Modernism and Postmodernism

Those confused by what Modernism and Postmodernism are, who are confused by the ideas of subjective and objective truth, who don’t understand why people get so worked up about the notion of absolute and foundational truths could do worse than read this article by Ken Archer. Indeed, those who think they understand the differences could probably also gain by reading it. Framed as a critique of a recent book, Ken deals with important issues of how we came to think in the categories that we do.

The book under question (_Becoming Conversent with the Emerging Church_ by D.A. Carson) is trying to critique a movement within the Christian Church that moves outside the boundaries that churches have often drawn, meeting people that many churches couldn’t and befriending people that many churches wouldn’t. Carson’s concern is that this movement has moved away from the Modernist notion of absolute truth, and he tries to offer a compromise. However, his “third way” is, as Ken points out, nothing of the sort. The division between Modernism and Postmodernism is in the accessibility to human beings of absolute truth – Modernism claims that we can now things indisputably (Descartes’ classic “I think therefore I am”, for example), Postmodernism that all our attempts to grasp truth are inevitable coloured by our history and hence biased.

Archer points out that this dichotomy is actually at the heart of Modernism – it would almost be possible to call Modernism and Postmodernism two parts of the same movement. This is because the question that gives rise to them is the one at the heart of the Modernist movement: is it possible to know things indisputably? The two give different answers to this question, but they share the assumption that this question is primary. In other words, they share the assumption that we ourselves are what is important; reality itself is no longer central. Premodern thought was concerned not with what we could know but with what was real – the division between ourselves and reality was the “achievement” of Descartes.

As a result, “authority” is now to be achieved not by giving the most accurate description of reality (as was the premodern way) but by giving the most convincing foundation for indisputable knowledge about the self, the world and God (in that order).

Descartes and the early moderns sought to quell the terrifying violence of their times by redirecting man’s concerns from God and destiny to science and self. They thus needed to establish dramatic authority for their claims if they were to achieve their historic aims…Authority, for premoderns, goes to those who provide the best clarifications of reality…Now this authority isn’t the type of authority that garners absolute authority in a short amount of time. That was the purpose of foundationalism. Whereas the ancients aimed high and had low expectations, the early moderns (e.g. Descartes, Hobbes and Locke) aimed low (established philosophic foundations, such as consciousness or self-interest, for prephilosophic life) and had absolute expectations.

I suspect that many people who are wedded to either Modernism or Postmodernism fail to grasp the universe of possibilities that lies outside these two philosophies. If we lock ourselves into this single axis, into answering this single question, then we will miss the truly important questions, and the true nature of reality.

(_Thanks to Sven for the tip._)

pax et bonum

Article posted at 4:10pm on 07 July 2005
Category: Books, Faith, Musing, Science