If X = Modernism, Then What is Postmodernism?

Let's say that X equals modernism. It's a pretty simple equation until we ask what modernism is. One way to look at it is through the Freudian notion that made its way into surrealism that it is about breaking every taboo. Recently on the internet a documentary by Bertrand Tavernier surfaced. It is a lengthy interview with the famous surrealist Philippe Soupault. Part of the interview can be found through the famous magazine Exquisite Corpse, run by Romanian-American novelist and poet Andrei Codrescu:

http://www.corpse.org/

Scroll down a bit, it's on the front page, to the left. I wrote the introduction to it.

Other parts of the documentary can be found here:

http://www.dailymotion.com/relevance/search/Philippe%2BSoupault/video/x3b6ys_soupault-le-surrealisme-partie-1_creation

For those who can't understand French, the basic idea is that Soupault, who was 85 at the time of the interview (he's now been dead for close to twenty years), is being interviewed by Jean Aurenche, who is a screenwriter with sixty years of film credits in French film-making. Aurenche opens the interview by asking Soupault, what was Surrealism?

Soupault responds that after 4 years of butchery in the trenches of WWI they demanded to know what mankind is at bottom, and wanted to unravel every taboo in order to find out. This in essence was one aspect of the modernist investigation. "Pour voir ce qui est au fond de l'homme" it was necessary to break every taboo. Part of this comes out of Rimbaud and Lautreamont, but the surrealists found other precursors in Sade, and Freud. Freud's Totem and Taboo investigated the notion of taboo in so-called primitive societies.

The surrealists didn't in fact rupture all taboos. So far as I know, only one of them (Rene Crevel) was a homosexual. None of them broke the incest taboo (again, insofar as I know). And when Andre Breton met Freud, Freud told him that taboos were the basis of civilization itself, and that to break them was not the best idea, and he told Breton that he had misread his work.

Breton ignored this, and continued to break taboos. Part of this meant that they came to honor criminals, even serial killers, as proto-surrealists. Some of the surrealists experimented with mind-altering drugs.

If modernism is therefore about the breaking of taboos, is modernism merely Satanism?

Can we make this equation? Modernism = Satanism?

If that's the case, what is postmodernism? Could it be considered a return to Christianity?

At the end of his life, Andre Breton argues that they had succeeded in breaking all the taboos, and now there was nothing left to break, so he thought it was necessary to begin to restore order, but he never said on what basis that could be done. It's a lot easier to tear down, than it is to build up.

Meanwhile, modernism had gone out in many different directions. Under Marxism the idea was to destroy the upper classes, which had acted as an obstacle to the desires of the masses.

This then spread so that feminists under Simone de Beauvoir decided that men had acted as an obstacle to women, so it was necessary to destroy the stranglehold that men had had on society's resources. We still see this simple call to action everywhere within feminism, including now the notion that it is a good idea to commit adultery, and for women to rid themselves of children (Simone de Beauvoir had no children), as well as in more positive instances like Title IX.

The idea spread further such that it was necessary for minorities to break the stranglehold that whites had had on culture. The NAACP was one form of this, the Black Panthers another. Theorists of post-colonialism jumped in. Some of them want reparations for their centuries of oppression.

Then there was Queer Theory, which meant that gays had to break the stranglehold that straight men and women had had on culture.

The American Indian Movement, Chicanas, and many others jumped in. The notion was the same: break the stranglehold that so and so had on the culture, and destroy any and all taboos.

In the Soupault video, we see him walking around Paris, now in his mid-80s, talking about the heroic early days of the surrealists, in which they experimented with dream states, and discovered the Gustave Moreau museum (we see Soupault actually inside the Moreau museum!). Moreau had been an academic painter who secretly painted wild lush fantasies of bizarre orgies and fights on enormous canvases, releasing the libido to every last incarnation.

To some extent, one can see all this destruction of oppression as a good thing. It's good for the arts to be able to explore what is at the bottom of humanity. Victorian Society had been somewhat oppressive. Certainly white society had been repressive. And no doubt the superego of Freud's day could have used a holiday.

Early in my career as a writer, I was totally involved in the destruction of every last taboo. Andrei Codrescu's journal Exquisite Corpse was my first big collaboration, and it was almost a pirate ship. I wrote for almost every issue in the first decade or so of its appearance, and later published a book on Codrescu's work (the only book thus far, but I hope it will inspire the efforts of further investigators, as it's a fascinating body of work, torn as it is, and as I am, between the need for taboos, and the need for freedom).

But what if the modernist notion of destroying all taboos has been accomplished? What if, now, we wish to put a few LAWS back into place? What if for example we decide that at the very least child molesting is a bad idea, and incest is not best? What if we even think that certain words, such as the n word, should be banned, and what if we wish the f word was less used in public space? What if we think that people shouldn't expose themselves where children might see them. What if we believe that murder is basically wrong, and stealing is wrong, and telling lies about people are wrong? What if we want in fact the return of the Ten Commandments as a return to some basic norms that will allow societies to cohere rather than to be torn apart by rampart desire? What if we believe that the police are necessary, and that moms and dads are necessary, and that rules are necessary?

Then what do we do?

Perhaps we start a blog called Lutheran Surrealism, and explore this idea with as many intelligent people as we can get aboard.

And what if we bring up certain schisms within the practice of the left, to show how aberrant it's all become, and yet are not quite ready to march arm in arm with the far right of evangelical Calvinism?

The topic of the day that we are fascinated with is the recent law case of Jonathan Lopez versus Professor John Matteson at the Los Angeles City College. Lopez is apparently an evangelical who in a public speech class cited the Bible twice in his opposition to gay marriage. The professor, John Matteson, exploded in fury, calling the student a "fascist bastard" and tried to have him expelled from the college. There is more here, in the LA Times:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-speech16-2009feb16,0,6896300.story

Is a "fascist bastard" anyone who attempts to use the Bible to explore things we shouldn't do? Are we then, by Matteson's standards, "fascist bastards"? Homosexuality isn't mentioned in the Ten Commandments. It's mentioned more than once (in a negative sense) by St. Paul, and is also on a list of shalt-nots in Leviticus. But incest also isn't mentioned in the Ten Commandments, and child molesting isn't. Does that make them right? Where do we look for a source of moral authority?

If modernism was Satanism, we really can't look there.

We could look to Marxism, and to its freeing of previously oppressed populations, but then criminals, too, could argue that they have been oppressed. And isn't Marxism an aspect of modernism?

The left-handed could argue that they've been repressed, and ask for driving on all the streets to be reversed, at least for them (I'm left-handed!). Modernism is a gas. It was a gas. But the term gas apparently originally stemmed from chaos.

To a great degree we like chaos and thrive on it, and we do think there is such a thing as too much order. Perhaps the notion of freedom of speech at the very minimum should be respected so that all parties can be heard and we can keep these issues open as long as possible until we come to a consensus in law. That's at least the ongoing basis of Lutheran Surrealism. Let's talk. Let's try not to have the last word.

Right now, I see some fascinating ramifications of the Los Angeles City College case. One is that Lopez is a conservative Christian, which pits him against the Marxist elite who are now running most college humanities programs. But Lopez (guessing from the last name) is also likely to be a Hispanic. This means that two kinds of oppression must duke it out for bottom-dog status (this is what's often been used to determine who is right in PC cases).

In addition, with Proposition 8 looming in the background to the case, and with black America voting Democrat but against gay marriage, a rift as big as the San Andreas Fault appears to be opening in the left. Will big portions of the left surge to the right? Will new parties be formed? How will this play out?

Modernism's simple prescription of breaking all taboos has now created as many problems as it solved. All those problems are now coming to a head.

To me, the professor himself is a "fascist bastard" for not letting the student speak. In a multicultural society, we have to listen to one another, especially across deeply held positions. It's difficult, and is frightening. But I think placing taboos on freedom of speech is still wrong, and it's one way in which I am still a modernist, though a modernist with qualms. Basically, I follow the law. You can speak, but you can't threaten. You can speak, but it's better not to use swear words (I put my kids in their rooms if they use bad words). I don't even want my kids to say, "Oh my God!" I want them to say, "Oh my gosh!" Because I think they should be well away from breaking any norms.

Personally, I don't think any learning can happen on campuses unless students are free to express their opinions, even if they don't match that of the professor. However, I am appalled if someone says a word like "sh--" in my class, or says something, like the "b" word. But I try to be gentle rather than ferocious about it. In the Lopez case, the professor might be seen as oppressive, insofar as he has more power than the student in his particular classroom, and he tried to have the student expelled from the college for expressing his opinion. That would set an extremely poor precedent.

The whole notion of authority and freedom (and the ways in which they compete) are on trial in this case.