Book Review: Postmodernism

Postmodernism, Glenn Ward

This review examines an introductory text on postmodernism, and concludes with a few questions for the church regarding liturgy.

Glenn Ward’s synopsis of postmodernism begins with an examination of the pre-history of this phenomenon, where he identifies those aspects of modernism against which postmodernism has come to define itself: progress, rationality, foundationalism and essentialism, and the sense of a unified self. Because it is notoriously difficult to define postmodernism, Ward begins with concrete examples of the postmodern aesthetic as expressed in architecture, art, and literature. In each case he notes the penchant for “impure plural coding” (p. 48), where boundaries of “either/or” are rejected and replaced by “both/and” (p. 53). Furthermore, he notes that modernist notions of “High Order” culture which exclude and denigrate “Low Order” culture are viewed as elitist by postmodern thinkers. Rather, all cultural expressions—whether High or Low—are fair game for creating a “collage” of imagery which one imbues with meaning. As such, in postmodernism, “depth is replaced by surface” (p. 68), and the very superficiality of what is presented creates an effect, which, in itself, is everything. Ward is right, in my opinion, to start with  such “concrete” examples as architecture, art, and literature; in so doing he emphasizing the fact that “postmodernism is everywhere” (p. 1), permeating society on all levels, and in settings ranging from the academy to popular culture.

In terms of language and meaning, Ward presents the postmodern mind as something akin to Teflon—everything slides around with no real permanent “sticking” quality: the quest for “truth” language has been abandoned (p. 90), and meaning is never final (p. 99). Rather, culture exists within a system of “signs” that make sense within their own cultural framework, but, in the end, do not represent any essential or “foundational” truth (p. 116). It is this anti-essentialism which generates the view that no “deep down” identity of the self exists; rather, we are a “play of surfaces,” and a “set of shifting signs” (p. 138). In my own experience of many members of Gen. X and Millennials, I find this assessment accurate. The notion of choosing one’s identity (essentially “branding” oneself in various ways), fosters interaction in these age groups, where encounters occur often based on an outward set of cues (usually established by fashion, cosmetics, the way a person talks, etc.) which set a tone. The “real” or “authentic” person may or may not be apparent in the interaction, but the guise functions in a similar way to what used to be achieved by rules of etiquette in a previous era: it establishes socially pre-determined parameters for interacting. For example: this kind of “branding” is at work when a white teenager shows up to a church youth event dressed in black gangster clothing, when one meets another person’s punk-looking drow elf avatar in World of Warcraft (people reveal much by way of their identity choices in video games, especially MMORPGs where social interaction is integral to the experience), or even in the intended effect people wish to make by the kinds of posts they make on Facebook. In reaction to the regimented roles modernism prescribed for people, postmodernism tends to “activate the differences between people and between the cultural spaces they inhabit” (p. 169) to encourage creativity, and perhaps, in some cases, conflict. Overall, exploring how we live with difference does, indeed, seem to be of fundamental concern within postmodernism.

Suggested Considerations for the Church:

Postmodern worship tends to focus on surface features. There is often a premium placed upon creating the “right” atmospheric effects: mood lighting, background music, etc. – to such a degree that, in my experience, I have wondered at times whether people are reacting to the setting or to the living Christ. Is it theologically or pastorally adequate if people are only responding to the aesthetics of a service? How do we avoid “manipulating emotions” when making choices for liturgy? What kind of emphases do we need to make to create a God-focused experience, while at the same time providing an effective atmosphere to which people will respond?

Advertisement