Postmodernism
It is at this crucial point of investigation that my unit begins to unfold. Postmodernists have long held that objectivity is an impossibility. Many facts and truths, they argue, come from some set of beliefs that are shaped by shared perceptions. They argue that since there is variance in perception, there is also variance in belief, meaning there can very well be a variance in what we hold as fact or truth or right. In the final analysis, postmodernism argues that our commonly held beliefs are manifested from some set of, unproven presumptions that we as a people use to determine what is fact or truth or right. We decide what makes sense to us and our perceptions of reality are then validated through the crafting of some belief system in which we place our faith and from which we may, for instance, build our system of laws.
Postmodernism, however, has caused some controversy. Some argue that postmodernism destroys the meaning in our laws and even our religions by claiming that our perceptions are completely relative. It is not, to my understanding, that postmodern theorists claim there can be no facts or truths. It does "not embrace an absolute relativism" but rather "insists that….propositions of truth are time- and context- sensitive" (Jencks, 59, 1986). 'Facts' in a certain context may be considered a human construct and thus open to interpretation. In my discipline, for example, there is no argument to be made that Abraham Lincoln was a President of the United States, but a great deal of debate as to whether he was any good in this position. This unit does not presume that postmodernists are correct. But I do believe that the postmodernist stress on contexts and perspectives can be a valuable tool, a different lens, to observe patterns and developments in history.
To understand better the value of postmodern themes let's return to the previous example. Over much of American history women were not allowed to own property. Women were not allowed to vote. Women did not have the authority to divorce and separate from their husbands. In fact upon marriage women gave up all of their valuables and possessions to their husbands. They worked in the home and raised children. They tended to domestic affairs and were generally not inclined toward higher education or any prestigious profession (Faragher, 117, 2003). This has all changed dramatically. From a modern perspective that sort of treatment of women was wrong. But at the time, be it 1836 or 1956, it was common practice and many women accepted that role. In the context of that period it was 'right' and laws of the time followed suit. So which version of right is the most right? We have to believe, of course, that our right in 2005 is the most right because we want to believe that we are progressing. This is where the postmodern view of right and wrong sheds light on our predicament. Postmodernists might very well say that if an argument is made strong enough and long enough, as many women did for many years, perhaps at some point we all believe it and adopt it as fact. But it is important to realize the evolution of this fact. The question then might be will this fact last another 200 years? What will be the 'right' or 'truth' about women of 2205? If it has changed, isn't it likely to change again? Is our current perception of women in this country the right one? It is not so much that there must be a definitive answer, but rather that the question itself poses an interesting problem. The attempt to solve this mystery is what gives the process its value.
It is these types of questions that are important for students of history to ask. It is part of learning about who we are to understand why it is that we think what we do. It is of crucial importance to understand also why what we think has changed, and what consequences that has on everyday existence and subsequently the prospect of the future. For example, our system of government was developed because of a set of predominating ideas that became so infectious that they created a revolution. Those ideas were then codified into our Constitution. All of this was based on shifting sets of perceptions about governance, personal freedom, and open commerce. People of this time decided, as I believe postmodernists would say, with some collective sense of right to shed the ways of the old world and create a new human existence to serve as the new American truth. When we see the formation of our country from this perspective we can at least consider whether a republican form of government is the right one (the heroic model of history) or simply the result of a clever convincing set of arguments that led early colonials to believe it was right and therefore it "became" right. Even if the latter is true, republicanism can still be right, based on our historical judgment, a point that cannot be overstated. Furthermore, since we consistently make reference to this time and the intentions of the founders of the nation as a means for applying constitutional rules to contemporary situations, we might use this perspective to draw conclusions about whether our republican form of government is serving its purposes and if it can be sustained for years to come. In sum, I believe that teachers can use the tenets of postmodernism as a way of critically thinking about, the evolution of American thought and its many applications: politics, religion, constitutional law, social reformation, economic philosophy, foreign policy, to name only a few. But the philosophy can also be of great assistance to teachers in helping students understand the difficulty in making the transition from one form of what we might call truth to another.
We must consider whether transformations of perspectives and beliefs are easily achieved. Evidence seems to suggest that this is rarely the case. My parents and I had this experience. As I grew older and thought myself ready to make adult decisions without my parents, they did not see fit to let go of rules they felt were appropriate to guard my behavior. In the end, despite my best efforts, they won because my argument paled in comparison to theirs and the overarching view of the community that backs the notion that parents know what is best. This did not keep me from testing the boundaries. There seems to be, in many cases and especially in this personal example, a natural clash between tradition and innovation, for lack of a better word. This sort of thing has happened frequently in our history.
In the early 20th century America and other industrialized, civilized nations (as they were called) became imperial powers. Germany, Japan, Great Britain, among others, sought to expand their influence to smaller, less militarized nations for many reasons. The United States hoped to spread American culture, exploit areas for their natural resources, expand trade, and establish an American military presence around the world. This was regarded by many as a natural progression from expansion west to expansion beyond our borders. By this time it had long been American principle that it was our manifest destiny to be among the great powers of the world (Faragher, 597-604, 2003). But imperialism came with a price. To some extent, it can be argued, the rise of imperialism led to the conflict in WWI. Despite America's best effort to stay isolated from battle, we entered the fray in 1917 (645-652, 2003). There were many Americans during this period including the pacifist spokesman William Jennings Bryan who opposed not only our imperialist ventures but also our entrance into a war that he saw as none of our concern. The federal government felt that there was no place for opposition of this sort and sought to suppress objections to the war by limiting civil liberties in order to protect national security. There efforts mark a great period of transition in our history. (604, 2003).
As students of history we are left to determine whether the government was and is justified in taking what seems an otherwise unconstitutional approach, or if the boundaries of republican government have been so severely breached that we should not only recognize what has happened with regard to constitutional law but attempt, in a modern political sense, to reverse the trend by setting new precedent. To some degree we are still making the transition and it has been a difficult one. Where is the line drawn between individual civil liberties and national security in times of war? This is the primary line of demarcation.
And so again we are left with the age-old question, what is the right answer? Finally, we must say that there isn't one right answer but in fact there can be many. Each answer is highly dependent on the context in which it is made, the evidence used to support the argument, and the willingness of the audience to respond favorably to a fresh perspective.
Comments: