Philosophy is NOT my forte!
I have had two formal philosophy courses in my life. The first one, Critical and Creative Thinking, focused on logic. The second, Introduction to Philosophy was taught by a former Nazi soldier with a thick German accent that was difficult to understand. Based on these two courses, I failed to develop a love of philosophy. An inspectional reading of Stephen Hicks’ Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault also did not seem to spark a love for philosophy. I was not so excited that I was doing cartwheels, but I’m also not sure that is as bad as going to the dentist or having to buy a new vehicle.[1]
While this book has not been in continuous print for the past three hundred years, it was first published twenty years ago and continues to be a book and topic that is relevant today. I listened to four different podcasts, three of which were produced in the past four years. I listened to various podcasts because this topic is a hard one for me to fully understand.
In one of the podcasts the host, Jonas Čeika, critiques Hicks’ book. Čeika states that Hicks “misrepresents most of Western philosophical history before them, its full of mis readings, technical problems, misrepresentations, misattributed quotes, intellectual confusion, historical caricatures, and straight up slander, once you take all those away, there is barely anything left, and the book lacks basic academic standards.”[2] A year ago Hicks recorded a podcast in which he responded to Čeika and another podcast’s critiques.[3] It was in this podcast that I came to understand Hicks better and where I want to focus the rest of this post.
What is a Postmodernist?
One of the topics Hicks discusses is the use of labels throughout his book. Hicks points out that when he uses the terms premodernism, modernism and postmodernism, he is referring to it at a “high level of abstraction and using it only on the points that I think all the major issues and all the major people” who subscribe to that thought would use.[4] Throughout the book Hicks does point out where there might be a difference in beliefs amongst postmodern thinkers. The question Hicks raises is where one draws the line. Hicks asks the questions if there are between twenty or forty ideas that make up postmodern thought, does a person have to agree with a certain amount of them to be considered a postmodernist? Does believing fifteen out of twenty classify you as a postmodernist? If not a certain number, are there specific ideas that a person must believe and if they don’t acknowledge those, they cannot be considered a postmodernist? These are good questions to ask; as we interact with friends, family, colleagues, we may find that they have a mix of modern and postmodern beliefs, how do we label them? I considered this while reading the book. I know a person who would agree on some aspects of postmodern thought, but at the same time this person is very scientifically minded, and I do not envision them giving up some of the modernistic thinking. What do I label this person? In his video, Hicks leaves it up to the individual to make that distinction.
Individualism and Collectivism
Patrick Deneen, throughout his book on liberal democracy points out that part of liberalism is giving up your individualist desires and focusing more on doing things for the betterment of society.[5] In my mind I viewed this as a form of collectivism. Hicks sees liberalism as a result of modernistic thought and modernists as individualists, so I questioned what he meant by the terms individualism and collectivism. In his video he explains the difference between the two terms:
Individual – There is a reality about the nature of a person, they have their own mind, their own body including biological sex, they are autonomous, self-responsible, and engage with others mutually.
Postmodern Collectivism – There is no biological sex only social constructs. The social constructs that a person fits into identifies them more than the fact that we are an individual who happens to belong to a particular social construct(s). They reject the ideas of freedom and self-responsibility. Rather than mutual relationships we are divided into adversarial groups.[6]
Hicks’ explanation in the video makes sense and I have seen people expressing the ideas found in collectivism. Yes, our identities are tied to various groups that we are part of, but who we are is an expression of each of those groups and their particular influence on us as an individual. Some have more influence on our lives than others and that can be situationally dependent. To illustrate this fact to my students, I have them identify who they are in relation to twelve different social identities, such as age, race, and religion.[7] I then have them consider in a week what percentage of time they spend thinking about each of their identities. For most of the students their religious identity tops the chart and some like, first language or national identity seldom cross their minds. Send those students on a mission trip overseas and the results will be vastly different.
Concluding Thoughts
My brain is still trying to process everything that Hicks and others had to say. I may have to reach out to my friend, Shelley, and praise her for teaching philosophy at her local college. I do appreciate Hicks as explains postmodern philosophy in an understandable way; maybe someday, I will have both the mindset and intellectual capacity to understand it all. For now, I have a general idea of how to identify some key ideas and the history behind them. As leaders we need to be able to identify how others are thinking to effectively engage with them. While philosophy is not an easy topic, it is important to obtain some basics.
[1] Stephen R. C. Hicks, Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault, (Reland Bay, QLD: Connon Court Publishing, 2019).
[2] Jonas Čeika , A Critique of Stephen Hicks’ “Explaining Postmodernism”, Jonas Čeika CCK Philosophy, September 11, 2018. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHtvTGaPzF4
[3] Stephen Hicks, “Taking on my Critics: Defending Explaining Postmodernism Open College No. 40”, CEE Video Channel, January 5, 2024, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1trnqmvBFWs.
[4] Hicks, “Taking on my Critics.”
[5] Patrick, J. Deneen, Why Liberalism Failed, (New Haven, CT: Yale, 2018).
[6] Hicks, “Taking on My Critics.”
[7] This is an activity from Pamela A. Hays, Connecting Across Cultures: A Helper’s Toolkit, (Washington DC: Sage, 2013).
About the Author
Jeff Styer
Jeff Styer lives in Northeast Ohio's Amish Country. He has degrees in Social Work and Psychology and currently works as a professor of social work at Mount Vernon Nazarene University. Jeff is married to his wife, Veronica, 25+ years. Together they have 4 beautiful children (to be honest, Jeff has 4 kids, Veronica says she is raising 5). Jeff loves the outdoors, including biking, hiking, camping, birding, and recently picked up disc golf.11 responses to “Philosophy is NOT my forte!”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Hi Jeff, I can empathize with your perspective on philosophy. Since this was a difficult reading for you, do you have one are you’d like to explore more if you had more time?
Christy,
That is a great question. I appreciate all the topics and books we have tackled this semester. I don’t mind learning about the topic of postmodernism, but maybe a book that discusses its impact on the church or leadership, something more tangible. Much of my dislike for the book is the lack of time I had to really digest its contents
Thanks Jeff. In an age where people often hold a mix of beliefs from different philosophical traditions, do you think labels like ‘modernist’ or ‘postmodernist’ are still useful? Or should we move towards different ways of describing people’s worldviews?”
Glyn
I think that many people have no idea what you are talking about you use the current terms. My university doesn’t even offer a philosophy course anymore and I don’t think it is taught in many if any high schools. Maybe we call the worldview what it is. You have a no such thing as truth world view. You have a biological sex and gender are on a spectrum worldview. At least people would know what you are talking about.
Hi Jeff, Thanks for your honesty. I am not far behind you. Do you see any evidence of postmodernism in the classroom with your students as they discuss different topics? If so, how are these comment received and discussed?
Diane,
Yes, I do see evidence of this in the classroom. Probably the biggest one would be the idea of anti-realism, especially regarding the topic of transgender and sex. For the most part, students respect and do not necessarily challenge each other’s beliefs. They will point out where they may differ and friendly conversations occur. Most of the time, student seek to try to understand the how or why a person established their beliefs.
Hi Jeff, I appreciated the way you engaged thoughtfully with a subject that didn’t particularly excite you. You did a great job defining individualism and postmodern collectivism. As I read the book, I found the adversarial nature of postmodern strategy unsettling. I noticed you also used the word adversarial in your definition of postmodern collectivism. I’m still working through both modernist and postmodern perspectives—have you found yourself adopting ideas from both movements?
Elysse,
In my role of teaching social work, I have found myself adopting ideas from both movements. However, I have found that most of the time I still look for tangible, objective evidence or scriptural alignment, so my postmodernist beliefs are few.
Jeff, I appreciate your engagement and transparency. You mention wrestling with how to label individuals who seem to hold a mix of modern and postmodern beliefs and how Hicks leaves that distinction up to the individual. After engaging with Hicks’ book, the podcasts, the critiques, and his responses, how has your own approach to understanding and engaging with people who hold a blend of philosophical views evolved? Do you find it more helpful now to apply labels like “postmodernist,” or are you more hesitant to categorize people’s thinking?
Chad,
Thanks for the question. I appreciate having a better understanding of postmodernism, as it will help to better label people’s thinking, postmodern rather than distorted or irrational. I’m still not sure how much this will change how I engage with people. I have seen that once a person holds a particular idea, it is very difficult to get them to see anything different. Some of that will depend on what commonalities, if any, we share in our beliefs.
Hi Jeff, I can relate to your struggle with philosophy. Thank you for clarifying Hick’s definition of individualism and postmodern collectivism. This was helpful for me. The definition of postmodern collectivism that you use fits into my host culture, except for the idea of no biological sex. They would hold to Allah creating people into either male or female. Beyond that, it is almost identical, rejecting ideas of freedom and self responsibility.