Reflections on Post Modernity

I love post modernity in that it turns modernity on its ear. It is the movement that takes apart the modern ways of viewing things and deconstructs them. Everything that modernity takes for granted post modernity calls into question and shows the absurdity of it. Conan O'Brien is a great example of the post modern movement in his approach to comedy. He's not even a comedian in the traditional sense. He operates both outside and inside the system and mocks that system while also living off of it. Compare his approach to running a show against other talk show hosts, he's openly aware of the absurdity of the medium he operates in (both entertainment as a whole and the talk show genre) and of himself. That is what post modernity does. It creates something while at the same time deconstructing what its creating. That's an amazing thing when seen against modernity that often takes itself too seriously and loves the framework it has set itself in. But what makes post modernity great is also its great weakness. It is purely a reactionary movement that mocks the frame work of its predecessor rather than creating its own.

I find anyone who openly ascribes to the title of a post modern annoying, it seems like a desperate attempt to be relevant and in doing so the one who claims the title makes themselves cliche and, ironically, un post modern. But one mark of post modernity is self awareness (how can one deconstruct what they are building if one is not aware what they are building and the confines that are ascribed to that type of construction?), so how can one be post modern without claiming post modernity? Its a paradox; one cannot be post modern without being aware they are post modern, but claiming post modernity is entirely a modern idea that one who is post modern wouldn't ascribe to. So its safer perhaps to say that one operates in the world of post modernity, sharing its goals, while never being so presumptuous as to say they themselves fit the title. So that is what I am going to say. I am post modern in that I share the goals of post modernity while not wanting to confine myself to the modern understanding of the baggage that such a title comes with. I write, talk, and operate on a daily level as a post modern. I am aware of the system I am a part of, attempt to deconstruct it so as to find the good while removing all the cliches that it holds to. That to me is post modernity, and in a world of flexible definitions that should be sufficient for the context of this essay.

I find the pitfalls of modernity alive in my own life. The problem with post modernity is that it is purely reactionary. It is the free spirited little brother of its do-gooder elder sibling. It only exists to deconstruct what came before and call it into question. It plays the part of the artist: revealing the chinks in the armor but hardly ever providing assistance in how to improve the design. And that is why the movement will not last. It cannot until it gives birth to something new and constructive, until it becomes its own individual apart from its predecessor. And when it does that it will no longer be post modernity but something all together different that a whole other group of sociologists can give a title to that it probably won't appreciate or ascribe to itself.

I live reactionary to the confines of modernity, which is both freeing and confining at the same time. When everything is called into question there is nothing left to hold to. Love and affection has been polluted and contrived so much its hard to express those emotions verbally or physically, because of that I feel compelled to deconstruct them as contrived while also wishing to participate in them.

A simple example is hugging in Christian culture. EVERYONE wants to hug all the time, hugs hello, hugs goodbye, hugs because its Shark Week, hugs because you haven't seen said person in two hours. There is a hug for everything. When there is so much hugging it loses its value and becomes meaningless. Its less a display of something genuine and more an obligation. I know this because I think too much about everything (a clever way to avoid calling myself post modern). While others are free from that burden they get to hug free form whenever they feel like it, I have to be aware of the situation, assess its value, and consider in my own heart if the hug is genuine. That is, at the same time both freeing and crippling. Its freeing in that people know that my hugs are genuine, but crippling in that every hug comes with a whole process of thought that is time consuming and kind of exhausting. It is also crippling because anyone who knows me knows my apprehension to hug so they always question whether or not its genuine or done in apprehension so they are self conscious over the fact that any oncoming hug can either be done out of pure love for the person or begrudgingly out of obligation (but isn't it still done in love because, for the sake of the person I am overcoming my apprehension?). And the person can never be sure unless I tell them, and even then they might not believe me because I can either be sincere with my answer or I could just be polite. When everything is called into question is anything genuine? Sometimes I just want to hug someone, but it comes with so much baggage its more effort than its simplicity would originally dictate. And that is tragic. I hate that. I hate that sincerity has to be called into question.

I don't know how to end this essay in a clever manner. I suppose I said everything I need to say. I will point out a few things 1) I am sorry that I started five of these paragraphs with the letter I, anyone who writes with the intention of other people reading (especially blogs) is at least a minor egotist, and I think I was a bit overt in proving that by starting so many sentences setting myself up as the lead subject. 2) I hope hugging isn't the main thing you get from this. I long for genuine relationships, but I'm not cleverly trying to get more people to hug me. Hugging is not the subject of this essay, I am simply trying to at least address the pros and cons of the philosophical world we live in. Don't try to hug me because you read this essay, or think that I lack the appropriate level of hugging. 3) This essay is less of a doctrinal piece and more a conversation starter, in that way it is different than my essay on abortion or something like that because I am not saying anything concrete, I'm introducing an idea, there are no solutions here, only instigators to conversation (that is so post modern it almost makes me not like my own writing!). 4) If this didn't make sense its because I am running on very little sleep but felt compelled to write. I didn't have a lesson to bring across like I often do. 5) If you have read to this point I owe you a very genuine hug because you are a reading champion. 6) I hope I have not wasted your time.