For many Americans on the right, "postmodernism" is a catch-all pejorative used to indicate the decline of moral values and social life in the modern era. The "postmodernism of the left" is regularly decried by Straussian neoconservatives, Falwellian crusaders, and even Republican politicians seeking another electoral term. Michael Enoch calls it "the favorite weapon of leftist intellectuals". At some point, American conservatives must begin to actually read history before they attempt to rewrite it.
This disdain for postmodernism overlooks its effective and critical role in the politics of anti-communist dissent. When Eastern European dissidents argued against communism in the world of ideas, they found their best arguments to be those vilified as "postmodernist" by American anti-communists on the right.
In her underpublished book, Art of the 1980s in Eastern Europe: Texts on Postmodernism, Magda Carneci reveals that "the postmodernism which appeared in postcommunist countries before 1989 was an insidious form of 'critical-artistic resistance". Carneci credits postmodernism with "laying out a whole aesthetics of resistance" which "helped intellectuals and artists challenge the single cultural model of the official culture and articulate norm-breaking views of cardinal issues such as national specificity, international integration, or the political meanings of cultural and artistic changes under a totalitarian regime".
While postmodernist frameworks allowed dissidents to resist and undermine the official communist discourse, it also challenged Western theoretical orthodoxies, including the linear or progressive nature of history- a view shared by those on the right and left alike- and the "freedom" offered by consumerist society. Cold Warriors dedicated to the victory of their ideological battles prefer to think along the linear continuum popularized by Frank Fukuyama's The End of History. Yet, those daring intellectuals who chose to challenge communist ideology did not do so on the basis of economics or military prowess. Instead, they challenged communism on the basis of liberalism and ethical freedom- the freedom to disagree with "my country, right or wrong".
In other words, most dissidents did not reject communism in favor of an ulterior economic ideology but rather in favor of open-ended opportunities and perspectives. I would argue that those dissidents who had religious or conservative reasons for rejecting communism are now victims or prosleytizers for the resurgent right-wing nationalism that is eroding liberal gains in the postcommunist era. Think Solzhenitsyn and Laszlo Tokes. The relationship between the nationalism, patriotism, and conservative philosophy is its own tragic fairy tale.
Toward the end of the 1980's as Ceausescu's traumatic dictatorship closed Romania to outside influence, Carneci argues that "postmodern can be considered to have been the principal challenging issue of the cultural milieu", as demonstrated in the Caiete critice debate beginning in 1986. In these debates, the antipathy towards postmodernist ideas was vocalized by communists, representatives of the Romanian state, and right-leaning nationalists. Theorists of "protochronism", a nationalist theory which asserted that Romanians discovered many scientific innovations and cultural marvels in advance of the West, decided that postmodernism was only a "cultural import", tainted by its association with non-Romanian origins.
Since Ceausescu's cultural policies prevented young individualistic artists from joining the professional groups required for a career in the arts, those who chose not to "serve the state" managed to eke out an existence in the margins. The lack of opportunity, however, also kept them from becoming integrated into the Romanian bureaucracy, which kept them from developing the incentive issues characteristic of artists who sought success within the system. The devout individualism, antiestablishmentarianism, and d.i.y. ethic of young dissenting artists was on regular display in the "basement exhibits" of Bucuresti and Sibiu from 1986-1989 as well as the 1988 "pocket shows" in Oradea.
This same individualism has long been feared by American conservatives and those who believe the "modern art movement" has ruined American culture. For futher reading, do a little googling. Matei Calinescu and Marcel Cornis-Pope also published books demonstrating the anti-communist critique developed by postmodernist thinkers in Warsaw Pact countries. See also this paper by Badica or various writings by Ion Manolescu.
In the meantime, reconsider your reactionary dislike for postmodernism. The revolutions of 1989 may never have succeeded without the underground dissent of Eastern European artists in the mid-1980's. Just imagine- then Reagan couldn't have claimed his propaganda "victory" over communism and you wouldn't be able to buy an "ad-free email account" from Reagan.com.
