The need for a College of Ideas

Since the late 1960s Western culture –- and the rest of the world’s cultures were not far behind –- has increasingly moved into a phase commonly referred to as ‘postmodernity’.

To be able to operate in this cultural environment in an informed, knowledgeable way, regardless of the field within which one works, it is imperative that one has a grasp of the structural and dynamic features of postmodernity in as many of its ramifications as possible.

For example, what is the difference, if any, between ‘postmodernity’, ‘postmodernism’ and ‘the postmodern’, if any? Needless to say, these concepts implicate other concepts that are inscribed in them as their historical and/or critical counterparts, namely ‘modernity’, ‘modernism’ and ‘the modern’, as well as ‘modernization’ –- a concept perhaps slightly more familiar. What would the connection be between these and those qualified by the ‘post–’ prefix?

Besides, what does it matter whether one really knows the finer distinctions between these somewhat esoteric terms? On the one hand, if a person is the kind of professional, or employee, or employer, or worker who simply ‘does his or her job’ without taking much trouble to understand where and how it fits into the ‘bigger scheme of things’, it would probably not matter a great deal.

If, on the other hand, you are the kind of person who makes it your business to get a grip on the way things are interconnected –- because it is not enough to know how to do something; it is as important to know why it is done that way, then the kind of questions raised at the outset may assume a great deal of importance.

For example, you would find out that both ‘modernity’ and ‘postmodernity’ are concepts pertaining to a certain, recognizable kind of culture, while their ‘–ism’ counterparts, namely ‘modernism’ and ‘postmodernism’, denote certain critical and creative appropriations of these kinds of culture on the part of artists, writers, architects, philosophers and scientists. It follows, of course, that modernity and postmodernity are different kinds of culture, and that the way they differ may be termed ‘structural’.

That this could be important to people working in a wide variety of fields becomes even more apparent when one considers that one crucial difference between modernism and postmodernism concerns the manner in which social and cultural change is understood and evaluated. Modernists usually accept the inevitability of change, but with the proviso that there are ways to stabilize or control it, while postmodernists embrace change without any attempt to arrest the flux. Instead, they sometimes even exacerbate it — the notion (in the business world) of ‘thriving on chaos’ is an example of such a postmodernist stance. It should be obvious that this distinction already enables one to distinguish between different attitudes to work, to human relationships and to nature; in fact, to life.

Other concepts are closely related to the ones referred to above. They help one to understand the differences between the modern and the postmodern. Industrialization, for example, is closely related to the modern in an historical (the industrial revolution) as well as a structural sense (industrialization). In fact, when ‘modernity’ or modern culture first arrived on the stage of history, it was recognizable by means of the juxtaposition, for the first time in history, of four spheres of reason –- what one might also call four areas of expertise – namely, (modern) science, morality and politics conceived of separately from the church, autonomous art and aesthetics, and technology (in industrial guise, and closely linked to the first of these spheres, namely scientific cognition).

It should be mentioned that this historical appearance of modern culture (against the backdrop of what is called premodernity) in structurally recognizable form went hand in hand with the historical Enlightenment, also sometimes referred to as the Age of Reason, when reason was established as the arbiter regarding questions of any kind, instead of the church (as had been the case for centuries).

Looking backwards from there, as it were, the Enlightenment was preceded by the Reformation and Counter–Reformation, and those, in turn, by the Renaissance, which was preceded by the Middle Ages, the era of the Roman Empire (also known as the Hellenistic era) and, earlier than that, by Greek Antiquity. One could go back like this to the time of the ancient Hebrews, Babylonians, Akkadians and the Sumerians (with whom writing originated), and to the first great economic revolution, namely the agricultural revolution about 10000 years ago, when the first large settlements occurred due to the discovery that one could grow various kinds of crops for a living instead of hunting and gathering in smaller, nomadic groups.

It is quite remarkable that the second great economic revolution occurred only about two and a half centuries ago –- what was earlier referred to as the industrial revolution. Even more remarkable is the fact that people living today are witnesses to the third great economic revolution, namely the information revolution.

It should therefore not be difficult to infer from what has been said so far that the modern or modernity coincides with the Enlightenment and with the industrial revolution, and that modernization goes hand in hand with industrialization. On the other hand, the postmodern or postmodernity coincides with the information revolution, or what some commentators call ‘informatisation’ or ‘postmodernisation’.

It is further noteworthy that each of the economic phases of development that corresponds to modernity and postmodernity, respectively, has the effect of establishing a hierarchy of economic power in the world.

Furthermore, regarding the current condition known as ‘globalization’, it is noticeable that postmodernity and globalization at different levels go hand in hand. These different levels of globalization as a process bear close scrutiny in relation to the other concepts referred to earlier, if one is to understand where and how different countries (and different human activities) fit into the present cultural, socio–political and economic context.

The impact of globalization in economic and cultural terms is different in the case of so–called ‘developing’, as opposed to ‘developed’ countries. The former are far more vulnerable than the latter to what could be described as economic neocolonialism, for example.

From the brief overview provided above it should be clear to anyone operating in the current global context -– at a national or international professional level -– that conceptual clarification of this context enables one to assess one’s own position vis–á–vis the kind of cultural activity one is engaged in: is it essentially modern (in a postmodern world), is it postmodern (something that could assume various shapes), does it further globalization, and if so, is this a good thing in an unqualified sense?

It is even the case (perhaps surprisingly) that certain premodern cultural practices and beliefs still continue to exist side by side with modern and postmodern ones. For instance, in a country like South Africa there is still a widespread, superstitious belief in magic and witchcraft (witness ‘muti murders’), something that is essentially premodern in so far as it reflects a mindset that has not even accepted reason (never mind culturally diversified reason) as the basis for civilized living.

Access to discussions of interrelated, as well as sometimes contrasting concepts and ideas like these is limited, in South Africa, to some university courses in philosophy, cultural studies and history, but — and this is a big but — these are far and few between. Most of the time, insights such as the ones briefly presented above are scattered or spread over a wide variety of courses in the disciplines alluded to, as well as in some courses in English literature, communication theory, architecture and art history.

What is desperately needed in South Africa is greater access to advanced, critical discussions of these issues at existing institutions. Or perhaps there is a need for an institution like a College of Ideas (sponsored by the private sector, if necessary) where leading intellectuals are free –- without the current constraints limiting universities –- to guide students by focusing unapologetically and with all the required intellectual rigour on concepts and ideas such as the ones outlined here in cursory fashion.

These students should preferably not be first–years, but individuals with at least a basic (Bachelors or Baccalaurean) degree, and preferably working as professionals in various fields. People such as these are in positions where their own ability to orientate themselves conceptually in the current, very complex world context in cultural, economic, social and political terms would make all the difference to the confidence, knowledgeability and skill with which they navigate this world and simultaneously practice their professions.

The British tradition of a PPE–degree (Philosophy, Politics and Economics) provides just such an intellectual orientation. South Africa needs something similar across a wide spectrum of existing institutions of tertiary education (I have a vague sense that a PPE is already offered at one or more of them). Given the present situation at South African universities, however — that is, their increasing corporatization and concomitant bureaucratization, neither of which processes is primarily predicated on the intellectual enhancement of universities — it is unlikely that its equivalent could see the light in the foreseeable future.