‘After’ postmodernism implies a time when an episteme, discourse, social movement, or era was over. It also implies that there was a space where postmodernism happened in relative isolation rather than on a discursive field where ‘after’, even if heterogeneous and fragmented, was isolated from other ‘after’s. However, discourses do not function in isolation but interact with other discourses on a discursive field (Snow, 2004 Snow, D. A. (2004). Framing processes, ideology, and discursive fields. In D. A. Snow, S. A. Soule, & H. Kriesi (Eds.), The blackwell companion to social movements (pp. 380–412). Malden, MA: Blackwell.10.1002/9780470999103[Crossref], , [Google Scholar]). An intertextual dimension of ‘after’ is helpful for understanding how the ‘after’ of postmodernism is connected on a discursive field. This places postmodernism in a struggle with other discourses, some that seem to dominate the field and others that seem to be marginalized on the field. This understanding of ‘after’ might indicate marginalization but may simultaneously indicate liminality on the discursive field.
The Discursive Field of After Postmodernism in Educational TheoryEducational Philosophy and Theory
PublisherTaylor & Francis
Citation InformationCamicia, S. P. (2018). The Discursive Field of After Postmodernism in Educational Theory. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 50(14), 1340-1341. doi: 10.1080/00131857.2018.1462454