Why Postmodernism Failed to End History

‘Why did postmodernism threaten to end History, and why did fail?’ This question poses two clear questions, why postmodernism threatened the end of history, and why it failed to do so. While few would counter the assumption that it did fail, it can be argued that it massively changed history, and through answering the questions posed, this can also be addressed.

In 1986 A. Huyssen claimed that postmodernism possessed ‘the unshaken confidence of being at the edge of history’, in regard to its ability to offer explanation and understanding. Since then, historians such as E. Breisach have claimed that the initial ‘crisis’ is over, and the once present threat to the end of history, is ready to be assessed. Postmodernism is a Parisian phenomenon which became an established theory in the middle of the twentieth century. However, it went through a somewhat resurgence during the 1980’s, and became a notorious term to the world of history. Its radically sceptical manner, naturally led to great debate over such things as its meaning, its challenge to history, and even to its existence. Defining it, has been a consistent problem, E. Gellner summarised this confusion, ‘it is not altogether clear, what the devil it is!’. This failure to establish a clear definition has somewhat, understandably, hampered it’s assessment due to the resulting variances in interpretation. What can be established is that it sought to counter modernism, and that the concepts and ideas achieved from this, went on to challenge many academic practises, including history.

To successfully answer the questions posed, a full analysis must be taken of the various ways in which history has been challenged by postmodernism. Both L. Stone...

... middle of paper ...

...up with ...human mastery through science’. From this, as K. Davis states, ‘postmodern culture has lost a sense of historical consciousness, of both cause and effect’.

Having established why postmodernism failed to end history, an assessment as to the resulting impacts through this assault on modernist history can be given. Few historians seem able to argue that postmodernism had no impact on the way in which history is studied. L. Hutcheon has argued that postmodernism has played a role most ‘importantly in revising our sense of what history means and can accomplish’. Other historians agree, observing its ‘impact on language, textuality, and meaning’. This is important because it shows that postmodernism has established a conceptual watershed within history, showing that we, as historians, are more conceptual, even if we don’t agree with its doctrine.