Development of Tour Uriely 2005

NATAN URIELY 201
cism, anti-empiricism, intertextuality, and relativity (Bauman 1987,
1992; Denzin 1991; Flax 1990; Frazer 1989; Hollinshead 2002; Ryan
2002; Uriely 1997). The tendency to deconstruct modernist-like grand
theories is grasped as part of its skepticism and reaction against the notion
of a grand design of the social system. Thus, unlike grand theories
that conceptualize societies as totalities, postmodern theorizing
emphasizes diversity and richness of life (Denzin 1991; Frazer 1989;
Ryan 2002). The inclination of the latter to stress the role of individuals
to subjectively negotiate the meanings of their practices is related to its
notion of power. In this respect, power is positively perceived as a constitutive
activity rather than negative by (Frazer 1989). The compromising
nature of postmodernist discourse and its tendency to
conceptualize reality in terms of relative truths reflects its logic as nondualistic
and anti-hierarchal (Lather 1991). In this regard, Denzin suggests
that postmodern theories are characterized by a compromising
nature that supports ‘‘both-and’’ rather than ‘‘either-or’’ statements
(1991; 27, 151). Similarly, Bauman (1987) suggests that postmodernist
modes of analysis are less authoritative, less conclusive, and more pluralized
than modernist systems of knowledge. Accordingly, he refers to
postmodernist theorists as interpreters, whereas modernist thinkers are
referred to as legislators.
The attempt made above to clarify the distinction between modernist
and postmodernist theorizing would be incomplete without addressing
the controversy surrounding it in the social sciences. To begin with,
critics of the latter address the inconsistent and, in some cases, contradictory
usage of the term postmodernism (Giddens 1987; Harvey
1989). In this context, the problematic utilization of this term is recognized
even by scholars who promote it. For instance, Bauman suggests
that ‘‘postmodernity means very different things to many different people’’
(1992:vii). Dissidents associate this ambiguity with over-free writing
in which ‘‘anything goes’’ (Antonio 1991; Hollinshead 2002).
Another point of criticism concerns the general idea that modernity
has already been replaced by postmodernity. This proposition is challenged
by Giddens (1990) who perceives both as two different forms
Wang (2000:16) refers to the distinction as an analytical device used
to characterize different phenomena of the same social order, thus prefering
‘‘late modernity’’ over postmodernity.
An objection to the distinction between modernist and postmodernist
theories is provided by Curry (1991) who suggests that this distinction
reflects an attempt of scholars to distinguish their work as
postmodernist, rather than on a fundamental turn from earlier theories.
In this context, he argues that postmodernist thinkers possess similar
limitations to those they associate with the so-called ‘‘modernist
form of knowledge’’. For example, postmodernist thinkers, such as
Lyotard and Rorty, are criticized for both being selective in their works
and for ignoring the intellectual complexity and the depth of earlier
theories (Curry 1991; Ross 1988). Thus, the attack of postmodernist
thinkers against the generalized and universalistic narratives of earlier
theories is directed back against their own work. A related challenge
to the distinction between modernist and postmodernist thought