The Post Modern Explained

"Finally, it should be clear that it is not up to us to provide reality".
- Jean-Francois Lyotard, The Post Modern Explained

Post-modernism has become not only a buzzword in a variety of disciplines and social contexts, but also for some a type of movement. It is difficult to define what post-modernism is, although I think this quote from What is Post-modernism by Charles Jencks, who is known as one of the founders of post-modernism, captures some of its essential meaning:

Since 'modern' comes from the latin modo meaning 'just now', 'post-modern' obviously means 'after' just now - or sometimes beyond, contra, above, ultra, meta, outside-of-the-present.
[...]
Post-modern movements vary in each cultural form - economics, politics, dance, psychology, education, etc - and in some areas it has not been defined or perhaps does not exist. In architecture, art, literature and philosophy, different attitudes have developed at different rates, so once again it is the pluralism which should be stressed (incommensurable difference).

Most people understand post-modernism to mean a type of relativism - truth is relative to each person or each different cultural group. In post-modernism my truth does not have to agree with your truth - but both are valid. It makes me smile to see relativity misapplied in this way. Einstein's theory of relativity never proposed that everything is relative - but actually states that some things are relative when measured against some things that are constant and absolute. The theory of relativity hinges on the constancy of the speed of light. Recently gravity was shown to contain a constant too. My point is that if we look for a universal principle of relativism, as post-moderns do, there isn't one to be found. Relativism only works when there is a constant which can be used as a yardstick.

In The Post-Modern Explained, Jean Francois Lyotard, one of post-modernism's foremost promoters, briefly summarises modernism - which he states began with the Enlightenment at the end of the 18th century, and continued on for the next two hundred years. Lyotard proposes that the ruling idea behind modernism is the emancipation of humanity, and that to this end reason and rationalism have combined with technology and resulted not in liberation, but in totalitarianism. He cites Stalinism and capitalism as examples of types of total dominance. In simple terms, Lyotard's view is that we see an end goal, we make a blueprint of a project to achieve that goal, and then we set about making others comply with the project. Yet none of the projects result in 'universal emancipation', but the result is an 'us and them', one group dominated by another, and inequity in terms of resources and freedoms. Lyotard is in effect criticising the modern world's march of progress through rational humanistic systems.

The title of Lyotard's The Post-Modern Explained is in itself a joke on the reader. He does not so much explain post-modernism as attempt to deconstruct modernism. In other words, he tries to take apart modern systems and values but doesn't offer any clear alternative. An example is his focus on metanarratives. Metanarratives can be simply described as the story behind the story, or the story about the story. We could say that the bible is a metanarrative for Christianity. It is the story behind our modern story of Christianity. It is the blueprint on which the project is based. Lyotard rejects metanarratives, including Christianity, because he believes they end up in totalitarian and authoritarian systems, which result in favourable conditions for some and abuses for others.

One of Lyotard's objections to metanarratives (the story behind the story) is that they begin by stating what people should be. On this basis he sees Christianity as a modern and authoritarian system - because in his view it tells a person what they should be rather than letting them discover who they are and allowing them to be different. In Lyotard's analysis he rejects modernism and its systems - be they political, social or religious - yet he cannot avoid falling into the very thing he argues against. He creates his own story behind the story. In Lyotard's metanarrative difference is the key. In essence he begins with we should be different. He also prescribes a type of anarchy in which there are no absolute truths or laws. So he is saying there should be no absolute truths or laws. And fundamental to his view of post-modernism is his call for us to become childlike in our thinking (we should be childlike). He writes:

You cannot open up a question without leaving yourself open to it. You cannot scrutinize a "subject" (training for example) without being scrutinized by it. You cannot do any of these things without renewing ties with the season of childhood, the season of the mind's possibilities. You need to recommence.

In saying this Lyotard has said nothing new or post-modern, but has borrowed from an already existing story. Jesus said:

Unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

The difference between Jesus statement and Lyotard's concerning becoming childlike, is that Jesus himself is the constant. Lyotard provides no means of undoing the rationalist humanism which has pervaded our thinking and motivated our actions. He vaguely pines for a return to metaphysics, and suggests that moderns have lost God. Yet he cannot substantiate a replacement or means to achieve "the season of childhood" necessary to begin again. Jesus provides the means, and the guidance.

In my view Lyotard would have us in a perpetual state of childood - always questioning but never arriving at any conclusion. His post-modernism is a philosophy of scepticism and doubt. Jesus on the other hand provides us with a child-like renewal, but does not then expect us to remain there. As the apostle Paul wrote:

When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child. But when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.

Here we see what Lyotard's post-modernism does not provide. We begin as children, but mature and become adults. Nevertheless we do not have the full picture - there is an element of mystery to the Christian faith. There will be a temporal finality in which we will know God fully - the absolute, and until then our faith is in what we understand and know of this absolute now. Thus we cannot be totalitarian, yet we can rely on and be guided by the absolute. Christianity outdoes post-modernism by providing both a new approach to life and the absolute by which to measure it. In contrast, Lyotard proposes a confused nursery in which the infants are expected to educate and train themselves. Lyotard's post-modernism is a deconstructive form of human rationalism which lacks spirit.

See also Part 2: Post-Modernism and the Jim Jones Potential
Part 3: Post Modernism and Christianity