This is what I object to: you've managed to take a relatively simple idea, that WW2 was a great leveller, that affected rich and poor alike, that class distinctions necessarily became far more blurred, and done what Zizek loves to do, i.e. tart it up around some big words to make it seem more inaccessible than it actually is without saying anything of value beyond the simple version. 'It refutes grand narratives, religious and political ideologies'.
Lol no it doesn't. Rothko and Pollock were funded by the CIA, and the progression of art always necessitates leaving behind previous cultural norms for new ones. Europe was not morally or culturally destroyed in any sense of the words. WW2 did not fragment culture. How do you suppose that would have happened? How exactly were the traps of modernism responsible for the destruction? I take it back, it does add something to use all this sort of high language, it adds a boat load of confusion. When it comes to science, it's difficult to avoid using big words when you need to be accurate, but in the world of culture and language, the aim of the game is to make things more understandable, not less, so stop going out of your way to show people that you're more knowledgeable than they are, it's a highly disagreeable personality trait and it only makes you think you've won arguments.