Postmodernism?

I, too, have listened to teachers talk about postmodernism without understanding what it meant in a literary sense. I have taken art history, so I understand the significance of the artistic postmodern movement. There are certain similarities and differences between the two. Both seem to have evolved with the rising tide of capitalism and the recession of religion as a prominent force in the world. However, literary postmodernism, for the most part, has added a certain amount of duplicity to the written word. DeLillo plays heavily upon the postmodernist ideals in his piece, Mao II. In every conversation, there rarely seems to be a unity of the characters' thoughts. In the rare situation that the characters can focus on the same subject while together, their respective realities and/or opinions on the situation fragment what could be a meaningful exchange.

In all the definitions or explanations of postmodernism that I have read, I have found no real definition of it. Any attempt at a concrete definition of postmodernism would defeat the point of the movement. Postmodernism focuses on the individual experience and differing perspectives that may (but more than often probably will not) coalesce into a collective reality. I, for the most part, do not understand the use of a literary or artistic style that does not make an attempt to be profound or seek to unify. Yes, the individual is important, but the group can be important as well, so a healthy amount of skepticism is always necessary. Postmodernism in its purest form can become its own meta-narrative.