{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.029684601113172542, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0027829313543599257, 'mean_word_length': 5.130681818181818, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
No Time like the Present? Postmodernism and Political Theory

Postmodernism is one of those words that has a tendency to reduce sensible people to a mad scramble for the nearest and deadliest instrument of destruction that they can find. Partly, of course, this is the result of trying to find something that links a wildly heterogeneous set of practices and assumptions together. Many people have become increasingly unhappy with this.1 Richard Rorty, for example, has ‘given up on the attempt to find something common to Michael Graves's buildings, Pynchon's and Rushdie's novels, Ashberry's poems, various sorts of popular music, and the writings of Heidegger and Derrida’.2 Others, however (for example Jameson3), while admitting the problems, still believe it is a useful concept. That there are family resemblences between much work called ‘postmodern’ I would not want to deny. However, I am not concerned to offer an exhaustive categorization of all forms of postmodernism here. Rather, I shall simply offer an interpretation and critique of postmodern political theory.