So what is this Postmodernism that creates so much fear and trembling in many churches today?
Bear down now. I will try to
simplify this message in every way I can.
I will mention some unrepeatable names (don’t bother trying to repeat
them, or remember them), and then I will highlight three concepts. I will name the concepts, and you may feel
for a moment ready to give up, but hang in here. If
you’re in High School and catch all this, you’ll be able to wow ’em in your
Senior seminar or your college essay. I
will name these three concepts first and then develop them, and as I develop
them, you will realize that they are all concepts that are almost second-nature
to us now. In fact, they are concepts
the heart has long known.
Historically Postmodernism arose out of post-war Paris – which was
probably reason enough for some to suspect it – and the thinking of men like
Jacques Derrida, Jean-François Lyotard and Michel Foucault. All French. And I will note in passing that unless you
have recently brushed up on your High School French, seeing these names will
not help you pronounce them. But never
mind. For our purposes right now, you’ll
not need to. I will not mention them
again.
What’s important is what they were saying. Their thought, which would come to be known
as Postmodernism, was associated with three large concepts: (1) deconstruction
of the text; (2) skepticism toward metanarratives; and (3) the notion that
power is knowledge, or more simply stated, that power corrupts knowledge. Each of these concepts have been turned into
“bumper-sticker” slogans and used to deride Postmodernism. But, in fact, each of these concepts when
looked at more closely and in context makes sense. Let’s
take them one at a time.1
#1 – Deconstruction of the text, that is,
deconstruction of all that is written or communicated. What Postmodernism is saying is that the
meaning in a “text” (or any form of communication) is often found not in its
surface reading, but in its deeper readings, in what it implies, in what its
premises are, in its historical context.
To this end, to interpret a text well, you deconstruct it. It’s important to notice not just what a text
says but also what it does not say. It’s
important not just to read its words; you also need to “read” the gap between
its words. In brief, Postmodernism is
saying: Context matters. Circumstance
matters. The circumstances of both the
writer and the reader matter and need to be taken into consideration to
interpret well. And every “text” – every
form of communication – requires interpretation and, as such, is subject to the
possibility, indeed the inevitability, of different interpretations. And there is no way around this. And there isn’t.
#2 – Skepticism toward metanarratives. Postmodernism is skeptical of any large
controlling narratives that claim to explain everything else, that claim to be
abstract, universal, timeless truths apart from context or circumstance, and
that will not own up to their own premises and presuppositions. Postmodernism sees such metanarratives as
controlling; it will speak of such metanarratives as imperialistic, colonizing,
and totalizing. Many church leaders
leaped to the conclusion that this was a threat to Christianity, but again they
failed to see the context of what was being said. Postmodernism directs this skepticism
primarily at science as the
ultimate theory of everything. It
challenges the hegemony of science. It
notes that technology often outstrips morality, and that there are many truths
that do not lend themselves to scientific verification. Rather than attacking faith, it opens the
world back up to faith, to mystery and miracle.
And it recognizes that sacred texts, in fact, contain multiple
perspectives and narratives. And they
do.
#3 – The notion that power is knowledge. Postmodernism understands that what passes
for knowledge is often what those in power want passed for knowledge, leaving
out other perspectives, other insights and other stories. It observes that what passes for knowledge is
never neutrally determined. Much of what
passes for knowledge is what serves the best interests of political, societal
or church leaders. Stated simply,
Postmodernism stresses that power corrupts – that power even corrupts
knowledge. And it does.
So what’s the real reason for fear of Postmodernism? Who would really contest any of these points?
1 This
organization of thought I owe largely to James K. A. Smith, Who’s Afraid
of Postmodernism? Taking Derrida,
Lyotard, and Foucault to Church, a book I recommend to anyone wishing to
look more deeply into these matters.
In post-war Paris it makes sense that some individuals, but certainly many citizens, would be tired of meta-narratives and literalism after the monstrous effects of both World Wars. Seems natural to question the state of how things are done and how things are thought of after so much physical, psychological, and emotional destruction. If postmodernism had reached more broadly during the Cold War and more people were educated and aware about the governmental affairs in many countries we may have seen a more resounding backlash to international policy then like we have begun to see recently in terms of the evidence/context that a nation uses to conduct international matters. One instance, sadly, is the lack of knowledge, healthy skepticism, and contextual understanding of people and evidence that allowed our nation to go to war in Iraq and stay there for so long and that's almost 50 years since postmodernist thought came onto scene. I hope postmodernist thought will creep more into our leaders' minds as the world changes so we will better able to understand the context of everyday news and events. Same goes for churches and other religious institutions. Whether people agree with the skepticism around religion (especially but not limited to younger people), it's probably here to stay. Myself being raised in postmodernist thought, I think the days are numbered where people will follow church leaders (or any type of public leader) based on persuasive talking points and perceived fear-mongering (which is particularly effective). To me that's a good thing but it certainly threatens those who have an absolute sense of truth and understanding in church, politics, etc. And as much as we need people to think for themselves, we also need leaders who will not take advantage of people's insecurity and vulnerability, for those are 2 (of many) reasons people seek out institutions.
ReplyDeleteThanks Dale for this description of postmodernism. I do not contest these points but very much agree. In addition to Smith’s book, others in the Church and Postmodernism series are helpful too. Particularly “What Would Jesus Deconstruct: the Good News of Postmodernism for the Church” by J. Caputo. Defining deconstruction is like attempting to nail jelly to the wall. It is difficult and is best communicated by examples. Caputo shows that the deconstructionist’s close attention to language and text is beneficial in surprising ways. Originally I thought postmodernism had nothing to offer. But, thankfully, about ten years ago several books by evangelicals who embrace it finally got through my thick skull. They helped me to become aware of the 1) narrative and relational character of reality, 2) the emergent nature of the natural world, and 3) that the modern age-of-enlightenment way of thinking is not the final stage of human development. I anxious to learn from what else you have to say about this.
ReplyDeleteSteve,
DeleteVery interesting. In your experience what were some of the biggest obstacles surrounding your being able to embrace postmodernism? Do people in your community (church or otherwise) have a similar openness as you do? If not, what do you think could be done or emphasized to bring about more openness to the characteristics of postmodernism that Dale mentions above? Thanks very much for your insight.
Hi there Don! Originally my exposure to postmodernism was mainly through newspapers and other media. The snippets of information here and there gave an incomplete and inaccurate impression of it. For one thing, they believed, it seemed, that science is socially constructed and its results arbitrary not real or true. When Alan Sokal pulled the hoax on the journal Social Text in 1996, I thought it vindication of science and common sense thinking and revealed postmodernism as foolishness. And frankly there was and is a lot on nonsense written by postmodernists. What turned the corner for me was Brian McLaren's "A New Kind of Christian". That spurred my interest to discover writings by Stanley Grenz, Leonard Sweet, Peter Rollins, John Caputo, J. K. A Smith, Tony Jones, David Fitch, Carl Raschke, and Phylis Tickle. All but Caputo came up through evangelicalism, I believe. Some of them like to use the term Emergence as a somewhat useful designation of what they are doing. And I think Missionals also resonate with this somewhat. What are the biggest obstacles you ask about? One is the difficulty of some aspects of it. Two is misapprehension of what it is all about. Three is resentment since it may be perceived as coming from foreigners and from the other side of the ideological divide. I have not brought it up to my faith community in an explicit way because of fear of not being able to accurately portray my limited understanding of it and fear of rejection. What can be done? I think some GenX, Millenials and later generations think in the postmodern way already. People like Rob Bell and Rachel Held Evans are helpful and examples of people with Evangelical-cred who are helping us move in the direction I'd like us to go. (By the way, I'm an aging boomer.)
ReplyDeleteSteve,
ReplyDeleteThanks very much for your thoughtfulness and insight. Really appreciate the interesting references and food for thought!
Cheers,
Don