Saturday, February 2, 2008

Still trying to define "Postmodern"...

I spend a little time on a particular Christian internet forum now and then. As is typical of these sorts of sites, the topics range all over the map! Just for grins, I thought I'd ask folk what they thought of when they hear the word Postmodern.

If you read this blog often, you know that the response frustrated but did not surprise me.

Though I sometimes think I've beaten this topic into the ground, let me once again attempt to offer some food for thought on the subject. My fundamental premise is that when using the term Postmodern, we must differentiate between what I call Ivory Tower Postmodernity and Cultural Postmodernity...

First, what do I mean by Ivory Tower Postmodernity? I refer to the Ivory Tower of academia. These are the guys who have tenured professorships, know they will never lose their well-paying jobs, and can afford to do nothing but speculate about hypothetical worlds that really can't ever exist in reality. Unfortunately, these guys write books. Even more unfortunately, most people come to believe that what they say represents the norm. So what do they say?

They say that there's no such thing as absolute truth. Period. They can afford to believe this because they don't live in the real world. No one I personally know that identifies with Postmodernity believes in a complete lack of absolute truth. Much more gray than black and white? Yes. But absolutely no absolutes? No.

More to the point, I don't know of a single Postmodern follower of Christ that rejects absolute truth. Again, the list of what we consider absolute is certainly smaller than what other (more Modern) folk hold to, but there's still a list.

Okay, so what do I mean by Cultural Postmodernity? I mean the rubber-meets-the-road, real world cultural understanding of Postmodernity that you'll find in virtually everyone that could be labelled "Postmodern". These folks (and I consider myself one of them) see far less black and white than gray, but still believe in at least some absolutes.

So why do I use the label Cultural Postmodernity to describe myself? There are many reasons, but here are a few of the biggies:

1. I reject the notion that the human mind is capable of ascertaining foundational truth all by itself. (If your taking philosophical notes, this means I reject Foundationalism. I also reject the concept of meta-narrative, because by definition a meta-narrative is supposed to be self-evidently true.)

2. I have much more room in my heart for diversity than those that came before me. For the moment, we'll leave it at that.

3. I am passionately concerned about our environment. I consider myself an Environmentalist, even though I don't believe in human-induced Global Warming.

4. I put great stock in context. There is little that is not influenced by context. What's true for one culture sometimes may or may not be true for another. I could give copious examples of this, but if you've read this far you likely don't need me to.

5. I don't believe linear logic alone is usually the best way to resolve issues. There's a time and a place for it, but very often relationship is more important.

6. I believe God created humans to live in true community. Rugged individualism must die. Dialogue over monologue.

---

More than trying to define Postmodernity (because you really can't define it in a monologue), my real hope is that having read this post you don't immediately think "he rejects absolute truth!" if ever you hear someone use the term Postmodern. Remember, Cultural Postmodernity is a whole different animal than Ivory Tower Postmodernity.

Hatushili


7 comments:

Unknown said...

I'm a little fuzzy on some of the terms used, but let me just try one for starters---meta-narrative. Could you expand upon this a little more in terms of practical implications for a Christian believer regarding such things as the inspiration of scripture or the substitutionary atonement of Christ among other things.

I realize that's probably a tall order so if you'd rather do it in a blog essay as opposed to just a little comment reply that would certainly be understandable. Or, if you have already addressed that issue, just a link to it and my apologies as I am a new reader of your blog.

Oh, BTW, by scripture, I mean the original NOT all of the subsequent translations which couldn't possibly be considered inerrant by any thinking person except, of course, the KJV-only proponents. But then again, I don't know if any in that camp could be described as a "thinking person" IMHO. :)

Hatushili said...

re: buttons - meta-narrative is somewhat slippery term. Like so many buzzwords, it seems to mean different things to different people. But in general what I think most people mean by meta-narrative is "a grand, self-evidently true narrative that explains all things for all people".

Most postmoderns reject the concept because of the "for all people" part. They tend not to believe that anything could be true "for all people".

My rejection of meta-narrative stems from the "self-evidently true" part. Postmoderns (like me) generally reject what is called Foundationalism, the belief that humanity is capable of discovering foundational truth if we work hard enough and long enough. I reject this concept because it fails to acknowledge the effects of sin on the world and the mind.

So ... I believe the Bible is a grand narrative that explains all things for all people, but I don't believe it's self-evidently true. Only by the power of the Spirit can we make sense out of it.

If a postmodern who rejects the concept of meta-narrative based upon an objection to the "for all people" part is confronted with the Gospel ... we have a problem. That's the fundamental tension point in trying to introduce postmoderns to the One True God.

Hatushili

Anonymous said...

Re: self-evidently true---

How does Romans 1:19-20 fit into the equation for you?

Unknown said...

I thought I could edit my comment to add this to it, but guess not. Anyhow-----

19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse. KJV
===================================

19For that which is known about God is evident to them and made plain in their inner consciousness, because God [Himself] has shown it to them.

20For ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature and attributes, that is, His eternal power and divinity, have been made intelligible and clearly discernible in and through the things that have been made (His handiworks). So [men] are without excuse [altogether without any defense or justification],(A) AMP

Hatushili said...

Excellent question! I'm not sure that any one has asked me about this particular verse in the context of Foundationalism...

The answer, in a nutshell, is that Romans 1 isn't dealing with meta-narrative, it's dealing with "His eternal power and divinity" and the truth of their self-evident quality.

Also, it is arguable that God placed these things in nature specifically as markers of Himself ... meaning the truth (in this case, "His eternal power and divinity") really isn't self-evidently true; God placed markers along the path.

But for me the real issue is one of scope: Romans 1 tells us that people who deny the existence of God are without excuse (which, perhaps, is why the Bible calls them "fools"). Meta-narrative is a grand, over-arching, explains-everything kind of concept - not just "God exists and is powerful".

The best example of meta-narrative I can think of in America right now is Science - the notion that via the scientific method we (humanity) can ultimately figure out virtually anything. Postmoderns reject the notion that Science is self-evidently true, and therefore reject it as meta-narrative. Think of the circular argument for the age of the earth that is sometimes bandied about (the earth is billions of years old because it would take that long for macro-evolution to give us today's world; macro-evolution explains today's world since the earth is billions of years old). I don't want to get into an age-of-the-earth debate ... but the point is that many Moderns don't see a problem with this logic: Science is held to be self-evidently true. It's meta-narrative.

Anonymous said...

Bonjour, hatushili.blogspot.com!
[url=http://viagraparis.fora.pl/ ]Achat viagra [/url] [url=http://pharmacieplus.fora.pl/ ]Achat viagra en ligne[/url] [url=http://medfrance.fora.pl/ ]Acheter viagra [/url] [url=http://medifrance.fora.pl/ ]Achat viagra online[/url] [url=http://franceviagra.fora.pl/ ] viagra [/url] [url=http://drogues.fora.pl/ ] Cialis en ligne[/url] [url=http://achetercialis.fora.pl/ ]Achat Cialis online[/url]

Anonymous said...

Bonjorno, www.blogger.com!
[url=http://cialisantr.pun.pl/ ]Vendita cialis generico[/url] [url=http://viagrarier.pun.pl/ ]Acquisto viagra online[/url] [url=http://cialistagh.pun.pl/ ]Acquisto cialis generico[/url] [url=http://viagraenat.pun.pl/ ]Compra viagra generico[/url] [url=http://cialisdkee.pun.pl/ ]Comprare cialis in Italia[/url] [url=http://viagraycla.pun.pl/ ]Acquistare viagra in Italia[/url]