Threats of Postmodernism - Essay Example

'Postmodernism threatens the very possibility of an emancipatory social science'. Critically discuss. Support your answer by drawing upon one or more examples of contemporary social theory The idea that one paradigm can in one way or another "threaten" the possibility of another is controversial. The same might be said of the a push for an "emancipatory" social science as the word 'science' tends to imply an objective search for the truth (the word stems from the Latin root to know) somehow removed from the push towards certain ends. But like it or not, one part of social science has indeed been linked inexorably with the attempt to 'change' the human social conditions rather than merely to report on what they are. This analysis will argue that the emancipatory social science as seen within Marx et al. is actually aided rather than hindered by certain kinds of postmodernism. The fact is that social sciences can learn from postmodernists and visa-versa. In the best postmodern fashion it is not a case of either/or but rather both/and. Before tackling how some postmodern paradigms actually compliment emancipatory social science it is logical to consider what the features of this social science are. Perhaps one of the first, and most certainly one of the most influential, attempts at emancipatory social science can be seen within the work of Karl Marx. Marx, in his most famous work Das Kapital (1867), attempted to critique Capitalist societies in a manner that he claimed was both scientific and revolutionary. Whether he actually succeeded in doing this is perhaps besides the point, the fact remains that he sought to analyse society in a scientific manner and formulated a number of terms that are still in use today. Thus the "mode of production", "base and superstructure" , "class consciousness", "ideology" and "historical materialism" (among many more) have all become the basis for a whole universe of scholarship, political movements, practical attempts at creating a Marxist economy and mixture of all three. Marx identified certain trends, groups and relationships within society in a "scientific" manner, and then attempted to place them within his revolutionary, or for our purposes, emancipatory context. For example, at the core of Marxist thinking is the idea of exploitation. Exploitation involves one entire class or segment of society taking advantage of another. Within Capitalism, the profit gained by the Capitalist is the difference between the value of the product and the actual wage that the worker receives. Thus Capitalism functions on the basis of paying workers less than the full value of their labour, thus providing profit. Within such emancipatory social science, there is an attempt at objectively identifying certain trends, processes and patterns within society, followed by a couching of what has been identified within a context of how the scholar thinks society should be changed. 'Objectivity' takes place with the study of what is, 'subjectivity' within the analysis of what should be. How does postmodernism fit within this view of social science One of postmodernism, as might be personified by a scholar such as Jacques Derrida, would view any attempt to emancipate people through social science somewhat nave at best. For Derrida, and the followers of deconstruction, the idea of a hierarchy of value within the world:- exploitation of workers is bad, worker control is good (within a Marxist context) - is invalid. The attempt by many emancipatory social scientists to identify an essentialist centre that is exploiting workers, biased against women, racist, homophobic (take your pick) is beside the point. Derrida best explained his position on how modern societies actually work early in his career: the entire history of the concept of structure, before the rupture of which we are speaking, must be thought of as a series of substitutions of centre for centre, as a linked chain of determinations of the centre. Successively, and in a regulated fashion, the centre receives different forms or names. The history of metaphysics, like the history of the West, is the history of these metaphors and metonymies. Its matrix (...) is the determination of Being as presence in all senses of this word. It could be shown that all the names related to fundamentals, to principles, or to the centre have always designated an invariable presence - eidos, arch, telos, energeia, ousia (essence, existence, substance, subject) altheia, transcendentality, consciousness, God, man, and so forth . . . (Derrida, 1978) (p.37) (my emphasis) The search for an emancipatory social science was seen by Derrida et al. as merely a "substitution" of one centre for another. The structure that is at the basis of such much emancipatory social science, from Marx on, is placed within an ironic context by Derrida. A similar type of challenge may be eventually seen within the work of another highly influential French philosopher, Michel Foucault. But his early career suggests that postmodernism and emancipatory social science are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Interestingly, Foucault's life story shows that he essentially passed through a period of believing strongly in emancipatory social science. Thus in the late 1960's and early 1970's Foucault was an active member of the ultra-left, Marxist Gauche Proletarienne. Foucault founded the Prison Information Group at the same time, seeking to give a voice to previously silenced prisoners regarding the manner in which they were being treated (Foucault, 1991). This focus on 'prisoners' (in this case imprisoned by their own minds and the perception of their madness) and their plight can be seen within Foucault's most influential work of the time, Madness and Civilization. Within this book he examines the changing formulation of 'madness' in Europe since the Middle Ages, and how the 'mad' have been treated over the centuries. But as Foucault developed he started to move more towards a position in which the similarities between different social structures were considered rather than the differences. If, as he suggests in Discipline and Punish, there are indeed similarities between the gruesome torture/execution of criminals in the mid 1700's and the scientific approach to imprisonment a century later, how can the penal code be "emancipated" By the time he reached his last books, the unfinished series called The History of Sexuality, Foucault had become nearly totally disillusioned with the left-wing groups that he had once worked for so enthusiastically and whose causes he appeared to espouse in his scholarship. In this work he concentrated on the idea that one "centre" merely replaces another:- there is no hierarchy or structure in place at one particular time, nor is there an optimistic progression to human history. What might be termed the "optimism" of Marxism in its view that the world can be changed towards what it regards as the better has been replaced within Foucault's work by an irony (some might say cynicism) that pervades his later work. By the end of his life (and his untimely death from AIDS in 1984) Foucault perceived that one centre might indeed replace another, which in turn would be replaced by another ad nauseam; however, the essential nature of the structure would remain the same. This is directly counter to the ideals of emancipatory social science. So in what type of postmodernism can we find paradigms that may complement rather than hinder the objectives of emancipatory social science The pathway towards this thinking can be seen within the division between "sceptical" and "affirmative" postmodernism as described by Rosenau (1992). Sceptical postmodernism suggests that when an individual or group makes a claim towards "the truth" or, even worse, "the ultimate truth", there is almost always an attempt to gain power and control over others at its heart. Thus when the Right claims the superiority of whites, men, Christianity there is no essential difference from when the Left claims the superiority of equal treatment of races, genders, sexual preferences. There is no difference between those who wish to keep the status quo as it is and those who wish to change it according to this type of postmodernism. Affirmative postmodernism, as exemplified within the work of Habermas, is an essentially critical type of endeavour because it "secures the rights of the individual subject to reevaulate and revise culture". In its move beyond the apparently rigid and unbreakable structure of modernism, postmodernism allows present day structures to be analysed and, in a Derridean sense, "deconstructed". The emancipatory social scientist can take a currently existing structure and use the deconstructive method to consider it in all its fullness and contradictions. By "deconstruction" the following is implied: . . . to deconstruct is to think, as faithfully and truly as possible within the concepts of a discipline while at the same time identifying what (that discipline) has been able to dissimulate or forbid. (Derrida, 1982) (p.1) How might this fit within emancipatory social science Take an analysis of various dialogues and narratives concerning affirmative action within the United States today. The social scientist using postmodern techniques may be able to deconstruct the various types of language and meaning that are being used to identify what is really occurring. Thus postmodernism is perhaps uniquely equipped to consider the genesis and current usage of various 'code words' such as "quota". Indeed, are the very words "affirmative action" now a code word for a new kind of racism - ie. if one is against affirmative action that is a coded way of saying that one is in fact a racist. Jurgen Habermas is one of the leading exponents of this kind of postmodernism. He uses the technique to consider matters of both current concern and historical context. For example, his latest work is called The Divided West (2006) and deals with the apparent paradigm shifts and crises that have occurred since 9/11/2001 with the increasingly forcefulness of US foreign policy. The careful consideration of how, when and why language is used has been a hallmark of Habermas' career. As he stated in a much earlier work regarding the use of apparently common words, "the usage of the words public and public sphere betrays a multiplicity of concurrent meanings" (Habermas, 1981) (p.1). Indeed, if "emancipation" indelibly is linked towards a view of the future, then Habermas has increasingly looked towards this uncertain, but perhaps hopeful realm of human experience. Thus in 2003 he stated that "due to spectacular advances in molecular genetics, more and more of what we are by nature is coming with the reach of biotechnological intervention. . . " (Habermas, 2003) (p.1). But even affirmative postmodernists such as Habermas refuse a totally "positive" view of the natural progression of human history towards more and more enlightenment and emancipation. It is on this matter that perhaps emancipatory social scientists can learn something from postmodernists. An idealistic view of the future is all very well, but when the idealism clouds intellectual judgment and rational thinking then the scholarship suffers. For example, and this is the most glaring example, the downfall of Capitalism that Marx predicted in Das Kapital has not occurred. Indeed, Capitalism has spread to virtually every part of the world and has been embraced by a huge diversity of peoples. The fact that the progression of human affairs that Marx predicted has not occurred throughout the world, does not necessarily mean that the whole thrust of emancipatory social science needs to be rejected. Rather, the case of Marx should give pause for thought. The mixture of "science" (which attempts to be objective) and the emancipation of people do not sit easily with one another. Again, Marx serves as an example. The Marxist examination of Capitalist societies was based upon Marx's antipathy towards them. Thus the very phraseology and paradigms that he adopted: from "class" to "alienation" to "exploitation" was based upon a set of pre-conceived notions. As far as Marx was concerned, Capitalist societies were evil and both should be and would be brought down in ruins. There is, however, a huge gap between "should" and "would" (or will) that many emancipatory social scientists fail to identify. The idea that the exploitation of workers (or women, different races etc.) is wrong, and that these groups should be emancipated from their present condition is essentially a quality judgment. Many people, especially outside of the academe, would state that there is nothing wrong with the systems that are in place. Much of emancipatory social science is based upon the received truth that the oppressed should be liberated, and that it is the task of social science to both identify the oppressed and to lead the way forward into a better future. There are two basic problems with this. First, there is not universal agreement upon the groups that need to be emancipated nor upon the fact that they are in a condition that needs improvement. What the social scientists claim to be fact is in fact opinion. Second, should "science" (or even the 'soft' sciences being dealt with here) move beyond the careful description and analysis of what is, as opposed to what should be. This argument does not imply that attempts at improving the conditions of certain groups are essentially non-viable, but rather whether these attempts belong within the province of the social sciences. An important point is raised here. If a scholar goes into a study of a particular society, human environment or processes with a preconceived notion that they are either "good" or "bad" it is likely that the quality of the research will suffer. Conversely, if the scholar attempts a degree of objectivity (all the while admitting that it is an ideal that can never be entirely achieved) then she may actually uncover dynamics and relationships within the subject of study that would otherwise be missed. An example of how a rigidly neutral attitude towards the subject matter can succeed is Bourgois' classic anthropological analysis of drug dealers (2002). Bourgois examined the complex social structure of the drug culture in a poor barrios without any though of "emancipation" or "condemnation". He merely describes what is an attempts a neutral, non-moralistic analysis of what he finds. Thus when he witnesses the immediate aftermath of a gang initiation (which is essentially a mass rape) he neutrally describes what occurred and the attitudes being displayed by the parties involved. Emancipatory social science might have sought to condemn the young men involved, sought to rescue the young girl, sought to condemn the wider society that leads to this kind of behaviour, sought to underplay the importance of initiation in favour of an analysis of the wider unfairness that leads to it . . . all of which would have probably disguised the true complexity and raw reality that Bourgois describes. So is all emancipatory social science necessarily less valuable than the kind of brutally objective analysis that was just described Not necessarily. The important factor is to consider whether the "science" part of the analysis has been overwhelmed, perhaps in a Marx-like sense, by the "emancipation". If the study is designed to emancipate it may deliberately select those parts of the situation being considered that support this argument. Selecting data that supports preconceived notions while rejecting other data that is more problematic is simply bad science. If the emancipation is more important than the science then the social scientists should admit to this. It is the claim that they are working from some stance of objective truth, when in fact their position is highly subjective, while brings claims of pseudo-science and deliberate bias against the academe. One might go further and suggest that the only place that emancipatory social science really occurs is within universities. But the 'emancipation' is often merely theoretical in nature. Scholars who are content to sit within their ivory towers and criticize the world for not emancipating the downtrodden while they themselves do nothing about them are hardly a very inspiring sight. Such scholars might use postmodernism to appreciate the irony of individuals who criticize a hierarchical system of essentialism while occupying highly privileged positions within a strictly hierarchical, essentialist system (higher education) themselves. Emancipatory social science should consider its own "discipline" and see what it has been able to "dissimulate" or "forbid". It is difficult for downtrodden groups to be emancipated if the very proponents of such emancipation are unable or unwilling to give up privilege themselves. If social scientists who have an ideological bent are not prepared to consider their own positions with as much rigor and criticism as the systems that they are wishing to change outside the academe, then they seem to be fit frighteningly close to Derrida's argument that one "centre" merely replaces another. The idea that students should be taught to think within a certain paradigm that considers emancipatory social science as the only social science worth conducting is dishonest at best, and outright intellectually abusive at worse. Ironically, it brings about a situation of intellectual imprisonment rather than emancipation. To put it another way, and one that fits within the postmodern narrative of considering all voices/arguments as equally valid (and/or invalid), emancipatory social scientists must avoid the situation in which the following can be legitimately claimed: Meet the new boss . . . same as the old boss. (Daltrey, 1964) ___________________________________ Works Cited Bourgois, Philippe. In Search of Respect: Sellign Crack in El Barrio. Cambridge University Press, New York: 2002. Daltrey, Roger. Won't Get Fooled Again,(song) "The Who", 1964. Derrida, Jacques. "Structure, Sign and Play". Writing and Difference. Routledge, New York: 1978. ----------------. Margins of Philosophy, University of Chicago Press, Chicago: 1982. Foucault, Michel. The Foucault Reader. Penguin, London: 1991. ---------------------. Discipline and Punish, Routledge, London: 1975. --------------------. Madness and Civilization, Routledge, London: 1975. --------------------. The History of Sexuality. Vintage, New York: 1989. Habermas, Jurgen. The Divided West. Polity Press, New York: 2006. ----------------. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. MIT Press, New York: 1981. ----------------. The Future of Human Nature. Polity Press, New York: 2003. Marx, Karl. Das Kapital, Gateway, New York: 1999. Rosenau, P. Postmodernism with Social Sciences: Insights, Inroads and Intrusions. Princeton UP, Princeton: 1992. Read More