of the western way of life, also, by the crisis of legitimacy of a modem state in which the processes of seduction and repression make the legitimization superfluous as well as by the domination of the market in all spheres of living. If we liberate the political forces from their dependence on legitimacy, it is also possible to stay free from political interference though it will not result in free intellectual creativity, because with the withdrawal of the state, there comes a new protector and censor: the market. The market achieves the aims that intellectuals have looked forward in vain: it can transform the exchange of information into nice and pleasant leisure through which education reaches its top popularity and the lowest level of its value as it is being judged by newly-formed standards of intellectuals. Postmodernism, therefore, proclaims the end of sociology and social psychology »such as they have been known to us« and denotes new situations and approaches of reconsideration and renomination of aims and strategies of sociology and social psychology. In conclusion the author maintains that we should differentiate the sociology of postmodernism from the traditional sociology not only in the procedures and intentions of sociological endeavors but also in the new object of investigation