A Brief Defense of the Postmodern, Part Two

When considering the postmodern, it is important to keep in mind that it focuses on the effects of an idea, not the inherent truth (or lack of it) of the idea. A potent example of this is the concept of race. Scientifically speaking, there is no such thing as "race". There is no genetic evidence for the categorization of people into racial groups. In fact, if you compare the DNA of a two white Swedes and a black Rwandan, it is more likely that each Swede will have more DNA in common with the Rwandan than they do with each other. This is because most human genetic variation can be traced back to African ancestors, so the gene pool in central Africa is far more diverse than, for example, Sweden. In rough theory then, you could recreate Swedes from Rwandans, but not vice versa. Race is an entirely arbitrary category, with no scientific or biological foundation, and yet it is an important factor in America today. Twenty-five percent of black males in the U.S. are incarcerated – not because of some biological inferiority, but because of a constructed social reality. For generations, the dominant power structure has (and continues to) view blacks as inherently inferior, and this belief, while completely false, has had very real, very tangible ramifications for millions of Americans. Individuals (and even larger systems) do not act upon what the truth is, but on what they believe the truth to be.

Obviously, there is some foundation of reality. No matter how completely one believes that one can fly a plane through a mountain, the plane will crash. Such a belief does not affect the physical outcome, but it does affect the actions of the pilot. If the pilot really believes he can fly through the mountain, he will try – despite all the evidence to the contrary. This is what the postmodern emphasizes – that events do not always make sense or proceed in a logical manner.

Within this framework, faith in logic breaks down. Well-reasoned arguments cannot be trusted, since it is known that humans will believe things whether there is evidence for them or not. Thus, within realm of the postmodern, the ability to convince and to argue moves away from a reliance on logic to a reliance on stylistic form. Arguments become less about sound reasoning and more about presenting the argument in an appealing light (TV commercials, anyone?). Therefore, I present my pro-postmodern argument within the traditional, reasoned – and explicitly modern – framework of the systematic essay. You, as the reader, are familiar with this form, and a part of you wants to legitimate what I am saying just because I am presenting my argument in a reasoned form. You may ultimately reject my argument, but I have already convinced you that it is worth considering – all with power of form.

Such an emphasis on form is, admittedly, both liberating and restricting. It is liberating in the sense that it allows the exploration of certain subjects -- such as emotion and spirituality – that are beyond the reach of science. A novel is now as legitimate and as practical as a research paper; in fact, they are now one and the same. Form is restricting, however, for the same reason it is liberating. Allowing for multiple interpretations means that the certainty necessary for scientific and technological advance is lost. Thus, there are distinct benefits for the embrace of both the modern and the postmodern.

And yet, once one becomes aware that there is a choice between the two, the very act of choosing acknowledges that the individual is actively creating and interpreting their own reality – which can only be done in the realm of the postmodern.

So strangely, once you acknowledge the postmodern, even if only to argue against it, you are forced embrace it.

A Brief Defense of the Postmodern, Part One

Let me preface this by noting that I do understand that there is no set definition of "postmodern" or "postmodernity" -- though, for the uninitiated, it important to note that the former usually refers to a system of knowing and/or scholarship, etc, while the latter refers to a distinct historical period that may or may not have already come and gone. My intent, however, is not to offer any solid definition upon which my communication is grounded. Instead, I wish to expound on some vague principles. But if the reader must be grounded in some sense, a suitably unrestricting clarification would be that I approach the postmodern as a general way of thinking that is a distinct reaction to the claims of the modern. The tension between the postmodern and the modern must not be forgotten or ignored, as this nebulous tension is the very Archimedean point from which the postmodern is oriented.

I was raised in moderately conservative evangelical Christian circles, and as such I am very familiar with many standard arguments decrying the evil of postmodernity. Chief among these complaints was that the postmodern supposedly claims that there is no absolute truth -- which, as gleeful thinkers pointed out, is an absolute statement within itself, and therefore self-contradicting and a fallacy. They are, of course, completely correct in their reasoning. However, such a standard refutation unfortunately falls victim to the utilization of a straw man argument, and as such fails to look at the true nature of postmodern claims.

The postmodern does not deny absolute truth. Such a denial is clearly folly. What the postmodern does deny is the idea that truth is always the most influential aspect of human existence. The postmodern realizes that there is absolute, immutable truth, but it also realizes that truth is always interpreted. It therefore looks not to absolutes as the origins of human thought and action, but to the systems of interpretation. In other words, the postmodern recognizes that a mountain is not just important because it is a mountain, but because you interpret the actual physical mass to be a mountain.

Consider this example: Gravity is inescapable. It affects nearly every aspect of human life. The very fact that we are held down to the earth has dramatically influenced human history -- humanity has certainly not built cities floating in the sky! And yet, one man, Sir Isaac Newton, is credited with the "discovery" of gravity. Newton did not invent gravity, nor did he fully explain it. He did not grasp it in its entirety, but still he set his incomplete understanding of this force, this immutable truth, into words. This one man's "discovery" -- interpretation -- opened the way for innumerable scientific advances, and in a very tangible sense helped define technological advances up to the present.

The postmodern does not deny absolute truth any more than it denies gravity. But it posits that truth alone is the not a complete explanation; interpretation of truth must always be considered.