A Postmodern Family Romance

I was asked to pick one of my questions from the "interests" conversation and flush it out a little. I thought I'd do it as a podcast. Here is the link:

A Postmodern Family Romance (click this link to listen)

The book I reference is Lynn Hunt's The Family Romance and the French Revolution.

****************************

Edited to add podcast manuscript below (minus the intro and closing)

***************************

The question I want to work with is, “How should a Christian community organize structurally given the emerging postmodern family romance?”

I have to admit up front, that in this installment I'm not going to present my answer. Instead, I want to talk a bit about what that questions means.

In the early 90's I acquired a book by Lynn Hunt entitled The Family Romance and the French Revolution. In it Hunt attempted to understand the causes of the French Revolution through a couple of psychological theories, Sigmund Freud's “family romance” and Rene Girrard's theory of sacrifice. It is her adaptation of the family romance that I'm most concerned with at the moment. So, what I present is my adaptation of her adaptation, and then I want to apply it to the postmodern paradigm shift.

Before I start, I want lay out a couple of concepts that are important in all of this. There is a difference between “power” and “authority.” Authority is the ability to affect others' through a perceived relationship without the use of force. So, if someone who is an authority says, “this is what I want to see done,” those who see them as an authority will pursue that goal or at least support it, not because they feel threatened or powerless, but because that's what they want to do. Authority influences others in a positive emotional way. Power, on the other hand, is all about the ability to wield force. Sometimes, people do things their boss tells them, not because they like it, not because they want to, but because their boss has the power to affect their livelihood. They don't want to get fired; and maybe they wouldn't mind having a raise. So the difference between using power and authority is how the influence is leveraged. Does it involve the use of force?

Keeping in mind that society at large is in many respects a reflection of and an extension of the family, I believe we can use the family romance as a lens to get a better sense of the nature of authority in a given society. Basically, the family romance is a vision of why the family exists and how it should be structured. On a deep level, reflects and guides our notions of authority. It is part of our narrative “truth.” As such, it is one of our primary measures for legitimacy. We defer to those who conform to our personal family romance, because we see them as legitimate authorities. On the other hand, leaders who act in ways that defy our expectations (which are informed by our family romance) are called into question. So we in turn defy them either actively through resistance or passively through ignoring them...unless of course we have good reason not to, such as the fear of power.

While society functions a lot like a family, I need to emphasize that the family romance of a society and the power structure of society are not the same thing. It may be true that society functions most effectively when its structures conform to the dominant family romance. But sometimes structures do not conform. When that happens, they are found to be lacking any actual authority. At that point social leaders only have the threat of positional power to maintain control. Typically, societal structures at least mostly conform to the dominant family romance; if they didn't society not work. Once this this union is established and entrenched, the result, I would argue, is the framework for a cultural “paradigm.”

As we know, societies can and do change. Nobody begins widespread change with the statement “hey, I've got this really bad idea; why don't we try it?” People work toward societal change based on their good ideas. They believe their ideas are good based on their experience. Their experience informs their narratives. Their narratives are their evaluative tool for what is good and bad, meaningful and meaningless. If their current experience is overall good, why change it? But if the experience with society is such that there is a continued and growing dissatisfaction, then maybe we should be working toward something else, something with more good in it perhaps? The fruit of discontent is this: the longing for new vision. The experience of dissatisfaction is what moves us toward change.

Societal structures and the family romance, though separate, are still related, and quite intertwined. People will maintain their family romance until there is sufficient reason to change it. These changes seem to happen when the experience with the power structure becomes negative. As the negativity increases, dreams of what “ought to be” arise. A new vision is born, a new family romance created to replace the deficient one. It is according to this new family romance that the current structures are then evaluated.

This new vision drives the change. Very simply, the old paradigm no longer works, and a new one is needed. This desire for a new structure is not a mild request without consequence; this is not “would you consider changing things so I can feel better, please?” This is actually a demand. This is about saying, “look, I really don't give a flying fuck about what you say or what you want; the only reason I'm doing this is because you have the power to tell me I don't have a choice.” On the surface, there may be an facade of conformity, but that's just practical when dealing with power. Meanwhile, cloak and dagger resistance finds expression under the radar. Words and deeds reveal the shattered trust and lack of respect that results from offending the new family romance.

In the academic spotlight, we have seen the challenge issued to the modern intellectual establishment in new schools of thought. Through science, we've come to know more about our universe than ever before. And it turns out that humanity is but a small part of it. Without us, it would continue. We've finally realized that just because something is beneficial for humanity doesn't mean that it is good for the world in which we live. Moreover, the new sciences, such as quantum physics and chaos theory, through their illumination also challenge the capacity for the human mind to comprehend. Hence their labeling as “theory” rather than “law.” Just because something is not observable under normal circumstances doesn't mean that it isn't measurable, that is isn't real. On the surface, it may seem that the new sciences lower the bar for reason. Quite the contrary, it raises it by demanding alongside rigorous academic standards an element of humility.

In the softer sciences, postmodern philosophy deconstructs our attempts to raise our being upon the highground. It has affected us much like the hard sciences as it forces us to recognize the relativity of our perspectives. If there is such a thing as “Truth,” it is unattainable, which actually makes the whole argument over whether Truth exists or not irrelevant. So, one's “truth” is always relative to one's perspective. There is a hermeneutic of suspicion that guides deconstruction. No one is objective. Everyone has an agenda. Language is the way we try to realize our agendas. The quest for Truth gives way to attempts at understanding the biased argument.

Postmodern psychology has erased our understanding of the healthy self as “centered.” In place of the centered self, we now find the process self, relational self, or multi-phrenic condition. Human beings are relational creatures. We are not meant to be the same person the same way in all places. Our identity is now fluid, with healthy personhood being relative for each individual. It's a very different view of the self.

Whether we look at the changes in science, philosophy, or psychology, all of these changes in academia interpenetrate each other while still remaining separate. They all carry with them a certain kind of posture. They are all reasonable, relative, contextual, relational, participatory, and humble in their approach to truth.

Postures are not the same as values. Values change from context to context. Values are not the way we enter into a conversation. Values are part of the conversation. People can share equally in a conversation with opposing values, as long as they share the same posture. If people have opposing postures, however, the conversation cannot even begin. So, we watch for postures because they let us know the extent to which we can be in productive conversation with the other. Because they are the way we enter into conversations, our postures present our attitudes toward authentic engagement.

This change in posture by the university has led directly to a change in thinking about the role of agendas and the nature of authority within a conversation, which leads to a change in thinking about authority in general. Postmodern thought has generated the tools necessary for a scathing critique of modernity. Reason, relativity, contextualization, relationality, participation, and humility have possibly become the hallmarks of a postmodern intellectual sub-culture.

It takes more than just thought, though, for intellectual culture to become a cultural family romance. Before that can happen, it has to find some sense of a moderately coherent voice that can echo through different areas of life. The primary channels for that voice seems to be the increasingly available university education, information technology, and the media. More people than ever are entering higher education. The postmodern posture dominates there. Students encounter others from different walks of life who have different perspectives. It is not surprising that those who exit the university system reflect the social education they receive. Journalistic reports and the freedom of the internet offer their own openings to other perspectives and possibilities. Critique our “national heroes” abound as questionable practices are scrutinized. Entertainment media present their own narratives of how society has fallen, and what society might become.

Thanks to education, technology, and popular media we are no longer trapped in a parochial, disconnected worldview. We have the tools to question and voice our disagreement with one another through conversation. We have experienced a shared critique and a shared revisioning. Its that shared conversation that transformed the postmodern posture into a new family romance, and eventually brought about a cultural paradigm shift.

Narratives have a beginning (history), middle (present), and projected end (goal). They are the way that people make meaning out of their lives. It is through our narratives that we find our sense of purpose. Those things that weave well with our narratives are declared to be meaningful (or good), and those that don't are judged meaningless (or bad). We each have our personal narratives that only we participate in. But there are also larger narratives in which many people play their parts. The family romance is part of that wider narrative reality.

I would argue that the modern and postmodern narratives are drastically at odds with one another. The modern narrative emphasizes the quest for a unity grounded in commonality. It goes something like this. As humanity, we are meant to progress in such a way that we can focus on those things that unite us, thus moving beyond those petty little things that divide. All people should share in common community, be governed by the same rules, wherever they are, whoever they are, because all people are ultimately the same...they're just like me. Progress and unity go hand in hand. So, it's the goal of the modern family romance to unite now in the hope that one day all will be one. Certain organizations have tried to live out this narrative in a tangible structure. Perhaps the best examples of this are the United Nations, the World Council of Churches, and religious denominations. These all derive nourishment from the modern vision of how society should be structured and unified. They are also now all loosing their authority.

The new, postmodern family romance, pursues a different goal. And “goal” may be the wrong word, because it isn't really a goal. It is more of a way of relating in the here and now. Whereas the modern family romance quests for a unity grounded in commonality, the postmodern emphasizes an inclusivity that flows from a mutual respect for freedom. The postmodern romance cherishes diversity over unity. It cherishes the present over the unpredictable future. It cherishes uniqueness over normativity. It cherishes authenticity over propriety. The bottom line is it is simply postured and oriented in a completely different direction. Keep in mind that whenever a new family romance is not just meant to challenge, but to replace the old one, which has been judged and found wanting.

When a new family romance arrives and dominates, current structures have to explore new ways of organizing themselves so that they can faithfully reflect and order all of those involved. We're talking about issues of both power and authority. The structure of the system has to work in such a way that the nature of authority within the society is reflected in and validated by the power structure. My primary interest here is ecclesiological...because that's what I do. If denominations derive their legitimacy from the modern family romance (which is all about a quest for a unity grounded in commonality), what kind of structure is appropriately faithful for the new context (which is all about an inclusivity flowing from a mutual respect for freedom)? Like I said at the beginning of this podcast, I'm not going to answer that today. You're gonna have to wait for that one. Meanwhile, I'll let you wrestle with the question yourself.