A Formal Definition of Postmodernism

I’d LOVE to jump into a good discussion on this, as I think some of the list is spot on, some of it is over-generalization, and some of it is pretty off…

…but I’m working intensely on a paper right now. Hopefully this weekend I’ll be able to find time to contribute.

Although my wading through the waters of PoMo thought is very limited, this list seems to do a decent job at summarizing what I have seen, though some of it I’m not entirely sure is accurate.

I echo what everyone else has been saying.  On the one hand, in the above list there are many things that I think all pomo’s share in common.  Other items on the list, however, I am not so sure about.  I would venture to say that while they might have been held by the starters of the movement (if you can call it that), they have not been help by all.  As we all know about the genetic fallacy, that the origins of an idea cannot be used to dismiss the idea, for it might have grown and developed in a way where it can overcome the limitations of its origination.

With that said, I see pomo as the best viewpoint we can take from our position.  There is no privileged position that we can appeal to (see a parallel with physics).  Because of this all of the truths that we come to are constructed.  Even if we think they are self-evident, that is only because our worldview and other preconceptions lends themselves to allowing for the self-evident truth to be self-evident.

We don’t have direct access to God’ privileged position.  We don’t.  Even if we appeal to scripture for that privileged position, problems arise.  For instance - the physical manuscript tradition is full of problems.  Cheapham has pointed out one such issue with the book of Acts.  Our earliest full manuscripts date to the middle ages.  Sure we have fragments that date back to maybe the 300’s, but even then those are a) fragments, and b) still 200 years away from composition.  We have to construct a framework ad hoc that lets us say that we have some kind of access to the original autographs.  All of this aside, we still do have to construct something that allows us to say/accept that a) God had a hand in writing these things and b) the hand was so heavy as to weed out human theological error.  Even if we allow for these things, we still have, at best, the privileged position of God through the lens of human writing and transmission.

Lack of a privileged position (again, see ideas taken from physics) means that there are no objective observations.  I don’t see this as a good or bad thing, just a thing with which I have to deal.
Because of the above, what we consider (remember, this is the viewpoint that pomo’s take) to be truth is always and necessarily constructed.  I don’t see this as a bad thing, just a think with which I have to contend.

The above are things that we need to contend with and address.  They don’t negate God, they don’t negate religion (even if {and this is an if, I don’t know what the early people thought about this} the founders of this way of viewing the world thought).  However, I think it does mean that we need to think about things in light of these issues and not ignore them because we risk being dishonest with our community and driving them away. See recent earth creationism - old science that refuses, for the sake of staying true to a historically prior interpretation of the Bible, to come to term with new and more accurate understandings of the world and as a result is driving people away from the kingdom of God.

Because of the above, recognized authority can only come from a community that buys into a set of preconceptions. We absolutely and truly think that ours is the best path, that there is a God out there and in our scriptures there is a record of her conversing with humanity. We think that the God out there is real and holds us to standards, and that there are consequences to breaking those standards etc… However, because of our position as human beings, we can’t appeal directly to that because people outside out community can dismiss our claims and point to their claims over an above ours. There is no privileged position that we have direct access to in order to settle the disagreement. Because of this, we have to find other ways to convince them to buy into our story. Different methods work for different peoples.
 
 
 

Honzo,
This is all great…but historical criticism is not what is at issue here. (I will do another post on that later) I just want to know which tenets that Plantinga provides as an assetment for pomo do you think are fair to the pomo view? Which are not fair? Why are they not fair? For the ones that are fair, are they rational to accept by any knowing subject? If so, does this prove to be a defeater for Christian beliefs? (For example, I believe (3) and (9) are easily defeaters for Christianity if and only if one is warranted in believing them to be true. I of course believe that one is not warranted in believing (3) and (9) to be true, so they are not defeaters.)

Plantinga is pretty popular right now.
In my limited view, many of the things on this list are not POMO.  Even so a POMO can believe these things…they are not strictly founded in POMO nor do all POMO’s have a firm grasp and understanding that all things on this list is ‘true.’
I would equate this list to the believe of Subjectivity (Subjectivism) and not POMO.  Even so they can be close…there are differences.
When I think of POMO I relate issue of tolerance and pragmatics to it.  Neither of these issues were addressed in your list.  Maybe I am messing something. But I have always believed that POMO is based more on these two elements more than those on your list.
As far as Xianity being dead if we buy into this believe system…well that is really silly thinking.  First, we have to recognize this PoMO (subjectism or whatever) isn’t anything new…we can trace people and philosophies back to any time period. What I might say, is that there is nothing new under the sun.   Second,  (using my definition of PoMO–tolerance and pragmatical truth vs. empirical) then we present the message of hope in pragmatic ways.
 
Friends, help me with this.  When I was in school we were taught to examine different philosophies based on three elements (coherent, consistency, and the pragmatics of it).  When I look at the list–it is neither coherent with itself not consistent…and it does not work practically.  Am I wrong?
Coherent–points 2, 3, 5 all state no foundation or truth or objectivity…but this is given in a foundational way (points1-13) and each point is a truth claim (of the lack of objectivity–but that is still a truth claim).  I know that many can blow this off by stating I am arguing from a empirical or objective status and not from a POMO viewpoint. (coherent and consistency)
Pragmatics–I don’t think any in there right mind would agree with the statement of “no objectivity or truth.”  I am sitting at a desk right now. I can feel the hardness of the desk. When I stab my toe on a rock I yell out painful words because I hurt.  Am I the supreme truth or are there things that are true that are outside of me?  Let me hold a gun to your head and see if you flinch.  If these things are objective then there is objective truth correct?
 
 
 

In my limited view, many of the things on this list are not POMO.

Casey, which tenets out of (1)-(14) does Plantinga get wrong?  Which are not a fair representation of PoMo? Why? (Again, the conjuction of (1)-(14) is not to be read a necessary condition for any Postmodern, just merely a start at understanding what many Postmoderns believe.)

When I think of POMO I relate issue of tolerance and pragmatics to it.

I can somewhat see this, but I think neither essential to PoMo.  As for pragmatics, I tend to think more of William James and Dewey.  Although, they have tinges PoMo in that they aren’t really concerned with truth in any transcedental way but simply with what accords best with our purposes, I would say that pragmatics is not PoMo per se.

As for tolereance, Postmoders love to rave about it, but practicing it is another matter.

T-Rav,
You are right, I got away from the question you were asking up there.  I think that #10 is wrong.  As I mention above, some people hold it, but others do not.   You mention that #3 and #9 are Xianity killers.  I don’t see how this is so.  We have to remember that pomo is more of a change of viewpoint.  In recognizing the limited perspective that we have, we have to give up objectivity and meta-narratives - because we don’t have the data, nor direct access to it.  It does not defeat Christianity becuase we posit that something from outside our perspecitve that is a privledged observer (God).
I’d like to hear from JR, Tom, and/or Cheapham - they are more knowledgable in these matters than I am.

“we have to give up objectivity and meta-narratives - because we don’t have the data, nor direct access to it.”

If we loose metanarratives, we loose the Bible. The Bible claims to posit the origins of man, why the world is the way it is, how it must be broken. It claims to be an overarching narrative that excludes all other narratives in terms of God and calls all others to subject their narrative to Jesus Christ. The Bible claims to be the truth about humanity and God and the cosmos. If we give up metanarratives, we loose the Bible and its authority. That’s why I agree with Travis that the loss of metanarrative is Xian killer/defeater.

Hank,
From a humanity perspective there are no meta-narratives.  We all have our little narratives that we think explain things.  We, as one of those groups with narratives, posit a large narrative, the we create from our interpretations of the Bible (among other things).  As such, the descriptive element of pomo saying there are no meta-narratives does not necessarily kill Christianity, but it does lower it from its previous privledged status.  Again, the way I utilize pomo is to recognive descriptively that there is no meta-narrative that all hold or should be made to hold to (through the simple use of reason).  As such I don’t think our disagreements really touch, but are talking about different aspects of this problem.  I stay away from prescriptive statements about the lack of a meta-narrative because 1) I posit of metanarrative, and 2) saying there are no metanarratives at all, ever is itself a metanarrative (from a prescriptive standpoint).

In recognizing the limited perspective that we have, we have to give up objectivity and meta-narratives - because we don’t have the data, nor direct access to it.
We do not have direct access to what? God? His truth? First, I do not see how direct-accessness is a necessary condition for knowledge of the objective world.  Nevertheless, who say we don’t have a direct access?  I am perfectly warranted in believing I have two hands, or that God exists.  My perspective is limited, but not that limited.  Also, I have something else: God the Holy Spirit.  I have an extra faculty which guides my doxastic practices and warrants me in believing a lot of propositions. (Plantinga calls this the IIHS, or the Internal Investigation of the Holy Spirit).  You are going to have to tell me why I am not warranted in believing the things I think I know.
It does not defeat Christianity becuase we posit that something from outside our perspecitve that is a privledged observer (God).
Could you explain this a little bit more?
Hank, well said in your post.  If I am warranted in believing that there are no meta-narratives, then surely Christianity becomes simply another narrative that I can pick and choose from.  (e.g. “I like the mercy-Jesus, but not the Hell-Jesus.”)

Travis, thanks. I agree that there are things that we can know, I have hands. I have feet. I am hungry (can’t wait for dinner!). I like the model that D.A. Carson puts forth in that human knowledge is like a mathematical asymptote in that we can know something and the more we work to know the thing the more we know it as in math a line will approach the zero-axis but never touch it. We can know truth, just not omnisciently (I recommend listening to him describe it rather than just take my description as I might have made it a little unclear). Also good question, “Who says we don’t have direct access?”

Honzo,

Could you explain your statement about God being “a privileged observer” that is “from outside our perspective”? It sounds very much like deism and I’m quite sure that would not describe you.

Also, I don’t see how what your response has to do with the what the Bible claims for itself, namely to be metanarrative. Why must we make the Bible to be that which it does not claim for itself so that it fits our epistemology?

Also, I just wanted to point out that much of what Plantinga analyzes in his account of postmodernism is concerned with (6).  Much of this is an eluciadation of Richard Rortery, a key proponent and influencer of PoMo.  I also take (6) to be a defeater for Christian beliefs, just in case we are warranted in believing (6).  

I wish I had time to address all the comments here, but alas…grad school is a busy enterprise. I’ll some of the points, briefly at least. I can’t get to all of them, but I’ll touch on a few. A note, I’ll use POMO to denote both Postmodernism and Poststructuralism here…even if that may be problematic. I should also note that I am by no means an “expert” on POMO, merely a participant in it’s ever shifting journey.

A rejection of classical foundationalism.

I think “rejection” is an inappropriate term.  POMOs recognize that anything “foundational” is most likely a constructed reality. Recognize something as constructed by no means requires its rejection…that’s rather absurd actually. POMO would challenge and “classical foundationalism” and show how things we consider “self-evident” in all likelyhood are no such thing. POMO thought would also show how appealing to “classical foundationalism” is more often than not merely a rhetorical tool to assert one’s authority over another…and thus seeking to problemetize such domoneering discourses.

The declaration that there are no foundations of any sort (classical or otherwise).

Once again, POMO thought recognizes that any “foundations” we work from are constructed. POMO would actually recognize “foundations” much more readily than many other philosophical viewpoints, and then be highly critical of such things. So, POMO recognizes that there ARE foundations (because people’s acknowledging of them makes them very real in their force), yet they are not as “foundational” as we might think. Once again, the recognition of a things constructed nature does not require it’s rejection…often it results in much more critical and humble uses of such “foundations.”

The claim that there is no such thing as objectivity (and its a good thing too).

Your parenthetical note is potentially misleading. For POMOs, the recognition that there is no such thing as objectivity is a good thing, for it leads one to a more critical and humble existence. POMOs see objectivity for what it really is, simply a rhetorical tool to assert one’s self over another..

Deconstruction.

Well, much of Poststructural thought is based in “deconstruction” (Derrida being perhaps the most notable example), this is true. But not all POMOs participate in deconstruction, and not all deconstruction is inherently POMO.

The claim tat there is no such thing as truth (or that if there is, it is something totally different from what we thought).

Once again, a POMO would be rather off saying that there is “no such thing as truth.” Truth exists, people talk about it all the freaking time. People base their entire lives on “truth.” It’s a very real thing with a real presence in the world. POMO thought recognizes how “truth” is a constructed thing, a thing arrived at in different ways by different people in different places.

The next couple sort of face the same critiques I’ve already stated above, so I’ll quite repeating myself.

The claim that all that really matters is power.

Well, power is very central to thinkers like Foucault, and his points on power-relations are pretty difficult to ignore…but this represents ONE thinker (and incredibly important one…Foucault is practically the dean of half the humanities programs in this country). Not everyone boils down their inquiries as simple “power games”/etc., so it’s not an all-encompassing point.

An opposition to metanarratives.

Like I’ve said before…POMOs recognize that metanarratives are constructed. Most POMOs I interact with (including myself) see the constructed nature of our metanarratives not as an opportunity for rejection, but for change. Since metanarratives are constructed, it is our responsibility to step up and help craft a better one…a more helpful one. POMO deconstruction no longer is an ivory tower affair, it should incite one to action as it does me and a great many of my contemporaries.

Insistence that God is dead.

This really has no part of this discussion. Jacques Derrida, one of the most important and “foundational” minds for postmodernism (if not THE most important) regularly touched on theology…and not on the assumption that God is “dead.” A proper POMO would recognize that the statement “God is dead” is rather absurd, makes ridiculous assumptions, is reflective of certain conditioning, and is likely part of a discourse of dominating an “other” of some sort.

A sort of exultation or apotheosis of autonomy, so that one feels guilty for not having created the world (cf. Heidegger).  
&
A general self-deification and the rejection of all things bourgeois.

Foucault heavily criticized the humanist notion to “self-deify.” Some early POMO thought was very indeed individual-focused, yet I wouldn’t say that is an accurate reflection of it’s existence today as such focuses have been heavily critiqued and built upon. I haven’t read Heidegger, so can’t comment on that odd statement. And as for a “rejection of all things bourgeois,” once again I think it’s a challenging of the constructs that allow for a “bourgeois.”

An idea of historcism, the idea that our historical and cultural setting determines what we think, so that we cannot but think what we do think.

We are products of our culture…which is a self-replicating system that takes place in specific contexts. POMOs do indeed place a lot of stock in context, and recognize that we regularly reflect our context in countless ways. All of us participating in this discussion have been heavily influenced by our surroundings and our heretige. We can’t escape context, for even attempts to do so are most likely culturally conditioned. We can be self-aware, and we can be self-critical. We can recognize our cultural place, and bring that to the fore in our thinking in order to avoid asserting our culturally conditioned way of doing things as the “only way” or some other such nonsense.

If you’d like further comments, just ask. Hopefully soon I’ll have time to look over the comments of other and helpf further the conversation.

Travis,
I haven’t had time to read the other comments for this post (I will).  But to quickly answer your question…I would not say your list is against/wrong by any means…
But like I was saying (which you eluded too already) I don’t think these are strictly POMO-based.  In fact, I would ASSUME that some of these are more  based on other philosophies of life than Pomo (But i can see or agree to using these as a formal structure for defining Pomo).
I would think tolerance and the practical side of life should be a part of the Pomo definition (but i am trying to split hairs over this).  You are right these issues are connected to Pomo.
To each his own….
 
 
 

A response to Cheapham:
 
I think “rejection” is an inappropriate term.  POMOs recognize that anything “foundational” is most likely a constructed reality. Recognize something as constructed by no means requires its rejection…that’s rather absurd actually. POMO would challenge and “classical foundationalism” and show how things we consider “self-evident” in all likelyhood are no such thing. POMO thought would also show how appealing to “classical foundationalism” is more often than not merely a rhetorical tool to assert one’s authority over another…and thus seeking to problemetize such domineering discourses.
Plantinga did not claim that Postmoderns reject classical foundationalism purely on the that it is a contrstructed system (you are right, that would be an absurd move to make).  All he is saying is that CF is a debunk epistemological theory, according to POMO. Tenets of CF just do not work at making a viable and rational epistemological theory.  (e.g. building a system off of incorrible mental states as properly basic, requiring deductive transfer of warrant from belief to belief, etc.)  As far as it being a “rhetorical tool,” any rational human being would require more than a mere gesture to CF as a sign of one’s philosophical authority.  That is why we require reasons and premises for holding to any theory, in this case CF.
Once again, POMO thought recognizes that any “foundations” we work from are constructed. POMO would actually recognize “foundations” much more readily than many other philosophical viewpoints, and then be highly critical of such things. So, POMO recognizes that there ARE foundations (because people’s acknowledging of them makes them very real in their force), yet they are not as “foundational” as we might think. Once again, the recognition of a things constructed nature does not require it’s rejection…often it results in much more critical and humble uses of such “foundations.”
Once again, Plantinga did not claim what you want him to claim.  All he is saying is that no foundational theory of warranted beliefs (or knowledge) works, according to PoMo.  They all have failed, and will fail.  Not merely because foundations are constructed, but because “truth” is something we construct, as well as warrant/justification.  This is the case because there are no objective rules for being epistemically warranted.  Plantinga says that you are warranted in believing anything you have formed with a proper functioning faculty. The PoMo will object:  “No Universals!”  Et cetera.
Your parenthetical note is potentially misleading. For POMOs, the recognition that there is no such thing as objectivity is a good thing, for it leads one to a more critical and humble existence. POMOs see objectivity for what it really is, simply a rhetorical tool to assert one’s self over another..
You seem to agree with Plantinga here though. He recognizes that Postmoderns recognize (or better yet, believe) that objectivity is a construction/rhetorical tool.  (On a side note, there is a simpler defeater to this Postmodern idea.  Suppose p is “Objective truth is a rhetorical too use to assert one’s self over another.”  First, p is a universal-affirmative statement, so is p objectively true?  If not, then p is false.  If so, then p is self-defeating since it too is a rhetorical tool that Postmoderns use to assert themselves over us poor non-Postmoderns, and thus, p is still false.)
Well, much of Poststructural thought is based in “deconstruction” (Derrida being perhaps the most notable example), this is true. But not all POMOs participate in deconstruction, and not all deconstruction is inherently POMO.
Plantinga never said it was.
Once again, a POMO would be rather off saying that there is “no such thing as truth.” Truth exists, people talk about it all the freaking time. People base their entire lives on “truth.” It’s a very real thing with a real presence in the world. POMO thought recognizes how “truth” is a constructed thing, a thing arrived at in different ways by different people in different places.
Again, you seem to agree with Plantinga’s evaluation.  How you say that truth “exists” though is very different from the entire western philosophical/metaphysical tradition. (and this is a good thing right :) ).  When Platinga says that PoMo says there is no such thing as “truth,” he means truth as the “non-constructed, objective, non-subjective truth.”  This is always assumed in analytical philosophy, which is what WCB is.
Well, power is very central to thinkers like Foucault, and his points on power-relations are pretty difficult to ignore…but this represents ONE thinker (and incredibly important one…Foucault is practically the dean of half the humanities programs in this country). Not everyone boils down their inquiries as simple “power games”/etc., so it’s not an all-encompassing point.
Plantinga never said it was an all-encompassing point.
 
 
Well, I have to shove off for now.  I would like to finish this later.   See ya guys!

Travis, you put this forward as the 13 points that formulate “A Formal Definition of Postmodernism.” All I had to work from was your reconstructed list…so don’t go saying things like “Plantinga did not claim what you want him to claim.” I don’t want him to claim a damn thing, all I have are the claims you’ve put forth here…some of which I found to be overgeneralizations/overly-absolute categories that didn’t do justice to “POMO.” And really, the pithiness could go by the wayside.

Suppose p is “Objective truth is a rhetorical too use to assert one’s self over another.”  First, p is a universal-affirmative statement, so is p objectively true?  If not, then p is false.  If so, then p is self-defeating since it too is a rhetorical tool that Postmoderns use to assert themselves over us poor non-Postmoderns, and thus, p is still false.)

POMO “believes” language is inherently self-defeating, so Derrida or de Man would simply congratulate you on showing the fundamental flaws in language.

Plantinga says that you are warranted in believing anything you have formed with a proper functioning faculty.

“formed with a proper functioning faculty”? Who gets to determine this? Plantiga? Who made him god? So, anyone not thinking in line with modern Western ways of doing things cannot achieve a “warranted” belief? This notion of “formed with a proper functioning faculty” comes out of centuries of Western conditioning and development that simply wouldn’t hold water in other cultures/time periods. Not everyone thinks the same way we do, and for us to claim that ours is the only right way to do so is absolutely ridiculous. You’re right, I’m screaming “no universals,” and I’m more than “warranted” in doing so. This very mentality is responsible for the raping and pillaging of countless “non-proper” people throughout the 18th-20th centuries during European colonialism. Such essentialist categories NEED to be deconstructed to show the domineering forces behind them, to show the danger of their rhetorical force.

I’d wager that if one could fashion an epistemological system not based on domination and control, POMO thought would embrace it. Until then, expect rampant “deconstruction.”

As a postscript, I think my opening paragraph was a bit harsh. I don’t mean ill will…I was a bit frustrated with the response, but I shouldn’t perpetuate such problems. So, I apologize, hopefully everyone can help keep this civil.

Cheapham,

I want to say sorry as well. I wrote my reply very quickly, and I can see how some things I said came off as if I was writing off some of your responses. I did not intend to do this at all, and I sympathize with what you wrote. I also realize that the list I have given is not the complete view and context of what Plantinga is saying. Please do not take his evaluation of PoMo to be exhaustive and true in all cases; Plantinga himself says this as well. It is a generalization yes. Is it an over-generalization? I hope not and think not. I think we can at least agree that points (3), (5), (6), (7), and (9) are fair to PoMo. I will address some of your stuff on Derrida and Plantinga’s proper function account of warrant later.

In Him,

Travis