ETHICAL DILEMMAS IN POSTMODERNISM

Dr.M.Susithra

The Dept. of Philosophy &Centre for Philosophical Research

The Madura College (Autonomous),Madurai-11,T.N.,India.

Introduction to Postmodern Thoughts:

A serious intellectual disorder that is widespread today amongst literary persons and even philosophers is Pomophobia (Postmodernism phobia). This is because postmodernism is always related with the notorious slogan ‘break the rules'. When it comes to ethics, postmodernism which is condemned as an intellectual terror is concluded to have nothing to say or do productively.

This is a bad reading of postmodernism. In this juncture this paper intends to surf the venture of postmodernism, so that a clear association between ethics and postmodernism could be brought to the floor.

It is quite known that ethics is a branch of knowledge concerned with moral principles. It deals with the judgments of what is right and wrong, good and evil and many do's and don'ts. Various schools of thought according to their philosophical position prescribe ethical norms and there would be a linear cum structuralized construction in such moral codes. This is the status in both traditional and modernist thoughts. The point to be emphasized here is that, despite of its name modernity retains much of the traditional bearings. On one hand, it has strengthened some hazardous norms of tradition. On the other hand in spite of the progress in science, reason, technology, liberation, and freedom modernity has incepted many serious problems.  What if modernity strengthens tradition is a major question and what has modernity to do with problems would be another question. Wars, terrorism, war on terror, genocide, holocaust, death camps and death squads are some of the burning political issues that the world is witnessing right from industrial revolution in the name of progression. Racism, casteism, and religious fundamentalism are worsening in these times with technocratic face which are no doubt the offspring of tradition. Apart from these issues in the present day there are unthinkable dilemmas around the problems of gender injustice, transgender inequality, and homosexual relationships in social and cultural sphere. In economic sphere the chaos and confusions over liberalization, privatization and globalization is a mammoth problem that has got questions around poverty, unemployment, under-employment, food crisis, junk technology etc. In the ecological sphere the globe confronts the threat of ecological disasters, like extinction of species, globalwarming, nuclear pollution, cyber pollution, gene manipulation, genetic engineering, human experimentation, euthanasia, human cloning etc.,

The link between all these mind-boggling and burning social, cultural, economic, political and ecological issues is all are ethical problems which have been hardly addressed by tradition and modern ethical doctrines. Even if there are explications made by ethical theories they are constructed as grandnarratives which do not pay heed to micro level issues whereas postmodernism endlessly operates with the logic of undecidability. It makes ruptures into well defined norms and in fact ruptures its own path. Postmodernism has got no fixed principle that is why the most controversial postmodern thought, deconstruction is infamously called a philosophy that says nothing.

Postmodernism never encourages lofty principles and is vigilant and critical of the act both universalizing and particularizing. The righteousness in postmodernity is not a transcendental signified that bestows some lofty values. Postmodernism is rebellious to accept a sacred text as ethical encyclopedia. Rather it engages in dialogue with various political, social, cultural, economical, and psychological issues; it endorses the significance of context to decide the meaning. Also in ethical grounds there are varied postmodern thoughts and each postmodernist has got her/his own way of doing philosophy. In fact postmodernism is highly debated even between postmodernists themselves. Nick Lacey describes the mindset of the postmodernists that, the postmodernists resound that post-capitalist society has reduced everything to surface including human beings.1

The postmodernists tend to ‘de-naturalize'2 various beliefs and practices that are part and parcel of our lives. Their writings shatter the dogma of culture, tradition, religion and exhibit that they are made by us and not given to us. But the social and political upliftment of the ‘others' like the feminist, gay, lesbian, Marxist, ethnic, black is passionately supported by them. The postmodernists stand for the ‘other' in the face of the power. In such sense the postmodernists have got position. But this position is not a theoretical armchair philosophizing position. Postmodernists have no readymade ethical rules to be applied.

At this outset let us probe into the thoughts of few postmodern map-makers and take a quick look at their ethical discourse. For the ease of our understanding postmodernists are divided into two main camps. According to Shanon Weiss and Karla Wesley they are diametrically opposed as Skeptical Postmodernists and Affirmative Postmodernists. The former are those who disrupt the existing tendencies and the fixities in all systems. They are extremely critical of the modern project and demonstrate their resistance to all structures. To them "theory conceals, distorts, and obfuscates, it is alienated, disparated, dissonant, it means to exclude, order, and control rival powers"3.  The latter begin with rupture into the existing structure and then go in search for the alternatives. These postmodernists also reject theory but for them theory need not be abolished but transformed. They in fact support movements organised around peace, environment, and feminism4. According to Linda Hutcheon the postmodern war lies between Radically Antagonistic and the Provisionally Supportive.

Hal Foster expression of these two camps is as a postmodernism of resistance, and the other, of reaction, one poststructuralist and the other neoconservative.

Jean Baudrillard is identified as skeptical postmodernist by Rousenau for the statements like, "everything has already happened….nothing new can occur," or "there is no real world"5 Ihab Hassan seems to be a neoconservative postmodernist who deliberately comments that postmodernism has become ‘a shibboleth for tendencies in film, theater, dance, music, art, and architecture, in literature and criticism; in philosophy, theology, psychoanalysis, and historiography; in new sciences, cybernetic technologies, and various cultural life styles.6

Postmodernists like Lyotard provoke revolt against modernity by pledging "Let us wage war on totality, let us be witnesses to the unrepresentable; let us activate the differences and save the honour of the name".7

Roland Barthes, one among the masterminds of postmodernism who is widely known for his statement, ‘author is dead' reflects his view about the ethical issue whether religion and God are necessary for humans to be humanistic,

"It is important to emphasize at this point that there is no hidden power called Being which designed or operated the escalator. Nobody whispered in the ears of the early Greeks, the poets of the West. There is just us, in the grip of no power save those of the words we happen to speak"8

"We shall not need a picture of 'the human self' in order to have morality"9 He said that life in the gulags "Gradually . . . disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either -- but right through every human heart -- and through all human hearts"10

So, Roland Barthes provoking and proclaiming the death of author is not an inhuman stand but vitally a humanistic position to democratize the centre.

Polish postmodern thinker and sociologist Zygmunt Bauman famous for his work Postmodern Ethics delineates Postmodern ethics with the phrase, ‘morality without ethical code'11.

Bauman's response to the ambiguity of human reality is based in his position that it is our moral capacity that essentially defines us as human beings:

It is society, its continuing existence and its well-being, that is made possible by the moral competence of its members – not the other way round ….  Rather than reiterating that there would be no moral individuals if not for the training/drilling job performed by society, we move toward the understanding that it must be the moral capacity of human beings that makes them so conspicuously capable to form societies and against all odds to secure their – happy or less happy – survival ….  [I]t is the personal morality that makes ethical negotiation and consensus possible, not the other way round.12

Whatsoever the disagreement may exist between each Postmodernist, postmodernism creates the awareness of the politics of the dominant and the universal privilege granted to White-Male-European-Bourgeois. In supplement it exposes those scheduled for oppression by the dominant culture- the woman, black, gays, lesbian, native people, proletariat, bisexual, ethnics, aborginals.

Deconstruction as Ethics:

This part of the paper elaborates some of the contemporary ethical debates on the socio-political problems carried out by most celebrated cum controversial postmodern intellectual Jacques Derrida.

Derrida's philosophical inquiry and concern towards the problems of the other (The idea of ‘other' is drawn by Derrida form Levinas) is evident from an interview in 1981 in which Derrida describes: "deconstruction is always deeply concerned with the "other" of language….The critique of logocentrism is above all else the search for the "other" and the "other of language""13

The fundamental tendencies within "Western" thought, logocentricism : the belief in "the existence… of a permanent truth"; egocentricism : the belief in a permanent self; phonocentricism : the priority of sound over the written word; phallocentricism : the dominance of the male over the female paradigm; ethnocentrism : the "superiority" of one culture and intellectual traditions over others are the targets of Derrida's deconstruction.

Derrida in ‘Afterword: Toward An Ethic of Discussion' unwinds the confusion over his badly misunderstood phrase, ‘There is nothing outside the text' (il n' ya pas de ors-texte) 14 by writing, ‘for some become a slogan, in general so badly misunderstood, of deconstruction.'15. He suggests an alternative formulation that is liable to less confusion: "there is nothing outside context."16In his other works he even stated that, "there is nothing but context"17 and "No meaning can be determined out of context, but no context permits saturation."18

Let us take the issue of violence, if it is asked whether postmodernist endorse ahimsa (non-violence) or himsa (violence)? Derrida would give the answer, that it is contextual. But Derrida has been repeatedly explicating the importance of ethics and his statements like "Deconstruction is justice", "openness towards others", "democracy to come" are proofs for his ethical concern.In an interview to Richard Kearney on "Hospitality, Justice and Responsibility" Derrida says "Ethics and politics start with undecidability. If we know what to do, if I knew in terms of knowledge what I have to do before the decision, then the decision would not be a decision. It would simply be the application of a rule, the consequence of a premiss, and there would be no problem, there would be no decision…. If there is a decision it has to go through undecidability and make a leap beyond the field of theoretical knowledge. So when I say ‘I don't know what to do', this is not the negative condition of decision. It is rather the possibility of decision…."19 Derrida in his interview to Dr. Michal Ben-Naftali at the Shoah Resource Center, International School for Holocaust studies makes it clear that he does not want to make any judgment or conclusion over Jankelevitch standpoint. Derrida holds that regarding the Genocide forgiveness is problematic. He answers the question, with more questions, "Forgive whom, actually? Who forgives whom? It would be up to the victims themselves to forgive or not forgive the butchers. But we are today the heirs of the victims or the heirs of the butchers. And the question of forgiveness cannot be asked today as such, in pure form. But his reference to the Shoah forces us in any case to ask ourselves what forgiveness means, if it is possible, if it is necessary, where it comes from, what is the culture that carries the notion of forgiveness, is there forgiveness in cultures where the Torah is not somehow the origin? These for me are questions, not only speculative questions, but truly the questions of the historical existence in which we are."20

In his discussion on law and justice, Derrida identifies justice with deconstruction itself. He remarks ‘Deconstructive justice' is not simply a regulative ideal to which real world law will always be aspiring and failing. Deconstructive justice is that possibility of justice always held open in law even as it fails itself. Deconstructive justice is that irrepressible call for justice that is always active within law, but that law in practice cannot finally achieve….. Since, on the one hand, justice can only appear in the world through the practice of law, and, on the other, law can never satisfactorily fulfill the call to justice, law as it is practised is both the only way in which justice can become real, and simultaneously the clearest indication of the impossibility of complete justice. Law both exhibits and undermines justice at one and the same time.21

Two weeks after the September 11, 2001 twin tower attack at New York, Giovanno Barrodori literally caught hold of philosopher Jacques Derrida and Jurgen Habermas questioning them to respond as philosophers of the time. In his interview Derrida picks up the responsibility of deconstructing terrorism which Giovanna has recorded in her book, "Philosophy in a Time of Terror".

Derrida raises the question whether terrorism can claim a political content or is it an ordinary criminal activity. Is it that state terrorism acceptable, if not what is the difference between war and terrorism? Derrida clearly comments that terrorism and such deconstructive strains could be detected and named but not wholly conquered or controlled.

Derrida further states that despite all the horror that we witnessed it is not unfeasible that one day we will look back at 9/11 as the last example of a link between terror and territory, as the last eruption of an archaic theater of violence destined to strike the imagination. For further attacks as would be the case with chemical and biological weapons or simply major digital communication disruptions. May be silent, invisible, and ultimately unimaginable. 22

For this devastating problem, Derrida calls for a planetary response involving a transition from classical international law, still anchored in the nineteenth century model of the nation-State to a new cosmopolitan order in which multilateral institutions and continental alliances would become the chief political actors. Has international law become obsolete in the face of the new subnational and cross national threats? Is the heart throbbing question that is raised here by Derrida.

Derrida himself is one who has "participated in campaigning against apartheid, the imprisonment of Nelson Mandela, and racism; and in campaigns for immigrants' and refugees' rights. He also strongly opposed totalitarian Communism, particularly in Czechoslovakia, where he participated in a group campaigning for solidarity with intellectual dissidents. As a consequence he was arrested in Prague on absurd charges of drug trafficking in 1981 and was only released after diplomatic protest."23

Forgiveness, tolerance, death, hospitality, justice are key areas discussed by Derrida in his writings which make it clear that Derrida is much concerned about ethics. He has even dedicated his works like Of Hospitality, Politics of Friendship to ethical dialogues.

Hence the philosophy of deconstruction is not aimed at destruction or annihilation or anything negative rather it engages decentering. In fact it encourages reconstruction but "How could you reconstruct anything without deconstruction?"24 is his question. All that deconstruction aims at is to celebrate the pluralities, differences. Never is derrida against ethics but that of a categorical framing of ethical principles

Conclusion:

Postmodernism as a movement (which has been very much instilled by modernity) distorts modernity on the grounds of fixity, totality, institutionalization, centrality, rigidity. Instead it takes up those issues of issues like plurality, irrationality, fragmentation, sin, suicide, and sexuality which were ignored by modernity.25

Postmodern thought rejects homogenization of culture that modernism had been consistently upholding. It conducts the fragmentation of modern culture by encouraging the decentralization and diversity of life forms. It sees no difference such as ‘high' culture and ‘low' culture. As it protests against totalitarianism of rationality, instead it suggests narrations and irrational behavior. But this does not mean postmodernism simply supports all sorts of narrations and myths. It vehemently condemns grand narratives and replaces them with local cum micro narratives. Particularly when it comes to metaphysical aspects, it demolishes foundationalism, essentialism, and absolutism. It denies absolute objectivity of truth, reality and knowledge and supports plurality of truths, multiplicity of meaning and celebration of difference. When it comes to epistemology, postmodernism deliberately refuses reason as an ultimate instrument of knowledge. In social and political sphere it closely observes the disparity, coercion and domination implanted by the utopian concepts of universalism, transcendentalism. In turn postmodernism develops "incredulity toward metanarratives"26 andrejects any foundational or universalistic account of existence. It invokes de-naturalization of hierarchy and topsy-turvy of centrality.   In ethical grounds though postmodernists are groundless, they value plurality of cultural, ethnic and religious "small narratives". They aim to (re)conceptualize a pluralistic justice which takes into account the concern for the "other", the "excluded", "unrepresented", "unknown" or "marginalized": the postmodern ethico-political project constitutes a response to "difference, exclusion and marginalisation"27 produced by modernity. Except for the distrust in systematic moral codes and integrated forms of life, postmodernism shows respect to moral relativism and promote diversity of all kinds.

Hence, an extensive examination of postmodernism indicates that postmodernism revisits modernity, modernism and modernization and unearths the damages caused by them. It opens up various other possibilities that rejoice fluidity, variations, multiplicity, diversity, plurality, difference, etc., without prescribing any final solution.

END NOTES:

1. Nick Lacey, Introduction to Film
2. Linda Hutcheon, The Politics of Postmodernism, (London and New York: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group, 2003), p.2.
3. 3. (Rosenau 1992: 81)
4. 4. (Rosenau 1993: 42)
5. 5. (Rosenau 1992: 64, 110)
6. 6. Ihab Hassan, The Postmodern Turn: Essays in Postmodern Theory and Culture,(n.p.: Ohio State University Press, 1987), p.xi.
7. Jean-Francois Lyotard, The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, trans. Geoff Benniengton & Brian Massumi (Manchester University Press, 1984), p.81-2
8. Essays on Heidegger and Others: Philosophical Papers, v 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. p.36)
9. 9. Ibid., p.160
10. 10. Ibid., p.615.
11. 11. Zygmunt Bauman, Postmodern Ethics (Blackwell, 1993),p. 31
12. 12. Ibid., p.32, p.34
13. 13. ‘Deconstruction and the Other', Interview with Richard Kearney, in Kearney, Dialogues with Contemporary Continental Thinkers (Manchester: Manchester University Press: 1984), p.123.
14. 14. Of Grammatology, p.158
15. 15. Jacques Derrida, ‘Afterword: Toward An Ethic of Discussion', trans. Samuel Weber, in Limited Inc (Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University Press, 1988), p.136

16.  Ibid.,

17.  Jacques Derrida, ‘Biodegradables', trans. Peggy Kamuf, Critical Inquiry, 15:4 (1989), p.873.

18.  Jacques Derrida, ‘Living On' trans. James Hulbert, in Harold Bloom et al., Deconstruction and Criticism (New York: Seabury Press, 1979), p.81)

19.  Richard Keraney and Mark Dooley ed., Questioning Ethics: Contemporary Debates in Philosophy, Hospitality, Justice and Responsibility, (Routledge: London and New York, 1999), p.66)

20.  An Interview With Professor Jacques Derrida, Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, Paris, January 8, 1998, Jerusalem, Interviewer: Dr. Michal Ben-Naftali, translated from French by Dr. Moshe Ron.

21.  Nick Mansfield, Derrida and the Culture Debate: Autoimmunity, Law and Decision, Macquarie University Press.

22.  Philosophy in a Time of Terror: Dialogues With Jürgen Habermas and Jacques Derrida (University of Chicago Press, 2003), pp.xiii.

23.  Barry Stocker, "Derrida on Deconstruction", Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, London and New York, 2006, p. 6)

24.  Richard Kearney and Mark Dooley ed., Questioning Ethics: Contemporary Debates in Philosophy, Hospitality, Justice and Responsibility, (Routledge: London and New York, 1999),p.77

25.  Hari Shankar Prasad, "Looking for the Postmodern Ideas in the Buddha and Nagarjuna", p.221 ed. R.P.Singh, "Reason, Dialectic and Postmodern Philosophy: Indian and Western Perspectives", Om Publications, Faridabad, 2001).

26.  J.F.Lyotard, The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 19884, p.xxiv)

27.  A.Giddens, Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in Late modern Age, Oxford: Polity Press, 1991, p.6 (emphasis in original))