words “modernitv,” “modernism,”rn”postmodernitv,” and “postmodernism.”rn”Modernitv” can be defined asrnthe period within which the followingrnconditions obtain: science establishesrnmatters of fact; political theory, the leftrightrnpolitical axis, and the nation-staterndetermine collective social organization;rntechnological progress drives the conditionsrnof life; secular values override allrnothers; and the fundamental unit ofrnpolitical reality is the individual. “Modernism”rnis a movement in the arts,rnhumanities, and cultural life, like thernRenaissance or Romanticism, that hasrnlasted roughly through this century.rnThis mo’ement is dominated bv thernthought of Marx and Freud. At its best,rnmodernism was a grand intellectual andrnaesthetic adventure, a bold experimentrnon human nature. It is not entirely thernfault of its pioneers that the adventurernhas largely come to grief; the experimentrnhas shown the traditional wisdom tornhave been right after all. But there was arndarker side to modernism, driven by thernimperati’e of the denial of shame. Traditionalrninstitutions, myths, and ritualsrnaccepted the shame of our destruetiernrelationship with the rest of nature, ourrninnate inequalities, our sexuality and animalrnnature, and our painful economicrnrelations with each other, and transformedrnthe shame into epiphanie beautyrnand moral insight. In the absence ofrnthese institutions, modernism deniedrnshame bv means of right-wing and leftwingrnideologies, displacements, andrnscapegoats. Modernism accepted thern19th-eentur’ scientific belief that thernworld is made of matter and works deterministically,rnthat we are only animals,rnand that the brain is a machine. Rightwingrnmodernists interpreted this conditionrnas carte blanche for the ruthlessrnsurvival of the fittest: the winner is thernmost successful predator, and is absoh’cdrnof moral responsibility by the factrnthat he could, after all, do no other thanrnfollow the command of his nature. Leftwingrnmodernists, faced with the choicernbetween deterministic order and “free”rndisorder, identihed creativity and moralitrnwith randomness, and advocatedrnwhat the existentialists called the “acterngratuit”; the only morally praiseworthvrnperson is the loser, and moral discoursernbecomes a sort of loud, persistent whine.rnGiven these premises, many distinctionsrnof quality became meaningless. Nevertheless,rncertain ideals persisted in modernism:rnprogress, virilitv, rationality.rncoherence, the purity and unit}’ ofrnartistic form, artistic genius, psychicrnintegrity, individualism, and the ideal ofrnthe enlightened state.rn”Postmodern” is usuallv taken to describernthe last 15 or so years (also a periodrnextending indefinitely into thernfuture). But many, including mvself, believernthat it is only a transitional periodrnbetween the decay of cultural modernismrnand a truly new vision of thernworld: one of those periods like the mid-rn16th century in England—C.S. Lewisrndubbed it the Drab Age—which precededrnthe English Renaissance, or like thernPicturesque, which ushered in Romanticism.rn”Postmodernity” is the social, economic,rnand technological condition thatrnhas succeeded modernity. Its characteristicsrninclude the emergence of thernpostindustrial information economy; thernreplacement of hydraulic and mechanicalrnmetaphors with cybernetic and electronicrnones; and the overthrow of the oldrnclass structure consisting of the aristoeracv,rnthe bourgeoisie, and the workingrnclass by a new one consisting only of thernmiddle class and the underclass, inrnwhich the aristocracy has already disappeared,rnthe industrial proletariat beginsrnto be absorbed into the middle class,rnand an underclass emerges which has nornplace in the economic system. Inrnpostmodernity, the unified, secular,rnefficient, logistical ideology of thernmodernist nation-state is questionedrnand criticized by a whole collection ofrndifferent worldviews—ethnic minoritv’rnideologies, feminism, resurgent religiousrnand cult perspectives, gay consciousness,rnenvironmentalism, etc. Old scientificrncertainties are “called into question”—arncatchphrase usually meaning “dismissedrnwithout consideration”—outside thernscientific community, and profoundlyrnrevised and transformed from within it.rn”Postmodernism” is an intellectualcultural-rnartistic movement taking noternof the postmodern condition and adaptingrnitself to it. It is largely negative in itsrnattitudes, being motivated by the elites’rndisappointment at the collapse of socialism.rnThe intellectual core of postmodernismrnis poststrueturalism, which includesrndeconstructionists like JacquesrnDerrida, reader-response theorists likernStanley Fish, new historicists like MichelrnFoueault, neo-Marxists like FredericrnJameson and Frank Lentricchia, radicalrnfeminists like Andrea Dworkin, SusanrnMcKmnon, and Mary Daly, radical multiculturalistsrnlike Edward Said, deeprneeologists like Arne Naess and GeorgernSessions, neo-Freudians like JacquesrnLacan and Gilles Deleuze, ecofeministsrnlike Caroline Merchant, critics of sciencernlike Thomas Kuhn, Paul Feyerabend,rnand Jurgen Habermas, andrncultural critics like Roland Barthes, Jean-rnFrangois Lyotard, and Henri Baudrillard.rnAt present, the dominant themes in thernpostmodernist academy arc radical feminismrnand radical multiculturalism—rnreally a new form of ethnic chauvinismrnin disguise. Postmodernism rejects thernmodernist ideals of progress, virility,rnrationality, coherence, the purity andrnunity of artistic form, artistic genius,rnpsychic integrity, individualism, and thernideal of the enlightened state, but itrnresembles left-wing modernism in itsrnhatred for capitalism, its contempt forrntraditional morality, its commitment torndisorder and radical egalitarianism, andrnits unstated distrust of democracy. Thernfinal step in the postmodernist journeyrnhas been the rise of political correctness,rnthe attempt to purge dissenting opinionrnfrom the ranks of the academic/artistic/rnprofessional brahmin caste; and, asrnWilliam Henrv points out, the systematicrnattack on excellence in all fields.rnDeep intellectual flaws in modernism,rnpartly inherited from thernUtopian hopes of the Romantics and thernFrench Revolution, have ripened intornhideous consequences. We are in seriousrntrouble. But too broad a diagnosisrnwould encourage the cultural despairrnthat we must purge ourselves of if we arernto regain our health. Our culture can bernroughly divided into four aspects: thernfolk culture of traditional arts, crafts,rncustoms, and rituals; the popular culturernof the corporation, show business, professionalrnsports, and the market; thernpublic-service culture of the military,rnthe professions, and government; andrnthe brahmin culture of intellectuals,rnprofessional artists, and academies. Therninfection has not uniformly penetratedrnthese different spheres of life.rnThe folk culture, by and large, isrnhealthy and flourishing (despite recurrentrnreports of its imminent demise).rnBecause of improvements in communication,rnit is increasingly hard to distinguishrnthe traditionally rural folk culturernfrom the traditionally urban popularrnculture—Nashville, for instance, is arnthreshold where the one is metamorphizedrninto the other—but countryrnmusicians, high school bands and cheer-rnMAV 1995/31rnrnrn