infobong.com

I wouldn't use Foucault as an exemplar of postmodernism, partly because I don't completely understand what he's up to. He's postmodern, but I'm sure he would have bristled at being called a "postmodernist." Postmodernism is a little like porn - its hard to define, but you know it when you see it.

The other thing about Postmodernism (and Modernism, to a certain extent) is that it means different things to two different people. In the humanities like English studies and Art History, its especially tricky. You have postmodern thought and you have postmodern texts. Media studies people have it a little lucky, since media practitioners don't have an institutionalized meta-discourse the way that artists, architectects, and literary writers do. But an architect will use "postmodern" to talk about a break with modernist forms and practices, while a [hip] art historian will also encounter the notion of postmodernism in late 20th century literary and social theory, which is, as you asserted, built around an understanding of subjectivity and contingency.

If you're after a school of thought you can call "postmodernism," the best fit would be post-structuralist and deconstructionist literary critics. You know, Barthes, Derrida, and the like. They were appropriating methodologies and interpretive frameworks from the structuralists, who based their theories on 'scientific' anthropology. The later critics integrated structuralism with dialectical materialism (something I understand so poorly, I won't even try to explain) and a lot of skepticism, so - voila! - a radical school of thought emerged out of modernity. For what its worth, in my department, we would call Michel Foucault a "social constructionist" if that clarifies anything. I gave mom a book called An Invitation to Social Construction, she never read it, but if you want a good overview of contemporary "theory." you should get it from her.