The Ways of the Worldviews (Part 69): Postmodernism and Michel Foucault–Systems of Power

In his book, Who’s Afraid of Postmodernism?, James K.A. Smith discusses three major postmodern thinkers, and (in my opinion) not only successfully articulates how postmodernism is a reaction against the Enlightenment/Modern worldview that had dominated Western culture, but also how postmodernism actually creates space for Christianity to speak to our current society. In my previous post, I briefly explained what Smith said about Jacques Derrida and Jean-Francois Lyotard. In this post I will now focus on a third postmodern thinker: Michel Foucault.

Michel Foucault: “…Power is Knowledge”
If you grew up in the ‘70s and ‘80s, you might remember Schoolhouse Rock—and one of the phrases used in its opening was, “Knowledge is power!” (Let’s take a walk down memory lane!)

Well, Michel Foucault flipped that phrase to, “Power is Knowledge.” He is most known for his analysis of the prison system over the past couple hundred years, and his claim that institutional systems of power (be they government, educational, etc.) act as “prisons” that take away the freedom of individual people. Simply put, he felt that societal structures seek to control people; therefore, the same “tactics” used to control prison populations are the same tactics used to control people in society.

James K. A. Smith alludes to the movie One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest as exemplifying the very thing Foucault was saying about institutions: the mental hospital was claiming that it was helping the patients through scientific methodology, but in reality it was a prison where Nurse Ratched and her staff simply used manipulation and power to control the patients.

Now to me, Foucault seems like quite the anarchist, rebelling against any and all societal and governmental structures. And indeed, in his personal life, he was quite deplorable: extreme experimental drug user, dalliances with sadomasochism and sexual torture; and even after he contracted HIV in the early ‘80s, he continued in his sexual excesses, eventually dying in 1984 at the age of 57, and very probably having infected countless other people with the AIDS virus. So let’s be clear: Foucault was an awful and twisted person.

Nevertheless, James K.A. Smith points out a fundamental truth that Foucault emphasized: that there are “power-control” mechanisms in society that do, in fact, shape people within that society. For example, I grew up in Chicago—my surroundings and influences pretty much shaped me into being a life-long Cubs fan. If I had grown up in St. Louis or New York, I would have probably ended up being a Cardinals or Yankees fan. So yes, in one sense, I chose to become a Cubs fan; but in another sense, the choice was almost made for me.

But on a more serious level, we need to realize that there really are societal structures that do shape what kind of people, people become—these “power mechanisms” come in the form of advertising, the kind of news channels you watch, the government, political parties, what church you go to (or don’t go to), etc. We want to think that we are the ones choosing what we watch, what we believe, what our particular views are; but in reality, those things (at least in part) have been forced upon us from outside structures that seek to control us. In a way, it’s very much like Morpheus’ first speech with Neo in The Matrix:

So, there are greater societal forces and institutions that seek to control us and shape us through various systematic disciplines to act, think, and be a certain way. Now, Foucault claimed that all such disciplines are bad simply because they seek to shape people. He didn’t want anyone or anything tell him what to do, ever. But, as Smith points out, we need to realize that the “rightness” or “wrongness” of any discipline, institution, or structure depends on what they are trying to shape a person into—i.e. the result of such formation.

Therefore, the question when we look at societal structures is this: “What kind of people are these structures and institutions forming?” And when we ask that question about our current society, the answer is rather chilling.

Foucault’s America…Foucault’s Church (?)
Smith first points out that far too many “modern churches” unthinkingly have adopted Foucault’s viewpoint that all forms of church discipline are bad, and far too many modern American Christians hold fast to the very modern-Enlightenment notion of freedom that defines freedom as “the ability to do whatever I want, without anyone telling me what to do.”

The very Christian notion of discipleship, and Christ’s own admonition to his own disciples to go out an “make disciples” from among all nations, carries with it the idea of discipline, putting yourself under the authority of Christ and Church leaders, and allowing yourself to be transformed into the image of Christ. But unfortunately, the American form of Christianity seems to have more in common with a Rousseauean/Foucaultean “gospel” of individual freedom to “do what I want, as long as it doesn’t hurt anybody.”

At some point, we have to remember that the Apostle Paul said we have been set free from sin, death, and the desires of the flesh, so that we can become slaves to Christ—free to do good works in Christ, and using our freedom to build up others, not to gratify the desires of our flesh. As Smith states, “Freedom is an idol of the contemporary church, and we will only properly resist Foucault’s liberalism if we give up our own” (WAPM, 100).

By resisting any form of Christian discipline (and by that I don’t just mean some sort of punishment, but of taking part in the rituals, practices, and traditions in the Church), today’s Christians are unwittingly being “conformed to the patterns of this world,” contrary to Romans 12:2. And those “patterns of this world” are the focus of Smith’s second point: the prevalent systems in our American society that are constantly trying to shape us into the economic, sexual, consumeristic, and violent creatures. Just think of various movies, music, commercials and advertisements that vie for your attention, and think how they shape how you see the world and how you organize your life.

We need to acknowledge that such “patterns of this world” are actually dehumanizing people, in that they are reducing human beings to something less than being created in the image of God—holistic, creative, noble, dignified, and fully mature representations of the Creator God within His creation. And hence, this notion of hyper-individualized freedom to do whatever one wants is really no freedom at all. It simply leaves you open to those controlling forces in the world that will manipulate your instincts and desires, and shape you into the kind of creatures they want, so that they can use you and make a few bucks off you.

Therefore, Christians must resist this liberal notion of freedom, and seek to embrace traditional Christian disciplines so we can be continually transformed into the creatures God intends for us to be. We must continually be “renewing our minds” and allowing God to remake our hearts.

What Postmodernism Can Help Us Realize about the Christian Faith
Postmodernism, with its tendency to deconstruct the modern narratives and institutions and show them for what they are, can actually help Christians get back to the heart of the Christian faith.

First, postmodernism questions the claim that human beings can arrive at “objective truth.” We can’t, because we are creatures, bound by our own subjective experience. Nevertheless, that doesn’t mean we are unable to grasp truth. More importantly though, it should force us to realize that although we cannot ever fully comprehend God, we can know Him. We can faithfully and confidently proclaim the truth that has been revealed in Christ, the Scriptures, and Church tradition. Yes, this truth we proclaim is not fully objective, but it reveals the true “story of God”—it is the faithful interpretation of what God has revealed in Christ.

Second, we must not completely reject all forms of Christian tradition, practice and creed just so we can be “cool and relevant” to society. The truth of the Gospel is scandalous, there’s no getting around it. We must hold to historic Christian tradition. That is why I found myself so attracted to the Orthodox Church. I grew up in an Evangelical culture that was always (and unthinkingly) being shaped by various, fleeting cultural trends, in order to somehow “be relevant” to the world. I wanted a Church that challenged me to allow myself to changed by Christ, not one that catered to the desires and interests of pop culture.

Third, Christians need to stop trying to “suck up” to scientific modernism, and stop allowing the modern-Enlightenment narrative that preaches this false “faith vs. reason” dichotomy to dominate the playing field, both in the realm of science and Biblical studies. When we do that, we are unwittingly putting scientific rationalism above what God has revealed in Christ, the Scriptures, and the Church. Rather, we must point out how scientific modernism is based on certain presuppositions and faith commitments—and that is the playing field on which we must take on our culture.

And incidentally, this is precisely one of the fundamental problems of the young earth creationist movement. By trying to “prove” that Genesis 1-11 is “scientifically truth,” YECism has allowed the modern-Enlightenment narrative to dictate the rules of the game—namely, that if it isn’t scientific, then it isn’t true. Of course, the insanity of it all is that there is no scientific proof for a young earth, so YECists have (quite literally) made up a separate category of science (“historical science”) and have defined it as something that cannot be scientifically observed, but must be accept on faith. And they then impose that made-up category onto Genesis 1-11. They are unknowingly being shaped by the false narrative of the Enlightenment as they try to remake Genesis 1-11 into the image of modern science.

Finally, when it comes to Christian worship, we need to realize that truth is grasped not just with the head, but also with the heart, for worship possesses a formative power. In fact, one of the main themes that runs throughout the Bible is that you become like what you worship.

The reason why so much Christian music and “art” is so bad is that it isn’t really creative—it is just rehashed sermon points put to really cheesy music. It’s elevator music and really badly acted movies. But we are creative beings, made in the image of the Creator God—therefore our lives and worship should reflect artistic creativity and ingenuity. Christian art and worship should not just appeal to the head or to emotions, but to the heart.

In Conclusion
A lot more can be said about postmodernism. I would recommend reading Smith’s book, Who’s Afraid of Postmodernism?, as well as Crystal Downing’s book, How Postmodernism Serves My Faith. Both books are well worth the read.

In any case, if we can appreciate postmodernism for declaring that “Emperor Modernism” has no clothes, and if we are honest enough to admit that much of modern American Christianity has tended to takes its cues more from the Modernist/Enlightenment worldview than the truly Christian worldview, we can then begin to rethink through just what the Christian faith truly is, and get back to the roots of the Christian faith.

Contemplating just how a deeply-rooted Christian faith can view and address our current society and culture is how we will wrap up this Ways of the Worldviews series in the next two posts.