September 2010 Archives

    No matter who is asked, everyone has their own opinion or definition of postmodernism. It seems that postmodernism really is "anything, everything, and nothing." as A. Crouch says in his article, "What Exactly Is Postmodernism?". He explains that to some people postmodernism draws attention to "the marginalized" and this attention leads "postmodernists into a profound skepticism toward modernity's assumptions about knowledge, truth, and reason." The article goes on to say that postmodernists have "discovered that at the base of almost every truth claim is a story, a story that privileges certain groups and marginalizes others." On the other hand, Modernism was, and for some people still is, a perspective in which many people saw science as their only source of truth and reason. They believed that science would lead to new innovations and as those innovations got better (i.e. mass production), problems in society would decrease and eventually disappear.  This was an incorrect assumption because technology and science did not solve all of society's problems, but while it did solve some it also created new ones.  
    Postmodernist do not agree with science-based truth, or any 'truth' for that matter. They question how science can provide one with truth and reasoning if "at the base of almost every truth claim is a story". This story is known as a meta-narrative which is a set of beliefs applied universally that is unquestioned by the individual and/or group holding those beliefs. Keep in mind that these are beliefs, not necessarily solid facts. How can one know that the universal belief is true and that the reasoning of that truth given in the past is reasonable? One might say that the meta-narrative was once discovered by a historian who had a lot of evidence to back it up, did years of research, were very professional and well-informed. So why would one not believe the historian? Well, postmodernists like to question everything because they believe that everything one knows is based on assumption. One is assuming that this historian was very responsible, well-informed, professional, and tedious with his or her work. One is assuming that history books are not made up of lies to cover up dark secrets of the past. One is assuming that everything one has learned to be fact is true. Where is the proof? And even if there is proof, how can one verify it if it is locked up in an archive in Washington, DC? This is how postmodernist think, they question everything.  
    The given sentence: "This sentence serves no logical purpose." goes hand in hand with postmodernism because it completely disagrees with the order and rationality of modernism. In fact, a modernist would read the sentence, agree that it serves no purpose, and take a few seconds to wonder why the writer wasted their time using the word "logical" and why they, the reader, wasted their time reading the sentence. Just imagine a parent of the modern perspective hearing their child saying something of the sort over the dinner table.
    "Mother, this dialogue serves no logical purpose."
Without even thinking it over, the mother would immediately begin to lecture their child on how they should stop all this absurd language and eat their green peas. Oh how frustrated those modernist would be with that sentence and anything of the sort! However, a postmodernist would probably find pleasure in reading the writer's clever creation. If modernism's source of truth is science, if they stick to order and do not think outside the box, then how can they expect to know all truth and reason that is necessary to solve all the problems of society? They need some down-to-earth postmodern critical thinking first! Sure they can ponder the periodic table of elements all they want, but when will they start asking other questions, like: "Why does one need this super-human race (Aryans)?", "How does communism benefit oneself as opposed to the government?", "Why should everyone not have equal rights?", or even better "How does one know facts are indeed facts?".
    The sentence: "This sentence serves no logical purpose." clearly does serve some purpose, whether it is logical or not can be up to one's perspective, but it opens minds to critical thinking and helps provide a better understanding (as Graham would say) of the human experience. It claims to have no logical purpose, but does that mean it is meaningless? No. This is a very important part of postmodernism which started with art and architecture which modernists would consider meaningless. One example of postmodernism in architecture that can be seen today is the Hard Rock Cafe in Universal Studios in Orlando, FL which has what looks like is a rockslide and a car directed forward built onto the front of the building structure. Does this seem to serve a logical purpose? Not really. Can they use that car for delivering food? No. Can they climb up on the rock slide for exercise? Possibly. However, that was probably not in the architect's mind when he was designing the structure. What about the University Avenue Project in Saint Paul, Minnesota created by a photographer named Wing Young Huie? He has put up huge prints of his photographs all up and down University Avenue as a project, does this seem to have a logical purpose? To a modernist this project and the Hard Rock Cafe structure make no sense because they have no scientific reasoning and in no way seem to assist the order or structure of human society, which of course always leads to progress and perfection, so they would never approve. Once again, the postmodernist would disagree. The sentence: "This sentence serves no logical purpose." screams postmodernism because it may or may not serve a logical purpose and it does not give a truth scientifically based. This sentence leaves one's mind asking questions and reminds one to keep thinking outside of the box because propaganda should never make one's decisions for them.

Works Cited

Crouch, Andy. "What Exactly Is Postmodernism." Christianity Today 13 Nov 2000: n. pag. Web.     16 Sep 2010. <http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/november13/8.76.html>.
Graham, Gordon. Philosophy of the Arts: An Introduction to Aesthetics. 2nd ed. New York, NY:     Routledge, 2000. 64-44. Print.
"Hard Rock Cafe In Orlando." Panoramio. Web. 25 Sep 2010. <http://www.panoramio.com/     photo/1783416>.
"About The University Avenue Project." The University Avenue Project. The University Avenue     Project, 25 Sep 2010. Web. 25 Sep 2010. <http://theuniversityavenueproject.com/>.

When trying to reconstruct the past, we must overcome temptation to change history for the better as well as contend with the difficulties associated with lack of evidence, and focus on history itself. In C. Vann Woodward's "On Believing What One Reads: The Dangers of Popular Revisionism", he believes it is up to historians (keeping in mind that we are all historians) to not manipulate history.  C. Vann Woodward defines historical revisionism as "a travesty upon the unborn." (37). A travesty is a false, absurd, or distorted representation of something; thus, according to Woodward, revisionist history is a distorted representation of something put upon (taught) to the unborn (future generations). They are unborn, but we can guarantee them they will not learn accurate history. Woodward says that it is not entirely the historian's fault; a lot of it is the government. He shows that dictatorship is a straightforward way nations have attempted to control the past by editing old texts along with controlling the propaganda to point people in the direction they wanted them to go as far as beliefs, ideas, and just about anything else (35-36). Woodward also gives examples of more subtle "ways of controlling the past and controlling the historian(s) that write the past." (36). These examples include: "the classification of documents", the "control of archives", the "putting the historian on the pay-roll", and "the publication of archives of selected evidence and testimony" (36-37). Wait, does this mean that the American government could be, and could have already been for quite some time now, altering documents or archives in an attempt to control the past? Oh I am sure they have done more than just that, but why? Possibly, just because they can, and well, it's 'for the better'.
    They might want to change history to cover up mistakes, or to create or emphasize events to make themselves look good. Either way, we are making a mistake: we are altering history. Now this may sound unthinkable, but just as Dr. Hillmer told us the other day, "Sometimes we just do things. We know they're wrong, but we do them anyway, because that's who we are." And despite the depressing feeling of guilt that rushes over us after hearing that, we must get over our sensitivity and realize that it is true; we all make mistakes.
    In C. L. Becker's "What is Evidence?" he helps us keep in mind that we are all historians by giving an example of Mr. Everyman in a every day situation where he wakes up knowing he has forgotten something. Becker explains that Mr. Everyman "does what any historian would do: he does a bit of historical research in the sources. From his little Private Record Office (I mean his vest pocket)" (9). If he did not have this pocket book he would have what leads us to our first challenge: Lack of Evidence. From the very beginning Woodward says, "Americans expect too much of history" (25). He goes on to explain that Americans tell all these "tall tales" (i.e., conspiracy theories, legends, myths, etc.) just because we want to have an interesting history like everyone else, but history has to be more important to Americans than just "a source of the folk-lore, myth, and legend that seems essential to the spiritual comfort of a people in time of stress." (Woodward 26). People must realize that history does in fact have some truth to it and we need to respect that truth. We should avoid being "Myth-hungry and legend-starved" Americans, and focus on being dignified historians. Instead of creating conspiracy theories about September 11, 2001 or creating legends about Abraham Lincoln we must try to stop taking away people's history like "the red Indian," mentioned in Woodward's article and use the actual evidence we have to confirm facts of all of our history. Remember that there is a limited amount of evidence in the world to prove the past because (as of now) we have no tool that can prove everything; therefore, be patient.
    Then again, where does all this evidence or 'proof' come from? How can we be sure that those archives were not tampered with as Woodward mentions in his article, or how do we know they are not just publishing old text at special times for political propaganda? Perhaps some of the facts we determine are assumed incorrectly as in the example of Mr. Everyman in C. L. Becker's article where Mr. Everyman uses his evidence of writing down that he has an appointment to pay his coal bill with Mr. Smith to verify that he owes Mr. Smith money, goes to Mr. Smith, and is notified that he does not owe Mr. Smith, but owes Mr. Brown instead! How silly of him! All we can do is try to keep our eyes open for political propaganda, keep ourselves well educated, and just expect it. If the government tells us that Switzerland is hacking into all of our systems and stealing classified documents, (first of all we should question our national security but then) we just have to remember that Switzerland is a neutral country, has never harmed us before, and maybe we should check the facts behind this newspaper headline before we start babbling off to our friends about it over morning coffee (or in Mr. Everyman's case he should have verified that he owed Mr. Smith money with a phone call first to save the trip of driving to his office).
    Challenge #2: Resisting Temptation. Woodward states that "putting the historian on the pay-roll" is one of the subtle ways of controlling the past, but then he says that he himself was once put on a pay-roll. I do not think it would be right to tell historians they can not get paid because, especially after all that hard work, that would be quite unfortunate for them and not very inspirational. If you are a historian and you take cash, do not fret! I agree that historians should receive that paycheck for all of their labors, but they must remember to stay true to their profession and its moral obligations.  
Woodward concludes that:
        As custodian of the past and keeper of the public memory, the historian under         modern conditions fulfills an even more responsible and vital role--that of         guardian of the future. To defend the integrity of history, as well as his own         integrity, the historian must, therefore, forever contest with 'those who control the         present' (Woodward 37).
I do believe that if one is a historian it is one's duty to the people to (to the best of one's ability) confirm the truth despite the difficulty to acquire evidence or the temptation to alter things. It is what should be done not just because otherwise one is messing with the education of many people in the future, but because it is what is right.

Okay, so Dr. Schenk asked us all to give her and her husband more information about ourselves, so here is what I sent... just thought I'd all let you guys know a little more about me:

I am from San Antonio, Texas, and I came to Concordia out of pure chance. I wanted to come up north for the cooler weather (and yes I realized it gets thirty below), but I do appreciate the fact that Minnesota has all of the seasons. In high school I played basketball and volleyball and I loved both, but I don't play  any sports at Concordia unfortunately because both of their rosters were full. Which, I can understand because they are national champions. I love the arts, I may not be the best artist in the world, but I do enjoy being creative and I definitely appreciate all kinds of art. I always wanted to be in theater in high school, but I didn't have time for it because of sports. And now that I'm in college and not in sports, I don't have time for it because it doesn't fit into our Honors schedule supposedly? Or maybe that's just my excuse? I have no earthly idea what I want to major in, so I am undecided. This first semester is all about me determining a major and career path, or at least a general direction I can head towards...math, communication, art, history, etc.. I am really just open-minded for everything and anything for a major/career path, but I do hope to do something I love and something with a decent income. I am currently enrolled in a photography class, probability and statistics, career exploration and assessment, and-as you know-the honors class. I work at the Concordia Help Desk and the Concordia Book Store, so if you ever need to stop in there you might see me! I love oldies as old as music from the 30's to the 80's and everything in between. I also like all other kinds of music: country, mariachi, tejano, regatone, alternative rock, rap/hip-hop/R&B/pop/whatever-you-want-to-call-music-of-the-present-day, and I think Jazz is really cool and classical music is very very interesting. I particularly enjoy listening to the cello. I especially love Johny Cash, Jack Johnson, Michael Bublé, George Strait, Weezer, Beyonce, and there are many other artists I like, but for time's sake I'll just say those. I always liked math just because I was good at it through the years, but as it gets higher up I'm not sure that I want to go into that 'major'. I love musicals, especially the most recent "Hairspray", "Grease", and "Singing in the Rain". I love the Harry Potter and Twilight book and movie series'. I enjoy creative writing (or what I consider creative writing) as far as just writing about different theories and beliefs I have. I enjoy making people laugh and laughing in general. There's so much more I could tell you about myself, but I'd hate to take all the fun out of learning it all through our discussions in class and any random side conversations! But, if you wish to know more, just ask!