Customer Reviews

Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault

5 star:		(24)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

This book isn't an introduction to postmodernism (PM). There are several introductions to PM on Amazon if that's what you want. Rather, its task could be described as turning some of the techniques of academic PM on its founders - Foucault, Derrida, Lyotard, & Co. The title could have been "Unmasking Postmodernism" because Hicks does so with devastating effect.

I have read several hundred books on philosophy from Plato to the present and I cannot think of one that I consider to have been more clearly written than this. The exposition is admirably jargon-free and straightforward, although some terms might be unfamiliar to some folks. This is the only book in many years that I began re-reading and marking up as soon as I had finished reading it the first time - I think it's that good.

It's important to distinguish between PM in the arts, which is largely an aesthetic trend, and academic PM, which exists almost exclusively in some humanities departments in the universities and identifies with particular epistemological and linguistic assumptions. This book is concerned with the latter group and Hicks provides a well documented case for the following historical sequence:

1) Leftist socialists had traditionally believed that reason and facts would show the superiority of socialism - theoretically, morally, and economically.

2) Academic PM's creators were all leftist socialists around the time that leftist socialism was failing - theoretically, morally, and economically (1950s on).

3) The reaction of leftist academic socialists to this wasn't to accept that they had been wrong. Instead, they availed themselves of recent developments in epistemology and linguistics as a pretext for dismissing reason and facts.

4) They then proceeded to impose leftist socialism on students from behind this mask.

This reaction parallels the Counter Enlightenment movements beginning over 200 years ago that were trying to save room for faith against the advance of science.

I was particularly interested to see Hicks point out the similarities between the tactics of creationists (anti-evolutionists) and PMs. I've been engaged in a running debate in print with a group of creationists for over a year and the similarities are striking and revealing. Academic PM definitely has a cult aspect to it; the movie "Invasion of the Bodysnatchers" comes to mind. American philosopher John Searle once remarked that French PM philosopher Jacques Derrida's work is the kind of stuff that gives bulls**t a bad name.

Some people will say that Hicks is a Randist and that he's merely criticizing PM from that perspective without understanding it. That's a knee-jerk PM tactic - if you disagree with us, you don't understand us. I'm not a Randist, nor am I particularly sympathetic to Rand, yet I didn't feel a Randist presence in the text other than to the extent that Randists still think reason has value and that all opinions are not created equal.

Hicks ends appropriately by telling us that because the Enlightenment project remains unfinished the PMs will be able to carry on as though that project has failed. It could be that the final refutation of academic PM will entail a significant advance in the completion of the Enlightenment project, although it will almost certainly be an updated conception of that project.

There is a lot more value in this book than what I'm reporting here, including a wonderfully illuminating account of the philosophical trends that led to PM and an inventory of the rhetorical tactics used by PMs, so I strongly recommend getting it in your hands ASAP.

Just finished reading this book. It took me about a week of very leisurely reading. The book is about 200 pages. This is how philosophy should be written, brief and to the point. People like me do not have a lot of time on our hands to pour through thick philosophical tomes hoping to discover one grain of wisdom in a sea of verbiage. What makes this book special is that every page, every word counts. This is not some superficial popularization, but a serious book filled with important ideas and serious implication for the modern world.

This is intellectual history written like a novel, and it reads like a novel. It's a dark novel, unfortunately, but there is reason for hope. The story it tells is of how postmodernism evolved from its dual roots of socialist utopianism and counter-enlightenment philosophy to become the dominant intellectual force in today's universities.

Beyond being just an intellectual history, the book represents a call to action for all those who value their Enlightenment heritage to articulate and defend the premises upon which the Enlightenment was built, but which were never fully articulated. In this book, Enlightenment doesn't remain some historical abstraction, but a great movement that has brought us individualism, science, technology, capitalism and all the fruits of the progress in all these fields. It's something that's worth defending, and I hope this book is read widely enough to make an impact in that direction.

I'm not a philosopher, I'm a retired scientist. So I'm probably not the best reviewer for this book. However, I did enjoy it. That in itself is unusual when I read philosophy.
In all fairness, I suspect this book probably would not be considered to be an "academic level" philosophy book, at least for the advanced undergraduate philosophy major. But it does take one through a history of philosophical thinking from the Enlightenment to the postmodern present.
I had done some prior reading about postmodernism. I enjoy reading about the subject for the same reason I like going to public aquariums - the denizens are so strange and alien that one is astonished that such odd creatures exist at all. Of course, behind the scenes in the aquarium are vast engineered systems to provide anm environment that will support the inhabitants. For the postmodernists, universities serve as that vast engineered system. This book explains why the postmodernists need such a system to survive in a world that doesn't focus on pickle slices, hot meat and trans-fats.
The book also does a good job of explaining in more-or-less plain English the vacuity of postmodern thought. If you aren't impressed and awed by the kind of self-congratulatory dense prose one often gets from philosophical writers, and you want a readable overview of the development and blossoming of dead-end thinking, this is the book for you. If you're a real philosopher, though, I'm sure you'll find it so accessible as to be beneath contempt. And if you're a postmodernist, stay away at all costs. It will be dangerous reading for you. Your trope might trip.

This book should be in every student's backpack. In the post-modern intellectual battleground in which each student find himself submerged - and sometimes drowning - this book offers essential intellectual self-defence for every student who still cares to think. No matter if you already know every answer to all the sundry irrationalities you face every day - herewith is a comprehensive summary of your intellectual enemy that for the first time clearly and comprehensively puts each of the post-modern heroes in their place.

Why is that so important? Well, what do you feel when you watch a butterfly emerge from its chrysalis? You watch it greet the sun, spread its wings and almost give thanks to existence for its rebirth. Imagine then another human being gleefully stamping their boot on that reborn butterfly, smilingly stamping the life out of it. Such is the situation in many places of academe. This book gives a defence to the fragile butterfly of the intellect.

One of the worst periods of my own life was spent at Auckland's Architecture School where I found myself being taught by intelligent human beings, many of whom seemed somehow intent on snuffing out young students' sense of certainty and their joy in learning about ideas and creating great art. I watched as many students became either irrational automatons emulating the noises made by these lecturers, or gave up in disgust - often questioning themselves and their own ability. They were crushed. That situation was not unique to my own alma mater - it pertains to nearly every grove of academia in the Western world. This book explains the mentality of scum who earn a pay-cheque by gleefully crushing impressionable young minds, and the strategies they employ to do it.

The book is a "great but very scary read." Written like an adventure story, it guides the reader confidently and clearly through the intellectual history of the last three-hundred years in order to explain why the `new intellectual age' we find ourselves in is in most respects a toxic Age of Crap.

My only gripe is that the adventure story does not end with a happy ending - although Ayn Rand and the Objectivist antidote to this intellectual poison are implicitly present on every page, where I expected their explicit appearance at the conclusion Stephen delivers only the truism that "what is still needed is a refutation of these [post-modern] historical premises, and an identification and defense of the alternatives to them." Here would have been an obvious opportunity to send the reader to cleaner Objectivist pastures elsewhere in which this work is being done. A recommended reading list would have been a welcome addition - perhaps he intends to set up such a thing online?

In any case, as with the recommendations given by others, this is "not a book review but flat-out endorsement." In many respects Stephen's book is a much-needed update of Rand's essay "For the New Intellectual' but this time expanded and with footnotes - it is like seeing the `director's cut' of Rand's earlier essay. It is that good.

Buy one for a student today. You might just save their life.

This is an enthusiastic endorsement of Stephen R. C. Hicks? Explaining Postmodernism. It is some great but very scary read.
Professor Hicks has written a sweeping yet very readable explanation of why contemporary intellectuals embrace postmodernism. This is the position widely championed in academic circles?from philosophy, literature, law and the social sciences?that holds that there is no truth, no reality, no clear meaning, no understanding and, most of all, no value in relying on human reason for any purpose whatsoever.
Most folks probably heard of this movement only rarely and indirectly. They hear about multiculturalism, the view that no culture is better than any other, all viewpoints no matter where they originate are worthy of respect. They learn about it by brushing up against political correctness, which is a paradoxical aspect of postmodernism since it assumes that saying and doing certain things is wrong and ought to be avoided. But, of course, postmodernism holds that nothing can be shown to be right or wrong. So how could anything be shown to be politically correct or incorrect?
Well, just so?nothing can be so shown but those who hold political power can still insist and force the rest of us to obey. Not because they can reasonably claim that their edicts are correct, true or right but because they prefer them. Yes, that?s all there is to postmodernist views on how we should act, namely, the preferences of those who get away with running the show.
Professor Hicks? wonderful account of how we ended in this fix?whereby nothing is deemed to be true or right or good but all we have is what influential people impose on the rest of us?is a tour de force of clear historical research. The most important figures in Western intellectual history show up, for better and for worse?most for worse?and among them the greatest villain is Immanuel Kant, the 18th Century German philosopher who brought about what has been called a Copernican Revolution. The substance of this revolution is that it is not reality that gives us the contents of our minds but our minds?or some great Mind (if you listen to Hegel)?that produces reality.
Yes, you read it right?the postmodernists do not think there is a real world for us to know. Instead everything is really invented, by everyone?s?or some obscure being?s?subjective mind. So there is no right way to interpret a novel, poem or even a scientific theory. It all depends on who is doing the ?interpreting,? which is to say, who is injecting his or her creative ideas into the stream of ideas of a society. There is no reality out there, however, to show whether these ideas are good or bad, sound or unsound. And if one protests that this is nonsense, postmodernists will quickly retort that one is deluded to think that ideas must be logical, reasonable. No, that?s just a prejudice.
That is what major thinkers believe these days, all around the Western world. Stanford, Harvard, Oxford, Cambridge, Princeton?you name the prestigious institution of your choice and the major figures in it, the books their presses like to publish, advocate this stuff with inordinate confidence built on absolutely nothing but thin air.
Professor Hicks? book was published in Tempe, AZ, by Scholargy Publishers, not by one of the ?important? publishing houses. This is sad but not at all surprising, considering the monumental expos? Professor Hicks manages to bring off in his work. Who would publish a book within the mainstream publishing community that shows beyond any reasonable doubt that mainstream publishing is largely complicit in perpetrating the greatest absurdity in intellectual circles when it keeps rolling out the works of such prominent figures as Richard Rorty, Jacques Derrida, Michael Foucault, Stanley Fish and others, all of whom are enamored by the likes of Hegel, Nietzsche, Martin Heidegger, Jean Paul Sartre and other absurdists.
One of Professor Hicks? most astute contributions is to explain why most of these absurdists are politically supportive of the Left?of socialism?even after the undeniably evident practical and theoretical demise of that political economic system. The story is brilliantly told. This read is eminently worth it and not beyond anyone?s attentive reach.

When speaking with a colleague about this book, he was surprised to find out that Postmodernism has such a storied history including the likes of Immanuel Kant and Bertrand Russell. And many readers also will be surprised to see the intellectual pedigree that Postmodernism boasts. Of course, Dr. Hicks isn't arguing that Kant or Russell were Postmodernists--but what he does in this quick and highly readable book is to show how Postmodernism evolved out of the ideas and historical trends of the last few hundred years in philosophy. Tracing the development of various ideas in epistemology and politics, Hicks finds the roots of Postmodernism in Kant, Rousseau, and other Counter-Enlightenment thinkers. The primary thesis of this book is that "the failure of epistemology made postmodernism possible, and the failure of socialism made postmodernism necessary." The history of modern epistemology has, by and large, failed at defending reason as one's means of knowing the world. The failure of socialism, both economically and morally, lead to, as Hicks calls it, a "crisis of faith" among many in the Left. In order to maintain their belief in the superiority of socialism over capitalism, many theorists used the failures of epistemology to eschew reason, reality, and truth. One now no longer has to deal with the evidence that shows the superiority of capitalism. Thus, we end up with the nihilistic, skeptical, and relativistic Postmodernism dominating much of academia and the political left.

Dr. Hicks is able to condense abstract and complicated ideas for a non-philosopher to understand without losing the essence of the ideas. He competently and clearly presents the ideas and positions without ever degenerating into ad hominem or resorting to polemics. As such, I highly recommend this wonderfully written and highly readable work to anyone--philosopher or not--with an interest in the history of ideas or an interest in understanding postmodernism.

A great read. It differed from what I expected -- which was more about the content of postmodernism -- but it was very informative. The book is more about the origins -- the philosophical predecessors -- of postmodernists. They were Kant, Hegel, Rousseau, Heidegger, Marcuse, and some less well known names. It seems to me that Kant was less responsible for postmodernism than the others than what Professor Hicks says or suggests, but he may be correct. When Kant said he found it necessary to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith, I think he meant religious faith. Postmodernists wish to deny not only knowledge, but the ideas of truth, objectivity, and the efficacy of science and reason, which they view as little more than tools to political power. Postmodernists have exercised their faith not in religion, but in socialism and egalitarianism.

Hegel's worship of the all-powerful state and Rouseau's worship of humans' "animal spirits" are widely known and indisputable. Postmodernists, when it comes to politics, revel in such worship. They claim there are no objective standards by which to judge one person's ideas or actions, especially in the political or cultural realms, so anything goes -- at least for those without the political power. The basic idea is to "deconstruct" the ideals or methods of one's opponents in order to expose their subjectivity and then to try to impose one's own subjectivity on them.

I have had little patience to read very much by postmodernists such as Derrida and Foucault. I have tried, but their subjectivity, lack of depth and logic, and especially obscurity is too painful. (While I am not fond of Rorty's ideas, his clarity is superior in comparison.) Postmodernist obscurity is exemplified by the hoax article that physicist Allen Sokal published in the leftist journal Social Text (briefly covered by Hicks) and the "random postmodern text generators" one can find on the Internet.

Professor Hicks also explains the origin of the term postmodernism and clearly explains how it differs from pre-modernism and modernism (the latter being basically the Enlightenment).

In conclusion, I generously thank Professor Hicks for exposing the postmodernist soul.

Hey, I'm not a philosophy expert and I can't throw around names like a lot of these reviewers, but I got a lot out of this book. That's it's strength: the fact that I could understand it and apply it right to the world around me and events I see unfolding in the political arena.

If you want a crash course in the intellectual pedigree and underpinnings of today's "progressives" then this is the place to start. And, if you want to continue reading and learning you'll easily find out what your next steps should be.

Rather than echo the many excellent reviews of Explaining Postmodernism, I thought it'd be useful to offer a different perspective - to illustrate why this book helped me understand a bewildering experience in a university course.

In 2009, I took a university English course called "Critical Introduction to Literature." I anticipated literary criticism, somewhat reminiscent of E.M. Forster's Aspects of the Novel Rather, the class was rooted in "Critical Theory;" our textbook was called Critical Theory Today: A User-Friendly Guide. However, neither the textbook nor the professor made clear that Critical Theory was an explicitly Marxist philosophy.

In critical theory, the artistic merits of literature are, essentially, irrelevant. In critical theory, literature is used mainly as a prop to critique society. Again, none of these core Marxist principles were made explicit to the students in my English class. In retrospect, I find this omission telling; an attempt to conceal an ideological agenda. If students understood the philosophical roots of critical theory and were given the chance to take an informed decision, they might ask some difficult questions or opt for another major.

The first chapter in the textbook was devoted to Marxist criticism. I asked the professor why we were studying Marxism, when the pillars of Marxism had been roundly disproved in theory and practice. Historian Richard Pipes wrote how Marx's core principles fly in the face of reality, and how Marx's key predictions were all disproved within a few decades of his death. (see Pipes's Communism: A History (Modern Library Chronicles)) The professor responded by saying how Marxism offered "another way of reading." I was rather confused, but went along without protest, assuming we'd get to literature eventually.

The second chapter in the textbook was devoted to psychoanalytic criticism. Freud's ideas, while somewhat discredited by modern psychology, nonetheless seemed to a sensible means of literary criticism: whatever their shortcomings, Freud's ideas are hugely influential and widely-known to the general public. The remainder of the chapter was a different story, being devoted to French psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan. The textbook described Lacan as a giant of psychology; nay, a god, virtually on equal footing with Freud. But the textbook again seemed suspicious to me: I have a more than passing interest in and awareness of psychology, and had never heard of Lacan or his bizarre ideas. Again, I asked the teacher why we were studying the concepts of a supposedly important psychoanalyst whose name is unmentioned in any modern college psychology or counseling textbooks. Again, the professor claimed Lacan offered "another way of reading." Again, I went along without protest. But I was increasingly aware that something was rotten in Denmark, and wondered if we'd ever get to literature.

The third chapter in the textbook was my breaking point. In discussing feminist criticism, the author made, on virtually every page, claims that were entirely false or, at best, debatable (e.g., that all behavioral differences between men and women - all of 'em -- are entirely socially constructed and without biological basis). The author made sweeping claims about men that would be considered bigoted, offensive hate crimes if said about any other group - can you imagine a modern textbook claiming that "blacks have a rape culture" or "to maintain their cultural superiority, Jews have a biological urge to oppress gentiles"? All these dubious claims were presented in the textbook as self-evident, inarguable gospel truth, but few of the claims were supported by reliable citations. By now I was tired of the political sloganeering of the textbook and the professor. I decided, hell or high water, I was taking a stand. I compiled reliable documentation that refuted and challenged the textbook's nonsense, point-by-point. I asked why the textbook condemned American men but was silent on the brutal treatment women suffered in Islamic nations. But the professor refused to discuss the topic. The professor was alternately evasive as quicksilver, or taking cheap shots at me -- making a student into a strawman. In protest, I dropped the class.

The English class was one of the most bewildering experiences of my life. To learn what happened, I began an extensive research quest. I found many valuable articles and books about the current lamentable state of intellectual life in the humanities departments of modern universities, including Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science and Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals' Abuse of Science.

But Hicks's book towers above even those praiseworthy volumes. By tracing the philosophical roots of postmodernism, and by using a minimum of jargon, Hicks provides a larger context that helped me understand how and why a concept like critical theory gained such prominence in university English departments. Hicks explained to my satisfaction the development of the nasty rhetorical tactics the English professor used against me.

I cannot recommend Explaining Postmodernism highly enough. As others have suggested, this book ought to be required reading for all incoming humanities/liberal arts freshmen. Such young students will inevitably encounter postmodernist philosophy, and would be well served by understanding it.

Explaining Postmodernism is out-of-print as of August 2010, but can be downloaded free-of-charge at Hicks's website.

In this engrossing work, the author traces the history of the betrayal of the Enlightenment from which Modernism arose to give us tolerance, democracy, human rights, individualism and free enterprise. This is the legacy of, amongst others, Bacon, Locke, Descartes, Smith, Hobbes, Spinoza and Galileo. For all its faults - like the idea that pure reason could replace religion - it still succeeded in providing the West with a blueprint for a humane and decent society.

The assault on truth and reason in the latter half of the 20th century was led by people like Derrida, Foucault, Lyotard and Rorty. The author chronicles the long march of this mindset from Jean Jacques Rousseau who launched the counter-enlightenment, through Kant (although it might not have been his intention), Hegel, Kierkegaard, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche and above all the charlatan Heidegger.

Postmodernism is anti-reason, subjective and nihilistic, denying the possibility of truth, reality and meaning. Hicks views postmodernism as a smorgasbord of reactions to Kant's division of the world into phenomena and noumena. Although Kant was trying to shield religion from scientific skepticism, this divide opened the door to the demons of nihilism.

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, this mindset has taken an even more disturbing turn. Its adherents had to either give up the utopian collectivist dream or deny reality. They chose the latter. In other words, postmodernism is the result of using a skeptical epistemology to justify the leap of faith that is required to continue believing in the failed god of socialism. The unhinged hatred of the West in general, and the USA, Israel and traditional religion in particular, is the latest manifestation of the malignancy.

Collectivism was a disastrous failure both empirically and theoretically, but because the idea makes the tenured termites feel good, it can now only be justified by denying reality. Hicks poses the quesion, If there is no right or wrong, then why are all the postmodernists committed leftists? It is because they hate Western values and use their meaningless slogans as a means to pursue power.

And it has gotten worse in its irrationality, incoherence and contradictions. As a fusion of leftist politics and selective skepticism, postmodernism now boldly proclaims falsehood without even trying to hide it. If logic and objective fact do not exist, why the slavish adherence to political correctness? Ultimately, it is all about the preferences of power to these intellectual traitors.

One can also ask why Europe, infested with relativism and the multiculti cult, prides itself on its Anti-Americanism and criticism of Israel, but is too cowardly to protect its own artists from the onslaught of radical Islamism. This continent had better wake up because its current false religion of postmodernist secularism will be no match for what it harbours in its midst.

Explaining Postmodernism is a lucid examination of the pathologies of leftist thought and its roots. For an illuminating look at leftist hate, I recommend Unhinged by Michelle Malkin. Other informative books on postmodernism include Fashionable Nonsense by Alan Sokal & Jean Bricmont and The Illusions of Postmodernism by Terry Eagleton. A cure for this intellectual cancer may be found, inter alia, in the work of the great Michael Polanyi, in a book like Science, Faith And Society.