the audacity of individuality

I have been in recent contact with an old friend of mine from my Bible college days, which has spurred the start of what could be a great discussion (he is currently out the the country and so we are limited to email). While responding to some questions he had, I found myself referring to the so-called “post-postmodern” era, also known as the “performatist” era (see Tom Turner’s City as Landscape). For artistic elitists or amateur philosophers, this term is probably familiar; for others, this term is not only counter-intuitive, but possibly absurd or downright silly. I concur.

The so-called “Modern” era has a variety of timelines, but it is generally agreed upon to have found its beginning in the late 19th century and flourished in the 20th. The Modernist motto: “One Truth”. This was extremely convenient for two institutions: religion and the state. Essentially utilizing the Constantine “conversion” method, leaders who could harness the “one truth” would be unchallenged - hence the popular charismatic personalities of the 1920s, 30s, and 40s - it is no mistake that Christian Fundamentalism exploded on the scene at the same time as European Fascism, they both were feeding the hunger of Modernity.

Postmodernism and postmodernity quickly became a philosophical response. Like any movement, it followed the avante-garde of artists and philosophers, and with this following, corruptions became apparent. Disillusioned youth of the late 20th century reveled in quoting existentialist philosophers such as Nietzsche and Sartre, mainly in order to piss off the “One Truth” modernist types - of course, neither the youth nor the preachers actually read Nietzsche or Sartre. Postmodernism became known as the “No Truth” era, or the “anything goes” era as Turner positions it. Postmodernity, however, was too much anarchy, not enough democracy. The pendulum had swung from the one extreme to the other.

Post-postmodernism. Turner promotes “performatism” as a replacement. I don’t mind post-postmodernism, the absurd name seems to correspond to the absurd era we live in. Post-postmodernism is essentially the implicit realization of the philosophy of Soren Kierkegaard, who, ironically, is the so-called Father of Christian Existentialism - most contemporary scholars would describe him as pre-existentialist. I call him a man who was reading the future through the past: history as one pendulum swing to the other with a brief passing through the middle. Modernity, whether religious or secular, passionately searched for the one truth, and when that one truth kept alluding them, post-modernity offered the opposite. Post-postmodern offers a combination of both: reason, homogeneousness, etc. is possible and helpful up until a point, at which, faith and plurality become unusual allies.

The modern era saw clashes between participants embroiled in the same methodology. The postmodern era was defined by opposition. The conflicts of the post-postmodern era are represented by those who are holding on to past epochs. The reason that religion is in this title is because religion appears to be a great indicator of these eras. I mentioned that art and philosophy often leads the progression of new epochs; religion is the great indicator because it is generally the last to change and represents the “mass” or the “public”. Has religion reacted accordingly? I think so. The simplest example is Christianity itself. Are there obvious Modernist Christians? One Truth. You are with us or against us? Are there postmodernist Christians? Many truths. Infinite truths - how about in reference to morality? Has this competition between the two led to a religious faith that is completely unrecognizable from its origins or even a Christianity of the 17th and 18th centuries? Scholars seem to think so. I agree.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, January 16th, 2007 at 11:54 pm and is filed under christianity, philosophy. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.