Review: Explaining Postmodernism

Author: Stephen Hicks

Hicks provides a well-argued and well-researched investigation into Post-Modernism.  He follows Post-Modernism roots from Foucault, Derrida, Rorty, Heidigger, Nietzsche, Rousseau, and Kant as a response to the Enlightenment and eventually liberal democracy.  He even intimates that its deepest roots are within the rhetoric of the Sophists.  It seems that there is a philosophical tension between thinkers that has continued down the ages.  Those with power, and those who question its legitimacy, important questions.  I found his analysis of what these thinkers said they would do if they ever had power truly frightening.  Fundamentally, people that stand in the way of the progress you perceive required, you eliminate them.  Your ideas are more important than individuals.  Arguably this could be seen in the governments of Stalin, Mao, and even Hitler (who drew on Nietzsche and Heidigger was a Nazi Party member).

In spite of all this, the Post Modernists make really good points.  Not so long ago I went through a Foucault phase (only to dismiss it as providing more important questions, but bringing me no closer to the philosophical answers I am seeking).  I have no doubt that as Hicks acknowledged, that they were all brilliant philosophers.  Anyone who knows me will acknowledge my personal anti-authoritarian sentiments.  In this way, I stand with the postmodernists.  My personal sympathies have historically been with the working class and unions.  Donald Horne wrote in “The Lucky Country” how Unions can be bought further to the left than the average member would accept by a small minority of activists whose political views are more extreme, but they are motivated to do the work of the Union.  I have seen this within the Queensland Nurses Union where the loudest and most energetic voices tend to drown those of the apathetic majority.  I have watched debates where the leadership asked the delegates for support in bringing the membership to its own point of view, rather than considering if the leadership truly represented the membership.  I can see that Post-Modernist thinking strongly influences the leadership of my Union.

I also agree with the Post-Modernists that being perfectly rational is impossible, but reject the premise that we should solely rely on our feelings and use our feelings to guide us in how to be in the world.  Anyone that knows me will know that I struggle with deep metaphysical questions.  I can tell of experiences that cannot be explained using rational thinking.  My ability to listen to my intuition, over my brain has made my life better.  In this way, I am a post-modernist.  I reject any authoritarian aspects of accepting others’ intuitions as right and correct.  In the discourse between individuals and groups, what is most rational must be considered most right.  The best ideas must win in the public forum, not my ideas.  I reject the authoritarian aspects of Post-Modernism regarding free speech, group identity, nor accept all hierarchies are of power (some people in power are actually competent).   I cannot help but think that the thoughts of Post-Modernism belong in the realm of the Mythos (as described by Karen Armstrong) as opposed to Logos.  Post Modernism can answer the should we as opposed to the Logos can we’s.  It belongs in the sphere of the personal, spiritual, and individual regarding our ethical and moral thinking.

I really liked chapter six in which he gives his analysis of postmodernism as a political, rather than scientific intellectual movement.  It gives important clues as to how to respond to Post-Modern Authoritarianism.  I need to study this further (and re-read).  He also provides an explanation as to why the working class switched from Labour to One Nation without stopping in between.  I feel I have a greater understanding of Post-Modernism, and as in the title, Hicks has explained it well.  Thus, it is a success.

My view is that Post Modernism is a great tool for questioning oneself, but not for coming to meaning and values for one’s self.  I have long thought that Darwinism is the best method for understanding the world.  I am gaining interest in positive psychology and pragmatism as providing answers to the question “how to be?”  Metaphorically, Post-Modernist thinkers should be in the passenger seat questioning the driver.  Just because they provide great questions, does not mean the solutions they provide have any more validity than your own.  I trust the wisdom of crowds in selecting the governments of Liberal Democracies.  The wisdom of crowds is our best defence against the Authoritarian aspects of Post-Modern thinking (I know best for you).