The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge

Context and Aims

Jean-François Lyotard’s The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge was commissioned by the Conseil des universités du Québec and published in 1979. It examines how transformations in technology, especially computing and information systems, reshape the nature and status of knowledge in advanced capitalist societies. Rather than offering a comprehensive philosophy of history, Lyotard presents an analytical “report” on shifts in the ways knowledge is produced, legitimated, and circulated.

Lyotard contends that the rise of postindustrial economies and telematics (computer‑mediated communication) changes the criteria by which knowledge is valued. Knowledge becomes a strategic resource, increasingly evaluated in terms of performative efficiency—usefulness, profitability, and operational success—rather than truth in a classical philosophical sense. This shift, he argues, underlies a broader cultural transformation that he names the postmodern condition.

Incredulity Toward Metanarratives

The most famous thesis of the book is that the postmodern condition is characterized by “incredulity toward metanarratives.” By metanarratives (or grand narratives), Lyotard means overarching stories that claim to explain and justify the course of history and the status of knowledge—such as the Enlightenment narrative of progress through reason, or the Marxist narrative of emancipation through class struggle.

In modernity, such metanarratives were used to legitimate scientific knowledge and political institutions: science was justified as the motor of progress; the state as the guardian of freedom or equality; revolutions as steps toward universal emancipation. According to Lyotard, these narratives lose credibility in the late twentieth century, partly because of historical events (such as the atrocities of the twentieth century) and partly because growing specialization and pluralism undermine claims to a single, universal standpoint.

In a postmodern context, claims to universal, totalizing explanations are increasingly met with suspicion. Instead of one dominant story, there is a plurality of small narratives (“petits récits”)—local, partial, and often incommensurable accounts tied to particular communities, disciplines, or practices. Lyotard does not present this plurality as simply liberating or disastrous; rather, he treats it as a defining feature of contemporary culture that requires new ways of thinking about rationality, justice, and critique.

Knowledge, Science, and Language Games

A central theme of The Postmodern Condition is the distinction and relation between scientific knowledge and narrative knowledge. Lyotard argues that, historically, many societies have organized knowledge narratively—through myths, legends, and stories that simultaneously describe the world and define social norms. Modern science sought to distinguish itself from such narratives by appealing to verification, falsifiability, and methodological rigor.

Yet science itself, Lyotard claims, cannot fully justify its own rules and procedures without appealing, at some level, to narratives of legitimation (for example, narratives of progress, or of the emancipation of humanity through knowledge). When these legitimating narratives become contested, science faces a crisis of legitimation: its claims to authority are no longer grounded in commonly accepted stories about history or reason.

Drawing on Ludwig Wittgenstein, Lyotard analyzes knowledge in terms of language games—structured forms of discourse guided by explicit or implicit rules. Scientific discourse is one language game among others, alongside legal discourse, aesthetic judgment, political debate, and everyday conversation. Different language games have different criteria of validity; what counts as a good move in one game may not be meaningful in another.

In postmodernity, no single language game can claim absolute authority over all others. Instead, there is a heterogeneity of discourses and a growing awareness that attempts to impose a single rule‑system (such as a comprehensive rational or political doctrine) often suppress legitimate forms of difference. Lyotard associates the postmodern attitude with a sensitivity to dissensus—the recognition and preservation of conflicts between language games—rather than the pursuit of total consensus.

The book also stresses the informatization of knowledge. As knowledge is increasingly stored, processed, and transmitted in digital form, it becomes subject to new forms of measurement and control. Institutions may privilege knowledge that can be easily encoded, commodified, and integrated into systems of performance (e.g., in business, administration, and education). Lyotard warns that this can marginalize forms of knowledge that resist quantification, such as certain kinds of artistic, ethical, or philosophical reflection.

Reception and Criticisms

The Postmodern Condition quickly became a landmark text in discussions of postmodernism across philosophy, literary theory, architecture, and cultural studies. Lyotard’s phrase “incredulity toward metanarratives” became a standard shorthand for postmodern thought, influencing debates on the fate of Enlightenment rationality, the legitimacy of universal claims, and the politics of identity and difference.

Supporters of Lyotard’s analysis saw the work as a powerful diagnosis of late twentieth‑century culture, especially the fragmentation of disciplines and the growing role of information technologies. They drew on his defense of pluralism and local narratives to argue for more inclusive, non‑totalizing approaches in ethics, politics, and aesthetics.

Critics, however, raised several objections. Some argued that Lyotard overstated the decline of metanarratives, noting that powerful political, religious, and economic narratives continue to organize social life. Others contended that any critique of grand narratives itself relies on implicit norms or narratives, and thus cannot fully escape what it criticizes. In particular, Jürgen Habermas accused postmodern thinkers of a form of neo‑conservatism, suggesting that abandoning the project of modernity undermines the possibility of rational critique and democratic deliberation.

Other commentators questioned Lyotard’s account of science, suggesting that it simplifies scientific practice or neglects the ways scientific communities can negotiate legitimacy without relying on a single overarching story. Some sociologists of knowledge viewed Lyotard’s focus on language games as insufficiently attentive to material institutions and power structures.

Despite such criticisms, The Postmodern Condition remains one of the most cited and debated accounts of postmodernity. Its analyses of legitimation, language games, and the informatization of knowledge continue to shape discussions about universities, research funding, digital technology, and the status of the humanities in contemporary society. The work occupies a central place in the broader postmodern canon, alongside writings by figures such as Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, and Fredric Jameson, and remains a key reference for understanding late twentieth‑century shifts in philosophy and culture.