Post Modernism turned in on itself

[Az]

One of the key factors that enables our complex society to function is the Post Modern ethos. The basic concept of Post Modernism is that no one point of view is correct. That all deserve a say in determining what is true. The idea being that to move a society forward dialog amongst all is necessary to form an informed view of the world.

Its a fine idea in theory. But in practice what has happened is that most groups grow weary of dealing with opposing views and retire from public discourse on matters. Particularly if their views are being overwhelmed by other views. Progress is destructive to many views in a society so any progress will result in groups retreating from the process.

This retreat results in silence in the public forum. For a time. Once the public forum ceases to have any real meaning due to the lack of participation the camps begin to be increasingly oppositional. Eventually a some groups will come to the conclusion that their position is going to be overwhelmed utterly by social progress. And out of a need for survival they will decided to come out against other views.

The problem here is that the others still playing within the framework of post modern thought will not be able to counter this rising opposition because of their belief that every view deserves a voice in the process. The paradox being that this includes voices that oppose the process. That seek to dismantle the process and impose their own.

Thus these reactionary groups find themselves oddly free to destroy the call for respecting all views simply because post modernism calls for its practitioners to allow all views.

[Hissyspit]

1. Gonna call you on that.

"basic concept of Post Modernism is that no one point of view is correct."

That is a over-generalization. There are many post-modernist theories, some attempting to explain the complicated interactions between the objective and the subjective and how perception and values interact. Some would have a problem with using the concept of a "correct" point of view, in the first place. Pluralist point of views don't NECESSARILY discount a possible objective truth (though some theories do) but questions our ideas about how that is constructed within society, culture and individuals.

And, blah, blah... I don't feel like typing anymore, but you get the idea. :)

[Az]

2. I understand that

But in practice complexities boil away and generalities take root. As I tried to suggest the idea was to lead society in a progressive path towards the truth. But its that idea of a singular truth from a plurality that makes things complicated. The idea is that during the march towards truth there will be those who will have to let go of their perspective to embrace the truth discovered. And that is where the hitch is.

[Hissyspit]

3. "in practice complexities boil away and generalities take root."

Not gonna argue with that!