Postmodernism…Free To Live Your Truth?
My Limited Understanding
I would like to claim that my understanding of Postmodernism expanded after reading Explaining Postmodernism and listening to The Jordon B. Peterson Podcast with Stephen R. C. Hicks but that would not be true. I did not truly understand the concept of Postmodernism and I am not really sure if that’s changed much. I did gain useful knowledge of the history and evolution of postmodernism as well as modernism. A more accurate account is that I did not actually expand on my knowledge, but I gained a different understanding of it. Before this week’s reading, I would have defined Modernism as the combining of traditional ideas with modern beliefs. I would have defined postmodernism as the next iteration of developing modern beliefs that challenge the traditional beliefs. After listening to the conversation between Peterson and Hicks, I am not sure that I was in the ballpark.
The Jordon B. Peterson Podcast
In a lengthy podcast, an hour and forty-two minutes, Peterson and Hicks discuss in great detail the tenants of postmodernism. As a supplement to the reading, the discussion between Peterson and Hicks helped frame Explaining Postmodernism. My hope was that the podcast would provide a deeper context for me. Stephen Hicks explains postmodernism as “a well-articulated negative outlook on most of life’s philosophical questions” [1] This was not definition that I held. Yet it set the pace for the rest of the discussion. Hicks provides a history of how postmodernism has evolved or fed into today’s activism. As he explains it postmodernism has changed over the years, Hicks states that whereas first generation Academic Postmodernist were successful in educating students and getting them into graduate programs, this changed over time. Approximately 6 or 7 years ago, we experienced a critical mass of students in the field that are activists and have sought career opportunities in the non-profit sector with activist organizations. This has presented a shift and created a debate between the outside sector and the academic world. Hicks calls it, “a cultural war in two places, academic and outside.” [2] Hicks continues with a discussion, actually a judgement, around Postmodernist Professors. He surprisingly refers to them as being ghettoized in universities and placed in departments that attract a certain type of student, ones that are predisposed to the ideas. I honestly had not heard the term “ghettoized”. According to the Cambridge English Dictionary, it means to treat a particular group in society as if they are different from the other parts of society and as if their activities and interests are not important to other people. [3]. I was quite surprised to hear it used in this context, by a renowned Academic describing other Academics. Apparently, Postmodernists in Academia are not well regarded. Peterson adds that gender studies departments have a higher percentage of Postmodernists. According to Peterson, “seventy-five% of student debt is held by women and a disproportionate number are black. They have been persuaded into careers that do not allow them to earn very much money.” This paints a bleak picture of Postmodernist studies and the future possibilities of Postmodernist students, mostly women.
Free Speech & Postmodernism
Of particular interest to me was the section on Free Speech in Explaining Postmodernism. Hicks discusses free speech, egalitarianism, affirmative action, racial and sexual inequalities in this chapter from the perspective of Postmodernists. He also makes helpful comparisons between Postmodernists and Liberals. It was useful in me developing an understanding of the different voices/points of view. This explanation was particularly useful and provided a better level of clarity. Hicks refers to this section as Speakers and Censors:
- Speech is a form of social power. [Social Constructivism]
- Fairness means an equal ability to speak. [Egalitarianism]
- The ability to speak is unequal across racial and sexual groups. [Collectivism]
- The races and sexes are in conflict with each other. [Racism and Sexism]
- The stronger racial and sexual groups, that is, whites and males, will use speech-power to their advantage, at the expense of other races and women. [Zero-Sum Conflict][4]
While the list provided some clarity, I am still not sure that I fully understand it and can have an intellectual conversation about Explaining Postmodernism. I tend to comprehend difficult concepts better when it is presented in a single topic comparison. Hick provides it with the following comparison, he explains, “The Postmodernist say: Speech is a weapon in the conflict between groups that are unequal.” [5], and he continues, “the liberal view of speech, which say; Speech is a tool of cognition and communication for individuals who are free. [6] I think I got it. To be a Postmodernist is to resist or push beyond the traditional norms and be free to determine what the truth is. It is to live your truth. At least, I think it is!
[1] Jordan B. Peterson, “Stephen Hicks: Philosophy and Postmodernism”, May 5, 2019, in The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast, produced by Mikhaila Peterson, podcast, MP3 audio, 1:43
[2] Ibid.
[3] GHETTOIZE | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary
[4] Stephen R. C. Hicks, Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault (Redland Bay, QLD: Connor Court Publishing Pty Ltd, 2019), 236-7.
[5] Ibid., 237.
[6] Ibid., 237.
About the Author
Jonita Fair-Payton
4 responses to “Postmodernism…Free To Live Your Truth?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You mention the difference between liberal and postmodern, which for me was one of the big “aha!” moments of this week’s reading and this topic in general. I used to think the two terms were interchangeable, but now I’m starting to understand the difference. You include the quote
“the liberal view of speech [says] Speech is a tool of cognition and communication for individuals who are free.” This is one of several examples that resonate with me and make me think I’m definitely a liberal and definitely not a postmodernist.
Hi Jonita, you noted Hicks remarks on postmodernism as a, “…a well-articulated negative outlook on most of life’s philosophical questions.” I think that is what troubled me the most. I appreciated (toward the end of the Jordan Peterson interview) Hicks’ perspective regarding the role of professors to engage students to think, offer them skills to engage with a world full of problems and beauty, to be creative, and enjoy life’s journey in the process (that is my paraphrase). What are your thoughts on the negative outlook of postmodern thinking? Do you find that it impacts the younger generation’s outlook on life? It seems a lot of youth are struggling and discouraged with how hard life is and what a mess the world is in.
Thanks for your posts, I’m not going to pretend to understand everything Hick’s says about postmodernism or the philosophy in general. Some of those who critique Hicks believe he overgeneralizes and oversimplifies it at times. Parts of what he has said I’ve run into and other parts I’m not sure about. I think we do need to acknowledge the glasses on our faces when interpreting anything and that truth is not always as solid as we think. I even think speaking our truth can be healthy, if it means I “could be wrong” rather then saying “Here is the truth!”. Still trying to find the balance in it all!
I also like you defining it as a well organized negative …. It feels like that to me too. I don’t know if I understand it anymore after reading everyone’s posts. Our discussion will be helpful?