"after Auschwitz, poetry cannot be written" - Theodor Adorno
The technological development in the field of nuclear weapons has brought humanity to a state which the danger of total extinction is hovering above it. This brings us to the question - who will suffer the loss of human beings lives if they themselves annihilate these lives? Answer: not a single soul. Total annihilation is not a loss for there can be no loss without there being a loser. Therefore, we must search for the meaning of extinction only in human beings expectation of it, the very same expectation that corrupts their very own lives (according to Jonathan Shell).
Just as the meaning of the past is only fully understood in the present, the meaning of our acts in the present seek for their full understanding in the future. The threat of self extinction of humanity therefore redefines the face of the moral world we live in today. It is commonly considered that a single event that occurs in the present may lead to several different results in the future. This may also be looked upon from the opposite perspective - our acts in the present, in part, are a suggestion as to shaping the future a certain way. In other words, the future which we are preparing ourselves has a role in shaping the present we are operating in now.
The current policy of nuclear threat is in a way a suggestion to a general behavior that portrays a refusal by principal to the possibility of the existence of a moral world, one of a moral time and space, without such there is no moral existence to the world.
If an end shall come to man in the same threat of mutual suicide, history will then come to an end. If our present is the past of the future - it now has a new meaning from the one we thought. One of the ways in which our acts in the present get their meaning is from our own conception - the way we imagine the future. Self extinction of humanity is a denial of any possible future, and in that it is in fact denial of any meaning of the present.
Today denial of human respect is no theoretical threat - it is an existing reality that is well instilled in us. We are living in the present, in a world that chooses to continue what was invented in Auschwitz, Majdanek and Hiroshima. Today, human traits are no longer a source of great honor. Degrading behavior is no longer surprising or upsetting, insult and disrespect have become integral parts of our world.
If indeed justice is with sustainers of the nuclear threat there is then no alternative to this world of degraded honor: we are - in Albert Camus' words - "the victims and the executors" all at once.
Is it possible to create a present based on a positive memory of the future and not that of annihilation?
The answer is in the hands of man!
Notes:
How can you write poetry when you know man can create the Holocaust?
Future picture and self-fulfilling prophecy
Is it possible to have a positive future picture?
Future picture is hard > idealistic, but also shaped by the fact that humans created Auschwitz. Which "reality" is more prevalent?
humans created Auschwitz shaping future picture > apathy
What is the future picture for your life? Your actions, interactions, and relationships should reflect that. Garin Aliya? Socialism? Anarchy? Shivyon Erech Haadam? Or is it a super capitalist America?
Don't accept that there will be conflict and war forever!
("That's not what I want, but that's what it is.") No > Enemies surrounding us > Mifgash B'Englit > accepting that
See peace in future > prepare for it, treat Israeli Arabs better
See no peace in future > prepare for it, racism
Use imagination in future picture!
Martin Buber, Zion and the Youth: Older people see "reality" > push on youth > accepting
America's future picture > violent, survival of the fittest > strength, don't touch us > mass weapon build-up
Postitive future picture > may sound naive, but it is important, even essential > We need the courage to see and act towards things that may be/seem naive, but is what we believe is right.
Don't be afraid to think naive thoughts or to imagine a different world.
You can't imagine or work toward a better world alone. You need a group. Work together!
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
On the New Human - A. D. Gordon
Creating a new life requires the creation of a new person. Ideals, aspirations, and deeds that a person does not renew with his own hands will end up being dictated by the very life and spirit around him that he seeks to conquer, and will become swallowed up by that life until no trace is left...
A true expression of an ideal must live in all of the cells and atoms of an entire organism. This expression, which is essentially the life renewal of the bearer of the ideal, is the complete and proper discovery of this being's desire for change.
A true expression of an ideal must live in all of the cells and atoms of an entire organism. This expression, which is essentially the life renewal of the bearer of the ideal, is the complete and proper discovery of this being's desire for change.
On Judaism - Berl Katznelson
There is an ancient Hebrew saying, which I believe is an important principle, particularly in these times: 'Anyone who repudiates idolatry is called a Jew' (Megillah, 13A)... Judaism was based on the belief in the Oneness of the Creator. And then arose the sage who proclaimed that this one thing alone was sufficient for Judaism: repudiating idolatry! I look upon this as one of the brilliant discoveries of Jewish thought and character. Jewish culture does not begin with some grand credo, but with the war against idolatry. We might well translate 'idolatry' as 'fetishism'. The starting point for Judaism is the war against fetishism; the search for truth begins with the war against idolatry.
Zion and the Youth - Martin Buber
The youth are humanity's eternal possibility for happiness. This possibility occurs
repeatedly and humanity misses it again and again. Generations of people in their
twenties return to the stage again and again with the passion of absolute yearning
in their hearts, devoted to ideals, ready and waiting to break through the blocked
gates of Eden.
Nothing stands between this generation and the fulfillment of its obligation but the deed itself; and hence they prepare themselves. But in the hour of preparation an abundance of inferior and unimportant goals from the society around them take control of the youths' souls. Vain urges of egotism and the urges for excellence and power take control of them. Their environment preaches the perception that the 'facts' are stronger than the ideals and that we are subjects in a sequence of events that we cannot change, shape, or control, and that the aspiration to escape from the rituals of the all-powerful “greater good” will turn the rebel into an outsider from society and a hallucinatory person. He will become a man that lives a life of celibacy, who isolates himself from society, and is unsuccessful. This preaching overcomes the longings and devotion; the pure force, which was going to actualize a life of truth on earth, was coerced into becoming a burden of lies and the burden of the soulless walking on the sidelines. And the remaining few rebels, who were abandoned and left behind by their friends become – as was foretold – the exceptions that do not succeed in life. And again the empty mechanism was saved; it was proven again that inertia is stronger than the flight of the free spirit, which aspires to legislate more exalted laws. And again humanity did not receive the achievement and the chance that fate summoned for it, and a new generation rises up, a new youth, and what had happened to its predecessors will happen to it too.
However, the uniqueness of times in which great internal and external crises occur in the lives of nations and humanity as a whole, is that they refuse to surrender to the decree, they rebel against the law of inertia and dare to save the youthful vigor that did not yet disintegrate, and from it they dare to grow an act of revolution, an act of renewal. These times speak to the youth with lungs of fire, they demand from the youth, even command of it, not to surrender, to face the evil, to save the soul, and to do its deeds. And the youth listens.
This youth stretches via great exertion and shakes itself free from the coercion of the empty mechanism, and is not tempted by it. This youth dares to do what is beyond. It performs an act like Yehoshua in Givon: it delays the sun from rising in the sky until its endeavor is completed. It prolongs its youth by one hour, one great hour, and performs what is necessary for the turning point to occur.
Nothing stands between this generation and the fulfillment of its obligation but the deed itself; and hence they prepare themselves. But in the hour of preparation an abundance of inferior and unimportant goals from the society around them take control of the youths' souls. Vain urges of egotism and the urges for excellence and power take control of them. Their environment preaches the perception that the 'facts' are stronger than the ideals and that we are subjects in a sequence of events that we cannot change, shape, or control, and that the aspiration to escape from the rituals of the all-powerful “greater good” will turn the rebel into an outsider from society and a hallucinatory person. He will become a man that lives a life of celibacy, who isolates himself from society, and is unsuccessful. This preaching overcomes the longings and devotion; the pure force, which was going to actualize a life of truth on earth, was coerced into becoming a burden of lies and the burden of the soulless walking on the sidelines. And the remaining few rebels, who were abandoned and left behind by their friends become – as was foretold – the exceptions that do not succeed in life. And again the empty mechanism was saved; it was proven again that inertia is stronger than the flight of the free spirit, which aspires to legislate more exalted laws. And again humanity did not receive the achievement and the chance that fate summoned for it, and a new generation rises up, a new youth, and what had happened to its predecessors will happen to it too.
However, the uniqueness of times in which great internal and external crises occur in the lives of nations and humanity as a whole, is that they refuse to surrender to the decree, they rebel against the law of inertia and dare to save the youthful vigor that did not yet disintegrate, and from it they dare to grow an act of revolution, an act of renewal. These times speak to the youth with lungs of fire, they demand from the youth, even command of it, not to surrender, to face the evil, to save the soul, and to do its deeds. And the youth listens.
This youth stretches via great exertion and shakes itself free from the coercion of the empty mechanism, and is not tempted by it. This youth dares to do what is beyond. It performs an act like Yehoshua in Givon: it delays the sun from rising in the sky until its endeavor is completed. It prolongs its youth by one hour, one great hour, and performs what is necessary for the turning point to occur.
About Approval and Demand, or "How Can You Move the Earth Through One Spot"
"Give me one point to stand on, and I will move the Earth." - Archimedes
Suddenly, when you are approved of, you are happy.
That revolutionary sensation that only someone standing in front of you can give you: that you have an undisputed, unconditional place; regardless of reality, regardless of season. That within you, within your uniqueness, there is an internal place that will exist forever and eternally have a place in the world. This is how the person facing you makes you happy and gives you his approval.
There is here a very fragile sensitivity, but its power is great.
You are being approved of. There is a concealed part within you - that even you do not understand completely, which is given an undisputed place. And now, all of the storms, all of the arguments, all of the challenges, all of the hardships and disagreements can come and they are suddenly not so bad, not so final, and not so cold. Not everything is dependent on them. Suddenly everything is not so dependent on these things. What freedom! The painful dependence has disappeared.
There is now the place to make mistakes, to receive, to be angry and to demand.
And you feel as though someone has found within you that same "Archimedean point," that inner-point that will not disappoint, that, with its help, it is possible to move the entire world.
Now, suddenly, a place for demand is created, as if by itself. A great place. The demand stops being external, hostile or foreign. It becomes natural and warm. The difficulty still exists within it, and it can still hurt, but it's a difficulty of warmth, of contact. It no longer has within it the cold and distant sting of judgment, the threatening sward of loneliness, "If you don't do this, than you will no longer have a place."
You are approved of, and then demanded of, demanded of and then approved of. And suddenly something is cleared up for you - that the demand of you is an extension of the approval. That only those who truly demand of you, with warmth and with feeling, can approve you and vice versa.
And without words, you are demanded, maybe, to speak the most beautifully, the most difficultly - you also must approve of - the person facing you.
Only you can do this. What a simple wonder, and so difficult! And only you can give him - the person in front of you - make him feel approved of and happy. And now, it is possible to imagine, to desire, and to demand - an approving, demanding, and happy tzevet, and approving and demanding society. A happy society.
Suddenly, when you are approved of, you are happy.
That revolutionary sensation that only someone standing in front of you can give you: that you have an undisputed, unconditional place; regardless of reality, regardless of season. That within you, within your uniqueness, there is an internal place that will exist forever and eternally have a place in the world. This is how the person facing you makes you happy and gives you his approval.
There is here a very fragile sensitivity, but its power is great.
You are being approved of. There is a concealed part within you - that even you do not understand completely, which is given an undisputed place. And now, all of the storms, all of the arguments, all of the challenges, all of the hardships and disagreements can come and they are suddenly not so bad, not so final, and not so cold. Not everything is dependent on them. Suddenly everything is not so dependent on these things. What freedom! The painful dependence has disappeared.
There is now the place to make mistakes, to receive, to be angry and to demand.
And you feel as though someone has found within you that same "Archimedean point," that inner-point that will not disappoint, that, with its help, it is possible to move the entire world.
Now, suddenly, a place for demand is created, as if by itself. A great place. The demand stops being external, hostile or foreign. It becomes natural and warm. The difficulty still exists within it, and it can still hurt, but it's a difficulty of warmth, of contact. It no longer has within it the cold and distant sting of judgment, the threatening sward of loneliness, "If you don't do this, than you will no longer have a place."
You are approved of, and then demanded of, demanded of and then approved of. And suddenly something is cleared up for you - that the demand of you is an extension of the approval. That only those who truly demand of you, with warmth and with feeling, can approve you and vice versa.
And without words, you are demanded, maybe, to speak the most beautifully, the most difficultly - you also must approve of - the person facing you.
Only you can do this. What a simple wonder, and so difficult! And only you can give him - the person in front of you - make him feel approved of and happy. And now, it is possible to imagine, to desire, and to demand - an approving, demanding, and happy tzevet, and approving and demanding society. A happy society.
On Education - David Cohen
At the moment that the decision to take this action came to fruition in my heart, I knew that the organizational and educational path that would bring them to us was not to try to raise them up, but rather to descend to them, to join them, live with them and with them to ascend.
This was my educational method, for raising garinim (seeds) – hardcore groups from within the neighborhoods, not to call them to come to HaNoar HaOved, but rather, to truly bring HaNoar HaOved to them.
I enlisted alongside the first ones, the founders, the living spirit and the force directing the operation, and with them, as an assistant for them; and together we started to set the foundations and to create the tools for this enterprise.
This was my educational method, for raising garinim (seeds) – hardcore groups from within the neighborhoods, not to call them to come to HaNoar HaOved, but rather, to truly bring HaNoar HaOved to them.
I enlisted alongside the first ones, the founders, the living spirit and the force directing the operation, and with them, as an assistant for them; and together we started to set the foundations and to create the tools for this enterprise.
Notes on R. Wesley Hurd's Postmodernism
Maybe people saw modernism as a race to win instead of an open opportunity.
Modernism = man controls itself and can effect the world > creation of ideologies, expectation that things will be better in the world, solve societies problems
Absolute elements: premodern > G-d, modern > man, postmodern > no absolute elements, maybe nothing
We live in a postmodern era, so everything is a part of it, so it is hard to understand
Postmodernism = apathetic and dissapointed
Is acceptance of all truth apathetic?
Perceived truths are relative, but point to universal truths
I don't like the idea that no one should impose truth, "That is your opinion (truth)" > is this wrong?
Postmodernism brought about both pluralism and relativism
You can't tell anyone that they are wrong
Reality and truth are different > Reality: things that happen in life, the situation we are in that created or was brought about by "truth" Truth: guiding principle/ideology
Postmodernism brings attention to marginalized people by deconstruction, gives validation to more than one thing, bringing power to the unprivileged, not putting one above the other, and bringing attention to the other
Each person creates their own interpretations of reality
Postmodernism = reality is based on images of perceived reality, not on truth
movies described a reality, but that reality no longer exists, so those images have become the reality
Critical thought is important in a postmodern world, important to have opinions, no matter what they are
The way the movement looks at Judaism is a mixture of modernism and postmodernism = spectrum, but there is a limit to the spectrum
Postmodernism makes people alone, even in thoughts and beliefs (they are unique)
Postmodernism isn't trying to be a thing, but it is a rejection of a thing (modernism)
Modernism ended > Postmodernism
Feminism ended > Postfeminism = Ditch it, disappointment, disillusionment, apathy Zionism ended > Postzionism
Our society is based on postmodernism
Not saying what the world should look like, but what it does
Masa = postmodern, nobody opposes you because of apathy and they don't have a truth
People feel threatened by truth
When postmodernists are faced with people who bring/promote truth, they say they are brainwashing.
Brainwashing in a postmodern world is bringing and teaching toward a strong truth and direction.
In a postmodern world, there is no truth, optimism or direction.
How do you live by a truth in a society where truth doesn't exist?
Postmodernism goes well with capitalism.
In postmodernism, there is no rebellion. There is nothing to rebel against.
Postmodern rebel > running through an open door, nobody fighting back, entitled to opinions/truths
What is the place of a revolutionary movement in a postmodern society?
What kind of influence can a movement have in a postmodern world?
We need to rebel against postmodernism itself!
Modernism = man controls itself and can effect the world > creation of ideologies, expectation that things will be better in the world, solve societies problems
Absolute elements: premodern > G-d, modern > man, postmodern > no absolute elements, maybe nothing
We live in a postmodern era, so everything is a part of it, so it is hard to understand
Postmodernism = apathetic and dissapointed
Is acceptance of all truth apathetic?
Perceived truths are relative, but point to universal truths
I don't like the idea that no one should impose truth, "That is your opinion (truth)" > is this wrong?
Postmodernism brought about both pluralism and relativism
You can't tell anyone that they are wrong
Reality and truth are different > Reality: things that happen in life, the situation we are in that created or was brought about by "truth" Truth: guiding principle/ideology
Postmodernism brings attention to marginalized people by deconstruction, gives validation to more than one thing, bringing power to the unprivileged, not putting one above the other, and bringing attention to the other
Each person creates their own interpretations of reality
Postmodernism = reality is based on images of perceived reality, not on truth
movies described a reality, but that reality no longer exists, so those images have become the reality
Critical thought is important in a postmodern world, important to have opinions, no matter what they are
The way the movement looks at Judaism is a mixture of modernism and postmodernism = spectrum, but there is a limit to the spectrum
Postmodernism makes people alone, even in thoughts and beliefs (they are unique)
Postmodernism isn't trying to be a thing, but it is a rejection of a thing (modernism)
Modernism ended > Postmodernism
Feminism ended > Postfeminism = Ditch it, disappointment, disillusionment, apathy Zionism ended > Postzionism
Our society is based on postmodernism
Not saying what the world should look like, but what it does
Masa = postmodern, nobody opposes you because of apathy and they don't have a truth
People feel threatened by truth
When postmodernists are faced with people who bring/promote truth, they say they are brainwashing.
Brainwashing in a postmodern world is bringing and teaching toward a strong truth and direction.
In a postmodern world, there is no truth, optimism or direction.
How do you live by a truth in a society where truth doesn't exist?
Postmodernism goes well with capitalism.
In postmodernism, there is no rebellion. There is nothing to rebel against.
Postmodern rebel > running through an open door, nobody fighting back, entitled to opinions/truths
What is the place of a revolutionary movement in a postmodern society?
What kind of influence can a movement have in a postmodern world?
We need to rebel against postmodernism itself!
Monday, April 22, 2013
Postmodernism - R. Wesley Hurd
At the end of
this century the big questions about reality and being human rise with
unexpected power. We ask ever more agonizingly: What does it mean to
be human? How do human beings fit into this vast cosmos? Where to
from here? We live in a time of great uncertainty–caught in the
transition from a bold and passionate optimism about the future to a
deep skepticism and spirit of nihilism about finding any universal ways
for mankind. We live in a postmodern time.
The term “postmodernism” pops up in newspapers, magazines, and other media. What does it mean? And what does it mean for a Christian? My goal in this essay is to describe some primary features underlying postmodernism and to give examples of postmodernism’s effects. In the first section, I will focus on postmodernism’s philosophical underpinnings. In the second, I will present some examples of how postmodernism manifests itself today.
The Underpinnings
To characterize postmodernism, we must look briefly at what came before: modernism. “Modern” was once used liberally as an adjective to describe many things–from the latest kitchen gadget to a style of art. But “modern” also refers to a specific period of time (roughly 1870 through the mid-1960s) and to the range of cultural ideas, beliefs, and artifacts that people generated during that period.
Modernism was grounded in the beliefs of the Enlightenment–a time in western civilization (roughly 1730-1800) in which the “great minds” of the West began to disbelieve in the authority of the Judeo-Christian God as the basis for the truth and the law that undergird society and culture. Replacing traditional beliefs in God, church, and king, they established a new authority centered in man and his rational abilities to create a new, “liberated” social and intellectual framework for human endeavor.
The modernist believed that science had shaken the foundations of traditional authorities and truths. (Consider, for example, how three developments–the steam engine, the harnessing of electricity, and Darwin’s evolutionary theory–had radically altered the social consciousness of western man.) Modern man could find a new, rational foundation for universal truth; science, particularly, would reveal new truth, which, when applied to modern society and institutions, would literally remake the world. Modernism “… held the extravagant expectation that the arts and sciences would further not only the control of the forces of nature but also the understanding of self and world, moral progress, justice in social institutions, and even human happiness.” (Jurgen Habermas, Modernity: An Unfinished Project, pp 162-63.)
Modernism presupposed an understanding of human identity and self that was unified, coherent, and autonomous: man was a thinking being capable of rationally perceiving, knowing, and conquering the world–and he would. To be “modern,” then, was to embrace the power of scientific rationality, the spirit of progress, a vision of unlimited potential for human society, and an optimism for the future in which man could obtain his two greatest needs: meaning and material security.
Looking to man and not God, the optimism of modernism has proven itself ill-founded. The response has been postmodernism. The best Christian book on postmodernism that I have found is A Primer on Postmodernism by Stanley J. Grenz. In this article, however, I will have to describe postmodernism more briefly, which I will do by looking at five presuppositions inherent in the postmodern worldview:
(1) The quest for truth is a lost cause. It is a search for a “holy grail” that doesn’t exist and never did. Postmodernists argue that objective, universal, knowable truth is mythical; all we have ever found in our agonized search for Truth are “truths” that were compelling only in their own time and culture, but true Truth has never been ours. Furthermore, if we make the mistake of claiming to know the Truth, we are deluded at best and dangerous at worst.
(2) A person’s sense of identity is a composite constructed by the forces of the surrounding culture. Individual consciousness–a vague, “decentered” collection of unconscious and conscious beliefs, knowledge, and intuitions about oneself and the world–is malleable and arrived at through interaction with the surrounding culture. Postmodernism then, in stark contrast to modernism, is about the dissolving of the self. From the postmodernist perspective, we should not think of ourselves as unique, unified, self-conscious, autonomous persons.
(3) The languages of our culture (the verbal and visual signs we use to represent the world to ourselves) literally “construct” what we think of as “real” in our everyday existence. In this sense, reality is a “text” or “composite” of texts, and these texts (rather than the God-created reality) are the only reality we can know. Our sense of self–who we are, how we think of ourselves, as well as how we see and interpret the world and give ourselves meaning in it–is subjectively constructed through language.
(4) “Reality” is created by those who have power. One of postmodernism’s preeminent theorists, Michel Foucault, combines the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche’s ideas about how those in power shape the world with a theory of how language is the primary tool for making culture. Foucault argues that whoever dominates or controls the “official” use of language in a society holds the key to social and political power. (Think, for example, of how official political “spin” control of specific words and phrases can alter the public perception of political decisions, policies, and events.) Put simply, Nietzsche said all reality is someone’s willful, powerful construction; Foucault says language is the primary tool in that construction.
(5) We should neutralize the political power inherent in language by “deconstructing” it. Another leading postmodernist, Jacques Derrida, theorizes that the language we use when we make statements always creates a set of opposite beliefs, a “binary,” one of which is “privileged” and the other of which is “marginalized,” and the privileged belief is always favored. For example, if one says “Honey is better for you than white sugar,” this statement of opinion has “privileged” honey over white sugar. In the arena of morals one might say “Sex should only happen in marriage,” in which case the experience of sex in marriage is “privileged” and sex out of wedlock is “marginalized.” Derrida argues that all language is made up of these binaries, and they are always socially and politically loaded. “Deconstruction” is the practice of identifying these power-loaded binaries and restructuring them so that the marginalized or “unprivileged” end of the binary can be consciously focused upon and favored.
Some Examples
The central characteristics of postmodernism present us with a radically different way of looking at life. At this point, however, we need to remember the proverb that says “If you want to know about water, don’t ask a fish!” The postmodernist elements of our culture are to us like water to the fish: we live and breathe in them everyday, but we take them so much for granted that it is very difficult for us to see them.
Perhaps the most general characteristics of postmodernism are fragmentation and pluralism. Our culture is rapidly reaching the point where we no longer think of ourselves in a universe but rather a multi-verse. In the postmodern worldview, transience, flux, and fragmentation describe our growing sense of how things really are. Where do we see this played out around us?
Personal identity. At the level of the individual, there abides a sense of uncertainty about how to understand oneself; most people consciously search for a sense of identity–for who and what they are and for what significance and worth they have. Our media-generated, consumer culture daily offers us a thousand choices for who we should be like, what we should value, and how we can attain worth and significance. And we take these images for what is real. So, for example, tennis pro Andre Agassi can say “Image is everything!” in an advertisement, and we believe him.
Education and academics. From the modernist perspective, truth was largely relative, but the possibility of universals in knowledge remained conceivable. In the postmodern model, we don’t really “know” anything; rather, we “interpret.” Postmodernist education says “Pick a worldview,” as if only a choice of clothing style were at issue, “and create your interpretations accordingly,” since truths are only language constructions put in place by those who have influence and power. The emphasis on multi-cultural education is grounded philosophically in this perspective. After all, says the postmodernist educator, the emphasis in Western education on rationality and the quest for what is ultimately true is only another manifestation of Western “cultural imperialism” motivated by consumer capitalist power.
The term “postmodernism” pops up in newspapers, magazines, and other media. What does it mean? And what does it mean for a Christian? My goal in this essay is to describe some primary features underlying postmodernism and to give examples of postmodernism’s effects. In the first section, I will focus on postmodernism’s philosophical underpinnings. In the second, I will present some examples of how postmodernism manifests itself today.
The Underpinnings
To characterize postmodernism, we must look briefly at what came before: modernism. “Modern” was once used liberally as an adjective to describe many things–from the latest kitchen gadget to a style of art. But “modern” also refers to a specific period of time (roughly 1870 through the mid-1960s) and to the range of cultural ideas, beliefs, and artifacts that people generated during that period.
Modernism was grounded in the beliefs of the Enlightenment–a time in western civilization (roughly 1730-1800) in which the “great minds” of the West began to disbelieve in the authority of the Judeo-Christian God as the basis for the truth and the law that undergird society and culture. Replacing traditional beliefs in God, church, and king, they established a new authority centered in man and his rational abilities to create a new, “liberated” social and intellectual framework for human endeavor.
The modernist believed that science had shaken the foundations of traditional authorities and truths. (Consider, for example, how three developments–the steam engine, the harnessing of electricity, and Darwin’s evolutionary theory–had radically altered the social consciousness of western man.) Modern man could find a new, rational foundation for universal truth; science, particularly, would reveal new truth, which, when applied to modern society and institutions, would literally remake the world. Modernism “… held the extravagant expectation that the arts and sciences would further not only the control of the forces of nature but also the understanding of self and world, moral progress, justice in social institutions, and even human happiness.” (Jurgen Habermas, Modernity: An Unfinished Project, pp 162-63.)
Modernism presupposed an understanding of human identity and self that was unified, coherent, and autonomous: man was a thinking being capable of rationally perceiving, knowing, and conquering the world–and he would. To be “modern,” then, was to embrace the power of scientific rationality, the spirit of progress, a vision of unlimited potential for human society, and an optimism for the future in which man could obtain his two greatest needs: meaning and material security.
Looking to man and not God, the optimism of modernism has proven itself ill-founded. The response has been postmodernism. The best Christian book on postmodernism that I have found is A Primer on Postmodernism by Stanley J. Grenz. In this article, however, I will have to describe postmodernism more briefly, which I will do by looking at five presuppositions inherent in the postmodern worldview:
(1) The quest for truth is a lost cause. It is a search for a “holy grail” that doesn’t exist and never did. Postmodernists argue that objective, universal, knowable truth is mythical; all we have ever found in our agonized search for Truth are “truths” that were compelling only in their own time and culture, but true Truth has never been ours. Furthermore, if we make the mistake of claiming to know the Truth, we are deluded at best and dangerous at worst.
(2) A person’s sense of identity is a composite constructed by the forces of the surrounding culture. Individual consciousness–a vague, “decentered” collection of unconscious and conscious beliefs, knowledge, and intuitions about oneself and the world–is malleable and arrived at through interaction with the surrounding culture. Postmodernism then, in stark contrast to modernism, is about the dissolving of the self. From the postmodernist perspective, we should not think of ourselves as unique, unified, self-conscious, autonomous persons.
(3) The languages of our culture (the verbal and visual signs we use to represent the world to ourselves) literally “construct” what we think of as “real” in our everyday existence. In this sense, reality is a “text” or “composite” of texts, and these texts (rather than the God-created reality) are the only reality we can know. Our sense of self–who we are, how we think of ourselves, as well as how we see and interpret the world and give ourselves meaning in it–is subjectively constructed through language.
(4) “Reality” is created by those who have power. One of postmodernism’s preeminent theorists, Michel Foucault, combines the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche’s ideas about how those in power shape the world with a theory of how language is the primary tool for making culture. Foucault argues that whoever dominates or controls the “official” use of language in a society holds the key to social and political power. (Think, for example, of how official political “spin” control of specific words and phrases can alter the public perception of political decisions, policies, and events.) Put simply, Nietzsche said all reality is someone’s willful, powerful construction; Foucault says language is the primary tool in that construction.
(5) We should neutralize the political power inherent in language by “deconstructing” it. Another leading postmodernist, Jacques Derrida, theorizes that the language we use when we make statements always creates a set of opposite beliefs, a “binary,” one of which is “privileged” and the other of which is “marginalized,” and the privileged belief is always favored. For example, if one says “Honey is better for you than white sugar,” this statement of opinion has “privileged” honey over white sugar. In the arena of morals one might say “Sex should only happen in marriage,” in which case the experience of sex in marriage is “privileged” and sex out of wedlock is “marginalized.” Derrida argues that all language is made up of these binaries, and they are always socially and politically loaded. “Deconstruction” is the practice of identifying these power-loaded binaries and restructuring them so that the marginalized or “unprivileged” end of the binary can be consciously focused upon and favored.
Some Examples
The central characteristics of postmodernism present us with a radically different way of looking at life. At this point, however, we need to remember the proverb that says “If you want to know about water, don’t ask a fish!” The postmodernist elements of our culture are to us like water to the fish: we live and breathe in them everyday, but we take them so much for granted that it is very difficult for us to see them.
Perhaps the most general characteristics of postmodernism are fragmentation and pluralism. Our culture is rapidly reaching the point where we no longer think of ourselves in a universe but rather a multi-verse. In the postmodern worldview, transience, flux, and fragmentation describe our growing sense of how things really are. Where do we see this played out around us?
Personal identity. At the level of the individual, there abides a sense of uncertainty about how to understand oneself; most people consciously search for a sense of identity–for who and what they are and for what significance and worth they have. Our media-generated, consumer culture daily offers us a thousand choices for who we should be like, what we should value, and how we can attain worth and significance. And we take these images for what is real. So, for example, tennis pro Andre Agassi can say “Image is everything!” in an advertisement, and we believe him.
Education and academics. From the modernist perspective, truth was largely relative, but the possibility of universals in knowledge remained conceivable. In the postmodern model, we don’t really “know” anything; rather, we “interpret.” Postmodernist education says “Pick a worldview,” as if only a choice of clothing style were at issue, “and create your interpretations accordingly,” since truths are only language constructions put in place by those who have influence and power. The emphasis on multi-cultural education is grounded philosophically in this perspective. After all, says the postmodernist educator, the emphasis in Western education on rationality and the quest for what is ultimately true is only another manifestation of Western “cultural imperialism” motivated by consumer capitalist power.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)