Postmodernism: An Opportunity for the Church - Part II

As an "organized" philosophical ideology, "postmodernism is primarily a reinterpretation of what knowledge is and what counts as knowledge." More specifically, "it represents a form of cultural relativism about such things as, reality, truth, reason, value, linguistic meaning, the self and other notions." While there are a number of diverse "postmodern" philosophers such as Nietzsche, and Martin Heidegger as well as the influential work of Swiss linguist, Ferdinand de Saussure, perhaps the more influential thinker in this area was the contemporary French philosopher Jacques Derrida (1930-2004). Derrida developed a de-constructive strategy of analysis that has now been applied to literature, linguistics, philosophy, law and architecture. Derrida's approach sought to "deconstruct" all prior assumptions related to these categories and question the basis of all previously established perceptions. In particular, Derrida published three books in 1967 - Speech and Phenomena, Of Grammatology, and Writing and Difference, which introduced this deconstructive approach to reading texts in particular.

Derrida argued that the traditional way of reading makes a number of false assumptions about the nature of language and texts. According to Derrida, a traditional reader believes that language is capable of expressing ideas without changing them, that in the hierarchy of language writing is secondary to speech, and that the author of a text is regarded as the source of its meaning. Derrida's deconstructive style of reading completely subverts these assumptions and challenges the idea that a text has an unchanging, unified meaning. In other words, as a result of Derrida's influence, the meaning of a text was no longer to be found in the mind of the writer but rather each reader. Derrida believed that the reader approaches a text with a variety of cultural and environmental influences that, if different from the writer's will by necessity produce a different interpretation. So, a black male under the age of twenty-five living in South Central Los Angeles would read and necessarily interpret Shakespeare, Dickens, or the Bible differently than say an elderly Asian woman living in Hong Kong. Therefore to attempt to instruct either to understand the author's intentions and meaning would be to "impose" a Western mindset in the case of Shakespeare and Dickens, and a near-Eastern "Christian" perspective in the case of the Bible. There is some truth to this but Derrida goes too far in suggesting that, as a result of these culturally influenced interpretations, there can never be any uniform understanding of the writer's original intention. Thus, according to Derrida, we are each left with our own interpretation and that interpretation then becomes the true meaning. Therefore there is no single truth or meaning but rather an infinite number of truths and meanings. This is where postmodernism derives its reputation as the cause of all things "relativistic" as it ultimately posits that "any claim is only true relative to the beliefs or valuations of an individual that accepts it."

However, Derrida's conclusions remain purely academic and simply untrue. While there are certainly social, cultural, and ethnic factors which influence our perceptions that does not mean that we are utterly unable to transcend their influence in order to understand the author's perspective and thus his or her original meaning. Isn't this precisely the way we study Scripture, for example? It is essential to first understand to whom and in what context biblical statements were made in order to grasp their true meaning. We do this all the time and are, in fact, able to understand the author or speaker's intent and meaning. That is not to say that we do not sometimes err in our interpretation but that does not negate the possibility of understanding altogether as Derrida suggests. If this were so then there would be no effective communication with anyone anywhere. There would be no way to communicate across backgrounds and cultures, leaving us isolated and confused and yet this is obviously not the case. The fact is effective communication takes place everyday between individuals, across cultures and around the globe. How does the Derrida or the postmodern in general account for this?

To be continued...

You can listen to this message online here

Subscribe to the Weekly podcast here

Michael lives in the Dallas area with his wife Carol and their three children.