Centered in a Postmodern World

May 1, 2002

Hello everyone,

Many of you recall that we have previously defined postmodernism. Within the same week, Darrell to sent me a link to Deconstruction. We will comment on that piece in a moment, but definitions are in order for the moment. We all know what it means to be constructive, and just as the name implies, deconstructivism attempts to take apart what has previously been accepted and acknowledged as being true. In this way, it is hoped that something can be rebuilt, that the pieces can be reassembled in a meaningful way. One paragraph from the entry “Anthropology” in the Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia states:

Postmodernism describes the philosophy of examining the nature of meaning and knowing, although academics in many fields have debated over its precise definition. Postmodernists question the validity of the faith in science and rationalism that originated during the Enlightenment and that became associated with the philosophy known as modernism. They also question whether anthropology is, or should be, a science. Because all knowledge is necessarily shaped by culture, they argue, anthropologists cannot be objective in their research.

Just as the last sentence in the excerpt above states “Because all knowledge is necessarily shaped by culture, they argue, anthropologists cannot be objective in their research,” is in line with the (above mentioned) article on logocentrism and its approach to deconstructivism. It said that a problem with deconstructivism is that in order to effectively deconstruct something, it requires some “center,” some point of reference. It is impossible to tear down a philosophy or idea without having another guiding philosophy or preconceived idea. How can you search for an unbiased and independent meaning, when meaning is itself dependent on the meaning we place on meaning for the meaning? You could look at it very much like sawing the tree limb off you are sitting on: you have to be sitting on the limb in the first place in order to be able to saw off the limb on which you are sitting. So too, in the process of deconstructing the very foundation or fabric of society, one is a product of the very society one hopes to disassemble and therefore necessary affected and impacted by it.

Or consider the hermit who lives in the hills, fiercely proud of his own independence. It is true that he lives alone and “has no need for anyone else,” yet who taught him—directly or indirectly—how to hunt, fish, build his cabin and fend for himself? Who crafted his ax, his fishing pole, and his rifle? Who offered him the breast he suckled, who taught him to tie his shoes, who cleaned his diapers and provided the food that was set before him when he was but a “wee lad”? In sum, his independence was built on the very foundation from which he now feels smugly independent.

Another facet of postmodernism is that of relativity. The Encarta® entry “Culture” states:

Postmodern anthropologists suggest that all people construct culture through an ongoing process that resembles the writing, reading, and interpretation of a text. From this view, people continually create and debate with each other about the meaning of all aspects of culture, such as words, rituals, and concepts. People in the United States, for instance, have long debated over cultural issues such as what constitutes a family, what women’s and men’s roles in society should be, and what functions the federal government should perform. Many anthropologists now study and write about these kinds of questions, even in their own societies.

You can soon see how desperation can set in, because what is truth? The very basis with which you seek to deconstruct a culture to find the truth is itself dependent on the culture that is always redefining itself.

Deconstructivist philosophy has carried over into the fine arts as well, not the least of which architecture. One such striking example is the work of American architect Frank Gehry. Based around the French theorists who spoke of deconstructivism philosophy, Gehry and others sought to dismantle the traditional elements of architecture and rebuild them in new and novel ways. The problem, of course, was that they had a tendency at first to defy the laws of physics with their ideas, and eventually had to revert to French computer software developed for the manufacturing of aircraft to work around these operational limitations. In this way, they could calculate the structural integrity, the weight of the materials, their cost, and troubleshoot and work around other limitations and unexpected obstacles as they arose. With the development of the Guggenheim Museum Bilbao in the Basque city of Bilbao, Spain, in October 1997 (pictured below), Gehry was able to acquire rare titanium sheets from the former USSR, who sold this costly metal for direly needed funding. These lightweight sheets cause the museum to shimmer in the sun, attracting visitors from the four corners of the globe.

The Guggenheim Museum Bilbao. According to the Microsoft^® Encarta^® Encyclopedia: “The Guggenheim Museum Bilbao opened in the Basque city of Bilbao, Spain, in October 1997. Located on the city’s waterfront, the modern art museum offers a dramatic contrast to Bilbao’s industrial setting.”

(Photo © Erik Samper/Liaison Agency)

It is interesting that even Gehry had to observe the laws of physics—the physical foundation of the universe—in order to implement his novel ideas. No matter how much questioning, tearing down, and taking apart we may do, we can never get away from the Center of it all. The problem is that many people try to do this same thing with the Christian faith. All of this, of course, points back to the interdependency of all things, points back to the realization that something has always had to be the center of it all. This is where the article Darrell sent me comes into play:

. . . [French philosopher and critic Jacques] Derrida challenges the metaphysical premises that shape Western science and philosophy. Derrida argues that the “structure” determining these discourses (including “structuralist” theory itself) always presupposes a “centre” that ensures a point of origin, meaning, being, or presence. What troubles Derrida is that the centre determines a given system’s structure but is itself strangely above or transcendent of such structural analysis or scrutiny. According to Derrida, “the centre, which is by definition unique, constituted that very thing within a structure which while governing the structure, escapes structurality” (trans. Bass, Modern Literary Theory: A Reader 150). . . . Derrida foregrounds the following paradox: any attempt to interrogate and destroy the center invariably causes the production of another center. . . . (Deconstruction)

Is it any less logical to assume God as that center? There is always a center, it is just a question of what that center is going to be.

Kathleen Norris writes in Amazing Grace (in regard to an Orthodox theologian who had “hit a nerve”): “He had directly challenged the notion of Christian faith as a bona fide intellectual endeavor. (It is an incarnational one, and there is a big difference; the flesh consists of not head alone but heart as well.)” Yes indeed. When we try to treat Christianity as another philosophy, another intellectual adherence to a certain set of values, we forget that we cannot get away from the Center, anymore than we can get away from our own unCentered center, that is, from the needy human heart. We will forever be human beings who go deeper than intellectual analysis, and this glaring hunger is universal. We are humans after all, and we can’t get away from that “God-shaped” center for very long. Even an atheist’s philosophies are based around the same Center—if from a different angle—as are the agnostics. It is all in answer to the question of God, and what to do with the universal recognition of this apparent Center that will not leave. Intuitively we all know there must be something more, and if we deny it, we must attempt to come up with some kind of rational explanation as to why, for some new center demands its place, even if we are not consciously aware of what that center is. Do you realize that there are no original philosophies against the idea of God, merely ones that call His basic goodness, sovereignty, or other attributes into question? Denying this Center hinges from the same Central pivot point (for to deny this Center uses this same Center as its frame of reference); it would seem we are stuck with an ultimate irony of a Center that just won’t go away.

Very well. We have rambled long enough; our article today reconsiders the role of evangelicalism in light of this cultural shift. (Note: The adjoining article has been removed at the request of its author, Bob Hostetler, as per copyright agreement. However, the NavPress website has an official copy: see Who Changed the Cultural Channel? for the “rest of the story.”)

God bless,
Eric

Table of Contents | Home | About | Newsletter | Forum | Misc. | Contact | Search | Links | Random Page

.:| get up to date: newsletter :. 1&1 .: discussion forum: participate |:.

http://www.mrrena.com/2002/channel.shtml