In my experience there are two types of post-modernists. There are those of us who see it as a cultural shift. We are tired of the constraints of modernism clumsily restricting our lives. I like to sum up this movement in one sentence: we are more interested in what is real than what is "right." We want to live life to the fullest, to be free to pursue truth and beauty. We don't want to be shackled by superstitions or irrational dogmas (or even by the dogma of strict rationalism). We tend to "deconstruct" any pre-held beliefs we hold, consider their merits, and form new beliefs based on the reality we find ourselves in. On a whole I consider it a noble endeavor aimed at liberating us from silly cultural restraints without eliminating restraint altogether. When we deconstruct something we find what is useful in it and replace it with something more appropriate. The idea is not to do away with society or restraint, the idea is to find what is real and subscribe to it rather than what society has termed "right" with no basis.
On the other hand are post-modernists who exactly what we avoid. They seek to use post-modernism as an excuse to eliminate restraint and personal responsibility altogether. In the Church this group of post-modern Christians use that title to reinterpret scripture to whatever suites their desires. They deconstruct anything they don't like and put nothing back in its place. They start with answers and frame the questions accordingly. They do not seek even what is real, just what feels best. They do not pursue truth and beauty, they pursue pleasure. And they are not really revolutionary in any way. People like this have been around in all cultures in all times. They are sometimes called hedonists. But now they have a catchy title of a movement that is still ambiguous enough that they can claim it gives them the right to behave the way they do. They try to sell irresponsibility and short-sightedness as revolutionary progress. In truth they stand against the ideals of the other post-modernists at least as much, and probably more, than the modernists.
My previous two posts about communism and the ensuing discussion prove that when immoral people become famous under the name of an ideal they forever taint that ideal. Because Marx, Lenin, Mao, and Stalin used "communism" any similarly named movement will be associated with them. Post-modernism has the potential to be an amazing movement in restoring vitality to our culture and our world. However, it is still a young movement and is defined in the popular mind by whoever is loudest in proclaiming they hold its views. If a Marx or Lenin picks up Post-modernism and makes their definition the accepted one then we will never be free of their influence and Post-modernism will become a tainted movement. That is why those of us dedicated to the moral ideals of Post-modernism need to work to define the movement on our terms. We must not sit by and watch some ambitious and immoral figure hijack Post-modernism for their own benefit. We must insist that Post-modernism is not really this ugly specter that threatens society and civility. We must take the chances afforded us, like blogs, to spread the best ideals of Post-modernism and combat those who would turn it into an excuse for anarchy and bacchanalism. As a movement we are at a crossroads, and our actions may determine whether history sees Post-modernism as society's redeemer or a scourge on the earth like communism.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Well, you better hurry, 'cause I know I'm already getting disinterested in post-modernism. It seems more and more that "post-modernism" means that anything that is an established belief is probably wrong and stupid and has no merit to it at all. I think part of it is that this is the thinking of many college students already, and college students are really embracing post-modernism. To me, it seems that established beliefs are established for a reason. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with looking at such beliefs and seeing why they are there and what their merits are, but some of these "post-modernists" forget that part and just throw away anything that they didn't come up with.
As far as the church goes, it seems like "post-moderns" will completely throw out any idea presented by organized denominations only because they are organized denominations. If it's not new, it's probably not worth listening to. This is not a good trend.
I can see what you're saying, but I know that I personally am beginning to really question anything that flies under the banner of "post-modernism". They'd probably call me a traditionalist, and I call them happy-feel-good hippies.
Yeah, so this comment is kinda scatter-brained, but I hope you at least see what I'm saying.
Hey, if Mike's out, so am I. Forget this post-modern thing.
I really don't think there's any danger of postmodernism being villanized like communism, and here's why: it's not a political movement. Say what you will about communism, it's always been asociated with politics. Capitalism and Libertarianism are on the same playing field as Communism. Postmodernism shares it's turf with more abstract and holistic isms, like rationalism, determinism, relativism, etc. You don't have to worry about Peter Singer destroying the term.
I seriously do agree with Mike though - Post-Modernism seems more likely to become a category into which more applicable philosophies are placed. This has already started - I'd say that relativism and radical orthodoxy are two very different sides of the postmodern coin.
On a slightly different note, post modernism is also sort of a misnomer. Charles Pierce was the first person I've heard to say that Pascal was the (or at least "a") first true "postmodern" thinker, and I'm inclined to agree. The postmodern movement is thus full of ideas that are really pre-modern, current, and post-modern. It's more "non-modernism" than anything.
I think that Sturdy has proved my point. He already is dismissing post-modernism as stupid because irresponsible people are using it to justify their irresponsibility. I know he's not too upset yet, cause he still goes to church with me at a church in which many people claim to be "post-modern." But the point is made: when people use a term to justify something bad people don't want anything to do with anything associated with the term. It probably won't ever be like communism because I don't think anyone will found an oppressive government on post-modernism, but I think the point is made and the parrellel drawn.
I don't think that "post-modern" is a bad term. A theme in post-modernism is reexamining pre-modern things and adopting some of the things modernism rejected. But we still are moving out of and past modernism, which by definition make us post-modern. Furthermore, I don't believe that you can ever undo anything thats been done, so even if we go back to everything pre-modern we still are different than the pre-modern societies because we have been through modernism. What is to come can never be the same as what was because there have been experiences in between that, if nothing else, we have endured and hopefully learned from. We are past modernism so we are post-modern.
Well, by that definition, you don't have to worry about a despot, because everything from this point forward is "post-modern" anyway.
I think most postmoderns really mean post-enlightenment, which as I said is something of a misnomer, as some of the most brilliant non-enlightenment thinkers were pre-enlightenment anyway.
It's weak, vague, ill-defined, and too abstract to lay down a viable way to see the world. Your friends only say "postmodern" because it's a buzz word, and because they don't know anything better to say right now (neither do I), and because David Crowder told them to.
"It's weak, vague, ill-defined, and too abstract to lay down a viable way to see the world"
Thats my point. Right now it is, but I doubt that it will be forever. At some point, maybe only in retrospect, there is going to be some more firm definition given to post-modernism. Because we are living in the time when it is being defined we have the opportunity to define it ourselves if we want. Culture is always shifting and changing, and in that way we always have the chance to affect the world's development. However, it seems that now is a time of particularly intentional change. As such the change is likely to be greater in a shorter period of time, and the shifts larger. Maybe everyone feels like the time they are living in is like that... I guess the hippies did.
"Your friends only say "postmodern" because it's a buzz word, and because they don't know anything better to say right now (neither do I), and because David Crowder told them to."
I like that. And that really is how it feels sometimes.
Don't worry Greg, I still see your point, but it does seem like that from time to time.
I really don't think it ever will. Post-modernism isn't cohesive, and I don't think it's going to be. It's an umbrella parent philosophy that will spawn other much more tangible and livable ways of seeing the world that will be isms in their own right and will be much more judgeable. Relativism is probably the best example of one that's already here, although it might pre-date pm. Radical Orthodoxy is the intellectual Christian response, so far, and there's pragmatism, and a few others floating around. It's these philosophies and others like them that are going to have movers and shakers associated with them - I think, like I said earlier, that Post-Modernism is more of a category than an actual philosophy in it's own right. I think you should go look into some of those and see if they have anything useful to offer you. You might really get into radical orthodoxy...so far it hasn't really done much for me, but I might just not be post modern enough to accept it, or something.
A few thoughts.
(1) I think you're correct that 20th century fascist butchers like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, etc. have managed to destroy much of whatever legitimacy communism ever had. Isn't it interesting that the butchers of Christianity have not done that? While there hasn't been one on the scale of a Mao, there have been many more throughout history.
(2) redhurt's right when he says that PM is more of a category than a fleshed-out -ism. When you start reading the post-modernists, most of whom don't even like to be called that--Derrida, Rorty, Lyotard, Baudrillard, Deleuze, Lacan, Foucault, and to a lesser extent Heidegger, Wittgenstein, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, and Pascal--you realize they have very little in common except a style. Here's what the Stanford encyclopedia says:
"That postmodernism is indefinable is a truism. However, it can be described as a set of critical, strategic and rhetorical practices employing concepts such as difference, repetition, the trace, the simulacrum, and hyperreality to destabilize other concepts such as presence, identity, historical progress, epistemic certainty, and the univocity of meaning."
I like that. It's a style. Lyotard's definition, which is much shorter and comes from a book from 1983ish, is "a distrust of meta-narratives."
So, post-modernism is a sort of academic practice that involves deconstructing texts, questioning modernist assumptions about ontology, employing playful and arcane rhetorical and literary practices, and writing books whose meanings are difficult to nail down. Most evangelical Christian teenagers and most people don't know what these things are.
(3) Since even most post-modern Christians don't want to chuck tradition and orthodoxy out entirely, PM as applied to the church means, I think, merely giving up on some modernist assumptions about truth and dogma. It doesn't necessarily mean we go off into the woods with guitars to do church; it doesn't mean we necessarily turn church into simply a cool place to hang out; it doesn't mean we go around decontstructing objectivity and become relativists. I think it just means we admit that life without Christianity isn't totally meaningless; that people can't (necessarily) be argued into becoming people of faith; that many different styles of worship and church are acceptable; and things of this nature. To the extent that post-modernism revels in the chaos and fragmentation of contemporary life we must part ways with it; but to the extent that it helps us slough off some modernist assumptions that we were better off without we should embrace it. redhurt, I think you were 100% on when you called it "non-modernism."
(4) You'll often hear people saying "In our post-modern times..." and I've never been able to figure out what this means. If you want to say modernity ended in 1914, or 1945, or 1972, or 2000, or something, and so we're de facto living in post-modern times because we need a name for this era, then fine; but it's extremely difficult to defend the notion that post-modernism somehow characterizes this era and our society in a meaningful way when most people don't know what it is and haven't read any post-modern thinkers.
(5) Post-modernism is always associated with relativism and "anything goes," but I think this is a mistake. Many post-modern thinkers are fiercely moral in their own ways. Rorty, for example, supports the spread of democracy around the world, spoke out against terrorism and Al Qaeda in Germany in 2002, and supported the war in Afghanistan. Baudrillad hates the US, rejoiced after 9/11 happened, and "intends to simulate, grasp, and anticipate historical events, that he believes are continually outstripping all contemporary theory," whatever the hell that means. Neither of them is a relativist.
well, that does it for me - chuck's last comment is waaaay too long.
Way too long, or way too articulate and totally sweet? Take a minute and get back to me.
misnomer
Post a Comment