Postmodernism: What the Govt does not understand and what we wished they would

Its been a long time since I last posted on a political topic. Nope, I haven't lost my interest in politics (domestic or otherwise), but simply because there were other matters on my mind that I felt were more important than GST Hikes, Shin Corp and Elderly care. This is not to say that these matters are secondary (it involves us all, so how can that be?), but then again, with folks like Mr Wang (whom I have met personally and interviewed for a school project), Gayle Goh (oops, she's on blogging hiatus), Loy Huichieh, Xenoboy and the grandaddy of all bloggers, Mr Brown - the blogosphere is well represented, and I do not have anything else significant to add.

But having said so, its time to crack open the egg on an area that is probably the biggest reason why the Govt is having such a hard time convincing the young that its policies are fine and dandy (well clearly, they are not - at least not all - especially the HDB-Vote-for-me-or-else-no-upgrade policy). The bigger problem - in my opinion - is that of our social culture, and that which is best described as a rupture between those who subscribe to a worldview of modernity vs. those who are influenced by the postmodern spirit. Now I have blogged about this with regards to my Christian faith - which incidentally has parallels with what we are seeing in the social and political arena.

Incidentally about a year and a half ago, I was invited to tea together with several other folks at the MAS with Dr Vivian Balakrishnan (whom btw, I do think quite highly of). Among the first questions he asked us (after exchanging pleasantries) was: What do you think is the biggest challenge the Govt has in reaching out to the young (or something to that effect?)... while the rest of the folks gave answers like "oh, they are apathetic" to "they want more freedom" etc...you get the drift... my answer was "the challenge of postmodernism". Upon my reply, I could see half the table going "huh?" (though to Dr Vivian's credit, he wasn't among the blank-faced). So I went on about how in our current society, authority is no longer taken as an absolute etc...and howthe govt is going to have a tough time convincing the young of its plans and policies.

So what are some of the basic assumptions of postmodernity? Without going to much into the philosophical and historical context, let me just point out several key characteristics:

1. A distrust of metanarratives (Jean-Francois Lyotard's famous dictum "an incredulity towards metanarratives")
2. Deconstruction. This basically means to undermine the frame of reference and assumptions that underpin the text or the artifact. Jacques Derrida would be one name that academics would be instantly familiar with.
3. Disillusionment with the notion of scientific - and social - progress. AFter two world wars and thousands of localized conflicts, terms like progress and peace are increasingly discarded.
4. Epistemological relativity. Or more crudely put "What is true for you may not be true for me, so f*** off" and stop telling me what is right - or wrong. Moral relativism is a clear example of this paradigm shift.
5. Discursive Power. (i.e. language is oppression. According to Michel Foucault , language was developed to allow only those who spoke the language not to be oppressed. All other people that don't speak the language would then be oppressed).... the list of characteristics go on...

Some of the names (which almost every self-respectable liberal arts course teaches - including NTU and NUS) often associated with this postmodern spirit include: Nietzsche, Heidegger, Wittgenstein, Richard Rorty, Jean Baudrillard, Thomas Kuhn, Soren Kierkegaard, Fredric Jameson, David Harvey, Roland Barthes and so on... - all giants of 20th century intellectual thought.

Now if our Govt leaders understand a fraction of postmodern thought, then it is not surprising why the young (esp those better-educated) are not sharing in their vision. If we just take the above postmodern characteristics as an example and apply it to what we see ard us:

1. Distrust of metanarratives - Nowhere is this made clearer than in the blogosphere almost total rejection of the Govt's perceived mode of propaganda, The Straits Times. It is no wonder why the flavour of the blogosphere is strikingly different from ST. Why should we believe what the newspaper says?

2. Deconstruction. Folks like Xenoboy, Mr Wang and Lucky Tan are experts on this field - albeit in their own different ways. What these guys are saying, or asking - in a nutshell - is basically: There's more than meets the eye. Don't fool me with your PR statements.

3. Social disillusionment - esp with notions of progress. Life is getting better, more optimistic, nah. Peace and prosperity? You must be kidding. Just listen to Mr Brown's podcasts to get a feel of this mood (that is parodied).

4. Epistemological relativity. Yawning bread's critic of the Singapore's social and political conservatism is a case in point. Why should we believe what you say? To everyman his own version of truth. To quote Gorgias, "Nothing exists. If anything exists we would be unable to know it. If it did exist and you could know it you would be unable to communicate anything about it".

5. Discursive power - the universal blogsophere criticism of the Government. It all boils down to this: To maintain the PAP hegemony of power. Everything can be reduced to this singularity. No wonder conspiracy theories abound. The mass media is just one big power play by those in power to retain that power.

Now I am sure that the Government knows of these social phenomenon and are actively trying to engage the younger, more net-savvy but less-trusting generation. The only problem is: It is barking up the wrong tree and engaging the young in the wrong battlefields. its not about having our ministers going about hip-hopping (for its image sake, I really do hope our leaders dump this outrageously horrifying idea), nor is it about blogging or even organizing more dialogue sessions. All these ideas are not wrong or bad in themselves, it is just that we are seeing things from different paradigms. I would even go to the extent to say that "even if the government has truly sincere intentions, these intentions - and their subsequent actions - will be perceived as just a grand show to rake in more money from its citizens" Essentially this is a no-win-situation for the Govt. In order then, to engage a new generation of citizens, fresh perspectives need to be adopted.

For instance,

1. Accept that you are fallible and capable of erring. Few governments and leaders would do this, but those which have done so (i.e. Germany after WWII, Pope Benedict) have often gained favour with the rest of the community. Accept that you do not have all the answers to all the problems.

2. Do not be so eager to retain power. AS Thomas Jefferson puts it, "That government which governs best, governs least". I am not saying that society should be run in a political free-for-all, but clearly, the perception on the ground is that the ruling party is simply trying to hard to hold on to power that is resorts to means that are perceived as less-than-ethical. Mah's theory of the Law of Estate Upgrading is a case in point.

3. Accept that not all social matters can be reduced to a black-white monochrome scale. There are shades of grey and other colours all around. Be willing to engage in honest discussion and be ready to take on criticism (without resorting to defamation lawsuits). Do not be too quick to judge, even the wisest cannot see all ends.

4. lead by example and demonstrate genuine understanding to the needs of the needy. The bureaucratic aura is a stiffling one. The lack of communicative authenticity sticks out like a sore thumb.

5. Do not just think about economic efficiency. Not all things can be measured by economic indicators. Yes, Maslow hierarchy of needs states that we need to fill our stomachs before we can even proceed to talk about other more abstract things; but no, man does not live on bread alone, there are many other noble and good things in life that man lives on. The spirit of capitalism must be tempered with the heart of compassion - or else we're no different from the Soviet labour camps - albeit an air-conditioned nation.

------------

Ok, I have written much and much of this is from the heart - and a heavy one at that. I am in no illusions as to whether these things will and can take place. Social life is often too complex for us to carve out cartesian-like parameters in which to analyze and resolve with. Nevertheless, there is always a time and place for the first steps. As the famous Chinese poet Wen Tian Xiang once wrote, "人生今古谁无死, 留取丹心照汗青" (What man is ever immune from death? Leave me with a loyal heart shining in the pages of history). These are words, I hope our leaders can take to heart, and perhaps - in their own small way - make a significant difference of good in this country.

Spiritual musings: Moral man and immoral society

Have been spending the past couple of weeks reading Reinhold Niebuhr's Moral Man and Immoral Society - a book that is ranked among the top ten religious books of the 20th century. It's a dense - but highly rewarding - read (in fact, at the time of writing I have not yet finished the book) and one has to be familiar with various political theories (from Marxist to Stalinist to Capitalism) to understand and appreciate the dialectical tension that underline Niebuhr's arguments. His basic premise: that individuals have a moral code which makes the actions of collective man an outrage to their conscience. In other words, Niebuhr argues that man is morally capable of goodness when left to himself, but in a technological civilization, he is forced - or at least, compelled - to obey the logic of a system that dehumanizes/destroys the very moral fabric of which he is endowed with.

It is very difficult to argue against Niebuhr's central thesis - parts of which resonate with Jacques Ellul's Meaning of the City . Unless one is a techno-optimist (which I am not), one will see the reality of Niebuhr's arguments in daily life. Nevertheless, i would caution against going down the Orwellian/Huxleyan route upon which a dystopic society must be the only necessary outcome. Why do I say so?

It is my belief that the kingdom of God will prevail, not in the militaristic, political or economic sense, but in a spiritual one. The victory of CHrist on the Cross of Calvary means that the final destination of the Christian is one of hope, not of despair. The re-creation of the fallen world upon Christ's second coming will not take place under the backdrop of an Armageddon war, but one that retains a spiritual continuity with the present. WIthout going into eschatological details, I would like to simply say that "the gates of hell shall not prevail against the church".

However the church will only be able to stand her ground if and only if she remains faithful to her calling as the Bride of Christ. Orthodoxy, unless backed by a true spirituality can only lead us into traditionalism - upon which the church will capitulate under the weight of the postmodern attack. On the other hand, a church without the belt of truth upon which it can gird herself with, will also crumble like a house built on sand - once the social conditions upon which it has aligned itself with become passe.

The true church of Christ then is one that bears witness to the reality of a Christian faith that is robust, realistic, authentic and ultimately, true. The demonstration of Christian love in a society that is increasingly searching for meaning, the willingness to sacrifice oneself in order to redeem others (as opposed to destroying others) and the testimony of a life well-lived - all these continue to remain hallmarks of true spirituality upon which we can live as shining stars - blameless and faultless - in a fallen world.

A confessing Christian

Attended a Reformation Day Conference at First Evangelical Reformed Church at the invitation of a friend. This year's conference day title is "The Biblical Basis and Historical Rationale for Confessions". The speaker, Chris Coleborn - rightly pointed out several important principles that a confessing Christian should be aware of; these include: the recognition of our spiritual inheritance, instructing the church (particularly our young) in confessional creeds and being witnesses to the world through proclaimation of propositional truth.

I do, however, have something more - and maybe, different - to add.

Firstly, what does it mean to confess Christ?

The Protestant Reformer Martin Luther brilliantly puts it: "If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point whichthe world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing him. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved, and to be steady on all the battlefield besides is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point".

In a nutshell, confessing Christ means articulating the Christian faith within a socio-political-cultural context. By this I mean that as Christians, we need to be mindful of where we are placed in and the battlefields of our times. Francis Schaeffer rightly noted that part of the reason the church was unable to convey its message to its subsequent generations (during the 60s) was that because the church was simply living on a memory of a Christian past that was ebbing away. As a result, many orthodox churches found that they could not connect with their young; the remaining option then - instead of reforming - was to embark on the megachurch church movement path, a path that Os Guinness compares to "Dining with the Devil" (I will critique this movement in a later post).

In my opinion then, creeds - if merely treated as propositional assertions - are likely to do more harm than good, especially if they are unable to provide subjective evidence of Christian truth. This is where I do think the postmodern movement has a valid point to make, in that our understanding of truth is always relative to the subject involved. The words "I believe" that we often recite in our creeds are perfect examples of the subjective nature of our faith (that is not to say that objective truth does not exist).

Truth then, is both propositional and personal. The over-emphasis of one over the other is fallacious and will only result in disastrous consequeces. Furthermore, unless some form of qualitative distinction can be made and demonstrated by self-professing Christians, then our confession of faith (no matter how elaborate) would only mean that our words ring as hollow and carry no resonance beyond the four walls of our church.

So what can be done then? This will be the subject of my next post. By the way, I do think FERC is doing an admirable job in training its young (I was told that the kids learn the Heidelberg Catechism during Sunday School class). This is something worth emulating.