The Postmodern Condition

The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge is a nonfiction book by Jean-Francois Lyotard. First published in 1979, the book questions the nature of knowledge in a rapidly changing world, and it questions what postmodernity means for science and technology. The book was influential on scientists and philosophers at the time of its publication; however, Lyotard later argued that it’s his worst book. Lyotard was a French literary theorist, writer, and philosopher. He spent his career considering how postmodernity affects the human condition. He once served as a director at the International College of Philosophy in Paris.

Lyotard’s main proposal is that, before postmodernism, knowledge stemmed from lengthy discourse. Scientific debates were philosophical in nature, because scholars carefully considered the body of evidence before them and added to the discussion. This never-ending discussion, known as a metanarrative, allowed for knowledge to change and grow over time. Scientists legitimized each other because they worked from the same metanarrative. Now, knowledge is commercialized and there’s no such thing as a metanarrative.

The Postmodern Condition is divided into 14 chapters. The first chapter, “The Field: Knowledge in Computerized Societies,” considers what it means to commodify knowledge. Information is condensed into bite-sized packets and transmitted through computers. Unless data can be shared in small segments like this, it isn’t valuable anymore. This is known as “knowledge economy.” Businesses profit from sharing repackaged knowledge which cheapens the value of the data in the first place.



Chapter two, “Legitimation,” asks who legitimizes this new transmission of knowledge. Lyotard worries that the government is controlling how much information the general public can access, which makes the pursuit of knowledge once again elitist and exclusive. Lyotard questions who authorizes this process; in other words, he wonders who watches the guardians.

“Language Games,” chapter three, looks at the changing nature of language and communication. Our social interactions, and our knowledge consumption, changes depending on the mode of transmission. For example, we behave differently when we’re reading from when we’re on the telephone.

Chapter four, “The Nature of the Social Bond: The Modern Alternative,, suggests that knowledge, and society, are part of a larger modern social machine. Society and knowledge work together to facilitate progress, but this isn’t an ideal model for real change because it’s elitist. Lyotard continues this idea in “The Nature of the Social Bond: The Postmodern Perspective.”



In chapter six, “The Pragmatics of Narrative Knowledge,” Lyotard draws a distinction between science and knowledge. Science is verifiable. When we conduct an experiment, we can replicate the same result numerous times. Knowledge is different. It is fluid, flexible, and efficient. In other words, a teacher passes knowledge on to their students. The process of knowledge transmission legitimizes the teacher. The students demonstrate this knowledge through standardized testing and pass it on to others.

“The Pragmatics of Scientific Knowledge,” chapter seven, considers scientific knowledge in more depth. Science isn’t necessarily true, but it’s true based on our understanding of natural laws. Chapter eight, “The Narrative Function and the Legitimation of Knowledge,” looks for any similarities between scientific knowledge and modern knowledge transmission. Lyotard finds that they both rely on a narrative to greater and lesser extents.

Chapter nine, “Narratives of the Legitimation of Knowledge,” suggests that in a postmodernist society, the people play a large role in legitimizing knowledge going forward, because they can reject packaged information if they wish. “Delegitimation,” chapter 10, continues Lyotard’s main thesis that the metanarrative is obsolete. Since this is a globalized world, and since no one person can master every language, there’s no choice but to pass knowledge through smaller social channels and legitimize it through social and cultural acceptance. Never again will there be a single body of knowledge, or a metanarrative.



Chapter 11, “Research and Its Legitimation through Performativity,” argues that there’s no longer one scientific standard for proving knowledge. The problem is that, since we’ve industrialized knowledge, only the wealthy know the real answers to everything, and they selectively transmit this information to shape society. Even scientific industries, such as pharmaceuticals, are driven not by the real quest for knowledge but by profit and gain.

Chapter 12, “Education and Its Legitimation through Performativity,” argues that knowledge no longer ends in the schoolyard or university campus. We must constantly learn and adapt if we plan on surviving in an industrialized world. Chapter 13, “Postmodern Science as the Search for Instabilities,” says that there’s nothing stable about today’s educational model. Lyotard continues his argument about adaptation.

The Postmodern Condition ends with chapter 14, “Legitimation by Paralogy.” Here, Lyotard wonders if there’s ever been such a thing as a truly stable, scientific model for knowledge transmission. Our understanding, and our abilities, shift all the time, and our potential for learning grows with every passing decade. Lyotard argues that this is a good thing. If we accept that nothing’s permanent, and that everything we think we know is subject to challenge, we’ll question what society, and the government, tell us.