Andy Parker explains "What is Postmodernism?"

What is Postmodernism?

In order to determine what exactly postmodernism is there are a few preliminary statements that must be made before we can begin. First, by its nature postmodernism is a movement that is by no means uniform. In it’s intellectual formation there are four primary strands. In their book, Varieties of Postmodern Theology, Griffin, Beardslee and Holland evaluate these different strands quite thoroughly.[1] Given the nature and objectives of this paper it will not be possible to cover any of these varieties in any detail. However, I do feel it is important to see the different directions this movement is taking in the academic realm.

Second, we must also note that many have made the distinction between postmodernism and postmodernity:

As we try and understand our contemporary world, it is necessary, I believe, to distinguish between postmodernism and postmodernity. The former is an intellectual formulation of postmodern ideas on the high end of culture. It is their expression in architecture, in literary theory, philosophy, and so on. Postmodernity, by contrast, I am taking as the popular, social expression of the same assumptions but in ways that may be unselfconscious and often not intellectual at all, making this a diffuse, unshaped kind of expression. If the one is found in books and art, if it is debated on campuses and in the academy, the other is found in rock music, in the malls, on television, and in the workplace.[2]

I will not make such a distinction between postmodernism and postmodernity for purposes of this paper. I mention this distinction because scholarship is making this distinction and it is important to note. However, I only wish to look at some common tenants of postmodern thought. These basic tenants will show themselves in the academy and in pop culture whether or not the origin of thought can be traced back to one or the other. Trying to determine whether or not the academy influences pop culture or visa versa is a bit like trying to determine which came first, the chicken or the egg.[3] Therefore, I will use the terms postmodernism and postmodernity interchangeably throughout.

Although postmodernism comes in all shapes and sizes there are some basic tenants which can be seen as a common thread throughout. Foundational to postmodern thought is that it rejects all tenants of modernity. Thus, postmodern pundits see modernism as dead and believe a new age of thought has been ushered in. Hence, the designation, post-modernism, or after-modernism. One can begin to understand the antagonism that runs throughout postmodernism if they see that it is really an anti-movement as opposed to any new revelation in thought or discovery. This distinction between modernism and postmodernism reveals itself in many forms.

Of the many distinctions that have been attempted between modernism and postmodernism, perhaps this is the most common: modernism still believed in the objectivity of knowledge. In its most optimistic form, modernism held that ultimately knowledge would revolutionize the world, squeeze God to the periphery or perhaps abandon him to his own devices, and build an edifice of glorious knowledge to the great God Science. But this stance has largely been abandoned in the postmodernism that characterizes most Western universities. Deconstructionists have been most vociferous in denouncing the modernist vision. They hold that language and meaning are socially constructed, which is tantamount to saying arbitrarily constructed. Its meaning is grounded neither in ‘reality’ nor in texts per se. Texts will invariably be interpreted against the backdrop of the interpreter’s social ‘home’ and the historical conditioning of the language itself.[4]

Basic to modernism was that there was such a thing truth. Not only truth, but absolute truth, and not only did the modernist believe in absolute truth but they believed it could be discovered through scientific inquiry. Postmoderns vehemently deny any such thing as absolute truth. One may even say they hold to this claim absolutely! The desecration of absolutes has led to the abandonment of worldview, truth, and purpose.

One of the most popular American postmodern philosophers is the deconstructionist, Richard Rorty. Rorty is a weird combination of deconstructionist, and social pragmatist. As a deconstructionist he finds commonality with the French philosopher, Jacques Derrida’s understanding of words. Basically words have no meaning and are viciously self-limiting. In short, words only refer to other words.[5] Rorty writes, “This is exactly what I take language to be like. It is indeed a seamless web, which can best be understood if we abandon the traditional distinctions. A conception of language as smooth and homogeneous is just the right one to have, and adopting it does indeed lead to quietism.”[6]

One may think that Rorty, as well Derrida would deny that any meaning can be derived from the text. Surprisingly, both argue that meaning can be derived from the text. But this is not an objective meaning which the author intended to communicate using linguistic symbols. Rather, this is whatever meaning the interpreter assigns to the text. Since there are no absolutes there is no criteria by which to judge one interpretation superior to another and thus, all interpretations are equally valid. Rorty states, “For a quietist like me, there is no discourse, debate, theory, or vocabulary that is devoid of meaning. I try to avoid the expression devoid of meaning. Any linguistic expression, even an expression like ontological status, has a meaning if you give it one. To give meaning to an expression, all you have to do is use it in a more or less predicable manner – situate it within a network of predicable inferences.”[7]

On the surface, it is not hard to see the absurdity inherit in the hermeneutical deconstruction of postmodernism. First, if there is no correct criteria by which to interpret text, and all interpretations are valid then they really have no basis on which to expound or defend their claims. If their view is correct how could they defend their own view? They should expect that all who read their work would not agree with them because all interpretations are independent and determined by the interpreter. If words only refer to other words then why bother writing books or giving speaking engagements to try and convince others that your approach to literary studies is the correct one. I highly doubt that these authors write with the intentions of people making up whatever they want them to say. In fact, the every act of responding to criticism and engaging in debates would point to the contrary.

Second, one also must question the sanity of a person who claims that words have no meaning while using words to communicate the ideas that one believes to be true. Carl F. H. Henry writes, “Those who resort to words to tell us that words distort reality and truth engage in a futile of self-refuting activity.”[8] This is the equivalent to saying, “I don’t believe in speech or truth and let me tell you why!” Not only does this position make all communication impossible, but it simply does not chide with personal experience.

In the real world, for all the difficulties there are in communication from person to person and from culture to culture, we still expect people to say more or less what they mean, and we expect mature people to understand what others say, and represent it fairly. The understanding is doubtless never absolutely exhaustive and perfect, but that does not mean that only the alternative is to dissociate text from speaker, and then locate all meaning in the reader or hearer. True knowledge of the meaning of a text and even of the thoughts of the author who wrote it is possible, even if perfect and exhaustive knowledge is not. That is that way things are in the real world – and that in turn suggests that any theory that flies in the face of these realities needs to be examined again.[9]

Another sign (or symptom), of postmodernism is the growing tolerance/acceptance of other religions. It is true that other religions have always been a part of our culture, but due to the cancerous concepts postulated by postmodernity, especially that there are no absolute truths, only personal truths, religious pluralism has found a great degree of acceptance among the popular culture.

This overarching theme of religious acceptance is a new development within Western culture. Harold Netland explains, “Until recently it was assumed that since incompatible truth-claims are being made not all of the claims made by the various religions can be true. At least some must be false. Thus, it has traditionally been held that the Muslim and the evangelical Christian cannot both be correct in their beliefs about the identity of Jesus.”[10] With the loss of objective truth we are left with nothing more than extreme subjectivity. When this is played out in the marketplace of ideas it makes any religion that claims to be absolutely true seem intolerant, insensitive and even extreme. Thus, the enemy of the many is not one more, but rather the One!

Within postmodernism, any religion that claims to be exclusivist will necessarily be perceived as being evil or at least extremely bigoted. On the surface, one would initially think that this position would rule out all religions because at the heart of every religion is an exclusivist position. Every religion makes an absolute claim, even if that absolute claim is that they absolutely affirm to not make any absolute claims. This, however, is not a problem for postmoderns.

Postmoderns don’t see this as a problem because in order to bring harmony to the conflicting religious truth claims, they simply look for areas of mutual understanding, and disregard the differences. There are two major forms in which religious pluralism can be represented. The first is that of Wilfred Cantwell Smith. Smith thinks that it is completely arrogant and even ignorant to think that Christianity is any more true than Islam. He sees this as a result of Enlightenment thinking. Smith rejects prepositional truth claims in favor of “personalistic” truth claims. He writes, “It is a surprisingly modern aberration for anyone to think that Christianity is true or that Islam is – since the Enlightenment basically, when Europe began to postulate religions as intellectual systems, patterns of doctrines so that they could for the first time be labeled “Christianity” and “Buddhism,” and could be called true or false.”[11] Smith’s position is a completely existential position which can be seen more clearly in statements like this, “Christianity, I would suggest, is not true absolutely, impersonally, statically; rather, it can become true, if and as you or I appropriate it to ourselves and interiorize it, insofar as we live it out from day to day.”[12]

Another form of religious pluralism that has become popular is that of John Hick. Hick realizes the need for prepositional truth and thus does not reject it out right. Given this, he also realized that not every claim that all religions make can be true, but he rejects the notion that this makes some of the religions claims false. Netland writes, “Hick proposes a comprehensive theory that allegedly portrays the distinctive nature of each religious tradition, recognizes significant differences in claims being made by each religion, and yet does not necessitate our concluding that at least some of these claims must be false. His theory calls for nothing less than a revolution in the way in which we think about the relation between religions.”[13] So for Hick, every religion is simply making a human response to the “Eternal One” and these human responses are conditioned by culture. So Yahweh, Allah, Krishna, Shiva, Brahman, and so on are just different manifestations of the “Eternal One.”

How do we respond to these differing pluralistic positions presented? First, the idea that there is no such thing as prepositional truth and only personal truth is ridiculous. All truth by definition is exclusive. If a given statement is true than a statement which contradicts the true statement must then be false. This is basic logic. If all A is A than A cannot be non A. Man cannot simply do away with prepositional truth simply because they don’t like the outcome. No matter how much fallen man would like to abandon prepositional truth it is simply impossible. In fact, to make the statement that all truth is personalistic truth is in itself a proposition. Also, it should be noted that one cannot accept a truth to be personal unless they have first accepted it as a proposition. Netland points this out as follows, “The belief that Allah is a righteous judge will only “become true” in a personalistic sense if the adherent of Islam first accepts the proposition expressed by “Allah is a righteous judge” to be true. Similarly, religions such as Islam or Buddhism can only “become true” in a personalistic sense if certain relevant beliefs are accepted by the respective adherents as true in a propositional sense.”[14]

Second, the claim that all religions are really just different manifestations of the same “Eternal One” is not only wrong, but foolish. Although Hick desires to create a comprehensive philosophy, similar to Hegel’s attempts,[15] he still is confronted with conflicting truth claims. For example, Christianity claims that God is ontologically distinct from all creation. He is eternal and everything else is created. Also, the Christian God is a Triune, self-contained, personal God who has revealed Himself. This means that God can be known truly though not exhaustively. There is no common ground between the Christian God and the nothingness of Buddhism, or the impersonal god of Islam. So when the Lord Jesus Christ told His disciples, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. If you had known Me, you would have known the Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him” (John 14:6-7), He was making an exclusive claim.

Jesus did not leave room for other interpretations of who He was. Either He was God incarnate or He was insane. He cannot be God and yet not God. Christ was not simply playing language games when He said that He was God. Therefore, any attempt to find common ground with other religions is nothing more than an attempt to alleviate the crushing burden of sin that one experiences at the foot of the cross. This is why in every pluralistic system Jesus is nothing more than a good guy – it takes away any form of moral culpability. But this means that one has to then believe in imputed moral guilt before a Holy God. Though, fallen man vehemently denies this all of their actions point to the contrary and their desire to suppress the truth leaves them guiltless before God.

As was mentioned above, this is by no means a comprehensive summary of postmodernism or postmodern thought. This movement is very splintered by its very nature. I do, however, feel that we now have enough of an idea of the main points that postmodernism is pontificating to respond, but before we do so let us take a look at what it means to be a postmodern Christian.