In my third part on postmodern theory, I stated that politics have become the new morals in the postmodern university. However, this needs some clarification: when I say “politics”, I mean leftist politics. The true postmodern thinker can absolutely not be conservative or leaning towards the right, which is something the student will discover in time.
When I started my studies, I didn’t get that immediately, nor did I have much interest in politics. What I did notice, though, was that the theories I was taught to work with had only one possible outcome: criticizing the system. Since politics were rarely ever named, and since I was naive in the beginning, I wondered: how is it that when I analyze any given text with those theories, I end up pointing to “the system” and its deficiencies? When voicing this to my father, who is not a humanist but a scientist, he said immediately: “Aaaah, system? That’s marxism, darling. You’re using marxist theory.” – “What? No, no, this is not politics, this is about literature!” – “Darling, you’re clueless. Why do you think you end up with the system instead of literary symbolism or whatever?”
GULP. I’m now in politics. (Photo credit: @Doug88888)
Indeed! I was so naive… it was then that I started questioning the origins of theories. Edward Said/Orientalism? Check. Postcolonialism in general? Check. Foucault and the discourse? Check. Derrida? Check. Bourdieu? Check. Judith Butler? Check. I could go on an on, the list is long and covers nearly all theorists I had to study. Having realized how obvious the political aspect was and how little I had questioned it in my first semester, I felt foolish and fooled. (And to think that I started my studies because I was interested in literature, not in politics.) It’s not a question of political conviction but one of intellectual honesty. In Germany, we have laws for the educational system, and those include politics: no teacher or professor is allowed to teach students one specific political worldview! When politics are introduced, they need to be balanced by explaining the views of both sides, not just one. And this is where my studies fail. In the end, I felt like I didn’t study “literary theory”, which I was told it was, but marxist theory. I’m an educated marxist. Isn’t that great. I should apply for jobs with that qualification.
… because we’re educated in marxism.
(Photo credit: Dita Margarita)
The problem is not that we learn marxist theory, the problem is a) that it wasn’t taught as such and b) that it was presented without alternative. Not only did we not read conservative thinkers, we were even taught against it. “Moral” means politically engaged, and only as a leftist. My father was quite right when he pointed to the word “system”. Everyone can agree that our society is troubled, yet the question is why. Conservative thinkers say: there is a problem with mankind, so we need to keep it in check. Leftist thinkers say: there is a problem with the system, which corrupts mankind, so we need to abolish the system. This is an axiom that is at the base of it all and which decides on the future outlook. While conservatives tend to fault mankind for our social problems and therefore don’t see the answer in any specific system but in keeping mankind in check, leftists see things reversed: mankind is essentially good but the system is bad and thus corrupts us, and once we correct the system, mankind will be corrected as well. Essentially, these two views on human nature define your outlook on politics.
Now I’d like to point at the origins of German educational laws: the whole world knows what Germany did in the ’30s and ’40s, and everyone also knows that the Nazis were enabled to commit their crimes because they were very skilled in the art of brainwashing people, meaning Nazi propaganda. They taught their ideas in school. When you look at school books of that era, you will find such irrational claims as Jews having different head shapes than the brave German etc; the old antisemitist idea of Jews spreading sicknesses etc, all that can be found in those school books. Thus, children grew up knowing no better than the horrible Nazi ideology, and as Germany became a new nation after WWII, the whole point of our constitution was: how to avoid EVER falling into such depravity again. This is why political partisanship may not be taught in schools and universities: we don’t want any more totalitarian education, and therefore plurality is the key.
Obviously, I don’t mean to equate literary theory with Nazi propaganda, not at all. But I do think that our one-sided education provides a totalitarian outlook, even though it diverges completely from Nazi thought. Marxists like to claim that their ideology is supremely moral and thus needs no counter balance, but guess what, that’s the only claim every political ideology shares. Recently, a debate has started about freedom of opinion and expression in Germany, since most of the media present the same picture, and certain things can’t be said without getting judged with morality. The trend has been such: you may never criticize or blame a group directly, otherwise you’re intolerant and evil. This is our great silencing weapon. And since it seems to permeate our whole society, be it the media or our education system, its mindset has become monolithic, and thus totalitarian. Wasn’t the whole point of “freedom of opinion and expression” being able to utter just anything? And wasn’t the idea in postmodern thinking to free people from restrains? Then how did we end up with The Great Silence?
theivoryland 