Catholicism and Postmodernity

[The Joey-O]

I was curious if anyone knows if the Church is doing anything to confront Postmodernism? I don't mean attack it, I was just wondering how the Church is preparing itself for this new age?

I think there are some things that can benifit the Church as well as things that the Church needs to confront. I was wondering, because the Church was kind of late catching up with modernity (the 1960s were about the time that modernity was really starting to phase out and postmodernity phase in). If we start thinking about postmodernity now, we won't have to wait till its over to constructively communicate with it.

[Myles Domini]

[url="http://www.studiesirishreview.com/articles/2005/Oakes.htm"]BENEDICT XVI AND SOME CURRENT THEOLOGY by Edward Oakes SJ[/url] good online article outlining the cause, symtoms and antidote of the postmodernist problem.

[url="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/089870443X/qid=1133441039/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-3486837-4655347?n=507846&s=books&v=glance"]The Drama of Atheist Humanism by Henri de Lubac[/url] a classic. In this book the great man outlines how we got to where we are today and how we can dig ourselves out of it.

INXC
Myles

[jezic]

what do you think are the post modernist problems?

[Socrates]

[quote name='The Joey-O' date='Dec 1 2005, 06:52 AM']I was curious if anyone knows if the Church is doing anything to confront Postmodernism? I don't mean attack it, I was just wondering how the Church is preparing itself for this new age?

I think there are some things that can benifit the Church as well as things that the Church needs to confront. I was wondering, because the Church was kind of late catching up with modernity (the 1960s were about the time that modernity was really starting to phase out and postmodernity phase in). If we start thinking about postmodernity now, we won't have to wait till its over to constructively communicate with it.
[right][snapback]806795[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I think for this discussion to have any meaning, "post-modernism" must first be defined.

From what I understand, "post-modernism" is largely a trendy academic fad which first became prominent in the '80s and '90s largely among Lefty lit-crit types. It regards text and language as having no real intrinsic meaning, and being able to reveal no objective truth. Language, literature, and reason itself are seen as merely as tools of a power struggle between different racial, sexual, and economic groups.

How such neo-Marxist foolishness could possibly benefit the Church is beyond me!

And post-modernism will likely be largely passe as an intellectual movement in a couple decades. The Church does not need to "adapt" to the ever-changing foolishness of the world; rather the world needs to adapt to the everlasting Truth of Christ's Church.

The Church has indeed adressed such issues by speaking out against relativism proclaiming the reality of objective truth, and of the objective reality of Christ's incarnation, death and Resurrection.

To "communicate effectively" with "post-modernism," Catholics need to start boldly rejecting moral and religious relativism. and affirming the objective reality of the Faith.

The Church must never conform itself to the world for the purpose of "dialogue" or "communication." Such was the disaster of Modernism with in the Church.
Catholics should no more be "post-modernists" than they should be Modernists.
(Unless "Post-modern" is redefined to mean reclaiming the world for Christ's truth.)

[The Joey-O]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Dec 1 2005, 09:47 PM']I think for this discussion to have any meaning, "post-modernism" must first be defined.
(Unless "Post-modern" is redefined to mean reclaiming the world for Christ's truth.)
[right][snapback]807684[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I agree.

[quote name='Socrates' date='Dec 1 2005, 09:47 PM']From what I understand, "post-modernism" is largely a trendy  academic fad which first became prominent in the '80s and '90s largely among Lefty lit-crit types.
(Unless "Post-modern" is redefined to mean reclaiming the world for Christ's truth.)
[right][snapback]807684[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I'm sorry, but your understanding is incorrect and mildly offensive. While Post-Modernism is popular among "Lefty lit-crit types", it is by no means under there subjection. Post-Modernism is found in all aspects of society and culture since the 1960s, not the 80s and 90s.

[quote name='Socrates' date='Dec 1 2005, 09:47 PM']It regards text and language as having no real intrinsic meaning, and being able to reveal no objective truth.  Language, literature, and reason itself  are seen as merely as tools of a power struggle between different racial, sexual, and economic groups.
(Unless "Post-modern" is redefined to mean reclaiming the world for Christ's truth.)
[right][snapback]807684[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

That is an aspect of Post-Modernism, sort of the dark side of it. Post-Modernism also is characterized by an increased importance on relationships, communication, history, the arts, ecclectic diversity and community. It's not all positive, as you pointed out.

[quote name='Socrates' date='Dec 1 2005, 09:47 PM']How such neo-Marxist foolishness could possibly benefit the Church is beyond me! 

And post-modernism will likely be largely passe as an intellectual movement in a couple decades.  The Church does not need to "adapt" to the ever-changing foolishness of the world; rather the world needs to adapt to the everlasting Truth of Christ's Church.
(Unless "Post-modern" is redefined to mean reclaiming the world for Christ's truth.)
[right][snapback]807684[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Um...no. Post-Modernism is evident in every aspect of our culture, from the way we buy things (shopping malls) to how we eat (it fueled the influx of diverse and ethnic restaurants). It's here to stay for a while. It'll eventually develop into something else, as Modernism developed into Post-Modernism. The Church shouldn't change, however, we do need to adapt the message to fit the audience. Communicating and evangelizing to a Modernist is completely different than communicating and evangelizing to a Post-Modernist, because they speak different languages.

[quote name='Socrates' date='Dec 1 2005, 09:47 PM']The Church has indeed adressed such issues by speaking out against relativism proclaiming the reality of objective truth, and of the objective reality of Christ's incarnation, death and Resurrection.

To "communicate effectively" with "post-modernism," Catholics need to start boldly rejecting moral and religious relativism. and affirming the objective reality of the Faith.
(Unless "Post-modern" is redefined to mean reclaiming the world for Christ's truth.)
[right][snapback]807684[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Ah, but if you understood the Modernist understanding of objectivity, then you would be just as disgusted by it as relativity. A more appropriate term would be "universal" or "God-spoken" Truth. Modernism was incredibly harmful to the Church. Good modernism created the Theological Liberal. Anyone who claims modernity and is not a liberal is a hipocryte or a fool.

[quote name='Socrates' date='Dec 1 2005, 09:47 PM']The Church must never conform itself to the world for the purpose of "dialogue" or "communication."  Such was the disaster of Modernism with in the Church.
Catholics should no more be "post-modernists" than they should be Modernists.
(Unless "Post-modern" is redefined to mean reclaiming the world for Christ's truth.)
[right][snapback]807684[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I agree. I am not talking about changing the nature of the church or what it believes, just how it is communicated.

[N/A Gone]

[beatty07]

I think the really nice thing about postmodernism is that it seems to proceed directly from almost everybody's disillusionment with "enlightenment" modernism. We can definitely use that!

The trick is to insist on proper phrasing - post-modernism must be understood as having definite intellectual content, and be situated in a definite historical context. Its very name suggests that context.

Already, many in the academy do indeed use Socrates' definition as the hallmark of postmodernism, and they're thrilled about it. If they are allowed to fix the terms in that way, then we'll have missed an opportunity.

I guess I'm sorta partial to anything that might help "stick it" to Voltaire et al.

[Socrates]

[quote name='The Joey-O' date='Dec 2 2005, 04:27 AM']I agree.
I'm sorry, but your understanding is incorrect and mildly offensive. While Post-Modernism is popular among "Lefty lit-crit types", it is by no means under there subjection. Post-Modernism is found in all aspects of society and culture since the 1960s, not the 80s and 90s.
That is an aspect of Post-Modernism, sort of the dark side of it. Post-Modernism also is characterized by an increased importance on relationships, communication, history, the arts, ecclectic diversity and community. It's not all positive, as you pointed out.
Um...no. Post-Modernism is evident in every aspect of our culture, from the way we buy things (shopping malls) to how we eat (it fueled the influx of diverse and ethnic restaurants). It's here to stay for a while. It'll eventually develop into something else, as Modernism developed into Post-Modernism. The Church shouldn't change, however, we do need to adapt the message to fit the audience. Communicating and evangelizing to a Modernist is completely different than communicating and evangelizing to a Post-Modernist, because they speak different languages.
Ah, but if you understood the Modernist understanding of objectivity, then you would be just as disgusted by it as relativity. A more appropriate term would be "universal" or "God-spoken" Truth. Modernism was incredibly harmful to the Church. Good modernism created the Theological Liberal. Anyone who claims modernity and is not a liberal is a hipocryte or a fool.
I agree. I am not talking about changing the nature of the church or what it believes, just how it is communicated.
[right][snapback]808185[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Again, you need to give some kind of meaningful definition of "Post-modern" for this discussion to have any meaning.

I've given a shot at defining "post-modernism," based on how this term is usually used. (Personally, it seems to me more of an academic "buzzword" that has trickled into common speech, rather than a truly meaningful and coherent term.) Post-modernism is related to the literary theory of deconstructionism, and seems in general to refer to a kind of general relativism, and denial of absolute truth and meaning.

You seem to have another, broader definition of "post-modern."
[quote]Post-Modernism also is characterized by an increased importance on relationships, communication, history, the arts, ecclectic diversity and community[/quote]
Not to sound insulting, but this is so vague and nebulous as to be essentially meaningless. (And not even very accurate - Are history and the arts really more important now than in the past? It actually seems that, in this country at least, knowledge of history among the general population has plummeted to abysmal levels since the '60s. )
And how exactly are "relationships, communication, and community" now radically more important than in the past? This sounds to me like simply throwing out more fashionable "buzzwords."

[quote]Post-Modernism is evident in every aspect of our culture, from the way we buy things (shopping malls) to how we eat (it fueled the influx of diverse and ethnic restaurants)[/quote]
It seems that you are using "post-modern" here merely to mean the current, up-to-date trends. This used to be the general definition of "modern."
You really haven't explained how shopping at malls and eating more ethnic food requires an entire new way of language and thinking.

And because I am against post-modern relativism does not make me a "modernist."
Again, we need to be careful with words. Theologically, "modernist" refers to a particular heresy, and does not have exactly the same meaning as the general, secular, meaning of the word.

What you need to do here is define:

A) What is Modernism?

B) What is Post-modernism and how is it different from modernism?

C) What aspects of post-modernism do you think the Church needs to better address?

D) In what ways do you think "post-modernism" can benefit the Church?

[Socrates]

[quote name='beatty07' date='Dec 2 2005, 08:46 AM']I think the really nice thing about postmodernism is that it seems to proceed directly from almost everybody's disillusionment with "enlightenment" modernism.  We can definitely use that!

The trick is to insist on proper phrasing - post-modernism must be understood as having definite intellectual content, and be situated in a definite historical context.  Its very name suggests that context.

Already, many in the academy do indeed use Socrates' definition as the hallmark of postmodernism, and they're thrilled about it.  If they are allowed to fix the terms in that way, then we'll have missed an opportunity.

I guess I'm sorta partial to anything that might help "stick it" to Voltaire et al.
[right][snapback]808288[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
The problem is that rather than being a postive reaction to the errors of modernism, "post-modernism" simply makes worse errors.

"Enlightment" modernism regarded religious faith as contrary to "reason."

"Post-modernism" ultimately rejects both faith and reason, in favor of an empty relativism.

The true Catholic regards Faith and reason as not opposing one another, but supporting one another.

Example:

Orthodox Catholic: "I beleive in One God . . . and in Jesus Christ His only Son, Our Lord, who was born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, suffered, died, and was buried. On the third day, He rose again, and ascended into heaven . . ." (He beleives all this is literally true)

Modernist: "As enlightened, modern, scientific men, we know that it is absurd to believe such unreasonable superstitions as that Mary was really a Virgin, or that Christ actually, physically rose from the dead. These were merely poetic expressions by the primitive Church, of man's religious yearnings for the divine . . ." [[i]insert LittleLes talk here[/i]]

Post-modernist: "Both the Orthodox Catholic narrative and the Modernist narrative are but two of many narratives, all of which are equally valid, and none of which can have any exclusive claim to 'absolute truth.'" [[i]insert more meaningless academia-babble here[/i]]

[The Joey-O]

Socrates, I was opening this up to a forum so we could discuss:

A) What is Modernism?

B) What is Post-modernism and how is it different from modernism?

C) What aspects of post-modernism do you think the Church needs to better address?

D) In what ways do you think "post-modernism" can benefit the Church?

I do not have all the answers. I didn't want to lay out a huge statement of facts and reasons and then tell everybody to go do it. I wanted to generate discussion. I knew that there'd be ignorant and negative people. In the absense of anyone else stepping up. (I was guessing this'd be a popular topic...it really isn't, though.) I'll provide a few definitions and things to develop things from there.

[The Joey-O]

It is difficult to give an adequate definition of Postmodernity, since it is so young and still largely in development. However, I can give you traits and some pros and cons.

[quote]Within philosophy and critical theory the use of the term "post-modernity" tends to cluster around two bodies of opinion. One argues that the modern project is completed, and that post-structuralism, specifically with anti-foundationalist ideas, must be incorporated into, or supplant, modern notions of criticism. For this group the work of Lyotard, Baudrillard, Foucault and Jameson represents a definitive reply to the modern project. In general the belief in this range of opinion is that post-modernity, as a condition, precedes acceptance of postmodernism. In this context it is a neutral to positive term, neutral in that it is a state of affairs, but positive in that it is generally presented as dispensing with restricting assumptions or structures of the previous period.[/quote]

Important and useful points within Postmodernity include: 1) A rejection and a reformulation of metanarrative and metaphysic after the enlightenment are. 2) While it usually takes the form of rejecting universality, it is open to (because it is very new and very flexible) the continued existence of universality.

[quote]Jameson highlights a number of phenomena which he views as distinguishing postmodernism from modernism. The first is "a new kind of superficiality" or "depthlessness", in which models which once explained people and things in terms of an "inside" and an "outside" (such as hermeneutics, the dialectic, Freudian repression, the existentialist distinction between authenticity and inauthenticity, and the semiotic distinction of signifier and signified) have been rejected. Second is a rejection of the modernist "Utopian gesture", evident in Van Gogh, of the transformation through art of misery into beauty, whereas in postmodernism the object world has undergone a "fundamental mutation", has "now become a set of texts or simulacra" (Jameson 1993:38).  Whereas modernist art sought to redeem and sacralize the world, to give life to world, (we might say, following Graff, to give the world back the enchantment that science and the decline of religion had taken away from it), postmodernist art bestows upon the world a "deathly quality… whose glacéd X-ray elegance mortifies the reified eye of the viewer in a way that would seem to have nothing to do with death or the death obsession or the death anxiety on the level of content".[/quote]

Useful: The end of erroneous and harmful models of knowledge and metaphysic.
Harmful: Postmodernism is usually charecterized by an overwhelming sense of "we failed, who cares".

[quote]Thirdly, Jameson identifies a feature of the postmodern age as the "waning of affect". He notes that not all emotion has disappeared from the postmodernist age, but that it lacks a particular kind of emotion such as that found in "Rimbaud's magical flowers 'that look back at you'". He notes that "pastiche eclipses parody", as "the increasing unavailability of the personal style" leads to pastiche becoming a universal practice.

Jameson argues that distance "has been abolished in the new space of postmodernism. We are submerged in its henceforth filled and suffused volumes to the point where our now postmodern bodies are bereft of spatial co-ordinates". This "new global space" constitutes postmodernism's "moment of truth". The various other features of the postmodern which he identifies "can all now be seen as themselves partial (yet constitutive) aspects of the same general spatial object"

To Jameson, the postmodern era has seen a change in the social function of culture. He identifies culture in the modern age as having a property of "semi-autonomy", its "existence… above the practical world of the existent". But in the postmodern age, culture has been deprived of the autonomous status it once possessed. Rather, the cultural has expanded, to consume the entire social realm, such that it all becomes cultural.

In the Postmodern age, "critical distance" has become outmoded. This is the assumption that culture can be positioned outside "the massive Being of capital", upon which left-wing theories of cultural politics are dependent. Jameson argues that "the prodigious new expansion of multinational capital ends up penetrating and colonizing those very pre-capitalist enclaves (Nature and the Unconscious) which offered extraterritorial and Archimedean footholds for critical effectivity".[/quote]

Useful: The acknowledgement of community and inter-tribal relations. No longer is the enlightened individual the greatest virtuous man. Rather, the strong community.
Harmful: The whole view of human capital. It's good to reject socialism, in my opinion, but economic language when applied to human relation and understanding almost always leads to a fascism.

[quote]In a sociological context postmodernity can be said to focus on the conditions of life which became increasingly prevalent in the late 20th century in the most industrialized nations. These include the ubiquity of mass media and mass production, the unification into national economies of all aspects of production, the rise of global economic arrangements, and shift from manufacturing to service economies. Variously described as consumerism or, in a Marxian frame work as late capitalism: namely a context where manufacturing, distribution and dissemination have become exceptionally inexpensive, but social connection and community have become more expensive.

The sociological view of postmodernity as a condition ascribes it to more rapid transportation, wider communication and the ability to abandon standardization of mass production, leading to a system which values a wider range of capital than previously, and allows value to be stored in a greater variety of forms. David Harvey argues that the condition of post-modernity is the escape from "Fordism", a term coined in reference to Brave New World by Aldous Huxley.

Artifacts of postmodernity include the dominance of television and popular culture, the wide accessibility of information and mass and telecommunications. Postmodernity also exhibits a greater resistance to making sacrifices in the name of progress, including such features as environmentalism and the growing importance of the anti-war movement. Postmodernity in the industrialised core is marked by increasing focus on civil rights and equal opportunity, as seen by such movements as feminism and multi-culturalism, as well as the backlash against these movements.

Theorists such as Michel Maffesoli believe that post-modernity is corroding the circumstances that provide for its subsistence and this will eventually result in a decline of individualism and the birth of a new neo-Tribal era.[/quote]

My understanding of Postmodernism largely comes from a sociological standpoint.

Useful: Resistance to sacrifices in the name of "progress". A rejection of the "bottom line" as superior and valuing social connections and communty. An increase in the value of quality over quantity. Freedom of information.

Harmful: It's all mostly power centered. You value community for the strength it adds to you. You value quality, because it can give you an edge over quantity. You value information, because the one with the most is the most powerful, etc.

There is so much more to post-modernity, but I will stop here for now. I just wanted to give an introduction.

[Socrates]

Interesting. I hope I didn't come off as "ignorant and negative" - I am not an expert on this topic and was writing about what I did understandconcerning this movement.
This does give a somewhat better idea of what this is, though I must admit, much of it does go over my head.

However, the concept still seems a bit vague.
Some of it seems to describe certain philosophical and intellectual movements. Other parts seem to simply describe recent social-cultural trends.
(And to be frank, much of the article sounds like silly, pretentious academia-speak and mumbo-jumbo)

Probably the first step would involve sorting out what is legit and meaningful from what is not.

(and you might want to cite the article you are quoting.)

Thanks for the info.

Edited December 3, 2005 by Socrates

[track2004]

Okay so these aren't going to be the best definitions, but whatever.

Modernism is a world view that everything is fragmented, all of our history, and our language, and our human subjectivity. It basically tries to say that the world is meaningless. To combat the meaninglessness it uses art. The Modernest art is used to bring unity and meaning to life.

Modernism is weird to me, though the art is rather interesting.

Postmodernism asserts, like Modernsism, that the world really doesnt have a meaning. It is not really as bleak as that, it asserts that everything is the same even if its different. I have a hard time discribing it without hand motions.... Postmodernism, therefore, both celebrates and ignores diversity. It all gets very complicated after you say everything is the same even if its different. But unlike the Modernists, they do not think that art, or anything for that matter, can help.

But living outside the bianaries that culture tries to force on us is an interesting idea. I always found Postmodernism really intriguing. I just liked the unity/chaos of it. I like that every atom in my body has been forged in the sun.

So ya. The Church can't like Postmodernism because it denies a Truth (because everything is the same, even evil).

[toledo_jesus]

I understand post-modernism in a political sense to be the sort of thing that European countries are doing. It entails a degree of openness completely out of step with the traditional modernist thinking. The concept of state sovereignty has been pretty much abandoned. There is a certain amount of mutual meddling involved in national affairs. Say, France can play around with Germany's economy and vice versa. This extends even into the military arena.
the USA is not a post-modern country. Neither is it modern. We're a weird country. We have elements of post-modernism, but we are still too powerful to embrace it totally.

I wrote a bad paper on this, but I am not sure it would help the discussion.

Tell you what, imagine the Lutherans able to meddle in Catholic affairs. Ecumenism is post-modernism.

I'm not sure if the concept will directly apply...

[beatty07]

Thanks for ratcheting up the discussion, Joey-O. The postings so far go a long way toward proving Socrates' assertion that our definitions of postmodernism are vague and nebulous.

This, I think, is precisely the point.

Postmodernism is new. It is in very early stages of development. So it would be premature and counterproductive to insist on a precise definition. Postmodernism is a way of describing an emerging paradigm. The only certain fact is contained in its name: it is defined by posteriority to modernism.

It's not a huge and looming fact that is pressing down upon us from outside...rather, it's something that we are engaged in doing. "We" meaning the people who make up society. That's why I consider it an opportunity. Postmodernism will be what we make it, and it is vital that Christian orthodoxy not sit on the sidelines.

Think, in broad terms, about the Church's reaction to modernism. On official levels, there was extremely little engagement. There was almost no concept of "what is good here that we can appropriate and transform?" It was instead, absolute rejection and refusal to discuss. "Modernism is bad, everything will stay exactly as it is, and that is that." Now this is obviously a simplification, and I'm not saying that the Holy See actually thought this. I am saying that this is what the world heard.

Christians can't just sit on the sidelines and try to referee the development of postmodernism, because we will be ignored. We have to get in the game. In my opinion, the most productive way to start is to loudly affirm what can be affirmed. Here are some affirmations we can make:

1) The "enlightenment" idolization of scientific inquiry leaves man empty and utterly unsatisfied. Science is among the highest human endeavors, but it can't provide meaning and man demands meaning.

2) A materialist "logos" fails to explain anything. More precisely, it fails to explain Everything.

3) Relationship is the most fundamental thing. You can trace existence from galactic clusters all the way down to the top quark. But if you keep right on tracing even beyond the limits of material existence, to the very core and essence of Being Itself, you will find a relationship. It's called the Trinity.

4) The basis of reality is not extended matter that minds can know. The basis of reality is Mind. (ascribing 'Mind' to God is, of course, quite analogical, like everything else we ascribe to God. But I think it's okay.)

Each of these affirmations has at least one companion danger. For example, regarding #4, many postmodern thinkers claim their own mind as the basis of reality. This is why I think we must engage the discussion. "Hey, you're right, we need mind behind everything. But isn't a universe based on YOUR mind a pretty pathetic universe?" And so on.