From Monologue to Dialogue – Some PoMo Words Defined

Backloading Postmodernism

Recently, The Gospel Coalition announced that it is offering a course on the poststructuralist/postmodernist philosophers Jacques Derrida and Michel Foucault titled “Derrida, Foucault, and the Bible.”1 They state that the “course will help [students] see what Derrida and Foucault are really saying, and show [students] how [they] can bring their thought into conversation with the Bible.”2 Sadly, many today don’t recognize the “conversation” language as specifically postmodern because it is so prevalent in our society. The same is true for terms like “dialogue,” “community,” and “spaces.” These are, of course, common terms, but they are loaded when placed in contexts such as the above mentioned intro to a course on poststructuralist/postmodernist philosophers. The point of this blog, then, is to point out some loaded terms that Christians should be aware of when we are speaking with proponents of social justice, critical race theory, and cultural Marxism.

Such language is reflective of an underlying worldview that is at odds with the Christian faith. For instance, when a postmodernist states that we should bring x into conversation with y, this implies that neither x nor y “has all the answers” regarding the subject matter of which they speak. For the postmodernist, there is no overarching theory or story of life, no meta-narrative, and so x and y do not emerge from a more general epistemological structure against which they may be evaluated for consistency, cogency, or approximate distance from the truth. Instead, x and y have emerged from different epistemological backgrounds that may be attempting to deal with a particular question or concern of philosophy or anthropology or science or religion, etc, and they are, therefore, related to one another as different approaches to obtaining knowledge. They may be compared and contrasted, as well as heuristically combined in order to further each individual approach, but they are separated from one another at the epistemological root. Bringing a text into conversation with another, therefore, does not mean simply comparing and contrasting different texts, but doing so under the guiding assumption that neither text has “the” “T”ruth, but only articulates, because it is only capable of articulating, a partial and perspectival set of relatively important “t”ruths.

Similarly, the postmodernist privileges dialogue over and against monologue, seeing as no one text can be said to have the Truth to the exclusion of other texts. In postmodernism, monologue is regarded as a totalitarian form of communication, a means of enacting ideological and metaphysical violence in which the voices of those who do not have power are suppressed and marginalized as wrong, incorrect, untrue, or aberrant. For the postmodernist, dialogue places individuals on level ground, where they can exchange ideas with one another in an open-ended format of communication. The assumption, again, is that there is no top-to-bottom communication that gives us an absolute standard against which we may compare and contrast ideas in order to see which are better or worse, more or less conformable to the truth, and true or false.

Given that there is no single unifying narrative, delivered in the form of a monologue, that provides an objective basis for the veridical and axiological evaluation and analysis of ideas, it follows that there are no individuals who are completely isolated and sovereign Subjects capable of obtaining those ideas on his or her own. Thus, the postmodernist privileges the many over and against the one, i.e. the community over and against the individual. Everyone belongs to a community, therefore, without which he or she would be unable to be what they are; thus community is privileged over and against the individual.

Lastly, the notion of “space” in postmodernism follows the same line of reasoning. Rather than viewing social relations as really being hierarchical in nature, postmodernism views them as relative to one another on a horizontal plain. Thus, postmodernist philosophers and theorists will speak of “making space” for marginalized concepts, persons, practices, etc. This is an implicit rejection of transcendence and its necessary consequence – hierarchical arrangement. Implicit in this notion of space, then, is the assumption that the occupation of space by individuals is not due to any divinely or naturally ordained set of circumstances (e.g. fate, predestination, mechanical determinism, psychical determinism, etc), but to human agents actively negotiating the boundaries that separate them from one another.

Concluding Remarks

This short list is by no means complete, but it covers some of the more extensively used language taken directly from postmodern philosophy. Listen to a podcast and you will likely hear phrases such as the following –

“This is the conversation we need to be having in our institutions…”

“We need a dialogue, not a monologue, if we are going to make any progress…”

“Those of us within the Christian [or Gamer, or Black, or White, or Asian, or Hindu, or Technological, or – take your pic!] community…”

“Marginalized people need to know that we are making a safe space for them to be themselves…”

And you might even come across a statement like this one –

“Our community is open to having conversations about how to carve out spaces” for underrepresented communities, with an eye toward having a healthy dialogue about subject x.”

When these words show up in particularly postmodernist influenced contexts, or when they appear within a cluster of other postmodern specific terms (e.g. decentering, centering, the Other, othering, et al), be careful to actually hear where the speaker is coming from. Understand that the postmodernist is saying something very specific that only bears a superficial resemblance to what you, as a Christian, may mean.

Until next time,
Soli Deo Gloria

If you want to read about more of these terms, check out my article at the Facebook Biblical Trinitarian page, Social Justice “Buzz Words” and Why You Should Not Use Them.

2 ibid. (emphasis added)


On the Limited Value of Moderated Debates

Moderated Debate & Artificial Discursive Constraints

You have heard it said that moderated public debates are the best means of demonstrating the truth of one’s doctrinal position. But is that really the case? I don’t think so. Let me explain why.

Debates Artificially Limit What Constitutes Evidence for One’s Doctrine

If you listen to any number of debates on, say, the doctrine of unconditional election, you are 9 times out of 10 able to determine who is going to use what text, and how they are going to use it. In part, this is to be expected, seeing as the subject matter is very specific. As a narrowly defined subject of debate, it follows that what constitutes evidence in defense of, or attack on, one’s view of that subject is going to be the same across the board, in some respects.

Artificial limitations, then, are limitations that are not necessitated by the subject itself. These limitations serve to more narrowly constrain what constitutes evidence for one’s doctrine, but, more problematically, also rule out legitimate forms of evidence that could establish one’s position (or refute the position of his opponent). This results in others perceiving a debater’s doctrine to have been established when he has presented evidence meeting the artificial constraints superimposed upon the subject matter under consideration.

Debates Artificially Limit the Acceptable Arguments in Defense of One’s Doctrine

Given that the lines of evidence are more narrowly drawn, this likewise limits the kinds of arguments one can present in defense of one’s doctrine. Consequently, if one has strong arguments in defense of his doctrine he may not be able to present them. And if he is not able to present them, then his position will have a weak defense in the minds of his listeners, including his debate opponent. This will misrepresent the doctrine’s defensibility, leading listeners to think that the only arguments it has in its defense are unsound.

Debaters are Artificially Constrained by Social Expectations

The social expectations that constrain a debater cover, but are not limited to, the following:

a. Speakers confident of the truth of their doctrine will speak with confidence in any given
social event concerning their doctrine.

b. Better packaged – i.e. concise and simplistic – arguments are better – i.e. sound – arguments.

c. Complex arguments are “off-topic,” evidence that a speaker is “intellectualizing” what he knows is indefensible.

d. Cross examination lays all of one’s cards out on the table.

Thus –

a.’ The debater who appears to lack confidence is interpreted to lack confidence in his doctrine’s truth. .

b.’ The debater who presents longer and more elaborate arguments is interpreted to have a weaker case (i.e. he is thought to be making his argument more complex to cover its lack of substance)

c.’ The debater who presents complex arguments, integrating sub-arguments inherent to the main topic are interpreted as being off-topic.

d.’ The debater cannot clarify problematic questions (e.g. leading and “complex” questions), and is therefore either answers unfair questions, appearing incorrect, or does not answer such questions, appearing therefore to be unable to answer in defense of his doctrine.

The Superiority of Dialogue

Dialogue is superior to moderate debate because it is not hamstrung by the artificial discursive constraints mentioned above. Knowledgeable interlocutors can adapt to one another’s presentations, non-fallaciously, in order to address their opposition’s claims and arguments. This allows for real time engagement when new or previously unheard arguments and evidence are brought forward by either interlocutor. This would eliminate the script-like nature of argumentation found in debates, allowing for one to actually evaluate his opponent’s position as his opponent has presented it.

As for personalities, it seems to be the case that without the aforementioned artificial discursive constraints placed upon them, interlocutors who are deceptive, irrational, sinfully aggressive, ignorant, etc will seemingly be a little easier to spot, since the format gives them enough of a wide berth to establish their doctrines as true in a rationally coherent, honest, charitable, and knowledgeable manner, but they have clearly chosen to not so do.

The Written Word is Best

Once a text is written, its non-omnipresent & non-omniscient author cannot nudge his readers to infer this or that conclusion by his intonation, gesticulations, dress, volume, and so on. The reader is left to decide, on the basis of the text, whether or not the author’s argumentation is sound. This stands in sharp contrast to moderated debates and non-debate dialogues, for in these latter formats mentioned one’s position can be changed, modified, denied, etc within the very contexts in which they are uttered. So while it is true that a dialogue is more open and, therefore, valuable as a real-life engagement with one’s opponents views that shed new light on what constitutes evidence in favor of one’s doctrine, it is likewise true that it is inferior to written exchanges.

The written word is best because it forces the reader to examine the arguments presented, not the personality behind the arguments presented.

Don’t Get Me Wrong

I like moderated debates. I enjoy the sport of it all. But that’s the reason why I can’t say that it is a superior means of concluding that either one or another doctrine has good evidential and argumentative support, let along concluding that one or another doctrine is true.

Moreover, I think moderated debates can serve the function of introducing a doctrine to the general public. Within academic contexts the citation of proponents of one’s doctrine can drive listeners to study the doctrine in question more deeply and, ultimately, come to their own conclusions. Moderated debate also brings abstruse doctrines to a level most people can understand, and this useful for many people.

If we are seeking to come to a conclusion about whether or not a doctrine is biblical, I think written exchanges are superior.

Just my 2¢.

Soli Deo Gloria