Postmodernism in Response to Socialism?
Last weekend, I had a friend share their struggle with not understanding God’s sovereignty and what happens to people who have never heard the gospel. While we didn’t get into a deep theological discussion, I did try to encourage them by sharing that I find peace in knowing that some things are just a mystery, and while we won’t know everything, we can rest assured in what we do know: God is kind and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love. Outside of that, we know that there are mysteries that won’t be answered on this side of eternity. After reading Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault by Stephen Hicks, I wondered if my conversation was influenced by postmodernism.
Before we can understand postmodernism, we must first understand modernism. In modernism, there was a belief that everything about the world could be figured out and there weren’t any truths about the world that were out of our reach. In Jordan Peterson’s interview with Stephen Hicks, Peterson describes modernism this way: “This emerging consensus that the world was rationally intelligible and human beings could explore both physically and mentally and also come to predict and control the transformations of the material world…genuine progress in knowledge was possible…and along with that the benefits of progress both conceptually and technologically.” [2]
In postmodernism, skepticism grew that the world could be completely figured out through science, intelligence, and rationale. This skepticism holds true not only on the meta-narrative of life, but also in smaller narratives, that we should be skeptical of the knowledge status of what we think to be true. Hicks says it this way, “…Maybe there is no such thing as truth. No such thing as knowledge; instead, all we have is opinions and beliefs that are subjectively held, but we don’t have any objective reality.” [3]
Hicks makes a provocative claim that postmodernism is connected to the failure of socialism. As certain historical events unfolded like the collapse of the Soviet Union and the economic success of capitalism), postmodernism arose as an intellectual defense of why socialism lost credibility. Rather than trying to objectively prove that capitalism is an inferior system, socialists moved towards postmodern skepticism where reality became a construction of language and power. This allowed them to credit dominant narratives for the success of capitalism rather than objective economic superiority.
This postmodern thinking has worked its way into economic narratives, corporations, and government, and as a result, Hicks claims that it is weakening capitalism by weakening the principles that justify it – rationale, objectivity, and merit.
I am intrigued by Hicks’ arguments and am considering how much I can observe this in my surroundings. Regardless of where postmodernism comes from, I see the impact of it in western thinking.
I’ll leave with a few questions for reflection:
- What do you think is Christ-like in postmodernism?
- What do you think is anti-Christ in postmodernism?
- How does this impact the church?
[1] Hicks, Stephen Ronald Craig, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Michel Foucault. Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault. 1. ed, Expanded ed. Roscoe, Ill.: Ockham’s Razor, 2011.
[2] Stephen Hicks: Postmodernism: Reprise, n.d. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwW9QV5Ulmw.
[3] Ibid.
About the Author
Christy
5 responses to “Postmodernism in Response to Socialism?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Christy,
Unless Moses was a postmodernist, then I do not believe your thinking is influenced by post modernism.
At this point, I haven’t given much thought to the 1st question.
I will answer your second question. Jesus said “I am the way the TRUTH and the life.” (John14:6) Hicks says “Heidegger was still doing metaphysics, and he spoke of their being a truth out there about the world we must seek or let find us. The postmodernist, by contrast, are anti-realists, holding that it is meaningless to speak of truths out there or a language that could capture them” (p. 66).
For your 3rd question of how this impacts the church. When we live in a society that denies that truth exists, we must first challenge that thought process in anyone we are trying to reach before we can share THE TRUTH with them. Without truth what is the church’s credibility based upon?
Hi Christy, In response to your second question, I keep reflecting on the many verses that emphasize God’s impartiality—particularly the Old Testament verses in Leviticus 19:15-16 (NIV), which urge us not to show favoritism, whether to the poor or to the powerful, but to judge in righteousness: ‘Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly. Do not go about spreading slander among your people. Do not do anything that endangers your neighbor’s life. I am the Lord.’
This connects back to our conversation a couple of weeks ago on neo-racism, where the terms of the debate have shifted. Postmodernism critiques the preferential treatment embedded in modernism, but it seems to create a new form of bias that, in many ways, feel anti-Christ.
What unsettles me most about postmodernism is its tactic of using language as a weapon—targeting the psyche of those it opposes in a way that feels deeply destructive. It’s hard for me not to see this as anti-Christ.
That said, one thing I do agree with in postmodernism is the call for transformation. Something has to change. But as a follower of Christ, I believe there’s a different way to pursue that change. This makes the church’s role so complicated because, if there is ‘no truth,’ how can there be space for meaningful dialogue? I’ll end here, as my answer is getting long. Thank you for the thought-provoking questions.
Hi Christy, I’m curious what you think is Christ-like in post-modernism. I’m personally struggling to see anything. I believes this impacts the Western church as the Gospel is based on truth. Truth being relative in postmodernism is completely opposite of the who Jesus is.
Hi Christy,
Thanks for the good and clear summary about postmodernism in response to socialism. You helped me integrate that economic piece of the puzzle. One way postmodernism impacts the church is when we are reactionary against it (as I wrote about in my blog). I say this because postmodernism is so deeply entrenched in the beliefscapes of many, especially younger people (who may not even be aware). If the church or its representatives decry postmodern values from a one-sided platform it is received as rejection of self. And since the church represents Jesus…well…so my take is we need to engage even while remembering where capital “T” truth lives.
Christy, I think the comment that Post-modernism is observable is quite defendable.
To hear the critique of the exvangelicals, or people who are struggling with the Church just now, I’m not sure we have to completely credit post-modernism and call it Christ-like, but I see it Christ-friendly.
In Foucault’s work “History of Sexuality” (1976), he argues that it was Victorian England’s prudishness that produced a “straight-jacket” on sexual ethics that the 20th C European and North American societies adopted into law, including religious bodies, categorizing everything outside of law as ‘deviation’ (paraphrase). So this creates a critique of the church’s moralism. I caution a direct equation of Christian Theology and Practice with Modernism because of this: Modernism in the hands of Christian faith can produce arrogance, legalism, or shaming by strongly policing what is wrong, whether the people involved follow Jesus or not. Jesus’ patterns of dealing with ethics is often more generous than this caricature, winning people with love. Post-modernism is no problem for Christian truth to be shared, if it doesn’t get delivered with harsh judgementalism.