The Postmodern Perspective

           To understand Postmodernism, one must first understand its precursor, Modernism. Modernity as a theoretical framework sought to find objective knowledge from a position of neutrality. It firmly asserted the power of reason based on scientific knowledge, and sought universal truths. Morality, rather than being a natural trait, was viewed as something that needed to be imposed.

According to  Zygmont Bauman, modern ethical thought is characterised by two defining factors. Universality and foundation. Universality refers to the bid to discover and implement exceptionalist rules based on one set of laws. Laws are based on a reward/punishment model and work to discourage the individual from deviating from prescribed norms. Foundation are the coercive powers of the state that render obedience to these rules to be viewed as sensible and expected. For Modernism, adherence to laws is developed through coercively encouraging and shaping an ‘individual’s power of judgement’ so as to prompt them to willingly obey the order set out by the legislators. Relating this back to conflict, there is the argument made by Postmodernists that Modernism created what Bauman refers to as an ‘aporetic situation’. An aporetic situation refers to the perspective that often there is an inevitable, perpetual cycle of violence due to the anarchic tendency of people to rebel against rules experienced as oppression. 

Source: http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-power-in-a-nutshell-is-the-ability-to-get-things-done-and-politics-is-the-ability-to-zygmunt-bauman-91-78-49.jpg

Postmodern critique of ethics

It was in retaliation to modernisms assertion of the existence of a universal objective truth, and its alleged perpetual cycle of violence that Postmodernism emerged. The suffix 'post', is not necessarily implied in a chronological sense, but is more referring to its direct reaction to Modernism. 

Bill Kynes provides a good overview of the key aspects of Postmodernism:

Ethics in itself is viewed by Postmodernist to be a redundant, controlling and broken illusion that is derived from typically Modern constraints. Postmodernist deny the existence of a universal moral reality- objectivity is a myth, there does not exist a place in which one can remove oneself from bias, for deciding what is inherently right or wrong, good or bad. Postmodernism views human nature as consistently collectivist- individual identities are largely shaped by the social linguistic groups that they are exposed to. Consequently, communal moral standards are decided both by coercion and consensus and unchanging universal principles are non-existent.  

According to Bauman, there are seven moral conditions that he argues represent the marks of the moral conditions, from a Postmodern perspective. Firstly, the idea that humans are morally ambivalent, neither essentially good nor essentially bad. Second, moral phenomenon is inherently ‘non-rational’, negating the wisdom in creating a fixed rule guide. Third, as alluded to above, morality is incurably aporetic- meaning that it is essentially an oxymoron. Fourth, morality is not universalizable. Fifth, morality is bound to remain irrational. Sixth, morality is originally a product of the self; not of society, and finally, Postmodernism exposes the political nature of ethical codes. 

Sending troops to defeat ISIL

The Postmodern perspective has been criticised by a number of scholars both on the left and right of the political spectrum. Prominent scholar, Noam Chomsky criticised Postmodern perspective for being too ambiguous, complex and lacking in empirical and analytical knowledge. 

In a bid to demystify Postmodernism, one needs to relate it back to a case study. The recent debates in New Zealand around sending troops to help train Iraqi forces to defeat ISIL provides a good example of how morality exists in plurality. Even John Key, who supports sending troops to Iraq, highlighted the complexity of his decision in his speech- which can be found here. There exists strong moral arguments to be made on both sides. On the one hand, immense suffering is occurring under ISIL’s barbaric control, and it seems that morally we should be obliged to act quickly to prevent such atrocities from continuing. On the other hand, by sending in troops to train the Iraqi forces, we are not only putting our own troops in danger, we will also be responsible for training troops that will undoubtedly kill others, which could, potentially, result in civilian deaths. Furthermore, by engaging in the fight we increase the terror risk at home. Both inaction and action are both moral and imoral. This highlights an example of morality being an aporetic oxymoron that was touched on earlier.

Derrida explains, ‘our responsibility to one other involves sacrificing our responsibility to all others’. According to Dan Bully, this contradiction highlights the ‘irresolvable paradox of morality and responsibility’. Any ranking of moral responsibility is arbitrarily politicised. Humanitarian interventions and the like will always have morally opposing views, and one must embrace that it is not from some morally objective position that decision over course of action will be made- these decisions will be made via political compromise. As Maja Zehfuss states “knowledge incurs our trust, and it nicely takes away the agonising: if we know what is right, we embark on this course of action in good conscience”. Truth, for Postmodernists, is often viewed as a Western centric construct aimed to gain and justify power. Ethics therefore is inherently political. By embracing responsibility for actions, as opposed to deferring them to guidelines based on a ‘moral code’ or legislation, there is the potential for less suffering as taking responsibility can act as a deterrent. Furthermore, exposing the politics of the decision prevents ulterior motives from going unnoticed. As summed up by Chris Brown, an awareness can cause us to “act modestly, to be aware of our limitations and to be suspicious of grand narratives of salvation which pretend that there are no tragic choices to be made”.

Source: http://www.notable-quotes.com/b/george_w_bush_quote_2.jpg

Postmodernism in general is often very sceptical of invasive foreign policy, for example, Stephen R. C. Nicks questioned if the United States misused claims of ‘knowledge’ and ‘truth’- by using the power gained from these claims to impose their own group ideology and capitalist system onto other states. An audio recording of Nicks explaining some of these claims can be found here. This is echoed by Jean Francious who criticises Western civilisation using ‘reason, truth and reality’ to wrought dominance and oppression over less powerful states. Western nations have the power to assert their moral legitimacy to conduct expressions of force . Through their monopoly on ‘knowledge’, Western nations can deny the moral legitimacy of the global south. The global south are often associated with irrational behaviour, backward institutions and inability to conduct moral humanitarian interventions. Knowledge is power, and according to the Postmodern critique, this power is often used to control what is, and who is able to conduct, a ‘just’ war. Postmodernism aims to de-construct concepts such as reason truth and knowledge so as to gain a more in-depth and honest version of the situation. Postmodernism is emancipatory in the sense that its primary aim is to expose the source of moral power that is concealed in modern political thought.

By Kamala Busch-Marsden