the end of the tea cup

Postmodernist Identity by Frank Luckham

'The will to equality will hence be the name for virtue. You preachers of equality, your most secret ambition is to be tyrants and shroud yourselves in words of virtue"

(Friedrich Nietzsche)

Postmodernism

Postmodernism is primarily a reaction to intellectual assumptions and established systems of thought; being opposed to the values of Western philosophy and Western institutional narrative structures developed since the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment (modernity) emphasised and progressed independent scientific, rational, moral, reasoned and logic faculties of the individual. This epoch represented a momentous transition from over two millennia of religious conviction and system of dogmatised principles, to the awakening of one's intellectual and rational powers.

Western (Anglo-America) philosophy allied itself with science, reason and objectivity. This rationale and philosophical approach to metaphysics and epistemology had to collapse in order to give rise to postmodernism. In 1912 Bertrand Russell published his book The Problems of Philosophy and in it he surmised the history of western philosophy as the repetition of failure to answer its own questions (Russell 1912). Reason alone is unable to produce a definitive answer to anything, for example, reason cannot prove that God exists and equally, reason cannot prove that God does not exist. Subsequent philosophers concluded that Western philosophy offers no truth or wisdom as it has no content (such as ethics). Rationality was bounded and legitimised in binary opposition.

The Postmodern believes that such an enlightened endeavour; a system of instituted binary rationality - a method of selective preference of opposites, has been cultivated, engineered and advanced in a framework of constructs and metaphors (narratives); rationality, morality, knowledge and understanding, towards institutionalisation for dominion through a totalised (totalitarian perhaps) and objective interpretation of reality. Such metaphor based narratives are believed to legitimise their own truths within these constructs, or as Nietzsche proposes, chains of metaphors hardened into accepted truths. Reality itself is acknowledged as being a construct of metaphors.

Nietzsche declared that truth (knowledge) is nothing more than a "mobile army of metaphors" which after long usage seem to a nation canonic and binding (Novitz 2002). With this statement, Nietzsche, considered one of the primary intellectuals of Postmodernism, is seen to reject foundational reason, morality and knowledge as these collectively hold no truths regarding reality thus leaving an individual abandoned to 'self-establishment'. Zarathustra proclaimed that God was dead, thus leaving the individual without a frame of reference for moral existence, for being human, or, any foundation to which human existence (morality and knowledge) could be founded. How would such a person proceed in the world and acquire morality and knowledge for himself? How will such standards be re-found? (lay the foundations of). This is a perspective that the Postmodern holds when analysing the failures of modernity. If modernity is founded on cemented metaphors and self-legitimised truths and where deconstruction is applied to bring to light and realise alternate truths, it would appear, that the existence of any truth is merely a construct finalised in linguistics (language) and therefore, open to alternate interpretation, much like socially constructed gender. If, however, gender is truly or ultimately socially constructed, if society fails, then perhaps gender identity will fail too. Such fluidity in language has been instilled in gender politics as a 'fluidity in gender.

The Postmodern believes that such constructs of modernity have in fact restricted the capacity of the individual in acquiring knowledge and experiencing reality directly and subjectively and further, denies any narrative truths in rejection of an objective neutral reality. There is an overall belief that these institutions and modalities of thought have been established to suppress and govern society presenting unquestioned truths. The application of modernity; science and technology, reason and logic, are seen by the Postmodern to be inherently destructive and oppressive, as demonstrated in global warfare and tyrannical mechanisms that have dominated and subjugated thousands of individuals to a life of suffering and servitude.

Indeed, reason and logic are universally accepted, valid and are equally demonstrated to each individual in their specific domains, that is, any justification of truth is bound within its reasoned model and conception. The Postmodern rejects these truths as they are seen as institutional constructs and are only valid within such institutions. Further, the individual is historically and socially constituted (Novitz 2002), especially within the custom of prescribed language and discourse to which truth is substantiated and legitimised only by the interplay and interaction of word usage.

The following is an exploration of postmodern society and will briefly outline and present some mechanisms that have produced a Postmodernist train of thought that has influenced an ideology for selective group and social identity, from a theory of perception of form and reality from one man's observations in and around 400 B.C., the development of artificial intelligence pertaining to perception and interpretation in the mid-20th Century and the deconstruction and re-interpretation of narrative structure in classical literature proposed by French neo-Marxist philosophy in 1960's France, and how these mechanisms have seemingly evolved into the social political group identity concerns of this generation.

Identity Precursor

Since Western philosophy appeared to have failed in the conclusion that reality itself, that which is deduced from logic and reason, cannot be determined, cannot be understood and therefore no truths can be acquired, what is there that remains for the individual to adhere to? Without reason and logic, how does an individual navigate and understand reality? What is left is gut instinct or feelings but how do we understand these feelings if left (socially) isolated as individuals. Traditionally, Western philosophy could provide answers to such questions and perhaps guide us as individuals.

However, feelings (cognitive behaviour) are determined genetically (biologically) and environmentally (socially). If such feelings are determined by the environment we interact with, does this mean we are unable to determine as an individual how we feel or think independently of such influences? Perhaps therefore our feelings would be derived from group membership, or, the environmental social group dynamic (a social construct) that we are unavoidably exposed to which vary from environment to environment or from group to group, a group identity. These groups can only survive if their feelings are imposed on other groups in such a way as political correctness as there is no common ground between these groups.

Another theory that has presented itself as a precursor to the rise of group identity and identity politics has been outlined by the author Mary Eberstadt in her book Primal Screams. Eberstadt proposes that the rise of group identity (identity politics) is the result of the sexual revolution and radical feminist ideology that has waged war for universal equality of identity across all genders and cultures causing disassemblage of traditional family and kinship structure. Abortion, fatherlessness, divorce and single parenthood have all attributed to an individual's overriding deep seated sense of 'Who am I?' Consequently, these young adults entering further education, some seeking belonging driven by grievance or a sense of loss, are more susceptible to group ideology in a search for self-identity and self-confirmation.

(The relationship between radical feminism, Jacques Derrida and Postmodernism is outlined towards the end of this essay)

Once such individuals identify with group identification, identity politics is born in definition, 'I am a member of 'X' group and that group determines my political affiliations and it is the most important thing about a person and how they (I) identify' (Eberstadt 2019). Therefore, two major causes of identity can be considered, one from a philosophical stand point and another from socially constructed ideology originating from radical feminism, driven towards universal equality debasing the tradition male to female relations and family structures. The subject of seeking group identity or groups to identify with I believe are also born from the disenchantments of modernity and the employment or use of being in a mode of immense 'ennui' or dissatisfaction.

Camiile Paglia has a similar perspective on the loss of identity as Eberstadt - the culprit, the sexual revolution of the 1960's. The advancement of women's rights in a patriarchal domain she argues, the female must speak up for herself, stand up for herself and maintain her femininity at the cost of nothing. Females should not try to compete with men, to compete in a male dominated discipline in the name of feminism but do so as a choice to be an individual. If a man wolf whistles a female, instead of taking offence, either play with it or tell them to fuck off, that's equality.

The next generation of feminists (second wave) became influenced by French philosophers including Lacan who was playing biological sex against social gender roles and how the sexual biology of an individual does not necessarily dictate that same sexual role within society, the premise for questioning and designating gender identity. Over the past thirty years or so, this pseudo-philosophy has transformed feminism in to a political equality ideological war primarily against white privileged males, the so called patriarchy.

Incidentally, the term 'white male patriarchy' was invented and sloganised by feminist and female author Peggy Mackintosh as a backlash reaction to the revelation that black females feel inferior to white females in the work place. To avoid being seen as white females being the oppressor to black females, Mackintosh applied the same thought framework between white males and white females claiming that all white women feel inferior to white males in the work place. This can be interpreted as bypassing her own oppressive nature, as determined by other black women, applying the same racial rationale towards and targeting white men, an ideology that was never conceived of before in feminism. Is she guilty of cultural appropriation as the Postmodernist would claim?

This convolutedness and radical feminist thinking can be seen as the pre-cursor to identity politics to with 'special' attention given to the proclaimed oppressors of the white male patriarchy.

Postmodern Identity

This near contemporary social and political ideology largely originated in the 1950's and 1960's by French philosophers (some Marxist) such as Jacques Derrida, Jean-Francois Lyotard, and Michel Foucault and French sociologist Jean Baudrillard, all of whom in some respect question historical social institutional narratives of structural order and government. Spreading through the Universities of North America over the last 30 years or so, has resulted in a political and social culture that has become more partitioned, more group orientated, more fragmented in the character and fashion of populism, more identified by group type, characterised by the embodiment of sign and by the compulsion to franchise morality by identifying the unobserved and discounted binary.

As such, Universities especially in America are predominantly participating in a left leaning agenda especially in the humanities, and somewhat in the British universities too. Few faculties are centrists or right leaning. The majority are of the left leaning further towards the extreme left with regards to teaching and supporting postmodern ideology such as group identity.

There is a vested interest by some to achieve group superiority by prescriptive moral superiority, and others, to identify with minority group concerns in an attempt to be seen as having a social political conscience. This can be seen as a throwback to Marxism where philosophical enquires were largely of a socio-historical nature.

The term 'identify with' is bounded around with much abandon. Such usage and consumption of postmodern terminology is perhaps somewhat significant as it indicates that proclaiming group identity is now a social consumer commodity traded in pseudo morality and virtuosity; a self-styled proclamation of character affirmation to be seen as praiseworthy and virtuous to other individuals. Their interpretation of identity privileges these individuals to believe they own and have the right to a particular position of power, more so against other group identifiers. They see their claim to a particular interpretation as more valid above anyone else's. This translates to a collective group dynamic that seeks a dominance of power where group identity stems a collective ideology.

Such types are seen to participate in campaigns, such as a climate change protest march for example, for the duration of the day and almost not for the duration of permanence. Participation equates to a false-consciousness.

There appears to be no precise articulation of what 'identify with' signifies besides; describing oneself as belonging to (a particular category of group). Contemporary use however is representative of or signifies an allegiance to a political group ideology that seeks to upend established hierarchical institutions and democracy. This is in essence populist leftist neo-Marxism.

One such example of a populist leftist group or sign, is the Extinct Rebellion, who in their attempt to bring environmental awareness into social conscience, do so in a manner as to facilitate disruption of capitalist ventures at any cost. Such activists are aligned with the movement of youth climate revolutionary warriors emerging in Europe, coincidently where neo-Marxism and Postmodernism first originated. It is clear that this is largely a power struggle between groups; identifiers verse authoritative regime. In comparison, Greenpeace campaigns for similar environmental concerns but articulate their declarations with more civility and have therefore received worldly acceptance, recognition and respect.

The Postmodern utilises the application of deconstructionism and post-structuralism to form and institute new interpretations of established institutional historical narratives inside classical literature, the sciences and political cultural historical narration. The implementation of such analysis can be a pragmatic and powerful tool in today's social-political climate where evidence suggests that this type of political exercise has been the precursor to current social issues questioning gender identity, gender expression, group identity and political correctness (if there is such a thing). In addition, the applied system of devaluing any reasoned and enlightened thought deemed to be phallocentric (as perceived by the postmodern feminist) is to be attacked.

Such is the case that this ideological system of postmodern thought is currently being propagated in the Universities, especially in America in the form of gender studies, transgender studies, woman studies and feminism and any social or cultural studies in the Humanities. University club associations are now being identified by 'group type' such as the LGBTQ Co-op, Yale Woman's Centre, The Black Women's Coalition, Afro-American Centre, Asian American Centre, Yale Queer and Asian, PRIZM (for LGBTQ people of colour) and more, all at just one University, Yale (not that I am opposed to such groups). The individuality and independent identity of the student is being absorbed into group identity.

Such identifiers and minority group identities are increasingly being favoured by autonomous principled corporations that remain outside government jurisdiction and regulation especially in what constitutes hate speech towards such groups. One recent example was a Twitter exchange between a transgender woman (Yaniv) (a marginalised or minority identifier) and a biological woman (Shepherd) addressing each other's womanhood, resulting in Shepard having her Twitter account closed as her remarks were substantiated as hate speech. In this instance, Twitter could be criticised by supporting oneself declared minority identifier over another identifier in an apparent open free speech platform. Incidentally, Shepherd does not identify as anything as such, just a biological female which to her adversary Yaniv, is another group type - cisgen or cisgender normative.

However, if one can put aside the biological position and locus of both binary (cisgen) women and transgender women, one could conclude that transgender women are in fact women, or, would it be presumptuous to assume that a transgender woman transitions purely to be group orientated as a trans-woman and not as a woman? If so, then the only intention would be for social-political identity motive, putting aside any psychological reasoning. Is it more politically significant or beneficial being identified as a trans-woman rather than a biological woman? Why does society (specifically of the Left) politically insist on an identity gender specific distinction? Why divide the female (or male) identity into further subsets? The most probable answer is purely political in that each subset (group identity) wants more power, wants more rights than the other under the false pretence of being the more marginalised. This new gender identity politic plays almost like a neo-Marxist class struggle or a group identity power struggle and is exactly what the Postmodern wants to advance.

One could argue that any political party, such as those that fall left of centre - the Labour Party in the UK or the Democratic Party in the United States for example, where in supporting the divisions of society, those that identify as minority or marginalised groups, do so only in the interest of their own political ideology, for elective purposes (power). Even the UK's two major political parties are less united than they were in the past. Political parties, mostly of the left, endeavour to undertake a sincere attempt to help the oppressed, to help the marginalised, to help the gender subgroup, to help the ethical classes in essence for their own political gain and in doing so, furnishes pseudo-power to such groups.

Returning to the dispute on Twitter, in this instance (and other cases) Twitter decided what constituted hate speech. This highlights a practice which Twitter applies on a case by case basis and as such, reinforces the profound difficulty in defining a definitive set of terminology which constitutes such speech. Twitters actions have positioned Shepherd in the same category as extreme right wing protagonists. Facebook appears to have a similar approach. Perhaps such internet based platforms are the product of postmodernism where conventional narrative foundations of social discourse is being regulated by a false equivalency. This is just one example of how an interpretation of postmodern ideology regarding gender expression and gender identity can have a seemingly biased effect upon those not participating in postmodern ideology.

Twitter and Facebook were originally initiated as free speech platforms which require a certain amount of civility to encourage a positively experienced social atmosphere and interaction. Perhaps such platforms embolden individuals to participate in such fashion which is usually set aside or inhibited by social conventions, or, societal narrative structures, an aspect of western democracy that the Postmodern wants to disrupt.

I believe that such minority group individuals are identifying themselves as the marginalised, which is something entirely different from a minority. Minority groups are those that are under-represented in an endeavour. Marginalised groups are those that feel they do not have a voice, those on the edge of society feeling that they are being oppressed. The apparent struggle now is for group status, voice and social political power. They already possess the rights and sovereignty of the individual, of self-ownership but feel the need to replace this with authority of the group. By doing this, their individual will to power (as proposed by Nietzsche) is somewhat curtailed by a collective mandate. Any discourse contrary to a groups ideology is now seen as either offensive or as hate speech, or both. It is very difficult to have a reasoned debate with such ideologists as they interpret almost any subject or discourse as an attack by the patriarchal Enlightenment system of thought. They have only one point of reference and one point of view, and ironically, only comprehend any issue in a binary fashion.

This postmodern ideology is now quietly emerging in the British graduate educational system through literature, philosophy, art, associated societies and social events, where on some grounds, any freewill of expressive thought or verbal utterance is now regulated by policy, in an attempt not to offend any group type. One recent example of where this type of policy has been implemented, is at University fancy dress festivities where detailed dress guidelines are circulated by the student union. Such guidelines enforce restrictions upon students to refrain from dressing in any such manner which may offend another individual, or, threaten others rights to a safe space, in a vain attempt to appease potential student minorities who, in the advent of social populist media have been visually informed and influenced by a montage of signs (Baudrillard) and signifiers reinforcing the belief that they are rightly and legitimately empowered to challenge and debase current institutional social structures.

French sociologist and philosopher Jean Baudrillard believed that reality was now represented by the representational sign, or, a representation of a representation. He terms this the hyperreal or hyperreality; closely related to the concept of the simulacrum: a copy or image without reference to an original and hence, deferred meaning. What passes for reality is a network of signs without an external referent. With this, one can assert that individuals acquire knowledge in the consumption of these signs, seen as reality but are in fact a substitute for reality.

Such signs no longer have any true representational meaning except that of which they represent. These signs also trade on selective binary preferences, one point of view or one aspect of reality having preference above another. One could consider this a visual interpretation of Derrida's binary opposition analysis and Lyotard's metanarratives as identified by Tim Woods in his book Beginning Postmodernism. In this instance, he suggests that the advertisements and visual signs imagined by the song New York, New York by Frank Sinatra alongside images of the glamorous, the glitzy and the wealthy of New York over shadow (or preference) the poverty stricken, the homelessness population and any related drug endemic. This example typically identifies group identity and class division by wealth distribution, the two opposites.

There is a popular contemporary working framework of such sign influence and usage where the value of binary preferences of sign are implemented and used to an end, Instagram. Here too, select montages of images (signs) are identified by group.

The value and power of these inducing signs are prescribed by the totalisation of likes based on desirable content. One could conclude that the amount of attention a sign content type receives, can point to personal hierarchal structures that lead to further social division and group identity. For example, individuals identifying with images of vegetarian foods indicate a responsible healthy lifestyle, or, individuals identifying with 'environmental' products (signs) such as Finisterre indicate a moralistic identity with ocean and environmental concerns (albeit at a premium price). On the other hand, individuals identifying with images of barbecued steak and ribs indicate a lack of respect for the environment, farmed animals and one's health. In the first two examples individuals (or groups) are perceived as, or want to be perceived of as, standing the moral high ground and declaring more social (political) authority (in my opinion). Can we identify and separate reality from non-reality when knowledge is semi-autonomously obtained from the application of utilised imagery? The power of sign is quite evident.

As a consequence of Baudrillard's sign hypothesis, individual's appropriate knowledge visually by way of a consumption of sign, instead of acquiring knowledge by reason and subjective experience. These signs are selected in relation to an individual's own personal hierarchal social structure. This binary sign preference, the selective practice of oppositions, creates an individual who can be sort and recognised by a group identity or group status, perhaps even class.

Regarding postmodern ideology and the British graduate educational system, fancy dressoutfits that have been prohibited are costumes representative of a cowboy, an Indian, a nun, a priest, any religious figure such as Jesus or The Prophet Muhammad, any ethnic or cultural stereo type, any marginalised group, any racial stereotypes, any tyrannical entrepreneurs such as Hitler, Pol Pot (born Saloth Sar) or the Nazis, any influential black person with black face paint, Native Americans and Mexicans. The list is potentially endless.

According to a BBC report published online on 11th October 2018, the Student Union of Kent University states that other than what is prohibited, acceptable costume choices include cartoon characters, letters of the alphabet, cave people and aliens (BBC 2018). Certain cartoon characters can be offensive. Unbeknown to the student union, if they were fundamentally against stereotyping by way of fashion (a visual form of hate speech), eagerly concerned with protecting those that may be visually offended and by consequence reinforce group identity and division, they perhaps should also have prohibited costumes depicting Walt Disney's Mickey Mouse and Goofy. One only has to look at the historical development of these two characters that reveals in essence a form of cultural appropriation and a transparent approach to ethnic stereotyping.

I believe that the application of near dogmatic and comprehensive guidelines (quasi- tyrannical perhaps) by the student unions towards dress codes only reinforces the socio-political power group identity can have on institutions (albeit at a low level in this example) and, how this practice can influence a student's social outlook in that, they become accustomed to group identifying for the sake of, or, lack of individual accomplishment, lack of effect and/or presence they have in their social being, or as Lyotard offers, 'from a mode of immense ennui' (Lyotard 1997).

The personalities of these cartoon creatures were prescribed from, illustrated as and appropriative of the character of the black negro slave purely for entertainment value and perhaps ridicule, which is even more evident relating to the character of Goofy who is depicted as an old negro farm hand. What is also quite revealing when a comparison is made between the two early 1930's original cartoon images, is a definite display of tendencies towards racial stereotyping and segregation; coloured folk (black and brown) are depicted as farm animals, whereas white folk are depicted as white people. If you are wanting to be seen as a postmodernist moralistic group identifier, you may need to do your own homework.

What is evident in this case is a clear example of an individual/s (group identifier) attempting to establish the moral high ground by just naively knowing something from prescriptive definitions of a group identity, and not developing a reasoned personal independent informative researched judgement for themselves.

In the near distant past, Universities were places where discourse on any issue, subject or discipline, political or otherwise could be openly expressed, challenged, disagreed upon and debated rationally, and in doing so, the probability of offending someone was possible and likely, in as much as differing perspectives and viewpoints would ultimately clash. In today's Universities such as Yale, students advocate, and faculty permits the establishment of groups of identifiers to debate such potentially offensive matters within their own set of ideals.

Other campuses invite specific external social political consortiums and individuals to enter discourse on social identity concerns, but at the same time, ban or un-invite others who possess contrasting but reasoned philosophical views including comedians, such as the American political pundit and comedian Bill Maher who was banned from speaking at UC Berkeley and labelled a bigot and, outspoken provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos who was banned from a second appearance at DePaul University in 2016, as a consequence of his conservative viewpoints.

In Milo's case, who claims to be a British Jewish born turned Catholic homosexual who only has sex with coloured men, one would assume that he would probably have first-hand experience of what it is like to be marginalised and ridiculed. He admits he provokes for discussion. Some of the students at DePaul University made it clear that they were unable to articulate any debate which opposed their ideology by either walking out of the debate or just bellowing repetitive utterances, at one point threatening Milo with physical violence. Students labelled him and his political views as being extreme right wing, although a more accurate assessment of his views are in fact of the conservative right.

Clearly, such a University supports group identity ideology over free speech and debate in fear of hurt feelings. These students are potentially the next generation of the American economic society.

In this respect, how are students to acquire the cognitive ability for reason and rationale when they are encouraged to identity as a group and uptake a group ideology mentality? There are no actual objections of the formation of political groups in Universities as such groups can create debate, but perhaps caution needs to be applied where such group identities (tribes) become more polarised and ideological.

The act of offending such identifiers raises two interesting questions, which have been raised by Jorden Peterson. Firstly, who determines what speech (wordage) is classed as offensive? And secondly, at what point does something become offensive or classed as hate speech? In other words, what is the prerequisite number of people that are believed to be or claim to be offended before something is deemed to indeed be offensive, or classed as hate speech - 1 in 10? 1 in 100? 1 in 1000? 1 in 10,000? (Peterson 2019). Quite a dilemma. This perspective translates to universities guidelines on fancy dress - who decides what will be offensive, and, if just one student is offended, does that mean the university has failed in its attempt to shield such vulnerable individuals from offence? Which raises another question, what are the social and personal circumstances that have resulted in an individual feeling so offended, insecure and/or vulnerable to such fashion stereotyping?

Another system of group identity which has recently but silently emerged is the Social Credit Programme, currently being implemented by the National Socialist Government of China. This system records every individual's social interactions and economic transactions which are analysed to produce a Social Credit Score of between 1 and 800. Depending on this score, individuals are then grouped into one of three categories; Trustworthy, Average or Untrustworthy. Each level of trust permits or restricts an individual's ability to access certain corporate and commercial privileges such as renting a car with or without a rental deposit, booking a flight online or even access to the internet. Possibly not a true Postmodern ideology but demonstrative of neo-Marxist undertones, a form of National Socialist class system (reminiscent of Nazi Germany) which allows or denies certain privileges for the individual.

Perception, Interpretation & Deconstruction.

A good starting point for any philosophical discussion is from the birth place of democracy and philosophy, ancient Greece. Interpretation by such great thinkers was reasoned as intellectual thought and/or apprehension. Apprehension of form, the philosophy of thought that Plato toiled with, presumed a belief that form is eternal and absolute which is embodied in the physical realm by way of three interpretations such as a mimesis, a representation or a copy.

Taking the form of a table as an example, the first perspective is the original eternal form as created by a creator, such as a God, a Maker, a supreme intelligence or nature. It goes without saying that such a creator did not create an actual table, but rather refers to the origination and idea of absolute inherent form, that being the foundational emptiness background from which all forms are attained.

The concept of foundational emptiness is a philosophical insight outlined by a Zen Buddhist monk, Hagakure, who quotes; emptiness is form, form is emptiness. Although Plato suggests that he believes in absolute eternal form (the illusionary that the nature of form is complete in and of itself), form is however, dependent on a multitude of factors, it's dependency is constituent. Hence form is emptiness, empty of inherent existence. Modern science demonstrates this.

The second perspective is a form that is created or crafted by a maker, such as a carpenter. This can be described by Plato as creating a copy of a form of the concept of absolute form itself. The third perspective is the representation of the form as created by a painter or artist for example. Plato theorises that this third perspective represents a copy of a copy of the form. Such representation by an artist also raises a further question about interpretation; is this representation an imitation of objects as they are, or as they appear, of appearance or of reality? hinting that representation can hold different perspectives.

Plato's theory therefore accounts for three different perspectives of one form or object. Further analysis of this theory would conclude that there would be further perceptions of form perceived from an individual's subjective experience, and interpretation.

However, establishing exactly its existence would present a problem as it's apprehension and absoluteness would only be determined by neutralising any multitude of perspectives, in order to see the real. In any case, Plato's philosophy does imply that perception is multimodal being dependant on the contextual information supplied by multiple sensory modalities and the observational sensory experience of the viewer to that which is viewed. This perspective was expressed in the Cubist art movement by Pablo Picasso and George Braque, both simultaneously presenting the world in a multiplicity of views, namely Cubism.

Incidentally, the success of Picassos primitive art phase, the pre-cursor to Cubism, the painting Les Demoiselles d'Avignon (1907) for example has now been criticised and reinterpreted by postmodern ideological thought as benefitting and profiting from the exploits of neo-colonialism and stealing or appropriating sacred African artefacts, cultural appropriation. Picasso's Demoiselles displays how soulless and fractured the world is becoming.

This gives us an indication of what the Postmodern is vying to do, to identify the oppressor as a distinct group identity and to identify the oppressed as a distinct group identity (group verses group), in an attempt to identify the political power struggle, to seek retro justice and to debunk any legitimised historical narrative. This is all founded in French philosophical neo-Marxist ideology which will be explained further on in the essay.

Returning to Plato. Plato's philosophical rationale leads us to conclude that perception of form and reality is multifaceted and that our sensibility, the accumulation of sense data which enables us to make sense of the world, prevents us from grasping an objects 'eternal unaltered' form. Socrates also commented on perception in art stating that 'art is like a mirror which reflects what we already see' (akin to Plato's third perspective in representation). However, Hamlet suggests a further remarkable feature of reflection saying 'art is like a mirror but does not reflect what we already know. It shows us what we could otherwise not see such as our form or face'. Does his observation allude to a fourth perspective, that of an alternate or hidden perception of reality that our senses cannot otherwise see or one that is restricted by our sensibility? Either way, it does suggest that perception is multi-varied.

The very nature of our senses (modalities) acts as a filter of raw sensory data. This data is filtered into 'content type' to which concepts are formulated for our understanding. Equally, due to filtering, absolute form is technically and physically impossible to grasp by way of sensory perception. We are therefore unable to perceive the world as it truly exists, in its absoluteness. In this sense, rational thinking has failed as it cannot answer or grasp true reality Sensory perception is theory laden, theories dictate what we see. Immanuel Kant theorised that our perceptual intuitions do not conform to objects, rather our intuitions from what our faculty of knowledge supplies from itself.

Our awareness of form could also be contemplated as an idea based in knowledge and perception. John Locke suggested in 1690 that "the source of our ideas, the ideas from which knowledge is constructed is from our senses". Therefore, a true perception of form and reality cannot be grasped as it is deduced from sensory experience which is subjective and individual. This leads us to the conclusion that we come to the realisation that there is an infinite number of ways interpreting reality. And, there is no certainty that form and objects of reality appear a certain way to us and another way outside of us. Philosophical discourse suggests there to be no true direct absolute interpretation of any entity outside of our senses. This realisation leads to the belief that 'what we do know, is that we do not know anything.'

The theory of the multi-interpretative dimension of objects and their multifaceted nature became evident in the development of artificial intelligence (A.I.). Developers realised that 'mapping' a world in which an artificial intelligent entity could navigate and operate successfully, such as a driverless vehicle for example, presented a unique challenge with the realisation that perceiving just one object needed to be mapped from an infinite number of viewpoints.

Mapping refers to the collection and amalgamation of external data models linked to each other using a defined set of methods establishing definition in a neural network. An equivalent psychological comparison is 'cognitive mapping'; a reorientation of one's experience to interact with objects within space and time. The complexity of interpretation of just one object was self-evident. One would assume that an appropriate approach to this problem or possibly the most logical approach would be to map an object as a 3D model (a structural visual description) perceived from every conceivable angle, but this would involve thousands upon thousands of images.

Jacques Derrida's 'deconstruction' method of analysis has a similar problematic application of interpretations similar to what the A.I. developers encountered. (I have used quotation marks, 'deconstruction', as Derrida himself refused to acknowledge his work as a system of analysis that could be classified as such).

Derrida would analyse the content of a sentence (let us call this linguistic form or structure) looking at each single word or combination of words within that structure and the relationship of meaning between them, then, reinterpret those relationships at all levels within the same structure. In a similar vein, A.I. developers would have to interpret a structure and identify each constituent of that structure in order to perceive the object (structure) correctly, otherwise the automatous vehicle for example, would fail - a kind of reversal of Derrida's application as a different interpretation could be concluded by examining all the constituents incorrectly.

Using a table as the object of interpretation for example, the artificial intelligence mapping programme would need to correctly interpret the form as a table from a multitude of perspectives such as proximities, elevations, dimensions, styles, colour differentiations, liquid displacements, light and shade differences and all the attributes that constitute these perspectives. The realisation of this type of perspective mapping and interpretation was possibly initially realised by Plato in Book X, in a conservation between Socrates and Glaucon, "That you may look at a bed from different points of view, obliquely or directly or from any other point of view, and the bed will appear different" (Jowett 1892).

Fortunately, as conscious beings we have evolved to map and interpret objects with relative ease regardless of view point where conventional designations (language) are assigned to these objects. As a consequence of this new found multi-variant perspective, it is believed that the world and everything in it, more so reality itself, can be interpreted in a multitude of ways which is embedded within language, culturally.

An individual's conception of form now exists within a cultural language, a conventional structured linguistic way of seeing. Such conventional narratives operate as a type of interpretation that prevents us from interpreting objects freely without constraints. Our interpretations become fixed by an institutional authoritarian system governed and cemented in a structured language of signs. All in all, a sign of institutional control perhaps.

Conceptual structures shape our perceptions. Such structures are conventionally and socially agreed upon in language. Language is conventional and not objective. How we use language and words shapes our perceptions. Different structured conventions can then be introduced from differing perception and interpretations.

The Postmodern (at times the neo-Marxist lets us say) theorists would indeed consider this as an institutional doctrine based on an ideological linguistic narrative developed in order to govern the less privileged, the less educated and the less represented culturally and ethically. The identification of these groups acts as a prelude to today's identity politics, where conflict is certain as different groups adopt different values according to their separate social and linguistic backgrounds. This may all seem a stretch of the imagination, but language can be implemented politically as a very powerful oppressive tool in any culture; the National Socialist German Workers party for example.

French Postmodern Protagonists

The French philosopher Jacques Derrida, a former Marxist and a significant proponent of Postmodernism (derived from post-structuralism and deconstructionism), and with perhaps an element of neo-Marxism, focused his alternative political ideology towards the deconstruction of historical and classical literature; 'the systematic unravelling of 'imposed' structures' (Graham 2000), where truth was legitimised. Some would argue that it was Derrida's cause to dismantle all Western institutional structures. Perhaps his cause was to question the legitimised truths of such structures within these institutions.

Marxist reading is themed by the recognition of a class struggle and dialectics as a duality operating within society (Lyotard 1997). Derrida was invited to Yale University many times in the 1970's and 1980's where his ideology influenced students and the next generation of college lecturers, including American literary critics Hillis Miller and Paul de Man who were both educated at Harvard University. Deconstruction is the term known as the systematic unveiling of imposed structures (including metanarratives as premised by Jean-Francois Lyotrad) in literature and other disciplines which leads to a certain freedom of indefinite readings.

Derrida utilised deconstructionism to dismantle loyalty to any existing ideas or narratives in order to ascertain the truths in its opposite. The legitimisation of truth, knowledge and meaning was implanted through a system of preference, privileging one idea or notion over another, a hierarchical ranking of preference, such as speech over writing, logic over passion, words over pictorial images. Such privileging obscured the merits and validity of the lesser binary. One such example is concerned with Derrida's perspective of the three monotheistic faiths which he feels are all founded on something monstrous, specifically the story of Abraham from which these faiths relate to; the absence of women. Faiths are predominantly presented in a singular fashion, a father and son affair.

Such analysis revealed that perhaps a symbiotic coexistence and exploration of the hidden binary was necessary in order to achieve a balanced account of the narratives of knowledge and reality. Here lies an insight into what has become the ideology of the Postmodern; questioning the legitimacy of institutional structure and the forming of group identity (as seen as the neglected counterparts of historical narrative). Perhaps the extreme Left have miss-interpreted Derrida's philosophy as a battle of power between the binary.

Jean-Francois Lyotrad questioned the discourse of legitimisation of the grand narrative or metanarrative. For example, if a historical or philosophical metanarrative is implemented to legitimise knowledge of a particular science, then questions are raised with regards to the institution that governs that narrative (as a social construct). Customary rationality and science objectivity, which otherwise legitimise innate Western knowledge at least acquired since the Enlightenment (modernity), are no longer valid, as cultural differences are omitted.

Michel Foucault expresses a similar philosophy. Exposing the mechanisms of such social constructs, that is, knowledge derived from specific social practices that legitimise truth - ones that typically, with powerful subtlety, can impose intolerant attitudes, ultimately reveal the marginalised underprivileged sectors of the population. Such sectors of the population can be categorised by group type such as working class and upper class, whites and coloured, male and female and so on. Foucault was emphasising liberation from past social practices. Such insight preludes todays gender divisions.

He further insists that historical chronology is inherently modern belonging to religious texts. Modernity is bound in this two millennia year old tradition, in metaphors, a type of folk story telling passed from generation to generation. In order to consider and contemplate the new, re-rationalise thinking and acquire direct knowledge for oneself, deportation from this tradition is necessary.

Derrida's philosophy is very similar to Lyotard's. His viewpoint is that in any structure whether in social studies, science or literature needs re-thinking from a new perspective to leave demonstrativeness to interpretation. Derrida's work identified similar cultural and group omissions in literature.

Derrida's analysis of literature coincided with the findings by artificial intelligence developers that the nature of reality was multi-faceted and any perceptual phenomena could be interpreted in a multitude of ways. If such phenomena represent reality and reality represents true perception or indeed the truth of things, then what we perceive to be true can also be re-examined. The notion and understanding of the multi-interpretative nature of reality (in classical literature) was ceased upon by Derrida where the opportunity to forward a new Marxist ideology and political agenda was administered.

Derrida discovered that the structure of text in literature and the interplay of words and contexts could be interpreted in a multitude of different ways, thereby devaluing and debunking the institutional narratives of dominant cultures or train of historical thought.

The postmodern comes to the conclusion that classical literary texts which are conventionally interpreted objectively are to be rejected and are to be recast from the perspective of one's ideology or core group dynamic beliefs. For example, professor Stephen Hicks provides an interesting example of postmodern thought with the Herman Melville novel Moby Dick. Here, Melville appears to explore universal themes such as personal ambition, the social dynamic and the coexistence of man and nature. However, when recast from a postmodern ideological perspective, Captain Ahab represents is the explorative authority of capitalism and the drive of technology to conquer nature.

Of course, interpretation of texts is not an original phenomenon, at least since the Enlightenment. One clear example of this is in religious literature such as the Christian Bible (the Islamic Koran too but to a far more lesser degree possibly as a result of its inherent strict orthodoxy). Such analysis has resulted in a type of religious splintering or 'God ownership' from which various churches, factions, orders, ministry's and brotherhoods, including the self-proclaimed evangelistic spiritual healers in the deep southern states of the America, have emerged claiming their interpretation is the right one and that their God is the one true supreme being. Even religion relapses in to group identity. This is not a postmodern phenomenon but equally a struggle within an authoritarian institutional group, perhaps not even that, maybe a struggle for emancipation from a unidirectional system of belief.

Derrida realised that all three major religions; Judaism, Christianity and Islam, all claimed to speak the truth and in doing so, resulted in division, disagreement and resentful detachment from each other in the pursuit of the absolute. Derrida propositioned that the legitimacy of truth in religious scripture, and in any classical literature, was reinforced and strengthened by tribal ancestral folk law in the pretext of storytelling, passed down through many generations giving preference to a specific binary, for example, good over evil or morality over immorality. This ritual practice would strengthen any bias, legitimising and validating a dogmatic and specific perspective regardless of any factual truth.

Perhaps Leo Tolstoy can sum this up in one sentence. In his book What Is Art? he writes, 'It is not that men do not know God, but they have set up, instead of God, that which is not God". In other words, the multiple interpretations of paragraphs, books and proverbs, some by the more literate, some by the more outspoken, some by the more educated, some by the more seeking celestial authority, some called upon by God directly, have spawned so many different subtexts, nuances, meanings and degrees of tolerance, that inevitably such dominant religious texts have been deconstructed and reinterpreted so often that seeking true understanding is confounding. Individuals place in God what they themselves find appropriate for their cause. Faith and doubt remain constant though. As far as I can tell, at least these groups are not hostilities. Perhaps this is just a type of celestial postmodernism.

Returning to Derrida's programme of neo-Marxism, this ideological deconstruction of literature was thus implemented to disrupt and obliterate any existing absolutes and binary oppositions. Since Communist Marxism had failed in Eastern Europe and the political ideal of a classless society was no longer desirable, Derrida felt compelled to pursue a new Marxist struggle through Western classical philosophy and literature in the form of identifying a power struggle between the oppressed and oppressor, group verses group. No longer was there one absolute canonical interpretation of literature. Neither was there no right or wrong way to interpret anything. Any narrative that was part of an overarching institution was up for deep analysis and literature was the first tool to be utilised.

As previously mentioned, in Derrida's literature analysis, any narrative in literature could now be reinterpreted from an alternative social, ethnical and political perspective, seeking something other than what is portrayed. Every word, sentence, paragraph and chapter can now be deconstructed and new meaning can be found depending on one's political viewpoint. For example, 'Derrida' is the name of a man, a Jewish Algerian-French philosopher, born in 1930 (Royal 2003). This seemingly innocuous linguistic structure is consequently analysed in Derridean fashion where each word usage is questioned. For example, the word 'name' is analysed as follows; ''what is a name? what relation does it have to it's bearer? Is one's name one's own? Is a proper name ever truly proper?'' (Royal 2003), and so on.

Derrida's Postmodern seeks out to identify and further develops this ideology in the guise of identity politics. His aim is to undermine independent thinking of the individual in the reading of classical and scientific literature, in fact any literature. The reader can therefore interpret any text by embracing his own experiences and transforming understanding.

Identity politics can be described as an ideological game where the player seeks moral superiority by identifying an established dominant institution or hierarchy, establishing that there is an uneven distribution of success for example between employees and management, identifying the lesser accomplished as the oppressed, identifying those that are better off as the oppressor, sympathise with the oppressed, and socially vent their resentment over and over again until social justice is met. The repetition of declaring the marginalised as a specific group identity appears to be all that is heard. One could interpret this as a sign without depth in that most of the protagonists may not have acquired or rationalised an in-depth reasoned knowledge pertaining to their cause, as most are just simply told things or instructed to know without counter arguments.

The structure of literature is socially and historically determined by convention which can limit interpretation. Our interactions are conventionally ordained by way of designations and conventions, all of which are formulated through linguistics. Linguistic structure is constructed from social interactions forming and establishing social constructs of language, and within language truths and a non-truth are articulated. Lyotard emphasises that Postmodern knowledge is represented as a game of language; whose participation concerns the creation of new social linkages, the collapse of the metanarrative.

Any establishment of factual truths or their opposites are constructed by the relational interplay (game of language) of signifiers as defined by words, and signified as defined as the objects the word refers to and can be reinterpreted and re-contextualised; truths and non-truths exist only in the language that describes it, with meaning inseparable linked to writing and reading practices (Woods 1999). The Postmodern ideology would aim to capture post-linguistic interpretations for liberation from an institutional grasp of linguistic domination.

An example of how words and linguistic structure have the capacity for multiple interpretation is demonstrated by Magritte's painting 'Ceci n'est pas une pipe' (This is not a pipe). Michel Foucault notes that the word Ceci (this) could in fact refer to the image of the pipe, the actual entire sentence 'Ceci n'est pas une pipe' or to the entire painting as a whole (Wicks 2002). Foucault further concludes that the image is quite ambiguous and resists any exclusive interpretation.

A further example of such multiple interpretation is given by Lyotard, described as a language game, in proposing that each category of utterance (in the context of speech) can be termed as rules of a game through the words relationships with other words and, how they can be used and convey meaning. The analogy being a game of chess, where each piece has is designated move (meaning), but can otherwise exhibit different moves (meanings) when played in a game (conversation). Such interaction asserts its own rules of play in that particular game (conversation), by context. "Give money to the university", for example, is prescriptive could be modulated (played) as orders, commands, instructions, recommendations, request, prayers, pleas and so on" (Lyotard 1997).

Such linguistic dominations can define the function and utility of objects conventionally, which can further constrain and restrict our free interpretation. We see a forms functionality primarily based on learnt conventional practices which can accordingly dictate our interaction operating as a strict form of conventional action. Conventionality, like language, is socially constructed and therefore conventions can also be characterised as holdings of truths and falsehoods, more so through conventional grand metanarratives which legitimise themselves through repetition.

Such culturally sustained meta-conventions can be seen as being devised, developed and maintained in order to control and oppress the individual's ability to think and acquire knowledge through personal experience.

On a domestic level, this passage of enquiry becomes more prominent in society as the individual becomes disillusioned with an overwhelming feeling of an unfulfilled self and looks at the political and capitalist modernistic climate as the source for their dying and increasingly undefined identity. Pre-postmodernity and technology have seemingly created a belief that individuality is no longer represented or heard. There developed a system of 'a utility of the individual' as an economic tool, devoid of personality, or as Heidegger suggests, "things ready-to-hand". Heidegger encapsulates this in writing, "Hence, the mountain is not a mountain but a standing supply of coal, and, humans are not humans but reserves of manpower" (Aylesworth 2015). The Postmodern sees this account of today's forgotten being as a critique of modernity being the result of a political institutional western patriarchy white privilege canonised way of thought and progression. This can be seen as a failure of modernity.

The consequences of such failure of modernity was envisaged by the German philosopher Jurgen Habermas, a critique of postmodernist ideology, who wrote, "If modernity has failed, it is in allowing the totality of life to be splintered into independent specialities which are left to the narrow competence of experts, while the concrete individual experiences desublimated meaning and deconstructed form, in a mode of immense ennui" (Lyotard 1997). In my view, these independent specialities that Habermas alludes to is the reorientation of the individual in to group identities.

I also believe that Foucault expresses Habermas's sentiments in suggesting that this desumblimation (or state of being) results from the failure of a progressive modernity where any alterations of assumptions and practices, that tend to govern and construct one's life, are questioned, the individual suffers disillusionment, a personal death, a feeling they lie at the edge of nothingness. It could be considered that this metaphysical experience, a personal death, a feeling of nothingness, drives an individual to reinvent themselves by orientating towards a more meaningful collective, that of group identity. The practice of modernity can be considered an institutional narrative.

Deconstructing canonised institutional narratives brought to light a varied alternative relationship between signs and signified (words and their meanings) formulating other interpretations and meaning, breaking down the structure of the 'oppressive' narrative. Derrida insisted that words no longer hold finite meanings, instead they reflected a duality of sign and meaning, therefore any text could be deconstructed and re-read. The interplay between signs and signified is therefore reasoned to be primarily constructed to forward ideologies and collective institutional controls. Derrida's deconstruction theory claimed that all texts were ambiguous; where a text has more than one meaning.

Existing institutional conventions can therefore be seen as falsehood, as conventions and designations force us to act in a conventional limited way, an untruthful way, a constrained way. Linguistic conventions embody metanarratives (long established canonicals). To the Postmodern, metanarratives can be deconstructed and reinterpreted and therefore can be seen as either correct (truthful) or incorrect (untruthful), depending on a political and cultural perspectives.

Narratives in literature are read and written as complete formulated structured ideas beset with institutional influences. Religious texts, scientific rationale, classical literature and historical accounts, can all be deconstructed into smaller and smaller narratives, classed as micro events, interpreted in different ways, giving new politically biased meanings for group identity for example. As it historically stands, such grand narratives are seen to be institutionalised with specific interpretations, which can thereby be perceived as institutional canons specifically formulated for oppression of society, classes and individuals. After all, institutions were a product of the learned, the knowledgeable and the elitists. The continuation of these institutional canons is seen by the postmodernist as a form of oppressive power.

Therefore, all institutional truths (sciences, rationality, history, knowledge) are looked upon with scepticism and can be deemed fit for further decomposition or deconstruction, as these truths can be reinterpreted where new truths or falsehoods can be found according to an individual's interpretation. The doctrines achieved by the Enlightenment could be overturned as they are now perceived as untruths and institutional lies which were founded and constructed in order to protect political interests and suppress alternative investigative acts that may destabilise existing foundational knowledge in disciplines such as the sciences. No overarching canon, or narratives are definitive.

If there are numerous ways of interpreting texts, their meanings and their narratives, it was concluded that there can be numerous ways to interpret the world and objecthood as all things are constructed and bound within language (speech). The Postmodern believes that language and speech are formed socially. Since we learn linguistically and form knowledge in this way, then our thinking is considered to be constructed socially, dependant of cultural differences. This thinking can equally be applied to gender identity.

Therefore, the world and reality can now be viewed as a social construct too as our reality is constructed by the language we use, the language signs. If language and sign can be deconstructed and new meaning found, then logically there is no right or wrong way to interpret reality. However, any new interpretation needs to be played out in order for interaction, for understanding and to function successfully, consequently discovering truth directly. New constraints will be determined by played out scenarios, those that work & those that do not. An example of how Nature deals with all variants of multi-interpretation, which have been played out over thousands and thousands of years is by way of eliminated, death. Therefore, not all interpretations are workable.

The End of the Tea Cup

What would a person interpret a tea cup to be besides a receptacle from which tea is drunk? Due to linguistic conventions, we know it's purpose and utility. A reinterpretation of its use could reveal other utilities such as a scoop, a decorative, a design or a measure, all of which are quite obvious and do not require much use of thought or imagination. Looking beyond utility, and for those inclined to do so, one could perceive and interpret the tea cup as a symbol, a sign or historical narrative.

An overall general interpretation of a narrative of a tea cup could be described as follows;

The tea cup was designed to accommodate a hot pleasurable beverage at a regular temperature. A certain aesthetic quality is recognised in relation to the form which distinguishes it from other vessels. This particular beverage was made more eloquent and sophisticated with the rise of the tea house in the Victorian era, in which members of the public, in particular the bourgeoisie, would engage in the delights of afternoon tea where particular codes of dress and etiquette were required. It took many years for Victorian enterprise to establish colonial enterprises in India for the cultivation of tea for export to Britain.

Britain's Victorians tea connoisseurs were so obsessed with the colour of green tea, it had to be more green than it naturally was. So labourers in the tea farms of China dyed the tea with gypsum and Prussian Blue, a pigment used in paint which contains cyanide, potentially poisoning British subjects.

Cultivation of a tasteful and productive tea plant was engineered through cross pollinations of tea plants obtained from China. Attempts were made to bring back tea plants to England but these perished on the long voyages. Victorian ingenuity was at the forefront of technical engineering and resulted in the designing of faster ships called Clippers, hence the branding "Clipper Tea".

(paraphrased extracts from the diary of Robert Fortune; For All the Tea in China)

This generalised narrative seems quite acceptable and reveals the positive side of a Victorian endeavour. It is also quite opaque. Deconstructing this grand narrative into micronarratives and reinterpreting these micro events reveals something perhaps less palatable but yet more employable for the Postmodern. Deconstruction of this particular narrative is not as analytical or technical as the method employed by Derrida. It is perhaps simplistic in its approach and quite overt to alternative interpretations but nevertheless, it will give an easily readable account and example of alternative meanings that can be identified which might otherwise by overlooked.

The micronarratives in this instance reveals the group identity of and elements of neo-colonialism, class, white tyrannical patriarchal institution, Western corporate advancement, Empire expansion, ethical failings, capitalist economic power, illegal trade, oppression and illicit trafficking, not to mention the impact on ethnic Chinese and Indian culture, all for the acquirement of tea. And this is just one example of multivariate interpretation of one object, a simple tea cup.

Deconstructing metanarratives (universal theories) into micronarratives identifies differences pertaining to cultural and ethical contexts, and the intention is to reveal and identify any social, ethical, minority, marginalised or political unrepresented endeavours in the context of oppressor verses the oppressed, and in doing so, present a series of accounts that more accurately depict historical chronological narratives, in a hope to obtain a more accurate view of smaller and more compelling micro events which in themselves are more representational of the culture as a whole and are of greater importance in the chronology of history. A deeper probing into the specificity of narratives is carried out to reveal the mechanisms that produce them. Metanarratives are systems of thought and practices that structure, give direction and meaning to our lives but the Postmodern believes this is a form of unyielding institutional control and oppression of culture, society and identity, a practice implemented by Jean-Francois Lyotard.

And Further Thoughts

The mechanisms mentioned have made an attempt to demonstrate a postmodern (neo-Marxist) ideology that is committed to pursuing a discourse of destabilising and deconstructing the institutional authoritarian and logocentric grand narratives (metanarratives) of Western institutions, into more definitive micronarratives which reflect a more accurate sequence of micro events that better represent historical lineage. The micronarrative takes into account and reveals further social, ethical, cultural and racial impacts that may have otherwise been omitted, which therefore reinforce the belief that metanarratives are institutionally biased.

From the philosophy of Plato's concept of absolute form to Derrida's assault on and deconstruction of literature, the Postmodern ideology is derived from the multivariate interpretations of form, language and linguistic structure, which are believed to have been engineered and fostered by an enlightened white patriarchy institution of oppression and control, complicity bound to particular politics and interests of the West for dominance over other cultures, racial classes and the binary gender. This is how the Postmodern interprets the existing society today.

The End of the Tea Cup, is a representation of the underlying question concerning perception and interpretation of form, historical narrative, the use of sign and linguistic convention and the genesis of division. The tea cup is also used metaphorically as an institutional sign of the structure and outwardly manifestation of absolute form, in and of itself in whatever guise, form structure or textual structure, which can be perceived and interpreted in a multitude of ways, which is quite evident especially in the field of literature where the postmodern ideals are founded, primarily by Jacques Derrida. Derrida's philosophy of deconstruction in grammatology looks to disrupt and undermine an independent thinking of the reader allowing for alternative interpretations locating truth in detailed observational analysis. If interpretation is multivariate, what is the right way to interpret and who decides what is correct and incorrect?

The Postmodern has entered into the field of Left Wing politics too. This is evident in the current social trend of gender identity, cultural appropriation and identity politics, which have been much influenced by Derrida's applications, especially the disruption of the dominant binary, for example valuing male above female. Such discourse has permeated through to the universities where young impressionistic minds are being convinced that group identity is more important than the individual, with all its short comings; which group is the more powerful?

Seeking group identity (oppressed verses oppressor) has become prevalent in the history of art. Students are encouraged, in some respects, to critique in a bias towards identifying the oppressed class, culture, ethnicity and gender by division, amongst others. For example, looking at Vasari's Canonical History of Art, critiquing in this way reveals in essence that art from the 1600's onwards, was seen as and could only be accessed by the affluent privileged white patriarchal Western European male, and based on the individual's biography, deemed them to be recorded and acknowledged as the greatest artists of our time. This type of critiquing as a model of deconstruction (of historical narrative) reveals four distinct groups, the dominant white male patriarchy and the affluent class (2), and the unvoiced oppressed female and lower / working class (2). Of course there is the additional notion that great artists only existed in Western European society therefore two further cultural groups are revealed. Derrida's and Lyotard's influence is quite obvious. Similar observations can be made when looking at gender and cultural appropriation in art.

Stephen Hicks, Professor of Philosophy at Rockford College U.S.A. eloquently articulates this influence upon education as follows;

"In education, postmodernism rejects the notion that the purpose of education is primarily to train a child's cognitive capacity for reason in order to produce an adult capable of functioning independently in the world. That view of education is replaced with the view that education is to take an essentially indeterminate being and give it a social identity.

Our current social context, however, as seen by the Postmodern, is 'characterised' by oppression that benefits whites, males, and the rich at the expense of everyone else. That oppression in turn leads to an educational system that reflects only or primarily the interests of those in positions of power. Therefore, educational practice must be 'recast' totally." (Hicks 2014)

This recasting of educational practice would involve a complete dismissal and deconstruction of historical and classical literature and focus more on the smaller historical narratives of the marginalised, disadvantaged, the lower classes and the achievements of women, which all have been purportedly excluded from conventional history. Students are now encouraged to just know things and not reason or think for themselves.

In some transgender studies the basics of 'biological sex determinism' is taught to be unfounded and therefore not accepted. The term biological sex has been, yet again, identified as a specific group; cisgen or cisgender normative - a category for individuals whose gender identity matches their sex. The argument here is that there are many biological factors and similarities that define a person's biological sex and these can vary between individuals. For example, a single male may possess more masculine attributes than say an effeminate male, on appearance and physicality, much the same as a female may possess more feminine attributes than a masculine female, and there are those in between such polarisations. It is these factorial differences that transgender studies debate to the conclusion that there is no definitive generic biological binary male or female sex and, such binary genders are socially constructed.

The identification of these factorial differences constitute further division of biological sex to such an extent, that the only limitations of gender pronouns would be determined by the multitude of biological differences. With this in mind, the use of nouns and pronouns would eventually become more divisive and more convoluted - why not just utilise a combination of letters and numbers and reduce the individual to an identity number. It is quite ironic that in the pursuit of group identity, there is an assumption that the multitude of such identities will become so diverse that the individual will re-emerge.

Such groups prefer not to enter discourse on any issue that contravenes their ideology, as they believe that the very act of entering discourse with another group is how an otherwise patriarchal society instils dominance over them. That is their game play. It is also quite likely that the general proponents and activists of these en-mass social issues are unaware of the Marxist origins and potential consequences of their ideologies.

One such political consequence occurred in 2016 with Bill C-16, which was later passed on 17th June 2017 by the Parliament of Canada. Bill C-16 is an Act of Amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act which compels individuals, by law, to address other individuals by their preferred chosen gender-neutral (group identity) pronouns, such as 'they' or 'those' by penalty of legal punishment. This includes ridiculing any other gender expression in the form of dress or fashion for example, as such comments would be deemed hate speech. Brenda Cossman, Law Professor at the University of Toronto asked Jared Brown of Brown Litigation, "Would Bill C-16 cover a situation where an individual repeatedly, consistently refuses to use a person's chosen pronoun?", Brown replied, "It might" (Dragicevic 2018). It's not clear how far the legal punishment would go.

Jorden Peterson, Professor of Psychology at the University of Toronto, criticised the Bill as an attack on free speech as the Government was now regulating common language and speech by law, dictating what the individual HAD to say, as opposed to what an individual could NOT say. The Bill was primarily focused towards corporations, educational establishments and public institutions where employers would now be responsible for what their employees said even if they did not know what they were saying in as much as private conservations between colleagues. Leftist groups criticised Peterson of being transphobic, of course they would as they saw themselves as being marginalised and oppressed once again by a patriarchal privileged white male (group verses group). They totally misunderstood Paterson's critique of the Bill C-16. He was opposing forced speech, not opposing gender pronouns themselves. The essence of Derrida's neo-Marxist Postmodern ideology of the 'group identity' power struggle is evident.

And finally, a brief look at the Postmodern and its influence on Feminism. Long gone is the 1960's feminist revolution of female acceptance and equality, the No Bra Day of 1969 in America, wearing mini-skirts and burning bras as a sign of emancipation from forced socially constructed femininity and a rejection of the traditional views of feminism. The will of the female was articulated in protest and action.

What also serviced this emancipation was the invention of the tampon and the oral contraceptive pill, ironically formulated and created by men, which liberated women from the constraints of their female reproduction system. How can something so virtuous arise from a male oppressive tyrannical patriarchy? Of course, todays new wave feminists would maintain that a man, and only a man, could have developed such a product or application as the discipline of the sciences was only accessible by and dominated by the white male patriarchy.

Some feminist academics such as Elizabeth Grosze and Judith Butler have considered and analysed certain aspects postmodernist ideology, being especially critical of the binary oppositional legitimisation of thought and the ability to challenge gender identities, which is a discourse engaged in by French exponents of poststructuralism, Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari. Deleuze and Guattari, both independent thinkers, developed their approach towards a postmodernist view that modernist social structures prevent an individual the freedom of sexual expression and that such structures reinforce a fixed female identity (Woods 1999). Helene Cixous believes that a singular narrative of the female is an example of phallogocentrism, the exercise of male power.

This postmodernist thought emphasised that binary identities are socially constructed which has influenced postmodern feminism in the form of liberation from the perception of the female informed by phallocentric constructs, which in itself is a critique of Enlightenment validity, rationale and theory of knowledge based upon dualism, selective binary preferences in a gender bias and towards the masculinisation of reason, as recognised by postmodern feminist professor Susan Hekman. French-Canadian feminist author Nicole Brossard also uses Derrida's deconstruction techniques looking at issues of the perceived patriarchy. I would argue that the game of, and, the root cause of gender identity / gender equality / gender politics, has been much influenced by postmodern feminism in the guise of feminine equality or as such a feminist would say, 'equality for all', which isn't limited to just social equality, which no one would argue with, however, postmodern feminist ideology (third / fourth wave feminism) wants justice (equality) for all representations of the female in video games, films, cartoons, music and other domains.

It becomes quite apparent and quite uncomfortable viewing and listening when, for example, a feminist female actor claims to represent all females in an award ceremony speech or, when a feminist film critic critiques films of the past. A recent example of this was when a feminist critic reviewed Quentin Tarantino's film Jackie Brown on BBC Radio 4 (BBC accommodating diversity) voicing her reservations that the character Pam Grier portrays has little dialogue for much of the film suggesting that this was a deliberate act by Tarantino to marginalise women, in this case women of colour. This was quite obviously incorrect. The character that Grier plays is one of a confident mature black woman, very self-understood, very self-assured, and uncompromising, very secure with her womanhood, visually quite a strong character and as such, does not need to say much at all. Her character was just as equally valued and portrayed as the other male protagonists, in my opinion. Actions (or non-action) speaks louder than words. This just goes to show how postmodern feminist ideology becomes incompetent.

Anyway, it could be debated that the ideologies of postmodern feminists are derived from and have been influenced by the Postmodern theories of Derrida (questioning binary thinking), Lyotard and neo-Western Marxism, especially regarding the ideological constraints imposed on the female by the privileged male patriarchy, and the inability to outwardly question essentialist gender identity.

Derrida's philosophy has authenticated the feminist ideal by suggesting, "In trying to become dominant over the male, a woman still subjects herself to placement within the masculine power struggle. A woman is outside of this structure all-together, and in this position, she is at an advantage. She is neither subject to it, nor is she powerless."(Chaplin 2016). There is apparently no place for a woman in a phallocentric structure, and this is an aspect of phallocentric modernity that Cixous encourages women to write themselves out of.

A definition of postmodern feminism would read something like; the goal of the movement is to destabilise the tyrannical Western patriarchal norms entrenched and constructed by society that have led to gender inequality. Influences include post-structuralism which was Derrida's forte and French Feminism which has probably been influenced by the male French neo-Marxist philosophers.

Nonetheless, if these new wave feminists do ground their doctrines in the postmodern of Derrida and Lyotard for example, they are in fact allying themselves with a patriarchal phallocentric system of male dominated thought and rationale with which they are opposed to. Most postmodern theorists are gender specific males including, Michel Foucault - theorist of questioning the genealogical of linear history, Jean Baudrillard - theorist of hyperreality and depth lessness of postmodern culture and Jean-Francois Lyotard - theorist of meta & micro narratives and has been quoted in saying, "It is meaningless to speak in the name of or against reason, truth, or knowledge."

The struggle for group identity and power, and how divisive this can be, is further demonstrated in feminist groups which contain an unequal racial mix of straight and gay women, which pronounce an additional marginalised group identity within this group. One such example are black lesbians (lesbians of colour) who feel under represented. They believe that white matriarchal lesbians, who are representative of the majority in the group, are forwarding a white feminist agenda (Murray 2019), disallowing an otherwise marginalised voice. Again, it is evident that group identity is divisive and perhaps not so inclusive.

*****

The Postmodern activists of the Left push strategy that goes against the coalition of reason and power, not to seek truth but for social change and group identity irrespective of outcome.

References

Aylesworth, G. (2015) Postmodernism. The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. Stanford University

BBC (2018) Women's Hour Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-45826809 [Accessed 21st July 2019)

Chaplin, M. (2016) Derrida and Feminism. Available at: https://postmodlit.wordpress.com/2016/06/18/derrida-and-feminism [Accessed 6th August 2019)

Dragicevic, N. (2018) Bill C-16 Canada Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) Available at: https://www.cbc.ca/cbcdocspov/features/canadas-gender-identity-rights-bill-c-16-explained [Accessed 21st July 2019)

Hicks, S. (2014) Explaining Postmodernism. China. Ockham's Razor publishing

Jowett, B. (1892) Book X 3rd ed London. Oxford University Press

Lyotard, J (1997) The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge; (translated by G.Bennington & B.Massumi) Manchester University Press. Manchester

Murray, J. (2019) Modern Feminism:The Resurgance of Feminist Activism. Womans Hours BBC Radio 4. Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b02yl2fr. [Accessed 27th July 2019)

Nietzsche, F. (1974) Thus Spoke Zarathustra (translation by Hollingdale, R.J.) London. Penguin Classics.

Novitz, D (2002) Postmodernism. The Routledge Companion to Aesthetics 2nd edited New York. Routledge

Rose, S. (2010) For All The Tea In China:Espionage, empire and the secret formula for the world's favourite drink. Croydon. CPI Bookmarque Publishing

Royle N. (2003) Jacques Derrida. Routledge Critical Thinkers. London. Routledge

Sclafani, R.J. (1997) Aesthetics: A Critical Anthology. London. St. Martins Press

Sim, S. (2000) Derrida and the End of History. Reading. Cox & Wyman

Wicks, R. (2002) Foucault. The Routledge Companion to Aesthetics 2nd edited New York. Routledge

Woods, T. (1999) Beginning Postmodernism. Manchester & New York. Manchester University Press.