Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault by Stephen R.C. Hicks

Explaining Postmodernism by Stephen Hicks

This book provides a tour de force look at the history of the intellectual lineage of postmodernism, showing its skeptical and socialist roots in philosophy. He traces postmodernism's roots to Kant, via Hegel, and then Kierkegaard, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche onward to the twentieth century. He denounces Kant as anti-Enlightenment, which might strike some as strange since Kant is regarded as one of the most prolific thinkers of his time and indeed even wrote an essay called "On Enlightenment." Kant definitely considered himself a product of the Enlightenment, but at the same time Kant, in his on words, "I had to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith." This set the stage for the intellectual lineage of thinkers that gave birth to postmodernism. I am not sure that I would call him the "great destroyer" or, as Nietzsche did, the "great spider" on the sole basis of his thought, being that I can appreciate that Kant was trying to make a compromise between rationalist and empiricist philosophy and earnestly trying to solve some of the major problems of philosophy. Though, like Dr. Hicks, I disagree with his philosophy and have a strong distaste for what it lead to. I think in the last analysis, Kant contributed little of value to the history of philosophy other than to lead to schools of thought that were dead ends.

His analysis of the Analytic and Positivist traditions in philosophy seem spot on to me. In the end, Positivism was left grasping for straws because it only allowed itself logic and language to work with.¹ Just as well, his analysis of Continental Philosophy is just as accurate, that it is a lot of airy speculation not only divorced from reason but often opposed to it. To Stephen Hicks, philosophy is not some abstract intellectual enterprise divorced from reality, and that is preciesly the kind of thinking he condemns. To Dr. Hicks, philosophy is something to be taken seriously becase it produces ideas, and as he shows, ideas have real world consequences and are not something to be taken lightly. Dr. Hicks also analyzes the history of Socialism, in both its left wing (Marxist, Stalinist, Maoist, New Left, etc) forms and Right wing forms (National Socialism), and shows how the anti-science and rationality of postmodernism came to serve the interests of the socialists very well. The traditions of skepticism and socialism share similar origins and eventually converge. Dr. Hicks shows how Socialism has failed time after time in its various forms, and why it has resorted to denying reason and reality to pursue an ideaological goal. Even if you are sympathetic to left wing economics, it would be in your best interest to read this and see where they have gone wrong in the past, and what has had to be done to maintain those positions. In my opinion, free markets have already been shown to be superior, but human irrationality and immoral behavior requires some checks and balances on the economy, and some government run things like infrastructure maintenance and public schools are necessary. However, the less interference the better.

Some may detect a hint of Ayn Rand in his attacking Kant as anti-Enlightenment and in the overall tone of the book. You would not be wrong. Stephen Hicks has Objectivist associations. However, do not let that put you off from reading this book. I am not an Objectivist, but I am sympathetic to its emphasis on free markets (though not to the nearly anarcho-capitalist sense that I read in Ayn Rand), liberal democracy, and reason. In addition, the strand of Objectivism most people are familiar with is the Objectivism of the Ayn Rand Institute, long headed by Leonard Peikoff. The Ayn Rand Institute is what I would call the Roman Catholic Church of the world of Objectivism. Dr. Hicks has worked closely with David Kelly before, and authored a textbook on critical thinking with him. David Kelly split from the Ayn Rand Institute over a disagreement with Peikoff that Objectivism should be open to criticism and further development, rather than a closed system that only relies on Ayn Rand's texts (and of course, anything Peikoff himself writes). Ayn Rand has been disserviced by the academia. Kant, Marx, and Rousseau are taught as innovative, yet their works lead to death and misery on a wide scale when it gets down to it. This seems unfair to her and her ideas. This book does not come across as an Objectivist diatribe, and the contents of this book are very much worth reading. Do not let Dr. Hicks's associations with Objectivism put you off from reading this. This is a book that more people should read, because it allows an understanding of the postmodernist commitment of much of modern academics in the humanities and politics. It is a book that I am glad to have read, and will definitely return to again. Also check out my review of his documentary Nietzsche and the Nazis.

¹See my criticism of The Grand Design for my comments on Logical Positivism.