Postmodernism, Language, and the Strains of Modernism

During the last few years a group of geographers has seen decisive problems in the accepted ways of thinking about the subject matter of geography, the ways of knowing that subject matter, and the ways of communicating the results of geographical inquiry. They have attempted to develop alternatives to these accepted practices. Advocates of these alternatives have characterized the now questionable views as “modernist,” and have claimed to be “postmodern.” In doing so they have appealed to the intellectual authority of several individuals, notably Nietzsche, Rorty, and Wittgenstein. Yet a closer analysis of the works of those authorities suggests the need to rethink the claims of the most vocal of postmodernists. Indeed, an analysis of the works of postmodernists in terms of the critiques—of authority, ontology, history, and language—developed by the very authorities whom they cite suggests that postmodernism is in important respects modernist. This, if we return to the works of postmodern geographer's intellectual predecessors, should come as no surprise; an important emphasis of their work, yet one typically missing in postmodernist's uses of it, is the nature of habit and custom in human life and language.