Jadeediyat Aur Ma-baad-e-jadeediyat

Recently, a seminar on the subject of Postmodernism was held under the auspices of the Urdu Academy, Delhi. Urdu critics, poets, and fiction writers from every corner of India actively participated in this national seminar. In addition to identifying the characteristics of Postmodernism, they also drew attention to the changes occurring in various genres of Urdu literature under its influence. Among the points raised by various individuals regarding the identification of Postmodernism, the following were the most significant:

(1) Postmodernism emerges from an atmosphere of pessimism and announces its participation in a new social and cultural discourse.

(2) Under the influence of Postmodernism, the creator exercises complete intellectual freedom and refuses to accept any predetermined intellectual trajectory.

(3) The seeds of Postmodernism can be found in Marx's ideas regarding economics, society, politics, culture, literature, and art.

(4) The acceptance of the influences of Indian traditions alongside Arabic and Persian.

(5) An inevitable connection with nature through metaphors and imagery.

(6) A distinct characteristic of Postmodernism is the restoration of intellectual freedom, which is achieved by eliminating unconditional commitment.

(7) Pluralism is a very specific contribution of Postmodernism.

(8) Postmodernism is not concentrated on any single point; its scope is limitless.

(9) The presentation of a colorful variety of intuitive, instinctive, and psychological experiences alongside social awareness.

(10) Postmodernism does not follow any theory or attitude imposed from above.

(11) Postmodernism encompasses realism as well as abstraction, symbolism, mythology, fantasy, and the effects of mysticism.

(12) Postmodernism is not just about deviation, but also assimilation.

(13) The strengthening of the bond between civilization and culture.

(14) Postmodernism gives importance to intertextuality and the trend of creating one text upon another. It rejects the centrality of meaning or the supremacy of literary standards.

(15) It evokes an awareness of the search for roots and the importance of cultural references.

There must certainly be other points as well, but I have highlighted the ones that seemed noteworthy to me. You might have noticed some repetition; the same idea has been presented in different ways. Certain elements—such as the acceptance of Indian traditions, the tendency to embrace the influences of nature, or the presentation of a diverse range of intuitive, instinctive, and social experiences alongside social awareness—had already entered Urdu literature long before the era of Postmodernism. However, I have extracted those points from this list that are, to some extent, related to Postmodernism. For example:

(1) The initiation of cultural discourse and the issue of the search for roots.

(2) Deviation from unconditional commitment.

(3) Assimilation.

(4) The limitless scope of the discourse.

(5) The creation of one text upon another.

(6) Pluralism.

(7) Deviation from the centrality of meaning.

Let us try to see which of these points relates to Postmodernism, which to High Modernism, and which to Modernism!

In our literary tradition, the cultural discourse and the issue of the search for roots emerged in the early 1950s, which is a period prior to Postmodernism. Particularly in Pakistan, the issue of searching for roots and the process of highlighting the cultural background became prominent in two books published during this decade: Aag Ka Darya (River of Fire) and Urdu Shaeri Ka Mizaj (The Temperament of Urdu Poetry). Through various essays, many writers and poets also brought attention to the importance of cultural roots during this period. Some traced the roots of Urdu literature to the arrival of Muslims in the subcontinent, while others went further deep, connecting them to the ancient Indus Valley Civilization. Overall, the approach of these writers was vertical and archaeological.

In the West, Northrop Frye peered into the mythological atmosphere, and Claude Lévi-Strauss, in the light of Saussure's linguistic theory, discovered a highly ancient grand myth operating within the colorful diversity of myths, which held the status of langue. In the background, we also see the psychology of Freud and Jung. These were the figures who identified the unconscious (Freud) and the collective unconscious (Jung) behind or within the depths of consciousness. When Structuralism discussed poetics, it made the intertextuality of literary material—composed of cultural lines in the depths of creation—its subject. All of this occurred before Postmodernism. In the West, Postmodernism began in the 1960s, or rather, it should be said that it began in the final years of the 1950s. In our literary circles, the general theory is that it began in Urdu around 1980. Is that really the case?

The second point is the deviation from unconditional commitment, which has been declared a distinguishing feature of Postmodernism. It is worthwhile to reflect a little on this. In the West, New Criticism was not only considered a deviation from the Victorian attitude but was also viewed as a reaction to the unconditional commitment that was becoming widespread under Marxist theory. In our tradition, unconditional commitment began around 1935 with the publication of Angaaray and Akhtar Husain Raipuri's essay. Initially, it was considered a modern attitude, and no distinction was made between Marxist and non-Marxist writers. However, around 1947, when Marxist writers openly expressed their unconditional commitment to Marxist ideologies and adopted a political hue, the writers became divided.

In opposition to the Progressive Writers' Movement, the Halqa-e-Arbab-e-Zauq (Circle of Men of Good Taste) became active, whose style and perspective aligned with the New Criticism of the West. New Criticism erected walls against the interference of Marxist and psychological theories, and indeed against all kinds of external influences. It emphasized the autonomy and freedom of the creative work. By highlighting its uniqueness, sovereignty, self-sufficiency, and its status as an organized unit, it termed the work a Verbal Icon. In the Victorian era, the author held superiority over the text.

In the era of New Criticism, the text dominated the author. The author's role was deemed insignificant, and the creative work itself was read in the light of the mutual tension and assimilation of its components. This method of reading was termed Close Reading. Therefore, the attitude of deviating from unconditional commitment, which was declared a contribution of Postmodernism at the Urdu Academy seminar, was originally a contribution of New Criticism. In Urdu, this attitude was nurtured by the Halqa-e-Arbab-e-Zauq.

As far as Pluralism is concerned, one meaning of its openness is the multiplicity of meaning, and the other is the multiplicity of theories! The emphasis on the multiplicity of meaning is also found in New Criticism. The proponents of New Criticism were not blindly subservient to any single meaning. From one perspective, this too was a reaction against Marxist theory, because Marxist theory gave importance to a single meaning born out of ideology, whereas New Criticism supported the multiplicity of meaning. The second meaning of pluralism is the multiplicity of theories.

New Criticism was opposed to the interference of theory itself, let alone a multiplicity of theories. Therefore, it had no connection to this concept of pluralism. However, when Structuralism gained currency after New Criticism, it did not consider the creative work to be disconnected from its internal and external environment. The structuralists maintained that a creative work is not limited merely to the meanings that erupt from the conflicts and clashes operating on its surface. The essential element in a creative work is its semantic depth. In this way, a relationship was established between surface and depth. Structuralism emphasized the function of poetics within the creative work, arguing that the real point of observation is how the mechanics of poetics generate meaning. Poetics itself, being based on codes and conventions, was a cultural intertextual construct; therefore, unlike New Criticism, it was by no means a closed universe.

Structuralism was a scientific approach that cannot be called a creed; rather, it was a method that insisted on negating the author to bring the reader to the forefront. This was because the reader alone was capable of reading the mechanics of poetics that led to the creation of meaning. Interestingly, structural theory did not remain confined to literature. Born out of linguistics, it went on to influence anthropology, psychology, Marxist theory, and other fields. Just as New Criticism was a popular theory in the 1940s and 1950s, Structuralism became a craze in the 1960s. This, too, provoked a reaction, which emerged in the form of Post-Structuralism and Postmodernism.

The point is that not only the multiplicity of meaning, but also the theoretical and cultural integration within the fabric of a creative work, had begun to surface well before Postmodernism. Therefore, it would perhaps be incorrect to restrict the origins of plurality and integration solely to Postmodernism. However, there is no denying that what should be termed pluralistic anarchy was exclusively characteristic of Postmodernism.

Now, let us also address the boundlessness of the sphere of discourse. If the concept of boundlessness is tied to the expanding horizons of the political, social, cultural, intellectual, theoretical, and literary shifts of the era, then this, too, had come into existence before Postmodernism. By the 1960s, the genetic code had been discovered, the activity of hadrons and quarks within the nucleus of an atom had been observed, and a concept of a depth that was entirely unfathomable had already been formulated.

Interestingly, no end particle was visible within the nucleus. Matter, or substance, had seemingly vanished—or, one might say, it was being continuously deferred, much like Derrida’s concept of meaning. Within every trace, further traces were visible. In its time, Buddhism had declared that desire is hollow from within; that is, it is bottomless. Existentialism, in its era, had also spoken of a depth reminiscent of Dante’s Inferno. During the Postmodern era, when Deconstruction spoke of the abyss, traces of this very depth were present within that concept as well. On the other hand, the boundaries of the universe also began to expand, and both the microcosm and the macrocosm were deemed infinite.

In the realm of literature, too, a scenario emerged where, instead of adhering to a single theory, there was a shift toward participating in an open discourse. The intertextuality that had been observed within the fabric of a creative work was now seen operating in external discourse as well. Physics, philosophy, psychology, Marxism, history, biology, sociology, linguistics, and other academic disciplines became interconnected, appearing eager to delve into the essence of life's mysteries. However, this phenomenon of expanding discursive boundaries had also emerged prior to the Postmodern era. Therefore, it cannot be exclusively confined to Postmodernism.

As for the phenomenon of generating one text upon another, the credit for this must also go, to some extent, to New Criticism, and to a large extent, to Structuralism. New Criticism prioritized the theory of multiple meanings over a single meaning of a creative work, effectively paving the way for the creation of a parallel text alongside the original. However, the situation shifted when Structuralism placed immense importance on the reader, defining the act of reading as a process that generates a new text in response to the original. It was now argued that the author is merely a medium utilized by the writing to bring itself into existence; once the text is born, the reader plays with it to create an entirely new text. It is as though the reader brings another creative work into existence, independent of the original. Thus, the role of the author was effectively nullified.

Personally, I consider Structuralism's hostility toward the author to be one-sided and superficial. It is more closely related to the theory that rejected centrality and the Cogito, introducing instead the concepts of decentralization and a web of relationships. New Criticism itself had also prioritized the reader over the author, but Structuralism left no stone unturned in completely expelling the author from the text.

The reality is that three characters participate in a creative work: the author, the text, and the reader. The author flows through the warp and weft of the text just as langue flows within parole. To subtract the author would be akin to subtracting langue from parole. As far as the reader is concerned, their task is to unpack the creative work, rearrange it, and metamorphose its very nature—and this is a crucial role. The text itself, too, sometimes slips from the author's grasp and becomes momentarily autonomous. Thus, all three characters possess their own distinct existences; however, the creative work is not the result of any single one's mechanics, but is rather the product of their integration (and sometimes, their conflict) and intertextuality. But anyway, that was a digression. My point is that the phenomenon of generating a new text upon an existing one did not occur solely in the Postmodern era. It had begun to manifest well before that.

The final point is the departure from the centrality of meaning. During the seminar, Professor Abul Kalam Qasmi drew special attention to the fact that Postmodernism completely rejects the centrality of meaning and the universality of literary standards. In my view, this was the only point that stands as a truly distinguishing characteristic of Postmodernism. Most of the other points appear, to some extent, connected to eras preceding Postmodernism. At this juncture, it feels necessary to identify the distinct aspects of Postmodernism.

At the Urdu Academy Delhi seminar on postmodernism, the primary emphasis was on the idea that postmodernism rejects New Criticism. However, New Criticism had already been rejected by Structuralism. Postmodernism (whose most prominent figure is considered to be Derrida) actually diverged from Structuralism. In other words, the seminar framed postmodernism as a reaction to Modernism, rather than to High Modernism. It should be noted that twentieth-century Western thought (particularly concerning literature) can be divided into three distinct phases. The first phase is Modernism, which saw the rise of New Criticism. New Criticism itself represented a departure from the Victorian perspective, which favored centralism. Subsequently, High Modernism flourished in the 1960s, championed by Structuralism. Structuralism broke away from the specific approach of New Criticism, liberating the creative work from the confines of the Verbal Icon. It also highlighted the text's relationship with both internal and external worlds.

The late 1960s marked the beginning of the postmodern era, which was simultaneously the era of Post-Structuralism. This shift was initiated by Derrida's famous essay, in which he completely rejected the Western philosophical concept of Logocentrism. His stance was rooted in decentering. He emphasized Free Play, but not the kind of free play Kant described as occurring within the world. Derrida's concept was fundamentally the free play of the world itself. He struck a decisive blow to the ontological foundation of the center and brought attention to the significance of Difference.

Logic emphasizes the element of difference, whereas literature relies on similarity and resemblance. In this sense, Derrida's approach was negational rather than literary. Alongside difference, he also introduced the concept of the deferral of meaning. This process of deconstruction is an act of descending (or rather, falling) into an abyss, a continuous downward plunge. Deconstruction essentially views existence as a labyrinth; a person trapped within it feels as though they are endlessly falling into an abyss. This abyss is fundamentally a continuous downward regression of semantic levels. One semantic level gives rise to yet another layer or depth of meaning, but the process of deconstruction discovers a fault, rupture, or fissure within that layer, deconstructing it so that the meaning tumbles down to an even lower level.

However, the process of deconstruction does not stop there. Upon reaching the lower level, it deconstructs that as well, creating an infinite regression. Meaning never reaches a final, foundational level, nor does the process of deconstruction ever cease. The universe is a labyrinth with no exit. Writing holds primacy over the spoken word, and it is not subservient to any external context. It is a kind of Fall, wherein the text presents the spectacle of descending endlessly into itself. Thus, Derrida entirely rejected the Metaphysics of Presence in Western thought and emphasized intertextuality. This did not mean simply reading one text alongside another, but rather recognizing that every text is already an intertextual construct.

According to Derrida, Structuralism, Phenomenology, and Formalism are all both the offspring and the standard-bearers of Western metaphysical thought. After studying Structuralism, I came to the conclusion (as I have mentioned in several of my essays) that Structuralism did not actually obliterate the center. Instead, it viewed decentering as a higher form of centrality, akin to a mystical doctrine. In other words, the part does not merely revolve around the whole; rather, the entire whole is contained within the part itself. This idea was unacceptable to Derrida. He defined the text as a labyrinth that possessed neither a center, nor a bottom, nor a structure! Inherent within it—alongside decentering, difference, and deferral—was a complete rejection of the finality of meaning.

The labyrinth presents the text to us as an abyss, and caught in this free play (or battle) of meaning, we continue to fall endlessly downward. This apocalyptic attitude is the fundamental disposition of postmodernism. Looking at this entire trajectory, it becomes clear that New Criticism emphasized the multiplicity of meaning, Structuralism examined the strategy behind the production of multiple meanings, whereas Deconstruction emphasized the Absence of meaning. This concept of absence was, in essence, an act of crossing out centrality, logic, social cohesion, and the very presence of values. Therefore, whenever postmodernism is discussed, rather than positioning it in opposition to Modernism, we should recognize it as a reaction to High Modernism.

What is postmodernism? It has been briefly discussed above. Some time ago, I wrote an essay in English on this subject, which is included in my book Symphony of Existence. I present an excerpt from that essay here so that the distinguishing features of postmodernism become clearly apparent:

Modernism had logic of its own. It stood for the possibility of systematic knowledge and the existence of an individual ego. High modernism also stood for the possibility of systematic knowledge but its stress was on the structuring and not on the individual self of the author. Post Modernism decimated the individual subject and declared that systematic knowledge was not possible. For post-modernism the individual subject was a thing of the past. It now stood decimated and fragmented. Along with the individual subject the concept of humanism was also destroyed. The human subject, who had hitherto enjoyed a pivotal role as an historical agent collectively engaged in making life meaningful and rational, suddenly found himself encapsulated in a maze of absurdity. With the death of the Cogito or the Transcendental Signified or the PRESENCE, the Western man found himself entrapped in a labyrinth where meaning eluded him constantly. There was a perpetual regression of meaning. The State of 'becoming' now appeared as a play of forces, histories and fragments.

A study of postmodernism reveals the following aspects:

(1) The acquisition of systematic knowledge is impossible.

(2) The unity of the Subject is fragmented.

(3) The concept of humanism is a thing of the past.

(4) It is necessary to break free from transcendental and metaphysical concepts.

(5) The search for a lost Origin is futile.

(6) The awareness of rupture and discontinuity is essential.

Vedanta and Sufism deemed visible reality to be Maya or an illusion, asserting that the ultimate truth is eternal and everlasting, transcending division and differentiation, and championing oneness and unity. On the other hand, postmodernism—particularly Jacques Derrida—rejected the concept of an eternal and absolute truth. It discarded the idea of centrality. What had previously been dismissed as Maya or illusion was now accepted as the actual reality, yet it was simultaneously described as a labyrinth. It was seen as a purposeless, directionless, and infinite free play in which meaning is perpetually deferred. Essentially, this paints a picture of Dante’s Inferno—a bottomless abyss. Since this concept of hell is a dominant element of the Western psyche, it resurfaces whenever a crisis arises. Consequently, Western thinkers begin to articulate the experience of the fall of man, the collapse of values, pervasive meaninglessness, and the sensation of being suspended in an abyss. This is precisely what Derrida, and by extension postmodernism, has articulated. The question is: has Urdu literature also fallen under the influence of this specific brand of postmodernism?

Undoubtedly, some works in Urdu literature have been created under the influence of postmodernism, but most of these are the result of deliberate, conscious effort. Overall, Urdu literature has been far more profoundly influenced by Modernism and High Modernism. While it has certainly moved past Modernism (the era of New Criticism), it still holds certain aspects of it dear. However, it has absorbed deep influences from High Modernism, even though it has rejected some of its tenets as well. From Modernism, it adopted the attitude of rejecting unconditional commitment and learned the technique of Close Reading of a literary work, a practice that is becoming increasingly common in Urdu literature through the analytical study of poetry and short stories. From High Modernism, it derived the concept of the interconnectedness of Surface and Depth, as well as the Intertextuality of a text and the creative role of the reader. However, it did not embrace the tendency to eliminate the author or reject the concept of humanism. This is evident from the statements of the seminar participants who discussed the ongoing changes across various literary genres. For example:

Today’s poet does not conform to any predetermined path. He exercises complete intellectual freedom. In his work, one finds a sense of revisiting social conditions. Alongside social awareness, he presents a vibrant spectrum of intuitive, instinctive, and psychological experiences. (Dr. Hamidi Kashmiri)

Dr. Hamidi Kashmiri’s analysis is entirely accurate. By abandoning the Progressives' concept of unconditional commitment, the modern poet has presented a landscape of meaning-making within both the inner and outer universes. This is a positive development, characterized by social awareness as well as intuitive, instinctive, and psychological experiences. Essentially, this is an organized and structured process that aligns less with the temperament of Postmodernism and more with the literary landscape that emerged during the era of High Modernism.

Similarly, regarding the Urdu novel, Khurshid Ahmed raised the point that the notable novels of this era can be divided into two categories. First are those novels that provide a new perspective to the realist tradition, and second are those that reject the doctrine of realism and rely on various new and old techniques. These can be termed postmodern models. But is this truly the case? Khurshid Ahmed has not drawn this distinction between Modernism and Postmodernism, but rather between realism (which was the stance of the Progressive movement) and Modernism. Therefore, we must critically examine the novels Khurshid Ahmed mentions to determine whether they actually reflect Postmodernism, or if they are more aligned with Modernism and High Modernism.

It should be noted that three aspects of realism are particularly important. First, that art reflects reality (a remnant of Platonic theory). Second, that language is a transparent medium through which we perceive reality. Finally, that meaning precedes sound. Modernism and High Modernism rejected all three of these premises, presenting a new literary landscape. Our new novels certainly fit within this new paradigm, but they have shown very little acceptance of Postmodernism's free play, its deviation from humanism, or its perpetual deferral of meaning.

Regarding the postmodern novel, Balraj Komal stated that a growing population, migration and displacement, the collapse of values, the reconfiguration of relationships, and social concerns are all integral parts of the postmodern novel. While this is true, we also observe this exact landscape during the era of Modernism, as well as in the period immediately preceding Postmodernism, known as High Modernism. Furthermore, it must be considered that in the West, Postmodernism actually emerged as a deviation from, or a rebellion against, High Modernism. In addition to emphasizing the deferral of meaning and free play, it negated the possibility of acquiring structured knowledge and stood in opposition to the doctrine of humanism. In contrast, the Urdu novels mentioned earlier offer an organized and coherent narrative of an ever-changing world and are firmly rooted in humanism. The humanist approach served as a common denominator between the Progressive movement and New Criticism, whereas the tendency to negate humanism has, to varying degrees, been favored by Structuralism and Deconstruction. In terms of humanism, the Urdu novel, short story, and poem are all influenced by the Progressive movement and New Criticism. Conversely, the attitude of deviating from the dominance of ideology has been derived from Modernism and High Modernism.

The report I received regarding the three-day seminar hosted by the Urdu Academy Delhi gives the impression that the participants presented the evolving landscape of Urdu literature (poetry, the novel, criticism, the short story, and the ghazal) with great skill and intellectual honesty. Today’s literature, as Joginder Paul observes, knows how to keep not only its debates but also its creative avenues open (meaning it shies away from the absolute finality of any single ideology or doctrine). The concept of the Holon, introduced by Arthur Koestler, similarly emphasized keeping avenues open. This implied avoiding absolute finality so that the boundaries of discourse could expand. The active presence of this intellectual dimension is clearly visible in contemporary Urdu literature.

Furthermore, a trend of discovering cultural roots and seeing oneself connected to them has emerged, which is a positive development. The depiction of social fragmentation is, in fact, a declaration of the desire for social cohesion and is indicative of humanism. This is not related to the neurotic fear arising from the West's apocalyptic attitude, which has resulted in despair and a feeling of utter helplessness—like having neither a hand on the reins nor a foot in the stirrup. In the West, the era of Modernism and High Modernism dominated for three decades (1940 to 1970). But after this came the era of Postmodernism, which promoted an idea about reality that, despite being based on a non-concept, was still a concept in itself. Just as anti-matter is not actually the negation of matter but has its own unique existence, similarly, Postmodernism does not endorse the absence of theory, but rather the theory of the non-concept.

It is worth considering whether Urdu literature has adopted a new style by accepting the postmodern perspective. Perhaps this has not happened. It has not merely described the changing national and international landscape of the last quarter of the twentieth century, but has also established a relationship between its surface and its depth. It has not watched the world fall into an abyss like a helpless human being; instead, it has dived into the depths to grant itself profundity. Accepting the positive meaning of depth rather than the negative connotation of an abyss is a perspective entirely different from Western Postmodernism.

I believe that the title proposed for the discussion at the three-day seminar of the Urdu Academy, Delhi, was not appropriate. It would have been better if the title had been Contemporary Urdu Literature. The participants also primarily focused on contemporary Urdu literature and discussed all those intellectual, cultural, and linguistic changes that began to emerge not after 1980, but as early as 1960. However, for various reasons, the theme of the seminar was titled Postmodernism so that it could be presented as a reaction against Modernism (meaning New Criticism).

In such a scenario, the question arises: was this driven by a conscious effort? Everyone knows that currently, two critical schools of thought are clashing in India. One is the school of New Criticism, which rejects Structuralism and Post-structuralism, and the other is the school of Postmodernism, which negates New Criticism. However, this battle seems meaningless to me; the real battle was between Progressivism and Modernism, where ideological differences were highly robust. But Modernism, High Modernism, and Postmodernism are simply three stages of the same journey. When the final stage of Modernism arrived, Structuralism rejected it, but not entirely; it also adopted some of its elements (or one could say that these elements remained present in structuralist theory as traces). Similarly, when the final stage of Structuralism (High Modernism) arrived, Postmodernism (specifically Deconstruction) rejected it, yet retained some of its elements. Therefore, instead of seeking a vast, unbridgeable gulf between them, it would be more appropriate to consider them as different lines of the same structure, the merging of which has broadened the scope of discourse.

Fredric Jameson has even written that Postmodernism is actually just a new form of Modernism, exactly as Modernism itself was an extension of Romanticism. In fact, the era of Postmodernism should be viewed as a broader landscape in which Modernism, High Modernism, Deconstruction, and other theories have collectively attempted to bring forth a literary theory that culminates in synthesis. Interestingly, by transcending the limits of the discussion's title, the landscape presented by the participants went beyond the specific meaning of Postmodernism. Richard Harland named this landscape Superstructuralism, in which Structuralism, Semiotics, Althusserian Marxism, Foucault's theories, Lacanian psychoanalysis, feminist criticism, and other perspectives of Post-structuralism were blending together. It should not be termed Postmodernism, which has mostly emerged in the guise of Anti-Modernism. The most suitable name for it is Supermodernism or Superstructuralism.

As far as Urdu literature is concerned, the effects of Modernism and High Modernism have mostly permeated it to some extent. However, since Postmodernism is a product of the Western psyche, which possesses a temperament distinct and separate from the Eastern psyche, I believe there is very little chance for that specific postmodern temperament, which became common in the West, to flourish in Urdu. That is why I have submitted that attaching the label of Postmodernism to this thought-provoking three-day seminar by the Urdu Academy, Delhi, risks creating the same situation that arose due to the labels of Marxism, Modernism, and Structuralism.

Incidentally, it may not be devoid of interest that the discussion at this seminar was an organized and coherent discourse, which nowhere took the form of free play, nor did it present a scenario of the perpetual deferral of meaning. Most writers were of the same mind regarding the fundamental points. Among all of them, there was an acknowledgment of humanism, a desire for the survival of values, and the presence of a system that connects the existent to the transcendent on one hand, and the existent to depth on the other. Nowhere was the operation of a neurotic feeling of being suspended in an abyss visible. Everyone possessed a certainty regarding the acquisition of organized knowledge.

In such a case, can we declare this seminar to be merely in harmony with that concept of Postmodernism which has created a sort of craze in certain Western circles? Instead, it would be better to name it Superstructuralism, Supermodernism, or a synthetic tendency, which, in an atmosphere of intellectual freedom and without being subordinate to any ideology, reflects a landscape that is expanding circle by circle—that is, it reflects a framework that Foucault termed an episteme.