Letters To A Postmodernist

Letters to a Post-Modernist The dissolution of the meta-narrative allows us to see the underlying vast network of "micro-narratives," as if unearthing a simplistic skin to observe a networking root of vines, earth, and complex structures. Like lifting a rock to see the vast life beneath, we see what we have been missing from our understanding. The importance of each leaf, twig, tunnel and worm become vastly more interesting than the concealing rock above, but take note; it is important not to forget how these vast web of life is itself a greater picture. Note the worm that builds the tunnels, that the beetles crawl through, observe the spider, spinning webs around roots, the centipedes and millipedes- all these things are interwoven, no matter what their individual intricacy. See the wonder of this microcosm, but do not hesitate to sink deeper into the earth, to see the greater flowing networks that bind life and, dare I say, a new grand-narrative, a web of holistic patterns emerges- one that is always flowing and growing, emerging and manifesting in vibrant patterns like life itself. Your awe, wonder and adventure within each microcosm may be valued to greater and greater degrees, but do not forget that all that is, no matter how small, is in relation to other. There are revelations in recognizing the spider web, and not getting caught one one thread or another. I In order to reveal my attitudes about this appropriately, let me begin by telling the story of this subject's history. We begin with the formation of "modernity." This ideology arose from the birth of the renaissance age. It's peak was reached in the enlightenment age. The essence of modernity was a view that reason and science were humanity's highest faculty, and would eventually allow us to understand the intricate workings of the universe. As such, grand-narratives, or universal-theories were attempted. Each attempted to tell the story of everything. Reason and the empirical method eventually gave rise to achievements never seen before. Great technological progress arose, stretching our imagination and our potential to new heights. All of this, of course, came at the greatest costs. Ecological disasters, capitalist abuses, and technological nightmares were created. Following the wake of both World Wars, the appropriate questions began to be asked; Is reason our greatest triumph? What has it brought us? It turned out that the ideas of the enlightenment age were a double edged sword. By sewing progress, they had also reaped destruction untold. "Metanarratives," began to be seen as too simplistic and idealistic to ever understand the complexities of life. It is in this critique that post-modernism

and relativism found its seed. Postmodernism argues that life is dynamic, organic and complex, to such an extent that simplistic ideologies do nothing to help us understand it. In fact, they often merely project over-generalizations where a closer look is needed. The shift was from meta-narratives to micro-narratives. The microcosm began to be all-important. Instead of general views, specific, relative and particular were vital. Indeed, think of the grand revelations that this attitude help give us. Culture, identity, race, ethnicity, relativism, westernization, euro-centrism- to only name a few terms and their connotation. To simplify, post-modernism was a critique and emergence from modernity. It revealed the complexity beneath the ideological "covers" that were too often projected, clouding and resisting a deeper understanding. This dynamic way of seeing the world has helped us in many ways, including helping create the backbone of the civil rights movement in america, and many movements of today. Yet, it is missing an essential piece to the puzzle. Even though it did a wonderful job at tearing down artificial narratives, oppressive generalities- it did not help us reveal bigger, organic pictures of the world. Like pointing out every intricate design in a fabric, they did not point out it was a carpet. Where do these designs go? What do they form? This was not, and is not postmodernity's focus. Instead, it seeks to submerged in the microcosm. It argued the original meta-narrative was false, but did not answer whether or not there is a truer, deeper macrocosm to be explored. Imagine if this was the tale of cosmology. In ancient days, grand narratives of astrology helped us understand the stars. After that, great elaborate laws and maps were made of the universe, in which the sun revolved around earth, and many other concepts that are commonly known as false today. Eventually, the new invention of the telescope helped scientists understand many new things, completely revolutionizing and in a sense creating the science of astronomy. Yet, imagine if the scientists had decided, instead of seeing what these new eyes into the stars could do, turned their scrutiny inward, picking apart the wrongful metaphysics of their predecessors. In some sense, this is what happened to a lesser degree. Scientists were able to gradually disprove their predecessors, astrologers and metaphysicians. Newtonian physics helped understand the movement of the planets, and a heliocentric view of the solar system emerged. Yet, if the astronomers had not kept looking onward, outward and openly, they would have remained in a rut of finger-pointing and criticizing.

Instead, their eyes were to the stars, and by observing natural tendencies, repeating experimentations and seeing the bigger structures of the universe at work, they had an evolving map of the universe to work with. Instead of fixed structures, they had dynamics. I see the development of post-modernism as merely another passageway, a tool to disembark from a stagnant worldview, and a means to begin the process once again- of opening up to greater meaning, but not discarding the tools of the past. As sociologists, or post-modernists, we can do our best to deconstruct the myths and metaphysics of the past, but let us turn our eyes to not just the microcosms, but also the macrocosms in which we are a part of. The world, the human experience, and the universe we are a part of calls for greater understanding, and this cannot be done merely by critique of the past, but transformation of the present knowledge. What greater pictures can we see, without sacrificing the importance of the microcosm, the relative and the subjective? These questions, I feel, are all the more essential for those who are entering the fields of social sciences. And these questions are at last beginning to hear answers. The question of whether or not we can see a greater picture through the complexity of life is a profound yes. This meta-narrative, however, is taking on a whole new meaning. No stagnant worldviews will do. Instead we must begin to see the social sciences as viewing a world that is both dynamic and flowing, ever-changing and nearly chaotic. Yet, there are tendencies, patterns and organic structures that arise and emerge. Understanding these complexities as holistic, layered and interwoven is essential, and our greatest tool, for the time being. II