I heard the following
story while listening to a lecture from Ravi Zacharias on the pursuit of truth
in our current culture:
I remember lecturing at Ohio State University, one of the
largest universities in this country. I was minutes away from beginning my
lecture, and my host was driving me past a new building called the Wexner
Center for the Performing Arts.
He said, “This is
America’s first postmodern building.”
I was startled for a
moment and I said, “What is a postmodern building?”
He said, “Well, the
architect said that he designed this building with no design in mind. When the
architect was asked, ‘Why?’ he said, ‘If life itself is capricious, why should
our buildings have any design and any meaning?’ So he has pillars that have no
purpose. He has stairways that go nowhere. He has a senseless building built
and somebody has paid for it.”
I said, “So his argument
was that if life has no purpose and design, why should the building have any
design?”
He said, “That is correct.”
I said, “Did he do the
same with the foundation?”1
The Foundation of
Postmodernism
I fully admit that I am
not a professional philosopher and, while I was researching postmodernism, I
stopped more than once to ask, “What did that just say?” I find it to be a very mind-bending
philosophy, but will try to communicate the basics clearly and concisely.
Postmodernism rejects
the idea that objective, universal truth can be discovered through reason,
observation and rational investigation. No person, institution, or discipline
is neutral in its pursuit of truth and will therefore always offer an
interpretation that is colored by its culture, language, history and gender. Truth is not something external that we can
determine, but is socially constructed through our collaborative
interactions. There is no ultimate
“Truth” that corresponds with reality, but there are collective “truths” that
are built by each individual. Postmodern
philosopher Richard Rorty puts it this way, “We…[should] give up the
correspondence theory of truth (i.e. truth is that which corresponds with
reality), and start treating moral and scientific beliefs as tools for
achieving greater human happiness, rather than as representations of the
intrinsic nature of reality.”2
Language plays a central
role in the construction of “truth.”
Jeff Myers explains, “Postmodernists think we cannot know the world
directly. We only know it as we
interpret it. Since our language structures
our relationships, our talk about the objects in the world isn’t really about
those objects at all: it’s really about ourselves.”3 So when we talk about an object, a moral
truth, or a scientific idea, we aren’t talking about something with an objective,
concrete essence but are only communicating our interpretation. Recognizing the role in which language shapes
these interpretations, postmodernists hold suspicion about how language is used
by the powerful as a tool of oppression to impose ideas on everyone else. One way this is accomplished is by the
crafting of metanarratives, which provide a unifying story about reality. Postmodern philosopher Jean-Francois-Lyotard
encouraged “incredulity towards metanarrative”4 because people’s
experiences are too varied to provide a general, overarching statement about
the world.
To postmodern literary
critics, ultimately, even words themselves have lost objective meaning. In an essay titled “The Death of the Author,”
Roland Barthes argues that the original and intended meaning of the text is not
important, rather it is the interpretation of the reader that determines the
text’s meaning. Postmodern literary
critics claim that words cannot accurately describe the world. The writer cannot communicate about reality,
but can only communicate about reality as understood by the reader.5
Origin – How did we get
here?
Postmodernism is
skeptical of claims that science can provide a neutral, objective description
of reality. Author Nancy Pearcey
recounts the following story from a conference on science and postmodernism:
Postmodernist
philosophers led off by arguing that “there are no metanarratives,” meaning no
overarching, universal truths.
Responding on behalf of the scientists was Nobel Prize-winning physicist
Steven Weinberg, who replied: But of course there are metanarratives. After all, there’s evolution – a vast
metanarrative from the Big Bang to the origin of the solar system to the origin
of human life. And since evolution is
true, that proves there is at least one metanarrative….To which the
postmodernist philosophers responded, ever so politely: That’s just your
metanarrative. Evolution is merely a
social construct, they said, like every other intellectual schema – a creation
of the human mind.6
Postmodernists claim
that our observations are culturally and linguistically influenced and the
knowledge that we gain from science cannot describe an objectively true
nature. Terry Eagleton asserts, “Science
and philosophy must jettison their grandiose metaphysical claims and view
themselves more modestly as just another set of narratives.”7 Objective “Truth” about the origin of the
universe, our solar system, and life on Earth is beyond our grasp.
Identity – What does it
mean to be human?
Nothing at all. In their book on postmodern economics, David
Ruccio and Jack Amariglio claim there is “no singular or unique ‘I.””8 Human beings do not possess a personality or
human nature. We do not have souls, but
are a “collage of social constructs.”9 Mitchell Stevens explains, “It’s not just
that we have different sides to our personality; it’s that we have no central
personality in relation to which all our varied behaviors might be seen as just
‘sides.’ We are, in other words, not absolutely anything.”10
From a postmodern view,
things, including human beings, don’t have any real, intrinsic essence. Human nature and value is not something that
we can objectively describe, but something that is socially constructed and
colored by our unique experiences and cultural perspectives.
Morality
– How should we live?
According to British
essayist Phillips, “Universal moral principles must be eradicated and reverence
for individual and cultural uniqueness inculcated.” Postmodernism denies the existence of any
universal morality against which we might judge right and wrong action. Instead, we must be content to live with what
Jean-Francois Lyotard called “little narratives.” Moral truth is not revealed by a divine being
or discovered by reason, but resides within the community. Each culture and community determines what is
moral within its own circumstances and experiences. This leads to the obvious question, however. How does one judge between two communities
with opposite, incompatible moral views?
Meaning – Why are we
here?
Albert Camus once said, “I
have seen many people die because life for them was not worth living. From this, I conclude that the question of
life’s meaning is the most urgent question of all.”11 Can postmodernism provide satisfying answers
to this question? The worldview
dismisses the existence of any external purpose and meaning for human life that
we can apprehend and rejects any metanarrative that would attempt to provide an
answer to the question of ultimate purpose.
What we are left with is
pragmatism. Since ultimate meaning and
purpose are not “out there” waiting to be discovered, we must generate our own
purpose, informed by our experiences and culture. In other words, each person must discover
purpose, meaning, and significance in a manner that works for them.
Destiny – What happens
to us when we die?
Probably at this point,
you’ve noticed a pattern that postmodernism can’t really provide any answers to
the big questions of life. Based on its
own central tenets, postmodernists would deem these answers to be unknowable in
an objective sense. However,
metaphysical truth can be discovered in a pluralistic sense, based on
preference rather than objective standards.
A person’s claims about eternal matters may be true for them, but they
don’t apply to everyone else.
Despite claims of
religious plurality, it seems that some postmodern thinkers have no problem
rejecting certain metaphysical propositions.
Richard Rorty claimed there was “no room for obedience to a nonhuman
authority (i.e. God)” and endorses “forgetting about eternity.”12 Matters of heaven, hell, sin, and salvation
compose a metanarrative that has been used by institutions to control and
oppress. The very idea of God has been
socially constructed through language. “God
is a projection. When children have
problems, they run to their father for protection. When adults have problems, they project their
earthly father into the skies, and they run to this entity for comfort.”13
Summary
Although reading about
postmodernism sometimes feels like swimming in the philosophical deep waters,
it seems to me that a person can refute the worldview without needing to
graduate from “swimmies.” The worldview
is self-defeating, which can be shown with simple logic. Postmodernism claims that there is no
universal truth that can be known, but in doing so, makes a truth claim of its
own that should be universally accepted.
By rejecting all metanarratives, aren’t postmodern philosophers building
their own metanarrative that there are no metanarratives? Postmodern literary critics assert that the
words of the author have no objective meaning; instead, it is the
interpretation of the reader that has meaning.
Yet, I suspect that when these critics write books expressing this view
they expect that the reader will be able to understand the message they are
trying to communicate. If a student
completely misinterprets their message, would they correct them or be satisfied
that the student had constructed their own meaning?
To be charitable, I do
think that postmodernism does raise some valid concerns, but takes them too
far. We should be humble about the
limits of our own knowledge, but that does not mean that truth is unknowable or
does not exist. It is worthwhile to
recognize how own life experiences and culture impact our own beliefs and
pursuit of truth, but again, this does not mean that we are unable to perceive
that which corresponds with reality.
I want to return to the opening
example of the Wexner Center for the Performing Arts, the postmodern building
at “The” Ohio State University (a little joke for Michiganders, there). The architect felt the liberty to do all
sorts of cute tricks with the building: false stairways, purposeless rooms,
meaningless pillars. Yet, he didn’t dare
do the same thing with the foundation that supported the building, but
recognized its objective function and purpose.
In the same way, I feel
that postmodernism plays a lot of cute, fancy words games while discussing the
big questions of life. Yet, do they
really live out their worldview? If we
were standing in a road and a truck was hurdling towards us, would they say, “That’s
just your opinion” if I warned them to move from its path? When they take a flight, do they want the
pilot to trust that the instruments on the control panel are providing information
that conforms with reality or would they rather the pilot construct their own
truth? When the rubber meets the road,
postmodernists do live as though objective truth does exist.
More than that, what
would happen if we were to build the superstructure of human civilization on
the foundation proposed by postmodern philosophy? We would be left with a foundation in which there
is no intrinsic human nature or value, there is no standard by which to judge
moral decisions, and there is no ultimate purpose or meaning to human
life. I hope that humanity never needs
to rise from the rubble that would ensue.
Sources
1) Gilson,
Tom. “The Wexner Center’s Foundations.” The
Thinking Christian. October 25, 2012. https://www.thinkingchristian.net/posts/2012/10/the-wexner-centers-foundations/
2) Rorty, Richard. Achieving Our Country: Leftist Thought in Twentieth-Century America.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998. 96.
3) Myers, Jeff and Noebel, David
A. Understanding the Times: A Survey of
Competing Worldviews. Colorado Springs: David C. Cook, 2015. 156.
4) Lyotard, Jean-Francios. The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press, 1994. xxiv.
5) Myers, Jeff and Noebel, David
A. Understanding the Times: A Survey of
Competing Worldviews. Colorado Springs: David C. Cook, 2015. 158.
6) Pearcey, Nancy. Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from its Cultural Captivity. Wheaton,
IL: Crossway Books, 2004. 114.
7) Eagleton, Terry. “Awakening from Modernity.” Times Literary Supplement. February 20,
1987. 194.
8) Ruccio, David F. and Amariglio, Jack. Postmodern Moments in Modern Economics. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press, 2003. 167.
9) Anderson, Walter T. Reality Isn’t What It Used To Be. New
York: Harper Collins, 1991. 3.
10) Stephens, Mitchell. “To Thine Own Selves Be
True.” Los Angeles Times Magazine.
August 23, 1992.
11) Gablik, Suzi. “Postmodernism and the Question
of Meaning. https://msu.edu/course/ha/452/gablikpostmodernism.htm
12) Rorty, Richard. Achieving Our Country: Leftist Thought in Twentieth-Century America.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998. 18.
13) Markham, Ian S. A World Religions Reader. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2000. 24.
