something about modernism

2 things I've discovered recently:

• some people really hate post-modernism 
• when those people (and probably others) talk about modernity and modernism, they're not talking about the modernism that emerged in the early 20th century and led in to post-modernism; they're talking about the enlightenment, the scientific revolution and thinkers like Bacon, Locke and Descartes.  

That second point is really new to me, and interestingly, that's probably because I learnt about modernism in a modern university, which, like all modern universities, so the argument goes, is in thrall to post-modernism and wants to frame post-modernism as a movement of progress (from the modernism of the early 20th century), not the rejection of reason and all the positive developments that flowed from the enlightenment, as the critics of post-modernism suggest. It blew my mind when someone (an academic) I was listening to on youtube said that modernism has been around for centuries....that's news to me. 

What really interests me is the allliance that opposing post-modernism has formed between Christianity and parts of academia. It's really striking. There are whole books and long talks on youtube representing the Christian critique of post-modernism, and others representing an academic critique of post-modernism, and their arguments are similar in many ways. Why it's interesting is that the enlightenment was in many ways an anti-religious movement. It was very humanistic.

What forged this alliance is the common perceived enemy of left wing ideology, cultural Marxism, critical theory, social justice, etc. But, leaving aside the historical issue, and just considering current issues, it makes sense that both Christians and some academics would be vehemently opposed to post-modernism. 

The academics' opposition to these ideologies is based on a perception that they represent what some call 'grievance studies' where the validity of ideas and arguments is judged not by the quality of the reasoning they represent (so the argument goes) but by compliance with an ideology which favours certain groups percieved to have been traditionally disadvantaged and seeks to undermine groups that have been traditionally advantaged. 

I think the main Christian opposition to post-modernism is related to moral relativism and the conclusions it leads to. But again, this is why it's so interesting that this alliance between Christianity and some parts of academia has been formed, because it was this impulse that we see in post-modernism now, to reject traditional moral imperitives, that was also a major theme in the enlightenment. 

To be really blunt, the enlightenment thinkers and the modern academics who oppose post-modernism, want to exalt reason. The enlightenment thinkers wanted to turn away from traditional thinking, which was dominated by Christian ideology, and figure things out using reason. The modern academics' opposition to critical theory is that it represents flawed scholarship - flawed because it is subjugated to ideology rather than reason. Christians' opposition to critical theory is more concerned with the ideology itself because (not all but many) Christians believe that social changes associated with critical theory are contrary to God's will. But, even though I'm saying that the humanist academics and Christians are allies in this contest, there are real differences nevertheless, which become clear when the humanist academics go into the details of their arguments. There are thinkers like Kant and Kierkegaard who were religious, and contributed to the development of modern Christian theology but apparently were part of the counter-enlightenment. Nietsche was famously anti-God but had a major impact on the development of philosophy. 

For me personally, these revelations are quite exciting. I love the idea that modernism begins with Locke, Descartes, Bacon and the scientific revolution.....there's much to explore in that. And then the idea that Kant, Rousseau and Kierkegaard represented an opposing impulse is also very interesting. More recently, the work of Ayn Rand embodies and illuminates the distinction between the academic opposition to post-modernism and the Christian opposition to it because she advocated reason as the only way of attaining knowledge and rejected faith and religion completely. 

There's a very interesting, very much live, current debate about post-modernism and related issues. Also, this gives me an interesting context within which to place works of literary criticism. So....lots of reading and writing to come. 

Late addition: I wrote above that Kant was part of the counter-enlightenment (after hearing that argument made by an anti-post-modernism academic), but just now, I was listening to a youtube talk that directly disputes that....and I'm kind of happy about that. Kant is so central to western philosophy, literature and humanities, so I like the idea that he made a positive contribution to the enlightenment. 

The video I'm listening to now (which is pro-post-modernism) absolutely shreds the one I was listening to earlier when writing the above (which was critical of post-modernism)....it's hilarious. The thing is though....it's the one that I don't agree with (the former) that inspired me to want to read, write, think and interrogate my views - provoked me to want to research and think for myself and form my own views.