What Came Before Modernism?

“lenses” to gain accounts of things. All objects and persons are unique formulations to an observer. These perspectives come from individual experiences and cannot be pooled with the experience of others to distill universal concepts. Here is where phrases like “my reality” or “my lived experience” become paramount to postmodernists over socalled “facts”—two accounts of the same event are not considered to be in conflict, according to postmodern epistemology.

On the subject of human nature, postmodernists tend to be collectivistic and treat individuals as inseparably part of groups which are based on race, gender, ethnicity, sexuality, and class. Individuals are a patchwork of group qualities and cannot but perceive reality and interact with others except by way of the attributes of their groups. A scientist can never be considered an objective researcher seeking the truth. The scientist will inescapably beconsidered a white, male, gay, scientist (for example) and will perceive the world uniquely from these inescapable group affiliations. If the field of science as a whole is filled with white men, postmodernists predict slant or bias which will lead inevitably to conflict with the “othered” or “silenced” groups that the occupations of science have failed to include (female or indigenous “ways of knowing,” for example). As a result, the postmodern ethics and politics tend to focus on a resolution of these tensions by revealing the injustices inherent or systematic in “objective” knowledge systems.

Having introduced some of the bases of postmodernism, we might look further into the target of

postmodernism: modernism and its objective knowledge systems. These ideas can be seen in the philosophical hotbed of Ancient Greece, and closer to our own time, the Enlightenment era in Europe, which was crucial and defining to what we now call modernism. During the Enlightenment, science slowly gained a foothold as a trusted and organized knowledge delivery system through the consecutive generational efforts of many figures, including Francis Bacon (1561-1626), sometimes called the father of empiricism; René Descartes (1596-1650), an important figure in logic but also known as the father of modern philosophy; and John Locke (1632-1704), who had a profound impact on all aspects of philosophy but is especially known as the father of classical liberalism.

We can contrast the ideas of these era-defining figures with the pre-modernist world they combatted. Metaphysically, Enlightenment thinkers promoted what is called “naturalism” during a time of ubiquitous belief in “supernaturalism.” Epistemologically, their use of reason and logic rose slowly as a proper and trusted method of acquiring knowledge over the mysticism of the pre-modernists, who used religion and faith to ground their beliefs and traditions. Pre-modernist concepts of human nature were characterized by frailty, sin, and dependence on devotion to religion, while modernists emphasized human autonomy or freedom, but with the responsibility of character development. The individual is sovereign, whose destiny is yet to be written, which is in contrast to the feudal subordination and sacrifice of people to the “higher” or “divine” goals of the pre-modernist—whether a religious project or a holy war.

As a result, during the pre-modernist times in which the Enlightenment figures worked, they were considered radicals—even by themselves. The worldview they promoted was impossible to merge within the pre-modernist framework that had dominated Europe for a millennium. Over several centuries, thanks to the Renaissance and some inadvertent help from the Reformation figures, religion lost its hold as the exclusive worldview. Gaining ground in its place was the scientific worldview, or modernism, which began transforming intellectual circles, society, and culture.

Disagreements arose between modernists. For instance, Descartes promoted rationalism (knowledge from logic and reason only) whereas Bacon and Locke argued for empiricism (knowledge from the senses perceiving reality). Together, however, they agreed that objective knowledge could be obtained from this world rather than through an exclusive reliance on supernaturalism, where the divinely inspired few brought knowledge down from the Heavens. Knowledge creation was now in the hands of any person who could use reason, and with this, the Enlightenment project was in full force.

While the pre-modernists continued to resist this change, it was not until the 20th century that opposition began to mount from another angle. Postmodernism was this other angle, and it essentially sought to de-establish the Enlightenment movement. We will continue the story of this history of the buildup of the Enlightenment project in the next few chapters; however a broad outlook can be found in Chart 1 below.

Chart 1: The Enlightenment Vision

In summary to our introduction into postmodernism, and as a hint to our further analysis of this philosophical movement, a number of themes can be recognized where postmodernism operates in the current culture. In reviewing these points, see if you can make connections to what you observe in modern culture. ● Is the Western canon of literature truly the great books of the West, or are they merely a batch of writings of the dominant and privileged? ● Was Christopher Columbus a hero, bridging two worlds together, or a bringer of European imperialism, religion and culture to, by design, exclude and demarcate the indigenous populations already established in the Americas? ● Is the United States a leading defender of rights, liberty, and opportunity for all, or is it a sexist, racist, class-bound society no better than any other county? ● Should we judge people as individuals, or should we consider group identities as defining, and support policies such as affirmative action, or sensitivity training? ● Is life improving across the world through growing economies and higher standards of living, or are these merely distractions from the real problems of urban poverty, income disparities between rich and poor, and consumerism? ● Have Western codes of law and blind justice systems reduced crime and made the streets safer, or does the Western justice system merely cover up the failures of Western social order, defining those

failures as deviances to “justify” temporarily and sometimes permanently caging them? ● Is the liberal West promoting peace and prosperity across the globe, supporting democracies and opening new markets to encourage investment, or have the goals of foreign policy in most cases been about imperialism, and has globalism been perverted to binding a cheaper workforce to enrich multinational corporations? ● Have science and technology been generally a force for good, extending knowledge and making the world healthier, safer, cleaner, and more productive—or has science betrayed an elitism that seeks to perpetuate a particular way of life, framing some cultures and peoples as obsolete, backward, or barbaric? ● And in general, have classical liberalism, free markets, and technology been social achievements that can be harnessed by all cultures to improve themselves, or have these “values” imposed capitalism, science, and overall, ideology, onto an already rich cultural landscape and an already struggling polluted environment?

Notice in these various themes that the terms of the debate have shifted. It is no longer about how we promote democracies and peace in other struggling countries, or the types of economic or welfare programs that best assist the poor. We used to discuss ideas like truth, reason, liberty, equality, justice seriously—not ironically. When postmodernists arrived on the intellectual scene, they have asked us to take a step back and evaluate the concepts themselves.

This is why many of these concepts appear in quotation marks in the writings of postmodernists. “Truth” is a myth, they might say. Or “reason” is a white, male, Eurocentric concept. Or “equality” is a mask for oppression. “Peace” is always imposed; the powerful has won and holds down its victims.

Many might read into these perspectives a great deal of cynicism—it would seem to postmodernists that any kind of apparent advancement must only be due to some hidden cost, i.e., a zero-sum game. For example, modernism thinks of and considers peace as the removal of power and violence, but the postmodernist sees this kind of “peace” as a mere temporary ceasefire due to one side dominating the other; if the other can recover, they will fight again. But alongside this cynicism, paradoxically you can also find themes of egalitarianism and relativism in postmodern thought. Postmodernists do tend to favor democracy as an appropriate form of government, for example. But postmodernists go beyond defending traditionally “Left” politics—anti-science, anti-reason, and advocating socialism in economics tend to place them on the far Left as we define it today.

Understanding postmodernism requires a tour of intellectual history. To understand the origins of the postmodern battle with Enlightenment thinkers, we must examine their project. What exactly was discovered in these several centuries that for modernists was a beacon of hope for a better life, and for postmodernists became mere cheats to exploit others at the game of life? Is knowledge a tool for all or a weapon for some?

In the next chapter, we will examine one particular thinker who would seem to have set much of the stage for postmodernism: the German philosopher Immanuel Kant.