Postmodern Spirituality

Good morning.

I've entitled this little speech Postmodern Spirituality, so to start off I thought it would be best to define postmodernism for those of you who don't know what it means. It's not too difficult a concept; it's been around quite a while, especially in the arts and literature. Wikipedia defines postmodernism like so: "A tendency in contemporary culture characterized by the rejection of Objective Truth and Global Cultural Narrative"... whatever that means...

Well firstly, this rejection concerns Objective Truth - that's whatever is deemed true outside of one's subjectivity, perspective and opinions. Like the idea that the sky is blue - that sort of thing. There's some fairly objective truth in the idea that the sky is blue, although technically speaking, the sky only looks blue. In fact it looks like a different blue to everybody, so it's not really an objective truth at all to say that the sky is blue. Especially since we can't all agree on what blue is, it's just a general idea and we really don't know if any of us are talking about the same blue that we think we're talking about.

Next, there's that rejection of Global Cultural Narrative - what is that? Well, the word "global" here doesn't mean planet Earth. It means "all encompassing". An "All Encompassing Narrative". The biggest story about all the stories that define culture. It's supposed to be a metanarrative; the grand theme behind history, pointing to the future, stripped of prejudices and made clear for all to see. But postmodernism says that Global Narrative is simply a story too. It's got a biased history of it's development, and some metanarrative over it. It's still just a story. From the postmodern perspective, there is no ultimate story because each story is contained in another story, which is inside another story, and so on and so forth. Like the ancient myth that the world lays upon the back of a turtle; that turtle must be laying on top of another turtle, toward infinite turtle regression. And in the words of Stephen Hawking, or Carl Sagan or Bertrand Russell (depending on what narrative you prefer), "It's turtles all the way down, man".

So postmodernism rejects these ideas of objective truth and global narrative, and what it says is that the stories which you think work only do so because they're what you’re used to recognizing as a story that works. But that doesn't mean your way is the only way a story can work. I can write a story which tells you: "Hey you, reading this story - put the book down and go get a glass of water". And when I do that, I just jumped up one turtle, see? My story became self-referential - it acknowledged it's own structure and popped out of it for a second, into your structure. It escaped Form and emphasized Context. It went meta. And now you have to consider whether your glass of water is part of my story - whether you drink it or not! That's postmodernism.

This technique of recontextualizing form is fairly new. Most sources base it's loose origins in the early 20th century arts movements - guys like Marcel DuChamp, and in the later books of authors such as Kurt Vonnegut, Thomas Pynchon and Jorge Luis Borges. It began as a reaction to the capitalist tendencies of Modernism which had managed, by continually deconstructing Form, to deliver Western culture to the austere bones of 1960's Minimalism by proclaiming: "We have relegated the prejudices of Form to the dustbin of History. There is no God, only man. There is no plan, only progress", and that markets and technology would solve everything. Modernism had delivered us a perfect, Objectivist cube, sitting in a white room, and stated: "This is what pure ideas are. We need go no further." But the problem was that it didn't work. Despite all of Modernism's tidy theories, humanity was still an irrational shambles. So Postmodernism set out to escape this trap by replying: "What an arrogant assumption! You can't arbitrarily proclaim what human destiny is just because it suits you. Meaning isn't about Form, it's about Context. Your austere glass towers of perfect progress stand atop infinite, meaningful histories which you've willfully ignored to suit your own obsessions!" And thus, ideas became free again, free even to drag out a Caravaggio painting from the 16th century and say: "It's the 20th century now, so this is new!"

In it's application; everything becomes convoluted when you're postmodern. Objective reality breaks down completely because postmodernism denies objectivity and lets history repeat itself within a new context. And today, there's a new context every second, isn't there? As the great Unitarian Universalist author Kurt Vonnegut wrote: "Billy Pilgrim has become unstuck in time". So have we, and it's confusing. Think about a TV reality show, it starts with reality, transforms into in an unreality, in order to show you reality even though it's not real reality, but it becomes real reality because TV reality shows exist and are real. Where the reality resides is a question of context. That's postmodernism.

Now, this all seems very academic, doesn't it? All this talk about art and culture, history and philosophy, what is or is not real. Very high-concept, existential sort of stuff. One might well wonder what any of this has to do with the substantive aspects of living a life in accordance with one's values and spiritual needs. Well, it has everything to do with it, particularly for Unitarian Universalists, and I'll explain why.

Unitarian Universalists are well aware their faith is centered upon action within the observable world. They're not really focused on unprovable, eternal planes of after-death immortality nor cryptic, arbitrarily interpretable ancient texts. They don't subscribe to a single belief in some cosmic plan, nor neo-Calvinist doctrine about predestination. A lot of people take great comfort in those sorts of ideas, and I appreciate why they value and need those notions. But within UU congregations there is no "ultimate story", even as UU attempts to embrace all the stories - as meaningful stories. Which means UU is an extremely postmodern faith. It's about as postmodern as one can get and still have an ethos.

UU has whittled this whole conundrum down to seven very basic concepts about what's important; the stuff that it simply can't morally refute if one wishes to be highly cognizant and remain sane. Seven simple little ideas about what matters, such as human lives having value. Yeah, it's kind of hard to deny that one, since we all have a human life. Even if one can intellectually justify some reason to deny value to human life, they still don't want to be devalued themselves, and rationally they'd have to assume other folks feel the same way. UU is a highly pragmatic ideology.

But it's not simply the UU church which exists in a state of postmodernism because there's a metanarrative, yeah? At this point in time, here at the dawning of a new millennium, in a world which is ever more defined and understood in terms of it's information, our entire global culture is going postmodern. Because information is stories. In an information age, wherein our ideas of truth are formed and routinely challenged by an infinite amount of stories confronting our minds every minute, it gets harder and harder to find some useful, objective place upon which to rest one's ideas about truth, in order to reside happily upon the back of the biggest turtle in the turtleverse.

And it gets more postmodern than that. Postmodernism is a tactic well understood by purveyors of information. In the past, a media mogul like William Randolph Hearst could use his newspaper empire to fashion public attitudes, and to use those attitudes in order to ultimately enact government policies that benefitted his interests. Today, the explosion of and ease-of-creation for thoroughly convincing stories has leapt a thousand fold in it's sophistication since Hearst's day. Today, entire information markets can be created - Presto! - and fed a steady stream of stories positioned as truth. Entire imaginary movements can be created - even fake grassroots movements, which consist of actors and Internet personas with righteous agendas to pursue. That's called astroturfing - the creation of a fake grassroots movement. It's a fairly common practice among sophisticated public relations folk who are schooled in psychology, behaviorism and strategic communication. And trust me - modernist minds don't really stand much of a chance against these misinformation techniques. These guys are pros and they are limitlessly funded.

Here's a real-world example (assuming that we're going to assume that information is real). A friend recently shared with me a video concerning Compact Fluorescent Light bulbs. The video's speaker regularly promotes matters of holistic healing and green awareness - that sort of thing. The video was positioned as an alternative health "news story" about the dangers these bulbs represent. They contain mercury and emit what the self-described "journalist" called "dirty electricity" (which sounds very scary indeed). Her advice was that viewers should avoid Compact Fluorescent Bulbs, and should instead purchase LED bulbs (which are a new product).

My friend shared the video with the world because he was concerned. And he was a bit surprised when I informed him that Compact Fluorescent Bulbs are currently at the forefront of a very heated national debate. Some state governments and representatives want to ban incandescent bulbs entirely and have only the Compact Fluorescents made available for public use. And naturally, there are raging and rhetorical arguments about free-market intrusion, bad science, corporate collusion, mandates vs. incentives, ideological imperatives and all the other stuff that goes along with anybody trying to effect any sort of change at all. I agreed that I like LED lights, but was left with the begging question: "How many U.S. citizens does it take to change a light bulb?"

As for the bulbs themselves, I have no concusion yet and obviously have even more reading to do because I'm not aware of the complete context of this video. I won't be surprised to find some blog which claims the entire debacle exists because the President is actually Karl Marx wearing a disguise when he's not dressed up as Adolph Hitler. And in the interest of equal-time, allow me to remind you that there are mercury-laden, dirty-electricity emitting fluorescents ten feet over your head right now, so you might want to panic and run screaming from the room.

But you know... light bulbs aren't the only bright idea out there…

Recently we witnessed a raging national debate concerning an unknown preacher in a forgotten Florida parish who wanted to burn somebody else's sacred book, as is his tasteless right. One can burn any symbol they want to in this nation, despite how incendiary the action is. And one might have expected the media to pick up the story and create as much controversy as possible to promote their channel, grab some audience and serve their sponsors. But this particular story did something strange and almost surreal, because within a week or so of it's breaking, the President of the United States and David Petraues issued statements in reaction; grand statements about freedom and tolerance and national security and what defines America and all that stuff that everybody's heard a billion times before. The President of the United States of America, and the Commanding General of the ISAF and former head of CENTCOM addressed what appeared to be a cheap publicity stunt performed by some preacher-what's-his-name from the church of who-cares in where-the-heck-am-I Florida.

So that's the story. But what's the metastory and what is it's context? Is it the dangers of eschatological extremism? The zealous disregard for responsibility in journalism? The continuing crusade for control of the symbolic Holy Land? The geopolitical interests of the multinational corporations who own the news channels? The evolution of actionable politics into the commercially viable art of persuasion? Or is it simply another reactionary salvo fired in the ongoing response to what was, nine years ago, the single most effective made-for-TV performance of all time?

Because, make no mistake, a brazen act of terror taken against a civilian population in broad daylight before an audience of millions is a show; an action performed to convey an idea; a planned performance of horrific art made out of human lives. And lest we misunderstand one another, please know that my friend Carolyn was on the second plane to strike those buildings. She was lost to her friends and family, and that is fact. But that doesn't mean she did not die for someone else's grisly multimedia show. Just because something is a show doesn't mean it's not real. It just means that someone's idea of art can kill people. Because what defines art isn't a question of form anymore, it's a question of context. Your very real context. That's postmodernism.

And of course now we have this heady concoction of entertainers slash political figures who defy both categorizations, holding highly publicized rallies in the name of "rationality" and testifying before panels on C-SPAN within the framework of an easily dismissible opinion on the simplification of political affiliation. Are you a Glenn Beck guy or a Bill Maher guy? Budweiser wants to know. And what started out as a fairly understandable struggle between Modernist conservative values and Postmodern progressive attitudes is starting to appear like something very different. It's starting to appear more like complete intellectual chaos, interactively scripted every millisecond by an out-of-control information system, within which anyone real or unreal can participate, anonymously, for whatever agenda they promote, in order to punch you in your personal fears and compel you to buy or vote their way.

In his book "Post Broadcast Democracy", Markus Prior, the Associate Professor of Politics and Public Affairs at Princeton University, demonstrates through highly empirical studies the effects that the information age has wrought on our ability to wisely self-govern. Prior shows that the multiplicity of media options borne from the cable and internet age have actually lessened the public's awareness of political issues, by creating a greater divide between the informed and the uninformed. Back in the days of vastly more limited media options, more people were forced to watch the news. The news was broadcast concurrently on the major networks, and there wasn't much else available in it's timeslots. Viewers couldn't simply switch over to ESPN or the Game Show Channel if the news became too extreme or unwatchable for them. Thus, a greater percentage of people watched the news and had a common understanding of current events. And this kept the broadcasters themselves in check too. Journalism could not cater to a particular sort of niche audience. News had to be moderate enough to appeal to all viewers, because if one's news show were too slanted, one would simply lose their share of the news-viewer pie to the other two carriers.

This situation has changed dramatically. News today must attempt to dominate public attention over an ever-increasing din of information options and entertainments, and there are two primary strategies to succeed in this raucous mediascape. The first is targeted news; the creation of branded information sources that appeal to a specific, devoted user demographic; the FOXNEWS guy or the MSNBC guy. The other strategy is something I call Synergistic Sensationalism; the creation of explosively controversial stories that can be heard above the rest, and their repetition throughout diverse, interrelated distribution methods; internet portals, broadcast, cable, radio, blogs, social networks and any other publishing tools available to promote the provider's market share and reinforce their brand. As they say in the business; any publicity is good publicity, and you or I would be foolish to think that the stories which engage us are not specifically tailored to. There actually is liberal mass media. There has to be because if there weren't, than conservative mass media could not exist. It's ALL targeted now, and we're the targets. But these are products; like different types of mayonnaise. The word "conservative" simply means "favoring tradition" and the word "liberal" means "not constrained by tradition". Those are both valid ideas. People's personalities don't actually fit within mayonnaise jars. None of us should let media steal either of these necessary words from us for the sake of their convenience and profit. Nor should we help them to do so.

Because this lack of competition endangers a market of free ideas. It's making democracy more extreme as intelligent moderation leaves the process in search of less contentious, less confrontational, less meaningless, or less downright confusing information. And who can blame it? Sometimes one just wants to escape the raging infosphere, turn to Animal Planet and watch some baby pandas. The problem, as Prior points out, are the people who are remain in the process after moderation leaves, and what the messages become in order to gain moderation back. It's not going to get quieter, folks. This is happening because of technology, and despite what people may desire for society, government or culture, technology never retreats. Not unless most of us die from the bubonic plague again.

And that's why every few months or so, enormous crowds of righteously confused and concerned citizens will gather in the National Mall, boldly waving signs which proclaim "I'M THE RATIONAL ONE HERE, MISTER!” while their more sensational statements and antics will be recorded and fomented, ad nauseum, for the other side to view, click on, write about, link to, embed, leave a comment, and share with friends. All of which does absolutely nothing to address the monstrous fact that, according to the latest census information, 43.6 million of your countrymen fell below the poverty line last year. One out of every seven people in your nation is poor, desperate, quite possibly hungry, and needs your help. You probably know some of these people.

So how does one rise above this onslaught of hysterical proclamations of rationality with wisdom and true benevolence, in a manner consistent with our shared desire for peace and purpose? How does one respond to a story that is simply a story about a story about a story, in a stack of stories so tall that you'll never have enough time to read them all or even arrive at a conclusion if you could?

Here's my advice:

Firstly, if you're compelled to engage in some sort of cultural dispute, don't let news stories and pundits, despite how well and wryly they're produced and marketed, make you feel things or tell you what your opposition thinks. Don't knee-jerk. Go talk to your opposition personally, with sincere willingness to understand their perspective, the things they fear, and why. Show them that they needn't fear you; that even if you disagree, you're still friends. That's the only way we can hope to reach any sort of consensus; by turning down the volume and avoiding histrionics. You might even learn that your opponent is not actually your opponent at all. We need to earnestly communicate with those we don't understand, not rant and rave for somebody else's piece of commercial performance art. Don't become an unwitting spokesperson for a media brand, reacting as directed within the confines of a manufactured idea market. Disregard branded information, or at least take it with an enormous gain of salt. Do you own research, question your own context and be your own artist. Remember; when you share someone else's story, you've become their unpaid salesperson. That's exactly what they want you to be.

And more importantly, one needn't try to be a superhero for society. Society never asked any of us to don a cape and say: "Step aside citizen, I'm going to save the world through my amazing powers of being manipulated!" That's not your job, and it's not in your principles. If we want to live and act with a clear conscience, all we really need do is put some food into a collection basket. THAT is rational. But allowing anyone who gets paid to sell ideas about enemies dictate how one should live their principles is not rational. People who do that don't really need our help. There are plenty of other people who do.

And that's postmodern too; it's a Humanistic trope borrowed from the Age of Enlightenment, dragged into the current day and made new, which says: "When left to their own devices, people will do what is good." UU can do that, because UU is a postmodern work. It contains ALL the stories - including the Modernist ones. All the ideas postmodern spirituality upholds are valid, even as it needs Modernism's notions of Global Cultural Narrative and Objective Truth to respond to. And that's fine. As long as we recognize that context is what applies meaning to our actions, then every spiritually motivated action we take... is a work of art.

Now go get a glass of water. ;)

Thanks very much for listening.