Response to the comment 'Aren't we already postmodern?'

This is a response to Stephen’s comment. I intended it to be another comment, but it got too long!...

There's a lot of confusion over what postmodernism is and it is used to describe lots of different things. As I mentioned in the introduction, even within the church postmodernism can mean very different things. Obviously using language as a signifier of meaning, if a particular trend or behaviour or approach is consistently labeled 'postmodern' you could argue that it becomes understood as postmodern. This is I think what you are describing- that it's become pretty commonplace to talk about our culture (or at least youngsters like you) as postmodern, as generation x etc.

But I would argue that despite the term postmodernism (postmodern etc) having infiltrated the popular lexicon, postmodernism as a cultural/philosophical phenomenon with characteristics that are distinct from modernity is still only just emerging. Indeed, that when we look at some of these charateristics, for instance the assumptions people typically bring to studying something, we can see that we are still operating according to modern conventions. I want to discuss the key characteristics of postmodernism in some depth in coming posts, so I won't jump in now. But just to elaborate on the one example above, a modern way to study something emphasises the need for observation, for empirical, quantifiable data and follows a linear route from not knowing to knowing. If we think about Landa Cope's OTT we can see these emphases or assumptions (implictly at least). We want to study how to disciple nations. We look to a source of knowledge/authority, observe/study/read/apply it and in so doing we progress from not knowing much about the issue towards a greater knowledge. This is a distinctly modern way to study/to engage with information, and yet what I've described is very natural to us. It's what we do - that's because our mindset remains modern, despite postmodern labels that we've picked up from pop culture.

Again, I want to wrestle with postmodern approaches to study and to the notion of truth particularly, in some depth, so I'll just skim over it here. But I suggest that applying some of the insights of postmodern thought to Landa's project for instance would move us away from a linear progression towards greater knowledge. Instead we would be encouraged to move away from the automatic assumption that there is a single privileged viewpoint (perhaps a text, a dogma, a creed) that is capable of being applied objectively. Instead, the contingency and subjectivity of the viewpoint would be laid open to scrutiny and (in one approach at least) deconstructed in an attempt to reveal its essence - or non-contingent core. Then careful application could be attempted, but premised provisionally on subjectivity of our many different and imperfect viewpoints. Essentially we would be looking at quite a radically different looking endeavour.

I guess what I could have said to summarise the dislocation between our society becoming popularly known as postmodern and the emerging transition towards postmodernism that I introduced is that one (the popular labeling) is about surface cultural signifiers, while the other relates to structural change (bearing in mind that such a distinction is woefully simplistic!).