JTS: Intro to Phil
Session 5: Briefing Note
GEM 03:11:05

 Post- (vs. Ultra-)Modernity

SECTION CONTENTS

Introduction

1. Post- vs. Ultra- Modernism

2. A Global view

3. Implications

4. Prophetic Intellectual and Cultural Leadership

For Discussion or Reflection

References & Readings

BACK | TOC | NEXT

INTRODUCTION: As the 20^th Century drew to a close, the verdict on modernity and especially science was decidedly mixed: while there was an explosion of knowledge and insight into the cosmos, and while many good things had been done, many horrors had flowed from abuse of the technologies given to us by science, and by the massive moral failure of those who wielded power across the world.  As a result, as the new century dawned, there was a hunger for a renewed way that would avoid the abuses and disasters of modernity, and where possible, fix the trouble.

Central to these trends has been the postmodern loss of confidence in the west’s enlightenment project of progress; leading to emphases on pluralism as a norm for belief and action, and the associated emphasis on radical, relativistic “tolerance.” This comes in the midst of a world that now shows a three way global clash for dominance of the hearts and minds of men: the waning secularist age in the west, Islam in the Middle East, and what may be aptly described as the southern Christian reformation, currently sweeping Latin America, Africa and Asia.

Thus, by examining post-modernity, we will also highlight the prospects for a renewed programme of Christocentric prophetic intellectual and cultural leadership, such as transformed western culture in the first several centuries of the Christian era, and a gain in the aftermath of the reformation of five centuries ago.  

1.         Post- vs. Ultra- (or Hyper-) Modernity

Thomas Oden, in a 1994 symposium on postmodernity, acidly but tellingly observed:

Postmodernity in my meaning is simply that historical formation that will follow the era of spent modernity – the time span from 1789 [fall of Bastille, start of French Revolution] to 1989 [fall of Berlin Wall, end of Communist revolutionary era] which characteristically embraced an enlightenment worldview that cast an ideological spell over our times, now in grave moral spinout . . . We could call what is passing the era of French Enlightenment, German Idealism, and British Empiricism, but those influences are just more complicated ways of saying modern consciousness . . . .   

Experience teaches that when avant-garde academics bandy about the term “postmodern,” it is usually more accurate to strike post and insert ultra. For guild scholars, postmodern simply means hypermodern, where the value assumptions of modernity are nostalgically recollected and ancient wisdoms compulsively disregarded. Meanwhile the emergent actual postmodernity that is being suffered through outside the ivory tower is not yet grasped or rightly appraised by those in it.

We do not at all mean by post modernity what many academics mean – deconstructionist literary criticism and relativistic nihilism . . . Richard Rorty and Jacques Derrida are ultra-modern writers according to this definition, rather than postmodern . . . . what is named post is actually a desperate extension of despairing modernity that imagines by calling itself another name (postmodern), it can extend the ideology of modernity into the period following modernity  . . . .

My use of the term “postmodern” began in 1969 . . . in seeking to describe spiritual wanderers searching for roots, before Derrida and Foucalt popularized it, and just before the Architectural world began to shanghai the idea. When philosophers and literary critics got around to using the term postmodernity in the 80’s to be applied to what we are calling ultramodernity, my thought was that the term was being misapplied then, and it still is now . . . .

We can defiantly sit on the term postmodern with a paleo-orthodox spin . . . on the grounds that its earlier meaning is preferable to its later meaning, and the logic of a Christian understanding of modern history demands it. The logic of modernity demands something to follow it, even when the myth of modernity lives in denial of that possiblity.[1] 

Now, in fact, uses of the term postmodernism have been documented to the 1930’s, in connection with the despair over the horrors of World War I. For, in 1914 – 1918, modern technology and cruelty first came together in senseless, heartless mass mutual slaughter: machine guns, rapid-firing artillery and gas attacks killed nine millions of the world’s finest youth in and between the trenches of that ever so pointless war. Also, in the 1970’s Architecture was looking for a fresh vision to replace the austerity of the modern era, and reached back for a richer, nuanced but unmistakably nostalgic collage of elements from past eras.[2] 

Similarly, as literary scholars looked ever more at the issues of how perspectives can shape how we view texts and objects in our wider world, they saw how easily we can end up in a morass of incommensurate disputes over meaning, so jumped to the conclusion: maybe, there just isn’t an independent, objective meaning. And, in the same 1960’s – 70’s, the seeds of the revolution in Physics between 1880 and 1930 bore fruit: this was the time in which the concept of scientific paradigms that shifted through quantum leaps fired by scientific crises and revolutions became common currency. So, relativism and associated tolerance became very plausible to the general public, even to an extreme degree.

But equally, Oden’s underlying points are highly illustrative of the nature and flavour of post-modernity as it interacts with (a) the modern and (b) the pre-modern:

• In speaking of modernity as yet another passing era, Oden echoes the mystical, pre-modern vision of the prophet Daniel, as reported in Daniel 2, 4, 5, 7: man’s various kingdoms and associated eras wax and wane, but in the midst of this historical cycle, God sovereignly raises up his own Kingdom that shall stand eternally. Here, his linking of modernity to the era of revolutionary utopian political movements from 1789 to 1989 is quite significant, as these movements viewed themselves as realities that replaced what they viewed as the discredited notion of the Kingdom of God. They too, have now passed: do not the pre-moderns, then, have a point? Should we not at least listen to what they have to say?
  
  
• However, at the same time, we see that the very definition of post-modernity is itself the subject of a debate! We are truly in an era where the marginalized are to be heard, and the diversity of viewpoints must be taken seriously! No more will we be content with only one side of the story: the vaunted objective reality of modernity. Instead, in the cacophony of diverse voices, we must learn that there are several perspectives, each of which may well have a point.
  
  
• On the other hand, the issue raised by Oden -- of a possible hyper-modernist bait and switch -- arises. Consider, say a “typical” discussion, by a Literature Prof: Mary Klages,[3] who describes post-modernity as paralleling the relativising trends of modernity, but:

  “[Postmodernism] differs from modernism in its attitude toward a lot of these trends. Modernism, for example, tends to present a fragmented view of human subjectivity and history (think of [T. S. Eliot’s epochal poem] The Wasteland, for instance, or of Woolf's To the Lighthouse), but presents that fragmentation as something tragic, something to be lamented and mourned as a loss . . . Postmodernism, in contrast, doesn't lament the idea of fragmentation, provisionality, or incoherence, but rather celebrates that. The world is meaningless? Let's not pretend that art can make meaning then, let's just play with nonsense.”  [Emphasis added.]

• But, do we not have here a case in hand of several implicit or even explicit claims to general truths on the nature of the world? That is, does not Prof. Klages make claims that she expects us to all understand: that the world -- including its texts -- is essentially meaningless? Wouldn’t this then be a case of that greatest of all postmodern sins: Jean-Francis Lyotard’s totalizing metanarrative, i.e. an account of the world that pretends to have cornered the market on the truth and so becomes a potentially oppressive ideology?
  
  
• Thus, does Jacques Derrida’s postmodern strategy of “deconstructing” such a pretense by exposing its inner assumptions, hidden agendas and inconsistencies, turn in upon itself? And, if that is so, is the hypermodern, radical relativistic approach to postmodernity yet another “totalizing metanarrative” that is all too prone to arrogant claims to having captured the truth once and for all, while being full of self-referential moral and logical inconsistencies? Why – or, why not?
  
  
• For instance, is not the claim that there is no knowable objective truth, not implicitly a claim to know, objectively? Is this not self-referential and inconsistent: self-refuting? Would it not be wiser to simply accept – with due humility -- the undeniably true claim “error exists”? Thus, that truth exists as what we may be in error about, but which we seek to discover by correcting our errors, and then to live by? Why, or why not?
  
  
• Similarly, radical relativists often object to moral claims that they dislike, that such claims to objective morality are intolerant impositions. But, does this not in turn assume that there is a binding moral claim: thou shalt not impose thy “outdated” views on others? And, is it not then an imposition to bind such a claim on others, especially given the fact that when we quarrel like this, we are all appealing to an underlying common principle of fair play? Why, or else why not?
  
  
• In turn, does this not bring us back to the foundation of traditional, even pre-modern morality: do as you would be done by, i.e. the Golden Rule/ Categorical Imperative?

Clearly, across the 20^th Century, the confident modernism of the enlightenment epoch took several telling blows, and came to a place of mourning its loss of confidence in knowledge, science, technology and morality. From this, two conflicting trends have emerged, and contest claims for the title “postmodern.” One, which is dominant, celebrates what the late moderns mourned. The other, sees these as simply hyper-modern, and challenges the framework of relativistic thinking that is common to both.

2.         A Broader, Global view

On the global scale, intellectual, political, religious and cultural elites have been quick to exploit the West’s loss of confidence, and associated bad conscience over its as yet unfinished history of oppression across the world since ~ 1500.  Often, the associated rhetoric has been used to push agendas that perhaps would not stand on their own merit, ranging from new age spirituality to radical environmentalism and terrorism. However, it is also the case, that this loss of confidence has opened a door to reformation.

Consequently as we enter the 21^st Century, we see a world where the postmodern West, Islam and the resurgent Christianity of the South vie to dominate the world views and agendas of the emerging global age.  These are blatantly seen in the propaganda campaigns and counter-campaigns that surround the current renewal of the 1,000 year long clash between Islamic and Western Civilisations, from the first anti-West Jihads of the 630’s, to the last siege of Vienna in 1689. They are also evident in the now century old explosive growth of the Christian Faith in the South: Latin America, Africa, and Asia.  

Several worldview analysis issues are therefore highly relevant to our reflections as educated Christians in the Caribbean. These are perhaps best appreciated in light of James Sire’s observations regarding the characteristic themes of much of postmodernity[4]:   

1. Things and events do not have intrinsic meaning. There is only continuous interpretation of the world.

2. Continuous examination of the world requires a contextual examination; we ourselves are a part of the context.

3. Interpretation depends not on the external text or its author, but on the relative viewpoint and particular values of the interpreter.

4. Language is not neutral, but relative and value-laden.

5. Language conveys ideology. [That is, it often serves to legitimize power elites and their agendas, and to marginalize the powerless.]

In these observations, of course, are many echoes of Plato’s Allegory of the Cave. Thus, we see again that premoderns can have a very relevant voice.  But also, several worldview analysis and comparison issues emerge:

• The postmodern scheme of thought presented is clearly self-referential, and asserts just what it denies the possibility of: objective claims about the knowable nature of reality. In short, it is self referential and inconsistent, it refutes itself – as was noted above. However, this clearly does not prevent these necessarily false ideas (for a self refuting argument has each half undermining the other) from seeming plausible and being very influential.[5]
  
  
• However, in common with Plato, the postmoderns warn of the potential for using worldviews to manipulate the marginalized, starting with language itself. This was a major theme of George Orwell’s works on Stalinism and similar totalitarian regimes, Animal Farm and 1984. The ending words of the former should serve to remind us of the possible outcome of revolutions that promise utopia and relief from oppression: “As the animals looked from man to pig, and from pig to man, they realized what had happened. Already, there was no difference.”  For, the pigs had taken control over a revolution against a human farmer, and so had implemented a tyranny, of which they were the principal beneficiaries.
  
  
• As Jesus warned, in yet another example of premodern, poetic wisdom: “The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are good, your whole body will be full of light.  But if your eyes are bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness!” [Matt 6:22 – 23, cf. Luke 6;39 – 40 and 2 Cor 10:4 - 5.]
  
  
• In short, we should recognise that every worldview of consequence is subject to serious difficulties, and so are the cultures that are built on them. But also, just because one can highlight such difficulties does not mean that those who portray themselves as enlightened liberators will be able to do any better.  So, a wise thinker will assess the comparative difficulties and the likely outcomes as such ideas are implemented on the ground – bearing in mind as well, that the unintended, unanticipated consequences may well be far greater in impact than those we do foresee.
  
  
• Thus, yet another form of Pascal’s wager emerges as a useful decision rule. On the best evidence and estimates potentially available, which option is most prudent, given probable benefits of the possible outcomes, and their probabilities, as well as the cost of each alternative? In our case, that leads to a need for a sober assessment of the various Secularist-neopagan, Islamic and Christian alternatives, issues and implications.

3.         Implications: Science, Education, the Media and World and Life Views

As noted above, even so strident a postmodern philosopher as Richard Rorty observes that there is indeed a place for objective truth, having given due allowance for the issues that relativise many of our truth claims, as summarised above. This leads to several observations regarding key areas: Science, Education, Religion, Ethics, the media and general world and life views:

• Science: the modernist worldview was dominated by the prestige of science. In light of the concerns of the postmodern age, it is fair comment to note that at the research tradition level – that which is most closely tied to core philosophical beliefs -- paradigm shifts/scientific revolutions are deeply intertwined with the interests and agendas of major players, who are key gatekeepers in the peer review process. For instance, in the 1980’s to 90’s, in an attempt to fend off the Creationists and Intelligent Design movement, many key figures and institutions represented so-called Methodological naturalism as essential to the definition of science. In short, evolutionary materialistic mechanisms, by definition, were to be the only ones allowed as “scientific.” Philosophically, that is a surrender of any claim to be seeking the objective truth; one which has so far gone without effective challenge because of the dominance of individuals committed to materialistic worldviews in the key institutions. This may yet cost the sciences dear, once the general public wises up to this political shift.

• Education: Educators and social scientists tend to be awed by the prestige of the sciences, and so are often tempted to take the claims of powerful science institutions at face value. Here, the sorts of questions being raised by the postmodernists may yet prove a valuable corrective, especially if the tendency to insist that tolerance of diversity means that moral insights and concerns are to be largely discounted; especially if they come from those who stand in traditional, religiously motivated, moral traditions. Educators would be well advised to indicate that scientific knowledge claims are at best provisional, especially when they move away from the long-tested, closely familiar realms where repeated experiments can test theories quite thoroughly[6], to observations and inferences regarding distant reaches of time and space – e.g. cosmology. Similarly, where political or ethical matters intersect with science, many scientists are no better – and sometimes worse than – any other lay person. The tendency to illegitimately use scientific theories to lend an unchallengeable aura to evolutionary materialist views and then go on to use these views to discredit ethical concerns, is particularly to be deplored. Similarly, the tendency to use “science proves . . .” to support highly speculative and controversial theories as to say the genetic origins of potentially self-destructive behaviour patterns, should be sharply restrained. It would not hurt to point out the key logical fallacy in scientific methods: using Hypothesis implies observations to then claim observations support theory cannot establish the final truth of the theories: that is, science is an open-ended, faith-driven venture.

•  Ethics and Religion: When evolutionary materialism-based science was king, ethics was at a steep discount in many quarters. Now that postmodernity has arrived, the feeling that the fact of diversity of views on moral subjects supports the view that mortality is relative to persons and cultures, coupled to the strong rejection of imposition of intolerant ideas tends to keep it that way. However, in fact, relativism is self-referential and inconsistent here as well; the idea that one should not impose appeals to a universal sense of fair play, i.e. to a universal moral principle. But, that same principle leads straight to the question of the basic equality of people – a position that has only been defensible on the grounds so well summed up in the US Declaration of independence of 1776: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights . . . that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed . . .”  In turn, this brings the Golden Rule to the fore, and raises the gnawing challenge that our inmost sense of right and wrong is a quiet, insistent testimony to our Creator. Once this is seen, the theistic religious perspective on life makes more sense than many have been willing to grant.

• Media and Culture: In a world that is increasingly dominated by information and communication technologies, the media have become the marketplace of ideas, one populated by many people who like the ancient Athenians, as described in Acts 17:21, wish only to hear and discuss the latest ideas. Novelty becomes the last value of such people, and especially if the prestige of science is invoked, or an appeal to their prejudices is made, there is a telling vulnerability to manipulative rhetoric. Thus, culture degenerates as wisdom is no longer the object of learning.  In response, there is a clear need to call the media and culture back to sound reasoning, careful reflection on ethical concerns, and to examination of the proper distinction between knowledge and error, so that we may again build a community worth the having. Otherwise, we will simply fall into some new version of Plato’s Cave, as clever manipulators project false images that we mistake for reality.      

4.         The Place for Courageous Prophetic Intellectual and Cultural Leadership.

It has been said that courage is not fearless or reckless action, but rather the insistence to boldly do one’s duty even in the face of danger. Thus, for instance, Socrates insisted on standing up for the project of boldly questioning the half-blind conventional wisdom of his day, even at the cost of his life. For, to him, the unexamined life was not worth living.

Likewise, in a cynical, postmodern age, to suggest that God is there, that he is concerned about the affairs of men, and that he has something to say to us from his infinite knowledge, love and wisdom is to expose oneself to ridicule, misunderstanding and accusation: “Get off our backs, with your imposed, hypocritical, outdated, discredited, fundamentalist so-called morality!”

Thus, rage can easily replace reason, and as Aristotle pointed out so long ago, our judgements when we are pained and hostile are far different from those when we are calmer and more open-minded.  Sadly, from the days of Socrates and the ancient Israelite prophets to this, it has been but a small step from rage to hate, thence resentful and unfair character assassination; or in extreme cases, even murder. Of course, in the case of Jesus, it has long been the Christian contention, that even though the rage and power agendas of corrupt Jewish and Gentile elites triumphed on a fateful Friday morning -- hijacking justice to murder an innocent prophet on patently false charges -- Sunday (resurrection day) was coming.

Of this, Acts 17:16 – 34 records how the apostle Paul observed, speaking prophetically before the very court in Athens that had unjustly condemned Socrates:

1) Intellectual and cultural history – e.g. the Athenian public monument to the unknown God --  decisively shows that men are incapable of arriving at reliable knowledge of God, starting from themselves; so instead we need to listen to what God has to say, and see how his wisdom speaks into our situation. For, first of all, the Creator-Redeemer God does not depend on our religious leaders and institutions, rituals, gifts or offerings.  Instead, it is he who made us and gave us everything we have.  We are therefore his stewards in — and of — his world, for “in Him we live and move and have our being.” 

2) From one man, God created the nations, setting their times & seasons [kairous], and their places, “so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him.”   That is, the diverse fraternity of nations [ethnoi, people groups] was created to foster opportunities to demonstrate godly, harmonious social order -- not least, by restraining the possibilities for the rise of a corrupt, globally dominant regime.  (Further to this, when nations choose instead to forget God and His ways, making false loyalties, power, prestige, pleasure and prosperity their chief values, they walk down a road to ruin; cf. Deut. 8:17 – 20.)

3) The time for ignorant pursuit of false loyalties and foolish agendas is over; God has intervened globally, decisively and publicly by Christ’s incarnation, death, and resurrection: “he has made this same Jesus . . . both Lord and Christ.” [Acts 2:36.]

4) God therefore commands that we repent, undergoing a comprehensive change of heart and mind driven by recognition of the truth and godly sorrow over sin; leading to a transformed way of life [1 Cor. 6:9 – 11].  In particular, we are to receive as Lord and Saviour him who is “the Way, the Truth, and the Life.”  [John 14:6, cf. Acts 4:12.]

5) This command to repent is universal, but does not demand blind obedience: God offers public proof to us by raising Jesus from the dead.  In evidence of this, we have over five hundred eyewitnesses, most of whom were still alive when the record was made, and the continued manifestation of miracle-working, life transforming resurrection power — in manifold ways — in the church to this day.  [1 Cor. 15:1- 8, Eph. 1:17 – 23.]

6) Flowing from this, human culture is not autonomous or absolute: there is a set day for judgement of the world, a comprehensive audit carried out with perfect justice.  Thus, communities and their citizens are servants of God, accountable before their Creator for truth, right, justice and the proper stewardship of resources in their care, starting with their land.  This opens the door for prophetic commentary on public morality, policy and issues linked to development and sustainability.  [Cf. Rom. 1:18 – 32 & 13:1 – 10.]

7) Moreover, since we are created from one ancestor, there can be no justification for nationally-, or racially-, or class-, or otherwise- motivated oppression, aggression, exploitation or prejudice.  Community extends to the fraternity of all peoples, and so God refuses to answer the foolish question: “Am I my brother’s keeper?”

In the short term, Paul was literally laughed out of court, though a few listened. In the long run, from scanty beginnings, the church waxed strong and prevailed, not only in Athens, but throughout the whole Greco-Roman world, and beyond. For, Paul had decisively exposed the hollow intellectual core of the classical world’s belief systems and had put forward what in the end would prove to be a credible prophetic alternative. We now know who had the better case that fateful day: the future belonged, not to the politicians or the cynical sophisticates, but to the apostle.

CONCLUSIONS: In a post-/hyper- modern world, modernism’s confidence has been shaken. In particular, the role power agendas often play in belief systems and their associated institutions now stands exposed. The picture is not pretty. But, this opens the door for positive dialogue, where courageous prophetic intellectual and cultural leadership become possible. Therein lies our challenge: why not now, why not here, why not us?

Points to ponder . . .

1. Does the postmodern ferment provide an opening for renewed dialogue that will listen to the prophetic voice of the judaeo-christian tradition? Why/why not?

2. Given the Acts 17 account, what is the likely immediate reaction to attempts to turn postmodern methods and concepts such as deconstruction and totalizing metanarratives in on themselves?

3. What would be the long term consequences?

4. How could we apply such approaches in the Caribbean context, bearing in mind the influence of secularists, neopagans, and Islamists?

References & Readings

Dockery, David S (Ed.). The Challenge of Postmodernism. Wheaton, IL: Bridgepoint. 1995.

Ryder, Martin (Compiler). A “webliography” on Postmodern and related themes: http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~mryder/itc_data/postmodern.html

Apologetics Index’s introduction to “pomo”: http://www.apologeticsindex.org/p02.html

An anthropological view: http://www.as.ua.edu/ant/Faculty/murphy/436/pomo.htm