World War 1, it is estimated, resulted in 40 million casualties with at least 20 million dead. The total world population was about 1.7 billion in 1914 of which the population of Europe was 25 percent or around 425 million Even if conservative casualty figures are considered, they indicate a huge proportion of casualties per capita of the then population. It certainly was the mother of all wars until it ended in 1918.
One can imagine the trauma it must have unleashed and, when things simmered down it must have taken a number of years for the shock to be absorbed even to some degree.
As if this wasn’t enough cause for awe and anxiety, within just 21 years from the end of WW1, in 1939, WW2 armed with more sophisticated weapons of annihilation wreaked havoc, this time engulfing more countries than ever and, killing and maiming far more people. It is estimated over 60 million people were killed, about 3% of the 1940 world population (est. 2.3 billion).
Previous to these two colossal upheavals, there were always battles and conflicts between warring factions, but never was the breadth of destruction so jarring. For the first time, after WW2, man stood facing the reality of being wiped out from the surface of the earth.
The main impact of these wars was bound to have an indelible effect on the very psyche of the people during the war and post war, and on the western philosophical thought. Mankind had collectively come face to face with the fragility of its existence and its mortality.
Confronted by unaccountable trauma, it was inevitable that there was a deep reflection about the very meaning of life and its absurdity, which created an ethos of despair and anxiety in post war society.
This mindset was in stark contrast to the period during the Age of Enlightenment –an epoch marked by euphoric optimism where man felt reason could conquer everything. On the other hand, the ethos of postwar psyche had suddenly encountered a dark cloud which had descended on mankind. The feeling of immense helplessness of a disproportionate magnitude had conquered the mind and spirit of the postwar population.
The logical consequence was a unique sense of despair which crept into the philosophical thought of that time–a philosophy suddenly overly conscious of absurdity and desperation. This phenomenon was the logical progression of the historical events. Nihilism and absurdity of life had suddenly jumped to the forefront.
Mind you, nihilism and absurdity of life was not founded in that time but had existed from the very time of the emergence of a thinking man. There is evidence, man was conscious of the ephemeral quality of life from the very beginning of human civilization, as can be discovered in earlier religions, philosophies and social institutions, but it certainly was not an obsession. It was the task of a select few to highlight the fleeting nature of life. The bards or travelling poets enunciated the vagaries of life, and though we relate the concept of a bard with medieval British and Gaelic culture, their counterparts were present in every culture and civilization of old times. The presence of wise ‘God men’, as far back as Mohenjodaro and Harappa in the Indus Valley may be observed with their religious ritual practices.
Religion and belief were directly related to man’s mortality, in the earliest of civilizations, but that was very different than the feeling of a new found anxiety unleashed by the World Wars, and especially WW2, with weapons capable of wiping out human life from the world.
This profound anxiety and apprehension about the human condition of the post war era was unique. It truly was defined by the term angst. In fact, the very origin of the word angst is from 1920’s and from Germany, a country always the central player in both of the World Wars. The ethos of the post war era was riddled with a novel breed of anxiety in the form of angst and was a departure from the 16th century connotation of anxiété, or Latin anxietas.
Scholars, intellectuals and Philosophers are the best mouthpieces for the revelation of the ethos of a society and a discourse on the thinking of their time. They take the zeitgeist or the mood of the time and create a picture of their times. It is no accident then that we find the origins of the philosophy of existentialism with its central theme of angst and absurdity as a post WW 2 occurrence.
Post WW2 thinkers, especially Albert Camus and Jean Paul Sartre and even the less known scholars of that time wrote from a similar platform. They were all concerned with the problem of human existence in the face of absurdity of life which lead to a sense of despair and nihilism.
So how is man to put meaning to his existence? Absurdity spawns feelings of nihilism and Camus is forced to address the problem of suicide and death. He asks, “Does the Absurd dictate death?”
He emphasizes the point that “There is only one really serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide. Deciding whether or not life is worth living is to answer the fundamental question in philosophy. All other questions follow from that.” So the dilemma then is… “Is life worth living?” And if not, why not end life? After all, there is no meaning to life in any event.
Camus accepted the Absurdity of life as a reality not even worth questioning because of its axiomatic nature. As he put it, “This world in itself is not reasonable, that is all that can be said,” and one has to resign to the fact that “impossibility of knowledge is established.” So Camus considers reasoning as futile, and consequently embracing absolute truths is pointless, and man has to live in “revolt” and rebellion and discover his own meaning of his existence subjectively– a thought very contrary to that advocated by philosophers driven by the idea of reason as a pivotal point in their works, as was evident in writings of Voltaire, Hume, Kant, Montesquieu, Rousseau Diderot, Beccaria, Adam Smith, and others, in the age defined as the Age of Enlightenment.
Sartre, too, acknowledges absurdity as a central issue. However, he views it as an ontological component of our existence. Unlike Camus he feels, even though man is frustrated by absurdity this does not have to “restrict our understanding.” He differs in his treatment of absurdity from Camus because he considers absurdity to be a component of existence, while for Camus absurdity is a key part in our interaction with the world.
Camus it is reported denied with acerbity the validity of the label of existentialism attached to his writings. Perhaps rightly so, as existentialism is a philosophy with various themes and threads of thoughts comprising writers of different stripes. But existentialism best defined its central obsession with Absurdity and Camus was no exception in this respect, same as the other existentialists such as Sartre, Jasper, and Shestov, of the many who may be considered to be existentialists.
It may be then surmised that the thinking inherent in the philosophy of existentialism and its domination of thought of a certain historical period had to do with the new found angst unleashed by a reinforcement of the precarious nature of human life in relation to man’s power to destroy mankind itself. Existentialism, it may be said was a philosophy, arising out of the ashes of upheaval unleashed on man by irrational forces capable of mass destruction. It truly represented the ethos of a certain period marked by historical events same as the enlightenment represented an ethos of a certain time when man had embraced science, logic and empiricism, glorifying it to the limit.
In stark contrast the ideology behind postmodernism is very different and unique.
We are told we live now in a postmodern society. If postmodern means current, it could be considered appropriate, but if the ideology of postmodernism is said to define postmodern times then this becomes a contentious issue.
The period further down the road, after despair of World Wars had abated somewhat, morphed into an era of postmodernism. It carries a heavy load of ideas put forth by existentialists. In addition, it is a potpourri of many other notable thinkers and philosophers of the past and is weaved together into a very attractive and credible philosophy.
But certainly the philosophical elements in postmodernism are not necessarily in response to our times. It does not reflect the ethos of the time we live in any more than it does of any previous time in history. To that extent, it is more an ideology superimposed on the present times. It may be classified as an attractive philosophy, and even a fashionable philosophy, constructed from abstract principles. It was the brainchild of the intelligentsia and the academia, contrived for a select scholastic audience; it had esoteric overtones, and was welcomed by the upper echelon of an educated society. Postmodernism was more a nuanced work, an abstract examination of philosophical ramblings which provided great consumptive fodder to those pursuing studies at universities, and later holding key positions mainly because of their educational credentials.
Postmodernism had some eminent scholars behind the formation of ideas dealing with “skepticism, subjectivism, or relativism, a general suspicion of reason and an acute sensitivity to the role of ideology in asserting and maintaining political and economic power.”
Postmodernism got its momentum through the work of intellectual minds such as Derrida and Foucault, who to a great extent helped formulate key ideas in the philosophy of postmodernism. Other notable names in the French tradition of postmodernism were Jean Francois Lacan and Jean Baudrillard.
While there are many other famous thinkers who have contributed to the development of postmodernism, the contribution of Quine should not go without mention. He has been dubbed by some as being the “Father of postmodernism.” Willard van Orman Quine, though a very influential philosopher as any student of philosophy would concur, is not as recognized for the crucial part of the postmodern construct of ideas.
In addition, there is an extensive contribution of the post structuralists in the makeup of postmodernism. And it has to be acknowledged, the cogent and thought provoking content in this thought is not only attractive but replete with ideas not easily refutable.
Postmodernism from its inception has grown into a cottage industry of new dimensions of thinking and has spawned ideas that have been a takeoff on its core philosophy. As postmodernism developed, it moved in different directions and its core ideas were used in other disciplines, especially in humanities. It spawned newer sub disciplines, such as semiotics and feminist studies and public discourse and cultural studies, with a new twist.
The artisans who designed postmodern theories leaned heavily on past philosophy, ideas, and intellectuals. One finds a little bit of Nietzsche, parts of Karl Marx, contributions of existential thought, and of course, wholesale contribution of poststructuralists. But above all, its raison d’être appears to come from a leitmotif which appears as an urge to mount an assault on ideas of The Enlightenment age and its emphasis on reason.
Not only did postmodernism bring forth new disciplines of study, as an academic rich thought process, it influenced many conventional areas of specialties. Its influence may be discovered from Literature, Arts, to even Technology.
It had some die hard adherents in the field of Architecture, who expressed the ideas of postmodernism in their work. An example would be the Pritzker Prize recipient and popular modern architect, Robert Venturi, who recently passed away at age 93 on September 18, 2018. He in tandem with his wife Denise Susan Brown were instrumental in reflecting postmodern ideology in their designs.
The very famous artist Robert Rauschenberg (1925-2008) who was awarded the National Medal of Arts in 1993 and the Leonardo Da Vinci World Award of Arts in 1995, ran with the ideas of modernism in his artistic pursuit, in areas of painting and sculpture.
Postmodernism borrows heavily from the existential thought. It rejects objectivity and emphasizes the element of subjectivity. It takes the element of chaos in society from the existentialists and further magnifies it by “considering any order to be only provisional and varying from person to person.” It tacitly promotes nihilism by postulating the belief that there is no truth per se to be believed in, and anything is both right and wrong depending on whose perspective we are considering.
Existentialism on the other hand did try to offer a way out of the problem of not believing in absolute truth, by trying to resurrect subjectivity as the driving force and a salvation for society. In a world where objective truth was not meaningful, man was supposed to find his own values. The task then lay on individuals to find their subjective value in society and thereby create meaning for themselves. This very thought was a positive one, challenging men to live with passion and not as bystanders watching life go by, but rather jumping into the thick of things and defining their existence by this act.
The postmodernists, on the other hand, are far more abstract in their array of thoughts that are designed more as an indictment of past and present social systems, where chaos itself becomes its own framework of action by default and, moves beyond our control when social interaction is accepted as a series of “metanarratives”, or simply stories of more stories. The tyranny of language and the motives of those in power in any society, are responsible for ‘truths” which are not necessarily truths. This incites the dilemma of not knowing what fact is and what is fiction.
Post-modernist theories begin with the assumption that language is too flimsy a vehicle for relating objective truths about the world itself. And since meaning is created by social groups and its languages, the truth becomes a relativist entity. The very nature of language is such that it molds our thinking and because it is in essence a cultural product, meaning of the language itself becomes a social construct.
It cannot be denied that postmodern philosophy with a broad spectrum of varied ideas challenges us to think differently and above all skeptically. But it is no more than the trophy of the elitist groups and is especially an invention of academia in the incubators far removed from the world of the common man, going about their daily business of life. It is a philosophy with a tenuous connection to the person on the street. There is no element of any grassroots participation in it.
When we trace back in history, we find the overall ethos and philosophy of thought of different periods originating out of different historic events. Essentially then, philosophy inevitably followed history; it was a logical and reasonable extension of historical facts. The case with postmodernism is very different in that it is not an offshoot of any particular historical factors in any strict sense but, an appealing string of well-crafted ideas.
Noam Chomsky categorizes the contribution to postmodernism of scholars as being an array of simple concepts which may be described in “Meta syllable” form, and he feels these concepts have been complicated and obfuscated simply to look intellectually impressive.
The point though is: some simple concepts whether they are from the field of humanities or sciences do need complex explanations. Consider for a moment some of the concepts presented, for instance, by Stephen Hawking in his book: A Brief History of Time. He tried to explain basic concepts like space and time, building blocks of the universe we live in and the key forces like gravity that describe the functioning of the universe. Big Bang and black holes were some other concepts which though simple needed complex explanation. The book was meant for the lay person to get acquainted with the universe we live in, and yet it was too complex for the reader to understand, with the consequence that numerous other books subsequently were published to try and make the concepts even simpler and yet they remained confusing and complex. Just the equation E=mc2 though explained simply was beyond the comprehension of many. It is the same with postmodernist concepts—though apparently simple they need extensive explanations.
But Chomsky’s criticism of postmodernism is not completely invalid, either. It is a legitimate criticism if levelled against opportunist university educated population which has hijacked the original ideas and the nuanced contribution of scholars in the construct of postmodernism. These opportunist, educated but pseudo scholars, have interpreted and morphed a complex philosophy to suit their purpose. But more important, they have tried to turn the postmodern ideology into a manifesto of radicalism against society and against ills of society perceived by them based on their personal biases. This in no way was the intention of pioneers of postmodernism, when they painstakingly worked on concepts later categorized as post-modernist.
The whole postmodern philosophy may be considered to be an intellectual construct which was deliberately modified to ridiculous limits to be used as a notorious tool, convenient for a group of people with biased views and agendas.
The insistence of certain group’s or segments of self-serving communities to represent postmodern ideas in concrete form, as a revolt or a birth of some new order, has resonated with some minority groups such as, for instance, large numbers of LGBT and disgruntled and dissatisfied women, hell-bent on pushing their agenda down the throats of the silent majority. The modus operandi is the dumbing down of abstract ideas into ill-thought of plans of action suited to justify shocking behavior, contrary to what is recognized as acceptable by the majority.
There is an attempt to rely on spurious commentary and interpretation, or misrepresentation of ideas drawn from the classical studies of what evolved into postmodern ideology; it is an attempt to legitimize specious ideas and behavior as acceptable and proper.
However, postmodernism while it draws attention to certain key truths within our society does not lend itself as a practical work book for any movement capable of drawing the masses to any radical course of action. Unfortunately, the pseudo intellectuals, albeit formally educated people, are casting intellectual integrity aside and employing postmodern ideas as a call to action. The motivation is to put everyone on the defensive in the evaluation of certain groups or the famous ‘other”.
There are many present day charlatans who are guilty of using postmodernism as an axiomatic truth to be melded into social movements. The one that comes readily to mind is the contemporary feminist movement–the METOO movement. This has done injustice to majority of women and is a hijacking of the discourse of what feminism is, should be, or ought to be. It is a welcome course of events for those leaning toward ultra-feminist doctrines attempting to gain social power. It has nothing to do with the majority of women and their concerns and related issues.
And this is where Chomsky’s verdict on postmodern philosophy as simply an exercise for gaining power fits in. It fits like a glove the misdirected feminism, as in the #Me Too– a movement deeply complicit in an attempt by some to wield more power on the institutions of society and the very political decision making process.
Upon reading the works of the third wave feminists like Judith Butler, Mary Joe Frug and Luce Irigaray, one can detect the liberty these authors have taken in relating ideas of Foucault, Lacan and Marx to suit their purpose. This form of interpretation of postmodernism is too farfetched and it hardly resonates with the majority of the population. In fact, the cause célèbre #METOO movement, which has been pushed by the mostly urban, formally educated women, enlightened by the postmodernist ideology, is just a frenzied expression of a marginal but privileged population.
Germaine Greer has succinctly phrased in an interview to Sydney Morning Herald about the “whingeing” #MeToo movement: “…if you spread your legs because he said ‘be nice to me and I’ll give you a job in a movie’ then I’m afraid that’s tantamount to consent, and it’s too late now to start whingeing about that”.
By no means was Greer downplaying the sexual and social victimization of women. By no means is she an alt rightist. Her sincere sympathies have always been with oppressed women all over the world and this is evident from reading her very many books on the subject of feminism. After all, she was the prominent figure who championed the understanding of womanhood and pioneered the cause of feminism.
The ideology of postmodernism while it does try to explain the role of people in authority, and especially authority of the state and the corporate world, was certainly not meant to be a manifesto for any movement such as what has now found a role in the #MeToo movement.
Postmodernism does have shades of social anarchism and radical thought similar to other western philosophies. But in the hands of self-serving groups with vested interests it has been pushed to the point of absurdity. In fact, it smacks of elements of McCarthyism in the hands of groups on their high horses, ever ready to shut up any opposition which seeks to, let alone question, debate about important issues. Any person questioning or even clarifying the agenda of radical feminist groups is cowed by terms like racist, misogynist, sexist, anti- progressive, and various other pejorative labels. By systematically influencing the media discourse, the spokespeople of certain groups are trying to set a stage where any legitimate discussion is considered obnoxious and insensitive toward women.
The movement is self-defeating because it does not even care for women it professes to represent. Case in point was how poor Dr. Christine Ford was used as a pawn by feminist groups to appease their paranoia of Kavanagh as someone who may reverse the freedom of women.
In the end, this feminist hysteria and the expression of sexual exploitation through the vehicle of the #Me Too movement has done a disservice to the majority of women.
Designed by intellectuals, postmodernism has now become a plaything of a privileged class, self-entitled to have the authority to indulge in “discourse” of right and wrong in society. Had this group been intellectually honest and ethical, and above all non-polemical, then one could have had the good experience of truly understanding postmodernism. Noam Chomsky’s claim then, that postmodernism is simply an ‘Instrument of Power’ would not have had any merit to it.