Saturday, January 5, 2008
Friday, January 4, 2008
The Steve Martin Effect and Mormon Postmodernism
The “Steve Martin” Effect
and
Mormon Postmodernism
By Dan Whitmer
In this article on Mormon postmodernism, I will not quote a long line of scriptures and pointed statements by prophets and apostles like Boyd K. Packard, Gordon B. Hinckley, Dallin H. Oaks and Spencer W. Kimball about how postmodernism is incompatible with Mormon theology. Instead I will examine the some of the cultural aspects of Mormon postmodernism, like the Steve Martin effect, persecution, and intellectual insecurity that might lead Mormons to reconcile their LDS beliefs with postmodern thinking. I will then show, with C.S, Lewis and the poet Ales Debeljak, an alternative way to deal with the problem of postmodernism and Mormonism.
The first thing I would like to talk about is what I call the “Steve Martin” effect in Mormon society. We all know the Mormon urban legend about Steve Martin being a Mormon, or some other variant like: “did you hear that Julia Roberts is taking the discussions?” These occur because one Mormon tells another Mormon that they heard that Julia Roberts is taking the discussions and the other Mormon believes it and passes it on. The Mormon believes it because they want it to be true. They want Julia Roberts and Steve Martin to be Mormon. Or at least they don’t feel strongly enough about the matter to go to People Magazine to see if Julia Roberts is on the sixth discussion yet. Even then, if a person were to research the true religious beliefs of celebrities, the story about Julia Roberts being Catholic (I have no idea what Ms Roberts’ actual beliefs are) would not be passed around. It wouldn’t be interesting. There are a lot of Catholics and Mormons feel no strong relation to them. Thus the story about Julia Roberts and her current interest in Joseph Smith continues to grow.
This also occurs, though in a much more sophisticated manner, in Mormon intellectual society in regard to postmodernism. The Mormon intellectual puts in hours and hours, one could even say years, of research into showing that Mormonism and postmodernism are compatible. They then pass it on to another Mormon. “Hey look guys, I’ve figured out how postmodernism and Mormonism are compatible.” The other Mormon, who really wants the world-famous ideas of postmodernism to support Mormonism, says, “great, tell me how.” And then in this manner, the story gets passed along from professor to professor, from professor to student, from student to student, from student to non-student. They all want postmodernism to be Mormon. But let’s say that someone were to do the obvious paper that postmodernism isn’t compatible with Mormonism, which is what the academic world at large would agree on. This Mormon then gathers the Gordon B. Hinckley quotes and scriptures passages to prove postmodernism and Mormonism are at odds. Let’s say that this Mormon even cared enough about the subject of postmodernism not supporting Mormonism to put years and years of research in the matter. The article wouldn’t get passed around. His article probably wouldn’t even get published. No Mormon has any interest in an article on why postmodernism does not support Mormonism. We want postmodernism to be a Mormon. We want Steve Martin to be a Mormon.
Now let’s say that a Mormon scholar is talking to some ardent postmodern scholar. They debate the point of whether postmodernism supports Mormonism. This assumes that a postmodernist would research Mormonism enough to debate the point well. They debate for a while and then after a few hours the atheist scholar concedes under the guise of all truths being equal. But the scholar is really unconvinced and goes back to his university and teaches his students postmodernism and the 18-year-old Catholic freshman stops going to church. The Mormon scholar then returns home and tells all the other Mormons of his experience. The story of the debate between Mormon postmodernism and postmodernism gets told and retold.
Now let’s talk about why so many Mormons would spend so much time trying to prove that Mormonism and postmodernism are compatible. This could happen because of the antireligious feelings on college campuses, especial in the 1980s. To illustrate this point I will recount an experience a friend of mine recently had. He did an internship with a postmodernist who had graduated from art school. Every day around four o’clock, when work would slow down, the postmodernist would start to bash him for being a Mormon. It was so intense that at times he would just sit there and look at her. These were postmodern attacks, never accreting, anti-authority, and a vague sense of spiritualism in place of organized religion. The low point was when she ridiculed my friend for following the authority of Jesus and his teachings with obscenities. This fortunately only lasted for a two weeks because the postmodernist was going to another job.
But what about the BYU graduate who enters an intensely postmodern PhD program? Everyday he or she is taught that there is no objective truth or authority. Everyday his fellow graduate students make fun of him for being Mormon. They do this day in day out, year after year. I’ll tell you what you would do. You would figure out pretty darn fast how to justify your religion on the postmodernist grounds. You would spend years and years in graduate school working out a defense to reconcile the differences between postmodernism and Mormonism. You would do it and the teasing would stop. You would then return to teach Mormon students that postmodernism was actually Mormon. You would prepare the undergrads with arguments for Mormon postmodernism. Then hopefully they would avoid the teasing of the post-moderns.
Another reason Mormons feel a strong need to reconcile the beliefs of Mormonism with postmodernism is intellectual insecurity. In some fields postmodernism is so famous and so pervasive that to not believe in postmodernism is to be stupid and uneducated. So in order to be perceived as intelligent by other non-Mormon intellectuals it would become necessary to show how postmodernism works with Mormonism. Postmodernism would be Mormon and the Mormon intellectual would be preserved as intelligent by his peers.
There is an alternative way to deal with the problem of a religiously hostile academic fashion like postmodernism, and that is not to try to reconcile your religion but to defend your religion. A great example of this is C.S. Lewis and his dealings with the intellectual fashion of his day, existentialism. Did C.S. Lewis take the doctrines of his church, the Church of England, and try to reconcile them with existentialism? Did he try to show how existentialism and the Church of England weren’t in conflict? Did he try to show that existentialism supports his religion to make a sort of Church of England Existentialism? No, instead he became one of the most articulate, prolific defenders of Christianity of the last century. He wrote Mere Christianity, The Screwtape Letters, The Problem of Pain, Miracles, etc. The result is a body of work that has been treasured by Christian groups and has helped strengthen the faith of many people. C.S. Lewis’ embrace of Christianity instead of existentialism did not come without a cost. While his books on Christianity were popular among lay audiences, his academic peers did not think much of them. They were interested in exploring the existential dilemma. C.S. Lewis’ peers probably even thought that he was stupid for not embracing existentialism.
C.S. Lewis did not care what his peers thought. He continued to publish books and essays defending Christianity. An interesting point is that the books he produced, such as The Chronicles of Narnia, that were contrary to the existential fashion are still in print and widely read today. Where as only a few existential explorations are still read. And when they are read it is largely in a historical view such as “existentialism was popular in the first half of the century.” An even more humiliatingly fact is that existentialist writings are only read in English classes under the threat of grades. In contrast C.S. Lewis’ works are insightful, powerful and true; they endure. CS Lewis with his World War One trench warfare experience had every right to be a part of the existential “Lost Generation.” He had enough pain points to write novels with all the adolescent angst of Hemingway’s A Farewell to Arms, but he chose to write Surprised by Joy instead.
Another person like C.S. Lewis who defends his religious beliefs rather then reconciles them is the poet Ales Debeljak. But unlike C.S. Lewis, who dealt with existentialism, he deals with the current intellectual fashion, postmodernism. His poetry is deeply political and religious. In the 80’s Debeljak was initially taken with postmodernism. But since the war in his homeland of the former Yugoslavia, he has been forced to reject postmodernism.
“I was compelled, in a large sense, to cast a doubtful look on the many theories of post-modern advocacy that pontificate on the virtues of ‘anything goes’ and glamorize the illusion of unfettered subjectivity released from reason’s focus”(Debeljak 10). He could not follow postmodernism or espouse postmodernism. He instead has published five collections of poetry and seven books on cultural criticism, many of which defending his religious beliefs.
I’m not arguing that we shouldn’t study postmodernism. But there is a good deal of difference between studying postmodernism and believing in postmodernism. You can read, learn and understand what’s going on in postmodernism, seeing the good aspects and the bad without necessarily believing it.
Postmodernism is a way to look at and interpret the world. Because of this it has the capability of becoming a religion. Religion is also a way to look at and interpret the world. So if you every find yourself misty eyed when talking about Levinas and his “other.” Stop and think, “Would I speak this glowingly and with such reverence about Jesus and his Sermon on the Mount, Joseph Smith, and the Proclamation on the Family, the clear and precise moral writings that really make up my ethical framework as a Mormon? Have I read and applied more Levinas in the past month than I’ve read and applied the Book of Mormon?” It’s all well and good if Levinas’ ideas support Mormonism. I want Levinas to be a Mormon too. But the Sermon on the Mount and the Proclamation on the Family doesn’t need his support. They are defensible in their own right.
The Steve Martin effect has influenced Mormon intellectual thought by allowing ideas to be reinforced in Mormon society without a full critique. This coupled with Mormon persecution and the desire for intellectual respect motivates some to try and reconcile the differences between Mormonism and postmodernism. Mormons don’t have to fall into this trap. We can make our own unique, creative defenses of Mormonism in the same sprit as C.S. Lewis and the poet Ales Debljak. In doing these active defenses we will remember how truly beautiful The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is to us.
Bibliography
Lewis, C.S.. Mere Christianity. New York: Touchstone, 1943. 5-191.
Debeljak, Ales. Reluctant Modernity. New York: Rowman & Littlefield, INC., 1998. 1-209.
Lewis, C.S.. Mere Christianity. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1943. 5-191.
Lewis, C.S.. Surprised By Joy: The Shape of My Early Life. New York: Harcourt Inc., 1955. 3-238.
Wilson, A.N.. C.S. Lewis: A Biography. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1990. 1-334.
Dorsett, Lyle W. The Essential C.S. Lewis. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996. 3-532.
and
Mormon Postmodernism
By Dan Whitmer
In this article on Mormon postmodernism, I will not quote a long line of scriptures and pointed statements by prophets and apostles like Boyd K. Packard, Gordon B. Hinckley, Dallin H. Oaks and Spencer W. Kimball about how postmodernism is incompatible with Mormon theology. Instead I will examine the some of the cultural aspects of Mormon postmodernism, like the Steve Martin effect, persecution, and intellectual insecurity that might lead Mormons to reconcile their LDS beliefs with postmodern thinking. I will then show, with C.S, Lewis and the poet Ales Debeljak, an alternative way to deal with the problem of postmodernism and Mormonism.
The first thing I would like to talk about is what I call the “Steve Martin” effect in Mormon society. We all know the Mormon urban legend about Steve Martin being a Mormon, or some other variant like: “did you hear that Julia Roberts is taking the discussions?” These occur because one Mormon tells another Mormon that they heard that Julia Roberts is taking the discussions and the other Mormon believes it and passes it on. The Mormon believes it because they want it to be true. They want Julia Roberts and Steve Martin to be Mormon. Or at least they don’t feel strongly enough about the matter to go to People Magazine to see if Julia Roberts is on the sixth discussion yet. Even then, if a person were to research the true religious beliefs of celebrities, the story about Julia Roberts being Catholic (I have no idea what Ms Roberts’ actual beliefs are) would not be passed around. It wouldn’t be interesting. There are a lot of Catholics and Mormons feel no strong relation to them. Thus the story about Julia Roberts and her current interest in Joseph Smith continues to grow.
This also occurs, though in a much more sophisticated manner, in Mormon intellectual society in regard to postmodernism. The Mormon intellectual puts in hours and hours, one could even say years, of research into showing that Mormonism and postmodernism are compatible. They then pass it on to another Mormon. “Hey look guys, I’ve figured out how postmodernism and Mormonism are compatible.” The other Mormon, who really wants the world-famous ideas of postmodernism to support Mormonism, says, “great, tell me how.” And then in this manner, the story gets passed along from professor to professor, from professor to student, from student to student, from student to non-student. They all want postmodernism to be Mormon. But let’s say that someone were to do the obvious paper that postmodernism isn’t compatible with Mormonism, which is what the academic world at large would agree on. This Mormon then gathers the Gordon B. Hinckley quotes and scriptures passages to prove postmodernism and Mormonism are at odds. Let’s say that this Mormon even cared enough about the subject of postmodernism not supporting Mormonism to put years and years of research in the matter. The article wouldn’t get passed around. His article probably wouldn’t even get published. No Mormon has any interest in an article on why postmodernism does not support Mormonism. We want postmodernism to be a Mormon. We want Steve Martin to be a Mormon.
Now let’s say that a Mormon scholar is talking to some ardent postmodern scholar. They debate the point of whether postmodernism supports Mormonism. This assumes that a postmodernist would research Mormonism enough to debate the point well. They debate for a while and then after a few hours the atheist scholar concedes under the guise of all truths being equal. But the scholar is really unconvinced and goes back to his university and teaches his students postmodernism and the 18-year-old Catholic freshman stops going to church. The Mormon scholar then returns home and tells all the other Mormons of his experience. The story of the debate between Mormon postmodernism and postmodernism gets told and retold.
Now let’s talk about why so many Mormons would spend so much time trying to prove that Mormonism and postmodernism are compatible. This could happen because of the antireligious feelings on college campuses, especial in the 1980s. To illustrate this point I will recount an experience a friend of mine recently had. He did an internship with a postmodernist who had graduated from art school. Every day around four o’clock, when work would slow down, the postmodernist would start to bash him for being a Mormon. It was so intense that at times he would just sit there and look at her. These were postmodern attacks, never accreting, anti-authority, and a vague sense of spiritualism in place of organized religion. The low point was when she ridiculed my friend for following the authority of Jesus and his teachings with obscenities. This fortunately only lasted for a two weeks because the postmodernist was going to another job.
But what about the BYU graduate who enters an intensely postmodern PhD program? Everyday he or she is taught that there is no objective truth or authority. Everyday his fellow graduate students make fun of him for being Mormon. They do this day in day out, year after year. I’ll tell you what you would do. You would figure out pretty darn fast how to justify your religion on the postmodernist grounds. You would spend years and years in graduate school working out a defense to reconcile the differences between postmodernism and Mormonism. You would do it and the teasing would stop. You would then return to teach Mormon students that postmodernism was actually Mormon. You would prepare the undergrads with arguments for Mormon postmodernism. Then hopefully they would avoid the teasing of the post-moderns.
Another reason Mormons feel a strong need to reconcile the beliefs of Mormonism with postmodernism is intellectual insecurity. In some fields postmodernism is so famous and so pervasive that to not believe in postmodernism is to be stupid and uneducated. So in order to be perceived as intelligent by other non-Mormon intellectuals it would become necessary to show how postmodernism works with Mormonism. Postmodernism would be Mormon and the Mormon intellectual would be preserved as intelligent by his peers.
There is an alternative way to deal with the problem of a religiously hostile academic fashion like postmodernism, and that is not to try to reconcile your religion but to defend your religion. A great example of this is C.S. Lewis and his dealings with the intellectual fashion of his day, existentialism. Did C.S. Lewis take the doctrines of his church, the Church of England, and try to reconcile them with existentialism? Did he try to show how existentialism and the Church of England weren’t in conflict? Did he try to show that existentialism supports his religion to make a sort of Church of England Existentialism? No, instead he became one of the most articulate, prolific defenders of Christianity of the last century. He wrote Mere Christianity, The Screwtape Letters, The Problem of Pain, Miracles, etc. The result is a body of work that has been treasured by Christian groups and has helped strengthen the faith of many people. C.S. Lewis’ embrace of Christianity instead of existentialism did not come without a cost. While his books on Christianity were popular among lay audiences, his academic peers did not think much of them. They were interested in exploring the existential dilemma. C.S. Lewis’ peers probably even thought that he was stupid for not embracing existentialism.
C.S. Lewis did not care what his peers thought. He continued to publish books and essays defending Christianity. An interesting point is that the books he produced, such as The Chronicles of Narnia, that were contrary to the existential fashion are still in print and widely read today. Where as only a few existential explorations are still read. And when they are read it is largely in a historical view such as “existentialism was popular in the first half of the century.” An even more humiliatingly fact is that existentialist writings are only read in English classes under the threat of grades. In contrast C.S. Lewis’ works are insightful, powerful and true; they endure. CS Lewis with his World War One trench warfare experience had every right to be a part of the existential “Lost Generation.” He had enough pain points to write novels with all the adolescent angst of Hemingway’s A Farewell to Arms, but he chose to write Surprised by Joy instead.
Another person like C.S. Lewis who defends his religious beliefs rather then reconciles them is the poet Ales Debeljak. But unlike C.S. Lewis, who dealt with existentialism, he deals with the current intellectual fashion, postmodernism. His poetry is deeply political and religious. In the 80’s Debeljak was initially taken with postmodernism. But since the war in his homeland of the former Yugoslavia, he has been forced to reject postmodernism.
“I was compelled, in a large sense, to cast a doubtful look on the many theories of post-modern advocacy that pontificate on the virtues of ‘anything goes’ and glamorize the illusion of unfettered subjectivity released from reason’s focus”(Debeljak 10). He could not follow postmodernism or espouse postmodernism. He instead has published five collections of poetry and seven books on cultural criticism, many of which defending his religious beliefs.
I’m not arguing that we shouldn’t study postmodernism. But there is a good deal of difference between studying postmodernism and believing in postmodernism. You can read, learn and understand what’s going on in postmodernism, seeing the good aspects and the bad without necessarily believing it.
Postmodernism is a way to look at and interpret the world. Because of this it has the capability of becoming a religion. Religion is also a way to look at and interpret the world. So if you every find yourself misty eyed when talking about Levinas and his “other.” Stop and think, “Would I speak this glowingly and with such reverence about Jesus and his Sermon on the Mount, Joseph Smith, and the Proclamation on the Family, the clear and precise moral writings that really make up my ethical framework as a Mormon? Have I read and applied more Levinas in the past month than I’ve read and applied the Book of Mormon?” It’s all well and good if Levinas’ ideas support Mormonism. I want Levinas to be a Mormon too. But the Sermon on the Mount and the Proclamation on the Family doesn’t need his support. They are defensible in their own right.
The Steve Martin effect has influenced Mormon intellectual thought by allowing ideas to be reinforced in Mormon society without a full critique. This coupled with Mormon persecution and the desire for intellectual respect motivates some to try and reconcile the differences between Mormonism and postmodernism. Mormons don’t have to fall into this trap. We can make our own unique, creative defenses of Mormonism in the same sprit as C.S. Lewis and the poet Ales Debljak. In doing these active defenses we will remember how truly beautiful The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is to us.
Bibliography
Lewis, C.S.. Mere Christianity. New York: Touchstone, 1943. 5-191.
Debeljak, Ales. Reluctant Modernity. New York: Rowman & Littlefield, INC., 1998. 1-209.
Lewis, C.S.. Mere Christianity. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1943. 5-191.
Lewis, C.S.. Surprised By Joy: The Shape of My Early Life. New York: Harcourt Inc., 1955. 3-238.
Wilson, A.N.. C.S. Lewis: A Biography. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1990. 1-334.
Dorsett, Lyle W. The Essential C.S. Lewis. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996. 3-532.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)