Dear readers, perhaps you have not realized it, but your lives so far have been spent in a period called ‘postmodern’.The word is well-known to you. It has been around for many years. It almost always occurs unexpectedly, half way through an article, in the middle of a conversation, in the course of an argument on radio or television. Something, when all is said and done, is postmodern, someone is what he or she is because he or she is postmodern; (...) a strange and inexplicable phenomenon can be explained as postmodern. This changeable, suggestive, authoritative term, which seems to allude to something precise and technical and which, at the same time, suggests the epoch-making, says all that is good and all that is bad of something. Postmodern is an accusation. Postmodern is praise. What is postmodern is degenerate, has got worse, is hardly serious, of low quality, a poor imitation, irresponsible, frivolous. Nevertheless, what is postmodern is also still more topical, even more modern, forward-looking, amusing and light, cultured without being boring, sophisticated without being elitist, complex without being obscure. (shrink)

It has never been easy to understand what intellectuals are, whether they still exist, or whether they are vanishing into a huge ‘cultural middle class’ where high culture and mass culture meld into one another. With particular reference to Italy, Alfonso Berardinelli looks back at the undisputed intellectuals of the past, suggesting that they were their own critics and most determined detractors at the same time, yet full of confidence in their capacity to lay down laws for organizing and developing (...) society. In contrast, today’s intellectuals seem to embrace anonymity, and in a context defined as postmodern, they have given up being an elite that judges, whose duty is not only to produce knowledge but also to propose values and social models. (shrink)

Starting from personal experiences which led him to give up teaching at the University of Venice, Alfonso Berardinelli concentrates on the difficulties and paradoxes of the relationship between educational institutions, on the one hand, and the anarchist and misanthropic character of modern literature on the other. The majority of the `classics' of modern times, from Baudelaire to Kafka, from Tolstoy to Svevo, are `scandalous' even today: one cannot teach them without trying to convey the shock of their extraneousness from the (...) modern world and its culture. Modern literature is, in actual fact, almost always anti-modern, asocial, anti-social, apocalyptic. It is not possible to turn it into a simple `object of study' without betraying it. (shrink)