Reading response - Modernity vs Postmodernity

Im not sure why Habermas decided to title his article as such since he says over and over that modernism is dead. Dead but dominant. But, oh, gee whiz, what are the neo conservatives (all 3 different kinds of em and 3 other subsets under the neo-cons) to do?? Where are the post modernist radicals and what nefarious plots are they up to?!

I make light but one thing is abundantly clear to me: most of this writing makes little to no sense to me. I admit it openly and freely and i read it word for word, over and over. I was stuck on page three for about 2 days. I think what was being discussed here was that modernity needs a successor and the article is pondering the form of that successor in culture based on a bunch of historical, philosophical models of social order which required culture, science, religion and art to be compartmentalized, post avant garde revolution, post enlightenment, into neat departments of pseudo cultural, pseudo scientific, pseudo egghead institutions for their management and elitist navel gazing upon. As such the avant garde, bolshevick, anti-art, anti-establishment becomes establishment and perpetuates the new order in much the same way as the older order calling for some new response to respond to the old new response. Hence, post modernism - and Habermas is not sure what exactly that is yet but he has an idea. Oh, yeah, you betcha, he has an idea.