One example, bravo.
Lyotard is probably considered to be more genuine as a postmodernist than Foucault (if there’s such a thing as genuine postmodernism—no country already covered this) and he wasn’t interested in undermining Western hierarchies. In fact, he abdicated responsibility during the student riots.
You think that representational critique, a la Baudrillard and Derrida, translates into political motivations toward disorder. This isn’t the case. Social critics aren’t looking to overthrow the patriarchy, they’re just tracing various avenues of cultural representation. Derrida wasn’t out to undermine hierarchical social structures, and neither was Luhmann, Deleuze, Baudrillard, etc. Foucault determines your entire perspective on postmodernism, and that’s why your view is reductive.
My problem has to do with Peterson’s use of postmodernism as a buzzword, like no country said. He appeals to it as a specific focus of study when in fact it’s a grab bag of different political perspectives, allegiances, and methodologies.
