Is Postmodernism a Metanarrative?

In the comments section of the previous post, several good issues arose pertaining to whether or not postmodernism is itself a metanarrative, thereby being defeated by its own argumentation. I am going to rely heavily on Middleton and Walsh here, quoting them at length, because they articulate this better than I can.

Middleton and Walsh, while exceedingly sensitive about postmodern concerns (based on their writing and my personal encounters with Middleton, they are even political liberals on many issues), do indeed believe that postmodernism is another metanarrative and does not escape its own criticism. Note the following: Postmodernism sees Modernity as the problem from which we need "salvation," so to speak. Postmodernism is, of course, the answer, or the "savior," if you will. As Middleton and Walsh say, "[Postmoderns] typically tell us a large-scale story in which modernity, with its totalizing metanarrative funcations as the complicaton or problem that is to be historically/narratively resolved by transcending the need for metanarratives. But isn't this itself a tall tale, a metanarrative of universal scope which is simply unacknowledged" (Truth is Stranger Than it Used to Be, p.76)?

Using a "smorgasbord" of options as an illustration of the postmodernist "mulitplicity of worldivews offered for our consumption," they continue with the following:

If among the variety of offerings we find Western modernist soup, Marxist rice, Christian stew and Muslim bread (so to speak), is there also a postmodern dish of some sort? Do postmodernists consider their own worldview as simply one option among many? Not at all. Postmodernity, as the master discourse which guides our understanding that all stories are mere human constructs, does not appear on the table. It is the table on which all other dishes are served. Postmodernity thus functions as the larger interpretive frame that relativizes all other worldviews as simply local stories with no legitimate claims to reality or universality. Given the clash of ideologies and aggressive violence which so characterizes postmodern plurality, why should we trust the outcome, unless we are rooted in a metanarrative that demands this? The postmodernist is thus caught in a performative contradiction, arguing against the necessity of metanarratives precisely by (surreptitious) appeal to a metanarrative (pp.76-77).

As I've tried to say before, postmodernism's critique of the universality of reason is good, because modernity has its issues; but I think it fails to address the key problems. Eliminating any possibility of a correct worldview will not solve the problem of oppressive metanarratives, but, while being a self-contradiction in and of itself, will plunge people into hopelessness, buying their identity off TV rather than finding it in the reality for which we were created.