Introduction:

Postmodernism is an academic buzzword nowadays, and like all similar terms and associated
movements, has made its mark on contemporary theology. Postmodernism is an ideology based
on the view that society has entered a new phase. An age marking the demise of metanarratives,
certainty and objectivity of knowledge to make way for alternative facts and subjectivity.
Postmodernism is probably one of the most recent controversial movements that has taken roots
in virtually every aspect of contemporary cultural life. However, postmodernism has been here
for a while now. You can credibly inaugurate a new beginning only for a short so long, whereas
you can carry on succeeding upon something almost indefinitely, catching continuing success
from your predecessor’s surcease. Postmodernism has indeed shown an extraordinary resilience
in spite of all the ideologies.1
One of the fields postmodernism has made inroads into is the field of education. This is not very
visible in India yet but we are getting there. Education in the postmodern sense is more flexible,
diverse and customizable. Thinkers all over the world played their part to about these changes,
by contributing ideas most of which seemed radical at first. We will look at a couple of these
intellectual giants and their contributions towards education in our presentation today.

1. Definition:
1.1. Definition of Postmodern
Being an age after a modern 2

Postmodernism
Postmodernism is difficult to define, because to define it would go against the postmodernist's
basis that no definite terms, boundaries, or absolute truths exist. Postmodernists have unreliable
beliefs and opinions on issues.

Postmodernism claims to be the successor to the 17th century enlightenment. The “postmodern
thinkers” have promoted and defended a new age way of conceptualizing and rationalizing
human life and progress.3

1.2. Definition of Epistemology:

The study or a theory of the nature and grounds of knowledge.
Epistemology is the study of knowledge. This determines the nature of knowledge and
the extent of human knowledge.4

Epistemology, the philosophical study of the nature, origin, and limits of human knowledge. The
term is derived from the Greek word episteme (“knowledge”), logos (“reason”), and sometimes

1
Connor, Steve. “Introduction” Cambridge companion to postmodernism (Cambridge: New York, 2004) 1
2
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/postmodern/15.08.18
3
https://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/postmodernism.htm/16.08.18
4
https://www.iep.utm.edu/epistemo/16.08.18

1|Page
referred to as the theory of knowledge. Epistemology (Along with metaphysics, logic, and ethics)
is one of the four main branches of philosophy.5

2. Derrida and Deconstruction

Derrida is not really interested in making a point about the nature of language and
thought. For him, what is necessary is how is writing and speech related. To understand this, he
employs a type of reading called Deconstruction. Deconstruction takes what are assumed to be
strict distinctions, important so-called binaries such as presence/absence, being/non-being,
true/false, analytic/synthetic and shows their fragility towards each other. These distinctions have
traditionally been used to provide metaphysical foundations of Western philosophy. This
happens by treating one of the pair as the positive one and then through a matter of
differentiation, logical exclusion and implication creating a system of meaning. 6 Deconstruction,
however, tries to show that the authors manipulating these distinctions are never able to maintain
them perfectly because the terms slips into each other and authors contradict themselves very
subtly. Derrida uses deconstruction as a tool for critiquing what he calls ‘Logocentrism’ viz. a
sort of logical guarantee of the presence of what is real. Derrida wants to maintain that there is
no guarantee that language directly relates to reality as we refer to it in our language systems.
Language itself provides evidence for ambiguity for it both defines limits as well as violates
them.7
It is an attack on any method that tries to construct knowledge on the basis of foundations
since there are no privileged terms or concepts on which to build knowledge. All the things we
regard as positive in constructing our systems are enmeshed with their opposites and related to
other concepts. He goes a step further in his development by coining a new term ‘difference’
taken from the French word ‘differer’, which means either to differ or defer. Derrida means it
both ways at once. On the one hand, it indicates the difference that continually appears not
logically between binary terms such as human and nonhuman but between the fit of the terms.
There is always a failure for logic to capture fully the situation because the right fit never quite
happens. Meaning is always put off or deferred, even though it is further attempted at other
levels, difference will again rise and this happens endlessly.8
If we take pure, infinite ideas as the ground then we are always going to get into
contradiction applying them to experience, the finite and the concrete. This is the necessary
consequence of all metaphysics.9 On the one hand he means to say that logical form never
captures the world there is always some sort of misfit and slippage at the same time he also
wants to point to the fact that our thinking takes place within these categories. Difference signals
not only to the negative limitations of language but also the positive play of language. and its

5
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/epistemology/15.08.18
6
Diogenes Allen and Eric O. Springstead, Philosophy for Understanding Theology (London: Westminster John
Knox, 2007), 231.
7
Ibid., 232.
8
Ibid., 232.
9
Barry Stocker, Derrida on Deconstruction (New York: Routledge, 2006), 171.

2|Page
push forward. It also signals the historic nature of language - how language changes according to
what its situatedness. In using the notion of difference Derrida is therefore careful not to make it
an unchanging ideal that causes this play of language. It cannot be a concept active or passive,
but as Derrida suggests it is the possibility of conceptuality of a conceptual system. 10

3. Michel Foucault

Foucault’s contributions are classified into three categories:

Power11

At the outset, we should understand what is meant by margins - i.e. periphery that does not
actively take part in power dynamics which could include people with no voice or power.

Foucault says that power, and by power I mean, the source of knowledge and or change is no
longer centralised and that the very distinction does not exist. Foucault argues that as long as we
continue to adhere to a very limited and increasingly outdated understanding of power we cannot
begin to navigate modern power relations effectively. He says there is no outside to a power
knowledge relationship i.e. no binary.12

Repressive power – forces us to do what we do not want to do – It is small minded.

Normalizing power makes you want to do what we have to do anyway – makes us people who
do everything society wants us to do – everywhere.

In his book Discipline and Punish, he shows that sovereign power, which is held or possessed
and then wielded repressively by one individual over another or others, became ineffective in the
face of increasingly complex social, political and economic relations that developed in the latter
part of the sixteenth and early part of the seventeenth centuries.

Foucault conceives of modern power as an interactive network of shifting and changing relations
among and between individuals, groups, institutions and structures; it consists of social political,
economic and, as many of the contributors to this volume show, even personal relationships.

Science/ Education is a form of normalising power – the institutions that spread science or
education are sources of normalising power. The educational institution turns the student into a
person who thinks and acts a certain way and by the time they are working they would have
incorporated a way of thinking so deep, you will never get rid of it again. Science then goes on to
set standards on what is ‘well’ or what is ‘mentally sound’.

10
Stocker, Derrida on Deconstruction, 172.
11
Taylor, Dianna. “Introduction: Power, freedom and subjectovity” Ed. Dianna Taylor, Michel Foucault Key
Concepts (Routledge: New York, 2014) 11
12
Strozier, Robert M. Foucault, Subjectivity and Identity (Wayne State: Detroit, 2002) 57

3|Page
Freedom13

“Power is exercised only over free subjects,” Foucault asserts, “and only insofar as they are
free”. Specifically, it is the practice of navigating power relations in ways that keep them open
and dynamic and which, in doing so, allow for the development of new, alternative modes of
thought and existence. The practice of freedom functions to “disconnect the growth of
capabilities from the intensification of power relations”.

Traditionally, freedom has been talked about in two connotations viz. metaphysical and politica.
Metaphysical freedom here is the opposite of determinism i.e. humans unless psychologically
damaged and or manipulated have a certain conscious degree of control over their thought and
behavior. Political freedom refers to what one can do in a society.

Foucault does not deny either but talks about societal constraints that are historically given. The
overcoming of these constraints is a political affair.14

Subjectivity15

Foucault goes on to suggest a relationship between power and subjectivity – he starts this by
pointing out the societal pressure to conform to predefined norms such as peer pressure and or
self-denial. This struggle, he says, is one of the most defining characteristics of modern life. Our
response to this dilemma is called ‘care for the self’. This relationship of the self to self is not
fixed but an active dynamic relationship.

4. Jean-François Lyotard

Jean-François Lyotard was a French philosopher, sociologist, and literary theorist. He was the
one of the founders of the prestigious College Internationale de Philosophie in Paris along with
Derrida. He was politically active in Algeria before leaving in the 1960s, he later was active in
Paris but became disappointed with Marxism and left Marxism for Postmodernism. One of his
earliest and most influential contributions was The Postmodern Condition. The crux of the book
was that we have now outgrown the need for a grand narrative or metanarrative. He suggested
that ‘little narratives’ was the answer to societal issues, i.e. ‘issue politics’ wherein specific

13
May, Todd. “Foucault’s conception of freedom” Ed. Dianna Taylor, Michel Foucault Key Concepts (Routledge:
New York, 2014) 117

14
Todd, 122
15
McGushin Edward, “Foucault’s theory and practice of subjectivity” Ed. Dianna Taylor, Michel Foucault Key
Concepts (Routledge: New York, 2014) 205

4|Page
cultural problems are addressed with short term solutions. He argues that: it is these little
narratives that drive postmodern science by favoring discontinuity over continuity. Continuity
here refers to received wisdom or tradition. The Postmodern Condition promoted skepticism
regarding the universalizing theories.16

The Postmodern Condition17

Lyotard was asked by the Conseil des Universités of Quebec to produce of report on the state of
knowledge in the Western world and he responded with ‘The Postmodern Condition: A Report
on Knowledge.’ The book was received well and widely hailed as to be one of the most widely
quoted, and pored-over, books of its time. However, Lyotard later admitted that he had a "less
than limited" knowledge of the science he was to write about, and to compensate for this
knowledge, he "made stories up" and referred to a number of books that he had not actually read.
In retrospect, he called it "a parody" and "simply the worst of all my books".18

The book deals with questions like “how is ‘knowledge’ defined in a postindustrial society
equipped with new media, instantaneous communication technologies and universal access to
information? And how can scientific knowledge be legitimated?”

Lyotard begins The Postmodern Condition by pointing out the development of a ‘knowledge
economy’ after World War II. He referred to new sciences that were created to facilitate speedy
transmission of knowledge. This however makes more sense in today’s world if we consider Big
Data.19 He also rejects metanarratives and identifies postmodernism as the cause for the
incredulity towards grand narratives. He then talks about who legitimizes scientific knowledge.
Legitimize here refers to the promulgation of a law as a norm.20 Using Wittgenstein’s idea of
language games Lyotard suggests that communication functions like language games – not one
played to win but for the pleasure of it. He then posits the social bond to understand the
dynamics between knowledge and society.21 He reiterates the death of the grand narrative and
suggest argumentation and proofs as pragmatic research22, which is further aided by technology.

16
Parker Noel, Sim Stuart Ed. The A-Z Guide to Modern Social and Political Theorists (Hertfordshire: Prentice Hall,
1997) 206
17
Lyotard, Fracois. The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge (Madison: Wisconsin, 1983)
18
Anderson, Perry. The Origins of Postmodernity. (London: Verso, 1998) 24–27. Quoted on
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Postmodern_Condition Accessed on 19.8.2018
19
Big Data: Big data is a term that describes the large volume of data – both structured and unstructured – that
inundates a business on a day-to-day basis. But it’s not the amount of data that’s important. It’s what
organizations do with the data that matters. Big data can be analyzed for insights that lead to better decisions and
strategic business moves. (Source: https://www.sas.com/en_id/insights/big-data/what-is-big-data.html) Accessed
19.8.2018
20
Lyotard, 9
21
Lyotard, 13
22
Lyotard, 23

5|Page
Here, he realizes that technology costs money and eventually science only progresses in the
direction that ensures a profit23. He correctly identifies the current obsession with the
accumulation of knowledge as an indicator or performativity.24 However, postmodern science is
regulated by the accumulation of knowledge of nature and society, these in turn, turn out to be
unstable and therefore inefficient. What he’s getting at is that legitimization then has to be by
paralogy, i.e. an ongoing creation of meaning or creation of new ideas by dialogue and not
merely by consensus.

5. Constructing Liberation Praxis

5. 1. Using Deconstruction
Deconstruction is the awareness of the fact that truth is always relative and is subject to
‘intellectual frameworks of the judging person’. In any kind of literature or work, the meaning of
certain words can be understood in a certain way by the people of that culture.25 Secondly,
Derrida also believed that the Western tradition has futile attempts towards establishing a claim
that the relation between language and the world is reliable, it is definitely not a mirror of the
structure of reality that is present to the mind. Also, those who follow this idea believe that
language systems are ‘inherently unreliable cultural constructs.’26
Derrida looks for every opinion that has been said or mentioned as restricted to a
linguistic system. The linguistic system does not relate to the external reality of the world which
it claims to have an overall understanding of. The language system or words itself permit us to
certain aspects of reality but not the entire reality. Even though there are various languages and
have different words for certain aspects but they all fail to encode the ‘truth’ of the word.27
Further he elaborates that all conceptual systems responsible to shape experience are responsible
for falsifying, distorting and hierarchization.28 Eventually, some words or categories are imposed
with more validation than the others. This is one of significant contribution of Derrida towards
postmodern attitude.
Thus, deconstruction enables the reader to recognize that there are truths in the text that
have been deferred. By reading the text out of the established conceptual systems one can find
the truths that are deferred in the process of hierarchization. The text now becomes interactive
with the reader and his/her personal contextual experiences and escapes the process where the
message is centralized through a controlling narrative. By exposing the cultural constructs that
frame the text the reader can decentralize the inherent hierarchies and enable a reading of the text
in which a newer meaning develops. This enables a liberation praxis. As epistemology that
focusses on decentralizing control by deconstructing the message of the text is liberative and

23
Lyotard, 50
24
Lyotard, 48
25
Christopher Butler, Postmodernism Very Short Introduction 16.
26
Christopher Butler, Postmodernism Very Short Introduction 17.
27
Christopher Butler, Postmodernism Very Short Introduction 19.
28
Christopher Butler, Postmodernism Very Short Introduction 20.

6|Page
resists exploitation. The oppressed communities can deconstruct texts to expose the oppressed
consciousness that is deferred in the text. Thus, the text becomes the means to educate by
providing a meaning to the text that was deferred in the process of hierarchization.

5. 2. Promoting Local Narratives

Lyotard’s basic idea can be summed up as “incredulity towards metanarratives”.
Skepticism towards any claim that suggests a truth of understanding. A deeper reading tells us
that for Lyotard, metanarratives are a problem because of the certainty, scientists give to their
claims as being universal truths.29 A birds-eye observation of the metanarrative has led to the
inconspicuous misunderstanding of it big, grand or epic stories, but the focus is on the force with
which the claim is applied to universal justification.30 For example, Enlightenment movement
where its pioneers like Kant believed that all can be proved through reason alone.31
Legitimation, there is a difference between science and other narratives is that, science tries to
prove itself. Modernity, then uses science to make legit claims. Postmodern thought is
juxtaposed together, it critiques the modern claim: which is legitimates itself with reference to a
grand narrative. There is different kinds of knowledge i.e. narrative and scientific knowledge.
The narrative knowledge can stand alone without legitimation, while on the other hand scientific
knowledge needs it.
The discovery of metanarratives shows us a different side to reality. It shows us how
certainty crushes possibility and pushes interpretation into a false zone of security.
Metanarratives only further the propaganda of those who construct them and resist critical
thinking. This also show that claims that are self-legitimizing have no basis in reality. This helps
also understand that local narratives function as appropriate channels of knowledge and do not
stake their claim on certainty as metanarratives do. They also do not seek to legitimize
themselves through certainty but as part of the consciousness of local people and contribute in
their history growth and nurture. Local narratives are stories that imbibe values known to the
people of that local particularity. This can be very helpful for tribal hermeneutics and tribal
educational schemes as it exposes the effect of western meta narratives on the cultural
dissimilation and erosion of tribal identity. It also helps the tribal reconnect with their roots and
challenge the deeply internalized metanarratives that have an impact.

5. 3. Foucault and the Margins: Restructuring Power

Foucault’s work can be divided into three periods; first period where he deals with the
epistemological questions, second period where he discusses about power and how it is utilized

29
Who is Afraid of Postmodernism? 58-59.
30
Who is Afraid of Postmodernism? 63
31
Who is Afraid of Postmodernism? 59.

7|Page
to discriminate people and third period where the focus is an attempt to reconstruct theory of the
self. 32
Foucault discusses the idea of punishment, law and control exercised in institutions e.g.
hospital, prison and military. These institutions reflect precisely the social of the free population.
He posits several illustrations together with the impact on the thinking of the people. use here the
parts where the economic crisis, the continuous barring of people who are poor etc. as a
consequence of history. The search for the truth is also through the vast historical knowledge. A
level of fiction exists in the knowledge.
5. 3. 1. Power and Knowledge
There does exist a reciprocal relation between power and knowledge. Knowledge itself
can be found in history, the reason where we need to look for the genealogy of the knowledge.
Need for insurrection of knowledge. There is restriction imposed in the manner of knowledge
communication to the students. They have to learn in the midst of standards that are placed on
them, where they are meant to imbibed through the historical perspective. At times even certain
sciences are subjugated, with an inquiry of it being a relevant science. In the process certain
sciences are disqualified and others are included. Foucault’s idea of intellectual is described as
one who has primarily possessed the truth and represented the ‘proletariat’. But after the Second
World War, this intellectual is ‘manipulated’ by those who have power and influence for their
own biased motives.33

5. 3. 2. New politics of truth

A replacement of institutions and intellectuals will fail to avoid Foucault's hypothesis.
This is because they will be affected by the contagious and dominant mentality of power.
However, to this Foucault advises to start with ‘refuting the conditions that lead to such power
itself. Even the intellectual may argue for his ideology to be the right and try to subjugate others.
A new politics of truth has to utilized which is changing the political, economic, institutional
framework in which truth is found.

5. 3. 4. Repression and Revolution of Power

From the education system to culture and everything in the Western civilisation, a
thematic subjugating of will to power or development of an individual restricted extensively.
However, this fails to be notable because the various categories and system disregards anything
which destabilizes the control of society, religion etc. In other words, freedom of the individuals
to come up with their own understanding of knowledge according to them is disallowed. This
knowledge maybe disregarded on the basis of low level in the hierarchy of importance, local
nature, less popular and so on. Foucault suggests a revolution of these knowledges is essential

32
Millard J. Erickson Truth or Consequences: The Promise and perils of postmodernism Intervarsity Press Illinois
2001,135.
33
Erickson, 147.

8|Page
because they are seen as a threat to the centralizing power of science which the West holds
close.34
Foucault’s recognition that knowledge is deeply constituted of deep seated power
relations can be very helpful in creating a liberation praxis. Liberation praxis, i.e., practicing
one’s beliefs as medium for liberation requires one to see how the powerful operate. And
knowledge is one way by which the society is centralized around the powerful. Thus, cultural
elements in society as well as what is believed to be knowledge is deeply constituted of the
dominant groups perspectives instead of a pure objective knowledge. This opens avenues for
critique from marginalized groups that then can re-constitute the very same knowledge using
their own situatedness. The norm that the center dictates terms for everybody is challenged
heavily providing an opportunity for the margins to be able to participate in a new politics of
truth. Foucault’s method is deeply responsible for changing the form of socio-cultural, economic
discourse in order to abolish the repression of marginalized communities and bring their
experiences to the center of public domain. The communities that are marginalized become
instruments through which knowledge in a particular field can be restructured in such a way that
“knowledge” becomes inclusive of the experiences of these communities and restructures its own
internal hierarchical nature.

Conclusion

We have seen different novel perspectives on education and how it could contribute to the
upliftment of people. In keeping with the postmodern line of thinking, we say this is not a one
size fit all solution – each of these theories can be selectively applied to situations even across
fields. The fact is that there is a need that has to be addressed. We would also do well to
remember that this is not merely an intellectual exercise – our thoughts are useless if they do not
translate into action. We should also remember that postmodernism gives us excellent
perspectives and tools to deal with issues but change is a consequence of action and not mere
ideas floating in the midst of academia.

34
Erickson, 145-146.

9|Page