On Smith on Lyotard on Distinctively Modern “Metanarratives”
Jean-François Lyotard was one of the first to attempt a “definition” of postmodernity as “incredulity toward metanarratives [grand reçits, big stories].” Of course Christianity claims to be the metanarrative par excellence. This being the case, it is often asked, “How can postmodernity and Christianity possibly be harmonized?” According to James K.A. Smith in his provocative book, Who’s Afraid of Postmodernism? Taking Derrida, Lyotard, and Foucault to Church, a harmonization is possibile, but first we must understand what Lyotard means by “metanarrative.” The incredulity that postmoderns exhibit toward “big stories,” does not involve a rejection of narratives, myths, or grand totalizing claims about the nature of reality. Rather, the problem with distinctively modern “metanarratives” as explicated by Lyotard in his work, The Postmodern Condition, is that they fail to acknowledge their own narrative nature. “Lyotard very specifically defines metanarratives as universal discourses of legitimation that mask their own particularity; that is, metanarratives deny their narrative ground even as they proceed on it as a basis. […] The problem with [modern] metanarratives is that they do not own up to their own mythic ground” (Smith, p. 69). In other words, the postmodern critique involves the proclamation that all knowledge is a narrative or myth of some sort. Given this understanding of a distinctively modern metanarrative, Smith suggests that Christians ought to embrace Lyotard’s critique. As Smith explains, the reason that this harmonization is essentially consonant rather than dissonant is that the Christian faith (particularly the Dutch Reformed Tradition—but one might also cite Radical Orthodoxy here) does not claim to be legitimated by an appeal to “a universal, autonomous reason, but rather by an appeal to faith (or, to translate, myth or narrative),” postmodernism does not indicate a rejection of the Christian metanarrative but instead “represents a retrieval of a fundamentally Augustinian epistemology that is attentive to the structural necessity of faith preceding reason” (Smith, pp. 68, 72).
What do I have to add—Молодец! Я сосласна! I highly recommend Smith’s book—he does an excellent job of “demythologizing” the common (evangelical) misunderstandings of postmodernism and in more or less “conversational” language.
[The title of this post is dedicated to James G. : )].
5 Responses so far
12:50 am
I have been meaning to read Smith’s new book, but I keep getting distracted by other things (such as Barth’s Dogmatics and Balthasars’ Mysterium Pachale). Sigh. So much reading, so little time.
Thanks for posting this. I recently read Lyotard’s book, The Postmodern Condition, so it is interesting to hear what others are thinking about this topic. Folks like Wittgenstein and Lyotard continually draw me back to Barth’s assertion that all knowledge of God is premised upon GOd’s self-revelation. Therefore, there will always be an element of mystery present within the language game played by the Church — and this element cannot be communicated convincingly to other “islands of determinism” (Lyotard’s words), unless God chooses to reveal himself. Successful communication of Christian truth-claims is always a tricky blend of Word, deed, and miracle.
Given what you have said of Smith’s perspective, I fear I may be more critical of Lyotard than he is. I am suspicion of a form of knowledge that is legitimated solely by paralogy. Furthermore, I disagree with Lyotard when he argues that we can only produce knowledge of the unknown and not of the known. Finally, Lyotard’s focus on dissension rather than consent is useful for countering hegemonic states and oppressive institutions but I do not entirely discard stable systems because of my faith in a Creator God. Among other things, the cross of Christ teaches us that there are “systems of control” that are not “terrorist”. God’s system of control does not “remove other players from the game”, rather God himself, in Christ, is removed from the game, taking on the full consequences of terror in order to set us free.
Grace and peace.
12:47 pm
Hi Dan,
I would highly recommend reading Smith’s book when you have time :)
Smith is not uncritical of Lyotard, however, I am focusing more on the positive contributions in this post.
Kind regards,
Cynthia
10:23 pm
HAHA. I love it! :)
Btw. Good strummin on the guitar! Did you know that both Michael Sudduth and I also played in bands (not together though), and Aaron Bradford does too? GC should just become a musician’s forum! :) j/k James A if you’re reading this.
9:56 am
Hi James,
Thanks as to the guitar comment. I do remember an exchange with Sudduth after my “conversion” to Gibson 175’s over Fender strats :)
Cheers,
Cynthia
5:15 pm
Good call – though I’m biased!
My next buy for electric: http://www.parkerguitars.com/code/models/models_fly_classic_intro.asp
I also like Musicman (the pricey ones, that is), Ibanez, ESP, and PRS.
Leave a comment