the laws of hum 3s the idea of a the methodologies iment science ENTER POSTMODERNISM is regarded by some thinkers as not merely an aberration or side-effect ing but as inherent in it. Thinkers as diverse as Adorno, Nietzsche, yotard and Baudrillard have criticized the impulses of moderni 8 Fer progress but domination and oppression. The modern worlds seen as having to give sertional account of everything ~ "interrogating everything ization, Reason jen Ser ‘turned out to be selective and unbalanced. ‘The critique of the enlightenment Adomo and Horkheimer (1979) argue that enlighten: jon and oppression. The very impulse to control que of 1 tht remains pertinent, ver, the work of Foucault has been more ural studies. ‘The idea of a pure knowl- an the expediency of a $515). Nietzsche terizes truth as a mobile army of metaphors and metonyms. ‘Only things that can be true or false. Knowledge is not a question of true discovery but # construction of interpretations about the world that are taken to be true. St Nietzsche, the truth is not a collection of facts. There can be only which the world can bef ssequence of powe as truth, Consequently, Nietzsche rejects the enlightenment ph of universal reason and progress.a 's archaeology Foucault’s_early_work deploys. a described as archacology. By this he means the exploration off nate historical conditions under which statements are combi and define a distinct field of knowledge/objects. This domain 9 particular set of concepts that delimit a specific ‘regime of truth), Foucaul attempts to identify the historical conditions andj Foucault (1972, 1973) argues that in the transition from one ithe social world is no longer perceived, described, classified and _Itis marked by historical br agobjects are conceptualized and understood. arked by different epistemes, or configurations of knowledge, practices and social order of particular historical petiods. For toa rupture in the historical understanding of madness. Thus, mode any dialogue with madness and seeks to set up oppositions be sane and the insane. In this view, history is not to be explaine tions across historical periods (though breaks are never comph stood on the basis of that which already exists). Nor should it be the inevitable movernent of history from locatable origins t Foucault's genealogy Archaeology suggests an excavation of the P ’s name for his later approach) takes the form: and institutional conditions of discourse and the op\ up the local sites of di develops and is brought into play under speci through the operations of power. [A]rchaeology’ would be the appropriate method of the 1d ‘genealogy be the tactics whereby) the descriptions of these loca the subjected km nto play. (Foucault, 1980: 88 [Genealogy] must record the singularity of events outside nous finality... it must be recurrence, not the gr -yolution, but to isolate the differe it depends on a vast ace fiscourse regt who ca ying. In that sense, this criticism {goal is not that of making a metaphysics pos- owledge or a \ces of discourse that KEY THINKERS ult (1926-84)THE CHANGING CONTEXT OF CULTURAL STUDIES ENTER POSTMODERNISM. {in your own words what is meant by the phrase ‘incredulity 1e modern and postm metanarratives'. (0 be for’ or ‘against the e 8 of grand narrative might be: ®pistemology Sstmodernism, no universalizing epistemology is possible because all claims are formed within discourse. There are no universal philosophi Indations for human thought or action. All truth is culture-bound.