Truth Shumth, Life is Better When You Live in a Storybook Anyway...

 Truth Shumth, Life is Better When You Live in a Storybook Anyway 

    Beginning in the latter part of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st, a new group of thinkers, known as postmodernist or postmodern pragmatists, developed a new view of human life that wholeheartedly rejected the ideas of traditional philosophers. Namely, Richard Rorty, Kurt Vonnegut and Michel Foucault focused on changing common thought regarding human identity, human history and how humans can make the world a better place. Aspects of these thinkers' ideologies seem rather negative, but in their rejection of tradition, there is a newfound freedom in how we can think about human beings, a new way that encourages us to think of ourselves as the authors if our own stories, which to me seems worth all the negativity put fort by the Postmodernists. 

    In thinking about human nature, all three philosophers-- Rorty, Vonnegut and Foucault-- are all going to turn away from the traditional idea that there is an innate self within each of us that has strong enough instincts to, alone, guide us in life. Absolute trash. For Rorty, this idea that we have a substantial inner self that, if we can get in tough with, will be able to guide us on the path towards a meaningful life is garbage! Now the man is of the educated sort, so he would never deny that there certainly are natural tendencies and abilities that we has humans posses, but these tendencies and capabilities do not have the power to solely lead us along this march toward death. 

    So what does guide us fleshy sacks along this journey? Internalized language and culture. For Rorty, we are nothing but incarnate language and culture, and while traditional philosophers thought our ability to use language allows us to be the truth-seekers of nature, Rorty believes that this ability makes us the creators of nature, not the truth-seekers. Humans have been toiling away at finding the truth for centuries and have gotten nowhere, so what is the point in looking anymore? If we ever came across truth, we would never know it because we cannot step outside of our brains, our language, our culture to view the intrinsic reality of nature. We cannot make the distinction between the described and the undescribed world because we cannot reach the undescribed world. We live in a maze of descriptions and every ounce of knowledge we have about the world has been created, not discovered. The fact of the matter is, the truth is not a profitable matter to discuss, so we might as well trash it and try to come up with a good vocabulary so we can be effective creators and get what we want out of this life. For Rorty, it is best to try and use our capabilities to solve problems of the day, rather than try, stupidly, to get at the truth. 

    Kurt Vonnegut, author of Breakfast of Champions, would agree with Richard Rorty in saying that we humans are not guided by innate tendencies, but rather are guided by internalized public language, culture and socialization. Specifically for Vonnegut, humans are fleshy robots that have been programmed by language and culture to think, see, talk, act, etc. in a certain way based on the norms our language and culture prescribe. Ultimately, humans are just characters living inside one big story book. In his novel, he utilizes an extended metaphor of humans as robots to drive home the idea that we are not free thinking, bipedal gods, but rather that we like to take the easy way out and accept the ideas that have been spoon fed to us since birth. One of Vonnegut's characters, Kilgore Trout, famously stated, "A human can be taught to chase after anything," thus further suggesting that it is not instinct that guides us along, but rather the lessons and stories our culture has taught us. Now, Vonnegut, like Rorty, would not deny that our ability to use language allows us to describe the world however we see fit and ultimately create the world be live in, but Vonnegut is also perceptive enough to understand us sheep-people find it much easier to accept the status quo and follow the herd rather than forging your own path. Besides, staying in a single pack will make it easier for the reaper to collect us at the end of our march toward death! 

    Michel Foucault is also in agreement with his postmodern cohorts in thinking that humans are shepherded along by language, culture and socialization and furthermore thinks that the way humans think and operate in the world is a result of certain historical contingencies. A historian, Foucault spent much of his time developing a complete view of certain topics of interest such as the history of the mad and the history of the prison, the latter of which I will get to later. His study of such phenomena shows that over periods of time, thinking and actions regarding the same subject and the same group of people has sometimes changed drastically for no real reason. Now is we humans were controlled solely by our genes, how can our thinking and actions about the same thing change over a period of time? If the thought that humans cannot and are not guided solely by our genes has not permeated your thick skull by now, Michel Foucault's archaeological history really should drive home the point. Changes in thinking and actions regarding the same group of people can and will change over time because people are guided by language and culture as as the zeitgeist changes, so will the minds of humans. So how malleable is the human? Postmodernists would say extremely and totally malleable for we will think and act depending on whatever our language and culture tells us to do or think. 

    After trashing traditional views of human nature, our dream tea, continued on and trashed traditional views of human history. I'll start with our golden boy, Richard Rorty, the man who said truth was dead/ Now classically it was thought that we as language using humans were rationally progressing toward some ultimate truth about the universe, and of course Richard Rorty thought this was absolute trash. And of course, Richard Rorty was right. In thinking about human history in the postmodern way (the right way) you first need to get rid of the idea that human history began with thoughts. Traditional minors would like for you to believe that language arose out of thought, but this is nonsense so we'll stick with Rorty's view, which is that human history began with the development of language. Some genius made an imaginative comparison between a certain things in the world and then came up with a word for it. With the development of words and ultimately full blown languages came the opportunity for some freak to come along and use an old word in a new way. Now in using this old word in a new way, this freak created a new metaphor. Did this idiot reason out this new metaphor? Did he consult his lord and savior or abacus before using "cool" in a new way? Of course not! Simply put, the man was just a real with either a freaky childhood, a freaky brain or both, and so he decided to start using the word without putting much thought or meaning behind it. Other times though, the new metaphor can change the way people think about the word and ultimately the world. Now how does this metaphor catch on If you think a group of people got together and asked their local chemist if accepting the new metaphor would be good for them, then you are trash. There is no reasoning involved in the creation or adoption of a new metaphor! People like the way it sounds and their environment is receptive to the change in vocabulary because of various historical contingencies so it sticks. 

    For example, during the Protestant Revolution, people began to call work their "calling." Traditionally, a calling was serving God in a sacred way, and by using the word "calling" tp refer to everyday work, people began to take pride in their work and devoted more of their time to their work for they believed they were serving God Himself every time they picked up a rake. Why did this catch on? Well some freak said it once and people like the idea that their tedious work was somehow sacred and so they adopted the word calling and began to view the world and themselves differently. People we re now the good servants of God. Now this very same mindset contributed to the rise of capitalism, which is arguably as far from the teaching of the Book as one can get, but that's another story. 

    Some would say, this view of human history sounds an awful lot like Darwin's evolutionary theory, and those geniuses are correct. How, might you ask, is Rorty's view of human history a Darwinian view? Well, recall that Chuck Darwin said that evolution is sparked by a mutation in a gene pool/ Every now and then, the gene sticks to the gene pool and is carried on because the environment just so happens to be receptive to such a mutation. Once the mutation is in the gene pool and gets passed on, the mutation can be seen everywhere and a new species is born. Well the same thing can be said about the creation of a new metaphor. Like the mutation, the new metaphor randomly pops up into society and if the environment is receptive, the new metaphor will be adopted and pretty soon everyone will be using the old word in a new way. 

    Vonnegut too came to think that human history was not a rational progression toward truth, but rather human history is the development and acceptance of various different "programs." The idea is the same: someone came along and began to use and old word in a new way, which got people to start using the new metaphor, which got people's brains to start thinking differently. For Vonnegut, these new metaphors are programs that us fleshy robots have adopted and now rely on heavily to tell us how to operate in the universe. Some of America's biggest programs are consumerism, gender and the scary Other. For Vonnegut, the inhabitants of the land of the free and the home of the brave can buy nothing for free because of our religious devotion to consumerism. When Adam Smith twisted his mustache and breathed capitalism into existence, everyone ate it up, including us Americans, which then fostered a consumerist society in which people are ruled by things and in which people turn to stuff for pleasure rather than each other. Shackled to a shopping bag, we have come to look for the latest doo-dad to give us pleasure, and for Vonnegut, this is a problem. In Breakfast of Champions, character Kilgore Trout is hitch-hiking with a truck driver to Midland City, when the two of them reveal that neither of them have any real friends, no love to keep them warm, etc. This total isolation leaves both of the men feeling vulnerable and sad for only but a few seconds when the truck driver wonders aloud if aluminum sidings for his house will make him happier. Kilgore Trout seems to think the investment will bring the man happiness for about fifteen years (the approximate shelf life of the sidings). The truck driver is pleased. Here, Vonnegut is satirizing American consumerism and our need to always have the latest and greatest, but really these things do not bring us sustained pleasure, they only bring us long term isolation from those around us, pushing people further and further away. For most people this isn't a [problem because the vaster the space they create around themselves, the more washing machines they can buy. 

    The same can be said for our gender program we all hold so near and dear to our hearts. Good little Americans all know that men bring home the bacon, and the docile woman is responsible for cooking it. History has told us so and so it must be true. Ha! Idiot, none of it is true, this is just how we have been programmed! Who cares about the true nature of women, all we Americans need to do is adopt the program that has been set forth before us and the program tells us that women are less than. In Breakfast of Champions, Francine Pefko and Patty Keene are just skeletons with no real meat to them or their stories, and that is just how we like them. Again Vonnegut is satirizing our gender program, showing us how detrimental and downright silly it is to see women in such a two dimensional way. Vonnegut notes that Patty pretends to be stupid because it makes survival easier, while Francine has devoted her life to opening her legs so as to relax her male counterparts. Women are really only good for two things: a good fuck and a nice sandwich afterwards. 

    Lastly, Vonnegut pokes fun at our view of the Other. Oh the terrifying Other, taking our jobs, our women, our air...The Other is embodied in Wayne Hoobler, a Black man in Vonnegut's tale that is always seemingly on the outside lookin gin. Having been in the criminal justice system for years, all Wayne wants to do is make an honest living selling cars for his White idol, Dwayne Hoover. However, the closest he ever gets to selling cars is hiding g behind them in the parking lot so security will not ask him to leave the grounds. For an inner city Black guy like Wayne, life will never get much better than that because we have all adopted the program. The Other is scary, the Other wants to do us harm, the Other wants to ruin American values, so it is best to keep them at the periphery. Vonnegut's portrayal of various American programs just goes to show that history has not taught us the truth about consumerism, gender or the Other, it has simply just given us new descriptions for the above mentioned and thus prescribed new ways to act. 

    Foucault is in total agreement with the aforementioned thinkers regarding human history and uses his study of the rise of the prison to beef up the point. People traditionally like to believe that the prison came about after years of rationally looking at criminals, their patterns, etc. and coming up with an ultimate truth about them. Idiots. The rise of the prison came about for three major reasons: an end of feudalism and the rise of capitalism, the end of monarchial authority and the rise of a wealthy capitalist class that wanted to challenge traditional authority while also keeping their possessions safe from harm and criminals. Notice how the truth is not mentioned once. Those creating prisons and throwing delinquents in them were not concerned about the truth behind the law breakers, why they do it, etc. Historical contingencies allowed for this invention to take off because people like the cost effective method of making sure that vandals could not take their hard earned stuff. 

    Furthermore, the goal of the prison was not to observe the criminal and thus find out some truth about criminals, but rather it was to normalize the law breaker through hierarchized observation and normalized judgment. By imprisoning law breakers, the criminals are subjected to constant surveillance. By imprisoning people for acting against social norms, prisons were actively imposing a standard onto prisoners. The combination of this surveillance and imposing a standard onto criminals by way of normalized judgment, the goal is to create an individual that fits the mold society likes. The goal was never to reform a lawbreaker, to make them not commit crimes ever again. If anything, the prison was an Other-izing machine, imposing normal standards onto the criminal through surveillance and judgment and then releasing him back out into the world where he will continue to be watched and judged for he will be permanently branded a criminal and thus always at the mercy of the judgmental gaze of others. 

    So if we humans are not progressing toward a greater truth, are at the mercy of the stories or programs we have been taught and are nothing more than incarnate language, what can we do to make the world a better place? For Rorty, to reach moral progress and make the world a better place, we must reduce cruelty. But of course we face obstacles in trying to reduce cruelty, namely overcoming old descriptions. Old descriptions keep us stuck in our current way of thinking and completely hinder change. And to combat such old descriptions, Rorty thinks it will only be possible through new descriptions being created and disseminated in a society that has wealth, literacy and leisure time. 

    Vonnegut is in the same camp with Rorty in that he believes redescriptions are the way to make the world a much better place. Vonnegut is the master of redescriptions as he redescribes every American program in Breakfast of Champions and shows the reader the reality of the program. For example, in his discussion of the "founding" of America, Vonnegut refers to Columbus as a sea pirate and 1492 as the year in which the sea pirates came to already inhabited America to suck the land dry of its resources and kill its natives. This redescription is extremely different from how Columbus is usually portrayed and it allows us to look at history from the point of view of the oppressed. With redescriptions comes a willingness to reevaluate the programs we so blindly follow. Once we have reevaluated and analyzed our beliefs and values, then it is easier to bring about change to the program. 

    Foucault is the most pessimistic of the three, and thinkers like Rorty fear that a democratic society with greater freedom for individuals is not enough to make a better future. While Foucault is hesitant to say that individuals can bring about widespread social change is possible, he does advocate for micro political action. Foucault believes that individuals should try to devise action plans that are small enough for an individual or a few individuals to complete. The change from these action plans may be small, but for Foucault, small change is the catalyst for greater change. 

    So, is there really something to this postmodern pragmatism? Should you really drink the Kool Aid and forget all about traditional views of human life, human history and ways to make the future better? Well of course you should drink the Kool Aid! Postmodernism is the best thing since sliced bread and only a real fool would say otherwise. People are reluctant to say language and culture play such a large role in the development of the self, but if our genes really are in charge, then what accounts for widespread differences between cultures? If we were gene-powered would we not all be eating red meat and watching those foolish vegans die out in droves? If our genes are our master, would we not all be having sex with the same type of person? And since none of that is happening, then it only makes sense to say that, "yes, genes do play a role in determining innate abilities and tendencies, but it is language and culture that ultimately shapes the self." And similarly it is hard for people to give up on the truth and the idea that we are getting closer to it. Well, it is simple: stop listening to your science teacher and realized that if we really were progressing toward truth, would we have not found it by now? And if we ever did find the truth, how could you know it was true? Can you step outside of your brain, your language and your culture to see the world independent of you? You cannot?  Well, do not worry because no one can. And if no one can see the intrinsic nature of reality, then no one would be able to know if truth was right in front of their nose. So, it is time to put truth to rest. Take pride in your language, you sack of bones, blood and water! You have the freedom to create yourself, the knowledge you perceive and the world you inhabit. You may only be a character in some story book, but at least you are not dumb ass Descartes looking for the truth. So bury truth and stomp on it's grave, you linguistified animal, you have got a world to create!