Modernism & Postmodernism: Good and Bad in Both?
In his book, Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault (1), author Stephen Hicks attempts to…well…explain postmodernism!
I suppose that’s relatively self-evident (Although I will argue a little later that he actually seeks to dismantle it and not simply explain it).
Hicks begins his book with a few chapters introducing the topic and highlighting the core beliefs of the philosophical movement—particularly its rejection of objective truth and its skepticism of meta-narratives and their ability to produce meaning. As a Gen-X growing up during this shift from modernity to post-modernity, the general descriptions of postmodernism was quite familiar to me, and I suspect to many other X’ers in our cohort. Where the book took me into new territory was Hicks’ deep dive into the origins of the movement and the philosophical ideas of people like Rousseau, Nietzsche and Heidegger. In particular, he engages (and challenges) Nietzsche’s rejection of objective truth and Heidegger’s rejection of reason as a means of knowing. At this point, I found myself—for the second week in a row—well outside of my ‘pay grade’ responding with, “I guess so…if you say so.”
Interestingly, not everyone is a novice like me in philosophical thought and there seemed to be significant push back from other readers on the worldwide web as it relates to Hicks’ handling of these various philosophers (2). Even though Jason mentioned Hicks’ detractors during our time together on zoom last week, I was still a bit surprised by both the amount of critique and its passion (although I suppose I shouldn’t be based on some of our previous reading [3]). Hicks concludes his book by looking at postmodernism’s impact on our current social and political spheres—stating that it has divided society into identity groups and fractured society so that social progress is hampered. The answer, he contends in the last chapter of his book, is a return to the enlightenment values of reason and universal morality.
Once again, as I said last week, that’s my best attempt at summarizing a book that was not authored for inspectional reading!
Now, some personal response:
First, I am not quite sure what do this book. In some respects, I feel like Hicks has helped me better understand the philosophical underpinnings of a concept that I was familiar with, but only at a ‘slightly below the surface’ level. For that, I am grateful; However, I also felt like Hicks’ intent was not simply to ‘explain postmodernism’ but to critique it and show it as lacking. With this sort of explicit bias, it is easy to see why any philosophical thinker contributing to postmodern ideology is presented as suspect—not just their thinking but their motive. Yet, Hicks also has a motive in writing this book; how can I be sure his motive is somehow more altruistic than the philosophers he critiques? One could possibly say that “The proof is in the pudding” and postmodernity is definitely shown as wanting (an assessment I agree with, by the way!). But from a Christian perspective, modernism is not some utopian ideal either.
So, second: While I agree with the critiques against postmodernism, I might be more inclined to say that any philosophical framework will have both strengths and weaknesses and opportunities for the church to engage with. Evangelicals were pretty quick to jump into bed with modernity’s rationalism—most of us grew up hearing or reading Josh McDowell’s Evidence That Demands a Verdict (4) that led Christians to believe non-Christians are either too ignorant or too evil to accept the plain presentation of the facts! And yet, it was modernity’s rationalism that eventually led to scientific fundamentalism, materialism and the question, “Is God is dead?” (5). Eventually that question became a statement: God is dead. Modernism, we could say, killed God.
While many of the core tenets of postmodernism are challenging to the Christian faith (I was among countless Youth Pastors in the 90’s quoting Judges 21:25 a few times a year [6]), postmodernism also brought about(?)…or certainly coincided with, a new interest and openness to spirituality that was sorely missing in modernity. Not only that, it opened the door for many fearful Christians who lacked the confidence that they had enough cognitive knowledge to argue someone into faith (that’s a bit tongue-in-cheek) to simply share ‘their story’ of meeting Jesus and how He’s transforming their lives. One could say evangelism changed from facts and reason to story and experience, which is actually closer to what we read in the gospels. That’s not to say we don’t need facts and reason, and Petrusek’s (7) epistemological framework to think well about the irrationality and impact of relativism is still important. My point is postmodernism opened a new door to walk through as it relates to verbalizing our faith, that could then lead to further, deeper conversation about objective truth and God.
Again, I am not meaning to suggest postmodernism is better than modernism, but that any perspective that does not find itself embedded in the Kingdom of God and the values of King Jesus is going to be found lacking in one way or another, and whether it’s postmodernism or a return to the enlightenment values of reason and universal morality, the church will have some things to celebrate and some things to challenge as we live as stranger and aliens here on this broken planet. God help us do it well.
(1) Stephen Ronald Craig Hicks, Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault, (Expanded edition, Redland Bay, QLD: Connor Court Publishing Pty, 2019).
(2) A few of the reviews on ‘Good Reads’ (https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/27793#CommunityReviews) were absolutely scathing:
• Another comical presentation of that fundamental libertarian inability to differentiate Nazism from Bolshevism. Shape your expectations accordingly.
• A more accurate title might be “Explaining Postmodernism: Misreading Philosophers from Rousseau to Foucault.” Complete with video link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHtvT…
• Stay away from this book unless you are looking to confuse yourself to the concept of postmodernism. This is textbook example of poor scholarship.
• Do you remember the kid in high school that never read the book, yet demanded to be a part of the discussion? That kid grew up to become Stephen Hicks.
(3) Greg Lukianoff and Rikki Schlott, The Canceling of the American Mind, (New York NY: Simon & Schuster, 2023).
(4) Josh McDowell, Evidence That Demands a Verdict: Life-Changing Truth for a Skeptical World, (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, 2017).
(5) Time Magazine. “Is God Dead?” Time, vol. 87, no. 14, April 8, 1966.
(6) Judges 21:25 Everyone did what was right in their own eyes”
(7) Matthew R. Petrusek, Evangelization and Ideology: How to Understand and Respond to the Political Culture, (Park Ridge, IL: Word on Fire Institute, 2023).
About the Author
Scott Dickie
6 responses to “Modernism & Postmodernism: Good and Bad in Both?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I also got the feeling Hicks was trying to dismantle postmodernism or if not dismantle, I felt he was a bit too one-sided against postmodernism.
I appreciate your thoughts around postmodernism and the Church. I think one of postmodernism’s strengths is that is has invited us back into ancient (pre-modern) Christian mysticism, practices, and yes, even spirituality. I remember when “The Case for Christ” was big in Christian circles. I read it and thought, “I am still not convinced nor do I want to be.” Proving God, or Jesus, or Christianity has never hit the nail on the head for me. I can find too many arguments against any kind of “proof.” I guess that means I am officially a postmodernist. Do you find yourself leaning one way or the other?
I really appreciated the way you pointed out that we need both – the modern and postmodern way of thinking about Christianity, and that either/or need to be embedded in the Kingdom of God.
Also, daaaang on all of your resources and citations! You did some syntopical writing. 🙂
Hey Kally…thanks for your reflections back. I tend to describe myself–for good and ill–as a quintessential Gen-Xer…which likely means I am more naturally aligned with some of the postmodern tendencies of skepticism related to power, organizations, and one-size fits all meta-narratives (at least the application of them), etc. And while I tend to live too much in my brain and would be described as quite logical and non-emotive, I tend to passionately argue for the necessity of both head and heart (experience) when it comes to interacting with God….which probably puts me on the side of post-modernity again. Having said that, from the hill I stand on, I see the harm and dysfunction (and the illogic) that ‘personalized truth’ has created within our society which is a by-product of postmodern philosophy. So…I guess I titled my blog….good and bad in both!
Scott, I enjoy reading how you dissect books. You wrote:
“While many of the core tenets of postmodernism are challenging to the Christian faith (I was among countless Youth Pastors in the 90’s quoting Judges 21:25 a few times a year [6]), postmodernism also brought about(?)…or certainly coincided with, a new interest and openness to spirituality that was sorely missing in modernity. Not only that, it opened the door for many fearful Christians who lacked the confidence that they had enough cognitive knowledge to argue someone into faith (that’s a bit tongue-in-cheek) to simply share ‘their story’ of meeting Jesus and how He’s transforming their lives.”
This may be an obvious question but when do you think postmodernism actually started? I ask because I agree with your statement in this paragraph; yet, somehow in my mind, postmodernism as a full concept wasn’t talked about until the 90s or the early 2000s. Maybe that’s because I was only 23 years old???
Hi Pam…of course the development of postmodern thought took place over a long period of time in various circles….but if I am understanding your question correctly, when did it ‘hit’ the common person on the streets? If that’s the question…I want to say (without ANY scientific research!) that it became more popular in general vernacular and common thought in the late 80’s early 90’s….right around the time we were entering our Young Adult years, and certainly very influential in our demographic’s first ministry assignments. (1) Was that your question? (2) Would you agree with my answer?
Scott~ Yes! That was my question. What I am finding quite interesting is how books like this one and posts like yours are causing me to pause and reflect back to the books I was reading in those days: James Davison Hunter and others. My graduate program was in journalism and communication so I don’t believe we we talked about the same way we are today. Do you remember what book influenced you the most in those early days that you would classify as Postmodern?
“One could say evangelism changed from facts and reason to story and experience, which is actually closer to what we read in the gospels.”
What a great insight Scott, I would have to agree. Faith, although it includes it, is more than historical arguments and the scientific method. I read a paper by Dr. King on the Old Testament a while back from his first year of seminary and he mentions myths and stories as vehicles for truth, regardless of their historicity. Once again, not to say that is not important. Really enjoyed your post and the balance you found with both periods in history. There are definitely pros and cons in each.