Review of Kevin Hart's Postmodernism: A Beginner’s Guide

by Ayesha Mirza

When I first picked up Postmodernism: A beginner’s guide, I expected it to be an easy read that I could finish within one sitting. I can’t really say whether it was the leanness of this book, or the title, or the claim of the author that this book will be no more useful to me after once I have been through it; that lead me into this illusion. But illusion it was; it took me over two weeks of reading to finish it. Overflowing with numberless concepts essential to postmodernism, it baffles me as to how this phantom of a book could deal with so many ideas without giving the feeling of a haphazardly crammed storeroom. Far from it; all the ideas are placed, well, not in an apple-pie order, but they do give semblance of an order. What makes this guide somewhat easier to understand are the examples from the most tangible spheres of life. At the end of every chapter is an exhaustive list of further reading suggestions so that the reader can countercheck the author’s claims as well as satiate his quest for more knowledge. The index too is quite handy, and if the reader gets stuck in any of the many concepts he’s been reading, the glossary of terms is there to help him out. As for the claim of the author I mentioned earlier, this book is definitely useful and a reader is more than likely to refer to it more than just once after the first read. The reason being, that although it is a beginner’s guide, yet it is a lot more than just an A to Z rendition of postmodern concepts; the author has his own opinion and that shows through the entire book. And we can keep this opinion in high esteem particularly as a theologian’s outlook towards postmodernism. Indeed this book is more precious in academic arena not because it is a useful beginners guide, but because it provides us with an insight into the theological questions pertaining to postmodern philosophy. What is more, Hart doesn’t simply state; he triggers the inquisitive pulse of his readers, so much so that as soon as a reader has put the book down he is already looking for more on postmodern philosophy.

Divided into seven chapters, this book can be broadly separated into three parts and the first part is more of an orientation towards postmodernism. Starting off in an engaging way, Hart warns his readers (or listeners?) against thinking that postmodernism is something that can be defined or whose central features can be distinguished. He makes this point explicit by making us go through several lectures on postmodernism by various speakers. The first lecture we find ourselves listening to is by a French guide since it is generally thought that postmodernism originated in France. And indeed, he makes us believe that; by first introducing us to Lyotard, moving over to Lacan, and later on to Derrida. Right at the point when we have gained confidence of being acquainted with postmodernism as an attitude of suspicion towards the modern, with a new definition of the ‘Self’ based on Lacan’s philosophy; Derrida’s theses regarding deconstruction of language; and Foucault’s ideas regarding history, subject and power, we are hurled into the hands of another guide, this time from America. The new guide asserts that postmodernism is synonymous with popular culture. This description is followed by three other guides who trace the relationship of postmodernism with modernism, world politics, economics, and theology. In short, this initial bombardment of conflicting views regarding a singular term is enough to baffle a reader into throwing the book aside and concluding that postmodernism is nothing but a hotchpotch of unrelated ideas. Nonetheless, Hart’s involving and assuring style forces us to read on. He hurriedly introduces us to the definitions of postmodernism, postmodernity and post-structuralism; the rejection of humanism and realism; and the cultural as well as political implications of postmodernism. On the whole, Hart successfully culminates this chapter with an attempt at organizing the muddle created by guides at the opening of this book, and he successfully makes us understand that the meaning of postmodernism varies from situation to situation.

Digging beneath the surface of postmodernism, Hart brings to our focus three attitudes that can more or less be located in all postmodernists: anti-essentialism, anti-realism and anti-foundationalism. Anti-essentialism, with its many facets, is likely to be defined in many ways. Hart gives two of its definitions and shows how the neglect of ideational or referential theories of meanings together with taking being human as historically and culturally conditioned affects our interpretation of art. Anti-realism on the other hand is introduced to us with its two categories; truth anti-realism and metaphysical anti-realism. While talking about anti-foundationalism, however, he traces back the history of man’s eagerness to find solid grounds on which the world rests. Anti-foundationalism’s epistemological and ontological formulations are also touched upon. After warning his readers against concluding that all postmodernists carry all the three abovementioned attitudes and pointing towards the various degrees of the versions of these theories; Hart points towards the paradox within the postmodern philosophy. While postmodernism is a negation of essentialism, realism and foundationalism; it is also positive towards, for example, alterity and difference. What is more, it tells us that there are no firm grounds, no absolute truth; while offering itself as a general truth. Following this, we are lead to Nietzsche’s contention; God is dead and we get to know that he did not abolish God altogether; he simply denied the possibility of an absolute being and hence no one God’s view of the world. This discussion is particularly helpful for readers who find this idea, together with nihilism, confusing. While reading this book, we can decipher Hart’s contention that the two ideas are compatible with religion. Yet, despite the clarity of definition that he provides us, the very idea that we need to revalue values seems to be in conflict with religion since every religion proposes certain values that are essential to it. At this point, Hart also distracts his readers by providing them with a detailed critique of the writing style of Nietzsche. In fact, he makes such detours at a few other occasions in the succeeding topics as well. The reader finds himself hurled into an additional task of linking the surrounding discussions with the critique on style. Furthermore, the idea of perspectivism might lead a reader into thinking as to how acceptable certain interpretations of specific texts are to postmodernists. With all their passion for alterity, do the interpretations of holy texts enticing people into killing other races find an acceptance among postmodernist thinkers as just another point of view? Furthermore, similarities between analytical and postmodern philosophies have also been discussed in this section. However, while Hart makes every effort to describe various concepts, the lack of such description for analytical philosophy gives his readers hard time trying to understand these similarities. Yet, the evasion of such a description can be a result of the writer’s taking the knowledge of readers regarding basic analytical and continental philosophy for granted. Winding up his argument here, Hart moves on to a discussion regarding postmodern experience.

He elucidates the postmodern experience by answering two questions. The first question is whether there are certain experiences peculiar to postmodern living? It is plausible, yet we are warned not to imply that there is a certain spirit of age that clearly demarcates its boundaries with other ages. The second question; ‘does postmodernism offer fresh understandings of experience?’ is answered through the eyes of Deleuze whose answer to this question is in affirmative. Experience in modern times was characterized by an interaction between subject and object. With the decentering of subject by postmodernists, the possibility of experience - as it was understood in the modern times - diminishes. This difference is made explicit through elaborate examples with reference to Olson’s and Blanchot’s theories regarding the experience of poetry and art. The purely philosophical debate has been made fathomable to a novice in the subject through tangible examples. Despite this clarity, it baffles the readers without a philosophical background to think that how theoretical definitions of experience can be equaled to any experience itself.  For instance, didn’t the ‘real’ nightingale withdraw when Keats began his quest for the real? This leaves us with the implication that experience is defined differently today than it was defined in the modern age, but experience itself remains the same. The same holds true for everyday experience; considering Blanchot’s position that ‘no one has ever had lived experience of the everyday, for our lives are spent in not experiencing it’. However, the fact remains; today’s poets consciously compose poetry that reflects their postmodern outlook. Leaving theory aside, however, the things that we experience today are different from the things that our grandparents experienced. Hart elaborates upon the impact of simulacra on human perception; we see world and its contents as images. While we cannot deny the importance of images in the postmodern world, we cannot ignore the importance of portraits, sketches and travel documents in the earlier days either. Didn’t the people then live in the images created by those pictures and travelogues; and didn’t they visit places to see what the earlier travelers had seen? And conversely, doesn’t there remain any possibility today, of visiting a place for its ‘aura’? Similar questions arise in minds while reading an argument regarding the end of history. No matter how it is defined, fact remains that humans are alive, and so is their experience. Even if humans cease to be and the world remains, there still remains ‘time’ itself. Since history is temporal, can we possibly fix it within the presence or absence of conflict? Later on, Hart elucidates the difference between ‘fragmentary’ and ‘fragment’ asserting that unlike fragment, fragmentary is not complete in itself. Instead, it is like collage work that is chaotic, like a broken mirror which was once whole. This leads us towards an elaborate discussion regarding triune, ‘I’ and ‘other’; in short, theology.

The rest of the book deals with theological implications of postmodernism. Considering Bible as the deepest impact on Europe, Hart elaborates how this Book of books is in perfect unison with postmodern philosophy. Since it is a ‘Book of books’, and not a unified whole, Bible is fragmented. Furthermore, Bible doesn’t offer any Grand narrative; it consists of various tales instead which are open to numberless interpretations. Yet here Hart doesn’t make mention of the greatest of over-arching narratives of Bible: God, Son and Spirit. Even if we take the stories in Bible as fragmented fables for the guidance of man; does the ‘postmodern Bible’ seem to be ready to let go of God as the centre? Hart also rejects the idea of transcendence relegated to this book. However, what interests a reader not well-versed with Christian theology and a little background knowledge of postmodernism is the elaboration of Derrida’s ideas regarding canon. Through this book we get to know that Derrida was not against creating canon, but, rather, sought to keep the question of formation of canon alive. Hence Bible’s status of a canon is also in agreement with postmodernism – thus the term ‘postmodern Bible’. Nevertheless, Hart makes explicit his effort at describing the compatibility of Bible with postmodernism; how strongly can Bible respond to the questions raised towards it? This is an approach that can be directed to other holy scriptures as well. Indeed, in today’s world for a scripture to be kept alive its followers need to shed their holier-than-thou attitude and be more responsive to the questions raised at their holy books. Later on, in the same chapter, Hart elucidates Blanchot’s and Levinas’  theories of ethics that posit that the subject has an infinite duty towards the ‘other’, so much so that when the ‘other’ calls, in Derrida’s words, the only response of the subject is ‘Here I am’. The ‘other’ in return holds the same duty towards the subject, since every individual is so related to the ‘other’. Blanchot calls it ‘double disymmetry’ and ‘relation without relation’. The ethical responsibility of subject towards ‘other’ precedes religion. This is what Derrida refers to as ‘religion without religion’. The author goes on to elaborate how God and Messiah are also the ‘other’ to whom we pray, and who’s decent to this world we await. This ‘other’ is not the metaphysical, scriptural image that has been portrayed in Abrahamic religions. It is instead, an indefinable, unforeseeable ‘other’. This theory of God as an unforeseeable ‘other’ is in return helpful in avoidance of idolatry. Hart further elaborates Derrida’s theses and highlights not just the possibility, but also the need for ‘deconstruction’ of Christianity for the revival of faith.  His position regarding triune is clear. Drawing upon Derrida’s Diffe`rence as quasi-transcendental, the author clarifies as to how pure prayer is possible only when it is addressed to the diff`erence or Khora or trace as a response to an absolute ‘Other’, instead of a response to scriptural, metaphysical God. Differentiating between positive religion with the traditional scriptural and metaphysical God, and negative theology embedded in Derrida’s ‘religion without religion’, Hart warns us against the consequences of ‘positive religion’ towards humanity since it lies at the roots of fundamentalism. In my humble opinion, seeing a ‘God’ in every ‘other’ and hence in every subject is an idea not new to many religions, for instance in Muslim theology. However, there are varying interpretations to this idea and it will make an interesting study as to how these religions may respond to Blanchot, Levinas and Derrida’s position, and contribute in maintaining global peace.

Furthermore, playing with the thin line that differentiates ethics from religion, Hart draws on akedah, the story of Abraham’s binding his son Isaac, as seen by Keirkegard and Derrida. By making this extraordinary event look like an ordinary event, Hart makes us understand that according to the philosophies of these philosophers we as humans have an ethical responsibility towards every ‘other’ be it God or His creation. This ethical responsibility is the precondition for religion. However in order to avoid the misconception that addressing every ‘other’ is the same as addressing God, the author juxtaposes the philosophies of Derrida and Balthasar in order to prove how God is absolutely singular while all humans can identify with all other human and non-human creations, except for Christ, on account of every ‘other’ being a creation of God. Thus God and His creations cannot be responded to in the same manner. This discussion serves to smooth out the bafflement that the idea of seeing every ‘other’ as God, if taken too literally, may bring to the minds of readers.

In the same chapter while talking about ‘Postmodern Religion’, he draws a line between religion in postmodern times and postmodern religion. While the preceding discussion regarding openness of Christianity towards deconstruction and differ`ence forms the essence of ‘postmodern religion’, he defines religion in postmodern times as the status of religion in the lives of people in postmodern times, where there lies a paradox between a declining number of church goers, and a vehement emergence and assertion of fundamentalism. While dealing with the sensitive and crucial issue of fundamentalism, he makes a clear distinction between Muslim fundamentalism and Christian fundamentalism. Furthermore, while tracing the roots of fundamentalism in the world of ‘relativism and anxiety, of cultural nihilism and irony’, he warns against the most dangerous of combinations; ‘millennialism, dogmatism, and access to military might’. By including the ‘partisans of political correctness’ under the umbrella of fundamentalists, the author implicitly points towards the damage that these fundamentalists have done to this world and are likely to do in the future. Another important aspect of religion in the postmodern times is ‘religious syncretism’- the combination of two or more belief systems and practices. The impact of this ‘mix and match’ approach towards religion is that various religions today are struggling to retain their original identities. Although very little space is given to these two aspects of postmodern times, we see by the end of the chapter that in talking about positive religion and negative religion Hart in effect is finding answer to today’s most troublesome question; fundamentalism.

All the above concepts converge towards one centre; “The Gift: a Debate”. After an elaborate discussion of postmodernism as a tension with or rupture from modern thought in the shape of for example, post-secularism and post-liberal theology, the modern orientation of religion in ethics as opposed to the postmodern orientation towards the love of God, and in particular Scotist idea of God as a concept, as opposed to Balthasar’s belief in transcendence of God, the author leads us towards the debate between Marion and Milbank. Both of these postmodern intellectuals are influenced by Balthasar, are ‘thinkers of the gift’, and seek to redefine modern subject. Marion embarked upon Husserel’s structure of consciousness which stated that ‘all consciousness is consciousness of something’ and that experiences are not arbitrary. In addition to this, he rethought Husserel’s phenomenological reduction. He, while accepting that our relation to objects leads back to our consciousness, adds that ‘nothing can show itself unless it first gives itself’. He calls it the ‘self-giving of givenness’. The first relation leads us towards marion’s idea that we can experience the ‘holy’ but we cannot experience God. Therefore, God cannot be revealed to us as the one who gives. The same idea applies on revelation as well. This leads us to the possibility of God and Revelation. As for the subject, Marion claims that there is no giver and thus the gift is pure. Thus ‘I’ is possible only after becoming a gifted. Yet this gifted appears only in responding to the call of ‘I am here’. However, Derrida and Milbank differ on this point. While Derrida believes that a gift cannot be given, Milbank’s ‘postmodern critical Augustinianism’ suggests that the reciprocal gift giving is not only an important social practice but also has a theological dimension to it. All through this chapter we can see Hart siding with Marion’s position while severely criticizing Milbank’s theology. However, the purpose of culminating the book on this debate is to elaborate that the idea that mankind’s redemption lies not in valuing the exchange value of the gift. Instead, there is a possibility of prosperity of mankind in responding to the excess that has been given to us. He also mentions various modes through which this response can be made, for instance through art or ethical action.

In short, Postmodernism: A Beginner’s Guide culminates at a didactic effort to make its readers understand the value of what is given to us. He does this through an elaborate discussion of Christian philosophy. Even though readers from other philosophical orientation might not be able to identify with many of the concepts of this book, and some concepts might be out of their grasp, yet they can take the message of peace that lies at the undercurrent of this book. Nonetheless, postmodernism as a thoroughly western movement deeply influenced by Christian thought and theology seems much more understandable after reading this handy guide, which, incidentally, is not much of a guide.

Citation: 

MLA: Mirza, Ayesha. "Review of Kevin Hart's Postmodernism: A Beginner's Guide". Literary Theory in Practice, November 10, 2011. Web. Date of Access. <http://ayesha-mirza.blogspot.com/2011/11/postmodernism-beginners-guide.html>. 

APA: Mirza, Ayesha. "Review of Kevin Hart's Postmodernism: ABeginner's Guide". http://ayesha-mirza.blogspot.com/. 10 Nov. 2011. Date of Access. <http://ayesha-mirza.blogspot.com/2011/11/postmodernism-beginners-guide.html>

“The Other Side of Death” by Marquez: A Postmodern Study

By Ayesha Mirza

Postmodernism is both a rejection and a continuation of Modernism. This philosophy is a conglomeration of various theses posited by philosophers, including Nietzsche, Heidegger, Derrida, and Foucault, to name a few. Hence, presenting a thorough list of postmodern ideas is nearly impossible. The aim of this essay is hence to offer a comprehensive, yet by no means exhaustive, the study of the short story “The Other Side of Death” by the celebrated Columbian writer Gabriel Garcia Marquez.

One factor that marks postmodern literary theory is the questioning and rejection of an over-arching meta-narrative. This short story by Marquez dexterously rejects the biblical meta-narrative of heaven and hell, worldly life, and after-life. He obliterates the boundaries between the mundane and heavenly by juxtaposing the experiences of life and death. Furthermore, he makes the stark reality of death no more than a subtle transition from this earthly abode to the otherworld:

“Resigned, he listened to the drop, thick, heavy, exact, as it dripped in the other world, in the mistakes and absurd world of rational creatures.”

Thus for Marquez’s audience, death seems to be no more than an act of the decomposition of the body and the liquid within seeping into the other world. There is no talk of heaven or hell, of reward and punishment. In addition to this, the distinction between body and soul virtually diminishes. The intangible becomes tangible, and the real becomes liquid. The mass gives way to the matter inside. Yet the reader cannot determine whether he’s talking about the soul or his mundane existence.

This narrative, in essence, is a picture of a self-reflexive and self-conscious moment, a moment of “an awareness of splitting in two.” Paradoxically, at this moment, the protagonist also realizes “that the separation of the two bodies in space was just appearance, while in reality, the two of them had a single, total nature.” This fragmentation of the self and disappearance of the subject are central themes of the postmodern narrative. The protagonist feels his entire body liquidate and turn into nothing. All the senses are obliterated; he can no longer smell formaldehyde nor hear the cricket’s sound. However, just as postmodernism doesn’t lament the idea of fragmentation and dehumanizing of a subject, Marquez celebrates the ‘absurd world of rational creatures’. His hypothesis that it was possible “that the buried brother would remain incorruptible while rottenness would invade the living one” gives the protagonist a new satisfaction and eagerness to seep into the otherworld.

The narrative is made even more complex through the usage of multiple voices. This fragmentation of voices gives the readers an acute consciousness of the absence of a single point of view. The sudden and ever-shifting pattern of voices, from third person narrative to the first person and then back to the third person again, leaves room for various interpretations. Thus when we are told, “They were traveling in a train- I remember it now- I’ve had this dream frequently…” the reader has to stop and think about who the ‘they’ and ‘I’ of this story are. In this way, the much-touted idea of a single conscious self and existence through the meta-narratives is out rightly rejected.

Furthermore, the bricolage of various disconnected and bizarre elements within the dream, and its deep connection to realism, leads to another aspect of postmodern fiction. Marquez’s fiction is inextricably connected with Magic Realism. He represents the realism of ordinary events by dexterously interweaving them with crisp fantastic, dream-like elements. Hence “The Other Side of Death” takes place in the territory between sleep and wakefulness. The thoughts and dreams of the protagonist and the actual situation get intermingled. So, the reader cannot distinguish which one is a dream and which depicts reality. Thus the smell of formaldehyde, the corpse that had been dying in the other room, and the death of his brother; all commingle with his dream. And by the end of the story, his thought regarding the drop of water filling up the whole room in an hour or in thousands of years ends up in the drop dripping into the other world. Here the reader cannot comprehend whether the drop is the tangible liquid falling from his ceiling or the fluid in his body that has seeped through his skin for him to enter the otherworld.

Thus, the interpretation of the text remains enigmatic. It is open to many interpretations, and its meanings can never be exhausted. The bricolage of multiple images, the questionable narrator, the various voices, and the fragmentation of being; all contribute towards making this postmodern narrative virtually untranslatable.

Citation:

APA:    Mirza, Ayesha. '“The Other Side of Death" by Marquez: A Postmodern Study'. Literary Theory in Practice, October 7, 2011.Web. Date of Access. <http://ayesha-mirza.blogspot.com/2011/10/other-side-of-death-by-marquez.html>.

MLA: Mirza, Ayesha. "'The Other Side of Death' by Marquez: A Postmodern Study. http://ayesha-mirza.blogspot.com/. 7 Oct. 2011. Date of Access. http://ayesha-mirza.blogspot.com/2011/10/other-side-of-death-by-marquez.html