Modernism vs Post-Modernism
From: raymon_ford
Date: Fri Apr 2, 2004 6:04 am
Subject: Modernism vs Post-Modernism
Gidday Peter,
It was recently suggested here an argument
in support of the notion that some cultures are more `advanced'
than others (`…If several cultures exist and only one of
them has discovered the wheel then are they all at the same level…).
It needs to be said that peoples such as the Aussie Aborigines,
who did not have the wheel, take a dim view of such an outlook.
A loss of dignity is experienced by those subject to such judgments,
and their self-esteem has taken rather a beating as a result.
(I do not mean to say that people making such statements intend
this – in my experience they invariably do not - nevertheless
it does have such an effect.)
You retorted that this merely shows advancement
in wheel-making prowess, and by implication you suggest this
(or any combination of such) does not justify a blanket judgment
as to the superiority of the culture concerned. Your perspective,
decried by some as merely `politically correct', does however
allow those on the receiving end some honor, and to retain a
feeling of inner worth.
This seems to me to show an example of the
contrast between the modernist outlook – relevant here because
it was this within which terms Steiner had necessarily to express
himself - and today's post- modernist outlook. Would you agree
that there was a certain paradigm shift in Western thought in
the 90's, resulting from the influences of post-modernist philosophy,
and that some of the differences in view between yourself and
others here result from this shift?
See ya, Raymon
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Fri Apr 2, 2004 11:00 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Modernism vs Post-Modernism
Hi again Raymon, you wrote:
You retorted that this merely shows advancement
in wheel-making prowess, and by implication you suggest this
(or any combination of such) does not justify a blanket judgment
as to the superiority of the culture concerned.
Yes, that is more or less my position. I think it makes little
sense to say that entire cultures are somehow superior to others.
All cultures have good and bad aspects.
This seems to me to show an example of the contrast between
the modernist outlook – relevant here because it was this
within which terms Steiner had necessarily to express himself
- and today's post- modernist outlook. Would you agree that there
was a certain paradigm shift in Western thought in the 90's,
resulting from the influences of post-modernist philosophy, and
that some of the differences in view between yourself and others
here result from this shift?
I doubt it, but that's an interesting angle. Perhaps others could
weigh in to clarify the various stances. My own stance is very
strongly opposed to postmodernism (which is why I find your hypothesis
doubtful); I am very much a modernist myself, and the modernist
elements in Steiner's worldview are part of what I admire about
him. Postmodernists often preach a thoroughgoing relativism;
not only do they deny that any culture as a whole is superior
to any other, they frequently deny that any aspect of any culture
is better or worse than any other. I consider this second view
deeply wrongheaded, indeed incoherent.
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: raymon_ford
Date: Sat Apr 3, 2004 7:39 am
Subject: Re: Modernism vs Post-Modernism
Gidday Peter,
You said
…I am very much a modernist myself,
and the modernist elements in Steiner's worldview are part of
what I admire about him...
R:
Can you run one or more such elements by me,
contrasting with the `Post-Modernist' outlook? While I would
not know my Focault from my Derrida, I am interested in what
those who do – in this case you - have to say on these matters.
You class yourself as a modernist, but your
attitude re cultures per se not being subject to classification
as to superiority etc was brought into mainstream academic thought
under the umbrella of post-modernism, was it not?
P:
Postmodernists often preach a thoroughgoing
relativism; not only do they deny that any culture as a whole
is superior to any other, they frequently deny that any aspect
of any culture is better or worse than any other. I consider
this second view deeply wrongheaded, indeed incoherent.
R:
Yes. I was careful to word my statement re
Western thought as `… resulting from the influences of
post-modernist philosophy…'. The second view you mentioned
has not yet made it to any prevailing currents of thought save
perhaps the New Age movement, but the first has - and so we must
properly deal with it.
See ya, Raymon
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Sat Apr 3, 2004 9:41 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Modernism vs Post-Modernism
Hi again Raymon, you wrote:
Can you run one or more such elements by
me, contrasting with the `Post-Modernist' outlook? While I would
not know my Focault from my Derrida, I am interested in what
those who do – in this case you - have to say on these matters.
That's a big topic. For now suffice it to say that I think Derrida's
deconstruction is largely an evasion of critical responsibility;
witness his miserable apologias for De Man and Heidegger, for
example. Foucault is a different story; his work mixes good empirical
work with bad theory, in my view, and ends up distracting his
acolytes from many of the important issues at stake in history
and in social critique.
You class yourself as a modernist, but
your attitude re cultures per se not being subject to classification
as to superiority etc was brought into mainstream academic thought
under the umbrella of post-modernism, was it not?
No. Franz Boas introduced these arguments nearly a hundred years
ago. The belief that particular "cultures per se" are
superior or inferior to others certainly has its defenders within
the modernist tradition, but it has many critics within that
tradition as well. One way to put it is that postmodernists (a
lot of them, anyway) move from the entirely legitimate skepticism
toward this sort of superiority talk to an illegitimate form
of relativism in which no component of any culture can be considered
preferable to any other. I completely reject that kind of relativism.
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Tue Apr 6, 2004 4:47 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Modernism vs Post-Modernism
Peter Staudenmaier:
I think it makes little sense to say that
entire cultures are somehow superior to others. All cultures
have good and bad aspects.
Daniel:
This brings up an interesting question. If
cultures have good and bad aspects, is it possible that one culture
has more good aspects than another culture? Purely in abstract
theory, mind you. For if you admit that cultures have good and
bad aspects (a value judgment) I find it an odd next step to
maintain that it is not possible to quantify these aspects. The
logically consistent position would be to maintain that there
is nothing good or bad about any culture; this is a position
from which no one can claim the superiority of one culture over
another. If, on the other hand, cultures have good and bad aspects,
then a comparison of these aspects ought to be possible. In fact,
it is logically inconsistent to maintain that cultures have good
and bad aspects, but that comparing these is impossible.
Patrick: [Raymon:]
This seems to me to show an example of
the contrast between the modernist outlook – relevant here
because it was this within which terms Steiner had necessarily
to express himself - and today's post- modernist outlook. Would
you agree that there was a certain paradigm shift in Western
thought in the 90's, resulting from the influences of post-modernist
philosophy, and that some of the differences in view between
yourself and others here result from this shift?
Peter Staudenmaier:
I doubt it, but that's an interesting angle.
Perhaps others could weigh in to clarify the various stances.
My own stance is very strongly opposed to postmodernism (which
is why I find your hypothesis doubtful); I am very much a modernist
myself, and the modernist elements in Steiner's worldview are
part of what I admire about him. Postmodernists often preach
a thoroughgoing relativism; not only do they deny that any culture
as a whole is superior to any other, they frequently deny that
any aspect of any culture is better or worse than any other.
I consider this second view deeply wrongheaded, indeed incoherent.
Daniel:
Still trying to have it both ways, I see.
Absolute and relative, modernist yet postmodernist. As I said
above, I find it logically impossible to consider that an entity
(a culture) has characteristics that are quantifiable as "good"
and "bad" but that these characteristics cannot be
compared to the characteristics of another similar entity. The
postmodernists are at least being logically consistent, which
is more than I can say for this position.
Peter, you seem to define yourself first by the label you desire
("my own stance is very strongly opposed to postmodernism"
= I don't want to be a "postmodernist") and then you
try to foist your views off as an anti-postmodernist stance.
I propose that this is backwards. First look at your stance,
and then see what label applies. You stated position in earlier
posts is unadulterated, classic cultural relativism, a textbook
case of postmodernism. Yet you don't want the label, so you deny
it, even if it requires redfining the term and thereby being
quite illogical. It is the same thing you do with Steiner. In
your view, Steiner is a racist and anti-Semite, and it is merely
a matter of finding the quotes to demonstrate this. You would
land closer to the truth if you first read some Steiner (whole
books, and not paragraphs) and attempted to determine if the
central argument or any of the asides - in context - are actually
anti-Semitic or racist.
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Tue Apr 6, 2004 7:41 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Modernism vs Post-Modernism
Hi Daniel, you wrote:
This brings up an interesting question. If cultures have good
and bad aspects, is it possible that one culture has more good
aspects than another culture?
Maybe. I don't know how one would quantify such a thing, though.
In any case, whole cultures aren't monolithic; they contain contradictory
elements, some of which will strike some people as good and others
as bad.
For if you admit that cultures have good and bad aspects (a
value judgment) I find it an odd next step to maintain that it
is not possible to quantify these aspects.
What is odd about that? Quality and quantity are different things.
The logically consistent position would be to maintain that
there is nothing good or bad about any culture
That would be quite foolish, in my view. All cultures include
both good and bad aspects, don't you think?
If, on the other hand, cultures have good and bad aspects,
then a comparison of these aspects ought to be possible.
Yes, of course. A comparison of the specific *aspects*, not of
the whole cultures.
You stated position in earlier posts is unadulterated, classic
cultural relativism, a textbook case of postmodernism.
That kind of cultural relativism, the Boasian variety, long predates
postmodernism. It is very different from postmodern versions
of relativism.
You would land closer to the truth if you first read some
Steiner (whole books, and not paragraphs) and attempted to determine
if the central argument or any of the asides - in context - are
actually anti-Semitic or racist.
That's exactly what I have done. Some of them are indeed racist
and antisemitic. Some of them are not. Amazing how complex people's
ideas can be, huh?
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Wed Apr 21, 2004 6:47 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Modernism vs Post-Modernism
Peter
Staudenmaier:
After being away for a while, Daniel comes
running back, and writes:
Daniel:
Peter, I've been here all along. I was quietly
waiting for you to answer about 12 posts that I addressed to
you in the last two weaks. But you seem to be avoiding all substantive
discussion, so I thought I'd jump in again.
Peter Staudenmaier:
Quite so. Did you think we were discussing
hatemongering? I thought we were discussing racism.
Daniel:
I thought we were discussing racism too, but
then you stopped responding to my posts, so I guessed you were
trying to quietly sneak away from any substantive discussion
of the issue while loudly boasting that you reall, no really,
wanted to discuss the issue. I was also discussing how you really
messed up in your article "Anthroposophy and Ecofascism"
and attributed Aryan elitism to Steiner in a book that contained
nothing of the sort, and then did not have the integrity to admit
your error. Your lack of integrity remains, and the fact also
remains that you are scared of facing your many errors in this
article, and avoid discussing your mistakes at ever opportunity.
Daniel Hindes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
April/May
2004
The Uncle
Taz "Anthroposophy Tomorrow" Files
Anthroposophy & Anarchism
Anthroposophy & Scientology
Anthroposophical
Morsels
Anthroposophy,
Critics, and Controversy
