Notes

Chapter 1: Crisis

Lyotard opens by explaining some representational models of society. He finds two primary models: A holistic model (derived from Talcott Parsons) and a dualistic model (often characterized by Marxism).

The totalizing view is the one promoted by science and views society as a self regulating system. Marxism sees to differ by positioning society in a different relationship with power and knowledge. However, the alternative offered by Marxism is still totalizing, and offers the same problems in understanding the social bond.

Lyotard’s aim is to show that classical “grand Narratives” have broken apart and dissolved. The role of the individual becomes prominent, but that has a tendency to lead to a certain isolation. However, Lyotard sees this as not a notion of disconnected islands, so much as nodes in a network.

The approach Lyotard uses is Wittgensteinean language games. Inquiry into the social bond exposes ideas of subject and referent, and issues of communication, which are essential to language. The social problem must not be understood as merely a communication issue, though, as that misses the role of attention in the language games.

Knowledge is a matter of significant interest here, and its role in understanding culture is significant, as knowledge shapes the matters of “how” in a society. Lyotard is interested in using the terminology of narrative to understand how knowledge shapes a culture. There are five reasons for using narrative:
Narrative carries values and positive and negative models.
Narrative is well adapted to language games.
Narrative has clear means of transmission.
Narrative has a certain rhythm and place in time.
Narrative, finally, belongs to no one, cultural narratives are open and cannot be contained by institutions.

The underlying implication to this seems to be that the understanding and transmission of knowledge is inherently dependent on these language games. Truth cannot be told or understood without using a narrative form, so, as a result, science is dependent on a narrative foundation to even establish its most fundamental rules. Mathematically this would probably relate to the acceptance of axioms, or the meta-language understanding of how to reason about axioms.

Turning to how knowledge is legitimized via narrative approaches, or alternatively, the narrative of legitimization: Lyotard finds a political and philosophical approach. The division that is established seems to be in the role of science, whether it is for itself, or for the state, or for humanity. Science is delegitimized when its narrative is somehow vulgar. Science is incapable of legitimizing itself, and so languages of science that die out will lose their legitimacy. Conversely, new languages are created and are added to the old.

The postmodern era is characterized by a splintering of languages, science takes on multitudes of meanings and ideas. The postmodern world is about a legitimization that is not dependent on performativity (that is, it does not need to work for it to be legitimate, and vice versa).