Poststructuralism on Trial

At fifteen, I made an unnerving discovery.

I was living in a postmodern world.

I remember trying to share the Gospel with a friend who had already left for a tiny liberal arts college in New England. This friend responded by telling me that if Christianity was my reality, that was fine. But it wasn't her reality, and what was "right" for me wasn't necessarily right for her. Her lukewarm words made me feel deflated, but they did not cool my passion for evangelism. As a consequence of this exchange, I began investigating postmodernism and its main tenets. I assumed that if I could understand the current cultural and academic trends, I would be better equipped to share my faith. I was right. My rudimentary, teenage investigation has stood the test of time, providing a decent foundation for my subsequent, academically-oriented studies and giving me the tools to construct-- no pun intended-- a Christian response to postmodernism and poststructuralism.

Unlike some ardent apologists, I don't waste a considerable amount of energy condemning postmodernism. Sometimes I'm able to make use of its more mainstream manifestations and its vocabulary.

However, I don't agree with the core postmodern / poststructuralist ideology because it has the potential to eliminate the world's sense of ethics. Furthermore, it is self-contradictory. After reading "The Race for Theory," I think that Barbara Christian would resonate with my sentiments.

Christian brings up the point that poststructuralist discourse is itself a metanarrative. She sees it as oppressive and stringent, accomplishing the very thing that it seeks to eradicate. I had never looked at postmodernism's self-contradictions from the perspective of language. Christian also opened my eyes to the secular critique of poststructuralism. Before reading her remarks, I thought that all major, secular critics and academics adhered to postmodern theory. Obviously, I was wrong.

Barbara Christian critiques poststructuralism from her unique situatedness as a female, African-American intellectual. One of her main points of contention concerns the poststructuralist's murdering of the author. She states that powerful white intellectuals conceived of this concept right as the narratives of people of color began to surface, suggesting that the newly-discovered "death of the author" wasn't a coincidence. I'm not sure that her theory is true-- I would need more information. But her complaint that poststructuralist theory steals power from the authors who have fought for empowerment seems absolutely valid and legitimate.

Christian's commentary makes me consider the ramifications of white privilege within the world of criticism. The likes of Derrida, Lacan, and Barthes can enjoy the luxury of playing with theory and droning that metanarratives and authors do not exist. For them, it is only literary criticism-- a game that has no effect on them personally as white males. Those who have been disenfranchised-- with the exception of white females such as Cixous-- can't afford to toy with poststructuralist theory because it takes away their very rights and souls as humans yearning for justice.

Unfortunately, I found Christian's response to poststructuralism disappointing. She advocates a different approach to every work, essentially fulfilling the aim of the theory she seeks to abandon by rejecting all metanarratives, including poststructuralism. She's more postmodern that the poststructuralists! She also falls into their fallacy by denying metanarratives. Her conclusion places her right where she started.

As a result of reading Barbara Christian's critique, I have further reason to believe that postmodernism and poststructuralism will not continue to reign in academia indefinitely. Eventually intellectuals will see these problems and reject this movement. I pray that after poststructuralism dies they will embrace an honest, true ideology, an ideology would draw them closer to Christ.