In the history subreddit on Reddit.com, I came across the following Coca-Cola ad.

The first thing I thought about when I saw the ad was the postmodern character of the ad, and somebody asked how something can be “post-modern” and what postmodernism really is.

Postmodernism doesn’t refer to something being post-contemporary, but rather, anything that generally follows certain ideas of rejection of early-20th-century modernism, as well as other generally accepted philosophical principles. The New Oxford American Dictionary defines postmodernism as “a late 20th-century style and concept in the arts, architecture, and criticism that represents a departure from modernism and has at its heart a general distrust of grand theories and ideologies as well as a problematical relationship with any notion of ‘art.'”

This specific ad mixes a pop culture item (Coke) with scholarly-studied historical figures, references itself, and rejects the accepted almost metanarrative, a usually untold abstract fact of history or culture that is exemplified through specific incidences that support the idea, of why those leaders failed. Whether this proposition is true or not lends itself to subjectivity (and postmodernism is a pretty relativist set of concepts, usually, but that’s subjective) stressed that may, to an extent, be anti-intellectualist, followed by an odd break of the social barriers (if there are or have ever been any, or if there should even be any) between more-or-less totalitarian leaders and a soft drink company. Interestingly enough, by dethroning this grand narrative, the ad serves as a symbolism of the very fall of the rulers in the picture; Jen-François Lyotard proposed the idea that metanarratives are totalitarian in their entity. This is, then, a hidden self-reference within the ad and an irony in that the ad itself proposes what is almost a new metanarrative despite its rejection of these.

Furthermore, there’s a subtle rejection of the Enlightenment concepts of liberty and freedom, as the ad suggests that Coca-Cola has successfully conquered thousands, as did the others, and since our ruler is Coca-Cola, we’ve essentially lost these two so-called “privileges.” Yet the irony lies in that Napoleon as a dictator was more people-friendly than some of the others pictured, but being that, according to Jean Baudrillard, images detach their subjects from any real correlation to an event, this inclusion of Napoleon is acceptable, even if there’s a feeling that said inclusion contradicts “historical fact,” if that can even be considered to exist. What is important here, according to Michel Foucault, is the role of the language choices made by the Coca-Cola company to get their point across: despite it seeming nonsensical and playful, it is in fact being used to break the aforementioned social power barriers.

There you have it! I doubt that the thought process needed to think about this and concoct the ad was at all intended, which is yet another powerful reason for why this ad can, to an extent, be considered a reflection of postmodern ideals. There’s also a nice overview of ideas in the Wikipedia article for postmodernism.