Terms like modernism and post-modernism are used widely in both academic and popular discourse.To illustrate the tension between modernism and post-modernism, and to emphasise the enormity of the deconstruction and reconstruction process, I have developed a simple analogy.
Let's assume that “being human” is like being “an arrangement of threads of wool”.
Following this broad description, hyper-modernism says there are only grey pullovers, moderate modernism says there are different colours of pullovers and liberal modernism says not only are there different colours, but you can even have other styles of jumpers e.g. cardigans (by way of analogical extension, cardigans are very modernist!).
If modernism is like an old woollen pullover that we have become accustomed to, then post-modernism is akin to something else totally different. Post-modernism says that wool can be used for anything, not just jumpers, and that we should be free to do anything with it.
Once we have established the validity of questioning pullovers, we then embark on a process of deconstruction. Deconstruction is akin to a process (necessary but not sufficient) of unwinding and “de-knitting” the pullover to end up with a pile of useable wool.
Deconstruction is undertaken for a variety of reasons. Perhaps we no longer feel as if we want a woollen pullover. Perhaps a woollen pullover does not seem suitable in our climate. There are a variety of individually valid reasons.
Furthermore, we might deconstruct just to change the colour of the wool, and then re-knit it back to a pullover. We might even re-knit it back to cardigan or some other type of jumper. If we revert back to a jumper of some form, then we have only really deconstructed the form - not the essence of modernism. Many people do this, and for them, this is sufficient. For others, myself included, I question not the form of the pullover, but the essence as well.
If we re-construct it into something altogether different, like togs or pants or a piece of art, then we have not only deconstructed the form (eidolon), but we have changed the essence (eidos) as well. During the process of re-construction, we often get challenged because the idea of a pullover is very deeply entrenched in our psyche. Consequently, the process is a very long one, in which we wrestle, because we have to intricately un-knit the interwoven threads, and the wool has even become quite fixed in its arrangement (form).
It is absolutely amazing how tied up in our pullover thinking everything actually is. Everything is interdependent and it is very difficult to get to the bottom/end of a thread of wool.
In the process many other people will look at what we are doing with dismay because they cannot see any value in abandoning pullovers, or they firmly believe that we all need pullovers or something very close to them. They might even have a category of person called “a non-pullover person”, which is anathema to them – even outright wrong.
However the post-modern or critical response is that to be human is to weave wool, not to wear a jumper. The argument is predicated on the assertion that sheep produce wool, in a natural unwoven unprocessed form, and we humans do something with it – so why should it be only to knit pullovers?