Postmodernism 

is a broad movement that developed in the mid- to late 20th century

across philosophy, the arts, architecture, and criticism, marking a departure from modernism. The
term has been more generally applied to describe a historical era said to follow after modernity and
the tendencies of this era.
Postmodernism is generally defined by an attitude of skepticism, irony, or rejection toward what it
describes as the grand narratives and ideologies associated with modernism, often
criticizing Enlightenment rationality and focusing on the role of ideology in maintaining political or
economic power. Postmodern thinkers frequently describe knowledge claims and value
systems as contingent or socially-conditioned, framing them as products of political, historical, or
cultural discourses and hierarchies. Common targets of postmodern criticism
include universalist ideas of objective reality, morality, truth, human
nature, reason, science, language, and social progress. Accordingly, postmodern thought is broadly
characterized by tendencies to self-consciousness, self-referentiality, epistemological and moral
relativism, pluralism, and irreverence.
Postmodern critical approaches gained popularity in the 1980s and 1990s, and have been adopted
in a variety of academic and theoretical disciplines, including cultural studies, philosophy of
science, economics, linguistics, architecture, feminist theory, and literary criticism, as well as art
movements in fields such as literature, contemporary art, and music. Postmodernism is often
associated with schools of thought such as deconstruction, post-structuralism, and institutional
critique, as well as philosophers such as Jean-François Lyotard, Jacques Derrida, and Fredric
Jameson.
Criticisms of postmodernism are intellectually diverse and include arguments that postmodernism
promotes obscurantism, is meaningless, and that it adds nothing to analytical or empirical
knowledge.

Postmodernism is an intellectual stance or mode of discourse[1][2] defined by an attitude

of skepticism toward what it describes as the grand narratives and ideologies of modernism, as well
as opposition to epistemic certainty and the stability of meaning.[3] It questions or criticizes viewpoints
associated with Enlightenment rationality dating back to the 17th century,[4] and is characterized
by irony, eclecticism, and its rejection of the "universal validity" of binary oppositions,
stable identity, hierarchy, and categorization.[5][6] Postmodernism is associated with relativism and a
focus on ideology in the maintenance of economic and political power.[4] Postmodernists are
generally "skeptical of explanations which claim to be valid for all groups, cultures, traditions, or
races," and describe truth as relative. [7] It can be described as a reaction against attempts to explain
reality in an objective manner by claiming that reality is a mental construct. [7] Access to
an unmediated reality or to objectively rational knowledge is rejected on the grounds that all
interpretations are contingent on the perspective from which they are made;[8] as such, claims to
objective fact are dismissed as "naive realism."[4]
Postmodern thinkers frequently describe knowledge claims and value
systems as contingent or socially-conditioned, describing them as products of political, historical, or
cultural discourses and hierarchies.[4] Accordingly, postmodern thought is broadly characterized by
tendencies to self-referentiality, epistemological and moral relativism, pluralism, and irreverence.
[4]
 Postmodernism is often associated with schools of thought such as deconstruction and post-
structuralism.[4] Postmodernism relies on critical theory, which considers the effects of ideology,
society, and history on culture.[9] Postmodernism and critical theory commonly
criticize universalist ideas of objective reality, morality, truth, human nature, reason, language,
and social progress.[4]
Initially, postmodernism was a mode of discourse on literature and literary criticism, commenting on
the nature of literary text, meaning, author and reader, writing, and reading. [10] Postmodernism
developed in the mid- to late-twentieth century across philosophy, the arts, architecture,
and criticism as a departure or rejection of modernism.[11][12][13] Postmodernist approaches have been
adopted in a variety of academic and theoretical disciplines, including political science,
[14]
 organization theory,[15] cultural studies, philosophy of science, economics,
linguistics, architecture, feminist theory, and literary criticism, as well as art movements in fields such
as literature and music. As a critical practice, postmodernism employs concepts such
as hyperreality, simulacrum, trace, and difference, and rejects abstract principles in favor of direct
experience.[7]
Criticisms of postmodernism are intellectually diverse, and include arguments that postmodernism
promotes obscurantism, is meaningless, and adds nothing to analytical or empirical knowledge.[16][17][18]
[19]
 Some philosophers, beginning with the pragmatist philosopher Jürgen Habermas, say that
postmodernism contradicts itself through self-reference, as their critique would be impossible without
the concepts and methods that modern reason provides. [3] Various authors have criticized
postmodernism, or trends under the general postmodern umbrella, as
abandoning Enlightenment rationalism or scientific rigor.[20][21]

Postmodern feminism is a mix of post structuralism, postmodernism, and French feminism.

 The goal of postmodern feminism is to destabilize the patriarchal norms entrenched in society that
[1]

have led to gender inequality.[2] Postmodern feminists seek to accomplish this goal through
rejecting essentialism, philosophy, and universal truths in favor of embracing the differences that
exist amongst women to demonstrate that not all women are the same. [3] These ideologies are
rejected by postmodern feminists because they believe if a universal truth is applied to all woman of
society, it minimizes individual experience, hence they warn women to be aware of ideas displayed
as the norm in society since it may stem from masculine notions of how women should be portrayed.
[4]

Postmodern feminists seek to analyze any notions that have led to gender inequality in society.
Postmodern feminists analyze these notions and attempt to promote equality of gender through
critiquing logocentrism, supporting multiple discourses, deconstructing texts, and seeking to
promote subjectivity. Postmodern feminists are accredited with drawing attention to dichotomies in
society and demonstrating how language influences the difference in treatment of genders.[1][3]
The inclusion of postmodern theory into feminist theory is not readily accepted by all feminists—
some believe postmodern thought undermines the attacks that feminist theory attempts to create,
while other feminists are in favor of the union. [1] For this reason, postmodernism and feminism have
always had an uneasy relationship.[5]

White privilege, or white skin privilege, is the societal privilege that benefits white

people over non-white people in some societies, particularly if they are otherwise under the same
social, political, or economic circumstances. With roots in European colonialism and imperialism,
[1]
 and the Atlantic slave trade, white privilege has developed[2] in circumstances that have broadly
sought to protect white racial privileges, [3] various national citizenships and other rights or special
benefits.[4][5]
In the study of white privilege and its broader field of whiteness studies, both pioneered in the United
States, academic perspectives such as critical race theory use the concept to analyze
how racism and racialized societies affect the lives of white or white-skinned people. [6][7] For example,
American academic Peggy McIntosh described the advantages that whites in Western societies
enjoy and non-whites do not experience, as "an invisible package of unearned assets".[8] White
privilege denotes both obvious and less obvious passive advantages that white people may not
recognize they have, which distinguishes it from overt bias or prejudice. These include cultural
affirmations of one's own worth; presumed greater social status; and freedom to move, buy, work,
play, and speak freely. The effects can be seen in professional, educational, and personal contexts.
The concept of white privilege also implies the right to assume the universality of one's own
experiences, marking others as different or exceptional while perceiving oneself as normal.[9][10]
Some scholars say that the term uses the concept of "whiteness" as a proxy for class or other social
privilege or as a distraction from deeper underlying problems of inequality. [11][12] Others state that it is
not that whiteness is a proxy but that many other social privileges are interconnected with it,
requiring complex and careful analysis to identify how whiteness contributes to privilege.[13] Other
commentators propose alternative definitions of whiteness and exceptions to or limits of white
identity, arguing that the concept of white privilege ignores important differences between
white subpopulations and individuals and suggesting that the notion of whiteness cannot be inclusive
of all white people.[14][13] They note the problem of acknowledging the diversity of people of color and
ethnicity within these groups.[13]
Some commentators have observed that the "academic-sounding concept of white privilege"
sometimes elicits defensiveness and misunderstanding among white people, in part due to how the
concept of white privilege was rapidly brought into the mainstream spotlight through social
media campaigns such as Black Lives Matter.[15] As an academic concept that was only recently
brought into the mainstream, the concept of white privilege is frequently misinterpreted by non-
academics; some academics, having studied white privilege undisturbed for decades, have been
surprised by the seemingly sudden hostility from right-wing critics since approximately 2014.[16]
White privilege is a social phenomenon.[17] Although the definition of "white privilege" has been
somewhat fluid, it is generally agreed to refer to the implicit or systemic advantages that people who
are deemed white have relative to people who are not deemed white; it is the absence of suspicion
and other negative reactions that white people experience.[18]
The term is used in discussions focused on the mostly hidden benefits that white people possess in
a society where racism is prevalent and whiteness is considered normal, rather than on the
detriments to people who are the objects of racism.[19][20] As such, most definitions and discussions of
the concept use as a starting point McIntosh's metaphor of the "invisible backpack" that white people
unconsciously "wear" in a society where racism is prevalent.[21][6][22]

Cultural appropriation  is the adoption of an element or elements of

[1][2]

one culture or identity by members of another culture or identity. This can be controversial when

members of a dominant culture appropriate from disadvantaged minority cultures.[3][1]
According to critics of the practice, cultural appropriation differs from acculturation, assimilation, or
equal cultural exchange in that this appropriation is a form of colonialism. When cultural elements
are copied from a minority culture by members of a dominant culture, and these elements are used
outside of their original cultural context—sometimes even against the expressly stated wishes of
members of the originating culture – this is cultural appropriation.[4][5][6][7][8]
Cultural appropriation is considered harmful by various groups and individuals, [9][10] including
Indigenous people working for cultural preservation,[11][12] those who advocate for collective intellectual
property rights of the originating, minority cultures,[13][14][15][16] and those who have lived or are living
under colonial rule.[1][17][18][16] Cultural appropriation can include exploitation of another culture's
religious and cultural traditions, fashion, symbols, language, and music.[19][20][21]
Those who see this appropriation as exploitative state that cultural elements are lost or distorted
when they are removed from their originating cultural contexts, and that such displays are
disrespectful or even a form of desecration.[4][11][22][23] Cultural elements that may have deep meaning to
the original culture may be reduced to "exotic" fashion or toys by those from the dominant culture.[4][5]
[24]
 Kjerstin Johnson has written that, when this is done, the imitator, "who does not experience that
oppression is able to 'play', temporarily, an 'exotic' other, without experiencing any of the daily
discriminations faced by other cultures".[24] The academic, musician and journalist Greg Tate argues
that appropriation and the "fetishising" of cultures, in fact, alienates those whose culture is being
appropriated.[25]
The concept of cultural appropriation has also been heavily criticized. [26][27][28] Critics note that the
concept is often misunderstood or misapplied by the general public, and that charges of "cultural
appropriation" are at times misapplied to situations such as trying food from a different culture or
learning about different cultures.[29][30] Others state that the act of cultural appropriation as it is usually
defined does not meaningfully constitute social harm, or the term lacks conceptual coherence. [31]
[32]
 Additionally, the term can set arbitrary limits on intellectual freedom, artists' self-expression,
reinforce group divisions, or promote a feeling of enmity or grievance rather than of liberation.
Cultural appropriation can involve the use of ideas, symbols, artifacts, or other aspects of human-
made visual or non-visual culture.[37] As a concept that is controversial in its applications, the
propriety of cultural appropriation has been the subject of much debate. Opponents of cultural
appropriation view many instances as wrongful appropriation when the subject culture is a minority
culture or is subordinated in social, political, economic, or military status to the dominant culture [23]
[24]
 or when there are other issues involved, such as a history of ethnic or racial conflict.[5] Linda Martín
Alcoff writes that this is often seen in cultural outsiders' use of an oppressed culture's symbols or
other cultural elements, such as music, dance, spiritual ceremonies, modes of dress, speech, and
social behaviour when these elements are trivialized and used for fashion, rather than respected
within their original cultural context.[38] Opponents view the issues of colonialism, context, and the
difference between appropriation and mutual exchange as central to analyzing cultural appropriation.
They argue that mutual exchange happens on an "even playing field", whereas appropriation
involves pieces of an oppressed culture being taken out of context by a people who have historically
oppressed those they are taking from, and who lack the cultural context to properly understand,
respect, or utilize these elements.[5][10]
Another view of cultural appropriation is that calling upon it to criticise is "a deeply conservative
project", despite progressive roots, that "first seeks to preserve in formaldehyde the content of an
established culture and second tries [to] prevent others from interacting with that culture".
[39]
 Blogger Noah Smith characterizes cultural appropriation as often benign or mutually beneficial,
citing mutation, product diversity, technological diffusion, and cultural empathy among its benefits. [40]
[self-published source?]
 For example, the film Star Wars used elements from Akira Kurosawa's The Hidden
Fortress, which itself used elements from Shakespeare; culture in the aggregate is arguably better
off for each instance of appropriation. Fusion between cultures has produced such foods
as American Chinese cuisine, modern Japanese sushi, and bánh mì, each of which is sometimes
argued to reflect part of its respective culture's identity.[39]

Left-wing politics supports social equality and egalitarianism, often in critique of social

hierarchy.[1][2][3][4] Left-wing politics typically involves a concern for those in society whom its adherents
perceive as disadvantaged relative to others as well as a belief that there are unjustified inequalities
that need to be reduced or abolished.[1] According to emeritus professor of economics Barry Clark,
left-wing supporters "claim that human development flourishes when individuals engage in
cooperative, mutually respectful relations that can thrive only when excessive differences in status,
power, and wealth are eliminated."[5]
Within the left–right political spectrum, Left and Right were coined during the French Revolution,
referring to the seating arrangement in the French Estates General. Those who sat on the left
generally opposed the Ancien Régime and the Bourbon monarchy and supported the French
Revolution, the creation of a democratic republic and the secularisation of society[6] while those on
the right were supportive of the traditional institutions of the Old Regime. Usage of the
term Left became more prominent after the restoration of the French monarchy in 1815, when it was
applied to the Independents.[7] The word wing was first appended to Left and Right in the late 19th
century, usually with disparaging intent, and left-wing was applied to those who were unorthodox in
their religious or political views.
The term Left was later applied to a number of movements, especially republicanism in France
during the 18th century, followed by socialism,[8] including anarchism, communism, the labour
movement, Marxism, social democracy and syndicalism in the 19th and 20th centuries. [9] Since then,
the term left-wing has been applied to a broad range of movements,[10] including the civil rights
movement, feminist movement, LGBT rights movement, anti-war movement and environmental
movement[11][12] as well as a wide range of political parties.
In politics, the term Left derives from the French Revolution as the political groups opposed to the
royal veto privilege (Montagnard and Jacobin deputies from the Third Estate) generally sat to the left
of the presiding member's chair in parliament while the ones in favour of the royal veto privilege sat
on its right.[16] That habit began in the French Estates General of 1789. Throughout the 19th century,
the main line dividing Left and Right was between supporters of the French republic and those of
the monarchy's privileges.[6][page  needed] The June Days uprising during the Second Republic was an
attempt by the Left to re-assert itself after the 1848 Revolution, but only a small portion of the
population supported this.
In the mid-19th century, nationalism, socialism, democracy and anti-clericalism became key features
of the French Left. After Napoleon III's 1851 coup and the subsequent establishment of the Second
Empire, Marxism began to rival radical republicanism and utopian socialism as a force within left-
wing politics. The influential Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, published
amidst the wave of revolutions of 1848 across Europe, asserted that all of human history is defined
by class struggle. They predicted that a proletarian revolution would eventually
overthrow bourgeois capitalism and create a stateless, moneyless and classless communist society.
It was in this period that the word wing was appended to both Left and Right.[17]
The International Workingmen's Association (1864–1876), sometimes called the First International,
brought together delegates from many different countries, with many different views about how to
reach a classless and stateless society. Following a split between supporters of Marx and Mikhail
Bakunin, anarchists formed the International Workers' Association (IWA–AIT).[18] The Second
International (1888–1916) became divided over the issue of World War I. Those who opposed the
war, among them Vladimir Lenin and Rosa Luxemburg, saw themselves as further to the left.
In the United States, leftists such as social liberals, progressives and trade unionists were influenced
by the works of Thomas Paine, who introduced the concept of asset-based egalitarianism which
theorises that social equality is possible by a redistribution of resources. After the Reconstruction era
in the aftermath of the American Civil War, the phrase "the Left" was used to describe those who
supported trade unions, the civil rights movement and the anti-war movement.[19][20] More
recently, left-wing and right-wing have often been used as synonyms for
the Democratic and Republican parties, or as synonyms for liberalism and conservatism,
respectively.[21][22][23][full citation needed][24]
Since the Right was populist, both in the Western and the Eastern Bloc anything viewed as avant-
garde art was called leftist across Europe, thus the identification of Picasso's Guernica as "leftist" in
Europe[25][page  needed] and the condemnation of the Russian composer Shostakovich's opera (The Lady
Macbeth of Mtsensk District) in Pravda as follows: "Here we have 'leftist' confusion instead of
natural, human music".[26][page  needed]