Help
Sign In
deconstructivism
August 2006 
Some thoughts about postmodernism
Diederick
In the process of writing my thesis, I have been reading a lot about the development of sociological perspectives. There have been a few major streams of thought in sociology, most of which can be labelled modern or postmodern. More recently, there have been attempts at going beyond postmodernism, although I would say that some are regressive and even progressive accounts are often very shaky. All of this has made me wonder about these orientations, worldviews, perspectives, or whatever else you'd like to call them. What follows are some thoughts, most specifically about postmodernism.
The premodern worldview holds that the world is as it is, created and ordained by God's will. With Galileo and Newton, the modern worldview claims the ability to think and act for itself, emphasizing human agency and scientific progress. Man places himself outside of nature and looks down upon it as an objective observer, a mirror of nature, merely recording what he sees, hears, smells, tastes and feels ‘out there'. Facts are lying around waiting to be discovered, and science offers a representational theory of truth: there can only be one truth and it is of universal validity.
Now there is obviously a lot to be said for this way of reasoning. Nevertheless, at some point, some of us started voicing our doubts about the deep, unquestioned assumptions underlying our modern worldview. This marked the emergence of a new, post-modern worldview, although it would probably reject the term ‘worldview' as that supposes there is one way of looking at the world. Postmodernism has come to be known for its call for relativity and contextuality. There is no such thing as one Truth, as everyone has their own truth, and every claim, all knowledge, each perspective is partial and relative to its context, rather than of universal validity.
This is a very subtle way of looking at the world, and its recognition of relativity and pluralism a very advanced stance. Still, postmodernism is often put down as being relativistic to the point of not being able to say anything at all, as well as deconstructive of existing, modern perspectives. In terms of public relations, postmodernists haven't done a very good job, as they're often seen as annoying, whining, critical deconstructivists. In many ways, this is true, but recently I started seeing there's more to it than that. The point is, if we can't fully appreciate the postmodern message, there is no way we will be able to go beyond it properly. In Wilber's terms, we need to transcend and include the postmodern contribution (which his integral approach does, and does well).
Two observations that deserve to be appreciated more fully, in my view, relate to deconstructivism and postmodernists' critical stance. Until recently, I always took deconstructivism to refer to the process of pointing out how everything is relative, thereby levelling modern attempts at building universally applicable theories. It's not that this is false, but there's more to it than that. Postmodernism's deconstructivism is a response to modernism's constructivism. While modernist scientists claim to be dis-covering given realities, postmodernists claim that this involves a process of construction, rather than one of discovery.
Scientific research generally starts with the formulation of theories and hypothesis about how the world around us might be. In the process of formulating these, scientists are projecting the existence of particular objects, laws or phenomena which are then taken as the legitimate focus of investigation. In this way, these phenomena are increasingly taken to be separate and independent of our ideas about them, to the point of taking on a ‘real and objective' existence. Instrumental in this process is our use of language, by which we draw boundaries, label and categorize the world around us. From this point on, the ‘objective reality' is taken to exist and scientists proceed to ‘accurately describe and represent' these realities.
Postmodernists have drawn attention to the ways in which our truth and knowledge are thus constructed and constituted and call for an appreciation of the assumptions and circumstances of this process of construction by following it ‘upstream'. This is what has been referred to as deconstructivism, but rather than merely paralysing all attempts at gaining knowledge by relativizing it, it aims to draw attention to the process of constructing reality. Postmodernism doesn't object to knowledge or truth in themselves, but rather objects to the ways in which we first construct them, then forget that we constructed them, and finally act ‘as if' they were independent, pre-existing, objective realities.
In that sense, the deconstructive approach is complementary to the modern worldview, because it adds an appreciation of the process by which reality and truth are constructed. However, in their efforts to complement and balance the modern worldview, postmodernists often went to the other extreme, emphasizing extreme relativity and deconstructing existing approaches, rather than complementing them by drawing attention to their constructedness. This is hardly a surprising result, as the pendulum swings of time often go from one extreme to the other. However, it has given postmodernism its bad name of being purely critical and destructive, rather than bringing something new to the table. This is where the second observation comes in (I have no idea where this idea originally came from, but I was made aware of this by Emil Möller - accidentally, serendipitously).
This observation revolves around a distinction between two versions of postmodernism, the first critical, the second affirmative. Critical postmodernism defines itself negatively, ‘merely' deconstructing existing approaches. An affirmative postmodernism, however, would take the ideas of relativity and the constructedness of reality and truth, and proceed to incorporate them in a more subtle, more encompassing view of reality, as compared to the modern worldview. This affirmative postmodernism is relativistic and pluralistic, recognizing that there are multiple perspectives and truths.
If that's true, then what is the difference between affirmative postmodernism and integral post-postmodernism? Is there a difference? I don't really know of many affirmative postmodernist theories, so it's hard to say. I could imagine that affirmative postmodernism would positively recognize aperspective pluralism, while the integral worldview would bring some good ol' vision-logic (late formal operational cognition) to the table and proceed to integrate them. As Wilber has noted, extreme postmodern relativism may lead to what he calls ‘aperspectival madness', where nothing is better than anything else and nothing meaningful can be said. Aperspective pluralism without the rejection of hierarchy could lead to the integration of the different perspectives, which Wilber calls integral-aperspectivism, or plain integral. The difference between affirmative postmodernism and integral, then, may be found in the recognition of verticality and holarchy.
All in all, I've come to understand and therefore appreciate the postmodern contribution a little more than before. Having grown up in the Netherlands, I'm intimately aware of the postmodern recognition of multiple truths and perspectives, and I can sometimes struggle with relativism and hierarchies. These questions are very much alive in me, so I enjoy considering them and reflecting on my own thinking. As always, feedback and ideas are appreciated.
Access: Public
Hi Diederick,
Nice piece of writing. Kind of considering the issues you raise myself. My gut tells me it is new terrain and therefore there is a lot of exploration going on and only preliminary maps (rough sketches at best) are available. I suppose in about ten to twenty years we'll have a better idea of what an affirmative post-modernism will look like.
It makes sense to me–as you also get–that one would have to 'dismantle the old' before one can 'construct the one.' Hence, the presence and proliferation of all the negative (critical) postmodernist discourses.
Maybe that is where you will come in: given your age and experience I bet you might be one of the positive/constructive postmodernists! ; o )
Genuinely,
David Jon
man, another long ass post! i've barely finished reading the first paragraph and you lost me already. not your fault. it's a AD(cyber)HD thing. anyway, i'll read this long ass post later when i get the chance.
but in the meantime, since you are doing sociological research, i suggest reading the book Wisdom of Crowds (if you haven't done so). aside from being a cool book, that book contains golden nuggets on research on society and the collective. check it out. your thesis will not be as fluffy without getting ideas from this book.
my two cents.
~C (for Collective intelligence)
David Jon, I intend to do my part and exercise my freedom and influence for the good. And that's exactly why I'm considering topics such as these, since I find myself struggling with some of these orientations in me, as well as around me.
I do think, however, that there's a basic difference between affirmative postmodernism (seeing the different perspectives) and integral (integrating the different perspectives both horizontally and vertically).
And ~C, I know of that book but haven't gotten to the point of reading it. Amazon is dumping some eight to ten books on my doorstep today, so I'll have to put it on the wish list. Thanks for the heads up.
Have you looked into Hermeneutics, or phenomenology? These could be the kind of “affirmative postmodern” perspectives you seem interested in. Basically hermenetics is the idea no description of reality is perfect, but that some or more useful than others (depending on the purpose). Personally I view ideas as tools, that are useful in a certain context and than useless in others.
I took a description of an important Hermeneutics concept called the Hermeneutic Circle from wikipedia, so that you could see it's relationship to the concept of Holons.
“The hermeneutic circle describes the process of understanding a text hermeneutically. It refers to the idea that one's understanding of the text as a whole is established by reference to the individual parts and one's understanding of each individual part by reference to the whole. Neither the whole text nor any individual part can be understood without reference to one another, and hence, it is a circle. However, this circular character of interpretation does not make it impossible to interpret a text, rather, it stresses that the meaning of text must be found within its cultural, historical, and literary context.”
The phenomonolgical approach to QDA (qualitative data anylysis)might interest you as well. I find that it fits in quite well with Wilbur's work, providing the details of a really good research paradigm, for the subjective, rather than the objective world.
I would tend to agree with you that there is a difference between affirmative postmodernism and integral theory. What's your definition of intergral theory, and what is the difference between it and affirmative postmodernism? I don't accept that holarchy and verticality as criteria for the difference. I had developed a theory just about identical to the theory of holons when I was twelve, and I'm no genius. I've noticed similar idea's in many different streams of thought, not all of them influenced by Koestler ( the guy that invented the word holon, back in the late 60's). As far as verticality goes, it's not so rare as Wilbur often suggests. In fact I just read an interesting article on ethics (Good-Willed Cookbook: Recipes for Ethical Problem Solving and Education)
that provides an excellent example of verticle thinking inside academia, as well as very high level aperspectival thinking.
Anyway, I just wanted to write you a messege. I really enjoyed reading your blog. I just started my own blog here, and you're the reason why. Your blog was the first one I happened across, and everything you wrote was interesting, so I took you as a representive of the community at large. I doubt that's accurate, but I wanted to believe it, so here I am! Thanks for all your interesting writing, can't wait to see your thesis.
Hi Matthew,
Thanks for your thoughtful response.
I know a little about hermeneutics and phenomenology, mostly through Wilber's writing. I also read some sociological works inclined towards those schools of thought, such as the work of Alfred Schutz (although in all honesty, I didn't read his original work).
A definition of integral.. is that all you're asking for? ;-)
I'd say integral would include the postmodern pluralism, seeing the many perspectives, the different truths. What it would add in transcending it is, I think, integrating those perspectives by not merely tolerating them (as we do here in the Netherlands), but seeing, knowing how they're all necessary and natural.
It's not just “you think different and that's ok”, but it's really an intersubjective empathic touching which makes you aware of how that way of thinking has been, is, or could be part of how you look at the world. It's no longer 'out there', accepted and tolerated, but it's literally 'in your world'.
Added to that is the holarchy, the verticality. A recognition of holons would not be enough necessarily, I think. Holons are just chains of part/wholes, and you can have those in the horizontal dimension as well. What changes when you add verticality is that there is a holarchical direction, towards increasing differentiation and integration, complexity and simplicity, wisdom and compassion.
So not only do different perspectives exist and not only can they all be true for me, there is also a developmental directionality to them. I think there's possibly more to it than that, or a better way to formulate it, but that's all I can think of for now.
Oh, and I'm really honoured to have been representative of the Zaadz community for you, since there is an incredible array of brilliance, compassion and plain ol' fun in this community. You're most welcome!
“It's not just “you think different and that's ok”, but it's really an intersubjective empathic touching which makes you aware of how that way of thinking has been, is, or could be part of how you look at the world. It's no longer 'out there', accepted and tolerated, but it's literally 'in your world'.”
I like that… To me it explains something about one of the ways in which meditation practice(I'm only speaking about Theravada Buddhist meditation practice) can help people to reach that perspective. I remember hearing a meditation teacher talk about how after years of practice she could never judge another person, because she'd found within herself the potential for theft, rape, and murder inside of herself. She felt that she could empathize for anyone, because of the wide range of expierence that meditation had provided her with.
“Added to that is the holarchy, the verticality. A recognition of holons would not be enough necessarily, I think. Holons are just chains of part/wholes, and you can have those in the horizontal dimension as well. What changes when you add verticality is that there is a holarchical direction, towards increasing differentiation and integration, complexity and simplicity, wisdom and compassion.”
Absolutely… We definitely need both holons, and verticality, and that with all the quadrants, or at the very least taking into account both subjective and objective truth.
What do you mean by a ” developmental directionality”… Does this necessarily imply an increase in quality, or just complexity. Either way does this really match the observed reality?
All of the animals on this earth right now, have had an equal amount of time to evolve, for the mast majority circumstances were such that they didn't need to increase in complexity. One of my problems with Wilbur, is that he commits what I call the fallacy of linear development. The same kind of thinking that made early biologists think that the duck billed platypus, was a relatively “unevolved mammal” because it didn't lay eggs. However recently it's been discovered that it is actually an incredibly complex mammal (with an incredibly cool weapon in it's tail, and the ability to detect electromagnetic fields with it's bill). It just happened to split in it's developmental from other mammals a long time ago. It seems to me that while in the absolute level, the unfolding of conciousness does seem to have certain distinct stages, that the relative manifestations of these unfoldings don't seem to progress in a stricly directional manner. It is clear that there are some componets of conciousness that do follow a directional path of development (particularly the change progression of the identification of I with subtler and subtler structures). However many kinds of development only have the illusion of directionality (or are given directionality the strong resemblance to directionality by the outside influence of a teacher). I think that the lack of differentiation between directional and none directional development, causes a lot of confusion in developmental models. I think this is what has led to the flaws that many scholars have observed in Kohlbergs models (or the discrepancies between the ideal and the actual observed path of development). I think we need to fully differentiate these two kinds of evolution or development, before we can can transcend them (in my mind this is an area in which the big three have yet to be fully differentiated).
I only mention this to give you food for though, and to stir up into some kind of response, since this is an issue that is important to me at the moment. An interesting paper on a related topic is “http://www.pul.it/irafs/CD%20IRAFS'02/texts/Dreyfus.pdf” it provides some idea's on how the development of cognitve structures can appear to be representationlist (directional) but in actuality are not…
I appreciate your not taking Wilber's or anyone's words for granted. I think that's definitely the way to go.
You mention that directional and nondirectional development fail to be differentiated and that's a problem. However, 'nondirectional development' sounds to me like a contradiction in terms. I agree it doesn't necessarily have to be a vertical direction, but if there's no directionality (i.e., nonrandomness, irreversibility), then how is it development, unfolding, evolving?
I've been away from the computer for awhile…
I think my choice of words may have been poor…
now to the point… what I am talking about as directional development is like what Wilbur calls “deep structures”, and the non-directional would be the “surface structures…” In the words of Wilbur “the deep structures are given, while the surface structures are not.” The surface structures may increase in complexity, or they may not depending on the enviroment. This is development, but not development towards a specific end. It is governed by law, and is therefore non-random. Over time (on a certain scale) the evolutionary process (replication/mutation/competetion) seems to favor increasing complexity, in this way even the development of the surface structures is directional… However this does not correspond (neccesarily) to an increase in quality.
Maybe another way of making my point is to say that in my view Wilbur makes the opposite of the pre/trans fallacy, by priviliging the trans over the pre… In my opinion there are many different lines of healthy and stable development. Wilbur claims to understand this, but his anylysis of the development of civilization, and his spiral dynamics don't seem to reflect this understanding. He seems to believe that there is generally only one line of stable development.
However my own explanation seems inadequate to me… I'm beggining to think that deep and superficial structures are really inseperable… The commonalities of the conditioned world, creates certain existential dilemna's that require us to go on similar developmental paths… This does not neccessairly reveal anything about any truth about an underlying reality… However many of the sidda's that are developed along this path, seem to have a profound impact on the way we view the world… Who know's not I, I was hoping you'd share something of your own interpreation… I'm getting lost, better stop here.