From Marxism through “the New Criticism” to Academic Nonsense 2 (Column 179)
Why postmodernism differs from both modernism and classicism
The essay distinguishes among three worldviews. Modernism sees history as a process of activist progress: we are supposed to bring redemption with our own hands and impose a truer order on an old and dark world. Classicism sees the opposite movement: once there was a lost perfection, and since then there has mainly been decline and deterioration, which can at most be restrained or countered by trying to reconstruct an idealized past. Postmodernism rejects both together, because in its view there is no objective standard by which one can determine what counts as improvement, what counts as decline, and who is more advanced or more primitive. So not only is the answer disputed, but the ruler itself.
Deconstruction: exposing premises instead of arguing over conclusions
The central tool of postmodernism is deconstruction. The essay explains that its logical root is distrust of first premises: every argument rests on assumptions that were never proven, and from this deconstructionists infer that those assumptions are arbitrary and subjective. Therefore everything derived from them is arbitrary and subjective as well. On this view, critique is not an examination of whether the premise is reasonable or true, but the very exposure of it; once you show that there is an assumption at the base of the argument, the argument is already dismantled. The result is a world of narratives closed in on themselves, with no genuine dialogue or rational adjudication among them. The same dismantling applies to collectives: if each person has his own narrative, then a group is not a real conceptual entity but only a practical aggregation of individuals, and postmodernism therefore entails extreme individualism.
If positions cannot be justified, they become covers for interests
From here the essay turns to the obvious question: if even the speakers themselves understand that there is no truth and no grounding, why do they keep making claims? The postmodern subversive answer is that claims, and especially first premises, are not stated because they are true but because they are useful. They serve as a fig leaf for interests, power, and schemes. Here the familiar Marxist element returns: behind moral and intellectual language stand relations of power.
Marxism and postmodernism: total opposition in values, deep affinity in methodology
The essay recalls that Marxism had two defining traits from the outset. On the one hand, it is modernist and dogmatic: there is an absolute truth, there is historical redemption, and there is a collective in whose name the old world must be fought and destroyed. From this side postmodernism is its opposite, because it denies truth, value hierarchy, and the superiority of the collective. On the other hand, Marxism developed a subversive methodology that interprets the opponent's positions as expressions of interests and struggles for power. From this side postmodernism continues it almost directly. The essay stresses that the tools are similar even if the justification differs: the Marxist suspects the opponent because he is certain that he himself possesses the truth, whereas the deconstructionist suspects everyone because, in his view, there is no truth at all.
Patricide: deconstruction turns Marxist tools against Marxism itself
At the next stage, the essay describes the relation between the two as a dialectic of cocoon and butterfly. Marxism taught people to expose interests behind every position, but exempted itself. Deconstruction asks why precisely Marxism should be free of that suspicion, and applies the very same critique to it. If every position rests on arbitrary first premises, then Marxism is no exception. In this way postmodernism is born from Marxism itself: it carries through to the end what was already latent within Marxism, and destroys the father with his own tools.
How war and dogmatism returned in the name of anti-dogmatism
The essay adds that postmodernism did promise, at least in its early stages, a more peaceful world because there would be no single truth in whose name people fight. But in practice it created a new enemy for itself: whoever does not accept the postmodern message. At this point the war of the sons of light against the sons of darkness returns. Deconstruction fights its opponents with the subversive tools it took from Marxism, yet without any positive substantive value. The value that becomes absolute is the methodology itself, the act of dismantling, the vacuum itself. That is why in postmodernism Marxism's two traits merge: the subversive methodology is both the instrument of war and the only thing in whose name the war is fought. The medium becomes the message.
Interim conclusion: from Marxism through deconstruction to academic nonsense
The conclusion is that the process unfolds in three stages: Marxism with a dogma and a methodology; deconstruction, which gives up the dogma but preserves the tools of dismantling; and postmodernism, which re-adopts dogmatism, except that now the dogma is the very absence of content and the sanctification of the method. The essay presents this as a key to understanding the style, texts, and conduct of postmodernism, and later also to understanding academic nonsense papers.
With God’s help
In the previous column I began to address the phenomenon of academic nonsense. I explained that this is part of the postmodern sphere, and I began to describe the historical background to its development. I said that this is a dialectical process in which postmodernism grows out of Marxism and deconstruction.
The first link in the process is Marxism. I explained that it has two main characteristics: absolute faith in our truth (the religious dogma of equality), and a subversive analysis of history and of opposing positions. These are always driven by interests and power intrigues, and not by arguments and justifications on their merits. We also saw that there is a connection between these two characteristics: if absolute truth is on my side, then the other person, who certainly is not stupid (but apparently wicked), understands that as well. So why does he say otherwise? Because he has an interest that drives him, and he presents things in an ideological and philosophical guise that is nothing more than a fig leaf for interests and political-power schemes. I will now continue to describe the emergence of postmodernism.
Modernism, Classicism, and Postmodernism
Modernism is defined as a conception that sees the world as progressing, and holds that we are obligated to bring that about with our own hands, in the spirit of "Do not say, ‘The day will come’; bring the day." Modernism is activist and demanding. Redemption (=the imposition of pure truth and the improvement of the world) is something we bring with our own hands. History is the story of progress toward modernity and the eradication of outdated and primitive darkness. A war between the children of light and the children of darkness. Opposed to modernism stands classicism. It sees history as a process of retreat from a perfect utopian state that once prevailed, and ever since then we have only been deteriorating. Light slowly turns into darkness, and our task is to halt the deterioration, and if possible to try to restore the world to the complete state that prevailed in the (imagined) past. To reconstruct the perfection that was lost.
Thus, for example, in art until the Renaissance there prevailed a classicist atmosphere. Greek works were regarded as perfect art, and since then we have only been declining. The summit of creation is the reconstruction and imitation of classical Greek art. The Jewish conception of the "decline of the generations" also has a classicist dimension. Once everyone was wise and the world was perfect, and ever since then there has been constant decline and deterioration that we are obligated to try to stop as much as possible. True, in our tradition people speak of breaking and repair, descent for the sake of ascent, sin and repentance, but the overall picture is one of deterministic deterioration. Implicitly, the goal is to come as close as possible to the utopia that once prevailed here in the past. In the classicist worldview there is no room for progress, since we were already once in a complete state. At most, one can return to it or try to moderate the deterioration relative to it.
Postmodernism stands in contrast both to modernism and to classicism. It holds that there are no criteria at all that would enable us to measure whether one world is better or worse than another. Therefore one cannot speak of deterioration, but neither can one speak of improvement and progress, since the axis by which these processes are measured is itself a product of our own point of view—in other words, it too is subjective. Postmodernism denies the ability to measure, compare, and judge things, because there is no objective yardstick that would enable us to do so.
Deconstruction
The main intellectual tool of postmodern analysis, the central postmodern methodology, is deconstruction. It deals with dismantling (=deconstruction) positions, ideas, and claims, and demolishing them to their foundations through an analysis that exposes the assumptions hidden within them. From this we infer (or really assume) that every judgment is empty, subjective, and biased, since there are no objective criteria on the basis of which one can judge. Two of the main forerunners of deconstruction were Derrida and Foucault (who were active mainly in the second half of the twentieth century). They and their students engage in exposing the assumptions of every text or position, and especially in exposing the schemes and interests that underlie them.
In two of my books (Shtei Agalot and Emet Velo Yatziv) I explained that the logical-philosophical root of deconstruction is distrust of our basic assumptions. Naturally, every argument is based on basic assumptions. And these are of course accepted without proof (by virtue of being basic assumptions). Therefore, the deconstructionist argues, they are necessarily arbitrary and subjective. But anything that is logically derived from a subjective and arbitrary claim is itself subjective and arbitrary. Therefore proof or argument (which bases the conclusion on basic assumptions, that is, derives it from them) changes nothing at all. All our claims and positions are necessarily subjective and arbitrary. Hence no position can be grounded, and therefore one claim or position cannot be judged against another.
From the standpoint of deconstruction, "critique" means exposing basic assumptions. The moment we expose some assumption at the base of a position or argument, they are considered dismantled. There is no need to argue that the assumption is unreasonable or that there is any problem with it. The very fact that there is an assumption there is itself the dismantling. Why? Because an assumption, by virtue of being an assumption, is something arbitrary.
Therefore, in the postmodern worldview all consistent positions have the same status. Beyond consistency there is nothing. Hence the world of positions and opinions is described there as a collection of narratives (forms of discourse) that are imprisoned within themselves and within their arbitrary assumptions (monads in Leibniz’s terminology). There is no one who is right and no one who is wrong, and in fact there is also no possibility of discourse between two different monads, since they are based on different assumptions. No one understands the other and cannot converse with him. There is also no point in conversing, since there is nothing to converse about. There is no possibility of making arguments and persuading others, and in fact I myself am not really more right than the other person. I simply live this way, and that is that.[1]
Incidentally, deconstruction dismantles not only ideas. It dismantles groups as well. From its perspective there is no room for any connection between two different people, since each has his own narrative. Collectives are conceptual connections among individuals. But deconstruction sees the collective as a practical connection among individuals, and nothing beyond that. Postmodernism is bound up with extreme individualism.
But still, one cannot deny that people and groups advance claims and believe different things. So what do they mean? After all, they themselves surely also understand that there is nothing substantial in those claims and that they cannot be justified (as noted, they are wicked, not stupid). The unavoidable conclusion is that the claims (and especially the basic assumptions) are a cover, or a fig leaf, for an interest and a power scheme. A person or a group does not adopt basic assumptions because they are true (for there is no such thing), and therefore it is clear that they do so because it is convenient and useful for them. They choose assumptions in order to advance their goals and their interests. Here we return once again to the foundation of deconstruction.
Where Does Marxism Fit In?
On the one hand, Marxism is almost the very definition of modernism. It advocates the view that we must fight and destroy the old world to its foundations in order to progress (the progressive forces against the forces of reaction) and impose pure truth—that is, to bring redemption to the world with our own hands. The individual person is merely oil on the wheels of the revolution. What matters is the collective idea, the galactic redemption. This is in contrast to postmodernism, which does not accept the very possibility of determining that something is true, that is, of ranking and judging who is more right and more advanced and who is less so (because there are no objective criteria). Postmodernism sees collectives only as an interest-driven aggregation of individuals. The collective is the oil on the wheels of the individual’s individuality. Thus, in terms of its first characteristic, Marxism is distinctly modernist. Postmodernism stands in frontal opposition to it.
But in terms of the second characteristic of Marxism, something very interesting happens. We have seen that the postmodern methodology is deconstruction. And lo and behold, this methodology is a clear application of Marxist analysis. It too, like Marxism, analyzes positions and claims according to the interests and schemes that drive them and underlie them. What is this, if not Marxist analysis? There is no doubt that at least on the methodological plane, Marxism was the central foundation on which deconstruction was built. Its analytical tools are drawn directly from it. Thus the second characteristic of Marxism, the methodological one, is firmly anchored in postmodernism as well. They analyze and think in exactly the same subversive way.[2] It is no wonder that to this day it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between an individualistic postmodern left and a communist-Marxist left.[3]
The Relationship Between Marxism and Postmodernism: The Dialectic
The conclusion is that the relationship between these two is not so simple. The second characteristic (the subversive methodology) is common to both, but in terms of the first (the dogmatics) they are complete opposites. So is postmodernism Marxist or not?
It seems to me that the relationship between these two can be described like the relationship between the chrysalis and the butterfly. Marxism taught that behind every position and claim stands an interest—except, of course, for its own position. Now the deconstructionist comes and asks why the Marxist himself is an exception. Are his own basic assumptions genuinely well-founded? On what basis? If no position and no argument can be grounded, and therefore accepted, then the Marxist position too is included in that. Intellectual honesty requires applying the subversive analysis, that is, deconstruction, to Marxism itself as well. And thus, by means of a subversive Marxist analysis, postmodernism comes and dismantles Marxism itself with its own tools. Now we know that we ourselves, too, are driven by interests, and do not really believe in any beliefs or values, nor do we know anything whatsoever. Intellectual honesty requires us to conclude that this is true not only of "our enemies" but of us as well. Hence Marxism was the chrysalis that developed until the postmodern butterfly emerged from it. This is the actualization of what was already latent in Marxism.
And Once Again the War Between the Children of Light and the Children of Darkness: The Postmodern Synthesis
Modernism is belligerent. If there is absolute truth, and opposite it those who are ultimately mistaken and wicked, then one must fight them. It is no wonder that the early postmodernists foresaw that it would bring world peace on its wings. If there is no one right and no one wrong, there will be no wars and quarrels, and peace and quiet will reign in our little world. But they were, of course, mistaken.
Quite apart from the fact that not the whole world was persuaded by postmodernism (as is well known, it takes two to tango), it too found for itself its own children of darkness to fight against—namely, those who do not accept the postmodern and deconstructionist gospel itself. Now redemption depends on war against the new anti-Christ, namely the modernist reactionary (including Marxism itself, of course). This is quite literally intellectual patricide. Deconstruction exterminates Marxism with its own tools.
But notice what is happening before our astonished eyes. Beyond the patricide, that is, the abolition of Marxism, the fascinating dialectical process continues as it is conceived anew and born again like a phoenix. Deconstruction fights with full force, using its subversive-Marxist analytical tools, against its opponents. We have seen that it kills Marxism with Marxism’s own subversive analytical tools. But what value is this struggle advancing? In whose name is it being waged? In the name of deconstruction itself, of course. For deconstruction does not advance any value or any content whatsoever, since there is no such thing. It advances and sanctifies the empty and subversive methodology itself. At this stage of the process, the subversive methodology has become both the instrument of the struggle and the value for whose sake and in whose name the struggle is waged.
At this fascinating stage, the dialectical process brings us to a situation in which the two characteristics of Marxism have fused into one, and thus, out of deconstruction, on the ruins of Marxism, postmodernism begins to dawn: the subversive methodology is the instrument of the struggle, but it is also the sole absolute value that remains to us, and in whose name and for whose sake we fight. The sanctified value of the vacuum (the absence of values) is the cause of the present war. Postmodernism turned a dismantling methodology (deconstruction) into a kind of Marxism. The substantive value (the dogma) of original Marxism has here been replaced by the methodology itself. Thus both characteristics of Marxism are present in postmodernism as well, but they are both one. By way of rhetoric one may say that if Marxism drew from Christianity the subversive outlook, then postmodernism, which seeks to replace it, draws from it another idea: the incarnation (two that are one). And as Marshall McLuhan’s well-known dictum says: the medium has become the message itself.
Interim Summary: A Bird’s-Eye View of the Process
Thus ends the dialectical process that begins with Marxism, which has two characteristics; continues by giving up the first (dogmatism, absolute truth) and adopting the second (the subversive methodology), thereby creating deconstruction. This then turns back, attacks, and destroys the Marxist dogma (its first characteristic: absolute truth and value—equality) with Marxism’s own tools, in a kind of patricide. And finally, the war between the children of light and the children of darkness, which was smuggled out the door, returns to us through the window: deconstruction re-adopts the first characteristic (dogmatism) for whose sake one fights, except that this time the value for whose sake one fights is not a concrete value-content (as in the Marxist stage), but the methodology itself. The phoenix-like return of the first characteristic and its fusion with the second create, out of deconstruction, postmodernism, in which "the medium is the message."
In the next column I will try to show how the picture described up to this point explains the various characteristics of postmodern texts and conduct, and in the end I will of course also arrive at the nonsense articles.
[1] This is where existentialism connects to this deranged move (see column 140).
[2] Although it seems to me that there is a difference in the root of the phenomena. In Marxism, the subversive interpretation of other positions is due to the fact that it is clear that we are right and they are wrong. Therefore it is clear that they, too, cannot really think that way, and so what drives them is interests and schemes rather than arguments. Here the basis for the subversive methodology is faith in absolute truth. Deconstruction, by contrast, adopts a subversive interpretation because, on its view, there is no such thing as truth at all. At the end of the day, the tools are the same tools; only the justification differs. In this sense, the "Kav" camp are of course Marxists and not postmodernists. See Y.D.’s question here and my answer.
[3] See below on the "Frankfurt School," which combined the two.
Where the liberal left is located on this map is a very interesting question. Liberalism is ostensibly based on a positive worldview, but in fact it serves to ground individualism and the vacuum. See on this column 116 and the discussions that follow it.
In fact, already Lenin related to Marxism as an ideology and not as a synthetic truth. Regarding the Har HaMor people, it will be interesting to see whether an approach arises there that critiques them radically in favor of an even more radical approach.
In the essay “Existentialism” in the book “Liberalism and the Crisis of Modern Jewish Thought,” Leo Strauss tries to present Heidegger’s solution to the problem of truth in historicism. I’m not sure I fully understood it. In that same book it is also worth reading the essay “Apology,” which skewers the new social sciences (in his case political science) on the basis of an analysis similar to the rabbi’s analysis.