Key Values and Beliefs of Postmodernism - part 4, Results

The Results of Postmodernism

As the members of the Buster and Bridger generations viewed the modern period, they saw that communications and globalism and capitalism and democracy and the United Nations, all of these modern structures had been unable to bring about peace between peoples and nations. None had been able bring about the unity of truth and worldview that each claimed to have. Postmodernists adopted a new strategy for peace and understanding, relative existentialism, pluralism, and multiculturalism. The results have not been the ones that postmodernists desired.


Fragmentation of Families

As we noted above, the nuclear family has undergone stresses and fractures that it has never seen before. Postmodernism has aggravated the problem even more. All societal values toward marriage are being attacked. Cohabitation, children born to unmarried mothers, the rise of the gay marriage movement, and divorce all contribute to an appalling lack of commitment to or in marriage relationships, and an alarming number of children growing up in constantly changing homes with constantly changing or even missing parental role models. When children and parents are living together under one roof, the relativistic existentialism of postmodernism fractures the moral fabric of the family and brings the culture war into the living room. Parents can’t legitimately “force their beliefs” on their children, who rebel and embrace all kinds of deviant behavior like alcohol, drugs, premarital sex, pornography, bi- and homosexuality, Satanism, and all the subsequent consequences like teenage pregnancy, truancy, criminality, violence, and addiction, just to name a few.

Leonard Sweet addresses one example of the battle for the family. “One of the most frightening statistics for the future is the decline of touching in family settings. In USAmerica, parents touch their kids only about two times per hour on average. In France, parents touch their kids six times per hour” (14). He notes that “The old adage, ‘Seeing is believing,’ actually began as an endorsement of touch as a carrier of truth: ‘Seeing is believing, but feeling’s the truth’” (15). He goes on to say that “…the more touch-starved the culture, the more touch crimes we can expect. The statistics are bearing this out. In the words of one abused German patient, ‘The absence of loving touch and the abundance of sadistic touch has badly wounded me. Man does not live by breath alone’” (15).


Fragmentation of Society

This breakdown of values extends far beyond the family out into society. Sexual mores, questions of the value of life, social norms on drugs and tobacco, even questions on environmental stewardship rocket through our societal conversations, polarizing all kinds of special interest groups and population segments. “The monolithic sensibility of modernism, which seemed to have an unlimited potential, has fragmented into diverse and competing communities. People can no longer understand each other. There are no common reference points, no common language” (Veith 21). We find the tolerance that postmodernists hoped to create degenerating into isolation of one group from another. With no motivation to or even legitimizing of seeking the truth, each segment of society has settled into its own truth, and when conflict over finite resources with another segment arises, we all want the other group to defer to our virtual reality. Consequently, “Society is segmenting into antagonistic groups. Tribalism, terrorism, and ethnic cleansing are splitting the globe apart. Americans fight culture wars over moral issues such as abortion and euthanasia and intellectual issues such as education and cultural diversity…universities no longer operate under the modernist assumption that one objective, rational truth exists. Even such basic questions as the value of Western civilization are up for grabs: Is the Western heritage one of human achievement and liberty, or is the Western heritage primarily racism, sexism, imperialism, and homophobia? Diverse ‘communities’ – feminists, gays, African Americans, neo-conservatives, pro-lifers – now make up the cultural landscape. These different groups seem to have no common frames of reference by which to communicate…” (Veith xi). All these differing values produce this huge, paradoxical schism in our culture. For example, Rainer notes that “The bridgers of the 21st century may very well be the generation of paradox in racial issues. Among the 72,000,000 persons in this generation, we will likely find the greatest level of racial tolerance our nation has ever known and the most intense bigotry a generation has produced in a century” (11).


Political Fragmentation

With all of this societal conflict, public decision-making under postmodernism begins to fragment as well. The competing of all the special interest groups spills over into an increasingly polarized electorate. The Presidential election of 2000 is a classic example, resulting in the biggest Constitutional crisis the United States have faced since the question of slavery and the Civil War. The electoral margin hinged on only a few thousand votes in nearly 10 states, and less than 1,000 in the political battleground of Florida. The now famous red and blue map, a county by county breakdown of the entire country, graphically illustrates the polarization of the electorate, with urban, densely populated areas of the Northeast and Pacific Coast voting overwhelmingly for Al Gore, and the rural, Western, Midwest, Southern regions voting overwhelmingly for George Bush.

Not only do issues divide the population segments of postmodern America, but methodology also. “Truth is not the issue. The issue is power. The new models ‘empower’ groups formerly excluded. Scholarly debate proceeds not so much by rational argument or the amassing of objective evidence, but by rhetoric (which scheme advances the most progressive ideals?) and by the assertion of power (which scheme advances my particular interest group, or more to the point, which is more likely to win me a research grant, career advancement and tenure?)” (Veith 57).

Recently Sean Hannity, a nationally recognized journalist, had on his radio talk show two lesbian guests discussing censorship regarding the removal of Dr. Laura Schlessinger’s television show from the air. At one point the discussion between the two guests deteriorated into a talk-a-thon, with each one attempting to talk over the other for at least 30 seconds, neither willing to listen or allow the other to speak. Certainly “Truth is not the issue. The issue is power.”

Similarly, Michael Medved, on his nationally syndicated radio talk show, hosted the national coordinator for a group called A.N.S.W.E.R., Americans uNited to Stop War and End Racism. When addressed by the host and callers on various issues, the guest chose to ignore direct questions and simply talk continuously on whatever topic she chose. Meaningful dialogue over real issues simply could not take place. “Truth is not the issue. The issue is power.”