Criticisms of postmodernism, while intellectually diverse, share the opinion that it lacks coherence and is hostile to the notion of absolutes, such as truth. Specifically it is held that postmodernism can be meaningless, promotes obscurantism and uses relativism to the extent that it cripples most judgement calls. Postmodernism is a highly diverse intellectual and artistic activity, and two branches can have little in common. Criticism of postmodernism in general is usually not a comprehensive attack on the various diverse movements labelled postmodern. Such criticism often refers to specific branches of postmodernism, frequently on intellectual theories in the humanities. Postmodern philosophy is also a frequent subject of criticism for obscurantism and resistance to reliable knowledge. For example, a philosopher may criticize French postmodern philosophy but have no problem with postmodern cinema. Conversely, philosopher Roger Scruton criticized postmodern humanities and some elements of postmodern art, yet never broadly attacked the entire inventory of varied postmodern projects. One of the very criticisms of postmodernism, as a whole, is the absence of a definition of what postmodernism in itself is and even what specific post-modern anything is.
Vagueness
Linguist Noam Chomsky has argued that postmodernism is meaningless because it adds nothing to analytical or empirical knowledge. He asks why postmodernist intellectuals won't respond like people in other fields when asked: Christopher Hitchens in his book, Why Orwell Matters, writes, in advocating for simple, clear and direct expression of ideas, "The Postmodernists' tyranny wears people down by boredom and semi-literate prose." Hitchens also criticized a postmodernist volume, "The Johns Hopkins Guide to Literary Theory and Criticism": "The French, as it happens, once evolved an expression for this sort of prose: la langue de bois, the wooden tongue, in which nothing useful or enlightening can be said, but in which various excuses for the arbitrary and the dishonest can be offered. is a pointer to the abysmal state of mind that prevails in so many of our universities." In a similar vein, Richard Dawkins writes in a favorable review of Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont's Intellectual Impostures: Dawkins then uses the following quotation from Félix Guattari as an example of this "lack of content" and of clarity. It has been suggested that the term "postmodernism" is a mere buzzword that means nothing. For example, Dick Hebdige, in Hiding in the Light, writes: Postmodernists or postmodern-friendly intellectuals such as the British historian Perry Anderson defend the existence of the varied meanings assigned to the term "postmodernism", claiming they only contradict one another on the surface and that a postmodernist analysis can offer insight into contemporary culture. Kaya Yılmaz defends the lack of clarity and consistency in the term's definition. Yılmaz points out that because the theory itself is "anti-essentialist and anti-foundationalist" it is fitting that the term cannot have any essential or fundamental meaning. Sokal has critiqued similar defenses of postmodernism by noting that replies like this only demonstrate the original point that postmodernist critics are making: that a clear and meaningful answer is always missing and wanting.
Moral relativism
Some critics, such as Noam Chomsky, have interpreted postmodern society to be synonymous with moral relativism and contributing to deviant behavior. Culturally conservative writers, such as Charles Colson, are characterized as tending to look askance at the postmodernist era as ideologically agnostic and replete with moral relativism or situation ethics. Josh McDowell and Bob Hostetler offer the following definition of postmodernism: "A worldview characterized by the belief that truth doesn't exist in any objective sense but is created rather than discovered.... created by the specific culture and exists only in that culture. Therefore, any system or statement that tries to communicate truth is a power play, an effort to dominate other cultures." Many philosophical movements reject both modernity and postmodernity as healthy states of being. Some of these are associated with cultural and religious conservatism that views postmodernity as a rejection of basic spiritual or natural truths and in its emphasis on material and physical pleasure an explicit rejection of inner balance and spirituality. Many of these critiques attack specifically the tendency to the "abandonment of objective truth" as the crucial unacceptable feature of the postmodern condition and often aim to offer a meta-narrative that provides this truth.
Marxian criticisms
attacks notable postmodern thinkers such as Baudrillard and Lyotard, arguing postmodernism "reflects the disappointed revolutionary generation of 1968, and the incorporation of many of its members into the professional and managerial 'new middle class'. It is best read as a symptom of political frustration and social mobility rather than as a significant intellectual or cultural phenomenon in its own right." Art historianJohn Molyneux, also of the Socialist Workers' Party, accuses postmodernists for "singing an old song long intoned by bourgeois historians of various persuasions". Fredric Jameson, American literary critic and Marxist political theorist, attacks postmodernism, what he claims is "the cultural logic of late capitalism", for its refusal to critically engage with the metanarratives of capitalization and globalization. The refusal renders postmodernist philosophy complicit with the prevailing relations of domination and exploitation.
''Art Bollocks''
Art Bollocks is an article written by Brian Ashbee which appeared in the magazine Art Review in April 1999. Ashbee refers to the importance given to language in "post-modern" art. The post-modern art forms mentioned by Ashbee are: "installation art, photography, conceptual art video". The term bollocks in the title relates to nonsense. An example can be found in Private Eye issue 1482, being an imaginary interview of Tracey Emin by an unduly fawning Alan Yentob.
, a physics professor at New York University, formulated the Sokal affair, a hoax in which he wrote a deliberately nonsensical article in a style similar to postmodernist articles. The article was enthusiastically accepted for publication by the journal Social Text despite the obvious lampooning of postmodernists view of science. Sokal liberally used vague post-modernist concepts and lingo all the while criticising empirical approaches to knowledge. On the same day of the release he published another article in a different journal explaining the Social Text article. This was turned into a book Fashionable Nonsense which offered a critique of the practices of postmodern academia. In the book he and Jean Brichmont point out the missuse of scientific terms in the works of postmodern philosophers but they state that this does not invalide the rest of the work of those philosophers to which they suspend judgement.
Mumbo Jumbo
's book How Mumbo-Jumbo Conquered the World broadly critiques a variety of non-critical paradigms with a significant critique of cultural relativism and the use of postmodern tropes to explain all modern geo-political phenomena. According to Wheen, postmodern scholars tend to critique unfair power structures in the west including issues of race, class, patriarchy, the effect of radical capitalism and political oppression. Where he finds fault in these tropes is when the theories go beyond evidence-based critical thinking and use vague terminology to support obscurantist theories. An example is Luce Irigaray's assertion, cited by Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont in their book Fashionable Nonsense, that the equation "E=mc2" is a "sexed equation", because "it privileges the speed of light over other speeds that are vitally necessary to us". Relativism, according to Wheen becomes a sort of wall which shields non western cultures from the same sustained critiques. While inherent sexism in North America is open to hostile critique, according to postmodern thought it is taboo to critique honour killings and female genital mutilation in North Africa and the Middle East. Relativism will defend such taboos by claiming such cultures are out of the sphere of shared Western values and that we cannot judge other cultures by our own standards or it is defended through diminishing the severity of sexism by either denying its prominence or blaming it on menacing western factors. Wheen admits that, while some of this may have merit, its case is highly exaggerated by relativism. Wheen reserves his strongest critique for those who defend even the most appalling systemic mistreatment of women, even in countries where Western contact and influence is minimal.
