A recent article by a scholar at the National Library of Israel, offers some important commentary on the influence of “postmodernism” in contemporary religion, literature, art, and the social sciences, which is perceived by many current Zionist scholars as having a subversive effect on Zionism’s foundational principles and ideology (Zionism understood here as a Jewish nationalist, pro-Israel, movement predicated on the preservation of Judaism’s unique historical, cultural and religious identity). Postmodernism (a school of recent thought characterized by a general rejection of ideological absolutes, devaluation of foundational values, deconstruction of Enlightenment “meta narratives”, and repudiation of objective ‘facts’ in the physical-social-behavioral sciences) these thinkers believe, has undermined the intellectual basis upon which the Zionist worldview is founded. Postmodernism’s influence on contemporary Zionist scholarship in these ways has destabilized foundational Zionist principles and undermined the Zionist narrative (and indeed, all objective principles and foundational cultural-historical narratives). Hence, they contend, postmodern thought is not only dangerous but false, and should be rejected by Zionist scholars.
The author responds to this concern by counter-claiming that, though well-intentioned and somewhat justified, this critique is nonetheless an over-reaction and/or misinterpretation of postmodernism’s scope and substance—and overestimates its threat to Zionist (and western) values. While postmodern thought often does provide a negative critique of moral absolutes, objective knowledge claims and trans-historical narratives, it also doesn’t, in any uniform or consistent way, completely reject the possibility of moral, metaphysical or ontological absolutes, or the intellectual-cultural tradition that engendered them. Postmodernism as a school of thought, for instance, isn’t a monolithic ideology with well-defined hermeneutical parameters. It is instead an umbrella term encompassing numerous thinkers and theories—some of whom actually share important themes with Zionists. There is a tremendous difference between schools of thought from existentialism/phenomenology , post-structuralism, critical theory, and deconstruction —and between thinkers like JP Sartre, Richard Rorty, Martin Buber, and Derrick Bell– among many others, and this kind of postmodern diversity doesn’t lend itself to the type of simplistic clichés and characterizations that its Zionist and other critics tend to reduce it to.
This overly simplistic view of postmodernism, the article claims, leads to an oversimplified assessment by these scholars of what postmodernism’s challenge to the western tradition entails. Assuming that it simply involves a repudiation of western civilization, subversiveness for the sake of subversiveness itself, and a radical relativism that obliterates any possible moral hierarchies or ontological truth-claims, Zionist scholars have created a rhetorical “straw man” against which they can score imaginary points in mock intellectual combat. However, the supposed postmodern worldview they are attacking is not what postmodernism (insofar as there IS any common postmodern position) represents. Though the charges leveled against it on these counts are not entirely inaccurate or unfair, postmodern theory is much more nuanced and subtle than these allegations do justice to: “there is a great distance”, the article continues,
“between, on one hand, the awareness of the partial social construction of human knowledge, and , on the other hand, the belief that there is no truth or morality, that there is no way to separate truth from falsehood beyond the passing mood of an individual.”
In addition to this, postmodernism —either as a general ideology or in its varied specific expressions— hasn’t proven to be nearly as influential as its detractors claim. Scientists haven’t abandoned their research programs, courts haven’t thrown away rules of evidence, social science hasn’t denied that some narratives about history and society are more accurate than others, and (most) philosophers still talk seriously about “truth”. At most, postmodern influences have encouraged these traditional fields to expand the scope of their self-critical perspective which, while sometimes disruptive for a well-established field, is hardly the kind of intellectually chaotic influence that Zionists have attributed to postmodern thought.
However, the most interesting and important concern the article raises involves a related analysis of what, above and beyond any specific ideological objections leveled against it, may often underwrite current scholarly antipathy toward postmodern thought in general: the psycho-social phenomenon of “moral panic”. The article explains:
“Moral Panic, a term developed by the sociologist Stanley Cohen, is a way to create social solidarity by identifying a dangerous enemy, even when that opponent is not a real threat. As Emile Durkheim taught, every society needs deviants to define for the normative group members what the group values are. Moral panic is an extreme example of this phenomenon. Enemies are identified or created not because they are truly threatening, but because the threat helps create solidarity among the members of the threatened group. The more extreme the threat and the louder and more emotional the response to the threat, the more successful the attempt to consolidate the group”
Moral panic is certainly a familiar phenomenon in our contemporary cultural milieu, and the article yields some important insights regarding not just the Zionist response to postmodern thought, but also—if we expand its analysis to other areas—about a similarly hostile response to postmodernism in conservative American Christian, Muslim communities, and even nationalist Hindu communities in South Asia, who also perceive it as subverting their respective worldviews and social institutions. Hindu nationalist and public intellectual Rajiv Malhotra, for instance, argues (in a way that clearly echoes the concerns of Zionist thinkers) that:
“Postmodernism has made it fashionable to deconstruct what its adherents called the ‘grand narratives’ of history…postmodernist advocate that all identities be dismantled or blurred and view all positively distinctive cultures as being oppressive to weaker or less assertive ones…The post modern insistence on denying such identities as ‘Indian’ and ‘Western’ leaves non-western cultures vulnerable to further exploitation because they are denied a distinction that is real and defensible….The end-state of postmodernist deconstruction is one of nihilism and indifference. After deconstructing the metanarratives of every culture, there is nothing left to put in their place, whereas in the Indian approach…Dharmic notions of Selfhood would provide the foundation for a positive existence.”
The mentality of moral panic may also explain much of the Manichean purview, misinformed ideology, and exaggerated tone underwriting the “culture war” rhetoric prominent through the entire history of American political discourse from its inception through the Trump era. From political outrage against “savage” Native Americans on the frontier, to the waves of immigrants perceived as overrunning and undermining “the American way of life”, to “anarchists and Godless communists” (who , by the McCarthy Era, were hiding “under every bed”), to the “scourge of drugs” on American society in the 1980’s, to African American music and culture seen as a menace to lawfulness and middleclass values, to the “threat of radical Islam” and “socialism” at the dawn of the 20th century, to Critical Race Theory , Mexican illegals, and transgender athletes allegedly menacing American institutions over the past few decades, moral panic on the social-political right has simultaneously created the perception of immanent menace and marshaled enormous political solidarity and activism in political movements inspired by these perceived threats. Unsurprisingly, current right wing political apprehensions over Critical Race Theory, and general antipathy toward postmodern ethical relativism among Christian nationalists (often voiced in explicit solidarity with Zionism), stems from its perceived threat to traditional “American values” for many of the same reasons as Zionist scholars are criticizing it— and these Christian nationalists exhibit a similar penchant for the rhetoric of moral panic in doing so.
None of this is accurate, let alone responsible, and neither the rhetoric nor the psycho-social spirit of moral panic is beneficial to any fair or constructive understanding of postmodernism and it’s current significance as a cultural phenomenon. Indeed, as the article suggests, perhaps the most reasonable way to understand postmodernism is not as an ideology at all, but instead as simply a commentary on the human condition in the post-industrial, post-capitalist and post-Enlightenment west. Postmodern thought, in other words, just describes and analyzes the state of human affairs in the postmodern era. It doesn’t promote any particular political agenda or social ideology precisely because it remains so skeptical of such agendas and ideologies. Rather, it reflects on what western society and philosophy have become in our contemporary cultural milieu. It explains and critiques (sometimes as harshly as it’s rightwing critics, but without the moral panic) the state of contemporary civilization in the wake of widespread disillusionment with its basic institutions and beliefs. Viewing postmodernism in this way: as a window on contemporary culture, rather than a socially-philosophically-motivated polemic against traditional beliefs and institutions, may help attenuate the hostility that it has evoked among Zionist and other thinkers, who are anxious about its potential influence.
We hope you enjoy our articles. Please note, we may collect a share of sales or other compensation from the links on this page. Thank you if you use our links, we really appreciate it!
