Let us define postmodernism here as emphasizing nurture (cultural or societal influence) over nature (biological influence).

Where do we ground human behavior? Does nature or nurture determine it?

If behavior is granted to be psychological, rather than only physiological, then we must contend with whether we act with agency.

The more agentically we act, the stronger nurture’s role is.

In other words: the more free will we humans possess, the more postmodern we are.

We shouldn’t ignore our biology. But to what extent does it constrain or define what we do?

Genetics predisposes us toward certain behaviors over others. This equates with tendency, but not hard determinism.

Similarly, our environments play a role in what we can do, should do, and ultimately do.

What do societal and/or cultural influence look like? Society consists in two or more people who agree (i.e., they enter into a “contract”) on certain axioms for living. These comprise said society’s ethics.

Culture, I have argued, consists in preferred modes of being and doing. Such constitutes our style, or “art” of being. We have “tastes” for and against certain modes of living.

Societally, then, our behavior is governed by our agreed-upon ethics. Culturally, what we do should capitalize on our desired ways of being.

Arguably, society is largely a modern construct. Culture may be granted to be more evolutionarily recent: it is postmodern.

Postmodern living is how we freely choose to cope with facticity (including law and the world of physical objects: what we are “thrown” into the world amidst). Societal living consists in fulfilling our formal roles as social beings, e.g. providing for our families and others.

Postmodernity grants us individual freedom, given that we act sufficiently as responsible social agents.