Postmodernism and Democracy

[Mr Arkadin]

Here's an essay from my blog you maybe interested in. Its got some British colloquialisms and references you may not get but it doesn't effect the overall argument.

the-eclectic-rambler.blogspot.com

The essence of postmodernism is that you can literally know nothing- truth does not exist. Therefore everything is just peoples' subjective opinions; nothing more. So we just engage in never ending conversations in which all views are equally valid (or "true") and we never get closer to the "truth".

Now what political system would naturally develop from this view? Firstly it must be egalitarian- everyone is equal. Not in the sense of each person having an intrinsic moral worth but that there is no-one better than anyone at anything; everyone can do everything equally as well if they are given equal opportunity. If someone is better at something it is due to privilege or chauvinistic attitudes. Secondly it must institutionalise the never ending conversation. The conversation needs a legitimate public face which can direct social change.

The perfect political system for this is today's most sacred cow: mass democracy. Every man is given one vote irrespective of how intelligent or wise he is- the vote of King Solomon would be worth as much as Jade Goody's. Attempts at increasing voting franchise have continued ever since the Reform Act of 1832: recently there has been a movement to give sixteen year olds the vote along with criminals too. This will not stop until it reaches its logical conclusion- all people who can engage in any form of conversation can vote. We can then look forward to the Children's Party who demand subsidies to Cadbury to keep Dairy Milk at a fair price. Democracy also allows all laws to be subject to revision- More (less) laws and regulations can be imposed depending on how the conversation is going. This can be seen by the endless telephone book sized pieces of legislation introduced every year which further blurs the distinction between right and wrong; and reduces investment by business due to the huge legal uncertainty generated.

As you might have realised though, any system supported by postmodernism must contradict their worldview since it is making a truth claim. However postmodernism itself is internally contradictory since it denies any form of truth but in denying truth they are actually making a truth claim. So democracy is the logical outworking of postmodernism given the fact that it is absolutely true. This devotion to postmodernism can be seen in the scourge of tolerance which has become an axiom of current politics. It used to mean allowing people to do things you thought were wrong or you didn't like. So I would allow Pikey's to dress abominably and drink White Lightening while arguing they shouldn't do it. Today though it has changed its meaning to agreement. No longer can I abuse Pikeys and attempt to enlighten them but actually agree that their lifestyle is good. The classic touch stone issue is homosexuality- saying it is morally wrong but allowing consenting adults to do as they please generates cries of intolerance.

Historically democracy had been considered a means to an end. Some ancient democratic states such as the city states of Greece thought the same and had nothing approaching universal franchise. Also the classical liberals such as John Stuart Mill supported democracy as means to preserve liberty. Today however democracy has become an end in itself. This has been immortalised by Wilson's words "making the world safe for democracy". Not freedom, not liberty, not justice but democracy.

So although democracy does not necessitate postmodernism, postmodernism necessitates its natural demon child of mass (true) democracy.

[Duder]

Here's an essay from my blog you maybe interested in. Its got some British colloquialisms and references you may not get but it doesn't effect the overall argument.

the-eclectic-rambler.blogspot.com

The essence of postmodernism is that you can literally know nothing- truth does not exist. Therefore everything is just peoples' subjective opinions; nothing more. So we just engage in never ending conversations in which all views are equally valid (or "true") and we never get closer to the "truth".

Now what political system would naturally develop from this view? Firstly it must be egalitarian- everyone is equal. Not in the sense of each person having an intrinsic moral worth but that there is no-one better than anyone at anything; everyone can do everything equally as well if they are given equal opportunity. If someone is better at something it is due to privilege or chauvinistic attitudes. Secondly it must institutionalise the never ending conversation. The conversation needs a legitimate public faceirect social change.

The perfect political system for this is today's most sacred cow: mass democracy. Every man is given one vote irrespective of how intelligent or wise he is- the vote of King Solomon would be worth as much as Jade Goody's. Attempts at increasing voting franchise have continued ever since the Reform Act of 1832: recently there has been a movement to give sixteen year olds the vote along with criminals too. This will not stop until it reaches its logical conclusion- all people who can engage in any form of conversation can vote. We can then look forward to the Children's Party who demand subsidies to Cadbury to keep Dairy Milk at a fair price. Democracy also allows all laws to be subject to revision- More (less) laws and regulations can be imposed depending on how the conversation is going. This can be seen by the endless telephone book sized pieces of legislation introduced every year which further blurs the distinction between right and wrong; and reduces investment by business due to the huge legal uncertainty generated.

As you might have realised though, any system supported by postmodernism must contradict their worldview since it is making a truth claim. However postmodernism itself is internally contradictory since it denies any form of truth but in denying truth they are actually making a truth claim. So democracy is the logical outworking of postmodernism given the fact that it is absolutely true. This devotion to postmodernism can be seen in the scourge of tolerance which has become an axiom of current politics. It used to mean allowing people to do things you thought were wrong or you didn't like. So I would allow Pikey's to dress abominably and drink White Lightening while arguing they shouldn't do it. Today though it has changed its meaning to agreement. No longer can I abuse Pikeys and attempt to enlighten them but actually agree that their lifestyle is good. The classic touch stone issue is homosexuality- saying it is morally wrong but allowing consenting adults to do as they please generates cries of intolerance.

Historically democracy had been considered a means to an end. Some ancient democratic states such as the city states of Greece thought the same and had nothing approaching universal franchise. Also the classical liberals such as John Stuart Mill supported democracy as means to preserve liberty. Today however democracy has become an end in itself. This has been immortalised by Wilson's words "making the world safe for democracy". Not freedom, not liberty, not justice but democracy.

So although democracy does not necessitate postmodernism, postmodernism necessitates its natural demon child of mass (true) democracy.

Hello, Mr Arkadin -

This post makes me think of a Wizard of Oz character. Hmmm, which one was it?


. . . . . . . . . . . . . I'd unravel every riddle,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . For any individ'le,. . . . . . . . . . :whistle:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . In trouble or in pain.....

Is there anyone of note you can point to who makes the claim you say is the very essence of postmodernism, that there is no truth? Who, apart from one of the more radical sophists of ancient Greece (was it Gorgias?) says such a thing?

You see, I think this is a strawman (Straw Man! "With the thoughts you'd be thinkin', you could be another Lincoln....") - a strawman put forward by some who are dead certain that the truth is knowable and that they know what it is, to make those of us who have made an uneasy peace with doubt and uncertainty appear foolish. If we are not convinced that the truth is knowable, and if we doubt that we or anyone else knows for certain what it is, why, then we silly postmodern types must be saying that there isn't any truth!

Gosh, that's easy to knock down, isn't it?

At least since the time of the great 18th century epistemological philosophers, and perhaps before that, doubt and uncertainy have crept into the psyches of even the unlearned masses. We began to realize, as a species, that epistemological certainty, that holy grail of philosophy, is a thing most rare. And to claim that you've got it? Well, you've got some 'splainin' to do! To my knowledge, the only thing proven true beyond all doubt, without possibility of error, is the mere fact of your own existence. Cogito ergo sum. And this is only certain to you yourself.

Now, this business of allowing all points of view as "valid"? I'll explain that. I don't know very much at all for certain. But I do assign high probability to some claims, and low probability to others. I think, for example, that it is very likeky that the sun will rise tomorrow. I assign a very low probability to the proposition that it won't. For all practical purposes, I act as if I know the sun will rise. But if you press me, I will have to admit that it might not.

That is why I treat as "valid" someone's claim that the sun will not rise tomorrow. It is possible that the values I have assigned to certain propositions are poor due to an error in my thinking or a simple lack of information. Perhaps he knows something I don't. Until I listen to his reasons for assigning low probability to tomorrow's sunrise and I detect error in his data or his logic, I have no business calling his point of view "invalid".

Here is another case in point. Remember Reverand Wright? He's the one who said "God damn America". Now, that is not something I would say. But somebody did say it, and I wonder why. Perhaps the Reverand comes from a cultural background that remembers some injustices commited by America. And perhaps he feels that God, if he were giving America preceisely what it deserves, would damn America - and it is only His devine grace that prevents a deserved damnation. Ah! Perhaps the Reverand has a valid idea in the context of his point of view. Not a point of view that I am eagar to share, but valid. You see?

So look. Maybe democracy isn't the best idea. Maybe Plato is right, and it just amounts to mob rule. But get your reasons straightened out.

[joel]

Arkadin, you might be interested in something von Mises wrote on democracy.
http://mises.org/books/socialism/part1_ch3.aspx
starting at section 2 on that page.

The short version is that the purpose of democracy is to allow peaceable change of laws. Other forms of government require violent revolution when it no longer has the support of the people. This is an objective benefit of democracy--one sought by classical liberalism.

But then he argues that democracy has no more special authority than that.
He says that "the idea...that nothing should resist the will of the sovereign people," has done much evil.

[Mr Arkadin]

Duder,

You act as if I know don't realise most of what you say regarding postmodernism and probability of truth claims; I agree with a lot that you say on probability. However in essence that what I outline is strict postmodernity of types such as Richard Rorty. Would you like to provide me with an alternative definition?

On one point you are though totally wrong. At no point during my essay do I claim I have the truth or provide an alternative system. All I do is establish the premises and deduce from them. Can you find any error given my deduction given my premises?

Joel,

Thanks for the link but what do you reckon to my links between postmodernity and democracy.

[joel]

Joel,

Thanks for the link but what do you reckon to my links between postmodernity and democracy.
As both you and I point out, there are objective benefits of democracy, and it arose mostly due to classical liberalism, not postmodernism.

You do make some good points, and maybe the conclusion I would draw is that postmodernism corrupts/distorts/abuses democracy. Or something like that.

Maybe we should ask the reverse question: Does democracy cause/encourage/promote postmodern thinking?

Also, it is worth noting that parallels can be drawn between democracy (or whatever form of government/society) and other things.
For example, in Miracles, C. S. Lewis draws a link between atheism and democracy. The atheist's view of reality is democratic (everything is on the same existential level, all part of the interlocked system of everything), whereas the theist's view of reality is more like a monarchy. He argues that there is a correspondence, that in monarchial societies, the great mass of unthinking people tend to be theists, and in democratic societies, the great mass of unthinking people tend to be (or at least live like) atheists.

Then again, maybe this link is similar to your own, since there tends to be a link between postmodernism and atheism.

[joel]

If we are not convinced that the truth is knowable,

If you weren't then how would you know (the truth of the proposition) that you are not convinced that the truth is knowable?



We began to realize, as a species, that epistemological certainty, that holy grail of philosophy, is a thing most rare. And to claim that you've got it? Well, you've got some 'splainin' to do!
Just to be clear, by "certainty" you seem to mean "beyond all possible doubt", as opposed to "beyond reasonable doubt," or "having no reason to doubt," or simply "not doubting."



That is why I treat as "valid" someone's claim that the sun will not rise tomorrow. It is possible that the values I have assigned to certain propositions are poor due to an error in my thinking or a simple lack of information. Perhaps he knows something I don't. Until I listen to his reasons for assigning low probability to tomorrow's sunrise and I detect error in his data or his logic, I have no business calling his point of view "invalid".
This sounds pretty Modern, not Postmodern.
(Though I don't know a ton about Postmodernism. Mostly because it seems that rule number 1 of postmodernism is that you can't define things--including "postmodernism".)



Perhaps the Reverand comes from a cultural background that remembers some injustices commited by America.
That raises the question of what he means by "America"; what exactly is he asking God to damn--the U.S. federal government, the land, or the individuals living in it (presumably including himself)?

Unless you are a postmodern. Then you don't care what he meant; you only care what his statement means to you.

[Mr Arkadin]

Joel,

I'm with David Hume who says that all government rests on the implicit consent of the governed. So it is the ideas, the philosophies, that ultimately determine the government types ot there absence. This is not to say however that governments cannot influence ideologies but they are not the cause. I remember rightly Francis Schaeffer had some interesting ideas on the transmission mechanism of ideas, this was though in reference to art though is still pertinant.