Above all, Critical Theory, Post-Structuralism and Postmodernism are effective as Critiques of Positivism [Stockman: 1984] that interrogates the established assumptions about the methods and ways people follow to read and write science. But their substantive contribution to the theory building in social sciences is highly potential. Although, all these three theories are developed with a vehement attack on positivism, yet they embrace ‘the possibility of an empirical science’, though essentially operate within non positivist assumptions [Deising: 1991]. This apparent paradox is natural in social science. The main ideas of these three theories are quite different from each other, but their main attack is directed towards Marxist ideas of revolution. The present paper interrogates the main ideas of these three theories to reveal their strong opposition to Marxism in general and Marxist notion of revolution in particular.

Critical theory: Main ideas:

Critical Theory owes its origin to Frankfurt School of Thought that has flourished in Germany. The Institute for Social Research (1923) carries the flagship of this theory. The institute is patronized by a group of brilliant political scientists, namely Theodor W. Adorno, Max Horkheimer, Herbert Murcuse, Fredrich Pollock, Leo Lowenthal and Walter Benjamin [Jay:1973, Huges:1945, Kellner :19894]. But, Jurgen Habermas, a student of Adorno and Max Horkheimer is the recent representative of Critical Theory, and what is more important that he differs significantly from certain positions of his previous teachers and seniors. Critical Theory as developed by the original Frankfurt School has attempted to offer an explanation why the Socialist Revolution as prophesied by Marx in the mid nineteenth century did not occur as it is expected. Marcuse, Adorno and Horkheimer put forward their logic to reconstruct the teaching of Marxism to make it relevant to the emerging capitalism of the twentieth century. This trio believes that they are not challenging the Marxist notion of capitalism as a self contradictory social system. More specifically, the Frankfurt School, following George Lukacs, tries to link economic analysis with cultural and ideological determinism in explaining why the revolution expected by Marx did not occur. Like Lukacs, the Frankfurt thinkers believe that Marx fails to estimate the workers ‘false consciousness’ that can be exploited to keep the social and economic system smooth and intact and running without interruption. Both Lukacs and Frankfurt thinkers agree with Marx on the point that at a certain stage, capitalism tends to develop internal economic irrationalities, for example, concentration of productive forces in the hands of a small group at the cost of the workers who in turn are deprived to consume the commodities produced by their labour. But they believe that the twentieth century capitalism has been able to develop some kind of protective mechanism to overcome the periodic, eruptive crisis that may lead to a total socialist revolution. Frankfurt critical theory is, thus, against the spirit of all-round positivism particularly the Marxist variety. Jurgen Habermas has made a more decisive attack than his earlier Frankfurt colleagues on Marx’s positivism. He says that Marx has failed make a meaningful distinction between knowledge ‘gained from casual analysis and knowledge gained from self reflection and interaction’. As a result Marxism has not been able to secure a strong ground for revolutionary change of existing social system, instead, ‘falling back on the fatalism of positivist determinism’. Unlike Horkheimer, Adorno and Marcuse, Habermas believes that Marx was essentially a positivist. Hence, his intension is not to reject Marx but to reconstruct Marxist principle of change or Marxist positivism in a more constructive way, so that Historical Materialism as pioneered by Marx receive an impetus to be a ‘ideology-critique’, ‘community-building’ and ‘social movement’. Horkheimer and Adorno, in their work, Dialectic of Enlightenment (1972), trace positivism as an ideology of way back to Enlightenment. Enlightenment is, as they believe, opposed to the mystification of religion and mythology. But the kind of Enlightenment grounded in such a positive science is inadequate for an all round discard of mythological implication. They invariably feel that positivism being a theory of science has become a new form of mythology and ideology that fails to measure its own value in the position of status quo. They, therefore, contest the core of positivism not as a theory of scientific investigation, rather a dominant of ideology of late capitalism in the sense that people everywhere in world has already been taught to see the world, ‘as it is’, thus, thinking in terms of its perpetuation. Horkheirmer, Adorno, like Marcuse reject positivism as it is essentially based on ‘adjustment’. Positivism suggests that one can perceive the world, as they argue, without making assumptions about the nature of the phenomena under investigation. Knowledge, according to positivist thought, can simply reflect the world and its uncritical identification of reality and rationality; one sees the world as rational and necessary, thus, not reflecting the ideas of change [Agger: 1991]. Critical theorists, on the other hand, attempt to develop a kind of ‘consciousness and cognition’ that challenges the identities of reality and rationality, viewing social facts not as inevitable constraints on human freedom [Durkheim; 1950:], but as pieces of history that can be changed. Dialectical imagination [Jay: 1973] is the power that image the world in terms of its potential of being changed in future, a hard reality that promote a positivist mind to withdraw from status quo. Thus, Critical Theory attacks positivism of Marxist variety both from the perspective of ‘everyday life’ and from ‘social theory’ that induce social world to a pattern of cause and effect. More precisely, a number of bourgeois social sciences come under the sharp criticism of Frankfurt School of Thought for lacking the spirit of Dialectical Imagination that forces social scientists to think beyond the normal social phenomena, such as class society, patriarchy, racism, domination of nature etc. Marxism, according to Frankfurt school, becomes too positivist to bring about expected social change, though it has portrayed the down fall of capitalism with the laws of economic determinism, i.e., the mode of productions and relations of productions or the Theory of Surplus Value, but to what extent Marx is a positivist is difficult to determine if the corpus of Marxists ‘expression of epistemology’ are gone through. But it is most likely that Marx is a child of Enlightenment who believes that science could conquer uncertainty and could create a better world. But it is most unlikely that Marx after Marx (Who dominated Second, Third Communist Internationals) reconstructed his dialectical materialism along the lines of positivist materialism [Lichtheim: 1961, Agger: 1979]. The shift begins with his faithful collaborator, Friedrich Engels (1935), who initiated a tradition that becomes dominant in the West where Marx is accused of articulating his non determinist historical materialism.

Habermas, thus, reconstructs Critical Theory in order to give more credentials to historical materialism than Marx does and his historical materialism has taken the form of communication theory where he calls for a shift from the paradigm of consciousness to the paradigm of communication creating a ground for social revolution. Reconstructing Critical Theory, Habermas contributes a lot to the social theorists for mastering a wide range of ‘theoretical and empirical insights’ ranging from traditional Marxism to Parsonian functionalism and speech act theory [McCarthy:1978]. It is argued that German Critical Theory gets legitimacy in the hands of Habermas for his engagement with diverse theoretical and political traditions. But Habermas comes under scrutiny by others. Critics argue that Habermas has truncated the emancipatory agenda by drawing a heavy line between self reflection/communication and causality and technical rationality [Wellmer: 1976, Benhabib: 1987]. The consequence of this categorical distinction, as uphold by the critics, is to limit the agenda of social change to the realm of self reflection and communication where deliberations takes place on alternative social policies and to build a consensus about them. His early Frankfurt colleagues, like the early Marx, want a change in this deliberative process and also, in the social organization of science and technology. Habermas rejects this view as, “a heritage of mysticism”. He is more nearer to the parliamentary democracy of Edward Bernstein (1961), and later to the Scandinavians, than to so-called Marxist Class Struggle

Post-structuralism: Main ideas:

Defining post-structuralism and post modernism in a more precise way is difficult. We know that Derrida is a post structuralist, and Foucault, Barthes, Layotard belong to either of the camp. That do not clarify the exact meaning of what is post-structural and what is postmodern. For Agger, post- structuralism (Derrida, the French Feminist) is a theory of knowledge and language and postmodernism (Foucault, Barthes, Layotard, Baudrillard) is a theory of society, culture and history. Derrida’s contribution in the field of literary criticism, literary theory and cultural analysis has received a substantial recognition worldwide [Berman: 1988]. Literary critics are indebted to Derrida for the methodology of textual reading called deconstruction [Culler: 1982]. This method of deconstruction has been able to cast a substantial impact on different department of humanities in America offering a challenge to traditional literary and cultural criticism. Derrida’s literary deconstruction is an attack on the traditional methods of literary and cultural criticism ‘dominated by textual objectivism’. Although, Derrida does not confine himself in a single deconstructive method, but it is easy to perceive that literary deconstruction challenges traditional principles about how to read and write [Fischer: 1985]. However, some deconstructive concepts have already started taking roots in other areas of social science disciplines (e.g, Marcus & Fischer 1986 in Anthropology, Lemert 1980, Brown 1987, Agger 1989c) particularly with regard to ‘cultural works and practices’, but in the present analysis, emphasis is particularly on Derrida’s model of textual analysis that disregards positivist notion of a researcher who simply dreams a change in the world ‘suggesting new ways of writing and reading science’.

Derrida begins with the textual structuralism to explain his theory of deconstruction. Every text, for him, is undecidable, in the sense that it conceals difference within it between authorial voices sometimes termed as text and subject(s) [Agger: 1991]. Every text is a contested premise. What it appears to mean apparently cannot be understood without reference to or contextualization of this concealed or hidden significance of the text. This concealment or contextualization might supposedly assume that the text in question will be understood. Derrida’s point of argument is that these assumptions are suppressed, and reader’s attention is diverted. An example of politics may be relevant here: the emergence of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) as a single majority party in the recent Lok Sabha Election proves that the nation is influenced by Modi’s (The Prime Minister of India), charismatic leadership. But the deconstructive explanation of the text might indicate the diminishing role of the regional parties in the national settings. Sociological research on status attainment is also pertinent here [Balu and Dunccan: 1978]. The findings of the research probably rest on the assumptions that in the occupational hierarchy, the mobility of one’s father is very high. A deconstructive reading of the findings is apt to reveal the gendered nature of the work and domination of patriarchy. Thus, in Derrida’s term, the contextualization of occupational status is undecidable, because it is not all inclusive, rather exclusions are there that nullifies its own claim to be fixed and final. In Derrida’s term, there is no ‘univocal or unchallengeable’ criterion to measure occupational status, concealing of course many competing criteria which are incomplete as they entail certain exclusion. Derrida beautifully sumps up the core ideas of deconstructive reading by saying that every text or subject has open, inevitable, unavoidable gaps of meaning that “reader has to fill with their interpolative senses”. In this way, Derrida strongly argues that reading is a highly important activity, not merely a passive understanding of an objective text with a singular meaning. Readers can create sense by filling in these gaps and ‘conflicts of meaning’ and even can become a writer challenging the ‘hierarchy of writing over reading and cultural production over cultural perception’. Derrida explains his notion of undecidability using his notions of difference and difference. He essentially argues that the meaning of a text or a subject or a language is derived only with reference to other meanings against which it acquires its significance. Thus, we can never establish stable meanings by attempting correspondence between language and the world addressed by language. Instead, meaning is a result of differential significances that we attach to words [Agger: 1991]. For example, Weber’s notion of ‘status’ acquires meaning only with reference to his concept of ‘class’ or Marx’s concept of ‘class’ becomes concrete only with reference to his concept of ‘relations of production’. Derrida, therefore, picks up the French word difference to show that one cannot arrive at a fixed or clear meaning as long as one necessarily uses deffering as well as differing words. Derrida, however, is not concerned at all with technicality about how to write better. Rather, he is very much eager to “puncture the balloon’ of those who considers language simply as a technical device for establishing a stable, singular meaning instead of searching the deep rooted significance attached to it. This is the Derridaian way of demystification of positivism. It is in this way he joins the Frankfurt School’s attack on positivism, though in a different way, particularly from linguistic and literary direction.

Post modernism: Main ideas:

Postmodernism is arguably, an architectural movement [Portoghesi: 1983, Jencks: 1987]. Layotard is believed to be the most explicit postmodernist philosopher. His book, The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge describes the core of postmodern ideas on the central theme of modernity and post modernity. It is the first book that contains speeches like that: “we have entered a new epoch- the epoch of postmodernism”. As a cultural and ideological mood it arises in the wake of the so called crises of Marxism in the mid 1970s. But conceptually it is a difficult field of study in itself. Activists of the social movements or members of the organized left wings commonly ask a question what it is and what implications it bears. All are unanimous on the point that it is a spectrum of thought that touches many areas of academic or cultural practices, but it is ‘willfully illusive’. Many scholars have tried to trace the origin of post modernism to Latin American sources in the 1930s. But it gains currency much later. However, the dominant view as it is represented by many that postmodern wave starts first in France. Defeat of fascism in the Second World War has brought about a situational change in Europe. Left wing movement starts in France. The French Communist Party being a vanguard of antifascist struggle has played a very significant role in the anti-fascist struggle and has won the support of the broad section of the common people. This was evident in the post war election in which the French Communist Party scored 26% of the votes [Kaviraj: 2005] and emerged as the single largest party in the French parliament. In the wake of it, there was as a surge in the student movements’ in France. The students and the intellectuals in France were becoming critical to the imperialist policy to suppress the liberation struggle in Algeria. The reaction of the students in USA against waging an unjust war against Vietnam added fuel to the fire leading a students’ movement in France in May, in 1968. Side by side, there began powerful struggles of the working class in French cities. The agitating French students raised the demand that the students and the workers should join hands and attempt to a seizure of power. “In 1968, France was on the verge of a total revolt with 12 million workers on strike, 122 factories occupied, and students fighting against the old moribund system in which they found themselves^”. The role of the French Communist Party (PCF) in such a turbulent period was like an escapist. ‘The PCF sounded a note of caution – they warned that although the working class was ready for big strike, they were not prepared to take the risk of the seizure of power’. Thus, a section of students became dissatisfied with the PCF and held it responsible for the retreat. Even Sartre* remarked in a meeting of the students that the PCF was, “determined not to make a revolution”. (Jean Paul Sartre was a French existentialist philosopher, playwright, novelist, screenwriter, political activist, biographer and literary critic. He was arrested for civil disobedience in May in 1968). This marked an intense ‘disillusionment’ among the students and a large section of them began to take an ‘anti-communist’ (as a part of it, an anti Marxist) position. Another factor that led to the rise of postmodernism in France was the phenomenal growth of mercantile capitalism in the 1970s. The market economy was able to bring prosperity to middle class. Callinicos, the author of the book- Against Postmodernism, sums up the situation:

The political odyssey of the 1968 generation is, in my view, crucial to the wide spread acceptance of the idea of a post modern epoch in the 1980s. This was the decade when radicalized youth of the 1960s and early 1970s, began to enter middle age. Usually they did so with all hope of socialist revolution gone-indeed, often having ceased to believe in the desirability of any such revolution. Most of them had by then come to occupy some sort of professional or managerial or administrative position, to have become members of the new middle class, at a time when the over consumptionist dynamic of Western capitalism offered this class rising living standards. This conjuncture- the prosperity of the middle class combined with the political disillusionment of many of its most articulate members- provides the context of the proliferating talk of postmodernism^.7 [Callinicos,:1989]

Among the pioneers of the postmodernist revolt, there are persons who hold prestigious positions in the universities. Not only do they reject Marxism outwardly they put forward ‘new -fangled theories’ of social development. Postmodernism, was by far the most influential, at the same time, the most fashionable among them. In this connection, the names of Lyotard, Foucault and Derrida deserve special mention. Though disagreement persists among them in a wide scale, yet they put stress on the ‘fragmented, heterogeneous and plural character of the society’ [Ibid: 1989:2]. They narrate the story of progress, the march of man from a lower to a higher social formation, from stage to stage[Christopher: 1990:11]. From the seventies onwards, the influence of postmodernism has been taking place in the areas of a number of disciplines such as arts and architecture, philosophy and social sciences, aesthetic theory, literary criticism and the last but not the least women studies. Presenting the total spectrum of postmodern philosophy in single essay is a herculean task. Hence, interrogating it from the social science perspective seems to be purposively convenient. From postmodern perspective, Enlightenment, French Revolution, emancipation- all are buzzwords, and politically, it starts with a criticism of Marxist theory of revolution that carries a high flown message of emancipation. Postmodern revolt- the latest revolt in the domain thought so far starts with a strong conviction that the story of modernism is a story of failure, because it promises much than it is capable of achieving it [Kabiraj:2005]. Postmodern ideas are based on the argument that the world is changing ushering a transformation from one epoch to another. The age of modernism is on the verge of its extinction, thus an era of postmodernism begins. Modernism as represented by French Revolution or later by Marxism is now supper annulated and has no hope for survival. The Hegelian ideas of history, of unilinear progress are proved to be illusory. Marxism which claimed to be a narrative of emancipation is now dead or dying.’(ibid, 2005). In this context, one of the chief exponents of postmodernism, Lyotard declares: “I define postmodernism as incredulity toward metanarratives. [Lyotard: 1979] “The decline of narrative, he states, “can be seen as an effect of the blossoming of techniques and technologies since the Second World War, which has shifted emphasis ends of action to its means: it can also be seen as an effect of the redeployment of advanced liberal capitalism after its retreat under the protection of Keynsianism during the period 1930-60, a renewal that eliminated the communist alternative and valorized the individual enjoyment of goods and services”. So postmodernism upholds capitalism and its power of sustainability , through which , they say, it has succeeded in attaining a higher goal, that of liberal capitalism of a more advanced kind, and which in its turn enabled to defeat the communist alternative which could present nothing better than a “ totalizing model”, with “ totalitarian effects”[Kabiraj:2005:37:38]. Under the new conditions, Layotard declares: the time of old Marxist thesis of mode of production has lost its relevance. The more the machine (the computer) exercises its influence on man’s mind, the more it turns from the mode of production to the mode of information. “Knowledge is now becomes principal force of production. ‘Capitalism possesses power to derealise familiar objects-the so-called reality is reduced to a myth’. Lyotard beautifully sums up his position saying that “the nature of post modern man is changing. The criteria: true-false, just-unjust: lose their importance. The postmodern is becoming more and more value free. There are no longer any such things as totality of knowledge- ‘definition of essence is discounted’. The trend today is historicizing and socializing. The postmodern society is marked by discontinuity, catastrophes and paradoxces. We no longer have recourse to the ‘grand narratives’, ‘the title narratives’. So the exponent of postmodernism exhorts: let us keep pace with the times-‘let us wage a war on totality’, ‘let us activate the differences [Layotard: 1984]. Exponents of postmodernism are of the opinion, it is preoccupied with the problems of the highly developed countries of Europe. The Third World countries count little. They predict, ‘the Marxist thesis of the mode of production has lost its relevance, “The gap between developed and developing countries will grow ever wider in the future” [Ibid: 1984]. Thus, the progress of the Third World countries, as for the postmodernists, will undoubtedly be jeopardized, and there will even be ‘token protests’ and protests by the students, but the march of the event is inevitable. So the dream of the postmodernists is the ‘triumph of capitalism’.

Michel Foucault, an outstanding thinker of his time is best known for his unconventional approach and angularity of his views. Foucault (1926-1984) a psychologically tormented and intellectually brilliant student held a series of positions at French Universities. Foucault is not merely a philosopher. His academic orientation is more psychologically motivated than its philosophical and historical essence. His passions are literary and political. The contemporary modern world has inherited a large body of theoretical knowledge from his outstanding works like, Madness and Civilization (1961), The Birth of a Clinic (1963), The Order of Things (1966), Archaeology of Knowledge (1971), Discipline and Punish (1975), and, The History of Sexuality (1976). In his early phases of his philosophical career, Foucault is attracted by Marxism and becomes a member of the French Communist Party. But within a very short period, he cuts all sorts of communication with then French Communist Party at the crucial stage when criticism of Stalinism gets a louder voice in the West Europe. After the failure of the student’s movement in France in 1968, his interest in Marxism declines in a significant extent. He reacts strongly with Marxist dogma. Foucault asserts, as Kritzman writes on the basis of an interview with him, Marxism has become a mere dogmatic framework that perhaps proves its powerlessness to confront a wide range of issues that are not essentially a part of its domain, for example, questions of women, about relations between sexes, about medicines, about illness, about the environment, about minorities, about delinquency etc. [Kritzman: 1988]. In other interactions with Gordon, Foucault insists on the same point: one can say that what has happened since 1968 and arguably what has made 1968 possible, is something profoundly anti-Marxist. The main argument that directs the 1968 events is “the question: Marxism=the revolutionary process, an equation that institutes a kind of dogma” [Gordon: 980]. As time passes on, Foucault losses all sorts of faith on Marxism and becomes a critic of Marxist philosophy. He writes: The alternative offered by Marx revolutionary promise is of little importance. “At the deepest level of Western knowledge, Marxism introduced no real discontinuity”,- Marxism being a part of the Western episteme, it had” no intension of disturbing and above all, no power to modify, even one jot, since it rested entirely upon it… The controversies raised by Marxism, may have stirred up a few waves and caused a few surface ripples; but they are no more than storms in a children’s paddling pool’ [Foucault: 1966]. Foucault, indeed, challenges the essentiality of Marx’s conception of history. In his historical determinism, Marx puts emphasis on unity, totality and linear development of mankind, Foucault, contrarily, imbibes discontinuity, ruptures etc. He writes: “We are paying more and more attention to the play of difference”. “The history of thought, of knowledge, of philosophy, of literature seems to be seeking and discovering, more and more discontinuities, whereas history itself appears to be abandoning the interruption of events in favour of stable structures” [Foucault: 1971]. While rejecting Marx’s notion of history, Foucault comes essentially closer to Nietzsche’s genealogy. Foucault, by and large, considers Nietzsche as an emerging opponent of Marxist hegemony and feels his presence in contemporary period as increasingly prominent. Marxism, in his opinion, attaches undue importance to Enlightment. In his book, Madness and Civilization, Foucault argues that the Age of Reason has zero tolerance to ‘unreason’ or’ insanity’. The Enlightenment has encouraged the insane being ‘confined’ rather than ‘freed’. He has given an example. Before 1500 AD, as insanity being a part of everyday life, mad men walk through the streets freely, but as the Enlightment progresses; they are being considered as the threat to the society and are thrown into the asylums. The asylums, in the long run, exist not for the betterment for the mad men but to wipe them out of whatever freedom they possess, and in an ultimate position ‘not to punish less, but punish better’[ Hoy:1986]. What humanity needs, according to Foucault, is a more finely tuned mechanism of control of the social structure and generation of more effective web of power of everyday life. Thus, the disciplinary society Foucault dreams has nothing to do with Marxist concept of classes and class struggle, therefore, is an “essentialised myth”.

Jean Baudrillard, a professor of Sociology at the University Of Nanterre from 1966 to 1987, reverses his Marxist position to a postmodern thinker in the mid 1970s. Being a Marxist in his early life, Baudrillard participates in the students’ uprising of 1968 and like many others; his disappointment with the French Communist Party grows, as the later fails to extend support to the student’s movement. Eventually, he emerges as a strong critic of Marxism that unlike others, of course, takes an ultra left turn. He attacks Marxism for its soft critique of the existing society and believes that French Communist Party because of its conservativeness that has its origin in Marxism itself has failed to support the May 68 movement. Baudrillard is well known for most popular proclamation that ‘reality no longer exists’. The logic of productive forces and class domination disappear from Baudrillard’s theoretical discourse. He takes a new position where technology replaces capital, the proliferation of images, information, signs replace production. He, therefore, turns to the direction of technological determinism and rejection of political economy as an explanatory principle.

CONCLUSION:

The contribution of critical theory, post-structuralism and postmodernism is sociologically appreciated basically in two ways. First, they are methodologically relevant in the ways in which people read and write sociology that reflects mainly their opposition to positivism. Secondly, they are also relevant in their contributions to the study of state, ideology, culture, discourse, social control and social movements. These three theoretical perspectives have redefined the human sciences and cultural studies in ways that blur traditional disciplinary boundaries [Broadkey: 1987]. They are all committed to interdisciplinary construction deconstructing disciplinary differentiation as arbitrary [Klein 1989]. They are more literary, cultural than political. These three theoretical propositions have tried to realize the rigidity of class structure without taking economic thesis of capitalist irregularities into consideration. Capitalist system is not as good as it appears at first sight. New types of revolt are taking place in different parts of the world. The reappearance of working class as a vanguard of social and environmental movements reaffirms faith in class analysis of society. But the biggest blow to Marxism has probably been the unexpected survival of capitalism. As an economic and political system, capitalism seems to be more durable and flexible than communism that does not appear imminent in modern social system.

REFERENCES:

1. Agger, (1979), Western Marxism : An Introduction, Santa Monica, California: Goodyear Agger, Annual Review, 1991, 17:105-31

2. Agger, B. (1989c), Socio(onto)logy: A Disciplinary Reading, Urbana III, University III Press

3. Balu, P.M., Duncan, O. D.(1978), The American Occupation Structure, New York Free

4. Benhabib, S (1987), Critique, Norm and Utopia, New York , Columbia University Press

5. Berman, A (1988), From the New Criticism to Deconstruction: The Reception of Structuralism and Post Structuralism, Urbana III, Univ. III Press

6. Broadkey, L (1987), Academic Writing as Social Practice, Philadelphia, Temple University Press

7. Callinocos, A. (1989), Against Postmodernism: A Marxist Critique, Cambridge, Polity Press, pp. 165-68

8. Christopher, N. ((1990), What’s Wrongs With Postmodernism: Critical Theory and The End of Philosophy, Baltimore, The John Hopkins University Press, p. 11

9. Culler, J (1982), On Deconstruction: Theory and Criticism after Structuralism, Ithaca, New York, Cornell University Press

10. Diesing , P. 1991, How Does Social Science Work? Pittsburg University: Pittsburg Press

11. Durkheim, E (1950), The Rules Sociological Method, Glencoe III: Free, 1-13

12. Fischer, M. (1985), Does Deconstruction Make Any Difference, Bloomington: Ind. University Press

13. Foucault, Michel (1971), The Archaeology of Knowledge, Pantheon Books, New York.

14. Foucault, Michel, (1966), The Order of Things, Pantheon Books, New York

15. Gordon, Colin eds. (1980), Michel Foucault: Power, Knowledge- Interviews and Other Writings, 1972-1977, Pantheon Books, New York

16. Hoy, David Couzens eds. (1986), Foucault: A Critical Reader, Blackwell, Oxford, UK

17. Huges, H. S. 1945, The Sea Change: The Migration of Social Thought, 1930-1965, New York: Harper and Row

18. Jay, M. 1973, The Dialectical Imagination, Boston: Little Brown Jencks, C. (1987), Post-Modernism: The New Classicism in Arts and Architecture, New York, Rizzoli

19. Kabiraj, N. (2005), What is Postmodernism, Kolkata, K. P. Bagchi and Company

20. Kellner, D. 1989 , Critical Theory, Marxism and modernity, Cambridge:Polity

21. Klein, L (1989), Interdisciplinarity: History, Theory and Practice, Detroit, Wayne State University Press

22. Kritzman, D. Lawrence (1988), Michel Foucault- politics, philosophy, culture, interview and other writings(1977-1984), Routledge, Capman and Hall, New York.

23. Layotard, J. F. (1984), The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, USA, University of Minnesota Press

24. Lemert, C., (1980), Sociology and The Twilight of Man: Homocentrism and Discourse in Sociological Theory, Carbondale III, Southern III University Press

25. Lichtheim, G (1961), Marxism, London, RKP

26. Marcus, G., Fischer, M. eds. (1986), Anthropology as a Cultural Critique: An Experimental Moment in the Human Sciences, Chicago University, Chicago Press

27. McCarthy, T (1978), The Critical Theory of Jurgen Habermas, Cambridge, Mass. MIT Press

28. Portoghesi, P. (1983), Postmodern, the Architecture of the Postindustrial Society, New York, Rizzoli

29. Stockman, N. 1984, Antipositivist Theories of the Sciences, Dordrecht: D. Reidel

30. Taylor, Victor E, Winquist, Charles E eds (2001): Encyclopedia of Postmodernism, Routledge, New York

31. Wellmer, A (1976), Communications and Emancipation: reflections on the Linguistic turn in Critical Theory, In On Critical Theory ed. J O’Neill, New York, Seabury

Received on 16.02.2015

Modified on 25.02.2015

Accepted on 19.03.2015

Research J. Humanities and Social Sciences. 6(1): January-March, 2015, 33-40

DOI: 10.5958/2321-5828.2015.00006.6