As some of you may know from my past writings on Blevkog, I am not what you might call an advocate of so-called Postmodernity. Postmodern theory posits (as an oversimplification) that there is a basic flaw in Modernist societal assumptions regarding the dominant position of particular types of knowledge – Positivist Scientific knowledge being chief among the dominant worldviews criticized. Postmodernist theory would have us believe that all forms of knowledge are valid, and no form of knowledge deserves a privileged place in society. I for one would rather be sure that a person who buys into the whole positivism thing built the bridge my bus drives over – accept no substitutes, folks.
What may have become an unintended consequence of this absurdity is that it follows logically that if all types of knowledge and knowing are valid, then none of them are particularly useful vis-a-vis every other type of knowledge. Logically, since it discusses ‘ways of knowing’, it addresses itself to whatever subjective morality chosen by the individual. I say ‘the individual’ because dominant ideology should be nonexistent under a postmodernist thought regime, and everyone should have a choice of what moral code they should follow.
There is a problem inherent in this, which follows from the ‘invalid’ nature of knowledge structures – if there is no predominating system of morality, from where does the individual choose exemplars of behaviour? Where does the individual go to learn civic responsibility?
University? Absolutely – but consider the number of individuals who have been exposed to a wide variety of questionable moral structures through the medium of the Internet (to use one tired example) and are not yet old enough to enter university? Most of the reports of youth crime I have encountered recently speak to an absence of shared morality and a lack of connection to others that dominant ideology of morality provides. I do not advocate religious belief outside of these parameters, however – as a source of concepts of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ upon which we can generally agree, it is fine, but resorting to the supernatural to explain phenomena leads us back to the postmodernist trap.
Freedom to choose a custom-made set of moral strictures leads us back to the most venal aspects of mankind, and of the nasty, brutish and short life we lead. Rationalizations can be made for any behaviour based on flexible codes of morality – the most accessible source of that morality being the cacaphonous roar of popular culture which demands more, which demands immediacy, which demands instant gratification for any impulse. In the absence of any disciplining influence (given that schools now have to encourage rather than criticize), the impulse to be entertained and for personal gain runs rampant.
There are no shared norms, there is, in effect, normlessness. Normlessness is the most basic definition of Anomie that Durkheim could provide. In our rush to vilify the so-called ‘patriarchal’ or ‘colonizing’ forms of knowledge, we have failed to understand the benefits that such ideas provided in imposing an internal self-discipline incorporating the secular philosophical constructs that exist within the umbrella of religion.
Is it too late to discard the illusion of freedom and reality of anarchy that Postmodernism provides? I have always held that there is no Postmodernism as such, just creative ways of expressing the same ideas we always have, in our limited fashion. What we need is a non-religious and pervasive framework within which we can create and maintain standards of behaviour and civility that will help our society survive. If we cannot somehow recognize the importance of shared human values over those of individual cultural beliefs, the people in control of our nations, and our globe, in the next 20 years will be the generation that is not connected to one another except on an abstract level – and who will think nothing of taking those that obstruct their gratification out of their way. Maybe we shouldn’t worry – by then noone will vote, for the same reason.
If we end up with a dictatorship, benevolent or otherwise, we must admit our complicity in creating it, whether it is happening now or twenty years down the road.
Please Note: This and other ideas discussed on this website are my intellectual property and remain so as long as they are posted to this blog. I am not loath to grant permission, but I appreciate if people ask for it.
Flash and Substance 