Intellectual Quackery
Ariel (BittersweetLife), a frequent ideological alley of mine, has posted something that must be challenged; I am rather appalled by the thinking and tone in his normally “right on” blog. I’ve linked to his post and will also start this response with one of his passages (I hate following links, perhaps you do too).
As people like Brian McLaren are quick to point out, Postmodernism is here to stay. This has a number of important side-effects. For example, I’m careful to remember that truth is no longer lingual and propositional, it’s more experiential and intuitive…
We men, on the other hand, owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to postmodernism for its emphasis on spontaneity and authenticity. When such a credo meets a hairstyle, the result is magnificent. At least it is for us, as we rush out the door.
As this is one of the cardinal virtues of postmodernism, I guess it goes without saying that I am all for it. I’m convinced, right along with McLaren, that postmodernism is here to stay. Postmodernism is the new truth. (Pardon the momentary relapse into propositional statement.) You can put up the dictionaries and pull out the hair glue! Farewell ‘facts’! Goodbye grammar! PMism is here to stay! …Unless I’m wrong.
McLaren is an intellectual quack, and any attempt to debunk postmodernity as a whole using McLaren as the debunkee is quite possibly the equivalent of a straw man argument. No doubt there are a great many flaws in the post structuralist paradigm, perhaps the flaws are critical enough to render the system incapable of standing on its own; and yet the very flaw that breaks the system is the universal flaw the system itself is effective in recognizing. All systems are endemically flawed in one area or another, and the success and wisdom of post structuralism is that it recognizes and takes advantage of this reality. Remember your own posts on imagination, perhaps my post on reality and facticity? Post structuralism is what creates space for imagination, while a thorough-going modernism, such as what you seem to be cynically advocating in your recent post, is reminiscent of Gradgrind himself. Postmodernism is incoherent in a deep way, but so is life. Here, of course, is where we must tread very carefully, for life, we both agree, is not completely incoherent—there is a God, and his being is the only self-referentially coherent thing there can be. The revelation of singular Divine self-referential coherency gives us perhaps the best glimpse into postmodernity’s chief flaw: it encourages human self-reference as a valid (if not the best) answer.
But post structuralism does not necessarily entail self-reference as trump; and that is what saves it from condemnation. Post structuralism, in recognizing human self-reference as epically flawed points out that its brokenness presents an inclusive validity (one broken thing is as good as another broken thing, or “all have sinned and fallen shortâ€) and gives greater space to other self-referentially devised ideas that might previously be junked because of the identity of the thinker. In this way the marginalized experience a greater equality, and that result is a positive one and nearer, I think, to the heart of Christ.
McLaren is probably a waste of time, don’t junk postmodernism too fast.
I have used the terms postmodern and post structural interchangeably.
Mar 8th 2006
Tim, you misread the intent of my post, but I blame myself for that, since the piece was ambiguously flippant. My aim, insomuch as there was one, was to take a swing at McLaren as well as the excesses of postmodernity which he so ably represents.
I’d cringe from throwing in my lot with Modernism, and find a lot to like in the Postmodern context, despite my willingness to criticize its blind spots. You effectively point out some of the advantages of Post structuralism here, which makes this post a good one, I think, even though your target is not entirely accurate…
But as I said, my post left itself open for all kinds of interpretations. Which was a very postmodern thing to do.
Mar 9th 2006
Considering the context, I feel that your use of the word “misinterpret” carries with it a deep irony.
This post is not ad hominem, nor was ever intended to be; so in that light, and along with the Bahktinian author/reader relationship to give some suggestive guidance, I think my target is entirely accurate, whether or not or to what extent you are attached to the ideas in the bullseye is a different story.
Mar 9th 2006
Ooh, the comment above seems kind of harsh; my point, in hopefully gentler terms, is that my critique is of the ideas signified to me by your post and not necessarily of the ideas you actually embrace. ; )
Mar 9th 2006
All right, I accept the compromise. Your target justifies the critique.
Mar 10th 2006
Where to begin?
I certainly read the excerpts from Ariel’s post as flippant indeed–a bit too much so for the “gentler sex.” ehem. Why the horrid focus on “we men” when engaging such a topic, if not to be flamboyantly flippant?
I shall begin by questioning your postscript: “I have used the terms postmodern and post structural interchangeably.” Under what authority? The implicit connotations that have swam around these particular terms deserved to be teased out, I dare say . . .
My historic frustration in academia, specifically in regards to literary theory in my part of the world, is that the discussion does not leave space for God at all–not alone Christ. As such a marginalized creature (as even my sex often implies–particularly on post of this nature), I often become discontent with even imagining a (re?)conciliation between theroies of postmodernism and/or post structuralism with that of Christianity. Sigh.
Yet, Tim’s articulation gives me hope: “Post structuralism [. . .]gives greater space to other self-referentially devised ideas that might previously be junked because of the identity of the thinker. In this way the marginalized experience a greater equality, and that result is a positive one and nearer, I think, to the heart of Christ.”
O Tim! Speak to the Christian community! Because even now, I believe, most people cling to one central ideology, “junking” those ideas that are easily labeled “secular” by the lifestyle identites of the thinker. Yet . . . as Aristotle argued, perhaps the ethos of the speaker should be the biggest factor in determining the credibility of the argument? If so, where does that leave us? Because as you say, “all have sinned.”
Tim, do you use “secular” theory to support your Christianity, or do you believe that it inheritantly accomplishes this on its own? Not that I want or need to start a discussion on author’s intentions (haha), but can we simply throw ethos out the door b/c in many cases (McLaren, for example), believing that one knows and understands the authors intentions does affect our interpretations and reception of the theory . . .
Mar 10th 2006
hahah–who cares what that secular thinker Aristotle said anyway?
You both are right–something’s up with all of our tones as well . . .
The question I asked, “On what authority?” should have some mark of playfullness . . . why doesn’t it? Why didn’t I? Ahh–avoid a feminine tone perhaps? An accomodating tone implying, “don’t take me seriously if I offend you are make you uncomfortable–I only mean to be pleasant at all times” tone?
This site always makes me think!
Mar 10th 2006
You are right about the tone thing; I just wanted to say that right of the bat. I know I felt pissy and was in one of those ultra critical moods.
Tones are hard in writing; “don’t take me seriously if I offend you are make you uncomfortable–I only mean to be pleasant at all times” ought to be avoided, but I think it’s hard to be avoid that tone and still be gracious–I know I have a hard time with it.
I have a lot more to comment here; but it’s my birthday and Britt is working on some sort of surprise, and I am going to relax. A longer comment will appear tomorrow. I really want to talk about your question about “secular” theories.
Mar 11th 2006
Ok, I have some time now to more thoroughly address some of the excellent questions raised by SQ’s comments.
The relationship between postmodern and post structural is like that of bugs and insects. Every insect may safely be called a bug (a larger, more informal term), but not every bug may safely be called an insect (a more specified term). The particular theoretical space I am addressing is on a section of the theoretical plane that both landscapes share. I agree that the terms deserve to be teased out…
I have a question about Aristotle and ethos. How does one safely determine if an ethos is acceptable? I mean, Aristotle wasn’t a Christian, in some ways his philosophies are less Christian friendly than Plato, so does his ethos prohibit me from accepting the credibility of his arguments? If so, his ethos argument is invalid, which means I am free to accept its validity again, which in turn could lead to rejecting his argument a second time. But you’ve already asked this question, and I would have seen it earlier if I hadn’t been going line by line.
I do use “secular†theory to support my Christianity and I also believe that in most instances it does accomplish this on its own (not quite sure if I want to add the inherently at this point, but I really am tempted). It accomplishes it in two different ways. “Secular†theory often times supports Christianity via negation; i.e. the theory woefully depicts the darkened character and sinfulness of people without Christ. Pirsig writes about failed experiments and how they shouldn’t really be considered failures because they direct to a new possible solution, that is they direct away from themselves. Failed secular theories have the capacity to point to Christ, especially for those who honestly seek the truth (how honestly does anyone actually seek, even though they may think they are honestly seeking?). Arthur C. Holmes said, “all truth is God’s truth,†and that phrase, though so catchy it seems a cliché, is true. I have found it helpful to draw a distinction between eternal truth and non-eternal truth, and that distinction itself is a very large discussion; but let me give brief examples. Non-eternal truth is statements/philosophies built on temporal conditions: I am in pain, the world is broken and evil, I am successful, I am powerful or desire power, etc. Eternal truth is statements/philosophies built upon eternal conditions: God is, all have sinned, Christ will return and judge the earth, I have free will, etc. Non-eternal truths quite possibly (I’m kind of working this out as I go) may be said to have secondary truth value, since they spring from things allowed by God, rather than necessarily commanded or directly instituted by God (such as the primary eternal truths). I am getting off track here—and I think the distinction helps (me at least) see the place of secular theory in being used to point Christ.
A last note on ethos/authorial intention. T.S. Eliot has some interesting things to say here, and since I recently read them I think I’ll present the passages here.
(Eliot) I have maintained elsewhere, and still maintain, that it is not essential to share Dante’s beliefs in order to enjoy his poetry…why then should this general indemnity not extend to Wordsworth and to Shelley? Here Mr. Richards comes very patly to our help:
‘Coleridge, when he remarked that a “willing suspension of disbelief†accompanied much poetry, was noting an important fact, but not quite in the happiest of terms, for we are neither aware of a disbelief nor voluntarily suspending it in these case. It is better to say that the question of belief or disbelief, in the intellectual sense, never arises when we are reading well. If unfortunately it does arise, either through the poet’s fault or our own, we have for the moment ceased to be reading and have become astronomers, or theologians, or moralists, persons engaged in quite a different type of activity.’
…When the doctrine, theory, belief, or ‘view of life’ presented in a poem is one which the mind of the reader can accept as coherent, mature, and founded on the facts of experience, it interposes no obstacle to the reader’s enjoyment, whether it be one he accept or deny, approve or deprecate. When it is one which the reader rejects as childish or feeble, it may, for a reader of well-developed mind, set up an almost complete check. (end Eliot)
You are right about our understanding of the author’s intentions having a real effect on our interpretation and receptivity; and I don’t think that is wrong/or should even be avoided, but once again the effect, whether negative or positive in nature, can point towards the light. Ethos ought not to be thrown out the door, but it ought not necessarily ruin things or make them off limits to us. All truth is God’s, but sometimes it needs to be co-opted or converted before we can recognize it as His.
Mar 11th 2006
I adore your discussion on eternal/temperal truths–an idea that is certain to influence my teaching . . .
However, your use of Eliot points to another tangle that Christians can often find themselves in, which is to question, who is seeking truth and who is justifying their pleasures outside of Truth? For example, in the passage you have selected above, Eliot states:
“If unfortunately it does arise, either through the poet’s fault or our own, we have for the moment ceased to be reading and have become astronomers, or theologians, or moralists, persons engaged in quite a different type of activity.”
Here, I can’t help but “read” (notice how he defines this act in other ways than I employ it!) Eliot’s simple disdain for _political_ readings of text–which, at one point,he implies is even a “fault”–for Eliot, the pleasure is simply in cultivating a literary understanding/appreciation for a well written piece (well written according to the cultural standards and values of the nobility and British Lit no doubt!) . . . so . . . how can we even bring him into this? Which circles back to ethos . . .
Hope you had a fabulous birthday.
Mar 12th 2006
you’re right; the more I look at Eliot, the more I see how much of a stretch it is to include his idea here. I suppose I wanted a modernist who admitted that one needn’t share beliefs to enjoy text; instead I got a elitist who goes awefully close to art for arts’ sake (something he did actually reject).
My birthday was splendid.
Mar 13th 2006
thanks for your time and energy here–it certainly has been meaningful.
glad you had such a great b-day too!