Wasn’t This Debated Two Decades Ago?
The debate over postmodernism and modernism feels like it was decided years ago, like when I was a wee lad in college. However, there has been a resurgence of conversation around these issues. Stephen Hick’s book, Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault, has seen a revival in the zeitgeist.
A professor of philosophy at Rockford University, Hicks attempted to give an overview of pre-Modernism, Modernism, and Postmodernism by examining how we got to where we are in an era of socialism and skepticism. He argued, “By most accounts, we have entered a new intellectual age…Leading intellectuals tells us that modernism has died, and that a revolutionary era is upon us—an era liberated from the oppression strictures of the past, but at the same time disquieted by its expectations for the future.”[1]
To understand Postmodernity, you need to understand modernity. Coming out of the Renaissance and Enlightenment era (17th through the 18th centuries), pre-Modern thinkers, such as da Vinci, Galileo, Newton, Descartes, Kant, and Bacon (mmmmmhhh, Bacon), shaped the world that would be inherited by Modern thinkers, such as Derrida, Foucault, and Lyotard. Of course, modernism goes beyond thinkers as we see the shifts in art and music, the perfection of capitalism, urbanization, industrialization, and the centralization of government through nation-states. As Hicks noted, “The modern philosophers disagreed among themselves about many issues, but their core agreements outweighed the disagreements…But what was fundamental is the central status of reason as objective and competent—in contrast to faith, mysticism, and intellectual authoritarianism.”[2]
But for the sake of Hicks’s work, let’s zero into his focus on the shift in ways of thinking, seeing humanity, and the role of government from the modern to the postmodern era. For Hicks, the main differences between Modernism and Postmodernism are as follows:
- Modern debates were over truth and reality, reason and experience, liberty and equality, justice and peace, and beauty and progress.
- Postmodernism believes truth is a myth, reason is a white male Eurocentric construct, equality is a mask of oppression, and peace and progress are met with cynical and weary reminders of power, ad hominem attacks. [3]
Every era is shaped by the events surrounding them. For the modernists, the First World War brought the globe into a new era of mass weapons of war and catastrophic loss of life, calling into question the imperialist ideas that plunged Europe into one of the bloodiest clashes in human history. Such a personal and global reshaping event changed the way that people thought about life, education, philosophy, nationalism, and theology. In turn, Postmodernists were shaped by the Second World War, which dwarfed the Great War in the loss of life and global impact.
Postmodernism is much like the era that came before it, the one before that one, the one before that one, and so on. But, of course, time knows no such thing as decades and years, but when a shit occurs, the new era takes with it much of the good, languishing in the bad, with the naysayers kicking and screaming the whole way.
Much like Jordan Peterson, you cannot simply read Stephen Hicks’ words in Explaining Postmodernism without the context of his other social media and news outlet musings, where he rants about left-wing activism. The most challenging part of reading Conservative white male philosophers, theologians, economists, and political scientists is that they do not realize the summit of privilege from which they speak. You can sense it in this comment from Hicks, “Many postmodernists, though, are less often in the mood for aesthetic play than for political activism. Many deconstruct reason, truth, and reality because they believe that in the name of reason, truth, and reality, Western civilizations have wrought dominance, oppression, and deconstruction.”[4]
At what point are white people going to realize that it is safe for the world to deconstruct how we got to where we are today, both the good, the bad, and the ugly, to form a better future where Euro-American voice still has a place at the table of equity for all people? The mistake we make again and again is the creation of sides, tribalizing our ideas to create a larger body of people to help us feel right. But is rightness the goal? Our world is rapidly changing. What is needed now more than ever is a posture of openness, empathy, and humility to listen deeply to the voices that invite us to rethink our assumptions about ourselves, the world, and how we relate to one another.
While I do not agree with much of Hick’s conclusions about postmodernism, especially when it comes to his critique of activism, this book does offer a thorough overview of the Enlightenment period until today.
[1] Stephen R.C. Hicks, Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault (Redland Bay: Connor Court Publishing Pty Ltd, 2019), 1.
[2] Ibid., 9.
[3] Ibid., 20.
[4] Ibid, 4.
About the Author
Andy Hale
Associate Executive Coordinator of CBF North Carolina, CBF Podcast Creator and Host, & Professional Coach3 responses to “Wasn’t This Debated Two Decades Ago?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Andy: I think if I were to go back and do college over again, I would major in Philosophy. It’s so helpful to understand other’s world view by reading their philosophy. At the same time, it is always faith-affirming to me. I’m glad I put in the effort and read this book; I always appreciate the historical development of ideas. Helps me see the big picture.
This was a great blog that really captures the essence of the book. Well, summarized and good job providing an objective perspective. I agree with much of what you say at the end. I hope you will bring some of these items up in our discussion on Monday. Good stuff. Thanks.
Andy, such a well written post. I like your historical illustrations about change and how it progresses from one generation or age to another. I also appreciate your challenge to some of the easy-believism that is not willing to critique its own assumptions. A question: you mention the needs to create a culture of equality for all, and I cannot agree more. What is/are the criteria for making that a value worth pursuing?