Summary of the 3 theorists

Baudrillard

His main theory is about simulacra and simulation. Simulacra is how society simulates the real. He argues that today there is no such thing as reality and we are no longer sure what is real and what is not real because there’s an instability of meaning due to the signs given by the mass media. We experience everything through the media so we accept things as being real which in fact may not be real but we perceive it as being real because it has been presented to us as being the reality. Simulation is the active process of replacement of the real.
He uses these to explain that we all live in something known as a hyperreality. This is the idea that we are now detaching ourselves from reality and choosing things which make ourselves happy.
Therefore, he is suggesting that we are now losing the ability to make sense of the distinction between the real and the fictional. This however has been criticised as jokes for example only work when people can distinguish between what is real and what is not real.

Lyotard

Simplifying to the extreme he defines postmodernism as an ‘incredulity towards metanarratives’ which means that totalising stories are losing importance. He rejects metanarratives, for example he opposes the idea that everything is knowable by science and that science possesses a higher kind of knowledge. He argues that theory is never neutral and so scientists have no more direct access to the truth than philosophers and historians. The narratives produced by scientists such as research papers and hypotheses are governed by protocols of the field in which they work in. They are therefore only exploring within the limits of the system.
He notes that there is no one set of rules, story or condition which can accurately explain knowledge. He believes that everyone has their own perspective so metanarratives should give way to more localised narratives which would address specific events and the diversity of human experience.

Jameson

He argues that postmodernism is a culture of pastiche and that “stylistic innovation is no longer possible” and “all is left is to imitate dead styles”. This is arguing that rather than a culture of creativity, postmodern culture is a culture of quotations of the past and is the imitation of styles without creating new meanings. He refers to pastiche as being a “blank parody” without any deep or hidden meanings and says that parody was replaced by pastiche in the postmodern culture.
He considers totality to still be a valuable idea. He notes that we should try to understand how all the pieces of our world and our experience fit together. This is because knowledge gives us power so the more we understand about our world, the better the choices we make and act upon them to improve our world.