“‘KISS’? WHAT IS ‘KISS’?”: So today, for the second time in a couple weeks, I came across that definition of postmodernism (Lyotard’s?) where it’s defined as the rejection of metanarratives. Here’s why I think that’s unhelpful. These thoughts are even more fragmentary than usual, which I suppose is appropriate….

I’m no more interested in a “definition” of postmodernism than I am in a definition of conservatism; both terms seem to imply more a tradition of discourse than an orthodoxy.

And within that tradition of discourse there are authors whose work relies heavily on certain highly-charged terms–words “surcharg’d with wine,” as they say–and if you single out these words as especially important, that implies a metanarrative. This is still true even if the author doesn’t attempt to discern or dictate much about the content of that metanarrative. The example I think of is Derrida’s use of “the other” and “the avenir,” both of which imply, I think, a sort of skeletal Jewish-or-maybe-Christian narrative. (And not, for example, a Platonist one, because of the emphasis on the avenir. Some narratives are excluded, which I’m pretty sure you can’t do unless you do have a metanarrative, however parsimonious or covert.)

There are likely other elements of Derrida’s thought which would conflict with the narrative implied by the other-avenir stuff; but it seems to me that you then end up either discerning conflict between narratives, or reconciling them somehow (either of which implies a metanarrative about what constitutes conflict and what constitutes reconciliation). Or, you know, just saying one thing and then saying something else, but at that point you’re just giving up on the self, like when you put your nose right up to a pointillist painting and all the people turn out to be cacophonies of dots; that is certainly one way to do postmodernism, but not the only one within this tradition of discourse. And in fact, to my mind it’s the least interesting response to conflicting implied narratives, because it’s the only one where you don’t ever have to change anything at all about yourself. You can just keep “holding Yes and No together in one hand,” in Anne Carson’s terrific phrase, which is the same thing as standing still. No choices are required and therefore no sacrifices and no personal transformation. What is the point of a life like that? I mean, I suppose you could be happy. If that’s what you really want.

Back to Derrida and implied narratives, which in turn imply metanarratives. Now, I admit that I’m an extremist here: I think words like “vulture” and “sparrow” imply a metanarrative. But I don’t think you have to go that far (although I wish you would! Didn’t Wilde teach us that we must “go as far as possible”?) to accept the point that some words which were crucial to actual existing postmodernists do imply metanarratives.

In fact, I’d argue that the term “postmodernity” itself, while obviously insufficient and kind of hilariously woozy with indeterminacy, implies a fairly obvious narrative, in which modernity is a thing which it’s important that we’re post-. So by the time you’re pretending to define it, you’re already accepting and/or creating a metanarrative. (I’m guessing Lyotard, or whoever, knew this and addressed it somehow or decided not to care, so I’m really not addressing him but more his popularizers.)

And this brings me to John Paul II, whom I consider the greatest postmodernist of the past century, and whose wine-charged word was so often “nuptial” or “gift” or some similar insufficiently-hardcore way of saying “kiss.” Not only in his writings on the “theology of the body” but also in his writings on faith and reason, and on philosophical practice, he tapped into and further explicated a narrative in which the primary metaphor for our lives is the kiss: both otherness and reconciliation, with neither term conquering the other. So much of his writing is pretty obviously a translation of basic Biblical rhetoric into the new language/slang/pidgin of postmodernity.

My bitter-little-lady thought for the day is to wonder whether existentialist postmodernism is simply Christianity reconceived as intellectual promiscuity: kissing everything in sight in an attempt at self-expression.

So… yeah, this was obviously much more of a blog post than a treatise! But then, I reject treatises utterly–if you must write philosophy, write dialogues. My main problem with JPII, on a philosophical level, is that he shoulda just kept writing plays.