From Chapter 6, How Postmodernism Explains Football

     Writing objective history or raising a teenager may be like trying to nail Jell-O to a wall, as those and other challenging tasks have been popularly analogized. But even that would be easier than trying to nail postmodernist specifics. For that is more like trying to nail Jell-O to Jell-O – with a Jell-O nail and a Jell-O hammer.

The best articulations of postmodernist theory show us that so much of what we pretend is consistently and clearly explainable actually is not. The worst suggests that nothing is explainable. A benign interpretation of that might be something like Robin Williams’s declaration that anyone who claims to remember the Sixties wasn’t really there. And what might be characterized as a fundamentalist school of postmodernist thought can seem to suggest that anyone claiming to reliably explain postmodernism hasn’t really been there either. It might well be true that under some orthodox understanding of postmodernism, any attempt to explain it must indeed fail – if the fallibility of metanarratives is considered an absolute, then any explanation of something as complex and nuanced as postmodernism must indeed fail.

But then, holding an absolutist line on the fallibility of metanarratives would also mean that such a line itself represents a metanarrative that must also fail. And certainly not all scholars of postmodernism hold that any attempt to write accessibly about postmodernism must on its face be rejected as another failed metanarrative. This study concurs and considers postmodernist thought too valuable to only be discussed either incomprehensibly or not at all.

How Postmodernism Explains Football and Football Explains Postmodernism © Robert L. Kerr 2015

And Football Explains Postmodernism: The Billy Clyde Conundrum