Per Caritatem

What is postmodernism? This is no doubt not an easy question. On the one hand, given its name, we might say that post-modernism is a reaction to modernity. The term “post-modern,” however, was not originally coined in philosophy, but was first used in architecture in the 1950’s by Charles Jenks in his, The Language of Post-Modern Architecture. The title itself at first has an odd rings to it, as language has to do with signification. But perhaps it is not so strange if we consider Jenks’ point to be that edifices necessarily “speak.” In his book, Jenks celebrates the death of modern architecture. His criticism is not that the buildings were destroyed by the communities that erected them for aesthetic reasons, but rather because they attracted crime. Hence, the insight is that human beings could not really exist in these buildings (neither in the structure nor in the theory). The buildings are inhuman—they do not speak, and thus they do not provide meaning/significance. In effect, they rest on the principle of immanence and are produced for “efficiency.” People will eventually reject such rigid environments that are no doubt “rational” but have the smell of death. (Here I can’t help but think of the apartment buildings –доми—in Russia that consist in pre-made concrete squares). The building are “rational,” yet they do not give people any meaning. In contrast, consider pre-modern architecture, in which the structures overflow with meaning. (Again, I think of the beautiful churches in Russia—церкви и соборы—that scream transcendence). With these building, definite patterns of behavior are suggested. Consequently, one does not have to invent meaning ex nihilo, whereas the modern, “rational” buildings demand that one create meaning. The modern buildings are not transcendent; they point only to their own sufficiency. In contrast, pre-modern church buildings point beyond themselves and overflow with transcendence.

So does Jenks suggest that we start building pre-modern structures again? No. Jenks acknowledges that many new construction practices have been introduced and that history itself won’t allow us to capture times past. Rather, he suggests that we build buildings that e.g., use modern materials and innovations, which simultaneously negate modernity through perhaps an eccentric shape or something that communicates “openness” and not just closed-in space.

Relating this back to a more straightforward philosophical focus, there is of course “good” and “bad” postmodernism. “Bad” postmodernism simply becomes a kind of game and language is no longer taken seriously. “Good” postmodernism, such as what we find in Jean-Luc Marion, embraces finitude and sees creation as iconic. In fact, Christian thinkers like Marion are doing an excellent job engaging positively and meaningfully with the postmodern movement, and in so doing Christianity is given a voice in circles that would otherwise prefer that that voice be silenced.