In the previous post, we expanded a bit on the Pluckrose and Lindsay outline of postmodernism that we have referred to several times. In this post, we look more specifically at how philosophical postmodernism is harmful to USA version 1, perhaps leading to the necessity of USA version 2.
Ultimately, postmodernism, if politically reified, produces a Hobbesian “war of all against all” but with the actors being tribes or groups instead of individuals* – neither version of the USA can operate under those conditions (in fact, it sounds pretty much like hell to me, no matter the form of government).
Here are specifics:
Foments oikophobia
This development is important enough to merit its own category. I use oikophobia here in the sense Roger Scruton** uses it in England and the Need for Nations: “the repudiation of inheritance and home” (and not, for example, in the sense of a pathological fear of home surroundings). Oikophobia results in the hatred of one’s own culture or country. It is not to be confused with clear-eyed criticism of certain aspects of one’s home in an effort to improve it – oikophobia rejects home because it is home, rather than because of any specific defects.
It is no accident that Scruton (and others) began to write about the dangers of this idea in response to the writings of Derrida and Foucault (for an account of this, see Mark Dooley‘s biography of Scruton). The radical cultural relativism of postmodernism implies that one may only criticize one’s own culture, while simultaneously dismissing any positive support for it, so that one may only criticize one’s own culture. Postmodernism has oikophobia as an obvious corollary.
It is worth mentioning that Cultural Marxism often breeds oikophobia as well, in the strategic process of the Long March – if one can repudiate all the institutions of society at once, then replacing or undermining them becomes an easier task.
Whether resulting from Cultural Marxism or postmodernism, the effect of widespread oikophobia on social stability is easily predictable. If I were to guess at the proximate cause(s) of the future collapse of USA version 1, I would certainly put “widespread oikophobia” high on the list of candidates. I would, however, suspect that (as mentioned here) any sort of “postmodern state” would collapse so quickly as to be simply a transition state toward Marxism, which would quickly fill the resulting power vacuum.
Negates “nation founded on an idea”
We have mentioned before that America is the only nation founded on an idea, embodied in the written Constitution. Postmodernism, by denying that words have meaning outside a specific cultural context, removes the foundation of USA version 1 (and version 2, for that matter).
Certainly, different people in different cultural contexts will have differing connotative meanings for the same words. If we believe, though, that there is an underlying denotative meaning for the words in our foundation documents, we can struggle together to work out what that meaning is, and how it expresses itself in our current context. Postmodernism, though, says that there is no denotative meaning at all, so why try – it’s all just an exercise in group power struggle anyway.
Negates “rule of law”
Though the phrase is not used in the US Constitution, the idea of all citizens being equal under the law runs throughout the structure and rights guaranteed by it. Postmodernism denies both the individual and the universal in favor of a tribalism of victims and oppressors. Rule of law is neither possible nor desirable under a postmodern regime.
Denies “E pluribus unum”
Again, a phrase not in the US Constitution (though its use on the Great Seal predates that document by a few years) but one that underlies the American desire for a national identity flexible enough to accommodate an enormous variety of states, cultures, and citizens. Postmodernism, with its tribal focus, supports only a power struggle among various factions without any possibility of unity based on common ideals – postmodernism says that no commonality is possible, since the different cultures would have different meanings of words anyway.
Destroys basis for democratic persuasion
While the US Constitution provides a form of government that is a republic, not a democracy, it does nevertheless embody certain democratic processes – election of representatives, votes by those representatives on various laws and treaties, etc. The basic idea underlying all of these democratic processes is that to change the course of a vote with which one disagrees, one must persuade (not coerce) one’s opponents. It is no accident that the First Amendment deals with freedom of speech, which has uniformly been held to include political speech. Postmodernism, through its blurring of boundaries (and rejection of categories and even reason itself) as well as its radical cultural relativism, makes representative government an exercise in raw demographic power, rather than a exercise in rational persuasion. To be sure, sometimes representative government does degenerate into that sort of pure power struggle, but postmodernism forces its adherents to give up on the idea that it can ever be more than that.
*After writing this, I found that Jordan Peterson has said something similar here. I believe I came to this conclusion independently, but can’t rule out that I heard it from him at some point.
**Scruton was, at various points in his career, somewhat of an agent provocateur. I’m not sure that he agreed with everything he wrote! It should go without saying (but I’m saying it anyway) that citing his work on this subject does not entail endorsement of everything he ever did or said (or was reported to have said in a “hit job” interview). His actual contributions to conservative philosophy are enormous enough without getting distracted by, say, the Salisbury Review.