Postmodern Conservative
April 30, 2009
In case you missed it, there is a new blogging iniative over at First Things called the Postmodern Conservative. Our own Jonathan Jones is an associate blogger over there, so be on lookout for his posts. Congratulations, Jonathan!
Advertisement
32 Comments
Comments are closed.
We can never have too much interest in postmodernism. Congrats, Jonathan!
I am still trying to figure out what modernism is.
In think Larison is right that First Things is very much part of the American liberal tradition, so I really wonder what the blog title means.
I’m not optimistic. I was immediately drawn to this by somebody called Peter Lawlor: “lovers of freedom are all over the president for three reasons…enormous expansion of the reach of the national government….the fear is that Obama doesn’t have a realistic view of what we have to do militarily to preserve our liberty….The new military budget is too small but otherwise fairly sensible and not a disaster overall.”
This sounds like Bushite liberalism to me. I love the cognitive dissonance between concerns of expansion in government versus a military budget that is too small — I also find this position morally offensive (money for bombs, none for health insurance).
Jonathan,
Congratulations!
I suspect Jonathan of being a Calvinist. :)
I suspect Jonathan not being post-modern, nor conservative. I see nothing from the post-moderns in him, and I see nothing but rejection of the views of a de Maistre. And de Maistre would be close to being both if he were alive today, though his penal theory would need revamping.
So I think Feddie might be right ;)
Thanks all. I look forward to the conversations there and here.
It is humbling to be in the same grouping as James Ceasar and Peter Lawler et al.
I suspect Jonathan not being post-modern, nor conservative.
If Lawler is right that postmodernism more commonly understood is incorrect (the term, at its foundation, can only be classified as a critique of modernism) – and that it is really “hyper-modern” by such understandings, then the sentiment of rejection that I and others share of all totality and ideology is certainly “post-modern.” And as one who supports the Right broadly defined, even given strong criticisms of liberal autonomy and market economics, “conservative” also fits – especially for a follower of its founder, Edmund Burke (and yes, he was a Whig).
I see nothing from the post-moderns in him, and I see nothing but rejection of the views of a de Maistre.
de Maistre rejected the Enlightenment, and it is my position that is is not feasible for any person discussing political philosophy to reject it after it was unleashed. Thus I do reject de Maistre, as all who do not exist in extremely high levels of abstraction must.
And de Maistre would be close to being both if he were alive today, though his penal theory would need revamping.
In line with the earlier comment, it is also feasible that to “import” a figure “pre-Burke” / large scale industrial capitalism has way too many complications to be useful.
A “conservative” case can be made for Hume and I think Cicero, but that is another conversation…..
Jonathan,
Post-modernism is “hyper-modernism” only in the sense that the maze of modernism has been gone through, and the maze is shown for what it is. Post-moderns are certainly influenced by it, but if one wants to argue that “what one comes from, one is, just in a hyper sense” that will make weird positions, such as that Marx is hyper-capitalism. Do you want to agree with that?
This blog (Postmodern Conservatism) is in its third location… James Poulus started it at its own domain a few years back, then it moved to Culture 11 last fall, but with the demise of the latter, it found a new home at FT.
While the journal FT is in the broadly liberal tradition, PoMoCon is not (or is barely, at most), as a perusal of its archives will reveal (nor is Peter Augustine Lawler a liberal in that sense, MM, as again, a perusal of the blog [or a google of him] with reveal). PoMoCon landed at FT’s website, I think, because Joe Carter — who was the Managing Editor at C11 — is now the web editor at FT.
One possible insight into the “meaning” of the blog… Lawler wrote a book a while back entitled “Postmodernism Rightly Understood”, in which he argues that what typically passes for postmodernism is in fact hyper-modernism, i.e. the unfolding of the inner logic of modernism, while *post*modernism is more like (albeit not exactly) a contemporary retrieval of premodernism.
Chris,
I think if one, following the use of the Englightment’s understanding of reason, and finding reason ending up showing it is incapable, I do think it is (as you said) quite different from a pre-modern rejection of such reason, even if both can be shown to be saying some similar things. This, of course, is why I wouldn’t call de Maistre post-modern, even if some of the things he said or suggested, post-moderns would also come to accept.
It’s the difference of being at the entrance of the maze and the end of the maze: one is outside of it, but the one who got through it, will know the maze differently than the one who hasn’t gone through it yet, even if both are outside the maze.
And that’s the problem I see when people say “post-modernism” is really “pre-modernism.” I can say post-moderns might appreciate ideas anticipated in the pre-moderns (as I do, being one who is a fan of de Maistre, as I think my consistent use of him suggests), but we must admit, we read them in the light of a post-modern sensibility (ie., Baudrillard, Virillio, even Zizek, let alone people like Derrida).
I also look at them, and post-modernism as well, in the light of the ancient Mahayana views, especially Yogacara, which ends up with some similar ideas, but with the context being different, of course, the ends of them are different. But it is because of this, I would say, I am post-modern, but entering post-modernism with views that many do not start with.
This leads me to point out the problem I have with ideas like “Post Modern Rightfully Understood” because it means “as I want to make them to mean.” Post-modernism, by its own definition, is not a systematic position. Thus those who want to make it “hyper-modernism” might be right in saying it comes out of modernism, but it is not right to suggest that the answer, thus, is pre-modernism. We might learn from all, but we still are different because we have travelled through the maze of modernism.
de Maistre rejected the Enlightenment, and it is my position that is is not feasible for any person discussing political philosophy to reject it after it was unleashed.
In what sense do you mean this, jj? I see MacIntyre as rejecting it, but perhaps we’re using “rejecting” it in different senses… certainly we cannot pretend that the Enlightment didn’t happen and attempt to re-establish premodernity per se, but we can reject things like the eschewing of tradition and the advancement of (allegedly) universal, objective scientistic reason.
In what sense do you mean this, jj?
de Maistre wrote and existed (for the most part) before this earthquake. Yet once that earthquake occured, how can we escape? Every aspect of our Western lives is infused, deeply, with notions of justice and individual autonomy. All sentiments and ideologies must contend with this, and none can “escape” it – not even Wendall Berry et al.
I see MacIntyre as rejecting it, but perhaps we’re using “rejecting” it in different senses… certainly we cannot pretend that the Enlightment didn’t happen and attempt to re-establish premodernity per se, but we can reject things like the eschewing of tradition and the advancement of (allegedly) universal, objective scientistic reason.
Yes, I agree completely.
de Maistre wrote and existed (for the most part) before this earthquake
Which earthquake do you mean, Jonathan? Joseph certainly lived after the great earthquake of the Enlightenment and so was able to be its critic, and one of the best ones of it, imo. And though he was once sucked into the French Revolution (again what some thing is “the earthquake”), he quickly saw beyond it, and in one sense, maybe, from that, one can say he was the first post-modern.
Post-modernism is “hyper-modernism” only in the sense that the maze of modernism has been gone through, and the maze is shown for what it is. Post-moderns are certainly influenced by it, but if one wants to argue that “what one comes from, one is, just in a hyper sense” that will make weird positions, such as that Marx is hyper-capitalism. Do you want to agree with that?
No, I do not agree. My first post there will I hope offer a more detailed explanation. Briefly, “postmodernism rightly understood” is a return to “realism” – an understanding of our limitations, a rejection (look at W. Percy) of the Rousseauean view that language ect. is a historical construt with no natural foundation. Yet the human self is also elusive – thus a rejection of totality that we may know absent death, and of ideology.
As was discussed in Kyle’s comments a while ago, your attempts to define postmodernism follows much more comfortably the “post-structuralists.”
Jonathan
You might not “agree,” but you have yet to show a simple grasp of the fundamentals of those who are considered “post-modern” as was reflected in a lengthy discussion on Kyle’s blog (and many, many pointed this out to you there). I suspect you don’t even know what realism is (so please, define it here). You really are not philosophically minded, and that is quite clear with your loose use of terms, and redefining them if you think the term is good or popular. Your claim that Kirk is anti-ideological, which also was confronted on Kyle’s blog, is an example of this. You think if people “say” something it is true, if you like it and it sounds good. Sorry, Kirk was quite ideological. American “conservatism” is full of it. It’s not post-modern, nor pre-modern. It is modern. Period. And quite founded upon liberalism.
Henry:
I have no problem with lumping de Maistre with those who share “postmodern” sentiments as I have described here. Yet it is not correct IMO to state that he wrote under the Enlightenment umbrella. He still existed a time when the structures of life and government were not greatly influenced by its many theories. That world is long, long, long gone. Who argues for the monarchy except for some jokers looking for fun at Oxford and Cambridge?
Jonathan
Well, you proved yourself 1) ignorant of de Maistre and 2) the Enlightenment. Good job! Thanks for proving my point. One of the big things anyone who works with de Maistre knows, to understand him, you must understand the Enlightenment and that is the framework of his whole discussion. Without Hobbes, no Maistre. Without Rousseau, no Maistre. And your whole comments about monarchy prove 1) you are liberal and 2) modern. That his opponents were those who supported the revolution, and the move away from monarchy, is proof that he is himself in the Enlightenment era, not anything but that. What this proves, and is known from most who read your stuff, is you have no clue on the categories you talk about. Rhetoric, maybe; history and philosophy: nothing.
Henry, good grief, how about more substance and charity and less of whatever that was ? It’s a poor reflection on you.
Jonathan
I have given substance – that you lack the basic knowledge of the issues at hand, shows you don’t know the substance when you see it. How about some charity and you stop pretending you are a post-modern, when you clearly MOCK the post-moderns?
Henry,
Take…a…deep….breath. Now repeat….serenity now…
Jonathan,
Congrats.
Jonathan’s initial description of post-modernism is, generally speaking, accurate. I prefer Lyotard’s definition from The Postmodern Condition: incredulity toward meta-narrative. Post-modernism is a critique of the over-ambitious nature of Enlightenment rationalism, the over-inflated projections of the achievement of the human mind, and the over-confidence in so-called rational political models (esp. the conception of the modern nation state). Furthermore, it is suspicious of attempts to describe in narrative fashion the history of ideas as it were a linear path perfectly described and analyzed by a sort of idea-determinism. In this respect, I count myself among the post-moderns, especially since I see them opening the way back up to “pre-modern” ideas.
However, the only way to really understand post-modernism is to see it as a reflexive critique by modernity itself.
I’m amiable to multiple meanings of postmodernism, though I prefer the varieties narrated by Lyotard and Derrida.
I need to find a good copy of The Postmodern Condition….
Poli, I think your description is very much in line with Lawler’s. There is a small niche of academics on the Right working through all this in a manner you have described, particularly with regard to a return toward “pre-modern” ideas. Walker Percy are F. O’Connor are being used for that, although I’m not familiar with those two as I need to be.
Jonathan
These academics are of the left, not the right; they are not conservative, they are fully accepting the modern liberal enterprise. That’s the problem. They will do as you do, equivocations, to claim many things which contradict themselves. Your own racist narrative should be indicative of ideology, yet you claim to be without ideology. Your claim that post-moderns are realists is hilarious to say the least (as pointed out, they would quite strongly object to that). Really, I would suggest you stop using labels if you can’t use them right.
This quote by Flannery O’Connor has a postmodern flavor to it:
“The fiction writer presents mystery through manners, grace through nature, but when he finishes there always has to be left over that sense of Mystery which cannot be accounted for by any human formula.”
In many ways, the concept of reason indicates how pomo is both continuous with modernism (and hence can be termed hypermodernism) and discontinuous with the same (hence post-modernism), in that the modernism’s attenuated conception of reason was furthered with pomo, to the point that pomo rejected what modernism was reaching for (universal, ahistorical, objective reason) *and then some* (i.e. incredulity towards *all* metanarratives).
As noted elsewhere, I find James K.A. Smith decidedly helpful on how Christians find much to agree with in pomo, although I think he goes too far in agreeing with pomo regarding the human intellect’s ability to know truth.
I have always considered de Maistre to be an uncomfortable fit at the meeting point between “premodern” and “modern” France. His deep nationalist sentiment and support of the French revolution display the influence of modern political and moral ideas, yet his bizarre views on monarchy and the papacy clearly show that he had not fully transitioned and adjusted to the implications of modernity. Just some quick thoughts.
Policraticus
I think it is not right to look at his later ideas on monarchy and the papacy as ideas outside of the greater context of his own life story. He was first for the revolution because he was first engaged with the ideals of the Enlightenment, and its concerns; but then he saw, through the Revolution, the limits of the Enlightenment itself, and in this respect, he becomes the closest thing to a post-modern possible in that day. Nonetheless, in this regards, he continues to engage and think within the Enlightenment paradigm, for example, when discussing the papacy, because he is using the ideas of the Enlightenment and its debate over sovereignty as a way to read the papacy itself. Very clearly not pre-modern in his views here. As with monarchy, if he was absolutist and said the best form of government was monarchy, you would have a point; but he doesn’t say that, and it is here one can find, as with other examples in his debate with the Enlightement, the post-modern development can be seen anticipated in de Maistre, because he shows that there is no “best form of government” and the meta-narrative which looks for it, he says, is erroneous; rather, he says each land, each people, each point in history, will find its own “best form” for themselves. And his complaint with the Enlightenment, as one looks closely, is with the issues of its absolute claims, which again, shows why he can be seen as reacting similarly to the post-moderns, though I would say he is still more “modern” than not, not pre-modern.
but then he saw, through the Revolution, the limits of the Enlightenment itself, and in this respect, he becomes the closest thing to a post-modern possible in that day.
Nonetheless, in this regards, he continues to engage and think within the Enlightenment paradigm, for example, when discussing the papacy, because he is using the ideas of the Enlightenment and its debate over sovereignty as a way to read the papacy itself.
he says each land, each people, each point in history, will find its own “best form” for themselves.
I just don’t see anything post-modern about any of this. Instead, I see confusion and an uncomfortable confrontation with modernity from a pre-modern viewpoint. His views on sovereignty strike me as a fusion of medieval political thought (esp. Giles of Rome) and modern political thought (esp. Hobbes), with a splash of Hume to account for seeming political contextualism. Nothing here is radical or post-modern, but quite par-for-the-course for someone who has one foot in medieval-style diplomacy and the other in modern notions of freedom.
These academics are of the left, not the right; they are not conservative, they are fully accepting the modern liberal enterprise. That’s the problem. They will do as you do, equivocations, to claim many things which contradict themselves.
I’m sorry, but this is simply inaccurate and makes no sense. Those who label themselves “post-modern conservatives” are very much of the political right, and everyone (literally, everyone) who interacts with them accepts that. If you doubt this, I’d be interested in you finding any writing from any member of the site that fits in with the left broadly defined. And if you might point to an acceptance of liberal democracy or capitalism, that doesn’t make a whole lot of sense either – after the philosophical and social earthquake of Enlightenment, all within the left or the right broadly defined argue under this umbrella.
Your own racist narrative
It would be advisable for you to cut this nonsense out. If you want to call me a “racist”, then gather your evidence, define your terms, present your evidence, and make your case. Otherwise, it is a poor reflection on you and on the blog.
should be indicative of ideology, yet you claim to be without ideology. Your claim that post-moderns are realists is hilarious to say the least (as pointed out, they would quite strongly object to that). Really, I would suggest you stop using labels if you can’t use them right.
Way too much hot air here. If you engaged the PC “literature” as it were, you would find pretty sophisticated arguments that postmodernism properly understood (to borrow from Lawler) is a return to realism because of its correspondence to Socratic and Thomistic rationalism – that human reason exists not to transform reality but to understand and to come to terms with it. There is, this is to say, a correspondence to human thought and the “way things are.”
Why not read Lawler’s book and write your own post on it? Actually engage his arguments.
I’ll have another detailed consideration soon enough. I would enjoy having you offer your substantive input, but I hope this name-calling and attack mode and getting the vapors comes to its end.
Kyle – I love that quote!
Thanks.