My point is that I know no contemporary scholar claiming to be postmodernist and I am not aware of recent efforts to build on this theory. I might err, as it is impossible to read everything.
What I have witnessed is that people use postmodernism as a strawman, usually in a reactionary stance. This article is no exception, even if it brings some interesting points debated in other comments.
As a serious answer to a somewhat rhetorical question: Some have suggested realism and I find their endeavor interesting. This book is one good example.
That's probably because postmodernism isn't a theory. It's a very broad term that encompasses many, many responses to Modernism and the politics of that era.
Critical theory is alive and well, especially in law. I do love me some good critical theory since it's effective application can dismantle most ideologies that refuse to acknowledge their basis in violence. I don't think anyone is a "critical theorist" but it's certainly a tool many scholars use.
Postmodernism had a lot of fruits. Some of them are still perfectly juicy and nutritious and some turned out to be bitter and indigestible. Certainly, I would prefer to discuss the weirdest pomo over the vulgar scientism that's popular around here :)
