Modernist Discourse?

In class today, we heard a 20-minute presentation on the so-called “modernist discourse” and the major criticisms to it.

What does this modernist discourse mean? Well, in the simplest of words and most general of treatments, it is everything that says that the use of critical, rational thought (Enlightenment rationality) will lead mankind towards ever greater progress.

In the context of the media, it refers more specifically to the set of ideas that are embodied in the works of such contemporary cultural / social theorists as Jurgen Habermas, Neil Postman and others. Beginning with Habermas, these gentlemen say that there exists a so-called “public sphere” that is neither the state nor the private realm, a sphere of action in which men become informed, discuss and engage in discourse, and exercise their rights and fulfill their obligations as citizens. They also suggest the idea that the publication of the book and the rise of so-called print-capitalism contributed to the development of the typographic mind through the increased penetration of the written word in human society. Furthermore, people like Habermas and Postman believe firmly that there has been a corruption of this public sphere. The rise of mass media, television and pop culture has ushered in what may effectively be called the end of the typographic age. And this, ladies and gentlemen, has weakend our capacity to become informed, deliberate and thus participate fully as citizens in their democracy.

Fascinating, huh? Some of it may even ring true. With my classmates over here, there has been much debate—both in and out of class—ever since we began reading Habermas last semester and Postman just a few weeks ago. Some people argue that to even posit that education and intellectual engagement with social reality are necessary in order to truly be informed participants in a democracy is authoritarian (for imposing an image of an ideal citizen) as well as elitist (for insisting that to one needs to be educated at all in order to be an informed political participant).

I am reluctant to say this but I sympathize with both Habermas and Postman. I haven’t any empirical data to back up my comments, but I do have anecdotal evidence indicating, I think, the deleterious effects of television on the cognitive abilities of my peers. Too much television. Toomany movies. Too many videos games. In general, I also find people around me increasingly impatient and less willing to struggle with things that are, shall we say, more poetical or meditative, more time-consuming and text-oriented. If they do read at all, it is not literature but trash or junk fiction (like The Da Vinci Code). I also find that people are increasingly nasty, ironic ain their outlook on life, caustic in their comments, sarcastic in their humor. This is fruit of a steady diet of secular entertainment. And these people are detached from life.

So, according to some critics, because I presume that things were better before the triumph of television, I should be labeled a modernist. (Confusing, I know.) In the same way, those who argue on behalf of the idea of a well-informed and vibrant public sphere, or a normative conception of the informed citizen, are thus critiqued by those who say that everything must be analyzed, unpacked, deconstructed and set into its proper context. The modernists, as it were, are attacked by the post-modernists who insist that there is no universality, that there is no Truth and that all we have to do is reveal the underlying assumptions and relationships of power, gender, etc., all of which must be made apparent to others. This is the post-modern discourse.

Then again, as socialogist Peter L. Berger said to me at a seminar last summer in Boston, the very fact that we are even engaging in this type of discussion is very modern and a legacy of the Enlightenment itself. I suppose one could say with a smile, We are all modernists now--even those who are against the modernist ideals.