THE ORIGINS OF POSTMODERNISM

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

INTRODUCTION

Giddens (1999:1) quotes a concern expressed almost a thousand years ago: “‘The world is in a rush, and is getting closer to its end’ – thus spoke one Archbishop Wulfstan, in a sermon given in York, in the year 1014. It is easy to imagine the same sentiments being expressed today.” Giddens muses whether the hopes and anxieties of each period merely repeat and mimic those of previous eras. He answers his own question by saying that the world in which we live is different, seeing that we are living in and through a period of major historical transition (Giddens, 1999:1).
According to Craig (1998:587), ‘postmodernism’ can be regarded as a historical term that succeeds modernity. The definition of postmodernity will therefore differ depending on what is meant by ‘modern’. He points out that in the wider sense of ‘modernity’, the term ‘postmodernism’ takes on its full meaning and signals a revisionary change in the system of values and practices that were generally classified in European life (Craig, 1998:587). Rodrigues and Garratt (2004:173) suggest that modernism has not ‘ended’ so much as become imbedded in the ongoing programme of modernity, which is in itself a project without an end.
Buschman and Brosio (2006:408) express a similar opinion when they explain that they regard postmodernist thinking as an extension of modernist thinking, rather than ‘post’ as ‘after’ or something entirely new. Beyer, Du Preez and Eskell-Blokland (2007:38) refer to an emergence beyond modernism, both in contrast to and inclusive of modernism. “It arose in the twentieth century after the two world wars and the long Cold War, amidst a climate of disillusionment with the restrictions of the scientific claims of positivistic social scientists” (Beyer et al., 2007:38). These authors state that postmodernism is regarded as a way of thinking and accepts not only facts, but also personal experiences and interpretations as real knowledge (Beyer et al., 2007:38). The modern world is in a permanent ‘fast forward’ state.
The idea of modernity, of living in the ‘modern age’, began in Europe during the late sixteenth century. Modernity implied a contrast with other ‘ages’ that were not modern. Europeans saw history as divided into three epochs: ancient, medieval and modern. “The Greeks and Romans did not know they were ‘ancient’. Medieval knights did not realise they were in the ‘middle’ of history. But we, like our sixteenth-century ancestors, ‘know’ we are modern” (Smith, 1999:6, 7). Three powerful forces that are characteristic of the modern age can be identified: the modern national state, modern science and capitalism. However, at the heart of modernity is a struggle for ‘betterment’: being better, doing better, getting better. This struggle leads to competition between individuals, families, cities, empires, governments and companies (Smith, 1999:7). The question then arises whether postmodernism is the next epoch.
Puttergill (2007) claims that the distinction between modernism and postmodernism is vague. He believes that postmodernism could perhaps be described as a moment within modernism, as some of the characteristics of postmodernism could already be discerned in modernism. Smith (1999:9) emphasises that talk about postmodernity does not mean that modernity has ended. He argues that the idea of postmodernity is used by intellectuals who are trying to cope with the impact of four changes in the ‘big picture’ of modernity during the last three decades.
“These four changes – the shrinking of the national state, the spiralling of risk, the globalisation of capital and the collapse of European imperialism – add up to a large-scale restructuring of the architecture of modernity” (Smith, 1999:10). Smith includes the last three decades in his argument. With regard to the origins of postmodernism, Truitt and Iachkina (2005:50) suggest that its roots go back at least forty years. These time frames are essentially similar. Linares (2001:403) presents a different view in that he argues that the stage at which postmodernism took over from modernism is uncertain and that the process proved to be laborious in that it went on throughout the twentieth century. The abovementioned authors discuss a move or shift from modernism to postmodernism. Beyer et al. (2007:38) regard this shift as a paradigm shift. They regard a paradigm as “a system by which one understands the world” (Beyer et al., 2007:38).

Table of Contents :

• CHAPTER
  • 1.1 INTRODUCTION
  • 1.2 PROBLEM FORMULATION
  • 1.3 GOAL AND OBJECTIVES OF THE RESEARCH STUDY
    • 1.3.1 Goal of the study
    • 1.3.2 Objectives of the study
  • 1.4 RESEARCH QUESTION
  • 1.5 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
  • 1.6 ETHICAL ASPECTS
    • 1.6.1 Informed consent
    • 1.6.2 Avoidance of harm
    • 1.6.3 Debriefing
    • 1.6.4 Deception of respondents
    • 1.6.5 Violation of privacy/anonymity/confidentiality
    • 1.6.6 Actions and competence of researcher
    • 1.6.7 Release or publication of the findings
  • 1.7 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
  • 1.8 DEFINITION OF KEY CONCEPTS
    • 1.8.1 Impact
    • 1.8.2 Postmodernism
    • 1.8.3 Social functioning
    • 1.8.4 Young adult
  • 1.9 CONTENTS OF THE RESEARCH REPORT
  • 1.10 SUMMARY
• CHAPTER
  • 2.1 INTRODUCTION
  • 2.2 SYSTEMS THEORY
    • 2.2.1 Boundaries
    • 2.2.2 Wholeness
    • 2.2.3 Relationship
    • 2.2.4 Homeostasis
    • 2.2.5 Stability and change
  • 2.3 THE ECOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE
    • 2.3.1 History of the ecological perspective
    • 2.3.2 Defining ecology within an ecological perspective
    • 2.3.3 Relevant ecological concepts
    • 2.3.4 Levels of interaction within an ecological perspective
  • 2.4 SOCIAL FUNCTIONING
    • 2.4.1 Roles
    • 2.4.2 Interaction
  • 2.5 CONCLUSION
• CHAPTER
  • 3.1 INTRODUCTION
  • 3.2 THE ORIGINS OF POSTMODERNISM
  • 3.3 CONCEPTUALISATION OF ‘POSTMODERNISM’
    • 3.3.1 The concept ‘modernism’
    • 2 The concepts ‘postmodernism’ versus ‘modernism’
  • 3.4 THE NATURE OF POSTMODERNISM
  • 3.4.1 The postmodern individual
    • 3.4.2 Postmodernism and language
    • 3.4.3 Virtual Society
    • 3.4.4 Consumer society
    • 3.4.5 A postmodern lifestyle/habitat
    • 3.4.6 Globalisation
    • 3.4.7 Morality within a postmodern society
    • 3.4.8 Relationships within a postmodern society
    • 3.4.9 Roles within a postmodern society
  • 3.5 BEYOND POSTMODERNISM
  • 3.6 CONCLUSION
• CHAPTER
  • 4.1 INTRODUCTION
  • 4.2 THE LIFE-SPAN
    • 4.2.1 Conceptualising the life-span
    • 4.2.2 Periods of the life-span
  • 4.3 YOUNG ADULTHOOD
    • 4.3.1 Physical development
    • 4.3.2 Sexual development
    • 4.3.3 Cognitive development
    • 4.3.4 Emotional and social development
    • 4.3.5 Moral development
    • 4.3.6 Work and career
    • 4.3.7 Young adult lifestyle
  • 4.4 CONCLUSION
• CHAPTER
  • 5.1 INTRODUCTION
  • 5.2 GOAL AND OBJECTIVES OF THE RESEARCH STUDY
    • 5.2.1 Goal of the study
    • 5.2.2 Objectives of the study
  • 5.3 RESEARCH QUESTION
  • 5.4 RESEARCH APPROACH
  • 5.5 TYPE OF RESEARCH
  • 5.6 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
    • 5.6.1 Research design
    • 5.6.2 Research population, sample and sampling method
    • 5.6.3 Data collection
    • 5.6.4 Data analysis
  • 5.7 FEASIBILITY OF THE STUDY
  • 5.8 CONCLUSION
• CHAPTER
  • 6.1 INTRODUCTION
  • 6.2 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
    • 6.2.1 Research design
    • 6.2.2 Qualitative data collection
    • 6.2.3 Qualitative data analysis
    • 6.2.4 Trustworthiness
  • 6.3 PROFILE OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS
  • 6.3.1 Age of participants
  • 6.3.2 Gender of participants
  • 6.3.3 Race of participants
  • 6.3.4 Language of participants
  • 6.3.5 Highest level of education of participants
  • 6.4 RESEARCH FINDINGS
  • 6.4.1 Theme 1: Participants’ views on and the relevance of authority and traditional structures in their lives
  • 6.4.2 Theme 2: Participants’ views on communication as a crucial aspect of their lives
  • 6.4.3 Theme 3: Participants’ views on the significance of materialism in their lives
  • 6.4.4 Theme 4: Participants’ views regarding their own lifestyles
  • 6.4.5 Theme 5: Participants’ views on and the significance of their own values and norms
  • 6.4.6 Theme 6: Participants’ views on their different roles and their interaction within these roles
  • 6.4.7 Theme 7: Participants’ views on the here and now versus long-term planning
  • 6.4.8 Theme 8: Participants’ views on the tendencies of our time
  • 6.5 DISCUSSION
  • 6.6 CONCLUSION
• CHAPTER
  • 7.1 INTRODUCTION
  • 7.2 QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
  • 7.2.1 Research design
  • 7.2.2 Quantitative data collection
  • 7.3 DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS
    • 7.3.1 Age of respondents
    • 7.3.2 Gender of respondents
    • 7.3.3 Race of respondents
    • 7.3.4 Home language of respondents
    • 7.3.5 Highest level of education of respondents
    • 7.3.6 Respondents’ field of study
    • 7.3.7 Place of residence of respondents
    • 7.3.8 Area where respondents spent childhood
  • 7.4 RESEARCH FINDINGS
  • 7.4.1 Description of exploratory factor analysis
  • 7.4.2 Process of EFA
  • 7.4.3 Analysis of eight factors
  • 7.5 DISCUSSION
  • 7.5.1 Religion and formal structures
    • 7.5.2 Image and consumerism
    • 7.5.3 Impact of electronic communication
    • 7.5.4 Roles and relationships
    • 7.5.5 Healthy lifestyle
    • 7.5.6 Personal future
    • 7.5.7 Social movements and diversity
    • 7.5.8 Cyberspace and communication
  • 7.6 CONCLUSION
• CHAPTER
  • 8.1 INTRODUCTION
  • 8.2 RESEARCH GOAL AND OBJECTIVES
  • 8.3 RESEARCH CONCLUSIONS
  • 8.3.1 Research conclusions based on literature review
  • 8.3.2 Research conclusions based on empirical findings
  • 8.4 RECOMMENDATIONS
    • 8.4.1 Recommendations for practice application
    • 8.4.2 Recommendations for future research
  • 8.5 ACCOMPLISHMENT OF THE GOAL AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
  • 8.6 CONCLUDING REMARKS
  • LIST OF REFERENCES

GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT