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.