Reflections on postmodernism

I've just trawled through a chapter on postmodernism, the wonderful theory that seems to enjoy pointing out the fact that other theories have dug themselves into deep holes, while not realising that it is itself in a very deep hole. One of its biggest claims, is in fact that one should treat any theory that makes a 'claim' with great incredulity and suspicion. The paradox is that postmodernism in doing this has tied its feet together. However, besides this slight hiccup, it has a point. I dismissed it as being one of those theories that criticized for the sake of criticising. In terms of International Relations, postmodernism critiques theories such as Realism and Liberalism that make certain claims about human nature, and the way in which it can be seen through the behaviour of nation states. Realism argues we are all very selfish, self-interested, individuals who must do everything we can to survive. When it comes to the crunch, we would rather screw someone over for our own personal gain. Liberalism on the other hand suggests that we are more inclined to cooperate, and that human nature, is essentially good. Postmodernism laughs in the face of both theories, mocking them for making such exaggerated claims. Postmodernism further suggests that every theory has been propelled against the backdrop of the individual's personal beliefs and agenda. In this sense, conflicts of ideas are bound to take place. Basically, theories are a form of domination. They are created to influence or change the mind of people. It can be further argued, that any form of domination has either been accepted or resisted. The latter, often results in conflict. This raised interesting questions. Is it our inability to supress our ego, concede defeat, and the desire to always prove ourselves amongst others, the reasons for conflict? For example, when somebody goes to great lengths displaying his strength and prowess, flexing his muscles so to speak, there will always be someone there to prove he is better and stronger. This is the same with theories, they are an expression of our egos, and our academic abilities. In this sense, postmodernism has played the role of deflating the acedemic ego; scholars often claim too much for their theories so to speak. In this sense, postmodernism, though it has dug itself a hole, might have made an important point. Consider international relations, the topic being taken into consideration. The behaviour of states often reflects the behaviour of individuals, they compete, and employ any measures to become stronger. They acquire military technology, and build bigger and stronger armies. Now, they have nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. But why have states gone to such measures? Firstly, to protect themselves. Secondly, to compete and gain the edge over their opponents, and essentially, to dominate rather than be dominated. Now hold this thought, what if .. states could abandon their military ambitions? Of course, in such a world where states cannot trust one another, where international laws are disregarded, it would be foolish for a state to let its guard down so to speak. But, if at some point, the different actors of international politics, the global forces, Islam, Christianity, the 'West', the 'Orient', and Communism, amongst many others, could abandon their ambitions to dominate all other forms of ideologies etc, and admit that perhaps their relentless and stubborn preference of their own ideas, has caused more grief than goodness, then perhaps, something positive might result ..