The Elusive Edge of Reality: Unpacking the Tensions between Postmodernity and Modernity
In his foundational work Explaining Postmodernism, Stephen Hicks offers a critical examination of the intellectual and cultural landscape shaped by postmodern thought. This essay will delve into the fundamental tensions between modernity and postmodernity, emphasizing the Marxist roots of postmodernism and the implications of its philosophical tenets on our understanding of reality.
One ongoing debate that pervades even contemporary philosophy is that of truth. The modern era was one that was devoted to applying reason and science, and thus believed that truths can be determined, independently of the knower, through observation and logic. This objective notion of truth is rather important in the functioning of any society because it upholds particularly the rule of law, property rights and liberty ideals that modern conservative thought is based on. The postmodern project, again in polar opposition, aims at deconstructing this point by claiming that truth is never objective, but always contexted within particular cultures, or languages. Such an attitude of cultural relativism is not simply a matter of intellectual exploration; it bears very real consequences for the bonds of society’s unity and the health of democratic governance.
Hicks explains how postmodernism develops analytically dispelling the modernistic tendency to impose a single correct version. Post modernity attempts at the pursuit of truth through the mental lens of several individuals that has gone through a culture bias that tends to be more tolerable regarding the moral values in question. This radical change engaged can similarly be seen as regressing towards a kind of intellectual vacuum, one where standpoints similar to the teachings of Marxism, whose aim has always been to upend known truths and structure in favor of a war of social change, sit easily within.
The first major tension is embedded in the very modernity’s contradictions. Yet, where modernity aspired to the objective cognition of reality, it nevertheless acknowledged the impact of the individual and his or her experiences. Such was the situation in the late eighteenth century when Enlightenment philosophers such as Kant and Hume wrestled with the tendency of human beings to know more than was appropriate. The postmodernists make these criticisms about these attempts not with the aim of enlightenment but of generating chaos within society and its development through away from the principles that support reason and order.
The second tension, postmodernity’s emphasis on cultural relativism and linguistic constructivism makes truth and falsehood to be on a rub between each other and especially this blurs the line between them. This is an environment in which the idea of “truth” becomes progressively unoiled as opposed narratives throw doubt upon the idea of an objective reality. The benefits of such fragmentation are minimal and the risks to individual understanding and collective social coherence are real. When truth is reduced to the subjective interpretation only, then the very position of civil society trust in cooperation and shared values begins to collapse into chaos and division.
A third tension involves the rejection of grand narratives sometimes defines our ideas about history and society. The broader story critique of postmodernism based in such Enlightenment based stories encourages a fragmentation of reality, isolating individuals’ isolated perspectives as the norm. This jeopardizes the social cohesion that keeps community life knit together and can also lead to a potential loss of shared meaning. Hayek had noticed that the destruction of the shared narratives disrupts the spontaneous order needed for a free society.
To navigate these tensions, this essay will propose two strategies for re-engaging with reality: It (1) is critical to the examination of the consequences of postmodernity’s disavowal of the grand narratives, and (2) is a renewed interest in the power of narrative in facilitating our comprehension of the larger world.
Empowering the narrative is important to uphold truth and to effect a common understanding of reality. When we recognize that all knowledge stems from what humans know about, we can notice how cultures and languages express a different way of seeing truth and morality. This acknowledgement of the role of tradition, heritage and shared values in bringing about social cohesion and national identity is important.
Furthermore, a re-positioning of postmodernism’s rejection of grand narratives as an opportunity for critical examination could both protect our cultural heritage from the erosion of the traditional values, as well as hold the task of preserving memories. Rather than being drowned in a chaotic relativistic mire, we need to embrace post modern skepticism as a clarion call to action demanding that we take our dominant narrative apart, putting us on the hunt for the assumptions underlying principles of justice, morality and human dignity which have been assimilated, apparently uncontentiously, to evacuate their lived meanings and fallaciousness. Rather, this is about how our shared values and traditions are such an essential, true foundation for sound and just society.
Finally, we have looked the clash which comes into existing in between modernity and postmodernity, the search for objectivity against what is the subjectivity of postmodern thought. Through these tensions we learn something about the complexities of postmodernism, and the Marxist underpinnings of which it so often embeds itself. However, at the end of this adventure, this query might permit the exploration of what is the truth and, moreover, what counts as truth and accept that the narrative matter as much in the construction of our reality as it is necessary to challenge the ‘main’ narratives that constitute the societies we live in. This balanced approach means that we maintain adherence to the principles of rational inquiry and objective truth that are so crucial to the continuing existence in the West of democratic, scientific, and market economies.
