Thanks to Fabio Roveron for the featured image.
Postmodernism is an interesting field of thought, scary and inherently dangerous, but interesting. Much of today’s political discourse (or lack thereof) is based in this school of thought, and it helps unlock why many who follow the philosophy/religion that has become “identity politics” are unwilling or unable to engage in a civil conversation, opting for the use of ad hominem attacks and threats of violence against those who disagree with their views. Over the course of this post, I will delve into the roots of the inter-sectional identity political movement and how many of the arguments are rooted in postmodernism, and the necessary conclusion to this school of thought.
Setting things up, I will link to an explanation of postmodernism. The author of the piece wrote something interesting. “The loss of a continuous meta-narrative therefore breaks the subject into heterogeneous moments of subjectivity that do not cohere into an identity.” That particular line is interesting to me, and in my opinion, very central to the tenants of postmodernist thinking, and subsequently, today’s discourse. It appears to me that postmodernism actively practices the separation of word and meaning from reality and objectivity. I will explain further.
One of the principle tenants of postmodernist thinking is deconstructionism. Deconstructionism is, “in philosophy, [deconstructionism] signifies certain strategies for reading and writing texts,” and, “a way of reading modern theories of language.” By this tenant, language is not the meaning of a word, but rather the progression of the change in meaning over time. Anything written has no bearing on what came before, and language is merely a function of showing differences over time. I admit that I have had to reread the same three paragraphs multiple times to even begin to grasp what the author of the piece is referencing and attributing to philosopher Jacques Derrida, and I am certain that my understanding of it will improve as I continue to study it, but as of now I see it as this. Language is contextual, meaning is malleable, and reality is ultimately subjective.
The second tenant of postmodernism is that of hyperrealism. “Hyperreality is the result of the technological mediation of experience, where what passes for reality is a network of images and signs without an external referent, such that what is represented is representation itself.” Everything in hyperrealism is not actually real, but rather a simulacrum – a model, stand-in, or unsatisfactory imitation – of something else. A picture of a tree for example is not a tree, but a simulacrum for a tree. A text message isn’t a message or language, but a simulacrum for that language. In reality it is nothing but the function of other processes that simulate the desired result, like a picture of a tree or a heart emoji. Reality is no longer bound to an objective place, but rather referential to simulacrums, which are poor imitations and representations of other things. In other words, reality is whatever I believe it to be.
These two tenants inform much of what a postmodernist believes, though philosophically, this particular author mentions that postmodernism must not depart from modernist thinking or the Enlightenment. Reality is not reality, and there is no objective truth, but rather, a completely referential reality that is by all standards changeable at will or, by extension, socially formed.
It is here where there is a disconnect between postmodernism and the intersectionality movement in today’s political and social landscape, and it is here that the faults of intersectionality begin to become apparent. I enjoy watching videos on ethics and logic. I believe that those two principles are fundamental in establishing a functional and just society. I believe in an objective reality and absolute truths. I do this so that I can lay out my biases upfront and before I delve into my critique of postmodernism and by extension, intersectionality politics.
Often I hear those who believe in postmodern theory/philosophy refer to something as “my truth.” There is the world, and then there is “my truth,” that is to say, the combination of personally formed opinion and experience that comprises the foundation of reality at an individual level. “My truth,” is a valid statement because I know myself and my experience, my feelings and thoughts, and my interactions with others. “My truth,” is also equally valid as any individuals truth, known as “their truth.” And while that subjective reality is perfectly well and good for the individual, it begins to erode when we, as a society, discuss matters that concern to everyone, or to enact legislation that impacts everyone.
We form social structures, chains of interaction, and fabrics of belonging as a species. The sense of belonging is inherent to our nature as a species. We seek comfort in the comfortable, and comfort comes from the known, understood, and agreed upon. The philosophy of postmodernism, rooted in the deconstruction of reality and the malleability of truth, becomes naturally opposed to these concepts, because it alienates a mutual reality. Indeed, it promotes the destruction of the common reality for two reasons. It refuses to stand upon an objective version of reality, and it seeks to tear down existing methodology. Instead of seeking to find empirical evidence, often the defenders of this school of thought use anecdotal evidence, labeling data as misleading and highlighting the truth of testimony as the only sufficient evidence.
This is where the differences are most profound. With a foundation of belief that nothing is real and everything is malleable, we see the rise of identity crises. We see the fracturing of social norms and the decay of process, particularly in the realm of law and government. And we see this most vocally in the total collapse of discourse. And it is the conclusion to the train of thought in the postmodernist philosophy. If nothing is real and everything is what I claim it to be, then my reality is the only one that matters. But that thought is also anarchistic, if the individual’s reality is the only thing that matters, then how do we form a society. Who rules, who decides, and who follows the law? If I were to believe that theft was rational and that in my reality, cars should be free, who is someone else to stop me from taking a car that I have not bought? If I believe that another person is hateful and bigoted and that that speech is intolerable and should be punished, why should I be punished for harming that espouser of hate? If my truth is that I should be the only thing that matters, why should I not lie, kill, steal, or a myriad of other things?
Yet that is where I see the conversation going, not to a civil debate over ideas and rational thought, but a tribal skirmish over subjective beliefs. I see an “other-ing” of those who disagree, and by doing so, we push them into a state of non-humanity. They become monsters or demons, something irrational and rooted in hatred, and without hope of redemption. This descent into subjectivity and personal truth above all else will ultimately lead to violence and the collapse of discourse.
I hope that I am wrong, but I worry I am right.
A Place 4Politics 