This is the last installment on understanding postmodernism, this time via post-structuralism. We will see that post-structuralism definitely serves as the parent for some of the ideas espoused by what we consider postmodern. I shall conclude by making further observations about what post-structuralism and postmodernism have contributed in light of modernism. What in fact are the implications? Let us get started.
Post-structuralism
Post-structuralism is also popularly (often mistakenly) known as postmodernism in biblical studies. However, postmodernism is actually a caricature, or better yet, a misnomer for this movement. It would be more accurate to define the movement as post-structuralism because postmodernism in the arts in the neo-classical Art Deco movement (following the ornate Art Nouveau movement at the beginning of 20th century) has already existed as early as the 1920’s to 1930’s and its architectural form has existed as early as the 1950s, if not before. Neo-classicism and cubism have been part of this movement. Its artistic and architectural expression has nothing to do with a relativistic (or pluralistic) reaction towards absolute religious or moral truth. Rather, it was an experimentation of mixing classical elements with modern expressions. I would know because I studied architecture in my undergrad days. The reason why so many biblical scholars use the misnomer “postmodernism” to describe post-structuralism is because they have not studied in other disciplines that have long mixed styles in interpretations of the arts. As any art critic or artist knows, art is not always absolute. It is however quite difficult to define what post-structuralism really is.
A common theme among post-structuralists is the rejection of a meta-narrative and deconstruction of single meaning in history and text. Structuralism, in whatever form it takes, hypothesizes that there is a common structure governing the interpretation of the text. Post-structuralists reject such an understanding of the text. Instead, they see the interpreter as being autonomous in assigning meanings to the text. This movement does not necessarily start with the study of the text by linguists. Instead, it has a strong philosophical underpinning, led by Jacques Derrida, Roland Barthes, Michel Founcault, Jacques Lacan, and Julia Kristeva. Since this movement is often associated (sometimes rightly and other times wrongly) with postmodernist hermeneutics, I think we are better off seeing post-structuralism as part of a reaction towards structuralism instead of it being a mere reaction to modernism. What the post-structuralists have found is indeed true to practical human experience. Human epistemology does not start from above, not even if one is Christian. The human experience often dictates what certain things mean to certain person. The post-structuralist powerfully points this experience out. It was the elephant in the room no one wanted to talk about. It was the emperor’s missing cloak no one wanted to point out.
The reaction among evangelicals against post-structuralists by accusing them as postmodernists is because many evangelicals are really modernists instead of Biblicists. The post-structuralist just points out the flaw in their modernist worldview which is positivistic and rationalistic. By asking question, “By whose rationale? By whose truth?” the post-structuralist has poked a big hole in the balloon that was ready to burst. What modernism has failed to take seriously is the human inability to decipher the whole truth. Furthermore, it fails to understand the total depravity of the human mind to comprehend God’s truth. I’m not saying that the post-structuralist is altogether correct. At the very least, it has brought human depravity back to the forefront for the Christian to deal with. Thus, I think what Christians label as postmodern is really a movement against structuralist movement as well as rationalism of historical criticism. What offends the Christian at the end is not necessarily the direct attack about single biblical meaning as much as a direct attack at the philosophical underpinning of popular evangelicalism. Philosophy plays a larger part in most people’s lives than they realize. People are more passionate about their philosophy than they realize.
Conclusion
Why then do evangelicals first scapegoat historical criticism and then postmodernism? I credit either ignorance or integrity. I think mostly it is due to a lack of creative thinking, thus needing a straw man to attack in order to occupy one’s leisure. Ignorance of terminology and how they’re used betrays a shallow and incomplete education of many evangelicals (even among so-called scholars among my Chinese circle). Integrity may be a factor. It is easier to call someone a name, either “historical critic”, “liberal”, or “postmodernist”, than to deal with a person or an issue fairly. Either ignorance or problem of integrity is inexcusable among those in the teaching profession. I suspect it is a bit of both or large dose of either. For those (who will remain graciously unnamed here) with either or both deficiencies, I suggest they get out of the teaching profession so that they can propagate no more misinformation in writing or lecture format. If someone does not even have an undergrad’s knowledge of history, can he or she indeed teach at a graduate level? Like my son would say, after one evening Bible devotion in my home, “Some things just aren’t what they seem.” Well yes, the earth is not flat.
Now, we come to the big question. What am I? Am I a historical critic? Not really, not even close, because my academic training is not primarily in that area (positively or negatively). Am I a structuralist? Perhaps, I’m a little bit of one, but there are some parts of structuralism that does not provide answer for me. Am I a postmodernist? What do you mean by “postmodernist”? Can YOU even properly define postmodernist? Artistically and architecturally, postmodernism has a certain charm. Am I a post-structuralist? Well, I think I’m post-“label.” (not post-it labels, mind you) I hate labels because they’re for the brainless and ignorant. What’s in a label? Is it not restrictive? Is the obsession with labels not an indicator of neurosis? I’m post-restrictive, but definitely not psychotic (though my students tell me otherwise) and most definitely not psychic. How we label people may tell more about who we are than who these people are.