Postmodernism emphasizes several things one of which is "both-and" thinking instead of "either/or" thinking. A client once said, "I am no good and my life stinks. There is nothing I can do about it. This is just the way things are".
(They didn't really say this, but it helps me get to my point.) We would say this person has a negative self image and is probably depressed. We know because the opposite statement would be something like, "I am a good person and overall I like my life". But she didn't. ("But" is an either/or word. ) She took the position of an emotional "victim". She was acting helpless and hopeless, discouraged, and maybe if you listened long enough you'd get tired and say she was "whiny". You even might get upset with her depression and her "stuckness" in it.
We do either/or thinking frequently and aren't aware of it. Either this person is a victim or is not. We think they have to choose one or the other. Friends, out of caring and concern, will often say words of encouragement that fall on deaf ears. We emphasize the positive but it does no good. They have got themselves convinced of their position.
I wonder what a postmodernist counselor would do? Listen to the pain and look for the possibilities.
Counseling is both listening to pain and listening for possibilities. For a postmodernist, this means a depressed person tells a story about herself that she believes is true. The story may even have a name. For example: "Poor Me." or "Ain't it awful?" Their story of depression "becomes" that person.
We call this the dominant story of her life-if it is. She is left with her story: a story which she tells herself over and over. This is the pain story. Until that story is deeply respected the pain will last for sure. The other story is her "possibilities" story which lives in her but on the edge, under the surface, dormant, or "marginalized".
What most of us do is tell the depressed person the positive, the good in their life, and to "buck up. Things will get better someday". Of course it doesn't. The poor me person gets even more discouraged at not being heard and may even turn on you for being positive. This other story is the "yes but" story: the Pollyanna story. The rose colored glasses story. The story of a coach encouraging his team at half time when they are down 42 to nothing.
Are we left with either telling them a pretty picture about tomorrow or feeling sorry for them today? Neither choice seems to help. Either/or thinking leads to a situation in which neither solution works for the depressed person nor for the "helper". We want them to get to the possibilities and the positive and talk them out of their pain. They aren't willing to listen for possibilities until someone respects their pain.
Another solution is to approach a depressed person with both opposites. "I see you are depressed and you are feeling lousy." Hear their pain first. And then listen for the "exception" in their story and ask questions about it. This is when the client or your friend begins to tell a different story or an additional story. We call this the alternative story. Both are in her. The question is will she claim both sides of herself, and choose to live out of her possibilities? Will you allow her both sides or try to convince her of only the happy side?
I have some landscaping in front of my house. Weeds grow and so do flowers and shrubs. I even have a cactus. When I see the weeds I have two reactions. "I never can get rid of those weeds. I hate pulling weeds." Or I say, "Think how pretty the landscaping will look if I pull the weeds. But I hate pulling weeds." And so back and forth I go. (No. This story does not keep me up at night.) Finally, I look at the weeds and say, "I don't want to pull weeds and so I am going to pull two or three a day. That's a new solution or new alternative. Until I "own" not liking to pull weeds, I won't figure out an alternative. The story now becomes, "I will pull a couple of weeds any time I want to feel good and have the landscaping look good." Now I accept that pulling weeds is a "pain in the..." and pulling a few at a time raises the possibility of becoming satisfied.
Another outdoor story: The next time a friend says they are living in poison ivy and don't deserve to get up and move away: don't go sit in the ivy with them. Sit by the side and have a visit. And when they tell you about a "garden" they once had ask them to tell you more about the garden, while they still are sitting in the ivy. See what happens over time. With both/and thinking their pain and their possibilities are respected. With both/and thinking our pain and our possibilities are respected.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
FIRE! FIRE!
In my experience as a Marriage and Family Therapist, I have come to realize the interesting and intriguing ways in which words shape my client's "realities". When I read how much language means to postmodern thinking I become curious about the connection between the two.
For postmodernists reality is "created" by words in particular and language in general. Language "creates" realities. And a word or words or an entire language do not have a single meaning. There are multiple meanings attached to words. Factors such as tonality, social mores, context of the conversations, etc. shape meaning with so many variants as to make each utterance unique to the circumstances at hand. For example, if I yell "Fire. Fire.", whether there is a fire or not, there are multiple possible meanings to these words.
It is only in the confines of a particular situation can we know what is going on. This is why we call this phenomena the social construction of reality. It takes a social situation to know something about the meaning of "Fire. Fire." Society will provide social clues and cues based on experience and agreed upon meanings as to the dominant meanings of "Fire. Fire."
This is a subjective story which make sense in North American society. The two words evoke "panic" and "warning". They also provoke actions of panic to the warning. It is a warning that is immanent and happening in the present time. The warning is not like a warning that, "Something might happen, so be careful. You have been warned." No, this is "real". And there is more. Usually when we hear "Fire. Fire. we think in terms of a warning being issued in panic in a theater with people. Yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater is so emotionally charged is that everyone panics and rushes for the exits. This happens in movies, at musical concerts and in sports stadiums, etc. The "Fire. Fire." story is almost predictable. The only caveat is how many make it out and how many die inside.
This is not the only story that can be told about a fire. Suppose the theater manager came out and asked the audience to "leave by the side or front exits as a precaution". She would not have to say a precaution for what. The message becomes different because now the verbal context is different. She increases the chances people will leave in "an orderly fashion" complete with ushers leading the way "calmly". In fact things would be calmer if the manager did not use the code word "calm" as in "everyone stay calm" or " leave in an orderly fashion". These expressions are euphemisms for "Fire. Fire."
What I have presented to you is what social constuctivists call "deconstruction" of a story. The pieces are examined, the context analyzed, questions are asked, assumptions become curiosities, etc. This is an "easy" story to deconstruct because it is a predominant story; one with which most of us can identify.
Suppose the words "I love you" are spoken. There can be endless stories told using these three words. Everyone of them has a social context and a subjective meaning for both hearer and speaker. So varied and so complex and so numerous are the possibilities for different meanings attached to "I love you" as to become meaningless. We arrive at a point where certain assumptions are attached to different social situations in order to make sense of them. "I love you" spoken by a person to their spouse may have a different meaning that a rock star telling her audience "I love you". Even then we don't know what assumptions or meanings the words have in these two contexts.
It is "who says" that establishes what love means. And the "who says" isn't just one person. It is multiple voices of multiple cultures with multiple personal and social histories. Who knows who the who knows are? Again, this is why postmodernists say reality is subjective. Another way of saying this is "it depends" what "I love you" means. It depends on the many to decide "what does that mean?" One person's "I love you" might weigh more and mean more than an other's.
Postmodernists want there to be as many differences and as much diversity in as many cultures as possible so many will have "room" to participate in the societies they live in. From different stories about "Fire Fire" to "I love you".
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Everything I Need to Know about the Emergent Conversation, I Learned from My Father
I found this article recently from a website called EmergentVillage.com and on their weblog. I am giving credit to the author and sharing it with you as it "fits" into our postmodern conversations. RJV
Everything I Need to Know about the Emergent Conversation, I Learned from My Father
Posted Jun 12
by Laura Baker
And he’s gonna be maaaad when he finds out.
My father is a republican, federal-government-employed electrical engineer who has been married to my mother for over forty years. He is also an elder in the Presbyterian Church of America.
I, on the other hand, am a politically independent, feminist, divorced single mom with a Ph.D. in literature (my focus was on African-American and working-class stories).
It will not surprise my dad that I’m involved with emergent circles. But it may surprise him that he led me straight to them.
You see, I love post-modern culture, and the language it gives to multiplicity of meanings in life and art. My motto is from Emerson: “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” But my father is an Enlightenment Man. He is a rational, linear thinker who believes in empirical data, black and white, true and false, good and evil. To put it nicely, he thinks post-modern thinking is absurd (which, of course, it literally is). To be not-so-nice, he thinks it’s touchy-feely hooey.
When I say that my dad led me to the emerging church, I’m not saying it in any kind of hippie, he-taught-me-to-love-and-value-all-opinions kind of way. He didn’t. Not intentionally anyway.
In fact, there’s very little in the public arena that my dad and I can agree on. We used to spend evening after evening, arguing across the dinner table. My brother (smarter than both of us) would usually moderate, with a general leaning in my father’s direction. And my sweet mother would often leave the room with a nervous stomach, thinking the family was coming apart. But those evenings are absolutely what led to my ability to make a pointed argument in a flash, and thus any success I had in academics.
I spent 30 years in school studying fiction. My dad won’t read stories because “they aren’t true.” But still, when he talks about Civil War history, he spins a most amazing yarn. I’m telling you, don’t ever pass up the opportunity to walk a
I love Nietzsche, Gadamer, Foucault, and Derrida. My dad loves Luther and his Bible, and he reads them both regularly. He thinks my conversations about perspective and narrative-subjectivity are “psycho-babble.” But he finds Luther much more palatable than John Calvin, not to mention a lot more fun. My dad is quick with a laugh, and he doesn’t (always) take himself too seriously.
My dad is right in calling me a “bleeding heart”; the stereotype fits me at least a little bit, causing my father endless sighs and eye-rolling. Talk to him about politics and you’ll get a powerful earful. On most hot-button issues, I usually walk away thinking, Man, my dad’s a hardass. But he’s also a lifelong volunteer, serving the Boy Scouts for over thirty years. My entire childhood was filled with an endless line of smelly, rumpled, pre-pubescent boys heading down my basement stairs for Green Bar meetings. And, according to my mother, Dad still gets late-night calls from old scouts needing anything from a few bucks to a letter of reference, and sometimes just an ear and some fatherly advice.
My dad sounds tough, but is deeply kind. He quips that he doesn’t care how you feel, only what you think; but he will do more for a stranger than anyone I’ve ever seen. And his apologies are epic—if he feels he’s hurt me, he will absolutely address it and take full responsibility.
No, he won’t read a novel, but he can tell endless stories about when I was little and when he was little and when his mom was little, and even when Confederate General Robert E. Lee was little.
Maybe my dad is why the endless contradictions in the Bible don’t bother me much—they are beautiful and complicated and irritating and transforming. Like my dad. Even though neither always makes perfect sense.
My dad’s gonna hate reading this but it’s completely true: he gave me almost every post-modern leaning I have. He helped me form ideas which I’m pretty sure would bar me from membership in his own PCA church. And he is why I will continue to dedicate much of my time and energy to stories. He is also why I will refuse to debate when the only point is to humiliate my opponent. My father would argue tooth and nail against any emergent-ish theology, but he lives the love and tolerance and integrity and community that I value so much in emergent circles. I’m emergent, and it’s all his fault.
Happy Father’s Day, Dad.
Laura Baker is a freelance writer living in
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Christian Hubris and Christian Humility
What is Christian hubris? It is lifting our God to the level of an exclusive (The) God at the expense of other world religions who believe their God is The God . It is presuming to know the truth about God through doctrines, dogma, theologies, hermeneutics, etc. To presume is to assume an other's presuppositions about God are not divinely right. It is "Christian egotism" to say that our God is the God.
Christian hubris is sometimes subtle and sometimes blatant. It is sometimes harmless and other times dangerous. It goes beyond "our" beliefs about God and believes "this" is the way God is to be to the exclusion of other faiths. Hubris is acting as if our ground were the only holy ground on the playing field of divinity. Religious hubris in general leads to intolerance, close mindedness, crusades, inquisitions, witch hunts, genocide, holocausts, etc. In its more benign form it assumes a "live and let live" attitude while secretly knowing we have the truth and they don't. Christian humility identifies who and whose we are. It thereby does not exclude other religion's sense of "we".
We draw walls around our religious communities and create an us versus them mentality.
The righteous settlers banded in a circle against the attacking "savages" is a metaphor for more than The Manifest Destiny Doctrine. Christian hubris claims as much territory of truth as it can occupy. We have the truth and nothing but the truth. "I am the way, the truth, and the life" said the second century Christians about Christ. Name calling and prejudicial assumptions are made in the name of Christian hubris. Instead of the emphasis being upon "we" are the people of God, "The" takes stage center and leads to its own self righteousness. We are in and you are out. There is plenty in the Holy Books of three of the major religions that make claims about what I call religious hubris. There is plenty of hubris in religion to go around.
Religious humilityalso exists within the Holy Books and faith stances of three of the world's major religions. Christian humility looks at the elephant story as a faith story about our limits in knowing God. Each blind person thinks the part they touch is the elephant . Chrisian humility accepts that there is more to an elephant than each part.
Do people of other faiths go to heaven? If not do they go to hell? If they go to heaven then what difference does it make to be a Christian? That is hubris. An answer that works is "God only knows". Christian humility says "I don't know the answer and if that is even the right question I'm going to leave it up to God as to how God answers". That is humility of faith.
Christian humility stresses and is very comfortable affirming its own faith without worrying about making claims on God about God being inclusive or exclusive. It identifies who and whose we are. Christian humility is comfortable risking a leap of faith that says this is my God and our God. It does not exclude an other religion's sense of "we". This is how we live with our God and one an other's God: We join with y(our) faith in matters of service to humanity and in respectful conversations. We refuse to be drawn into arguments about religious rightness.
Christianity does not apologize for our beliefs about God when we live Christian humility. It is an unpretentious faith that isn't even aware of its own unpretentiousness. Our God means there is a certain amount of uncertainty built into Christian humility. We assume this stance: "Lord, I (we) believe. Help thou my (our) unbelief." We are open to more from God and do not pretend or make the effort to speak for God. Christian humility says we can speak about our God but only God can speak for God. There is even a sense in Christian humility in which we will use "the" truth and "the" God in our language knowing full well these are faith statements not know-it-all absolutes. God the Father (to us) becomes a divine descriptor not a prescription. Christianity humility calls for faith and uncertainty, knowing and not knowing; not either "my way or the highway".
I blanch at any wording, document, book title, article, that purports to know "the true" way to do or believe a thing. This is also how I feel about words like "the real", "the authentic, "the right way " and a whole host of other hubristic statements. Christan humility is careful about stating more than it can claim. For who "really" knows what the real, the absolute, the truth, etc. is? I can tell you my (our) way about the Way, the Truth, and the Life. And that is how Christian humility"languages" itself. And just to be clear: These are my definitions and descriptors of Christian humility and Christian hubris. Want to converse about yours?
Christian hubris is sometimes subtle and sometimes blatant. It is sometimes harmless and other times dangerous. It goes beyond "our" beliefs about God and believes "this" is the way God is to be to the exclusion of other faiths. Hubris is acting as if our ground were the only holy ground on the playing field of divinity. Religious hubris in general leads to intolerance, close mindedness, crusades, inquisitions, witch hunts, genocide, holocausts, etc. In its more benign form it assumes a "live and let live" attitude while secretly knowing we have the truth and they don't. Christian humility identifies who and whose we are. It thereby does not exclude other religion's sense of "we".
We draw walls around our religious communities and create an us versus them mentality.
The righteous settlers banded in a circle against the attacking "savages" is a metaphor for more than The Manifest Destiny Doctrine. Christian hubris claims as much territory of truth as it can occupy. We have the truth and nothing but the truth. "I am the way, the truth, and the life" said the second century Christians about Christ. Name calling and prejudicial assumptions are made in the name of Christian hubris. Instead of the emphasis being upon "we" are the people of God, "The" takes stage center and leads to its own self righteousness. We are in and you are out. There is plenty in the Holy Books of three of the major religions that make claims about what I call religious hubris. There is plenty of hubris in religion to go around.
Religious humilityalso exists within the Holy Books and faith stances of three of the world's major religions. Christian humility looks at the elephant story as a faith story about our limits in knowing God. Each blind person thinks the part they touch is the elephant . Chrisian humility accepts that there is more to an elephant than each part.
Do people of other faiths go to heaven? If not do they go to hell? If they go to heaven then what difference does it make to be a Christian? That is hubris. An answer that works is "God only knows". Christian humility says "I don't know the answer and if that is even the right question I'm going to leave it up to God as to how God answers". That is humility of faith.
Christian humility stresses and is very comfortable affirming its own faith without worrying about making claims on God about God being inclusive or exclusive. It identifies who and whose we are. Christian humility is comfortable risking a leap of faith that says this is my God and our God. It does not exclude an other religion's sense of "we". This is how we live with our God and one an other's God: We join with y(our) faith in matters of service to humanity and in respectful conversations. We refuse to be drawn into arguments about religious rightness.
Christianity does not apologize for our beliefs about God when we live Christian humility. It is an unpretentious faith that isn't even aware of its own unpretentiousness. Our God means there is a certain amount of uncertainty built into Christian humility. We assume this stance: "Lord, I (we) believe. Help thou my (our) unbelief." We are open to more from God and do not pretend or make the effort to speak for God. Christian humility says we can speak about our God but only God can speak for God. There is even a sense in Christian humility in which we will use "the" truth and "the" God in our language knowing full well these are faith statements not know-it-all absolutes. God the Father (to us) becomes a divine descriptor not a prescription. Christianity humility calls for faith and uncertainty, knowing and not knowing; not either "my way or the highway".
I blanch at any wording, document, book title, article, that purports to know "the true" way to do or believe a thing. This is also how I feel about words like "the real", "the authentic, "the right way " and a whole host of other hubristic statements. Christan humility is careful about stating more than it can claim. For who "really" knows what the real, the absolute, the truth, etc. is? I can tell you my (our) way about the Way, the Truth, and the Life. And that is how Christian humility"languages" itself. And just to be clear: These are my definitions and descriptors of Christian humility and Christian hubris. Want to converse about yours?
"The" Truth about God
What is the difference between a truth and the truth? The social constructionists (post modernists) posit that there is no "the" truth because there is no such thing as objective truth. There is no essence of a thing that isn't a social construction of language. Essences do not exist in "reality" except in the mind of a social construct. There is, for example, no such thing as "bookness" In fact a book is a socially constructed word we use for convenience. If it were socially acceptable we could call a book word pages. This social construct is a convenience for a description not an essence that prescribes what a book is to be. So there are books, a book, but not the book.
What is not so obvious is when the truth is applied to a "concept". As in the truth about God. Here the truth implies an absolute, a final answer, definite conclusion. Something happens that turns a description called God into a description called the one and only God. This something is a socially constructed God that the three major world religions adhere to as the God. The people ( the church, for example) who believe thus and so about God all have socially constructed an experience God into the God.
Postmodernists believe differences and diversity are socially contrusts not essences. Why does more than one world religion proclaim their their God is the God (of all Gods?) Modern thinking wants certainty not differences. If you are different from me (or of another race or ethnicity) how can I then be certain that my way of thinking is the correct (read predominant) way? You can't. There is no way except to socially construct our way into the way. (By the way social construstionists go so far as to say the word differences is also a social construction. One person's "different" way may not be someone else's.
"The God is different to different groups. And within these groups there are individuals each of whom have their definition of the God. Further there is no objective God named the God because there are no "external realities" beyond what we call external realities. (Genesis xx)
What can be said about God from a postmodern perspective is this: God is subjective. (Not esoteric nor emotional though it may include these.) Subjective reality is a postmodern word for that which we construct socially. We are subjective constructors of our own reality of God. Therefore we can say that different subjective realities allow us to freely say "our" God or "We believe in God..."
Our God is socially constructed out of our language as a people. God is seen through relationships. (or "in with and under" according to Luther's understanding of Christ's "real presence" in the community sacrament of the Lord's Supper) God is socially expressed. How else can God be known other than through the words of people whether it be spoken prayer, worship, Holy Books, Sunday School, etc.. Language ("In the beginning was the Word...") and relationships are two sides of the same subjectively constructed reality.
God is not an objective being. God can be worded that way. God becomes objectified through our language and use of words. This is a threatening belief too many. As if God is whatever we say God is. Actually the prior sentence is another possible postmodern example of differences. Not relativism but differences. The context of our language is what "creates and "co creates"God.
Is it not amazing that God entrusts to us the pronouns our, ours, their, etc. to describe an intimate relationship with God?
This will lead to an article on the theologically postmodern turn from the God to our God and the changes that potentially makes. It is a move from Christian hubris, to Christian humility.
What is not so obvious is when the truth is applied to a "concept". As in the truth about God. Here the truth implies an absolute, a final answer, definite conclusion. Something happens that turns a description called God into a description called the one and only God. This something is a socially constructed God that the three major world religions adhere to as the God. The people ( the church, for example) who believe thus and so about God all have socially constructed an experience God into the God.
Postmodernists believe differences and diversity are socially contrusts not essences. Why does more than one world religion proclaim their their God is the God (of all Gods?) Modern thinking wants certainty not differences. If you are different from me (or of another race or ethnicity) how can I then be certain that my way of thinking is the correct (read predominant) way? You can't. There is no way except to socially construct our way into the way. (By the way social construstionists go so far as to say the word differences is also a social construction. One person's "different" way may not be someone else's.
"The God is different to different groups. And within these groups there are individuals each of whom have their definition of the God. Further there is no objective God named the God because there are no "external realities" beyond what we call external realities. (Genesis xx)
What can be said about God from a postmodern perspective is this: God is subjective. (Not esoteric nor emotional though it may include these.) Subjective reality is a postmodern word for that which we construct socially. We are subjective constructors of our own reality of God. Therefore we can say that different subjective realities allow us to freely say "our" God or "We believe in God..."
Our God is socially constructed out of our language as a people. God is seen through relationships. (or "in with and under" according to Luther's understanding of Christ's "real presence" in the community sacrament of the Lord's Supper) God is socially expressed. How else can God be known other than through the words of people whether it be spoken prayer, worship, Holy Books, Sunday School, etc.. Language ("In the beginning was the Word...") and relationships are two sides of the same subjectively constructed reality.
God is not an objective being. God can be worded that way. God becomes objectified through our language and use of words. This is a threatening belief too many. As if God is whatever we say God is. Actually the prior sentence is another possible postmodern example of differences. Not relativism but differences. The context of our language is what "creates and "co creates"God.
Is it not amazing that God entrusts to us the pronouns our, ours, their, etc. to describe an intimate relationship with God?
This will lead to an article on the theologically postmodern turn from the God to our God and the changes that potentially makes. It is a move from Christian hubris, to Christian humility.
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Power of Stories
What does the word "story" mean to a postmodernist?A story in postmodernist nomenclature means what we say about a thing's power and usage. A "story" is also called a narrative. He said/she said. They said, We said, etc. A story is of two kinds: big and little. For example, The American Dream is a meta-narrative. The Bill of Rights also is a meta (or mega)-narrative. There are competing and contradictory stories about any number of realities. A postmodern definition of a story is that it is the social construction of reality.
A meta-narrative example of the social construction of reality is poverty. What do you say about "the poor"? If you say they are lazy good-for-nothings you belong to one meta-narrative about the poor. If you say the issue isn't about being the poor but about poverty you are telling another meta-narrative.
Postmodern thinkers question assumptions about meta-stories. Who says still is the key question. Who is the who (Sorry Dr. Suess) speaking about the poor or poverty?Elected or appointed officials try to convince, control and to discount (even discredit) the others' story. A postmodernist expression is this: The ones who tell the story and control the story (of whatever reality is being promoted) have the power. The flip side also is true. Those who have the power control how the story is told. Those who control the telling of the story are said to be living the "predominant story". Meta-narratives/stories also are predominant stories.
Those not in power have a story called the alternative story or marginal story. Example: those in poverty have different stories than the mainstream middle class (who also have many stories about poverty or the poor).
Postmodernist frequently "side" with those who are not in power and whose story is not accepted by the predominant story tellers. They prefer to open the door to diversity by advocating many different stories. They want there to be social room for as many sides of a story as a society can or will tolerate. Variety, complexity, differences are their words. The latest example: gay marriage. (Differences is a topic unto itself and a challenging and controversial one at that.)
Remember the Button story? Button. Button,. Who's got the button? Now we can add power, power, whose got the power?
Another blog conversation below:
WHO SAYS WHAT IS REAL OR ISN'T REAL?
I remember when I was 12 years old and my mother asked me would I rather be smart or be well liked. I said both. She said I was being a smart ass. Obviously I gave the "wrong" answer. I still don't know which one is "better". I had challenged and disagreed with the who said "thus and so" is true. In my head I remember saying to myself, "Who said it is either/or?" That's the day I became a postmodernist thinker even though I didn't know it at the time. Ever since then I have questioned and asked, "Who is it that is saying this particular thing is "true"'?. Who do they represent? What are their bias, opinions, points of view? What "causes" them to believe a certain thing is true? What do their words mean? In other words, Who says so? And who gets to decide if I am a smart ass or not? Whatever that means.
What is important about who says? Who, after all, cares, who says? So what if a tree falls in the forest and does or does not make a sound? Who cares? A table is a table and let's get on with important stuff. Who cares what the American dream means positively and negatively? Let's live up to it the best we can. Will an oil spill in the seas hurt the seas and life within it? In the short and long term? Who says? Who says Adam and Eve and the world were created in seven days? Who says it was? Who says it wasn't? And what difference do different answers make? Or liberals are spend thrifts in favor of big government? What do they mean by that? Further who says a particular women is beautiful? (A postmodernist might say: beauty is in the eye of the beholder.) Who defines female beauty "itself". Is there really such a thing?
"What is real" is a real question. Scientific thinking is based on what is real, rational, logical, reasonable, provable, observable, and/or measurable. Postmodernists have a far different answer. Their answer: We are the who, who say what reality is not science (modern thinking).
Here are some thoughts: 1) Who says is speaking for a truth/the truth/their truth. 2) Who says will decide how much room there is for dfferences (races, customs, traditions, world views, diversity, etc.) in society. 3) Who says and who says will often be in conflict. How will they resolve or live with their differences? 4) Who says as a predominant story can offer great good or evoke great evil. Who says what is good or evil?
Does the "Who says" ever end? Yes and No . No because the possibilities for understanding socially contrusted stories are endless. Yes because society and in all its diversity will weave "agreed upon" sets of rules, laws, ethics, conduct, beliefs, values, etc. However, socially construsted realities/stories are not static. They are dynamic.
One example of what difference "who says"makes is the issue of "capitalism"? Does capitalism works "better" with fewer government regulations involved in the business world. Who decides what is better? Who agrees? Who disagrees? For whom is deregulation "better"? What is a "helpful" deregulation? Helpful to whom? Who benefits. How? Does anyone get hurt or have less power or authority because the others have more power and authority? Whose story about government and business should and will prevail? Now imagine all the various kinds of businesses. Who says which regulations will fit which business?
All fields of endeavor and pursuit ask Who says. From theology to medicine. From biology to geology. From education to prisons. In our public worlds and private ones. All fields have stories to tell about what is real (to them) .
If you like black and white questions, either/or, and right or wrong answers postmodern thinking is not for you. Better to "own" your mindset ( which ironically is a postmodern statement) .
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"HOW DO WE KNOW WHAT WE KNOW?
This is where modern thinking and postmodern thinking part company. Modern thinking is the type of thinking we take so for granted we aren't even aware we are thinking modern. Modern thinking is thinking the way science thinks. We know what we know because a thing is observable, provable, measurable. See is believing. What you see is what you get.
There is no debate that a clock is a clock, a computer is a computer, a traffic light is what it is, and all material things can be studied and/or something produced from them. If I look at the stars and say there are alien spaceships fixed in the sky I am not being a modern-scientific thinker. We are all modern thinkers weather we are scientists or not. If a thing is solid (matter/mass) or energy (like electricity) there is no debate. No questions asked. It is what it is.
Postmodern thinking completely and radically shifts the scientific paradigm just described. According to postmodern thinkers rocks, trees, and cars and (yes) tables are not real because science says so. Why? Because postmodernists answer the question of what is real differently. According to science: How do we know what we know? What is real? Through objective, rational, reasonable facts that we can prove. Post modernists instead say "Who says determines reality". This is where the two part company. To ask what is real is modern thinking. Postmodernists are more concerned how a thing gets "called" real in the first place. Who says what is real? Their answer: society who decides what is real.
Example: George Carlin was asked why is the sky blue? His postmodern answer? "Because we say so". Modern thinking would use science to answer the question. This is it in a nut shell. This is the big difference between modern and postmodern thinking. What is real? Let me consult my science book or my common sense. Who says so? Let me consult society about what is real.
A postmodernist example: Politics. Who says why the economy is in trouble. Economists, business people, and politicians all will have different answers. Not only that "liberals" (what is a liberal and who says so?) will define the problem and disparage the conservatives (what is a conservative and who says so?) Vice versa. Is there an objective fact or set of facts as to what the "real" problem is? Not according to postmodernists. The real problem is asked and answered by real people, real groups, with real opinions and biases. Again, postmodernists want to know, who decides what is "real" in any given situation. Even the words "opinion" "facts" bias", "objective" are socially determined. Behind every "what" is a "who" which proceeds it.
Postmodernists not only take everything that is called real with a grain a salt, they do so with a bottle of salt and assume nothing and question everything including their own opinions about "who says".
The next time someone asks you what time it is have some serious fun. Tell them Time is a social construction. Is it "really" 5:00 p.m.? According to commonsense and scientific thinking it is. According to postmodernists we have all agreed that in this time zone and and according to the official world clock in England it is 5:00 p.m. Are there other possibilities for "telling" time?
Saturday, August 14, 2010
What is a Paradigm?
When is a pair of dimes not 20 cents? When they are paradigms.
Another way to discuss postmodern thinking is to understand what paradigms are (besides a pair of dimes). A paradigm is a noun. Another word for this noun is "world view" or a certain way of looking at things. A synonym might be "perspective". It is usually a term used by academics to describe a "thought pattern" around certain concepts.
For example: There is a scientific paradigm through which the world is viewed. The paradigm is called the scientific
method. The scientific method views reality as something that can be "proven to be true" or "factual". All one has to
do is design a test that will prove or disprove a hypothesis.
Another example: My field of marriage and family therapy promotes the world view that the world is relational. So we design tests, theories, and techniques to counsel any one in a relationship: which we believe is everyone. Our paradigm is a relational paradigm: "everything is connected".
The world of business, government, education, religion all have their paradigms. Within and among these fields are numerous ways of viewing how the world works. These paradigms serve their fields to make sense of its world according to itself. Hence an expression like: Think global and act local is an economic/political world view or paragidm.
Postmodern thinking has a paradigm and is a paradigm. The world view is this: Reality is socially constructed.
To contrast this with the scientific paradigm we would say: Reality is that which is provable.The field of marriage and family systems says: Reality is relational.
Within each at of these paradigms the world "reality" often is used interchangeably with the word "true" or "truth".
One more point. Paradigms answer this question: "How do you know what we know?" Or put another way: "How do we know what 'reality' is?" The three examples above are different paradigms with different answers.
How do we know if reality is a) socially constructed? b) provable? c)relational?
For example: There is a scientific paradigm through which the world is viewed. The paradigm is called the scientific
method. The scientific method views reality as something that can be "proven to be true" or "factual". All one has to
do is design a test that will prove or disprove a hypothesis.
Another example: My field of marriage and family therapy promotes the world view that the world is relational. So we design tests, theories, and techniques to counsel any one in a relationship: which we believe is everyone. Our paradigm is a relational paradigm: "everything is connected".
The world of business, government, education, religion all have their paradigms. Within and among these fields are numerous ways of viewing how the world works. These paradigms serve their fields to make sense of its world according to itself. Hence an expression like: Think global and act local is an economic/political world view or paragidm.
Postmodern thinking has a paradigm and is a paradigm. The world view is this: Reality is socially constructed.
To contrast this with the scientific paradigm we would say: Reality is that which is provable.The field of marriage and family systems says: Reality is relational.
Within each at of these paradigms the world "reality" often is used interchangeably with the word "true" or "truth".
One more point. Paradigms answer this question: "How do you know what we know?" Or put another way: "How do we know what 'reality' is?" The three examples above are different paradigms with different answers.
How do we know if reality is a) socially constructed? b) provable? c)relational?
Remember how in the first blog I said this stuff is too serious to be taken seriously? Have fun with this: Describe a table according to the major paradigms of religion, politics, economics, culture, education, science, etc.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Reality: Constructed or Made Up?
The postmodern question for today: Is there a difference between socially "constructed" realities and "made up" realities? The question has relevance far beyond itself. The answer has implications for personal values, religious truths, and social meaning.
I will answer the question through definitions, discounts, hidden agendas, and finally one "so what?"
Definitions of "construct" include create, describe, author, build, define, put together, and form or shape.
Constructed usually has a positive connotation in everyday language. (Society constructs, creates, and puts together,
"reality". Reality is constructed by, created by, and put together by society.)
"Made up" generally has a less positive definition. Made up includes fictitious, a lie, make believe, unreal, pretend, not true, and false. It is sometimes benign and sometimes negative and positive. Benign: Children playing make believe.
Negative: "That is a lie. You are making that up." Positive: "Even though movies are not real they can reflect reality."
Constructed and made up appear to be opposing words about what is real.
The reason for this discussion of definitions is the hidden (and sometimes not so hidden) agenda that arises when the two words are compared and contrasted by Christian thinkers. This is the audience with whom I will address the "so what?
Christian thinkers who do not like postmodern thinking make the word constructed synonymous with made up as if they are the same. Clearly from the everyday definitions they are very different words.
As I understand Christian anti-postmodern thinkers virtually everything theologically, Biblically, hermeneutically is at stake if the two words mean the same. Really? Really.
If reality (or truth) is socially constructed then what about the revelation of God? Aren't postmodernists saying that God is made up by society? What a jump in linguistics. This is not what postmodernists assert. What is asserted: Behind every reality there is a socially agreed upon set of beliefs and/or experiences. Those beliefs may be religious in nature. The Christian community has (and continues to) construct its beliefs and experiences about Jesus Christ.
Postmodernists agree Christians socially (the church) construct their theology, their Biblical hermeneutics, and Biblical beliefs and values.
There is much more that Christian thinkers are opposed to (and threatened in my opinion) about postmodern's worldview. This is one unapologetic "Apology".
Is it the Christians versus the Lions? Or is it possible for the lion and the sheep to lay down together?
I will answer the question through definitions, discounts, hidden agendas, and finally one "so what?"
Definitions of "construct" include create, describe, author, build, define, put together, and form or shape.
Constructed usually has a positive connotation in everyday language. (Society constructs, creates, and puts together,
"reality". Reality is constructed by, created by, and put together by society.)
"Made up" generally has a less positive definition. Made up includes fictitious, a lie, make believe, unreal, pretend, not true, and false. It is sometimes benign and sometimes negative and positive. Benign: Children playing make believe.
Negative: "That is a lie. You are making that up." Positive: "Even though movies are not real they can reflect reality."
Constructed and made up appear to be opposing words about what is real.
The reason for this discussion of definitions is the hidden (and sometimes not so hidden) agenda that arises when the two words are compared and contrasted by Christian thinkers. This is the audience with whom I will address the "so what?
Christian thinkers who do not like postmodern thinking make the word constructed synonymous with made up as if they are the same. Clearly from the everyday definitions they are very different words.
As I understand Christian anti-postmodern thinkers virtually everything theologically, Biblically, hermeneutically is at stake if the two words mean the same. Really? Really.
If reality (or truth) is socially constructed then what about the revelation of God? Aren't postmodernists saying that God is made up by society? What a jump in linguistics. This is not what postmodernists assert. What is asserted: Behind every reality there is a socially agreed upon set of beliefs and/or experiences. Those beliefs may be religious in nature. The Christian community has (and continues to) construct its beliefs and experiences about Jesus Christ.
Postmodernists agree Christians socially (the church) construct their theology, their Biblical hermeneutics, and Biblical beliefs and values.
There is much more that Christian thinkers are opposed to (and threatened in my opinion) about postmodern's worldview. This is one unapologetic "Apology".
Is it the Christians versus the Lions? Or is it possible for the lion and the sheep to lay down together?
Saturday, August 7, 2010
The Truth is not What it Used to be
Today's postmodern topic is "the truth". As in: "I'm telling the truth". "Do you promise to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?" "The truth of the matter is water is made up of two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen." Here are some more true statements. "It is true that two plus two equals four." "What goes up must come down." "President Obama's first name is Barack." The list of truths is endless. (And that is true also.) There are many "truths".
Social constructionists (those who believe "reality" is socially constructed) agree. They say, and I agree with them, there is no single truth. There certainly is no The Truth. What the social constructionists say is that it is only since the beginning of Western science and philosophy that society has sought to discover something called objective truth. The scientific method "proves" its hypothesis and this becomes "fact" or truth. Science can prove there is such a thing as gravity. Science can prove mathematical formulas based upon other mathematical formulas. Science can prove how plants and animals grow. Science can even prove for a fact that a table is a table. All these are examples of objective truths.
Scientific thinking is modern thinking. That which is reasonable, rational, factual, provable, doable, etc. is a modern phenomena. Postmodernists say the exact opposite. Truth of all kinds is socially decided. Not only is there no so called objective truth, there is a way of looking at reality as "subjective". This is truth socially made. For example, when two people disagree about politics who is right? Which one holds the truth about the Wars? When it comes to abortion which position is right or wrong? Religiously speaking who's truth about God is the truth? Is Allah a different God than Christianity's God. If so whose is The True God? Who says?
In "fact" social constructionists would say that there is no objective reason why a table is a table. In another culture it may be turned upside down, straw put on it, and animals eat from it. We would call that some kind of trough not a table.
And if we call it a table turned upside down and being used improperly we reveal our own society's agreed upon usage.
Truth, all truth, even this truth, is that truth is socially perceived by human beings. We say, "Reality is perception." Truth also is perception. REALITY IS (OUR) PERCEPTION. AND SO IS TRUTH.
It is by means of mutual agreement that we say a thing is what it is. We decide what is right and wrong. What is moral and immoral. Ethical and Unethical. We decide what is the truth of a matter. We the people socially construct what is. And what we say it is, it is.
When we disagree with a fact, or a truth, or what is reasonable, we enter into the world of power.
Power is how we mitigate between opposing and conflicting truths about reality. Not just political power in the formal sense. But power as who gets to have the say about truths. He, She, They, Us...whoever controls the "story" about what is the truth controls "truth". Stories are not novels to postmodernists. Stories are subjective world views. Stories about reality are subjective truths. And how are these stories formulated? Through words.
What does all this mean? Many things. For one thing, postmodernists like myself, look at reality and see both/and sides of issues and opinions and so called truths. Modernists tend to view reality as either/or. Either this is right or that is wrong. Social constructionists say there are many stories about truths being worked out continuously within society. Stories may or may not change (Slavery changed. Pedophilia does not).But they will "storied" in the world's we occupy. Stories tend to be open ended and complex with many possibilities.
Pontius Pilate, of all people asked, "What is truth?" The answer for Pilate was different than Jesus Christ's and his followers. What is truth? Postmodernists say, "It depends. It depends on whose story or perception you accept.''
Jack Nickolson, in the movie "A Few Good Men" said to Tom Cruise, " You can't handle the truth." What Nickolson was revealing was that his own version of the truth was not only "the" truth but Cruise would not be able to handle it.
When I was a boy, we used to play a game called "Button. button. Who's got the button?" The object was to discover who held the button in their closed hand. Today we would say, "Truth. Truth. Who's got the truth? The social constructionist's would say everyone has a "button".
Social constructionists (those who believe "reality" is socially constructed) agree. They say, and I agree with them, there is no single truth. There certainly is no The Truth. What the social constructionists say is that it is only since the beginning of Western science and philosophy that society has sought to discover something called objective truth. The scientific method "proves" its hypothesis and this becomes "fact" or truth. Science can prove there is such a thing as gravity. Science can prove mathematical formulas based upon other mathematical formulas. Science can prove how plants and animals grow. Science can even prove for a fact that a table is a table. All these are examples of objective truths.
Scientific thinking is modern thinking. That which is reasonable, rational, factual, provable, doable, etc. is a modern phenomena. Postmodernists say the exact opposite. Truth of all kinds is socially decided. Not only is there no so called objective truth, there is a way of looking at reality as "subjective". This is truth socially made. For example, when two people disagree about politics who is right? Which one holds the truth about the Wars? When it comes to abortion which position is right or wrong? Religiously speaking who's truth about God is the truth? Is Allah a different God than Christianity's God. If so whose is The True God? Who says?
In "fact" social constructionists would say that there is no objective reason why a table is a table. In another culture it may be turned upside down, straw put on it, and animals eat from it. We would call that some kind of trough not a table.
And if we call it a table turned upside down and being used improperly we reveal our own society's agreed upon usage.
Truth, all truth, even this truth, is that truth is socially perceived by human beings. We say, "Reality is perception." Truth also is perception. REALITY IS (OUR) PERCEPTION. AND SO IS TRUTH.
It is by means of mutual agreement that we say a thing is what it is. We decide what is right and wrong. What is moral and immoral. Ethical and Unethical. We decide what is the truth of a matter. We the people socially construct what is. And what we say it is, it is.
When we disagree with a fact, or a truth, or what is reasonable, we enter into the world of power.
Power is how we mitigate between opposing and conflicting truths about reality. Not just political power in the formal sense. But power as who gets to have the say about truths. He, She, They, Us...whoever controls the "story" about what is the truth controls "truth". Stories are not novels to postmodernists. Stories are subjective world views. Stories about reality are subjective truths. And how are these stories formulated? Through words.
What does all this mean? Many things. For one thing, postmodernists like myself, look at reality and see both/and sides of issues and opinions and so called truths. Modernists tend to view reality as either/or. Either this is right or that is wrong. Social constructionists say there are many stories about truths being worked out continuously within society. Stories may or may not change (Slavery changed. Pedophilia does not).But they will "storied" in the world's we occupy. Stories tend to be open ended and complex with many possibilities.
Pontius Pilate, of all people asked, "What is truth?" The answer for Pilate was different than Jesus Christ's and his followers. What is truth? Postmodernists say, "It depends. It depends on whose story or perception you accept.''
Jack Nickolson, in the movie "A Few Good Men" said to Tom Cruise, " You can't handle the truth." What Nickolson was revealing was that his own version of the truth was not only "the" truth but Cruise would not be able to handle it.
When I was a boy, we used to play a game called "Button. button. Who's got the button?" The object was to discover who held the button in their closed hand. Today we would say, "Truth. Truth. Who's got the truth? The social constructionist's would say everyone has a "button".
Thursday, August 5, 2010
The Social Self
Today's blog features "the Self". Postmodern thinking posits that there is no such thing as a "self". I hope that got your attention. It is an amazing proposition. It goes straight to the core of what it means to be a person. Another way to say this: How does a person get to be (called) a person? By the use of language. Words describe what a person is.
Illustrations. Psychology and before that philosophy and religion have had and do have many definitions of what a person is. Each field of study reduces humanness to its essential being. Christianity, for one says, we are created in the image of God and that we are sinful beings made just a little lower than angels. Psychology may say we are psycho-social-sexual beings (Freud). Philosophy may say we are in our essence a "superman" whose primary claim to person hood is in our "will to power" (Nietzsche). Science also provides many descriptions of humans.
The people of the land (us and others) use words to define the Self. We grow up seeing ourselves through words. There are countless examples: complimentary and negative. Transactional Analysis ("I'm OK-You're OK") calls such defining words "Warm fuzzies" and "Cold pricklies".
"You are lovable." "You are a good person." "You are smart." "You are stupid." " You are just like your good for nothing cousin." "You'll never amount to anything." Boarden these parental words attributed to us to include, teachers, other authority figures, gender statements, age,race, weight, height, looks, etc. and you have a multitude of words to "create" a person. In the Western world, we even says a person is a person because they have the choice to choose who they are from among innumberable descipters. Sociology is the field that defines person hood by describing "roles". We become our roles. Our roles are us.
Summary. Society creates many realities of what each person is. Society says who we are. In literature and movies there are examples of society shaping our essence. "Tarzan and the Apes" defined each other. In the movie "Cast Away", Tom Hanks and Wilson (the volley ball) shows Hanks identifying with a ball that floated away from him in the ocean. It almost cost him his life to see himself though Wilson and to "need" Wilson for his very being.
The Self (our self) is socially constructed. There is no self outside society. There is only a social self! We are as busy defining ourselves and others as they are defining us. There is no essential self except in so far as we say it is essential.
We "make up" who we are by what others think we are. It is impossible to have or be a self without society's input. Thus say the postmodernists. The implications of this is food for another social constructionist* meal.
*another word for postmodern
Illustrations. Psychology and before that philosophy and religion have had and do have many definitions of what a person is. Each field of study reduces humanness to its essential being. Christianity, for one says, we are created in the image of God and that we are sinful beings made just a little lower than angels. Psychology may say we are psycho-social-sexual beings (Freud). Philosophy may say we are in our essence a "superman" whose primary claim to person hood is in our "will to power" (Nietzsche). Science also provides many descriptions of humans.
The people of the land (us and others) use words to define the Self. We grow up seeing ourselves through words. There are countless examples: complimentary and negative. Transactional Analysis ("I'm OK-You're OK") calls such defining words "Warm fuzzies" and "Cold pricklies".
"You are lovable." "You are a good person." "You are smart." "You are stupid." " You are just like your good for nothing cousin." "You'll never amount to anything." Boarden these parental words attributed to us to include, teachers, other authority figures, gender statements, age,race, weight, height, looks, etc. and you have a multitude of words to "create" a person. In the Western world, we even says a person is a person because they have the choice to choose who they are from among innumberable descipters. Sociology is the field that defines person hood by describing "roles". We become our roles. Our roles are us.
Summary. Society creates many realities of what each person is. Society says who we are. In literature and movies there are examples of society shaping our essence. "Tarzan and the Apes" defined each other. In the movie "Cast Away", Tom Hanks and Wilson (the volley ball) shows Hanks identifying with a ball that floated away from him in the ocean. It almost cost him his life to see himself though Wilson and to "need" Wilson for his very being.
The Self (our self) is socially constructed. There is no self outside society. There is only a social self! We are as busy defining ourselves and others as they are defining us. There is no essential self except in so far as we say it is essential.
We "make up" who we are by what others think we are. It is impossible to have or be a self without society's input. Thus say the postmodernists. The implications of this is food for another social constructionist* meal.
*another word for postmodern
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)