September 2010 Archives

"This sentence serves no logical purpose." This sentence is confusing at first, but looking at it from a postmodern perspective may shed some light on what to make of it. However, one must understand what postmodernism is in order to use the perspective. What is it and how does it relate to the above sentence?

Many definitions are given for postmodernism. Originally it was used to describe a movement in architecture and the arts. The movement rejected the clean, efficient lines of modernism and aimed to add more character. According to Andy Crouch there are three main concepts behind it (Crouch 2-6). Perhaps the most common is the notion hearing what the marginalized have to say. Rather than accepting the opinions of the elite, postmodernists aim to approach a problem from as many angles as possible when searching for solutions. Another way people view postmodernism is through all the choices consumer capitalism has brought forth. People have more options when it comes to what to eat, what to wear, or what to watch on T.V. than ever before.

These two definitions of postmodernism are seemingly unrelated, but both lead to the third description: skepticism of the truth (Crouch 4). By focusing on the marginalized, that is seeing more than just the dominant or elite point of view, one often is lead to question what was once considered truth. Are true statements actually true or do they just appear true from a certain perspective (3)? Postmodernists do not simply accept what one person passes off as truth because it may be an attempt to gain power.

The problem with postmodernism, argues New York Times writer, Richard Bernstein, is that it allows for ideas to be broken into multiple arguments or view points, each seeming equally valid, meaning there is no clear dominant argument (Bernstein 6). This can be viewed as positive or negative. On the one hand, no clear dominant argument means no clear solution to an issue. On the other hand, there is an opportunity for everyone's opinion to be heard. Clearly postmodern thinking requires one to think beyond the basics. Jonathan Petty sums it up well by explaining that postmodern thinkers use experiences, participation, and images to build connections (Petty 26).

Bernstein suggests that Madonna embodied postmodernism because she used many different styles and identities (Bernstein 16). If Madonna was the postmodernist of the 80s, Lady Gaga is the postmodernist of today. She uses her outfits to make statements, such as with the dress made out of meat that she wore to the Video Music Awards. The dress, which received a lot of media attention, gave a different perspective to feeling comfortable in one's skin.

Petty believes the era of postmodernism will last between 2,000 and 5,000 years. Elisabeth Hickey, writer for the Washington Times, seems to agree, stating that it will last until someone is able to contrive a "Theory of Everything" (Hickey 52). During the modern era people believed science would eventually answer all questions about life, leaving no more mysteries. However, after many, many years scientists still cannot explain why we are here or what our greater purpose is. To back up her statement, Hickey quotes Mr. Pinkerton, a former employee of Mr. George H. Bush, when he says "Postmodernists . . .  know that one size does not fit all: There is no one solution, only solutions" (35).

With this in mind, take another look at the sentence, "This sentence serves no logical purpose." Approaching it from a postmodernist perspective one can see how the sentence can be assigned more than one meaning. First, it can be taken to be a statement of truth: the sentence has no meaning and therefore should be ignored. Further consideration may lead one to wonder if it serves no purpose, why would someone go to the trouble of recording it? Perhaps it is not telling the truth after all, demonstrating the skepticism of truth characteristic to postmodernism. If the statement is false, then it must in fact have a purpose. Discerning the purpose is not an easy task. Perhaps the statement is meant to follow and describe another, or maybe it is meant to lead the reader astray. There is no clear answer here.

Much like postmodernism itself, the statement is incredibly ambiguous. given to a room full of people, a single conclusions would not be reached. Because there is no one agreed upon explanation, can either serve a logical purpose? Since everyone has their own view, different conclusions will always be drawn. As mentioned earlier, that may not be a terrible thing. More viewpoints leads to a better understanding, allowing people to draw a more informed conclusion.

Until fairly recently, historians relied on the "scissors and paste" method of reconstructing the past. This method is described in Collingwood's article "Who Killed John Doe?" Historians would focus on the specific details they were given in accounts. This left them with only the ability to determine if a statement was correct. If not, it was deemed useless. If information was not put in the exact context they wanted, historians believed it could not be found. Also, that method requires extensive research which can be an impossible task when dealing with a popular subject. Since then, they have realized the value in examining what information is missing as well as what's in front of them. They have made greater attempts to read between the lines and infer more information than what is specifically stated.

Although using a more scientific approach to recreating events of the past has improved accuracy and range of knowledge, several challenges remain. To begin with is language. Most commonly the meaning of a word is lost in translation because one language does not have a word that conveys the exact same meaning. Also, words sometimes change meaning over time. At other times it is difficult to determine whether a phrase is meant to be taken figuratively or literally.

Another trial is putting events in chronological order. This may seem like a simple and logical thing to do at first, but remember that historical evidence is very rarely discovered in the order events unfolded. Often, there are huge gaps in the evidence and making sense out of it is much like assembling a puzzle when you do not know what it is supposed to look like. The most important details may not be the most obvious ones.

Perhaps the biggest challenge historians face, when trying to reconstruct the past, is determining fact from fiction. Several causes factor into this. The first is that people sometimes fail to tell the truth. They may have a reason for this, such as trying to protect a loved one from dealing with the consequences of their actions or wanting to present their country in a more positive light. The whole truth and nothing but the truth is rarely a motivation for someone's account. People experience events from different points of view. Depending on the situation a woman may see through the eyes of a mother, daughter, sister, friend, or any number of others. A historian's job is to recognize the lens of each account in order to understand what biases may exist in the account or which details may receive less attention.

            Additionally, memory is imperfect. Over time events become under or over exaggerated in the mind. An example of this can be found in Jerome's article "A Lie is a Lie, Even in Latin" when he discusses an article containing a man's eye witness account of the Mt. Vesuvius eruption. The witness claimed ash buried his entire garden, piling up to half a meter high. Jerome pointed out, however, that this could not possibly be true because evidence shows that the ash formed only a thin layer, less than half an inch.

Jerome also cites studies conducted by Bilet and Sterns. Bilet's study focused on how well children remembered the details of a postage stamp. Nearly all of them remembered the color or price incorrectly, but he found that even the wrong answers were given with certainty. Stern's test was constructed similarly, except instead of answering questions about stamps participants were asked to write detailed descriptions of pictures they had been shown. Stern asked them to describe the images at varying intervals after they were shown. He found that the level of error increased dramatically in only a short amount of time. When looking at historic documents, it can be difficult to tell how long ago an experience that someone wrote about happened. Yet, time should be taken into consideration as it, along with motivation and poor memory, greatly affects the accuracy of statements.

            There are no easy answers that simplify a historian's task. Most important is for historians to understand the limitations of the evidence they are working with. They need to recognizes any biases and remember that memory is fairly inaccurate. Take note of the motives a person had for documenting their account of an event. Asking a lot of questions and approaching the data from as many viewpoints as possible helps to filter out incorrect information. Above all, historians need to be willing to admit they were wrong if presented with evidence that discredits their theories.  Only by working collaboratively and with an open mind can a semblance of past events reflect the truth.