Jean Francois Lyotard: The Postmodern Condition

Last Updated on September 18, 2025 by Karl Thompson

Jean-François Lyotard (1924–1998) was a French philosopher and sociologist best known for his short but influential book The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge (1979). He was a proponent of post-Marxist ideas.

This work is widely seen as one of the most important statements of postmodernism. It introduces the idea that we live in a period of postmodernity, where the way we understand and use knowledge has fundamentally changed.

In this post I provide a clear summary of Lyotard’s The Postmodern Condition, explain his key concepts — especially the “end of grand narratives” — and outline why his ideas matter for sociology students today.

The Postmodern Condition (1979)

Lyotard wrote The Postmodern Condition at the end of the 1970s, a period marked by rapid change:

• The growth of computing and new technologies.
• Expanding globalisation and economic change.
• The rise of mass media and consumer culture.
• Declining influence of traditional institutions like the Church, the nation-state, and even science.

Lyotard argued that these developments signalled a move into postmodernity. In this new condition, knowledge itself changes — how it is produced, who controls it, and what it is used for. He argued that knowledge had become fractured and more fragmented.

Knowledge in the postmodern era

Lyotard developed his theory of knowledge by drawing on the work of two philosophers: Nietzsche and Wittgenstein who had both criticised modernist conceptions of knowledge for claiming there could be unproblematic, objective and absolute truth, and that science was the way to that truth.

Nietzsche and Wittgenstein both argued that there were a plurality of specific, localised truths which were relative to particular times and places. What counted as true in one context may not be true in another and there was no way of knowing which truth was ‘truer’ than others.

Like these two thinkers, Lyotard insisted that knowledge is always particular and subjective rather than universal and objective.

He argued that knowledge itself has become transformed in the postmodern condition.

• In modernity, knowledge was valued for its truth.
• In postmodernity, knowledge is valued for its usefulness and performance — how well it can be applied or sold.
• Knowledge becomes a commodity: packaged, marketed and distributed much like any other product.

For example: universities increasingly prioritise research that attracts funding or serves business, rather than knowledge for its own sake. Today, AI systems and digital platforms highlight this shift further — information is produced and consumed based on speed and utility, not necessarily accuracy.

Modernity and Metarranatives

in pre-modern societies the telling of stories, myths or legends was the principle language game.

The people with the right to speak these stories gained their legitimacy on the basis of who they were, on their authenticity as being born into that particular tribe and having had those stories passed down to them by their parents and grandparents.

However this changed in the 17th century with the onset of the Enlightenment…

The Enlightenment and Metanarratives

With the Enlightenment, language games were replaced with scientific ‘denotive games’ in which legitimacy was no longer based on an individual’s authenticity but on the extent to which statements stood up to testing according to agreed upon standards from by other people (other scientists in the case of science).

Scientific statements are subjected to rigorous testing by other scientists who either provide proof of a truth-claim another scientist is making or falsify that claim. Evidence found using the scientific method and rational argument are employed to establish the legitimacy of truth claims made by scientists.

Science attempted to maintain a distance between itself and other social conventions so that it could remain objective, and in doing so science established itself as a metanarrative (big stories which claim universal truths).

Scientists claimed they had access to superior knowledge based on the scientific method which was objective, and this would be the basis for emancipating humanity from the ignorance of primitive knowledge based on narratives which were in turn were legitimated by the status of the people telling those stories.

Scientists believed that their objective knowledge could form the basis for human progress.

However Lyotard criticised the ability of scientific institutions to be able to remain truly detached from the narratives of daily life, especially when science is funded by powerful institutions.

Political Metanarratives

Science was not the only ‘big story’ making claims to universal truths in modernity. According to Lyotard the two principle political metanarratives of modernity were Liberalism and Marxism.

Liberalism claimed that modernity was a period of increasing individual freedom and prosperity based on the spread of capitalism and democracy.

Marxism believed that Capitalism only advanced through subordinating the working classes and that in order to achieved true progress we needed to emancipate the working classes through revolution and communism.

However according to Lyotard both of the above are fictions, merely the idea of particular people who benefitted from trying to pass off these stories as truth.

The End of Grand Narratives

One of Lyotard’s most famous claims is that postmodernity is defined by the end of grand narratives.

• In modernity, people believed in “grand narratives” (or “metanarratives”): big, universal theories that claimed to explain everything — such as Marxism, Functionalism, or the Enlightenment story of progress through science and reason.
• In postmodernity, these narratives lose credibility. People no longer trust any single worldview to explain society.
• Instead, knowledge is fragmented into many “mini-narratives” — small, local stories or perspectives that only apply in specific contexts.

Lyotard called this “incredulity towards metanarratives” — scepticism towards big theories that claim universal truth.

Narratives and language games

Narratives help to establish the social order of a society and narratives are developed through what Lyotard called language-games. Language-games are games in which participants try to assert that certain claims are true.

Each statement is a move in which participants are trying to get other people to accept their truth-claims as valid and reject the validity of other statements. Whoever wins the language game gains legitimacy or power over the truth.

Knowledge has always been relative, but at certain points in history some narratives have gained prominence and tried to cover up the truth that knowledge is relative – such as with religious world views, science or political ideologies such as Liberalism and Marxism.

Different groups each have their own narratives which help them to make sense of the world and themselves, but each of these ‘mini-narratives’ is valid in its own right for each particular group and cannot be criticised or evaluated from the point of view of another, because no one narrative is more true than any other.

The postmodern condition and scientific knowledge

In science denotative games (the search for universal truth) are replaced by technical games as science turns more towards the most efficient way of achieving goals, rather than the search for absolute truth

Moreover for Lyotard in postmodern society knowledge increasingly becomes something which can be bought and sold, it is a market-product and thus most certainly not free from relativist context.

A mindset, not a period in history

For Lyotard the postmodern condition isn’t just a period in history like some other commentators on postmodernity have suggested, it is a mindset that has always existed.

Subjectivity, relativism and uncertainty have always been part of life, they were part of modernity too, but in modernity the postmodern mindset was subjugated by metanarratives which claimed a monopoly on truth.

Criticisms of Lyotard

Lyotard’s arguments have been widely criticised:

Science still matters – critics argue he underestimates the continuing power of science and evidence in shaping the modern world (e.g. climate change research, medical knowledge).

Too vague – “incredulity towards metanarratives” is a description, not a full theory of society.

Relativism problem – if all knowledge is relative, then Lyotard’s own theory is just another narrative with no more credibility than the rest.

Why Lyotard Matters for Sociology

Lyotard’s work raises challenging questions for sociology itself:

• If sociology relies on big theories (like Functionalism or Marxism), can it still make universal claims in a postmodern age?
• If truth is relative and fragmented, should sociology focus on local, specific studies rather than trying to explain society as a whole?
• His work also helps us understand contemporary issues such as fake news, culture wars, and knowledge in the digital age.

For students, Lyotard highlights why sociological theory is so contested — different perspectives, no single winner, and growing uncertainty.

Summary Table: Lyotard and The Postmodern Condition

Concept	Explanation	Example
End of Grand Narratives	Big, universal theories lose credibility	Decline of religion in Europe; scepticism of Marxism
Knowledge as a Commodity	Knowledge valued for performance/usefulness	University research tied to business funding
Language Games	Different groups construct truth differently	Science vs. religion vs. media explanations
Relativism	No universal truth, only perspectives	Competing views on climate change or “fake news”

---

Conclusion

Jean-François Lyotard’s The Postmodern Condition is a landmark statement of postmodernist thought.

By declaring the end of grand narratives and showing how knowledge becomes fragmented, commodified and relative, Lyotard captures what it means to live in a postmodern society.

For sociology, his work raises key questions: Can we still search for universal truths? Or must sociology adapt to a world of competing mini-narratives?

Either way, Lyotard remains a vital reference point for understanding postmodernity, postmodernism and the changing role of knowledge in society.

---

Further Reading

• Postmodernity and Postmodernism in Sociology (Hub Page)
• Key Definitions: Modernity, Postmodernity, Modernism and Late Modernity
• From Modernity to Postmodernity
• Postmodernism: An Introduction for A-Level Sociology
• Criticisms of Postmodernism

Sources

Jean Francois Lyotard (1984) The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge.

Jean Francois Lyotard by Bracha L. Ettinger, CC BY-SA 2.5, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=2517804..

The Postmodern Condition book cover By Scan of book cover, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=44167713.

Part of this post was adapted from Haralambos and Holborn (2013) Sociology Themes and Perspectives 8th Edition.

Further Resources on Postmodernity and Postmodernism

If you’d like to explore further, check out my main hub and core posts on this topic:

• Postmodernity and Postmodernism in Sociology (Hub Page)
• Key Definitions: Modernity, Postmodernity, Modernism and Late Modernity
• From Modernity to Postmodernity
• Postmodernism: An Introduction for A-Level Sociology

This material is mainly relevant to the Theory and Methods topic within A level sociology.

To return to the homepage – revisesociology.com