Postmodernism: Profound, or Gibberish?

[Sunstone]

Look who's appealing to anti-intellectualism?

Resorting to smears now? Play by yourself then.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Who is doing the evaluating?

Why, you and me, and anyone else interested in this or that paradigm.

Spinks, here is an example of post-modern thinking:

I had a whole semester on the book of Job.

The classical way of thinking would have been: "Job is a book in the bible. The bible is the word of God. Therefore, everything in Job is the word of God."

The modernist way of thinking would have been: "Job is a book written by Semitic people. We can analyze Job in order to determine characteristics about the writer(s)."

The post-modernist way of thinking is: "Let's take the text of Job at its word, without bringing in external considerations (ie - word of God, written by Semitic peoples...), without bringing in the assumptions that go with that. What is the story about? Who is Job? What meaning can we derive from it?"

Thanks for trying to explain this to me, that was a helpful example.

But are the modernist, classical, and postmodern examples you cited truly different "ways" of thinking?

I would say that the classical "way of thinking" you cited consists of two premises, and a conclusion which appears to follow logically from the premises. The modernist example is simply the replacement of some of the classical premises in light of critical assessment and new evidence.

The postmodernist example, I thought, is simply what people generally do whenever they discuss a work of fiction, whether it is the Bible or Hamlet. It is an intellectual exercise that is not making any truth claims, so its value can only be judged on its usefulness, or the sheer fun and enjoyment we get from it. E.g. a discussion of Hamlet's personal flaws and vices may be useful because it may help us recognize those flaws in ourselves. Or, if it is not obvious from the text what those flaws are, the discussion may simply be an exercise in thinking and imagination. It could be like a crossword puzzle, which is not a very "useful" exercise but it is fun and it does hone our thinking and imagining skills. Or it could be any combination of all of these things.

In this sense I would think that different works of fiction will be more or less useful for a "postmodern" analysis. E.g. if I hand you a cookbook recipe, there may not be coherent answers to questions like "What is the story about? Who is 1/2 cups minced garlic?"

I suspect that something like the Book of Job is incrementally more like a cookbook recipe in this regard than something like Hamlet.

Incidentally, the example of a postmodern interpretation of Job describes effectively what many evangelical preachers are doing, much of the time, in their sermons and on their radio shows when they discuss stories from the Bible.

 

[lilithu]

Correct. Culturally speaking, it was Euro-American reaction against European colonial domination.

Wow, I had no idea that Latinos are Euro-Americans. :areyoucra

Resorting to smears now? Play by yourself then.

Dude, you're the one characterizing postmodernists as intellectualists. I was just calling you on it.

 

[Willamena]

Wow, I had no idea that Latinos are Euro-Americans. :areyoucra

Yeah! It's not like they're Spanish.

 

[lilithu]

Why, you and me, and anyone else interested in this or that paradigm.

My point is that a postmodernist recognizes that there are different perspectives. And if certain people are "evaluating", will take into account that certain perspectives are missing.

But are the modernist, classical, and postmodern examples you cited truly different "ways" of thinking?

I would say that the classical "way of thinking" you cited consists of two premises, and a conclusion which appears to follow logically from the premises. The modernist example is simply the replacement of some of the classical premises in light of critical assessment and new evidence.

Both the classical and modernist views accept only one "truth."

The postmodernist example, I thought, is simply what people generally do whenever they discuss a work of fiction, whether it is the Bible or Hamlet. It is an intellectual exercise that is not making any truth claims, so its value can only be judged on its usefulness, or the sheer fun and enjoyment we get from it. E.g. a discussion of Hamlet's personal flaws and vices may be useful because it may help us recognize those flaws in ourselves. Or, if it is not obvious from the text what those flaws are, the discussion may simply be an exercise in thinking and imagination. It could be like a crossword puzzle, which is not a very "useful" exercise but it is fun and it does hone our thinking and imagining skills. Or it could be any combination of all of these things.

Spinks, this is a postmodernist view. No, people did NOT discuss the bible or Hamlet in this way until the 20th century. The thing is, and this was part of my point in a post to Sunstone, we are so immersed in postmodernist thinking now that we don't even realize it. We think that this is the way that people have always thought because it comes so natural to us, but NO, people did not always think this way.

Even people who criticize postmodernism think like postmodernists in some ways.

It reminds me of a classroom discussion where most of the students started criticizing Freud, saying that he was overrated, that he had sex on the brain, that he must have had a traumatic childhood, etc. And the teacher calmly pointed out to them that they were psychoanalyzing Freud. They would not have been speculating on his motivations if it weren't for him. That's how deeply ingrained Freudian thinking is in our psyches, we don't even realize it, even as we're rejecting him. The same with post-modernism.

In this sense I would think that different works of fiction will be more or less useful for a "postmodern" analysis. E.g. if I hand you a cookbook recipe, there may not be coherent answers to questions like "What is the story about? Who is 1/2 cups minced garlic?"

I suspect that something like the Book of Job is incrementally more like a cookbook recipe in this regard than something like Hamlet.

You would be wrong. I suspect that you are bringing your expectations of what you've been taught of the bible to the text.

For example, when I first started the class, I made the mistake of assuming that the God in Job is omniscient, because I had always been told that God is omniscient, and I retained that assumption even tho I had rejected that conception of God. Then my instructor asked me, "Why do you think that God knows whether Job is upright or not? Where in the text does it say that?" Eliminating the assumption of God's omniscience changed the way I viewed the entire story.

That's what I mean about taking the text at its own word.

Incidentally, the example of a postmodern interpretation of Job describes effectively what many evangelical preachers are doing, much of the time, in their sermons and on their radio shows when they discuss stories from the Bible.

I don't follow. Most evangelical preachers would claim that Job, being part of the bible and the word of God, has only one interpretation. That is not a postmodernist view.

 

[lilithu]

Yeah! It's not like they're Spanish.

They're not.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I remember I took a course in Literary and Folk Tales. The professor had us read a few things which, looking back, must have been post-modern.

For example, we read a sort of Freudian psychoanalysis of Hansel and Gretel. The article claimed that all of Hansel and Gretel's actions were motivated by infantile "oral" desires (e.g. eating food), which is infantile since breastfeeding is an oral activity, and that the point of the story is that we must abandon our infantile inclinations to avoid destruction and abandonment. I thought it was nonsense.

 

[lilithu]

I remember I took a course in Literary and Folk Tales. The professor had us read a few things which, looking back, must have been post-modern.

For example, we read a sort of Freudian psychoanalysis of Hansel and Gretel. The article claimed that all of Hansel and Gretel's actions were motivated by infantile "oral" desires (e.g. eating food), which is infantile since breastfeeding is an oral activity, and that the point of the story is that we must abandon our infantile inclinations to avoid destruction and abandonment. I thought it was nonsense.

Ha! Sounds like very entertaining nonsense.

I remember reading an analysis of Little Red Riding Hood that said the road to grandmother's house was the path of virginity and the big bad wolf was a man trying to seduce Red.

Bruno Bettelheim, "The Uses of Enchantment"

That kind of stuff is fun. And I personally even find some truth in it. But it's also not to be taken too seriously.

You didn't answer my question: was that really what the guy wrote? or did you cut and past the most obscure parts? Because I am a postmodernist, and I found him to be incoherent. Lots of impressive sounding references, but.... :areyoucra

 

[lilithu]

Here, I found this explanation on a website and it basically says what I'm trying to say in a more coherent manner.

"Modernism" generally refers to the broad aesthetic movements of the twentieth century; "modernity" refers to a set of philosophical, political, and ethical ideas which provide the basis for the aesthetic aspect of modernism. "Modernity" is older than "modernism;" the label "modern," first articulated in nineteenth-century sociology, was meant to distinguish the present era from the previous one, which was labeled "antiquity." Scholars are always debating when exactly the "modern" period began, and how to distinguish between what is modern and what is not modern; it seems like the modern period starts earlier and earlier every time historians look at it. But generally, the "modern" era is associated with the European Enlightenment, which begins roughly in the middle of the eighteenth century.

The basic ideas of the Enlightenment are roughly the same as the basic ideas of humanism. Jane Flax's article gives a good summary of these ideas or premises (on p. 41). I'll add a few things to her list.

1. There is a stable, coherent, knowable self. This self is conscious, rational, autonomous, and universal--no physical conditions or differences substantially affect how this self operates.

2. This self knows itself and the world through reason, or rationality, posited as the highest form of mental functioning, and the only objective form.

3. The mode of knowing produced by the objective rational self is "science," which can provide universal truths about the world, regardless of the individual status of the knower.

4. The knowledge produced by science is "truth," and is eternal.

5. The knowledge/truth produced by science (by the rational objective knowing self) will always lead toward progress and perfection. All human institutions and practices can be analyzed by science (reason/objectivity) and improved.

6. Reason is the ultimate judge of what is true, and therefore of what is right, and what is good (what is legal and what is ethical). Freedom consists of obedience to the laws that conform to the knowledge discovered by reason.

7. In a world governed by reason, the true will always be the same as the good and the right (and the beautiful); there can be no conflict between what is true and what is right (etc.).

8. Science thus stands as the paradigm for any and all socially useful forms of knowledge. Science is neutral and objective; scientists, those who produce scientific knowledge through their unbiased rational capacities, must be free to follow the laws of reason, and not be motivated by other concerns (such as money or power).

9. Language, or the mode of expression used in producing and disseminating knowledge, must be rational also. To be rational, language must be transparent; it must function only to represent the real/perceivable world which the rational mind observes. There must be a firm and objective connection between the objects of perception and the words used to name them (between signifier and signified).

These are some of the fundamental premises of humanism, or of modernism. They serve--as you can probably tell--to justify and explain virtually all of our social structures and institutions, including democracy, law, science, ethics, and aesthetics.

Modernity is fundamentally about order: about rationality and rationalization, creating order out of chaos. The assumption is that creating more rationality is conducive to creating more order, and that the more ordered a society is, the better it will function (the more rationally it will function). Because modernity is about the pursuit of ever-increasing levels of order, modern societies constantly are on guard against anything and everything labeled as "disorder," which might disrupt order. Thus modern societies rely on continually establishing a binary opposition between "order" and "disorder," so that they can assert the superiority of "order." But to do this, they have to have things that represent "disorder"--modern societies thus continually have to create/construct "disorder." In western culture, this disorder becomes "the other"--defined in relation to other binary oppositions. Thus anything non-white, non-male, non-heterosexual, non-hygienic, non-rational, (etc.) becomes part of "disorder," and has to be eliminated from the ordered, rational modern society.

The ways that modern societies go about creating categories labeled as "order" or "disorder" have to do with the effort to achieve stability. Francois Lyotard (the theorist whose works Sarup describes in his article on postmodernism) equates that stability with the idea of "totality," or a totalized system (think here of Derrida's idea of "totality" as the wholeness or completeness of a system). Totality, and stability, and order, Lyotard argues, are maintained in modern societies through the means of "grand narratives" or "master narratives," which are stories a culture tells itself about its practices and beliefs. A "grand narrative" in American culture might be the story that democracy is the most enlightened (rational) form of government, and that democracy can and will lead to universal human happiness. Every belief system or ideology has its grand narratives, according to Lyotard; for Marxism, for instance, the "grand narrative" is the idea that capitalism will collapse in on itself and a utopian socialist world will evolve. You might think of grand narratives as a kind of meta-theory, or meta-ideology, that is, an ideology that explains an ideology (as with Marxism); a story that is told to explain the belief systems that exist.

Lyotard argues that all aspects of modern societies, including science as the primary form of knowledge, depend on these grand narratives. Postmodernism then is the critique of grand narratives, the awareness that such narratives serve to mask the contradictions and instabilities that are inherent in any social organization or practice. In other words, every attempt to create "order" always demands the creation of an equal amount of "disorder," but a "grand narrative" masks the constructedness of these categories by explaining that "disorder" REALLY IS chaotic and bad, and that "order" REALLY IS rational and good. Postmodernism, in rejecting grand narratives, favors "mini-narratives," stories that explain small practices, local events, rather than large-scale universal or global concepts. Postmodern "mini-narratives" are always situational, provisional, contingent, and temporary, making no claim to universality, truth, reason, or stability.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

My point is that a postmodernist recognizes that there are different perspectives. And if certain people are "evaluating", will take into account that certain perspectives are missing.

Is the recognition that there are different perspectives unique to postmodernism?

Both the classical and modernist views accept only one "truth."

Where does science fit in--is it considered "modernist"? Because I don't think it would be quite accurate to say that science only accepts one "truth". A "scientific" view of the Bible, I would think, would be open to all truth candidates a priori, but seeks to whittle them down or recombine them as necessary, through critical analysis and facts, to construct a single, coherent approximation to the "truth" (or web of truths, and any equivalent representations therein).

They key, it seems to me, is to allow for the possibility to be wrong. Any view, or method, which cannot reject any statement as wrong, cannot (it seems to me) embrace any statement as true, either, at least not in any meaningful sense.

Spinks, this is a postmodernist view. No, people did NOT discuss the bible or Hamlet in this way until the 20th century. The thing is, and this was part of my point in a post to Sunstone, we are so immersed in postmodernist thinking now that we don't even realize it. We think that this is the way that people have always thought because it comes so natural to us, but NO, people did not always think this way

Wow, that's very interesting, I didn't realize that.

Even people who criticize postmodernism think like postmodernists in some ways.

You would be wrong.

Apparently, even people who advocate postmodernism think like modernists in some ways.

For example, when I first started the class, I made the mistake of assuming that the God in Job is omniscient, because I had always been told that God is omniscient, and I retained that assumption even tho I had rejected that conception of God. Then my instructor asked me, "Why do you think that God knows whether Job is upright or not? Where in the text does it say that?" Eliminating the assumption of God's omniscience changed the way I viewed the entire story.

I see. I didn't realize that all of what we today consider to be literary criticism was synonymous with postmodernism. I thought postmodernism was a subset of modern literary criticism. I think what you're describing is great, I've done it myself in some courses. But it IS possible to be wrong here, because your interpretation and claims are constrained by something--namely, the text itself. Some claims about the story are more or less compatible with the text than others. For example, your instructor pointed out that you had made an assumption for which there is no support in the text. This seems to me to be a scholarly and, for lack of a better term, "scientific" enterprise.

That's what I mean about taking the text at its own word.

Yes, I see what you're saying. I was mistaken because I thought "postmodernism" was totally unconstrained, but I see now that there are constraints, i.e. there are claims which are supported by the evidence (the text) and there are claims which are not, to varying degrees.

I don't follow. Most evangelical preachers would claim that Job, being part of the bible and the word of God, has only one interpretation. That is not a postmodernist view.

That's not what I hear them claiming when I listen to them on the radio. I hear them quote the text, make inferences on what Job is feeling/thinking, what God is feeling/thinking, who Job is and what the story means, relying heavily on quotes from the text. No doubt they also believe the events described were real historical events, but that belief is not incompatible with the textual criticism you've described, it's just an addition to it.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Ha! Sounds like very entertaining nonsense.

I remember reading an analysis of Little Red Riding Hood that said the road to grandmother's house was the path of virginity and the big bad wolf was a man trying to seduce Red.

Bruno Bettelheim, "The Uses of Enchantment"

HA! Bruno Bettelheim was the very rascal I was referring to! In fact, I read "The Uses of Enchantment" and the thesis of my final essay was that 'Little Red Riding Hood' can be understood as a justification of male sexual predatory behavior. No really, stop laughing, that was my essay.....I used the hit song "Little Red Riding Hood" by Sam the Sham and the Pharoahs as my primary example.

Seriously, stop laughing....it was a DAMN fine essay, I got an A+ on it.

You didn't answer my question: was that really what the guy wrote? or did you cut and past the most obscure parts? Because I am a postmodernist, and I found him to be incoherent. Lots of impressive sounding references, but.... :areyoucra

Sorry, no I didn't cut and paste anything, that was the essay in its entirety.

 

[rojse]

Although I am fairly recent to the ideas of post-modernism, I think that post-modernism is too fixated on trying to find different perspectives on absolutely everything, even to the point when the new explanation does not improve upon the current explanation at all.

 

[want to be hindu]

I think post-modernism appeals to intellectuals in part because it's a badge of some sort -- intellectuals, at least some of them, use it kind of like a street gang uses it's colors -- as a means of quickly identifying the "in" group and distinguishing between "in" group and "out" group. But that's just my opinion. There may be others.

I believe that our whole culture is steeped in post modernism. If I may be very simplistic I believe we can break all the world views down to three categories.( I know that I am being totally ridiculous but I am having fun.)

Traditionalists who ruled the world up till modern science. They had a world view that believed that Metaphysics is what gave the physical universe shape and meaning. To understand our world and find a way to solve all human problems we must understand Metaphysics.

Then Modernity ruled the world till the mid 20th century.
Scientific method is how we find truth. We build our understanding of truth by controlled experiments to come up with our Scientific worldview.

Postmodernism rules the world from the mid 20th century on.(Maybe Nietzsche was the first postmodernist in the 1800s.)

Scientific method has show us that there is no Metaphysics so we have placed our meaning in creating a fair and just society and treat nature in the right way.We have no need of Metaphysics so all ideas are equally true.

All 3 views have there good and bad points.

 

[want to be hindu]

Bruno Bettelheim, "The Uses of Enchantment"

Bruno Bettelheim was a very bad man. He abused his assistances. He basically blamed Autism on bad mothering. He called the mothers of Autistic children refrigerator mothers. They were cold and unloving thats why there kids are unfeeling and they have autism.After Bettelheim's suicide in 1990, it came out that his academic credentials had been falsified. Many of former patients came forward with accusations of neglect.

So many families suffered so much because of his views.

 

[doppelganger]

Science is a far greater equalizer.

Is science not post-modern? :cover:

 

[doppelganger]

Wow, I had no idea that Latinos are Euro-Americans. :areyoucra

More so than non-Latino North Americans are, Lil. The British preferred moving the native Americans onto reservations. The Spanish and Portuguese instead tended to marry them and have children. So, to be precise, Latin Americans are more "Euro-American" than white people in the U.S. and Canada, who are just plain "Euro" (with gaming casinos nearby).

 

[lilithu]

More so than non-Latino North Americans are, Lil. The British preferred moving the native Americans onto reservations. The Spanish and Portuguese instead tended to marry them and have children. So, to be precise, Latin Americans are more "Euro-American" than white people in the U.S. and Canada, who are just plain "Euro" (with gaming casinos nearby).

I think we mean different thing by our terms.

To me, (assuming that you are white) you would be a Euro-American, just as I am an Asian-American. My ancestors came from Asia, I am American, thus Asian-American. Your ancestors (I am assuming), came from Europe, you are American, thus Euro-American.

Latin Americans, as you said, are a mixture of Spanish/Portuguese with indigenous peoples, and their culture reflects that. There are their own people, NOT Spanish. To say that they are Spanish misrepresents their heritage, and ignores the indigenous part of it. When Latin Americans move to the U.S., and become citizens and their children are born here, they are Latino-Americans.

 

[lilithu]

Is science not post-modern? :cover:

lol, but Sunstone's statement was definitely modernist.

 

[lilithu]

HA! Bruno Bettelheim was the very rascal I was referring to! In fact, I read "The Uses of Enchantment" and the thesis of my final essay was that 'Little Red Riding Hood' can be understood as a justification of male sexual predatory behavior. No really, stop laughing, that was my essay.....I used the hit song "Little Red Riding Hood" by Sam the Sham and the Pharoahs as my primary example.

Seriously, stop laughing....it was a DAMN fine essay, I got an A+ on it.

I'm not laughing Spinks. I actually see some truth in that analysis, and I think that song is evidence that other people have seen it too. It's just not the whole truth. Little Red Ridinghood can be read in a number of different ways.

Bruno Bettelheim was a very bad man. He abused his assistances. He basically blamed Autism on bad mothering. He called the mothers of Autistic children refrigerator mothers. They were cold and unloving thats why there kids are unfeeling and they have autism.After Bettelheim's suicide in 1990, it came out that his academic credentials had been falsified. Many of former patients came forward with accusations of neglect.

So many families suffered so much because of his views.

I've come to learn that there are a lot of very smart men who were also very bad men.

I was devastated in college when I found out that one of my scientific idols, Konrad Lorenz, was a Nazi. Not just someone who went along with it to protect his career, which would have been bad enough, but an active member. I struggled with this but had to recognize that even tho he was no longer a hero, he was still a very smart man who contributed a lot to the field of ethology. Heck, he pretty much created the field of ethology.

 

[doppelganger]

I think we mean different thing by our terms.

I know. It was a postmodern joke (just not a very funny one).