About Me

My photo
I have a burning need to know stuff and I love asking awkward questions.

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

Can Postmodernism Save the World?

by Reza Dibadj for The Baltimore Sun

Thursday, April 12, 2007

Contemporary political discourse is strikingly polarized: good nations vs. evil nations, welfare state vs. watchman state, free markets vs. bureaucrats, Republicans vs. Democrats. While everyone is busy trying to prove he or she is right, problems fester: geopolitical instability, increasing income disparity and impending environmental disaster, to name a few. I have wondered for a long time whether these two phenomena are interrelated - whether the inability to look beyond simple dichotomies has gotten us into the mess we’re in. Re-reading some texts of postmodern philosophy has helped me see the connection.

Admittedly, an obscure philosophical notion such as postmodernism is a decidedly odd place to go looking for help to alleviate the world’s problems. Postmodernism suffers from a bad rap. It is even a dirty word in many intellectual circles. Yet for all of its annoying jargon, postmodernism can be best understood as a movement that struggles with how to represent a messy, chaotic world where simple, reassuring stories will not suffice. Jean-Francois Lyotard offered one of the most useful insights into the term “postmodern” when he defined it as “incredulity toward meta-narratives.” In other words, we should be wary of simple and seductive tales. In many ways, postmodernist philosophers were reacting to 20th-century meta-narratives that began as supposed utopias but ended as horrors - fascism and communism, to pick two particularly troubling examples. Yet, on a less vile and more subtle stage, meta-narratives are at play today; think of the romantic notions that globalization, unregulated capital markets or military might will solve the world’s problems.

Postmodernism questions these clean, reassuring abstractions. We need to stop viewing the world in terms of absolutes: “good vs. evil,” “right vs. wrong.” Reality is much more nuanced. If the essence of philosophical inquiry, as Michel Foucault once noted in describing Maurice Merleau-Ponty’s work, is “never to consent to being completely comfortable with one’s own presuppositions,” we need more philosophers. The debate over whether someone’s god or country or race or color or way of life is better than someone else’s cannot be won. It has been tried, with disastrous results. Where does all of this theorizing lead? Two possibilities lie ahead of us as citizens. The first is to continue to be lulled into complacency through reassuring sound-bites that spew out meta-narratives too often demonizing the “other.”

The second is much more time-consuming and difficult and requires us to do our own thinking. It is to engage with those with whom we disagree in dialogue to forge our own localized stories out of the discussion. Maybe progressives should watch Fox News and conservatives should read The Nation. Real political engagement, after all, is a messy, often uncomfortable, conversation. To use a culinary analogy, we can either accept to be fed prepackaged junk food out of a vending machine, or we can choose to cook our own meals from scratch. The latter might be a hassle but it will increase life expectancy. It might be a bit fanciful to intimate that abstruse continental philosophers - postmodernists, no less - might offer insight into the world in which we live. So be it. We’d be better off with more cooks and fewer vending machines.

[I thought that this would interest both Sadie & Laura.]

11 comments:

Laura said...

Moi? Gee, I wonder why. ;)

Very good post. I agree completely. There are far too many people who are comfortable in their own little bubble of absolutes. We have to be willing to push ourselves outside our comfort zones and explore alternatives.

People have decried Postmodernism as the slippery slope to moral ambiguity and relativism. I don't see that as a bad thing. If we don't constantly question our own views, we never adapt. We never learn.

To view the world in Manichean terms only serves to divide people. If I am truly right, and there is only one truth, that means that anyone who disagrees with me is completely wrong. Anything you do that is counter to my Truth is then, by definition, wrong. I have nothing to learn from you because I already have the Truth.

Why do some people have such a visceral reaction to the thought of truth being a moving target? Religion has a lot to do with that, but it's not the only culprit.

sirkolgate said...

Hmmm... Open Minded.

I'd love it if eyes opened and people realized, "Damn, we're working ourselves into a big mess here, let's put on the brakes."

Too many people choose sides because without a 'side' they can't find anyone to talk to. You've got to be 'this' or 'that' and being 'right' sorta dropped out of the equation.

Popular is right. Silly me, let me get my pen and jot that down.

And all because too many people are too lazy to pack a lunch.

Does anyone have change for a $5?

CyberKitten said...

laura said: To view the world in Manichean terms only serves to divide people. If I am truly right, and there is only one truth, that means that anyone who disagrees with me is completely wrong. Anything you do that is counter to my Truth is then, by definition, wrong. I have nothing to learn from you because I already have the Truth.

Indeed. There's far too much of that kind of thinking in the world.

laura asked: Why do some people have such a visceral reaction to the thought of truth being a moving target?

Probably something to do with the fluid nature of life ATM. People demand certainty. Therefore people like to hold onto things like the 'Truth'.

sirkolgate said: Too many people choose sides because without a 'side' they can't find anyone to talk to. You've got to be 'this' or 'that' and being 'right' sorta dropped out of the equation.

It also makes people feel good to believe in something or be part of something... hence you get true believers.

Juggling Mother said...

hmmm, I don't know that we are becomming more and more polarized. I know the MSM likes to present simple argments, so they tend to show things in that way, but real people? I think here in the Uk we are becomming less polarized in general, certainly politically.

It may be something to do with the political parties switching plaes: the raditionally left becoming the right and the centre edging over to the left, with the right getting totally confused:-), but poeple are less set in their ways politically, more willing to look for some real facts, less likely to accept what one party says just because they always have. the floating voter rules the day now.

Despite the ridiculous amount of media time given over to religious fantaics, I think religion is generally more and more "fuzzy" here too. Most people feel comfortable with the idea of "something, but not the hierarchy of a church". I think there are less strong beliefs around no than, say, 50 years ago! And I'm not convinced fanaticism is increasing - just that "muslim fundies" are the new media baddies! There have always been fanatics, of various types. the media likes to have one type to villify.

sirkolgate said...

Juggling Mother... I don't think the answer for the religious folk is being less 'strong' in their beliefs, just less critical of others.

CyberKitten said It also makes people feel good to believe in something or be part of something... hence you get true believers.

I wasn't too sure how to go with this one CK. I don't know that you do get true believers in groups... at least not in my case.

In my life being in a group and working together can accomplish great things. But not always towards belief.

Sometimes people get overly caught up in the 'movement' and forget exactly what 'moves' them. Personally I think introspection is the true path to any form of 'enlightenment'.

CyberKitten said...

JM said: I don't know that we are becomming more and more polarized. I know the MSM likes to present simple argments, so they tend to show things in that way, but real people? I think here in the Uk we are becomming less polarized in general, certainly politically.

That's probably true. It does seem that those with passionate political or religious beliefs are a tiny minority in the UK.

JM said: I think there are less strong beliefs around no than, say, 50 years ago!

Again probably true. Just about every indicator says that religion in the UK is in terminal decline... but I'm not entirely convinced that it ever has been particularly strong.

JM said: I'm not convinced fanaticism is increasing - just that "muslim fundies" are the new media baddies! There have always been fanatics, of various types. the media likes to have one type to villify.

Agreed. Even in Muslim countries the percentage of Fundamentalists is probably quite low - though do make *lots* of noise though!

sirkolgate said: I don't know that you do get true believers in groups... at least not in my case.

I think that most people get a sense of belonging when they're part of something larger than themselves. Isn't that a major part of being part of a congregation?

sirkolgate said: Personally I think introspection is the true path to any form of 'enlightenment'.

Me too - and reading books helps me. Might explain my interest in Buddhism.

sirkolgate said...

CK said I think that most people get a sense of belonging when they're part of something larger than themselves. Isn't that a major part of being part of a congregation?

Yes, you’re right. But religion is at its heart a personal thing. You can’t define your belief through the faith of others. You can find reasons to be faithful and examples of how faith could work in your life, but in the end you have to decide for yourself. Someone else can pray for you, but they can’t pray ‘for’ you. You have to make the decision to believe.

What worries me in any ‘group’ activity is the ability of the ‘strong’ and the ‘collective’ to influence the ‘weak’. Be part of a group and belong, but always maintain your head and know that you are an individual who can question those things in which you don’t feel comfortable.

Most every person knows internally when they are doing something ‘right’ and when they are doing something ‘wrong’. Society, culture, and environment have some effect over spectrum of what those two things mean, but globally I’d say there are things that everyone understands to be one or the other, no matter how much they delude themselves otherwise. The pressure of your peers has the unparalleled ability to override common sense to the point of collapse.

We have all become someone completely different then who we are at our cores for someone else or a group of someones. If we could do less of that we’d be on the right track.

Reza Dibadj said: Yet, on a less vile and more subtle stage, meta-narratives are at play today; think of the romantic notions that globalization, unregulated capital markets or military might will solve the world’s problems.

This is the sort of things from the article that I’ve been commenting on. He talks about dissolving some of the ‘polar’ ends of our right/left spectrum, but he doesn’t necessarily mean that we all get in a circle and sing. He just wants us to focus on the rudimentary ‘truths’ and spend less time gallivanting off into either left or right field. I agree.

Think for yourself and don’t let others think (and more importantly answer) for you.

Laura said...

"Most every person knows internally when they are doing something ‘right’ and when they are doing something ‘wrong’."

While I agree with you, I also disagree with the implied assumption that the conclusions each person makes about 'right' and 'wrong' are somehow universal. Not sure if that's what you meant to imply. But what I think is the right thing to do and what you think is the right thing to do might not always be the same.

Sadie Lou said...

I haven't been online so I'm just seeing this now. I'm just starting to learn about postmodernism. So I can't offer much to this discussion but this was an interesting post.
:)

CyberKitten said...

I thought that both of you (Sadie & Laura) would find it interesting.... [grin].

What little I've read about Post-modernism I haven't really liked but that might just be people taking things to extremes (as always).

I look forward to reading the next post after your break Sadie. I hope you're fining time to relax and read a bit....

Sadie Lou said...

I wrote a movie review but it's going to be some time before I get into another Big Heavy. I want to determine a direction for my blog--a purpose. Because I spend so much time on it--I want there to be meaning.
I know, I know, a little bit lofty for a blog, but hey--I'm a stay at home mom and a girl's gotta have an outlet!