Modernism and Postmodernism?
Postmodernism is often branded as meaningless relativism. This is especially true as far as most Christian conversation in the West is concerned because of the blurry western religious propensity towards propositional truth, absolutism and total objectivity. In most cases, however, the shallow branding of postmodernism as relativistic is performed with zero/little understanding of very important issues, such as: 1. Postmodernity’s over-arching skepticism concerning meta-narratives; 2. Modernity’s deep dependence upon metanarratives for its perceived truth; 3. The myth of total objectivity; 4. Conceptual presuppositions concerning reason and knowledge (e.g., reason itself existing independently from one’s context and cultural constraints). Reducing postmodernism to relativism without actually understanding postmodernism – or modernism – is unfortunate, to say the least.
In fact, postmodernism is anything but relativistic. If anything, it reveals more meaning than most people are prepared to engage.
Postmodernism calls into question modernity’s principles and the practical success of these principles while urging movement beyond Enlightenment boundaries and the pure cynicism it produces. Modernism, or Enlightenment thinking, for example, prioritizes the intellectual combination of reason, empiricism, and objectivity as the “way” that will ultimately lead to universal social, political and religious “success,” for lack of a better word. Modernism advanced the idea that humanity would realize its full potential if we’d all simply let reason, objectivity, and empirical data lead the way. Modernity’s imagined tree was expected to bear the fruit of freedom, progress, truth, and so forth. It, obviously, did not.
Modernity’s three world wars and countless smaller wars are, for example, neither reasonable, nor are they rational. Jean-Francois Lyotard, a French philosopher and postmodern thinker, addressed modernity’s prioritization of reason, empiricism, and objectivity in The Differend: Phrases in Dispute by pointing specifically towards Auschwitz and saying, “This crime [Auschwitz] … which is real, is not rational.” Modernity, in spite of its prioritization of Enlightenment thinking and it’s staunch dedication to reason, empiricism, objectivity and, to a point, scientific advancement, has either produced and/or failed to address totally irrational events, such as global/local war, mass poverty, ecological crisis, religious conflict, and monstrous economic systems that value profit more than life.
Is modernity rational? Does it contain and dispense all truth? Is it truth? What is truth? If postmodernism is only relativistic in light of the exhaustive “Truth” claims of Modernity and its Enlightenment thinking, but Modernity (and its Enlightenment thinking) itself is philosophically bankrupt as a result of its failure to achieve its own principles and/or realize its own “Truth,” then how is Postmodernism relativistic, exactly? On what grounds does the charge of relativism claim foundation? In other words, if the “Truth” claims of Modernism collapse, how then can Modernism – or its principles – be claimed as the authority for exhaustive “Truth” claims that are used to wield the charge of relativism? If you are going to sling a stone, you should be sure that your feet are firmly planted on solid footing first.
Postmodernism, in spite of the contradictory cries of Modernism’s loudest preachers, neither thrives on relativism, nor does it reduce all to the relativistic. Postmodernism challenges modernity’s definition of truth by asking meaningful questions as concerns its (Modernism) celebrated Enlightenment principles and the success of these principles. Postmodernism does not stop there! It also challenges all to break through the thin boundaries erected by Enlightenment thinking and Modernity by subverting the boundaries themselves. It also urges understanding that is freed from meta-narrative, but that’s another post completely. For now, it should be understood that Postmodernism is a search for meaning in a world reeling from a failed Modern philosophy and its Enlightenment thinking. Is this all that postmodernism is? Of course not, there is much more to it than this (e.g., deconstruction, ethics, process, truth, etc.), and postmodernism as a whole should be openly investigated. For this post, however, it is sufficient to simply say that Postmodernism is much deeper than the Modern charge of relativism. Relativism, ironically, is a very, very Modern/Enlightenment idea.
… and my own study of Postmodernism continues.
Related posts:
Shawn,
What’s up man? So good basic overview of modern / postmodern. One question. Isn’t there no escaping metanarratives? I mean, aren’t they essential for us to find meaning and be human and not narcissistic and depressed? And do you assume there is not an overarching reality based metanarrative…reality being what is true and always will be true? I had to grapple with all of this in seminary at biblical…we read all the postmodern guys and hashed through a lot…so im curious what you think. hope you are doing well man
What’s up, Jon! Hope you are well! Great questions!
First of all, I don’t know if metanarratives can be totally “escaped,” as you put it, because of our penchant and love for the fun/subconscious language games that are so involved with our world’s metanarratives. That said, just because something can’t be totally escaped doesn’t make it a worthwhile venture! I do think metanarratives can be seriously subverted with “little stories,” or “skirmishes on the sidelines,” as Lyotard refers to them.
Consider, for example, the grand narrative of the Bible story, which I love. It is a grand narrative that is at once overarching while at the same time self-subverting because of all the little stories of which it is composed. These “little stories,” or “skirmishes on the sidelines,” at every turn, agree/contradict, complement/distract; these little stories paint God one way in one moment and then totally paint God another way that contradicts and confounds. The four Gospels do this especially well, whether we would admit it or not. The grand bible narrative is laden with countless little stories and individual characters that constantly engage internal tension. Most Christians I talk to would see the above as relativism, and more specifically biblical relativism. I think they are missing a few very, very important things. The biggest being the idea that the bible story itself is an overarching story that defies the very idea of an overarching, grand narrative because our world’s overarching, grand narratives do nothing but shackle people with the restraints that follow overarching, grand narratives. It – God’s story – at once delivers deep meaning and inspires while it at the same time subverts the very idea of overarching narrative and rejects the label by inviting us all to take our place within our own little story, within community.
All that to simply say that where most see relativism in postmodernism, I see more meaning than we are probably comfortable with engaging. I also want to remind you that I think the charge of relativism itself is rooted in a modernism that really has proven that it’s far from being a litmus for truth.
Jon, you also asked this question, concerning metanarratives: “I mean, aren’t they essential for us to find meaning and be human and not narcissistic and depressed?”
Well, we are living in a world full of metanarratives and I see no shortage of narcissism and depression! In fact, I think we Christians are well represented by our own narcissistic and depressed peoples! So, I am not sure that metanarratives are the cure; in fact, they are probably the problem! I’ll be thinking about this question for a bit, Jon.
Thanks for the thoughts, Jon! I would love to hear more …
Great stuff Shawn! Thanks for sharing Lyotard’s concept of “little stories”…”skirmishes on the sidelines”
Rings true. I agree with your analysis that postmodern way of reading text/events engages with more meaning than most are comfortable with.
I love Caputo’s description of postmodernism in “What would Jesus Deconstruct.” As I read him, I believe you are saying essentially the same thing.
I am convinced that what we call Truth, is often a facade which preserves our self-interests. You are right on when you say that the biblical text deconstructs itself. Unless a seed falls to the ground and dies…
Truth from the standpoint of Jesus, is always incarnational. Text is secondary to being, doing, communion. It is safer to live in Text and launch verbal balistic missiles such as “relativism” than to simply live into the particularity of truth–which is relational, subjective, historically contextualized.
Keep writing!
Right on, Brian! I still have to get myself a copy of “What Would Jesus Deconstruct?” I’ve been wanting to read that one for some time now.
I also love your reference to a seed falling into the ground and dying … I am literally blown away by the realization of how the bible itself refuses to become a “Grand Narrative” by subverting itself, or perhaps it would be more accurate to say it subverts our attempts to force it into our penchant for grand narratives. Ha! The “little skirmishes” erupting between its covers simply make it impossible! Divinity is too clever, it seems. :)
Also, and completely off subject, thanks for the U2 ticket offer, but I’m way too poor to afford it! :)