One of the most useless terms in lay apologetics is “postmodern.” It usually means “someone different from me but I am not sure how.” Or it means Brian McLaren. Postmodernism as a critical literary and philosophical position is rarely distinguished from applications of postmodernism by hippie, angry, post-evangelicals. ...
For my own view, I see postmodernism as a literary-philosophical position in critique of (if not parasitic upon) late modern structures. Such a view is mediated through the works of Michael Horton and Kevin Vanhoozer.
We will start with the most radical and dangerous postmoderns to those who are sympathetic to postmodern, but would probably fit in a Reformed church. This list is not exclusive but is limited to those thinkers whom I have read...
Read more: A Postmodern Continuum
A good definition of postmodernism is incredulity toward metanarratives. I think that is a bit more precise than simply targeting the structures of late modernity, including to those (few?) philosophical wanderers who consistently refuse to embrace any metanarrative.
ReplyDeleteI'm not quite sure I understand the left/right dynamic. What exactly is being measured? The references to political preferences muddle the picture: are there reasons to suppose the further left one is on the postmodern scale the more likely they are to support Democratic candidates or liberal social values? That seems to be accidentally true, rather than necessarily the outworking of a postmodern ideology. Both Republican and Democratic platforms are modernist inasmuch as they are two strains from the same Enlightenment economic tradition.
Reading his works, McLaren struck me as a modernist trying to speak to postmoderns (which is apparent in that he believes in objective truth, but hides his cards so as not to impose his grand narrative on others), more than a postmodernist. I also want to say that McLaren's focus on horizontal (as opposed to vertical) structures of sin make him all the more a modernist, perhaps more so than someone like Wright or Smith.
Hi Matthew,
DeleteI didn't define it as incredulity towards metanarratives because I see that mainly in Lyotard, whereas my main focus is with Derrida. Though I do see what you are saying.
The ambiguity on left-right was deliberate. That was just how I saw it in terms of "conservative-liberal." I grant that is problematic, but it was helpful to me at least (and I daresay the average lay person could follow it well enough).
I agree with your take on McLaren.
Didn't Derrida eschew association with "isms" as well? Granted Derrida's focus on language, I'm having trouble seeing the functional difference. I'm not a scholar, however, so maybe you have something more specific in mind.
DeleteI appreciate what you are trying to do, but when I picture using your approach with laypersons at, say, my local Christian worldview group, I see them being just as confused about postmodernism as before, all the more because of the references to politics. It seems to fall prey to the same (accurate) criticism of lay persons using the term as one of suspicion toward those who are somewhere outside of preferred theological and political circles.