Brooke Bumgarner 9/28 reflecting on 9/25

Jean-Francois Lyotard has been, by far, the most confusing theorist thus far. However, as we discussed his theory in class, I began to feel a bit more confident about what he was bringing to the table and about how I understood it. However, there is still a bit of confusion, as the theory is quite complex.

Essentially, what I understand is that Lyotard seeks to understand the ideas Habermas; sometimes having competing ideas concerning modernism and thus, postmodernism. Habermas has invented this sort of unitized ideal. However, Lyotard points out that “what Habermas requires from the arts and the experiences they provide is, in short, to bridge the gap between cognitive, ethical and political discourses, thus opening the way to a unity of experience” (Lyotard, 39). Lyotard identifies two different possibilities for Habermas’ idea of unity. One that is subject to a totalizing experience, and another that is subject to the ideas of realism. Lyotard notes that the second, must be submitted “to that severe reexamination which postmodernity imposes on the thought of the Enlightenment, on the idea of a unitary end of history and of a subject” (Lyotard, 39). In class we evaluated these two possibilities a little bit deeper. Lyotard assesses the ideas of realism, meanwhile considering the possibility of a totalizing metanarrative and we seek to understand these too.

In class as we spoke about what real is, it dawned on me that perhaps Lyotard had the right mentality. Just as we can’t define what is real, neither could he. At one point he explained that reality was not only destabilized but that the world was in an era of instability. Essentially what Lyotard seeks to convey to us is that reality no longer exists. Cognitively, ethically and politically, the rules are no longer the rules. The problem Lyotard explains is that a split is indeed emerging. While some artists will continue to follow the “rules” in desiring to produce and be apart of what is “real” others, will defy these “rules” that are no longer really rules, but yet be found to not be credible by those who do believe in a totalized unity, or what they term, reality.

Lyotards theory helps us to see that this idea of a totalizing metanarrative is not realistic. The problem being that there are competing narratives. There is a demand for “reality” or for “unity” in theory. However, it is simply not possible. There are a variety of values that butt heads, so to speak, that prevent unity from being the “reality”. When we consider art, the values are assessed on credibility and acceptance, but by what? The kitsch? Or monetary value? This is just one example that yields the downfall of a unitized reality. For one, a work of art may be valued by its aesthetic taste, yet, but another by the profits that it yields. So where Habermas has vouched for a theory of unity, it appears that this is not “truly” possible, because on one hand we cannot define the truth or reality, but also, on the other, there are many competing micro-narratives and not just one totalizing narrative.