Postmodern Biology

Biology can tell us little. . . . Selfhood is reallynothing but a fleeting, unstable, incomplete and open-ended mess of desireswhich cannot be fulfilled. -Jacques Lacan

[John] Dewey's idea is that we are special because wecan take charge of our own evolution, take ourselves in directions which haveneither precedent nor justification in either biology or history. -Richard Rorty

Science and philosophy must jettison their grandiosemetaphysical claims and view themselves more modestly as just another set ofnarratives. -Terry Eagleton

4.6.1 Introduction

Worldviews that deny the existence of a Creator,a creation event, and the supernatural must assume some form of naturalisticevolution to explain the origin of life. Evolutionary theory takes three forms:

While Secular Humanists believe and defendneo-Darwinism and Marxist/Leninists and Cosmic Humanists defend punctuatedevolution (although not in exactly the same sense), Postmodernists have atendency to shy away from overtly endorsing any particular theory of origins.This is the case, first of all, because Postmodernism began, not amongscientists, but among literary critics and philosophers. Second, each of thethree aforementioned versions of evolutionary theory is in itself a grandstory about theorigin and development of life and Postmodernists eschew all such grand storiesor metanarratives.

To illustrate this state of affairs, Christianauthor Nancy Pearcey relates the following firsthand experience: "I witnessed afascinating altercation at a conference at Boston University on science andpostmodernism several years ago. Postmodernist philosophers led off by arguingthat 'there are no metanarratives,' meaning no overarching, universal truths.Responding on behalf of the scientists was Nobel Prize-winning physicist StevenWeinberg, who replied: But of course there are metanarratives. After all,there's evolution-a vast metanarrative from the Big Bang to the origin of thesolar system to origin of human life. And since evolution is true, that provesthere is at least one metanarrative . . . . To which the postmodernist philosophersresponded, ever so politely: That's just your metanarrative. Evolution ismerely a social construct, they said, like every other intellectual schema-acreation of the human mind."

4.6.2Science and Knowledge

Postmodernism is anti-science inmany respects. Some Postmodernists argue that science is not really knowledgeat all. Instead, they speak in terms of chaos theory, the unpredictability ofscience, indeterminacy, or uncertainty of evolution/devolution, etc. Forinstance, Paul Feyerabend, former philosophy professor at the University ofCalifornia (Berkeley) maintains that what is called science in one culture iscalled voodoo in another: "To those who look at the rich material provided byhistory, and who are not intent on impoverishing it in order to please theirlower instincts-their craving for intellectual security in the form of clarity,precision, 'objectivity,' [or]'truth'-it will become clear that there is onlyone principle that can be defended under all circumstances and in all stages ofhuman development. It is the principle: anything goes."

In his article"Anything Goes," Feyerabend further explains how science works. In the historyof science many theories have arisen, been accepted as established, promoted asthe truth,and then eventually discarded. When a scientist promotes scientific data insupport of a theory, that bit of data is anything but neutral because thescientist has an agenda. In all fields of science questions remain open asscientific theories are regularly tweaked. And to top it off, the scientificestablishment is very much politicized. Thus, scientists regularly work withunproven assumptions and filter all data through their preconceived ideas.

Doubts about theobjectivity and neutrality of science arose in the mid-1900s from MichaelPolanyi's Personal Knowledge and Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolution. Kuhn, for example, points outthat science is not merely a progressive and incremental discipline thatstudies and records facts. So-called facts can be understood and interpreted in a varietyof ways depending on the worldview assumptions of the scientist.

In addition, Kuhn asserts thatscientific theories, or paradigms, do not often fall out of favor because theyare proven wrong. Rather, older theories tend to die out along with their proponents,while new and creative theories attract the attention of younger scientistswho, in turn, promote their theories over the older ones. A current scientifictheory is just that: a current theory, which will be replaced by another current theory in the future. For thatreason, science cannot tell us what is real, only what scientists believeto be the case at that particular time in history. This falls in line with thePostmodern concept that everyone, including the scientist, is locked into hisor her particular culture and language, and thus cannot claim to have anobjective picture of the world.

Even mathematics is notimmune from Postmodern analysis. Doubts about the objectivity of math werebrought to light with Douglas R. Hofstadter's Pulitzer prize winning book Gdel,Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid, published in 1979. This theme has been developed inother works. In Ethnomathematics: A Multicultural View of Mathematical Ideas, Marcia Ascher asserts that muchof mathematics education depends upon assumptions of Western culture. Forexample, she writes that no other culture "need share the categories triangle,right triangle, hypotenuse of a right triangle . . ." She further questions,"Is a square something that has external reality or is it something only in ourminds?"

However, even in light of thePostmodernist aversion to metanarratives and doubts about science being able todescribe the realworld, when pressed for an explanation concerning the origin of lifePostmodernists will assume anything but creationism! For this reason, Postmodernistsembrace the only other alternative-one of the several forms of evolution.

4.6.3 Postmodern Leanings: Neo-Darwinismto Punctuated Evolution

Regarding the origin of life,some Postmodernists tend toward neo-Darwinism. For example, Richard Rortyendorses Daniel Dennett's book Darwin's Dangerous Idea, a book supporting theneo-Darwinian view and harshly criticizing Gould and Eldridge's theory of punctuatedevolution. Postmodern political scientist Walter Truett Anderson's The NextEnlightenment: Integrating East and West in a New Vision of Human Evolution approvingly cites neo-DarwinistRichard Dawkins a number of times as representing a scientific rationalistapproach to truth.

Postmodernists are drawn to evolution for atleast two reasons: (1) they deny that humans are the necessary aim of evolutionand (2) they believe chance is the primary catalyst of evolution. According toMichel Foucault, Hayden White, Paul deMan, and Thomas Kuhn, the notion thathuman beings are the telos or ultimate end of evolution is anthropocentric (itassumes humanity is special). Neo-Darwinist Daniel Dennett concurs. In Darwin'sDangerous Idea,Dennett writes of "the most common misunderstanding of Darwinism: the idea thatDarwin showed that evolution by natural selection is a procedure for producing Us."

Three reasons are generally given for holdingthis view. First, modern science has shattered the early religious myths ofAdam and Eve, so we can no longer believe that God created humanity for somespecial purpose. Second, scientists already are at work evolving the nextgeneration of humans by integrating people and computer technology, thusrendering human existence simply one small step in the total evolutionaryprogression. Third, considering all the species that have ever lived, homosapiens isconsidered an insignificant species. Stephen Gould, for example, argues that"bacteria are-and always have been-the dominant form of life on Earth."Therefore, Gould maintains that we are arrogant in thinking that we are aspecial species or that evolution somehow had humanity in mind, since there areso few of "Us" and so many of "them."

Inaddition to this anti-teleological stance, Tony Jackson explains why the ideaof chance appeals to Postmodernists. He writes about the role Stephen Gould hasplayed in this regard. "To complete our discussion of Darwinian theory, Gould'sinclusion of chance makes him the most Postmodern of contemporary Darwinists.It has led him to put forth a theory of change, called punctuated equilibrium,that stresses abruptness and discontinuity rather than the more conventionalgradualist story, and thus he is the Darwinian equivalent of, again, ThomasKuhn and Michel Foucault. Kuhn, like Gould, holds that the actual historicalrecord does not support a gradualist 'development-by-accumulation' story."

Kuhn, Gould, and others insistthat a gradualist history of the past is merely arbitrary. The actual fossilrecord does not confirm one species gradually turning into another species. Onthe contrary, species seem to appear in the fossil record suddenly, with littleevidence of gradual transitions from one to another. Therefore, somePostmodernists opt to embrace the theory of punctuated equilibrium (orpunctuated evolution) developed by Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould. (Thistheory is described in detail in the biology section on Marxist/Leninism.)

4.6.4 Foucault's HopefulMonster

Also leaning toward a view of punctuated evolution isMichel Foucault. Foucault likewise denies that nature manifests the continuitynecessary for Darwin's gradualist theory of evolution. He says, "Experiencedoes not reveal the continuity of nature as such, but gives it to us bothbroken up . . . and blurred, since the real, geographic and terrestrial spacein which we find ourselves confronts us with creatures that are interwoven withone another, in an order which is . . . nothing more than chance, disorder, orturbulence." Rather than a continuous progression from simple elements(minerals), through plants, animals, and finally human beings, Foucault sees "aconfused mingling of beings that seem to have been brought together by chance."

Foucault settles for a discontinuityof nature and argues for "revolutions in the history of the earth" including"geological catastrophes." The elements of nature that he believes broughtabout the various species include the earth's relationship to the sun, climaticconditions, movements of the earth's crust, floods, comets, oceans, volcanoes,and heat.

Another possibility proposed forthe advent of new species is monsters. Foucault approvingly quotes J. B.Robinet to the effect that monsters are not of a different nature, but rather "weshould believe that the most apparently bizarre forms . . . belong necessarilyand essentially to the universal plan of being; that they are metamorphoses ofthe prototype just as natural as the others, even though they present us withdifferent phenomena; that they serve as [a] means of passing to adjacent forms;that they prepare and bring about the combinations that follow them, just asthey themselves were brought about by those that preceded them; that far fromdisturbing the order of things, they contribute to it. It is only, perhaps, bydint of producing monstrous beings that nature succeeds in producing beings ofgreater regularity and with a more symmetrical structure." While this theorymay be imaginative, it has no grounding in observable science.

4.6.5 Conclusion

Christians need not agree withthe extreme conclusion that contemporary Postmodernists derive from Kuhn'stheories of indeterminacy. Although Christians acknowledge that scientists dohave biases and presuppositions, we also assert that true knowledge aboutreality is possible. Philosopher J. P. Moreland explains the Christian positionthis way: "Science (at least as most scientists and philosophers understand it)assumes that the universe is intelligible and not capricious, that the mind andsenses inform us about reality, that mathematics and language can be applied tothe world, that knowledge is possible, that there is a uniformity in naturethat justifies inductive inferences from the past to the future and fromexamined cases of, say, electrons, to unexamined cases, and so forth."

Saying much the same thing isSecular Humanist Paul Kurtz. In Humanist Manifesto 2000, Kurtz insists that rejectingobjectivity is a mistake and that Postmodernism is counterproductive, evennihilistic. Kurtz writes, "Science does offer reasonably objective standardsfor judging its truth claims. Indeed, science has become a universal language,speaking to all men and women no matter what their cultural backgrounds."

Along the same lines, LeeCampbell, chair of the Division of Natural Sciences at Ohio Dominican College,writes, "The methods used in the sciences have produced powerful explanationsabout how things work and innumerable useful applications, including technologyeven its harshest critics would never be without." Indeed, Postmodernists useall the comforts and conveniences that modern science and technology provide,yet at the same time deny the foundational premises on which science isestablished. This brings to light the contradictions within the Postmodernworldview and reveals it to be unreliable.

In contrast with Postmodernism'sfailed approach to science, history confirms the reality and progressivereliability of the scientific method. In fact, modern science came aboutbecause of a biblical view of reality. Campbell writes, "The rise of modernscience would have been impossible without Christian presuppositions that theuniverse is rational because it was created by a rational God." In his book For the Glory of God, Rodney Stark details whyChristianity (rather than Islam, Cosmic Humanism, or any of the atheisticHumanisms) is the worldview most responsible for modern science. Indeed, thefather of modern science, Sir Francis Bacon, was a Christian, as were many ofthe leading scientists who founded the disciplines of chemistry, paleontology,bacteriology, antiseptic surgery, genetics, thermodynamics, computer science,and many other fields.

"[A]ll ideas about human reality are socialconstructions."

- Walter TruettAnderson

5.6.1 Introduction

Psychology, understood as thestudy of the psyche, or soul, has fallen on hard times. Traditionally, weunderstood our personal identity as what we are born with-a stable, unifiedsoul including mind, heart, will, and conscience. Yet, in recent years, ourPostmodern condition has made the concept of a "soul" obsolete. Now, instead ofbeing a soul, we are confronted with a multiplicity of "selves."

Hazel Rose Markus, professor ofpsychology at the University of Michigan, calls this "the most exciting time inpsychology in decades and decades." We have begun to realize, she says, that"there isn't just one answer to the 'Who am I?' question." Mitchell Stephens, ajournalism professor at New York University explains that "mutating lifestylesand changing intellectual currents have led a group of increasingly influentialpsychologists-Postmodern psychologists seems to be the name that is sticking-tothe conclusion that we have no single, separate, unified self. They maintainthat we contain many selves and that the proper response to the suggestion 'Getin touch with yourself' or 'Be yourself' is 'Which one?'"

Stephens offers the followingexample to clarify this point. "Consider . . . Mick Jagger. The Rolling Stones'lead singer was and, if the tabloids are to be believed, remains a classiclibertine, but he is also a father and, until recently at least, a family man.Jagger is a rock'n'roller, a bohemian, whose songs and lifestyle challengetraditional standards of behavior; yet he travels in upper-class Britishcircles, hobnobbing with dukes and princesses. Jagger can be coarse and crude,yet he knows his nonfiction and his vintages. Which is the real Mick? Hisanswer: all of the above. 'People find it very hard to accept that you can beall these things at almost the same time,' Jagger has complained."

According to philosopher AllanBloom, "The self is the modern substitute for the soul." In other words, thetraditional idea of an immaterial soul as being the seat of our personalidentity has been replaced with the Postmodern notion of socially constructed"selves." Reflecting historically on how this shift came about, Bloom suggeststhat society's earlier preoccupation with the soul "inevitably led to neglectof this world in favor of the other world," giving the priest, as the guardianof the soul, increased influence and power. This, in turn corrupted kings."Princes were rendered ineffective by their own or their subjects' opinionsabout the salvation of their soul, while men slaughtered each other wholesalebecause of differences of such opinion. The care of the soul crippled men inthe conduct of their lives."

As a result, there developed abacklash against the soul. This shift was set in motion by Machiavelli (1460)and Thomas Hobbes (1651), who replaced the idea of the soul with "a feelingself." As Bloom comments, Machiavelli and Hobbes "blazed the trail to the self,which has grown into the highway of a ubiquitous psychology without the psyche(soul)."

But the transformation did notstop there. By the time the French political theorist Jean-Jacques Rousseau came on the scene in the early1700s, the self had degenerated into individual self-interest. Rousseau observedthat self-interest was not a sufficient base for establishing "the commongood," a necessary foundation for political life.

At the beginning of the 21^stcentury, Postmodernism had taken the emphasis on self-interest to its logicalextreme. If there is no God's-eye-view of what constitutes the individual, weare left to the changing whims of our social condition telling us who and whatwe are. And, as it turns out, the answers are as varied as there are people toexpress them.

5.6.2 The Denial of HumanNature

Elaborating on our Postmoderncondition, Bloom explains, "Man is a culture being, not a natural being. Whatman has from nature [biology] is nothing compared to what he has acquired fromculture. A culture, like the language that accompanies and expresses it, is aset of mere accidents that add up to a coherent meaning constitutive of man."

Traditionally people sensed thatboth nature and culture are important for human development. But once the movewas set in motion to negate nature and accent culture, Postmodernists jumped tobanish nature altogether. This left only culture to shape the human psyche.

For Foucault, each of us is "abeing which is at least partially subjected to socially produced constraintsand divisions." He sees "the modern-day notion of the self [as]bound up with, and inseparable from, the workings of social structures andinstitutions." There is, therefore, no distinction "between public and privateselves implied by the concept of human nature nor can the individual be reducedto individual consciousness."

Gilles Deleuze and FelixGuattari's Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia as an important Postmoderntext. Deleuze and Guattari reject the idea that the soul is naturally whole,unified, or coherent; rather it is a harmful illusion. Instead, they see theself as a flux of desires and intensities caught up in an ongoing process ofchange.

With the denial of human naturecomplete, the stage was set for the Postmodern definition of the sociallyconstructed self. Ward explains, "There are many sides to the unfolding storyof Postmodern identity, but the starting point is that the self isfundamentally social."

5.6.3 Socially Constructed Selves

The psychology of the sociallyconstructed self was developed by Jacques Lacan, a French psychologist, who wasone of four French intellectuals of the 1960's whose writings forged much ofPostmodern thought. "Lacan's vision of the self is outlined in his famousessay, 'The Mirror Stage as Formative of the Function of the I,' firstpublished in 1949." writes Glenn Ward. Then, quoting Lacan, "'Selfhood isreally nothing but a fleeting, unstable, incomplete and open-minded mess ofdesires which cannot be fulfilled.'"

Ward comments, "Lacan andFoucault propose that the stable, unified self has always been an illusion." Intheir view, our identity is the result of social factors-"You are constructedby the social [e.g., language, geography, family, education, government, etc.]and are ultimately determined by it."

Walter Truett Anderson puts itthis way: "all ideas about human reality are social constructions." In otherwords, what used to be called the soul "is replaced with a collage of socialconstructs."

Stephens contends that "Theimplications of the [Postmodern] theory are large: It's not just that we eachhave different sides to our personality; it's that we have no centralpersonality in relation to which all our varied behaviors might be seen as just'sides.' We are, in other words, not absolutely anything."

But there is more. Postmodernpsychologists are now asserting there is no one "self," but a multiplicity of"selves." Kenneth Gergen is a psychology professor at Swarthmore College. Hisbook, The Saturated Self: Dilemmas of Identity in Contemporary Life, is considered one of the bestintroductions to postmodern psychology. Gergen states, " . . . postmoderns arepopulated with a plethora of selves. In place of an enduring core of deep andindelible character, there is a chorus of invitations. Each invitation 'to be'also casts doubt on the wisdom and authenticity of the others. Further, thepostmodern person senses the constructed character of all attempts at being-onthe part of both self and others."

Gergen's assessment of thepostmodern condition has a following among other Postmodern psychologists.Stephens writes that "a group of counselors and therapists, for example, hasbegun noting that we all must 'create' other selves as we leave our families insearch of friendship, success and love-and then move on to new friendships, newsuccesses and new loves. Social psychologists have begun studying not only our'child selves,' our 'professional selves,' our 'friendship selves' and our'parent selves,' but also what Hazel Markus labels our 'possible selves,' our'feared possible selves,' our 'ideal selves,' our 'fleeting selves,' our'tentative selves' and our 'chronically accessible selves.'"

To illustrate our postmodernmultiplicity of selves, Gergen paints the following collage of postmodern life:"Connie spent her childhood in New Jersey. After her parents were divorced, hermother moved with the children to San Diego. Connie's teen years were spentshuttling between father and mother on either coast. After she graduated fromthe University of Colorado, she moved to Alaska to work on a fishing boat, andthen to Wyoming to become a ski instructor. Now Connie is working on ageological-survey vessel in the Antarctic, and is engaged to a man living inPortland, Oregon. "Fred is a neurologist who spends many of his spare hoursworking to aid families from El Salvador. Although he is married to Tina, onTuesday and Thursday nights he lives with an Asian friend with whom he has achild. On weekends he drives his BMW to Atlantic City for gambling."

Gergen is pointing our that inour technologically "saturated" society with its multiple opportunities forpersonal interaction, it is impossible to know which is our "real" self, sincewe play so many different roles at different times and with different people.This can be disorienting to some. A theory of multiple socially constructedselves providesa way for those living in a postmodern world to adjust to the reality of theircondition.

5.6.4 Critique of PostmodernPsychology

A socially constructed, unstableself creates special difficulties in the area of law, crime, and punishment.For example, if a self were to "flux" quickly, a criminal act on a particularnight of rape and pillage may be blamed on a previous shifting self, making itdifficult to locate and punish the guilty "self." Louis Sass, a Rutgersclinical psychology professor, puts it this way, "There are clearly dangers ingiving up that notion of a single self. You absolve the person ofresponsibility for making judgments." Imagine the excuses people might make:"Hey, it wasn't my fault. One of my other selves did it."

Not only are there problems inthe area of law, crime and punishment, but there are also major problemsdeciding exactly what is normal and abnormal. Walter Truett Anderson addressesthis problem when he says, "I have been putting words like 'abnormal' and'deviant' in quotes, because those categorizations are under fire now, theboundary between normal and abnormal as questionable now as all the otherboundaries that once defined social reality."

According to Anderson,Postmodernists are not in the boundary business. Certainly if they can't findboundaries between the biological and the cultural (nature and nurture), whyshould we expect them to find boundaries between the normal and abnormal? Forexample, Michel Foucault knowingly infected his homosexual partners with theAIDS virus. This should cause even the most devout Postmodernist to think twicebefore blurring the boundaries between sane and insane, normal and abnormal,and common sense and the ridiculous. If Postmodernists consider Foucault'sbehavior "normal," then there is no definition of abnormal worth considering.

It should also be noted that among the majorityof psychologists, Postmodernist psychology is viewed as a fringe movement. Atthis point it seems unlikely that the Postmodern approach to psychology willhave a major influence on the future direction of psychology in general.

5.6.5 Conclusion

Christian psychology is founded on the concept ofsoul (mind, heart), self-identity, and self-awareness (1 Thessalonians 5:23).In Genesis 2:7, we learn that God breathed and mankind became a living soul. InMatthew 10:28, Jesus warns us not to fear those who can kill the body, butrather fear the one who can kill the body (soma) and soul (psyche) in hell(gehenna).

J.P. Moreland summarizes thebiblical concept of our identity when he says, "Human beings are composed of animmaterial entity-a soul, a life principle, a ground of sentience-and a body.More specifically, a human being is a unity of two distinct entities-body andsoul."

Originally "psychology" meantthe study of the psyche (soul). Now that we have entered into a post-Christianculture, maybe psychologists need to search for another name to describe theirprofession. Perhaps this is what Christian Psychologist Paul C. Vitz had inmind when he wrote the article, "Psychology in Recover." Vitz offers thefollowing suggestion at the end of his article, "I close on a guardedlyoptimistic note. On the horizon I see the potential for a psychology that Icall 'transmodern.' By this term I mean a new mentality that both transcendsand transforms modernity. Thus, it will leave both modern and Postmodernpsychology behind. It will bring in transcendent understanding that may beidealistic and philosophical (e.g., the virtues), as well as spiritual andreligious. It will transform modernity by bringing in an intelligentunderstanding of much of premodern wisdom . . . . In such a transmodern world,psychology would be the handmaid of philosophy and theology, as from thebeginning it was meant to be."

"I have been putting words like 'abnormal' and 'deviant'in quotes because those categorizations are under fire now, the boundarybetween normal and abnormal as questionable now as are all the other boundariesthat once defined social reality."

- Walter TruettAnderson

6.6.1 Introduction

The Postmodern views of how welive together in society are nontraditional regarding family, church, andstate. Foucault says, "the society in which we live, the economic relationswithin which it functions and the system of power which defines the regularforms and the regular permissions and prohibitions of our conduct . . . theessence of our life consists, after all, of the political functioning of thesociety in which we find ourselves." Foucault thus sees the social orderconsisting of economics, law, and the state. Living within this order is "theessence of our life" since our culture determines who we are. Life is merely a summaryof the cultural aspects of the social community since there is no unified self.

Foucault does not include thechurch in his view of societal institutions. Postmodernists, for the most part,want nothing to do with the church.In The Future of Religion, Rorty replaces his atheism with"anticlericalism," contending that "congregations of the faithful" are sociallyunobjectionable, but "ecclesiastical institutions" are dangerous to the healthof democratic societies. To Rorty, "religion is unobjectionable as long as itis privatized." Inother words, private religious views are acceptable, but the organized churchis not.

6.6.2 Sexual Egalitarianism

Many Postmodern socialistsconsider marriage the greatest of evils. Rorty is particularly harsh on Christianparents who teach their children about God, referring to them as "frightening,vicious, and dangerous."

Other Postmodernists show theircontempt for Christian concepts of love, sex, and marriage, preferring variousforms of "free love" (hooking up, shacking up, living together, cohabitation,etc.). Postmodernist psychiatrist Adam Phillips precludes the possibility ofcontractual marriage and describes any relationship in harsh terms: "The onlysane foregone conclusion about any relationship is that it is an experiment;and that exactly what it is an experiment in will never be clear to theparticipants. For the sane, so-called relationships could never be subject tocontract."

Acknowledging the traditionalheterosexual family as the norm in Western society, Postmodernists decry thatthis "heterosexist norm" enables society "to marginalize some sexual practicesas 'against nature,' and thereby [attempt] to prove the naturalness of theheterosexual monogamy and family values upon which mainstream society basesitself."

Postmodernists encourage openconversation about the way we experience sexual relationships. Foucaultmaintains that talking about sex helps to create sexual diversity. He says,"The putting into discourse of sex, far from undergoing a process ofrestriction, on the contrary has been subjected to a mechanism of increasingincitement . . . the techniques of power exercised over sex have not obeyed aprinciple of rigorous selection, but rather one of dissemination andimplantation of polymorphous sexualities."

Talking about sex reveals "anever expanding encyclopedia of preferences, gratifications and perversions. Itcreates a realm of perversion by discovering, commenting on and exploring it.It brings it into being as an object of study and in doing so serves tocategorize and objectify those who occupy what has been made into the secretunderworld of 'deviance.'" Foucault says, "We must . . . ask why we burdenourselves today with so much guilt for having once made sex a sin." Foucaultwas "a disciple of the Marquis de Sade," and like him embraced all sexualactivity as permissible, including man/boy relationships (pederasty). Fewboundaries exist in a socially constructed reality.

What used to be consideredperverted, abnormal, or deviant sexual behavior is now viewed as personalpreference, and no moral pronouncements are attached to the actions. The linebetween heterosexual and homosexual practices is blurred. Walter TruettAnderson says,"I have been putting words like 'abnormal' and 'deviant' in quotes becausethose categorizations are under fire now, the boundary between normal andabnormal as questionable now as are all the other boundaries that once definedsocial reality."

We use the term "sexual egalitarianism" to characterize the Postmodernview that allows each person to define his or her sexuality and proposes thatall sexual preferences are equally valid.

6.6.3 Politically CorrectEducation

Anderson explains the goals andmethods Postmodernists adopt in regard to education: "[Postmodernism] rejectsthe notion that the purpose of education is primarily to train a child'scognitive capacity for reason in order to produce an adult capable offunctioning independently in the world. That view of education is replaced withthe view that education is to take an essentially indeterminate being and giveit a social identity. Education's method of molding is linguistic, and so thelanguage to be used is that which will create a human being sensitive to itsracial, sexual, and class identity."

Anderson outlines major shiftsin focus in the Postmodern classroom in contrast to the modern classroom:"Education should emphasize works not in the canon, it should focus on theachievements of non-whites, females and the poor; it should highlight the historicalcrimes of whites, males, and the rich; and it should teach children thatscience's method has no better claim to yielding truth than any other methodand, accordingly, that students should be equally receptive to alternative waysof knowing."

Postmodern education teachesthat all truth is relative, all cultures are equally deserving of respect(although Western culture comes under severe criticism), and all values aresubjective (although racism, sexism, classism, and homophobia are universally evil).

Course offerings at colleges anduniversities in the Postmodern age are also nontraditional, focusing on themesof race, sex, and gender. For example, Stanford University's Feminist StudiesDepartment offers "Lesbian Communities and Identities." The catalog describesthe course as "Scholarship and research on lesbian experience. Issues ofhomophobia, lesbian intimacy, and sexuality. Femme and butch roles, lesbianseparatism, and diversity of lesbian communities and identities." Stanford'sHistory Department offers a course entitled "Homosexuals, Heretics, Witches,and Werewolves: Deviants of Medieval Society." The catalog describes the courseas answering the following question: "Why were medieval heretics accused ofdeviant sexual practices?"

Every Ivy League school exceptPrinceton offers more courses in Women's Studies than in Economics. Columbia'sWomen's Studies Department offers "The Invisible Woman in Literature: TheLesbian Literary Tradition," "Introduction to Gay and Lesbian Studies," and "GenderedControversies: Women's Bodies and Global Contestations."

Dartmouth's Women's StudiesDepartment offers "Shakespeare and Gender," described in the course catalog asanswering the questions, "Is language gender-inflected? How is power exertedand controlled in sexual relationships?" Dartmouth's English Department offersa course called "Queer Theory, Queer Texts."

Brown University offers thesedepartments and courses: "Afro-American Studies-'Black Lavender: Study of BlackGay/Lesbian Plays;' Education-'The Psychology of Race, Class, and Gender;'English-'Unnatural Acts: Introduction to Lesbian/Gay Literature.'"

Not onlyhas the subject matter of courses and departments shifted dramatically awayfrom traditional fare, Christianity is often viewed with contempt and ridicule.Richard Rorty, Professor of Comparative Literature at Stanford, writes, "Whenwe American college teachers encounter religious fundamentalists . . . we doour best to convince these students of the benefits of secularization . . . Ithink these students are lucky to find themselves under . . . people like me,and to have escaped the grip of their frightening, vicious, dangerous parents."

Not all new courses are met withenthusiasm. Richard Zeller, a sociology professor at Bowling Green StateUniversity in Ohio, attempted to introduce a new course that would examine theeffects of political correctness in response to students' claims that they feltpressured to assume politically correct views in order to pass courses. BGSU'sDirector of Women's Studies, Kathleen Dixon, protested vehemently, saying, "Weforbid any course that says we restrict free speech." The course was voteddown, and Zeller resigned in protest after twenty-five years of teaching atBowling Green.

6.6.4 "New Ways of Living"

The Postmodern approach torestructuring society calls for "challenging power on a day-to-day level."Lyotard suggests we "gnaw away at the great institutionalized narrativeapparatuses . . . by increasing the number of skirmishes that take place on thesidelines. That's what women who have had abortions, prisoners, conscripts,prostitutes, students, and peasants have been doing."

Other "new ways of living" thatmight restructure society toward a Postmodern view could include any of thefollowing "skirmishes on the sidelines:" pick a quarrel with your conservativeneighbor; refuse to buy a certain brand of condensed milk; surf the net atwork; deface billboards; sell pirated copies of CDs; buy fake designer labels;celebrate fragmentation, diversity and deviancy; teach a "safe-sex" course inchurch or school; turn vices into virtues; make the abnormal normal; legalizesodomy; decriminalize marijuana; legalize same-sex marriage; praise the conceptof a "living" Constitution; subscribe to MTV; attend art exhibits by AndyWarhol, a Madonna concert, a performance of the V-Monologues; view X-rated movies; protestChristian prayer in government schools; support the A.C.L.U; defend NAMBLA;label Christians and conservatives as right-wing religious fanatics orFascists; support the Green Party; protest "under God' in the pledge; remove"In God We Trust" from U. S. money; support all tax increases; publicly burn yourfur coat; drink French wine; help an illegal alien across the border; keepIntelligent Design out of the schools; join the anti-globalization protests;and so on. "None of these activities might strike you as particularlyradical-they are perhaps not going to bring about a revolution-but fromLyotard's point of view they can be valued as disruptive skirmishes in thesocial system."

6.6.5 Subverting the Arts

Dada, a nihilistic movement inthe arts that attempted to demolish aesthetic standards in the years afterWorld War I, is sometimes linked to the more radical elements of Postmodernism.Ward explains, "Dada, especially, is often seen as the original prototype ofhow art should go about the business of being radical . . . Dada employed anumber of tactics to disrupt bourgeois fantasies about art. Most prominent ofthese methods was the use of 'found' materials not conventionally associatedwith fine art. They took materials from the gutter, images from mass culture,and styles of presentation from shop window displays. Most famous of all,Marcel Duchamp exhibited signed Readymades-a urinal, a bottle rack, a comb,etc.-and eventually got them called art (or anti-art)."

Stephen Hicks elaborates furtheron the link between Dada and Postmodernism in Explaining Postmodernism: "Dada's themes are aboutmeaninglessness, but its works and manifestos are meaningful philosophicalstatements in the context in which they are presented. 'Art is -----' was,fittingly, the motto of the Dada movement. Duchamp's urinal was the fittingsymbol. Everything is waste to be flushed away."

Over the past thirty years, anumber of popular recording artists have expressed elements of Postmodernthought in their style of music and in their lyrics. This nihilistic philosophyis expressed in the 1977 song by British band Ian Dury and the Blockheads. Theopening stanza reads, "Sex and drugs and rock 'n' roll are all my brain andbody needs." John Mayer's 2003 release Any GivenThursday expresses the meaninglessnessof life in the lyrics, "I just found out there's no such thing as the realworld. Just a lie you've got to rise above. I am invincible as long as I'malive." The group Third Eye Blind's song "Horror Show," featured on the VarsityBluessoundtrack (1999), says:

When gravity presses down like a lie
We want wild sex
But we don't wanna die
Do you feel there's nowhere to go
We're the bait in a horror show
And we're all alone in a horror show
Yeah, we are all alone in a horror show.

6.6.6 Critique of PermissiveSex

Postmodernists did not inventsexual liberation, but are riding the crest of the wave started by others. Manycultural observers consider Alfred Kinsey the father of the sexualrevolution-the 1960s social tsunami that changed the way we think about sex.Kinsey's two reports, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) and Sexual Behaviorin the Human Female (1953),presented evidence contradicting the traditional view of sex and marriage. Thescientific format of these reports drowned out concerns of critics-who canargue with science? The result has been comprehensive sex education thatintroduces young children to Heather Has Two Mommies and teaches teens the virtuesof "safer" sex.

Now fifty years later, thestartling discovery is that Kinsey's research turns out to be a house of cardsresting on dishonest research, fraud, and outright lies. The fact is, he usedfaulty methods for gathering statistics. Kinsey's reports claim to berepresentative of a cross-section of the nation. In actuality, his teaminterviewed a disproportionate number of prisoners, pimps, prostitutes,pedophiles, and unmarried adults.

Second, themajority of those interviewed had volunteered to revealtheir sexual histories to an interviewer. Well-known psychologist AbrahamMaslow pointed out to Kinsey at the time that using volunteers would bias theresults toward the non-normal end of the behavioral scale.

Third, some of the informationKinsey reported could have been gathered only through criminal activity! As itturns out, buried in the report, Kinsey admits that some of his statistics weretaken from the personal diaries of pedophiles (although Kinsey did not use thatterm).

Fourth, and more telling, wasthe naturalistic worldview at the root of Kinsey's research (the samenaturalism that is foundational to Postmodernism). Kinsey, like current-dayPostmodernists, blurred the line between behavior and morality by assuming thathuman behavior is no different in kind than animal behavior. Based on thisview, there is no moral value attached to the various kinds of sexual acts thatare available to the human species. Thus, whatever a person does sexually isnatural, whatever is natural is permissible, and whatever is permissible isgood, even for children.

As we are fond of saying, "Ideashave consequences." And, as it turns out, the results of Kinsey's ideas haveled many down a destructive path. One result has been the skyrocketingincidence of sexually transmitted diseases over the past 50 years. In Kinsey'sday, there were only two known STD's, both of which were treatable withpenicillin. But today, that number has blossomed to over 24, with over a dozenhaving no cure! The capstone of thisproliferation of disease is HIV, a virus that can be passed on through homosexualsex acts which, thanks to Kinsey's mainstreaming of homosexuality, has alsobeen on the increase.

In contrast to the view ofsexual license that Kinsey promoted, a 1996 study published by researchers atThe University of North Carolina supports the traditional view of sex. Thestudy found that lower sexual activity among adolescents is correlated withhigher levels of well being. For example, sexually active girls are over threetimes as likely to report depressive symptoms than those who abstain, andsexually active boys are over twice as likely to report depressive symptoms. Infact, these two groups report higher incidence of suicide attempts; boys inparticular are at 8 times the risk for a suicide attempt if they are sexuallyactive.

In addition, according to astudy published in 2000 by Edward Laumann and colleagues, "a monogamous sexualpartnership embedded in a formal marriage evidently produces the greatestsatisfaction and pleasure."

What we find, then, is awholesale repudiation of Kinsey's assumption that humans are simply sexualanimals living in an amoral world. On the contrary, true science confirms thatsexual intimacy finds its highest fulfillment in a monogamous maritalrelationship with the prospect of producing children.

As the Bible eloquently states,"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to hiswife, and they will become one flesh." This is not only the religious view, butthe one view that assures the ultimate happiness of individuals as well as asure foundation for a healthy society.

6.6.7 Conclusion

While the Postmodern vision forWestern culture may be taking hold, as Christians we need to take seriously theCultural Commission God gave Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 1:28),placing them in charge of His creation. The clear direction of this commissiongoes beyond tending the garden and naming animals. God commanded then to"multiply" and fill the earth with people. The command implies taking charge ofa growing social order as well. Jesus echoes this theme when He tells Hisdisciples they are "salt and light" (Matthew 5:13-14). Jesus means that if oursociety is tasteless and dark, it is our fault for not providing the preserving andenlightening influences! Furthermore, Jesus' Great Commission (Matthew28:18-20) speaks of the spiritual needs that we must address as well. Nowheredoes Scripture rescind God's Cultural Commission-it is still ourresponsibility.

Christians should be involved in every area ofsociety: in education as teachers, administrators, board members, and textbookselection committee members; in government as leaders at the local, state, andfederal levels; as artists, developing the best art, recording the mostinspiring music, and writing books and producing cutting edge movies withcompelling storylines that capture the imagination of every reader or viewer;in families, as loving parents and role models; in communities, as businessleaders and civic club members; in the media, as reporters and writers who areseen and read by millions. In the midst of these endeavors, we should shareGod's wonderful love story with those who will listen. When we participate inthe Great Commission conjoined with the Cultural Commission, we are fulfillingGod's purpose for us during our earthly sojourn.

"[Postmodernism] is a powerful and coherent mindset. Itprovides a philosophical outlook (social constructionism), a legal reformprogram, and a set of governing metaphors, all in one convenient package. Thispackage has the added benefit of resonating with ideas that are popular inother parts of the academy. If one has doubts about the social construction oftruth or merit, one can rest assured that the matter has been settled in theimpenetrable prose of some esteemed French philosophers."

- Daniel A. Farber andSuzanne Sherry

7.6.1 Introduction

Before exploring the topic ofPostmodern law, it may be helpful to give the discussion an historical context.No one does this better than Harold J. Berman, former professor of law atHarvard Law School. Berman maintains that there is currently a major debateover our understanding of law. The West's legal system is rooted in certainbeliefs, he writes, including "the structural integrity of law, its ongoingness,its religious roots, [and] its transcendent qualities."

However, Berman explains thattoday these foundational beliefs are rapidly disappearing, not only from theminds of philosophers, but from "the minds of lawmakers, judges, lawyers, lawteachers . . . [and] from the consciousness of the vast majority of citizens. .. . The law is becoming fragmented, more subjective, geared more to expediencyand less to morality, concerned more with immediate consequences and less withconsistency or continuity. Thus the historical soil of the Western legaltradition is being washed away in the twentieth century, and the traditionitself is threatened with collapse."

Declaring that the Western legaltradition is on the verge of collapse is a bold statement, but not too strongfor the situation we are facing in the early years of the twenty-first century.Berman notes the historical background for this dramatic shift in ideology. Inmany ways, Western civilization has never recovered from the utter destructionand slaughter of World War I (1914-1918). That war, fought within the Westernpowers and traditions, cast grave doubts about the viability and desirabilityof Western traditions, as the most enlightened, best educated, mostscientifically astute of all peoples proceeded to mow themselves down infrightening numbers. This led, Berman says, to a "loss of confidence in theWest itself, as a civilization . . . and in the legal tradition which for ninecenturies has helped to sustain it." The current crisis in Western civilizationhas paved the way for a new approach to legal theory. This is wherePostmodernism finds a foothold to enter the debate over the place and substanceof law.

7.6.2 Rejection of Enlightenment Ideas

Postmodernists view the EuropeanEnlightenment as a white male undertaking that elevated reason and empiricaldata. It focused on objective knowledge of a real world, such as the scientificmethod for discovering objective facts about the universe, and the concept ofjustice in relation to law.

From a Postmodern perspective,the source of knowledge and justice is at the root of the problem.Postmodernists insist that Western law, which grew out of Christianity and theEnlightenment, reflects white male bias. They attack "the concepts of reasonand objective truth, condemning them as components of white male domination.They prefer the more subjective 'ways of knowing' supposedly favored by womenand minorities, such as storytelling. As to the rule of law, it is an articleof [Postmodern] faith that legal rules are indeterminate and serve only todisguise the law's white male bias." For this reason, Postmodernists are intenton eliminating religious roots and transcendent qualities from Western law.They desire more fragmentation and subjectivity, and less objective moralitythan the Judeo-Christian tradition demands. In the end, they are intent oncreating and using their own brand of social justice merely for left-wingpolitical purposes.

7.6.3 Critical Legal Studies

At the center of this assault ontraditional Western law is the Critical Legal Studies movement. Critical LegalStudies (CLS) publishes "critiques of law focused on progressive-evenradical-political change rather than on efficient government." In fact, the CLSslogan is "critique is all there is." Using Derrida's deconstruction principle,they dissect a law to discover its subjective meaning, no matter what the lawobjectively states.

"While CLS and the newermovements share a left-leaning or progressive outlook, the new movements tendto have a narrower focus. . . . [T]he new radicals concentrate on race andgender issues, and particularly on how the law creates or contributes tounequal power relations," according to Farber and Sherry.

The Postmodern thesis is that"reality is socially constructed by the powerful in order to perpetuate theirown hegemony [power over other people]. As one radical feminist puts it,'Feminist analysis begins with the principle that objective reality is amyth.'" To amplify the focus on the legal inequalities imposed on women andminorities by those in power, CLS includes the core ideas of "the thought ofFrench postmodernists such as Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida. This meantextending the insight that law is socially constructed into an argument thateverything is socially constructed." From Foucault, Postmodern legal radicalsdraw the assertion that what counts for objective knowledge "is a powerrelation, one category of people benefiting at the expense of another categoryof people." Foucault sees all relationships between people as powerrelationships. Universal standards of legal judgment, common to all, do notexist. Any claim to universal truth is merely a mask for gaining politicalpower over women and minorities.

Stanley Fish, professor of Lawand English, argues, "the name of the game has always been politics." Oneexample of the Postmodern focus on politics over objective knowledge has beenprovided by Susan Estrich, Professor of Lawand Political Science at the University of Southern California Law School and asyndicated columnist who has worked with many liberal politicians and appearedon numerous television talk shows. Estrich was askedwhy she supported Anita Hill when Hill charged Clarence Thomas (during hisconfirmation hearings for the Supreme Court) with sexual harassment but opposedPaula Jones when she made sexual harassment allegations against PresidentClinton. Ms. Estrich replied, "You believe in principle; I believe inpolitics."

Estrich, like Marx,Nietzsche, and Foucault, sees law simply as a tool for political power.According to Marx, "Political power, properly so called, is merely theorganized power of one class for oppressing another." Estrich implies that sheuses the law in any way necessary to get what she wants. Thus, the law is nolonger a God-ordained, objective standard by which to judge behavior andmaintain an ordered society, but a weapon to beat political opponents intosubmission to a point of view.

7.6.4 Stories and the Law

Inplace of objective reasoning, Postmodernists use storytelling as a better wayto arrive at equitable law, since it is open to multiple points of view andvaried interpretations. Stories are easier to manipulate to meet a politicalend than are empirical facts. Farber and Sherry explain the way Postmodernistsrely on story: "Because the scholarship of women and people of color reflectstheir distinctive knowledge [gained from listening to and telling stories], theradical multiculturalists argue, it cannot be judged or tested by traditionalstandards. Instead, they imply, it should be judged according to its politicaleffect: it should be judged 'in terms of its ability to advance the interestsof the outsider community,' because 'outsider scholarship is often aimed not atunderstanding the law, but at changing it.'"

One current issue thatillustrates the Postmodern use of stories is global warming. Although empiricalscientific data show no significant temperature increases worldwide, pressurefrom the radical left has been exerted on the United States to sign aninternational global warming treaty. Some of the pressure comes from creatingstories that appeal to the emotions. For example, the film The Day AfterTomorrow is anemotion-charged story about what will happen when global warming gets out ofcontrol. The film does not deal with facts about whether global warming is anactual threat to the planet; it simply assumes it is and builds the story fromthere.

This illustrates the Postmodernfocus on rhetoric rather than logic. Since logic and dispassionate reasoningare seen as tools of white male bias, rhetoric and story are used to effectpolitical change, regardless of scientific arguments to the contrary. Farberand Sherry illustrate how this shift is impacting legal theory: "Rather thanrelying solely on legal or interdisciplinary authorities, empirical data, orrigorous analysis, legal scholars have begun to offer stories, often abouttheir own real or imagined experiences."

The emotional impact of storycan be used to replace rationality in the courtroom and in the media. Faber andSherry cite the case of Tawana Brawley as an example of how racially motivatedattorneys and politicians could manipulate a story to undermine legal facts inthe courtroom. Brawley, a fifteen-year-old black girl, claimed she wasabducted, raped, and tortured by a group of white men that included a statedistrict attorney and two police officers. It was later shown that she had madeup the entire story as a distraction to get her stepfather to forgive her forrunning away from home. However, even though the grand jury found that no crimehad been committed, the following was written about the case: "Tawana Brawleyhas been the victim of some unspeakable crime . . . no matter who did it toher-and even if she did it to herself. Her condition was clearly the expressionof some crime against her." Farber and Sherry continue, "In other words,whether it was true or false, Tawana Brawley's story tells us something aboutthe condition of black women."

In this case, the story's powerto create an emotional backlash against the dominant culture of white malestook precedence over the truth that those accused were innocent and that policeofficers and district attorneys protect women and minorities from danger moreoften than not regardless of race, age, or ethnicity.

7.6.5 Conclusion

Even if allknowledge were socially constructed, the matter of truth would remainimportant. Brawley's story was false-not just in one community but in allcommunities-because truth is universal. If law is not based on objective truth,we can only look forward to authoritarianism and totalitarianism. Justice andtruth must go hand in hand.

Trial lawyer GarySaalman predicts the results of a Postmodern focus on racial, gender, andcultural politics becoming an integral part of the legal system: "Postmodernlegal theory trickles down to breed cynicism toward all government and theentire criminal justice system. This, then, is the real issue. No one questionsthe fact that law requires interpretation, or that judges or juries may haveacted unfairly, sometimes based on race or gender bias. The question is this:How do we view such unfairness? Do we accept that all people must inevitable beunfair and subjective, as postmodernists claim? Or do we recognize suchunfairness as the evil it is and resist it? When we accept what postmodernismpreaches, we lose all basis for calling the system to fairness. We insteadchallenge minority populations to pursue power so they can take their turn."

"I see the 'orthodox' (the people who think thathounding gays out of the military promotes traditional family values) as thesame honest, decent, blinkered, disastrous people who voted for Hitler in 1933.I see the 'progressives' as defining the only America I care about." - Richard Rorty

8.6.1 Introduction

As keen observers of thePostmodern condition, Steven Best and Douglas Kellner comment on the currentstatus of Postmodern politics: "As with postmodern theory, there is no one'postmodern politics,' but rather a conflicting set of propositions thatemerges from the ambiguities of social change and multiple postmoderntheoretical perspectives." Postmodern politics takes a variety of forms. On oneend of the spectrum is the "anti-politics" of Baudrillard, a "cynical,despairing rejection of the belief" that politics can be used to changesociety. On the other side of Baudrillard's negative, nihilistic approach is amore affirmative one, outlined by Foucault, Lyotard, and Rorty, who suggestthat the way to "enhance individual freedom" and bring about "progressivechange" is to concentrate on the local level.

Although there is a lack ofconsensus surrounding much of Postmodern politics, most agree Postmodernistsfall on the left side of the political spectrum. Barbara Epstein, aself-proclaimed "moderate" Postmodernist, writes, "Many people, inside andoutside the world of Postmodernism, have come to equate Postmodernism with theleft." Stephen R. C. Hicks agrees, writing, "Of the major names in the Postmodernistmovement there is not a single figure who is not leftwing in a serious way."

Most of the early FrenchPostmodernists emerged from the Marxist tradition-some grew up in familiessupportive of leftist causes, and others were former Stalinists. Foucaultinitially joined the Maoist Gauche Proletarienne and the French Communist Partybut left once he discovered the Marxist stance toward homosexuality. As timewent on, Foucault moved further away from Marxism, particularly the"state-centered focus" of classic Marxism. Foucault would later write, "Marxismexists in nineteenth century thought as a fish exists in water; that is, itceases to breathe anywhere else." Anthony Thomson claims that Postmodernism isgenerally "fueled by the failure of Marxian-inspired State socialism."

However, in spite of hisaversion to some aspects of Marxism, Foucault does not abandon Marxist thoughtaltogether. Specifically, Foucault remained under "the profound influence ofMarxist analyses of power relations and the role of economic inequality indetermining social structures." Mark Lillanotes that Foucault felt he needed something "more radical" than classicMarxism, so he turned to "Nietzsche and Heidegger, but also avant-garde writersand Surrealists whose hostility to bourgeois life took more aesthetic andpsychological forms."

8.6.2 Leftist Politics

ForPostmodernists, politics is not centered around political parties, utopianvisions, or an ultimate telos; rather, it is a tool ofexperimentation that involves a radical critique of the existing systems of power in asociety, the identification of oppressed groups, and the remedy for bringingthose identified groups out of oppression to achieve a sense of social justice.

Some Postmodernists, includingFoucault and Rorty, use terms such as leftism and progressivism to describe their approach topolitics. For Foucault, progressive politics outlines the "possibilities fortransformation and the play of dependencies between those transformations,whereas other politics rely upon the uniform abstraction of chance or the . . .presence of genius." This means that "rather than seeing politics as beingcentered around individual great leaders who have utopian visions of the future. . . Foucault is more concerned to develop and describe a politics which takesaccount of the transformative possibilities within the present."

Foucault assumes that in thesame way there is no ultimate purpose (telos) to life, there is no ultimatepurpose for politics or what he refers to as "the themes of meaning, origin . .. [or] the deep teleology of a primeval destination." Sara Mills writes,"Foucault seems to be trying to establish a basis for productive politicalactivity without necessarily having to agree with a whole range of problematicassumptions about progress and the role of individuals bringing about politicalchange"

Mills suggests that Foucault"does not seem to have felt it necessary to have a fully worked-out politicalposition, since in some ways it was precisely this sense of having to hold to aparty line which he was reacting against." In other words, there is no rightway to approach politics since there is no unifying story that is true for lifeor politics. Lyotard explains, "With the destruction of the grand narratives,there is no longer any unifying identity for the subject or society. Instead,individuals are the sites where ranges of conflicting moral and political codesintersect, and the social bond is fragmented."

Foucault expresses his range ofpolitical leanings this way: "I think I have in fact, been situated in most ofthe squares on the political checkerboard, one after another and sometimessimultaneously: as anarchist, leftist, ostentatious or disguised Marxist,explicit or secret anti-Marxist, technocrat in the service of Gaullism, newliberal, etc . . . It's true, I prefer not to identify myself and that I'mamused by the diversity of the ways I've been judged and classified."

Foucault claims to have been in"most of the squares on the political checkerboard," and along with most ofPostmodernism's founders, they played their game on the far left of thepolitical game board! Leftism is therefore an appropriate term to summarize thePostmodern approach to politics.

8.6.3 Identity Politics

Barbara Epstein explains wherethe early Postmodern movement began: "The constellation of trends that I amcalling Postmodernism has its origins in the writings of a group of Frenchintellectuals of the '60s, most preeminently Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida,Jacques Lacan, and Jean-Francois Lyotard. Those who developed Postmodernismtended to be associated with the radicalism of the '60s."

The sexual and feministrevolutions that began in the sixties were intent on correcting the wrongsperpetuated by Western culture, especially the "puritanical" United States.What was wrong was identified as white, European, male, heterosexual, and JudeoChristian. Epstein observes that "one reason that Postmodernism has taken holdso widely is that it is much easier to be critical than to present a positivevision." In their desire to tear down socio-political structures that theydeemed oppressive, radical, or revolutionary, agitators developed the conceptof identity politics to correct the social and political wrongs they deemed Westerncivilization had perpetuated.

Identity politics seeks to advance the interestsof particular groups in society that are perceived as victims of socialinjustice. The identity of the oppressed group gives rise to a political basis around which they canunite. For example, radical feminists identified all women as victims of maleoppression. Once they had established their case, then whatever was needed tofree women from male domination was considered politically correct.

Alan Sokol quotes feminist KellyOliver: "[I]n order to be revolutionary, feminist theories should be politicaltools, strategies for overcoming oppression in specific concrete situations.The goal then, of feminist theory, should be to develop strategic theories-nottrue theories, not false theories, but strategic theories." Since there are notrue theories, the revolutionary way is to promote a theory that strategicallyaccomplishes what needs to be accomplished.

For radical feminists, theultimate goal became women's equality with men, which means, among otherthings, total sexual freedom. To bring this about, the strategic theoryproclaimed children a burden and marriage a form of slavery, counterproductiveto a woman's self-fulfillment. Abortion was declared a political right andwomen's only means for sexual equality with men-since men can engage in sexualintercourse without the consequences of bearing children, women must have thesame freedom and political right.

Likewise, homosexuals wereviewed as having been oppressed by a heterosexual majority who had forced theirpuritanical sexual mores onto society. The strategic theory marketed thehomosexual lifestyle as normal, moral, healthy through television sit-comsabout likeable homosexual characters, gay-themed movies, and public educationthat introduced very young children to appealing homosexual families.

Similarly, Postmodernists claimthat white Europeans had dominated people of color for hundreds of years. Thestrategic theory claimed blacks and other minorities suffered an unfairdisadvantage in admission to higher education. The concept of affirmativeaction was developed to guarantee minorities access to higher education, oftenat the expense of more qualified white applicants. In this way, years ofminority subservience to white oppression is remedied and social justice isaffirmed.

The strategies of identitypolitics have succeeded in changing the beliefs of a growing number of peoplethroughout Western society, demonstrating the power of the Postmodern approachfor shaping the terms of the debate.

8.6.4 Manipulation of Language

Another strategy Postmodernistsuse in pursuit of their political goals is the manipulation of language.Someone once noted that we will either master words or be mastered by those whodo. Postmodernists have mastered the manipulation of language to such an extentthat what used to be considered shameful, immoral, or bad behavior is nowheralded as progressive. Postmodernists have succeeded in gaining publicacceptance of the following:

• Believingin the sanctity of heterosexual marriage is a mark of backwardness, whilefavoring legalization of same-sex marriage is a mark of broadmindedness.
• Expressingbelief in a male Christ is a mark of bigotry, while preferring the femaleChrist (Christa) is a mark of discernment.
• Campaigningfor abstinence education is restrictive, while promoting "free love" andrevolution is a mark of liberation.
• Notallowing children to be taught about the homosexual lifestyle is athrowback to religious narrow-mindedness, bigotry, and the ultimatenegative label, "intolerant," while teaching students to embracehomosexuality as a healthy lifestyle is a mark of inclusion and tolerance.

These kinds of language gamescontribute to reorienting the masses to an acceptance of the Postmodernpolitical agenda for changing society.

8.6.5 The Goal of Social Justice

Postmodernists long for a timewhen all of society's ills and abuses will be eliminated and social justice will prevail. Richard Rortyelaborates his vision for America: "[Walt] Whitman and [John] Dewey tried tosubstitute hope for knowledge. They wanted to put shared utopian dreams-dreamsof an ideally decent and civilized society-in the place of knowledge of God'sWill, Moral Law, the Laws of History, or the Facts of Science . . . As long aswe have a functioning political left, we still have a chance to achieve ourcountry, to make it the country of Whitman's and Dewey's dreams."

Rorty's language is idealistic-thegoal is nothing less than "an ideally decent and civilized society." Rortyfurther develops this idea: "[Whitman and Dewey] wanted utopian America toreplace God as the unconditional object of desire. They wanted the struggle forsocial justice to be the country's animating principle, the nation's soul."Elsewhere Rorty reiterates the desire to substitute "social justice forindividual freedom as our country's principal goal."

The Postmodern understanding ofsocial justice revolves around the "other." Derrida's phrase "the singularityof the Other" and Rorty's term "otherness" refer to those who are marginalizedby society-the poor, unemployed, migrants, Hispanics, blacks, women, gays andlesbians. This is equivalent to the Marxist idea that virtue resides only amongthe oppressed and forms the foundation for identity politics.

Social justice in the Postmodernsense means giving oppressed groups their due in society. Oppressed groups havetraditionally been identified according to their race, sex, or gender as wellas their economic level. To achieve economic equality requires governmentalredistribution of wealth-take from the rich and give to the poor-a common themeamong leftists. Rorty refers to Dewey's utopian dream, and while Dewey was nota Postmodernist, Rorty draws from Dewey's pragmatism to express his ownpolitical hopes. In that light, it is noteworthy that Dewey was himself thehead of the League for Industrial Democracy, the American counterpart to theBritish Fabian Society, a socialistic organization founded in 1883. Bothof these organizations attempted to influence their governments towardsocialism.

8.6.6 Conclusion

To achievetheir vision for the West, Postmodernists must dismantle the presentsocio-political-economic system, replacing the foundational ideas of individualliberty and the rule of law based on God's moral order with the concepts ofidentity politics and social justice.

"Itis possible to choose (and to persuade others of the advantages of) socialismover capitalism." - David F. Ruccio and Jack Amariglio

"Just about the only constructive suggestion Marx made,the abolition of private property, has been tried. It did not work."

-Richard Rorty

9.6.1 Introduction

The quotations above by Rorty and Ruccio andAmariglio illustrate one of the hurdles to understanding Postmodern economics-alack of consensus among Postmodernists. Another hurdle is that Postmoderniststend not to use traditional language associated with economics-wages, pensions,interest rates, inflation, Social Security, retirement, etc. Instead, they useobscure words and phrases such as fragmentation, differentiation, chronology,pastiche, anti-foundationalism, and pluralism. More terminology that obscuresmeaning includes "the undecidability of meaning, the textuality of discursivityof knowledge, the inconceivability of pure 'presence,' the irrelevance ofintention, the insuperability of authenticity, the impossibility ofrepresentation, the celebration of play, difference, plurality, chance,inconsequence, and marginality."

Confusion even surrounds the meaning of the word person in Postmodern economic terms.Postmodern economists Ruccio and Amariglio, authors of Postmodern Moments inModern Economics,explain, "The Postmodern condition opens up a very different research agendafor economic scientists should they choose to disown (what many regard as anecessary fiction) the unified self and move, instead to a fiction supposedlymore in tune with contemporary reality, the decentered self."

Ruccio and Amariglio expose the heart ofPostmodern economics-and to understand them, we must define unified self and decentered self and why they are said to be fictions.

9.6.2 The Basic EconomicUnit: The Decentered Self

Economics flows from our understanding of thehuman person. Postmodern psychology sees human beings as fictions-meaning thereis no unified, rational self and no permanent understanding of who we are.Rather, what we call human beings Postmodernists call social constructions.

Ruccio and Amariglio say there is "no singularand unique 'I.'" In other words, there is no self-identity and no permanentsoul or mind. Postmodernists refer to human beings not as persons, but assubjects, bodies, or units. Person suggests the existence of a singular and unique I who possesses a personality or humannature. ToPostmodernists, there is no human nature. There is only an ever evolving,highly sexual, social animal with multiple subjective interests crying out forrecognition and acceptance. Ruccio and Amariglio admit they have "no interestin determining or representing what the body [subject] 'really' looks like."

Our common understanding of self corresponds to our perceptionof genderand sex.However, in the Postmodern view, these two terms are not synonymous. Being bornwith a male or female anatomy thus does not make us male or female because these concepts aresocially constructed fictions. Ruccio and Amaraglio say, "Regardless ofbiological sex," human beings can be "gendered in different ways." Thus,according to the Postmodernist way of seeing things, there are no longer onlytwo sexes-male and female-but a multiplicity of genders, including, but notlimited to, heterosexual, homosexual, bi-sexual, trans-sexual, etc. All sexualities are socially andeconomically constructed and must be considered in any emerging economic theoryand practice.

One of the major goals of Postmodern economics isto eliminate the distinction between men and women, a distinction that has been"inculcated by an oppressive patriarchal society." The goal is to eliminatepatriarchal society itself and elevate the economic realities of genderedsubjects (women, homosexuals, bisexuals, etc.). The goal includes creating moreequitable work environments for all subjects in fields that are viewed to bepresently monopolized by heterosexual males-the military and the clergy, forexample.

Postmodern economics is built on severalinterlocking concepts. First, every subject's perception of self is shaped bythe surrounding culture. Second, these perceptions are fictions in the sense that they arestories we have been told by our society. Third, these stories do notcorrespond to anything objective or eternal, and they vary from culture toculture and over time.

9.6.3 Socialism overCapitalism

Building on the conviction that human units are interchangeable,Postmodernists critique our understanding of gender in Western culture asoppressive and outmoded. Historically, Western economic systems were based on amale-dominated society. Men are said to have had an upper hand because theyconstructed society and its corresponding economic structure to theiradvantage. Therefore, in order to create a society with equal opportunities forall subjects, this male-dominated system must be dismantled. Since men will notwillingly relinquish their economic power to women and the poor, the governmentmust intervene to see that economic justice is available to all. Socialism, ora state-planned economy, is such an intervention.

Postmodernists thus denounce male-dominatedcapitalism because it produces "one-sided" individuals who lack the ability toperceive the whole. Socialism, by contrast, "allows potentially all of itsmembers to see the whole." In other words, capitalism speaks primarily toheterosexual maleness, while socialism speaks to the "total" decenteredsubjects of numerous genders with its "many different subjectivitiessimultaneously none of which is given privilege as representing the subject'sreal essence, whether natural or historical . . . and without a goal or end towhich they are moving."

Some Postmodernists prefer to replace the term socialism with everyday economics. An older term is collectivism. Whatever name is used, thereis a consistent denunciation of capitalism, while Postmodernists criticize inseveral ways: 1) "profits seem to have a higher priority than people; 2) stresson workers is grueling; and 3) U. S. citizens are being fleeced by banks andpharmaceutical companies and utilities and energy companies and HMOs and big,international companies in general [numbers added]."

Stephen Hicks provides perspective to thePostmodern view of economics: "Postmodern thinkers inherit an intellectualtradition that has seen the defeat of all of its major hopes, but there wasalways socialism. As bad as the philosophical universe became in metaphysics,epistemology, and the study of human nature, there was still the vision of anethical and political order that would transcend everything and create thebeautiful collectivist society."

9.6.4 Interventionism overSocialism

While many Postmodernistsadvocate a whole-hearted socialist agenda, others are critical of how socialismhas been implemented in the past. Some Postmodern theorists go so far as toclaim that Postmodernism is "fueled by the failure of Marxian-inspired Statesocialism." In this regard, Mills writes that Foucault reacted against ". . .the purely economic and State-centered focus [of socialism and nationalism] . .. stressing that power needs to be reconceptualized and the role of the State,and the function of the economic, need a radical revisioning." Toward the endof his life, Foucault even began encouraging his students to read "libertarianauthors on the right like Friedrich A. Hayek and Ludwig von Mises."

Richard Rorty looked at thehistory of socialism and came to the conclusion that, practically speaking, itwas a failure. Rorty writes, "Just about the only constructive suggestion Marxmade, the abolition of private property, has been tried. It did not work."

While the utopian promise ofsocialism has much emotional appeal, the actual results where socialism hasbeen implemented were increased poverty and greater class division, in additionto the millions of citizens slaughtered in the attempt to maintain a state-runmonopoly. Rorty criticizes socialism and offers an alternative. He writes,"Most people on my side of this . . . cultural war have given up on socialismin light of the history of nationalization enterprises and central planning inCentral and Eastern Europe. We are willing to grant that welfare-statecapitalism is the best we can hope for. Most of us who were brought upTrotskyite now feel forced to admit that Lenin and Trotsky did more harm thangood."

Rorty is suggesting that aninterventionist approach to economics works best. Interventionism is not a totally state-plannedeconomy nor a completely free market economy, but a combination of the two,where the state plays a role in redistributing wealth created in a partially ormostly free market environment. Rorty refers to this as welfare-statecapitalism.

While most Postmodernists repudiate anyreferences to purpose or goals, Rorty is different. He believes that economictheory should have the goal of alleviating human suffering. Rorty is socommitted to this goal that he calls it the "transcultural imperative." He seesan interventionist economy as the best way to decrease human suffering. As hetold a college audience in 1999, "The non-West has a lot of justifiedcomplaints to make about the West, but it does owe a lot to Western ingenuity.The West is good at coming up with devices for lessening human suffering . .. These devices are used toprevent the strong from having their way with the weak and, thereby, to preventthe weak from suffering as much as they would have otherwise."

9.6.5 The Need for Experimentation

Other Postmodernists, however, believe Rorty istoo optimistic. They are convinced that every economic system to date hasfailed in one way or another. Iain Grant writes, ". . . if the tools of thepast-Marxism, the Enlightenment project, market liberalism and so on-have beentried and found wanting, then [as Lyotard suggested] experiment is demanded."Here, Postmodernists acknowledge that all economic theories have failed, andtherefore the best we can do is keep experimenting as we go. Maybe, by chance,we will invent some new economic idea that will better serve the people. YetPostmodernists offer no concrete alternative to build upon. Epstein observescorrectly that "one reason that Postmodernism has taken hold so widely is thatit is much easier to be critical than to present a positive vision."

Even Ruccio and Amariglio seem to have lowexpectations of Postmodern everyday economics. They say, "We don't envision(or for that matter, seek to promote) a separate Postmodern economic theory."In fact, they are "hesitant to argue that Postmodernism shows the way forward,"and are content with conversations and encounters "rather than a new [economic]home." Since there is no truth about the real world or the nature of humanity, it is hard toarrive at a correct view of economics. Such is the Postmodern dilemma.

9.6.6 Conclusion

Postmodern economics is a mixed bag ofconflicting ideas and theories. While most Postmodernists favor socialism,others opt for some milder form of interventionism. Still others harshlycritique both socialism and capitalism, and some are critical of all economic theories.

In the final analysis, while Postmodernists arenot in total agreement in every detail, they are committed to the leftist sideof the economic spectrum, favoring, to varying degrees, some form of governmentintervention. This intervention may be more overt, as with Ruccio andAmariglio, or less so, as with Rorty. But in either case, there is agreementthat capitalism is the enemy of social justice. Yet based on the Postmodernaversion to metanarratives, most hesitate to offer concrete solutions,preferring instead to experiment with some degree of socialism for an economicalternative that best suites an ever-changing social structure.

"I am well aware that I have never written anything butfictions. I do not mean to say, however, that truth is therefore absent. Itseems to me that the possibility exists for fiction to function in truth. One 'fictions'history on the basis of a political reality that makes it true, one 'fictions'a politics not yet in existence on the basis of a historical truth." - Michel Foucault

10.6.1 Introduction

The Postmodern approach tohistory differs dramatically from that of all other worldviews. For example, aChristian worldview sees history as the grand unfolding of God's divine plan toredeem a fallen humanity (see Paul's speech in Acts 17). In contrast, the moreradical Postmodernists see no ultimate purpose in history, advocating instead anihilistperspective. Less radical Postmodernists advocate the view that history is whatwe make of it. They believe that historical facts are inaccessible, leaving thehistorian to his or her imagination and ideological bent to reconstruct whathappened in the past.

Postmodernists use the term historicism to describe the view that allquestions must be settled within the cultural and social context in which theyare raised. Both Lacan and Foucault argue that each historical period has itsown knowledge system and individuals are unavoidably entangled within thesesystems. Answers to life's questions cannot be found by appealing to someexternal truth, but only to the norms and forms within each culture that phrasethe question.

10.6.2 History as Fiction

The traditional approach to history holds that by siftingthrough the evidence at hand (texts, artifacts, etc.), we may arrive at a moreor less accurate understanding of past events and their significance. Thismeans that not all descriptions of history are equally valid. Some accounts maybe more true to the actual events than others. As new information comes tolight, any narrative of history could be revised or supplemented.

However, most Postmodernistsdoubt that an accurate telling of the past is possible because they blur thedifference between fact and fiction-some even claim that all historical accounts arefiction. Foucault is one of the originators of this Postmodern approach tohistory, which offers a profound challenge to the norm. Professor John Coffey,in a biography of Foucault, provides insight into how Foucault's backgroundinfluenced his views on history:

In 1948 Michel Foucaultattempted to commit suicide. He was at the time a student at the elite Parisianuniversity, the Ecole Normale. The resident doctor there had little doubt aboutthe source of the young man's distress. Foucault appeared to be racked withguilt over his frequent nocturnal visits to the illegal gay bars of the Frenchcapital. His father, a strict disciplinarian who had previously sent his son tothe most regimented Catholic school he could find, arranged for Michel to beadmitted to a psychiatric hospital for evaluation. Yet Foucault remainedobsessed with death, joked about hanging himself and made further attempts to endhis own life. This youthful experience of himself as homosexual, suicidal andmentally disturbed proved decisive for Foucault's intellectual development. Thesubject matter of many of his later books arose from his own experience-Madnessand Civilization(1961), The Birth of the Clinic (1963), Discipline and Punish (1975), and The History of Sexuality (3 Vols. 1976-1984) all dwellon topics of deep personal concern to their author. Foucault's intellectualcareer was to be a lifelong crusade on behalf of those whom society labeled,marginalized, incarcerated and suppressed.

Thus Foucault was intent onliberating himself and others from all constraints: theological, moral, andsocial. Mark Poster observes, "Foucault offers a new way of thinking abouthistory, writing history and deploying history in current political struggles.Foucault is an anti-historian, one who in writing history, threatens everycanon of the craft." Indeed, one of Foucault's major theses was thattruth and knowledge were nothing other than claimsto power.

For Foucault, truth andknowledge were constructions we offer to persuade others. They need notcorrespond to reality, for we construct our own reality in such a way as togive us power over others. With this in mind, his admission in Knowledge/Power is revealing: "I am well awarethat I have never written anything but fictions. I do not mean to say, however,that truth is therefore absent. It seems to me that the possibility exists forfiction to function in truth, for a fictional discourse to induce effects oftruth, and for bringing it about that a true discourse engenders or'manufactures' something that does not as yet exist, that it 'fictions' it. One'fictions' history on the basis of a political reality that makes it true, one'fictions' a politics not yet in existence on the basis of a historical truth."

10.6.3 Revising History

While thehistory of humanity itself may not have a purpose, the writing of historicalaccounts does. Resonating with Foucault's approach to history is the view thatthe writing of history should promote an ideology. If, as Foucault declares, aclaim to knowledge really is nothing but an attempt to overpower others, thenretelling history serves the purpose of gaining power for some repressed group.

Thus, according to thePostmodern condition the discipline of history has turned away from the studyof significant individuals and the struggles between nations to focus on socialgroups and institutions. Tom Dixon writes, "Social historians are often drivenby activist goals. Historical research becomes not an attempt to understand thepast but a propaganda tool for use in modern political and social powerstruggles." Dixon also notes, "Postmodern cultural historians consider biasunavoidable in whole or even in part. As a result we see a growing willingnessto arrange and edit facts in a way that supports the message of particularhistorians." This is precisely where the line between recording history and revising history is crossed.

This rewriting of the past toserve a purpose, known as revisionist history, contributes to empoweringoppressed social minorities. Thus feminist histories attempt to expose amale-dominated, patriarchal past and point the way for empowering women.Likewise, homosexual histories are put forward (in response to homophobicrepressions) to provide equality for homosexuals. Black histories emphasize thehorrors of slavery to redress past maltreatment of African Americans. Everyrepressed group-minorities of all colors, ethnicities, nationalities, andsexualities-has an injustice that must be exposed in order to rectify theabuses of the past.

Take as one example RigobertaMenchu, who won the Nobel Prize in 1992 for her autobiography, I, RogobertaMenchu: An Indian Woman in Guatemala. Her book became an instant success on collegecampuses, where professors used her story to demonstrate the plight of theimpoverished Guatemalans languishing under government death squads. Menchumaintains that she personally witnessed the Guatemalan army burn her brotheralive in her town's public square. However, when doctoral student David Stollwent to Guatemala to verify Menchu's story, he discovered no villager had amemory of such a slaughter by the Guatemalan Army. In fact, the keystruggle in the book, between her father and a light-skinned landowner, wasactually an argument between her father and his in-laws.

As it turns out, Menchu had toldher story to French leftist Elisabeth Burgos-Debray,who actually wrote the autobiography, misrepresenting many "facts" inher book. Burgos-Debray claimed that Menchu, as a female, was denied school,yet she actually attended two Catholic boarding schools through seventh grade.The book states that she worked on a plantation under horrible conditions, yetshe never set foot on a plantation as a child. Also, the author claimed thatthe local villagers saw the Marxist guerrillas as liberators, when in actualitythe villagers were terrified of them.

Kevin J. Kelley comments, "U. S.leftists who give his [Stoll's] arguments a full hearing-and who have not beendeafened by their own dogma-will find Stoll's analysis difficult to dismiss."Yet, in response to Stoll's research, Professor Marjorie Agosin of WellesleyCollege stated bluntly, "Whether her book is true or not, I don't care. Weshould teach our students about the brutality of the Guatemalan military andthe U.S. financing of it." Ideology therefore trumps integrity.

A Postmodernist approach tohistory in some ways mimics Marxism, which is understandable since thefountainheads of Postmodernism have Marxism in their intellectual genealogies.A distinct residue of Marxist critique remains in their work, providing themwith the dichotomizing perspective so blatant in the Marxist vision of classstruggle. Derrida admits that his deconstruction is a radicalization "withinthe tradition of a certain Marxism, in a certain spirit of Marxism."

Specifically the Postmodernhistorian mimics Marxist understanding of the ideological nature of writinghistory. While Marxists focus on the proletariat rising against thebourgeoisies, Postmodernists focus on one gender, race, or sociallyidentifiable group in a struggle for dominion over another. Gene Veithexplains, "Post-Marxist radicalism constructs new revolutionary ideologies byreplacing Marx's concern for the oppressed working class with other oppressedgroups (blacks, women, gays). Status and moral legitimacy come from being'excluded from power.' The victim has the favored role. . . . To be black,female or gay is to enjoy a sort of secular sainthood. But even thesecategories are segmenting into ever-smaller sects of victim hood." Such anapproach does little to draw society together toward harmonious civility.Rather, it engenders a new tribalism, pitting every group against the other inan attempt to gain moral standing by becoming the greatest victim.

One significant differencebetween Postmodernist and Marxist approaches to history concerns whetherhistory has an inherent meaning. Marxists advocate historical materialism, complete with the vision thathuman history eventually will arrive at a purely communistic (i.e., classless)society. In a similar way Secular Humanists hope for evolutionary progressthroughout history and Cosmic Humanists spiritualize those evolutionary hopesfor bringing about a "New Age." But the Postmodernist view of history is distinctlyateleological(i.e., without a purpose). For them, mankind is an evolving animal but notnecessarily at the top of the species list. Homo sapiens are simply one amongmany species. We have arrived at this point in evolutionary history by chance,not design, and therefore have no purpose or destiny.

A world without meaning orpurpose results in nihilism. Stephen Hicks suggests that Derrida clearlyunderstood the kind of world Postmodernism was bringing and declared hisintention not to be among those who let their queasiness get the better ofthem. Derrida proclaimed that Postmodernists "do not turn their eyes away" whenfaced with the prospect that ours is "the species of the nonspecies, in theformless, mute, infant, and terrifying form of monstrosity." This is a strongrejection of a meaningful past. Given a naturalistic approach to life, onewithout the bold assertions of Marxism or the sentimental hopefulness ofHumanism, a Postmodern view of history is devoid of ultimate meaning orpurpose.

10.6.5 Conclusion

Because ideashave consequences, we cannot afford to overlook the consequences of the moreradical Postmodern approaches to history. If history is mere fiction, or evenlargely so, then those who deny, for example, the Nazi holocaust are validatedin their attempts to diminish the numbers of Jews imprisoned, tortured,starved, shot, cremated, or buried in mass graves. Indeed, if history is(largely) fiction, then Mother Teresa and Adolph Hitler cannot be used asexamples of good and evil. There are no "facts." There are only various degreesof fiction.

11.5.1 Introduction

In this sectionwe provide an overall critique of Postmodernism. Atheism and evolution areaddressed in the critique on Secular Humanism and Marxism and are not repeatedhere. While we offer some assessment within several of the Postmodern worldviewdisciplines, we provide an in-depth critique. As with the other worldviews, wefocus on the major themes that are the distinguishing features of thisworldview. For Postmodernism, these primary areas are philosophy (the nature ofreality and truth), politics, and history.

11.5.2 Subjective Truth, Deconstruction, and Anti-Realism

For example,Postmodernist Melville Herskovits writes, "Even the facts of the physical worldare discerned through the enculturative screen, so that the perception of time,distance, weight, size, and other 'realities' is mediated by the conventions ofany group." To which Hadley Arkes responds, "Happily for us all, this argumentis fatally vulnerable to the recognition, accessible to the educated, theuneducated-and even, at times, to the overeducated-that there is a materialworld out there. That world happens to be filled with facts [truths] that donot depend for their existence as facts on the 'experience' or the subjective'perceptions' of individuals. Even if the 'enculturative screen' of Jersey Cityaffected its natives with fanciful 'perceptions' of 'distance,' the actualdistance between Jersey City and Paris is very likely to remain the same."

11.5.3 Who decides?

Paul Kurtz elaborates on thisproblem. He describes Postmodernism as a nihilistic "philosophical-literarymovement," meaning that since objective truth does not exist, we can neitherknow nor communicate anything. To balance the idea that objective truth isunknowable, Kurtz claims that science offers "reasonably objective standardsfor judging its truth claims." He continues, "Science has become a universallanguage, speaking to all men and women no matter what their culturalbackgrounds."

While we agree with Kurtz that scientificknowledge can lead to truth concerning the physical universe, our BiblicalChristian philosophy of knowledge also emphasizes revealed truth as a means forunderstanding other truths, including our relationship to God.

The negative consequences of a Postmodernapproach to language cannot be overstated. For a telling example of applyingdeconstruction to law, go back to 1973. In handing down their decision in theRoe v Wade case, the majority of the Supreme Court chose to look at theConstitution as a "living document"-that is, open to many interpretations(polysemy). As a result, they invented new meanings from the originaltext-meanings that are not openly stated-and came up with a novelinterpretation regarding a woman's reproductive rights. The consequence oftheir decision is that, since 1973, over 40 million unborn children have beenmurdered at the request of their mothers.

Postmodernists are correct about onething-interpretation is important. Confucius says, "When words lose theirmeanings, people lose their freedom." In reality, however, when words losetheir meaning, people lose not only their freedom, but their lives!

11.5.4 The Truth about Truth

In stark contrast to Postmodern ideas thatlanguage is fluid and open to varying interpretations, the Christian worldviewsays that objective truth exists. In contrast to Postmodern ideas that ourparticular community determines truth, nearly everything about Christianity is universal in scope and application. Godcreated the whole universe, including men and women. Sin is a universal condition affecting every humanbeing. God loved the whole world, including every human being. Christ died for the sinsof the whole world,not just one or two particular communities. Christians are to love God with alltheir heart and mind and their fellow human beings around the whole world.

God chose to communicate thetruth about Himself and His world through words contained in the Scripturesalong with the language of the heavens (Psalm 19). God's words do not dependupon a reader's interpretation. Instead, the reader is to interpret the Bibleaccording to God's intention. The Apostle Peter is clear when he writes, "Aboveall, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by theprophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will ofman, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit" (2Peter 1:19-21).

To correctly understand themeaning of any text of Scripture, we should heed Paul's advice to Timothy: "Doyour best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does notneed to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth" (2 Timothy2:15). By acknowledging that God has communicated in language true things aboutthe real world, and by diligently studying the Bible, you can know the truththat sets you free (John 8:32).

11.5.5 Progressive Politics and Social InJustice

Postmodernistsseem to contradict themselves in identifying their political stance. Anassessment of the Postmodernist approach to politics reveals a glaringcontradiction. While Foucault maintains a seeming detachment regarding variouspolitical systems and says he is all over the political checkerboard, heundeniably holds leftist political views. Postmodernists may refer to theirviews as progressive, and some, like Rorty, may be more "moderate" than others, but thefact remains that they are all huddled together on the political left. Foucaultstated publicly, "When the proletariat takes power, it may be quite possiblethat the proletariat will exert toward the classes over which it has triumpheda violent, dictatorial, and even bloody power. I can't see what objection couldpossibly be made to this."

Anotherdifficulty is that Postmodernists fail to act consistently with theirworldview. On the one hand, they say no metanarrative can capture the essenceof truth. Yet, at the same time they say that a leftist vision of socialjustice is "right" for the world. Denying all metanarratives, how do they knowtheir view is correct? Why do they try to rescue the oppressed? Why isoppression wrong? Why do they try to impose their views on others? These arequestions Postmodernists cannot answer according to their own view of realityand truth. The best they can say is "We don't like it."

Althoughthey do not know it, their desire to change the plight of the oppressed is anappeal to something basic, a sense of the moral order. Only a biblicalworldview can answer the question of why Postmodernists sense that everyoneshould be treated fairly. It is because God has written on their hearts therequirements of His moral law (Romans 2:14-15). In reality, when aPostmodernist calls for justice or fairness, he is borrowing this idea from aChristian worldview and trying to make it fit into his own, since there is nosuch thing as fairness found within his own worldview.

Whenit comes to social justice, Postmodernists begin with the wrong theology(atheism), which leads to a wrong philosophy (anti-realism), which in turnresults in a wrong understanding of human nature (we are a product of socialforces). Therefore, Postmodernists fall into a badly aimed approach topolitics-trying to force an outward change upon society under the guise ofsocial justice.

Thosewho invest in learning from history and observing human nature are aware ofproblems inherent in the quest for social justice. Milton Friedman wrote, "Asociety that puts equality-in the sense of equality of outcome-ahead of freedomwill end up with neither equality nor freedom. The use of force to achieveequality will destroy freedom, and the force, introduced for good purposes,will end up in the hands of people who use it to promote their own interests."

ThomasSowell refers to this desire for the perfect society as "The Quest for CosmicJustice." Sowell explains that traditionally, justice is "characteristic of a process." He then illustrates his point:"A defendant in a criminal case would be said to have received justice if thetrial were conducted as it should be, under fair rules and with the judge andjury being impartial. After such a trial, it could be said that "justice wasdone'-regardless of whether the outcome was an acquittal or an execution."

Incontrast to the traditional definition of justice, the Postmodern concept ofsocial justice seeks to "eliminate underserved disadvantages for selectedgroups." This they consider "fair." Sowell explains, "Note how the word 'fair'has an entirely different meaning in this context. Cosmic [social] justice isnot about the rules of the game. It is about putting particular segments ofsociety in the position that they would have been in but for some undeservedmisfortune. This conception of fairness requires that third parties must wieldthe power to control outcomes, over-riding rules, standards, or the preferencesof other people."

Sowell points out that social justice can never beachieved because it demands vastly more knowledge then anyone has available. Inreality, every individual has advantages or disadvantages in life. Some havebeauty but lack intelligence, others are born into wealth but lack emotionalstability, while others may have athletic ability but are crippled by a quicktemper. The point is, how can anyone else be in a position to judge whichadvantages should be disregarded and which disadvantages should be remedied?The answer is that no one possesses the necessary insight. There are too manyvariables. Therefore, the idea that government can bring about a forcedequality among all people is unreasonable and unattainable.

Anotherproblem with social justice is that it fails to consider the overall cost tosociety as a whole. Social justice focuses on one segment of the population but"disregards the interests of others who are not the immediate focus ofdiscussion, but who nevertheless pay the price of the decisions made."

Forexample, when a certain class of students is given preference for admittance tocollege in spite of low test scores, the additional cost to the college forproviding scholarships to students who will eventually drop out is beingoverlooked. Other groups not considered in the decision are the alumnisupporting their school with donations for such scholarships, as well as otherstudents who were better qualified academically but not admitted. The result isnot fairness but further state-sanctioned "unfairness." As former radical DavidHorowitz writes, "The regime of social justice, of which the Left dreams, is aregime that by its very nature must crush individual freedom."

11.5.6 Faith-based Justice

When it comes to helping the poor, while a worthy goal,Socialism's vision of economic equality is a false hope. History is repletewith the failed attempts of such schemes. Nowhere has socialism been tried thatit succeeded. That is because the idea is based on a wrong psychology, one thatassumes that humanity is basically good. On the other hand, acknowledging oursinfulness leads to a free market economy that provides the greatest amount ofopportunity and economic progress. Furthermore, helping the poor isaccomplished through actions, not mere words. Richard John Neuhaus offers acritique of Postmodern rhetoric in contrast to the actions of faith-basedgroups: "In cities across the country and generally under conservativeauspices, such street-level programs of personal and community renewal arerapidly multiplying. Nothing comparable is happening on the left." In otherwords, "faith-based organizations" (generally religious and conservative innature) are helping the poor, families with no father, and communities overrunwith drugs and crime. Postmodern organizations are few and far behind in theseefforts to practice what they preach.

Thefounders of Western civilization rejected the utopian vision of social justiceand opted instead for traditional justice. Specifically, those who formed theUnited States sought to create a nation based on realistic ideals-individualliberty and opportunity. Because they also understood our sinful nature, theysought to put "chains" (their term) around government to check its tendency toabuse power. They wrote the ultimate check on the politics of power into theDeclaration of Independence-an appeal to the "laws of nature and Nature's God"as well as the opening phrase of the Constitution: "We, the people . . ." Theirwisdom placed political power ultimately in the hands of the citizens, whothemselves were trained by Christian religion and biblical morality. If we donot take our responsibility seriously, then we have only ourselves to blamewhen we lose our liberty to those who would seek to impose their brand ofsocial justice on us.

Yet,the task at times seems overwhelming. What can we do to make a difference?J.R.R. Tolkien provides an answer. In a scene from The Two Towers, Pippin and Merry entreat thepeace-loving Ents (ancient trees that walk and talk) to join the battle againstthe forces of the evil Sauron. When the trees refuse, Pippin tries to solaceMerry by saying, "Maybe Treebeard is right. We don't belong here, Merry. Thisis too big for us. What can we do in the end? We've got the Shire. Maybe weshould go home." Merry replies with desperation in his voice, "The fires ofIsengard will spread, and the woods of Tribru and Buckland will burn. And allthat was once great and good in this world will be gone."

WhatMerry understood is a lesson for contemporary Christians. If we fail to actwhile we still have the freedom to speak our minds, there will come a day whenthe power-plays of political correctness will eliminate our liberties, and allthat was once "great and good" about Western civilization will be gone. Theland of the free will cease to exist.

11.5.7 What Can We Know about History?

Postmodernists claim that allhistorical accounts are merely fictions created for a political purpose andthat all historians are biased, confined within their own social setting. Historians,of course, have a worldview, some vision of political improvement, and a hostof emotional investments. This always has been the case, and it is well known.Dixon writes, "In earlier times, historians acknowledged and resisted personalbias as antithetical to good historical research."

Nevertheless, some historicalevents have been grossly mischaracterized, such as when some claimed that theterrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, were a Jewish plot to encourageAmerica to pursue a more aggressive policy against Muslims. Clearly, historycan be both misidentified as well as mischaracterized. While it is true thatsome historians have misconstrued history to convince others of a certainperspective of past events, the fact that we can even know this has occurred illustratesthat history is not entirely inaccessible. That narratives of the past can be corrected illustrates that history shouldnot be equated with fictional accounts such as imaginative novels.

Should we accept the Postmodernfeminist approach to history that claims everyone has an insurmountable bias?The problem here is that the feminist historian's ideology is very much likethe feminists' objections to pro-life arguments against abortion. Whenconfronting a man who is pro-life, feminists decry, "But you're a man!" It isas though our gender determines the legitimacy of our argument. On the otherhand, if a woman presents a similar pro-life argument, is she taken seriously?No! Feminists retort that such women are intellectually incarcerated by thedominant male ideology. Pro-life women are considered dupes, pawns in thestruggle for male dominance. To assert that only participants in particulargroups can write the histories of those groups is to imply that the oppressedcan never write the histories of their oppressors. Yet, such histories would bevery appropriate, revealing what the oppressors might otherwise overlook asmundane.

Today, many people are ignorantof history, which plays into the hands of film-makers with particular agendas.By weaving together fact and fiction in entertaining ways, with engagingstory-lines and attractive actors, screenwriters, directors, and producers canmanipulate the understanding of the average viewer because most are illequipped to sort out historical events from imaginative interpretations. Filmssuch as Braveheart, Good Night and Good Luck, The Last Temptation ofChrist, or TheDa Vinci Codeleave viewers with a compelling story of the past, yet with no way to decipherwhere history ends and embellishment begins.

It goes without saying that weshould not believe everything we read or see. We must retain a certain degreeof skepticism as we listen to various claims, for not all claimants intend totell the truth. This is especially true in our Postmodern world, where ideologyis considered more important that telling the truth.

It is alsoclear that individuals, communities, and governments have misconstrued historyfor the purpose of either gaining power or covering up their misdeeds. Forexample, the former Soviet Union controlled the writing of textbooks and taughtchildren that Joseph Stalin was the epitome of virtue when in reality he was amass murderer. The truth was discovered when eyewitnesses came forward speakingof the atrocities and when the mass graves of the slaughtered were found.Continued research into history revealed the truth about Stalin, Lenin, MaoTse-Tung, Pol Pot, and others.

Revelations of truth concerningStalin and others are not mere social constructions or the political biases ofpresent-day historians. Rather they form the consensus of scholarly reflectionbased on the assumption that we can have access to truth about the past. Whilethis is something that Postmodernists are not willing to admit, it is the onlysensible approach to understanding history.