Postmodern Mormonism, Take 2

The concept of postmodernity derives from Jean-Francois Lyotard. Here's what Alex Callinicos says in Social Theory: A Historical Introduction (1999):

[Lyotard] defines 'postmodern as incredulity towards metanarratives,' contrasting it with the modern, that is, with 'any science that legitimates itself with reference to a metadiscourse ... making an explicit appeal to some grand narrative, such as the dialectics of Spirit, the hermeneutics of meaning, ... or the creation of wealth.' A grand narrative for Lyotard is an attempt to make sense of the totality of human history.

[p. 2; italics and first ellipsis in original.] You would think religion, and especially Mormonism, is necessarily a "grand narrative" and could not therefore go very far down the postmodern path. I will summarize a recent essay by Armand Mauss to suggest otherwise. The times they are a-changin'.

Feelings and Faith
The essay I'm referring to is "Feelings, Faith, and Folkways: A Personal Essay on Mormon Popular Culture," by Armand Mauss, pages 23-38 in Proving Contraries (Signature, 2005). Mauss doesn't make the postmodern argument; that's my twist on his sketch of how Mormon modes of thought and worship have changed over the last few decades. He's a keen observer of Mormon culture. What does he see?

First, the doctrine has gotten "softer," which he illustrates as a preference for tender sniffles at the pulpit over scriptural exposition. In his youth, he recalls, "People often cited scriptures or history as well as logic in support of the meaning they offered for their narrative testimonies. Occasionally lips would quiver and eyes would moisten, but such lacrimose outpourings as might require paper tissues were rather rare. This is in contrast with my contemporary experience in various wards where it is uncommon for any testimony meeting to pass without at least one tearful rendition and often as many as three or four ..." (p. 26).

Second, he notes that the missionary program of the Church reflects the shift too. Whereas missionaries once memorized discussions that taught substantive doctrines of the gospel, now the focus is on getting prospective converts "to 'feel' the confirmation of the Holy Spirit during the missionary's testimony and [be] assured that what they feel is indeed the Spirit bearing witness of the truth of the message" (p. 28). Pamphlets like A Voice of Warning once did the same thing in print. In other words, the program now takes an affective approach rather than a cognitive approach to conversion.

Third, he talks about how LDS music has "softened" or become more feminine — this goes to the selection of new hymns in the new LDS hymnal, to the increasingly slow tempo of the hymns, to the selection of religious ballads we now hear as musical numbers, and to the displacement of traditional choral music of Bach, Beethoven, Handel, and the like by remixed LDS hymns.

Mauss points to Correlation and a general anti-intellectual trend in the Church as the context in which these developments have occurred. But he also notes parallel developments in Evangelical Christianity, where similar themes are characteristic of suburban megachurches, in contrast to older mainline denominations which retain more traditional approaches to worship and community. So some of these affective patterns are seeping into the Church from outside.

Postmodern?
So why do I link Mauss' essay (which doesn't use the term "postmodern") to my remarks on postmodernism? Because it highlights developments in the Church that sound a lot like what are often described as aspects of postmodernism: a preference for narrative over logical exposition; an emphasis on subjective, emotional response over rational analysis; an emphsis on narrow perspectives over "grand narratives."

I won't overplay the concept, just pose a few suggestive questions. When was the last time you heard a talk on (or even a clear reference to) the Great Apostasy? There's a piece of the LDS Grand Narrative we don't talk about anymore. When was the last time a General Authority wrote a book worth reading? Let's see, Bruce R. McConkie died when? I admit he sometimes rubs me the wrong way, but he certainly had the LDS Grand Narrative firmly in mind and did not shrink from stating it forcefully, in book form and from the pulpit. No mere storyteller was he. He might be the last exemplar of classical Mormonism (i.e., modern as opposed to postmodern, to use the terms of this discussion). When was the last time you heard an LDS leader address a tough issue or offer a defense of a controversial doctrinal problem?

Bottom line: It's not like you'll hear someone quoting Foucault from the pulpit next week. I'm just suggesting that the spirit of the age — the postmodern age — is having an effect on the Church as an institution and a community. But you need to pay attention if you expect to notice the changes. As a young man from Chicago once observed: Life moves pretty fast. If you don't stop and look around once in awhile, you might just miss it.

Comments

[cordeiro]

A talk on the Great Apostasy? I humbly submit President James E. Faust, Restoration of All Things. Saturday morning session of General Conference - April 1, 2006.

[Seth R.]

I've never really cared much for this trend in the Church. Currently, it seems to be the focus of our Priesthood authorities, so I'll go along with it. But I've always been far more inspired and motivated by the "grand narrative" than the "intimate conviction" aspect of my religion.

I also worry that the personalizing of the Gospel is partly being motivated by the general self-centeredness of modern society.

I get enough "me, me, me!" messaging in popular media and I don't care to hear it endorsed at the pulpit. To me it seems clear that you can never be "self-actualized," never feel your own "self-worth," never really feel good about yourself until you have a great cause to unite with.

I think the Church risks spoiling the kids by doting on them as much as it has been recently.

Little more Brigham Young please!

[Seth R.]

I also don't care much for the way testimony meeting has gone in the modern church. The "tender sniffles" at the pulpit are really a turn-off for me and seem overly self-indulgent.

That's just as likely due to the fact that I'm a cynical crank of course ... But all the emotional energy spent by people wondering if they are "self-actualized" seems an utter waste to me.

Are you happy?

Who cares?! Get to work and contribute already and quit moping!

Seems like I'd like Armand Mauss. I'll have to check him out.

[RoastedTomatoes]

I think that it makes a lot more sense for us to discuss the aspects of God that we have first-hand knowledge of, rather than aspects for which we have second-hand testimony at best. (Remember that old-line Mormonism was in no way adverse to speculations about doctrine for which there was no clear evidence one way or the other.) And I have to wonder if the Spirit of the Lord might be offended at being described as "tender sniffles..."

[Seth R.]

Only if it was really the "Spirit of the Lord." I've seen one or two examples where I'm pretty sure it was self-manufactured and had nothing to do with the Spirit.

But only one or two. I typically have no way of distinguishing.

[ed]

Dave,

As far as the missionary discussions, the pendulum might be swinging back the other way. The new missionary discussions give the Great Apostasy a prominent place in the very first discussion, much more prominent than in the previous discussions. Even more striking, the new discussions put much less emphasis on identifying spiritual feelings in investigators, and more on the missionaries recognizing spiritual guidance themsleves. John-Charles Duffy talks about this in his excellent Sunstone piece, and in his podcast interview with John Dehlin.

[Clark Goble]

Actually Dave, I think Brigham Young's view towards philosophy is very much a distrust of grand meta-narratives. He takes a very pragmatic and "humanistic" approach to the world. There are narratives, but they really are never the grand narratives one expects in systamatic theology. And those who did embrace such things (such as Pratt) weren't looked upon favorably by Brigham Young. I think he just felt for fallibilism too much.

Regarding Mauss, I think we went through a period (largely IMO due to Protestant influence) where we trusted grand metanarratives. This could be seen both in the scientism period of LDS thought (say 1900 - 1940) and the literalist and absolutist phase (say 1930 - 1980).

But the other tendencies were always present.

Having said all this, I think what Lyotard means by distrust of narratives and the more vague and general sense it is frequently used in religious conversations is a bit different.

[rtswen]

Dave, I'm not sure my understanding of postmodernism matches with what you say here:

"a preference for narrative over logical exposition; an emphasis on subjective, emotional response over rational analysis; an emphsis on narrow perspectives over "grand narratives."

Granted, postmodernism is an incredibly difficult topic to contain in a simple definition, but I see Lyotard as saying that a postmodern incredulity is not only limited to the metanarratives, but also the petite narratives. It is not an emotional response over a rational analysis, but quite the opposite - a system based upon power and efficiencies.

I think Lyotard argues that in postindustrial society the nature and use of knowledge changes. This change, a result of the subversive nature of scientific inquiry, creates a “crisis of narratives” and a delegitimation of previously held truths whose foundations lie within those narratives or metanarratives. (This is bad for religion)

Once the de facto legitimation of a truth based upon metanarratives is removed, into that vacuum moves a new legitimated way of thinking – this one based upon power. In essence, Lyotard traces the move to postmodernism as de facto narrative legitimation subverted by science (or rational inquiry). Science then legitimates itself through efficiencies and power. The final result is a new de facto legitimation based upon this self-perpetuating power and force.

The aspects of Mormonism that fit a postmodern mold would more likely be those elements that are based on efficiencies rather than narratives. Such elements might include correlation, our building architecture, and the use of business management principles for the administration of the church.

There is one aspect of Lyotard's work that I think applies here (I haven't seen the original article that prompted this post, but it may cover this) - Lyotard's concept of paralogy and the conversations on the various LDS blogs.

To the extent that these conversations are open and the language and terms are allowed to be defined locally, it is a great example of this concept. It is also where I think your desription of Mauss and the tendency for the "tender sniffles" may fit under the postmodern umbrella.

Thanks for the thought-provoking post, it's a difficult one to nail down!

[Dave]

Here's another cultural indicator: the rise of LDS historical fiction over the last two decades, which has become much more popular than actual history. The novels place sympathetic but fictional characters in the middle of LDS historical narratives modeled after but not particularly bound by actual events. The fictional characters interact with characters fashioned and named after real historical characters. Sort of a 'based on a true story' approach in print, trying to borrow credibility from real history but unwilling to abide by the canons of historical writing.

[Clark Goble]

That's not particularly postmodern though Dave. Postmodern fiction is usually more very self-aware and self-reflective. Things like Fight Club more than Work and the Glory.

[Darren]

Hey Seth, I agree with you about the self-manufactured bit, but I think the scope is much larger.

[Seth R.]

Darren,

You're being a bit cryptic. I'm not sure what you mean.

[Darren]

Seth, I think they are all self-manufactured.

[Mark Butler]

I agree. "Tender sniffles" in my limited experience have little or nothing to do with the influence of the Spirit -- if anything they tend to detract from that influence, on others at any rate.

[mikelle briggs]

I love being a member of that church. It's a bummer that you think you understand, but you don't. Those General Authorities are true living prophets on this earth and I respect them. They will be blessed for all the good they do. :)