 | Tangentium |
March '04: Menu
All material on this site remains © the original authors: please see our submission guidelines for more information. If no author is shown material is © Drew Whitworth. For any reproduction beyond fair dealing, permission must be sought: e-mail drew@comp.leeds.ac.uk. ISSN number: 1746-4757 |
March 2004: Key terms definedEnlightenment ¦ Environment(s) ¦ Postmodernism ¦ Signs and signifiers The EnlightenmentThis is one of the main themes in the historical development of human thought. The Enlightenment was no single moment or event, but a combination of many processes which could be held to have started as far back as the Renaissance, when thinkers such as Machiavelli, da Vinci and Galileo first called into question the received, theological wisdom of the age. The torch these men lit was passed on to other philosophers and scientists such as Newton, Descartes, Voltaire, Darwin and many others. The main factors in the Enlightenment were a hostility towards religion, and a belief in the ability of rational thought and scientific method to reveal the true nature of the physical world -- and ultimately the social world as well. Through the continual expansion of science, in both breadth and detail, humanity would throw off the shackles of superstition and progress to further, higher states of being. The German word for "Enlightenment", Aufklärung, has an interesting root in the word "clearing"; fogs of ignorance which blocked vision were to be blown away. The Enlightenment's rationalist approach to science and society came under criticism in the 20th century in several ways. With developments such as chaos theory and quantum mechanics, the universe itself seemed to refute the claim that we could know all there was to know about it if only our tools of measurement were precise enough. Human systems, particularly, were felt by many to be inappropriate objects of study with Enlightenment principles. Philosophically, Enlightenment's claim to be able to reveal the universe's ultimate truth were questioned, first by thinkers such as the Frankfurt School who disputed the methods used to attain that truth, then by Postmodernists who disputed that there was any "truth" to be found in the first place. Nevertheless, key Enlightenment themes such as secularism and the proper application of scientific methods in academia still dominate human thought today. As a passing and concluding remark, though, it is interesting to contrast this use of the term "enlightenment" with its use in Buddhism. There, "enlightenment" is to be achieved on a purely personal level, when one is ready, and after years if not decades of diligent attention to it. Note also that Buddhist places of worship are venues for a dialogue either with one's inner self or with a teacher or guru; they are not grandiose halls which are the site for a one-way communication from an incorruptible God or Church. In contrast, the very Western Enlightenment which is commonly called that was thrust upon all of us whether we were ready or not. Environment(s)"The environment" is a familiar theme in political debate. Whatever one's feelings about "environmentalism", it is clear that judgments about the impact of human social and economic processes on the non-human world are an important influence upon politics in a way they were not until, roughly, the 1960s. The iconic book which was claimed, more than any other, to have raised awareness of environmental issues was Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, first published in 1962, although it should be borne in mind that her book contained more than 40 pages of footnotes to other scientific works; Carson was merely the first to collect these together and publish them in a readable, populist style. Since then, its themes have become commonplaces in political debate, although the lip service paid to environmentalism is not always followed through in legislation or changes in consumer behaviour. There are also debates as to whether we should see the environment as having value in its own right (a point of view sometimes termed ecocentricity or as something which acquires value because of its utility to humanity (also known as anthropocentricity). These debates are important, although not really our concern here. It is simplistic, however, to think that "the environment" can be easily equated to a "Nature" from which humanity stands apart. With reference to the biosphere/noösphere theme, for example, a crude model could term the biosphere as "Nature" or "environment" and humanity's sphere as the noösphere. Hopefully the supplementary essay demonstrates some of the problems which could arise from this view. Humans draw on both the biosphere and noösphere to determine quality of life; indeed, to exist at all. The fact is that we use the term "environment" in all sorts of ways. There are "business environments", or "political environments", or "work environments". Does this devalue the term? Not at all. In fact it reflects its true origins, in the French environ meaning "that which is around [something]" (now used as an English word in its own right). Any system, institution or organisation exists within a particular environment that is itself comprised of other systems. Nor, as we have pointed out, are these systems at the mercy of their environment. Rather, the system and environment (other systems) are engaged in a perpetual, dynamic exchange, each influencing the other. "The" environment is almost a meaningless phrase. In order to judge the activities of any given organisation, or business, or person, or anything else, one should ask: how does that entity perceive its own environment? What environmental conditions are best suited to the entity and what will it tend to do in order to perpetuate those conditions? How, in turn, will those activities affect the environments of others? That the term "environment" is used in many different ways is not a problem with its definition. In fact, it accurately spears the central issue here: the way that "quality of environment" is often dependent on one's particular perspective. In these differences of opinion lie much political conflict, whether expressed in "green" terms or not. PostmodernismTo summarise postmodernism in a couple of paragraphs would be futile. Like the Enlightenment -- which itself would be seen as the defining theme in modernism -- post-modernism is a theme which runs through several distinct disciplines of human activity, rather than being a "moment" or a discipline in its own right. If the various postmodernisms share a characteristic, it is one of general scepticism towards its modernist precursors, but a scepticism that is reacted to not by returning to "pre-modern" ways of thinking, but by seeking alernatives in the (sometimes mundane) reality around us in the current age. Personal, subjective experiences are valued over all else, and particularly over any suggestion that "science" or any other self-proclaimed authority is the only legitimate source of "truth". Thus, we have postmodern art (seeking art in advertising, trashy celebrity TV, sport, anywhere except the gallery and the artistic "establishment"), or postmodern politics (conducted via media soundbites, populist slogans and staged confrontations rather than serious issues and rational debate). Cultural postmodernism is self-referential or self-mocking. Postmodern design or architecture deliberately harks back to modernist predecessors (in order to subvert them?) or tosses away all previous conventions in a denial of any underlying reality. Often there is an implied challenge: you either get it, or you do not: you enjoy it, or you do not. Subjectivity is celebrated. The "postmodernist" label is also applied to a range of political theorists, though without complete consensus over the membership of the postmodernist school. Their most important ancestor is sometimes identified as Ferdinand de Saussure, who first analysed language as a system that developed over time and therefore had different relevance to different times, cultures and individuals. This literary theory -- known as structuralism -- was developed by various theorists (mainly French) such as Barthes, Lacan, Derrida, Foucault, Baudrillard and Lyotard. Each of these is a very important writer and in a brief summary like this one, we cannot even start to elaborate upon their most basic points. But, essentially, a consequence of the relativist nature of language is that our very definitions of reality are open to question, at least, if anyone claims that a particular interpretation of reality should attain the status of universal "truth". Just as there are many postmodern theorists so there are many criticisms to be made of the field. Again, there is not the space to begin this process here: for one criticism, however, the reader is directed back to this month's two essays which challenge the assertion of some "vulgar" postmodernists that there is no underlying reality to be found beneath subjective interpretations. For more sources of information here, see this month's links page. Signs and signifiersIn his definitive Course in General Linguistics, de Saussure (see postmodernism above) noted that rather than words equating exactly with material concepts, language was in fact a system of signs. Each sign had two elements, a signifier -- the word -- and a signified -- the concept being described. But the relationship between signifier and signified was essentially arbitrary. Even with a simple term like "dog", we may be describing either a general family of animals or a particular individual in that family: we may also be using it as a metaphor. The image called to mind by the word will differ from person to person (and perhaps occasion to occasion). All this for a word whose definitions and use are not normally the source of conflict. How much more difficult it would be to agree upon the use of more abstract signs: "truth", "justice", "democracy"... The supplementary essay of our January issue, "Language, Knowledge and Exclusion", referred to Wittgenstein's idea of "language games". Even amongst those who all speak the same language, signs and signifiers can differ so greatly between certain groups that they cannot communicate effectively. There is great disagreement, for instance, over what is signified by the signifier, "democracy". Therefore, there are effectively different signs, all called "democracy", which compete within our society for dominance in discourse. Over important signs like this, political conflict can emerge. | |