Introduction

For our Triad Paper on Chapter One of A Primer on Postmodernism, we chose to take a post-modern approach to collaborating long-distance across three different states by each beginning discussion threads to which the others were invited to respond. In this way, we could present our own original ideas while at the same time engaging and learning from each other. Our discussion threads and responses are presented below, in the order of their submission.

“A Societal Spiral” by Karyn Ratcliffe

On page 1 of A Primer on Postmodernism, Grenz refers to Star Trek: The Next Generation as an illustration of how the reader might understand the 20th century societal shift from a modern to a post-modern worldview. Grenz says,

the creators of the [Star Trek] series discovered that the world of their audience was in the midst of a subtle paradigm shift: modernity was giving birth to postmodernity. As a result, The Next Generation became a reflection – perhaps even a molder – of the worldview of the emerging generation.1

I am struck by how, whether he is aware of it or not, Grenz presents the proverbial question of the chicken-and-the-egg: Did modernity give birth to postmodernity or did postmodernity give birth to itself? I raise this question because Grenz uses the word “molder” and is therefore talking out of both sides of his mouth. Modernity, according to Grenz, gave birth to postmodernism because postmoderns rejected the modern worldview in favor of something they were more comfortable with. By implying that The Next Generation somehow “molded” postmodernity, Grenz is suggesting that, as moderns became exposed to a postmodern worldview presented in the The Next Generation, their worldview “shifted” as they learned to look at things in a new way. The fact that “the creators of the series discovered that the world of their audience was in the midst of a subtle paradigm shift” indicates that the creators weren’t fully aware of the postmodern worldview that they were presenting. Instead, as they made this discovery, they responded to their audience’s new worldview by adapting the worldview they were presenting in the series. This in turn shaped, or molded, their audience’s worldview, further feeding the spiral. The more the audience watched the series, the more the audience changed, and the more they changed, the more the series evolved, sparking further change and requiring further evolution.

“Knowing What We Possess” by Karyn Ratcliffe

A Primer on Postmodernism was published in 1996 – only 2 years after the final episode of The Next Generation – but a full 14 years before we read it for our D.Min. class. The shift in worldview that Grenz is describing can be seen today with even more hindsight than Grenz had at the time, though not necessarily with more light. The “emerging epoch”2 that Grenz is describing has emerged even more fully, yet its implications are still unknown. It is commonly recognized today that we are in the midst of a major societal shift, but those of us who remember the modern worldview still don’t know what to do about it. There is much discussion about the need to let go of modernity and embrace postmodernity, but, for good reason, there is also much resistance. One reason for this resistance is that there is much about modernity that doesn’t deserve to be lost. Indeed, there is a certain responsibility to future generations to help the present generations navigate the paradigm shift so that the world we are about to create doesn’t become a world full of regret. The best example I can think of to illustrate this point is a quote from Proust and the Squid in which the author, MaryAnne Wolf, chronicles not only how the invention of writing has shaped the human brain for the past 6,000 years as successive systems of writing evolved, developed and died out over time, but also how the loss of an oral and written culture will adversely affect the development of our species as digital information replaces printed words on a page. Wolf says,

Understanding the origins of a new [literary] process helps us see, as the neuroscientist Terry Deacon put it, “how it works.’ Understanding how it works, in turn, helps us know what we possess and what we need to preserve. 3

I would argue that the same caution ought to apply to the shift from modernity to postmodernity. If we can understand “how it works” – why postmoderns are rejecting modernity and what that means for us – then we can identify the aspects of modernity that deserve to be preserved, and we can choose to bring them along with us. In other words, we can continue to read books that are printed on paper even as we gather most of our information by digital means.

“The Modern Quest” by Karyn Ratcliffe

In Chapter One, Grenz introduces the term “The Enlightenment project” to refer to “the human intellectual quest to unlock the secrets of the universe in order to master nature for human benefit and create a better world.”4 I find the term “Enlightenment project” to be misleading because it makes it sound as if the modern worldview was an invention of the Enlightenment era. This is the same chicken-or-the-egg question I raised above. If, in fact, people like Isaac Newton were examining the universe for the secrets about “how it works,” then by definition they had already shifted to a modern worldview whether or not they were aware of it. The term “Enlightenment project” seems like an anachronism that ought to be replaced with a more meaningful term such as the “Modern Quest.”

“The Postmodern Paradox” by Karyn Ratcliffe

In Chapter One, Grenz says,

"Enlightenment optimism, together with the focus on reason, elevates on human freedom.…The Enlightenment project understands freedom largely on individual terms. In fact, the modern ideal champions the autonomous self, the self-determining subject who exists outside any tradition or community. "5

Here I want to point out a paradox of Grenz’s book. Grenz is suggesting that human reason – “the ability to unlock the secrets of the universe” – leads to human freedom – the ability to live without being at the mercy of the laws of the universe. If, for example, one can discover the secrets of the weather, then one can learn how to avoid its destructive power. This freedom-from-the-law leads to the autonomous individual who is “free…from our vulnerability to nature, as well as from all social bondage.”6 At the same time, however, Grenz points back to the original Star Trek series as an illustration of the modern mindset. He says,

The crew of the Enterprise included persons of various nationalities working together for the common benefit of humankind….The message was obvious: we are all human, and we must overcome our differences and join forces in order to complete our mandate, the quest for certain, objective knowledge of the entire universe of which space looms as ‘the final frontier.’7

The paradox here is that, even as human reason has led to individual freedom and autonomy, so it has also led to a sense of obligation to “the common benefit” and the development of community bonds. When human beings were at the mercy of the laws of the universe, they were bound to a community that suffered together through its problems. But once those problems could be conquered, that same human being became bound to a community that needed each other in order to find the solution to all of life’s problems. Reason, therefore led us out of a helpless community and into individual autonomy, but individual autonomy led us right back into the grip of our community bonds. It can be argued then that postmoderns rejected the modern worldview not because they discovered that “there is…no transcendent center to reality as a whole,”8 but because they discovered that the “transcendent center to reality” is the community that we share together.

“The New Economy” by Karyn Ratcliffe

The undergirding principle of postmodernism – that “[j]ust as a text will be read differently by each reader, …so reality will be ‘read’ differently by each knowing self that encounters it”9 – suggests that the postulate of community as the explanation for why postmoderns have rejected the modern worldview may in fact be true. When Richard Rorty “argues that we should simply give up the search for truth and be content with interpretation,”10 he may be suggesting that we give up our individual opinions and instead embrace community consensus. This again is a paradox of Grenz’s book. On the one hand, he says postmodernism “asserts that the world has no center, only differing viewpoints and perspectives.”11 But on the other hand, he says this:

“The postmodern worldview operates with a community-based understanding of truth. It affirms that whatever we accept as truth and even the way we envision truth are dependent upon the community in which we participate. …there is no absolute truth; rather, truth is relative to the community in which we participate.”12

Here again we see the postulate that, rather than there being “no transcendent center to reality,” the center to reality is the community. Understanding this – understanding “how it works” – allows us then to see that the “gnawing pessimism”13 of postmodernism is not so much a lack of “confiden[ce] that humanity will be able to solve the world’s great problems14, but rather an acceptance that our problems can only be solved to the extent that we are willing to work together. Where, therefore, Grenz proposes “the ‘new ecology’ of humankind in partnership with the universe,”15 I would like to propose an alternative – the “new economy” of humankind in partnership with each other. Where an “economy of words” refers to the ability to make a point in as few words as possible, the “new economy” might refer to the ability to solve our problems not so much in a way that is efficient, i.e. economical, but in a way that is cooperative, i. e. communal. As the African proverb goes: If you want to walk fast, walk alone. If you want to walk far, walk together.

“Postmodernism and the Gulf Oil Disaster”17 by SCReedstrom-Disc Thread 1: Every day in every way things...

“It is day 78 of the Disaster in the Gulf.” These are the ominous words that greet the viewers of the Today Show each morning since the oil began gushing from the blowout of the Deep Water Horizon/British Petroleum (BP) well in the Gulf of Mexico. It is a “centerless”18 disaster – no one is willing to take complete blame for what has happened, in fact when executives of both BP and Deep Water Horizons were brought before Congress, finger pointing and shifting of blame was the order of the day. But more than this, the modern era view of humanity’s ability to “exercise power over nature”19 has come to an end. Faced with the ecological disaster that grows exponentially each day, the optimistic hope that the human intellect will, through rational thought and the use of technology, be able to unlock the secrets of the universe and create a better world seems farfetched at best. Perhaps, this disaster typifies postmodernism in the corporate world.

Tom Brokaw, in an interview with Matt Lauer commented that the gulf oil disaster is a “metaphor for our time.” “We are seeing the limits of our technology,” he said, “everything we’ve been told turns out not to be true.”20 Brokaw’s comments reflect the attitude espoused by Stanley Grenz in A Primer for Postmoderism: “gone is the belief that every day, in every way, we are getting better and better.”21

Discussion Thread 2: The Environment by Suzanne Cox Reedstrom

The gulf oil disaster, as well, reminds us that the environment in which we live is fragile. With estimates of as many as 60,000 barrels of oil flowing into the gulf each day, no amount of technology seems to be able to keep the fish, fowl and beaches of the Gulf Coast from being covered with gooey tar balls. Neither is our current technology able to adequately skim the oil from the waters of the Gulf in order to curtail the pollution and allow shrimpers and fishers to return to their preferred way of life that has been disrupted by the spill. This may be, as Brokaw stated in the June 29th interview, a defining moment for the young adults of the world. Perhaps they will view the spill differently, seeing the developed countries dependence on oil as something to be curtailed. Perhaps as Grenz reminds us, “members of the emerging generation are no longer confident that humanity will be able to solve the world’s great problems.”24

Discussion Thread 3: An Attitude of Cooperation by Suzanne Cox Reedstrom

However, Grenz also points out that in the postmodern world, the “continued existence of humankind is [viewed as] dependent on a new attitude of cooperation rather than
conquest.”26 This is, at least, one of the benefits resulting from the spill. It is not just BP or Deep Water Horizons working to stop the flow of oil and clean up the environment. Experts from across the world are bringing their expertise and knowledge to the table. Corporations are deploying their resources: personnel, ships, and ROV’s (remotely operated underwater vehicles) to aid in the effort. Granted, while the cooperation being exhibited is more about stopping the flow of oil so that deep water drilling can begin again rather than the more altruistic goal of ecological necessity or bettering the world, it is clear that no company has the insight or wisdom to contain the flow. Therefore, cooperation is a necessity in order for technology to be developed to stem the flow of oil in deep water, should another blow out occur.

Just as Star Trek, the Next Generation, encouraged the TV watching audience to boldly go where no one has gone before, the blow out one mile beneath the ocean has thrust the corporate and political world to go where “no one has gone before.” And, as a note of irony, the drilling ship’s name is Discovery Enterprise!

“Multiple Paths to Knowledge” by Suzanne Cox Reedstrom

“The postmodern mind refuses to limit truth to its rational dimension and thus dethrones the human intellect as the arbiter of truth. There are other valid paths to knowledge besides reason, say the post-moderns, including the emotions and the intuition.”
~Stanley Grenz, A Primer on Postmodernism27

My children attended an elementary school that used as their method of teaching a curriculum based on the seven intelligences: spatial, linguistic, logical-mathematical, kinesthetic, musical, interpersonal, and intrapersonal. This style of teaching allowed each child to learn in their preferred and best style. Basically, the theory opens up the possibility that intelligence, particularly as it is defined traditionally, is not sufficient to encompass the many gifts and abilities that humans possess. Teaching only in one way limits our children’s ability to learn and process information. While Grenz delves briefly into “other valid paths to knowledge” he does not, at least in Chapter One, develop this thought to encompass the multiple intelligences. Nor does he elaborate on how the emotions and intuition enhance and broaden the understanding of knowledge.
As the postmodern view becomes more prevalent in our society, perhaps schools, churches and society as a whole will begin to embrace the concept that people learn and process information in a variety of ways. Just as my children’s elementary school embraced the theory of multiple intelligences, the church of today could broaden and deepen the worship and learning experiences of its members by examining the ways in which they worship and teach. The “emerging” church may be one example to examine. This way of worship tends to fall into the postmodern mindset as it strives to worship in what it describes as an “ancient/future” manner. Candles, incense, periods of silence, movement and visual images are all part of the worship experience. Granted, this style of worship is not for everyone, but isn’t that what the postmodern view is trying to say? Post-modernism espouses the theory that one style of worship, one way of viewing intelligence, one way of learning, or even one way of understanding God is no longer valid.

End Notes

1 Grenz, Stanley J. A Primer on Postmodernism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmanns, 1996, 1.
2 Ibid, 2.
3 Wolf, Maryanne. Proust and the Squid: The Story and Science of the Reading Brain. New York: HarperCollins, 2007, 26.
4Grenz, 3.
5 Ibid, 4.
6 Ibid, 4.
7 Ibid, 5.
8 Ibid, 6.
9 Ibid.
10 Ibid.
11 Ibid, 7.
12 Ibid, 8.
13 Ibid, 7.
14 Ibid.
15 Ibid, 9.
16 “Not-knowing” is defined by Richard L. Hester and Kelli Walker-Jones in Know Your Story and Lead with It on p. 49 as “suspending knowledge and expertise in order to hear something new, something different, something that would not be heard if one moved forward knowingly.”
17 I chose to juxtapose Grenz’ views on modernity and post-modernity with the oil spill in the gulf as a way to both critique and to try to understand a current day situation from both a modern and post-modern world view.
18 Stanley J. Grenz, A Primer on Postmodernism (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1996), 19. In Chapter 2, Grenz notes the postmodern world is “centerless.” There is no shared focus or common source of authority. As Congress tried to assess who was at fault for the blow out on the rig, neither company was willing to accept full responsibility. Ultimately, BP agreed to pay for the clean up, but this is more the result of the contractual and legal documents originally signed by BP and Deep Water Horizons when the agreement was made for Deep Water to drill the offshore well. As a further note of explanation, it is standard industry practice for the operator (BP) not the drilling company (Deep Water Horizons) to contractually be responsible for the cost of blow out and the costs associated with the ensuing clean-up.
19 Ibid, 2.
20 Tom Brokaw, interview by Matt Lauer, Today Show, NBC, June 29, 2010.
21 Grenz, 7.
22 Ibid, 5.
23 Ibid, 7.
24 Ibid.
25 Ibid.
26 Ibid.
27 Ibid.
28 The theory of multiple intelligences was proposed by Howard Gardner in 1983. Originally he proposed seven intelligences, as listed above. Later, he added the naturalist to the list.

Bibliography

Grenz, Stanley J. A Primer on Postmodernism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmanns, 1996.

Hester, Richard L., and Kelli Walker-Jones. Know Your Story and Lead with It. The Alban Institute New York, 2009.

Wolf, Maryanne. Proust and the Squid: The Story and Science of the Reading Brain. New York: HarperCollins, 2007.