» Modern Identity is a Fundamental Error
I am quite interested in what I call “postmodern identity theory”. I’ve tried to define it a few times in blog posts (most recently) but I’m mostly just waving my hands around. Here’s another try:
Modernist identity theory says that people have fundamental attributes that they carry around with them throughout life. In early-modern theory these attributes were shared by a group, so Brits would act British rather than go native in the colonies. Late-modern theory says that fundamental attributes differ from person to person – they’re what make people unique.
Exactly how we characterize fundamental attributes has gone through a few changes over the years. From mission and principles to values in the most recent shift.
When you see someone do something, you can either say they’re reacting to their situation or acting according to their fundamental attributes. Your theory of mind says that sometimes people do stuff because they have consistent, internal attributes; and sometimes their behavior is dictated by a context-dependent, external situation. Psychologists have noted that, when in doubt, you’ll err on the side of fundamental attributes. You think Alice does X because Alice is the kind of person who does X not because X seemed like the best thing to do from Alice’s point of view.
Postmodernism says that modernist identity theory is just one big fundamental attribution error. People don’t have fundamental attributes. Alice does X because she’s socially constructed that way.
Fundamental attribution error is a key concept in cognitive behavioral therapy. In a sense, CBT is all about fighting it, especially when you apply the error to yourself.
And let’s not forget psychedelics — nothing burns away social constructs more quickly than a new point of view. The problem is that the squares panicked back in the 60s and attacked our researchers with pitchforks and torches, so psychedelic therapy has been permanently retarded.
I don’t know about other users, but it’s obvious to me, prima facia, that psychedelic therapy would be fantastically beneficial. I understood more of what Gordon meant about my compulsive need to tell stories in four hours tripping on psilocin than I did in ten hours of talk therapy, easily. It cost less too: $30 versus $1,500.
Postmodernism is strange territory. Perhaps I’ll post some of Leary’s thinking later…
Jack
19 Jun 09 at 12:06 am
As is usual for me, I’m not sure that there is such a significant difference between the modern and the postmodern ideas, as least as I’ve understood your presentation of them.
What about thinking that Alice does X because Alice is the kind of person who thinks that X is the best thing to do within a given type of situation and context? In other words, that they are “reacting to their situation … according to their fundamental attributes.” That seems like a more accurate statement of the modernist appraisal of Alice, to me, although I don’t know much about modernism-as-a-theory.
The implication here seems to be that modernism says that Alice’s fundamental attributes are inherent to her since birth and immutable. But wouldn’t folk explanations (presumably modernist ones?) for why Alice has her fundamental attributes include:
This sounds like saying that she is socially constructed.
I may be incorrectly conflating “modernism” with “the standard assumptions and paradigm of most people”.
Don
19 Jun 09 at 8:07 am
To get an idea of how socially constructed we are: Feral children don’t feel temperature the same way as socialized children — “hotness” and “coldness” are memes, and need to be socially transmitted.
If sensory interpretations are socially constructed*, then what’s left? It appears that our way-of-being is largely socially programmed. Perhaps the evidence is just buried: Feral children might have personality attributes the same as anyone else, but they’re so alien it’s hard to tease out their attributes from the projections of their caregivers.
Now that I try, it’s difficult to think of personality attributes that aren’t socially-relative. Ideas?
@Don: “She was raised right” and “society programmed her right” both seem like little metanarratives, and postmodernism is incredulous towards those — good catch.
Jared once told me that postmodernity would arrive when it was clear how to apply postmodernism to itself. So: There’s a thread, all that’s left is to unravel the sweater. What does it mean to be incredulous towards the idea of social programming? Is it as simple as saying, “I am not immutable, I can change myself myself”?
Actually, maybe the postmodern condition is realizing that “self” is an illusion. As Rogan says: When you look at mold, you don’t think about the careers and personalities of the individual spores. Maybe the key incredulity is towards the idea that we’re separate in any way from the species, from society.
It would be nice if these theories were falsifiable, hey? I guess that’s a modern POV, but next time you feel cold decide not to and see what happens… That, at least, is an attempt to hack The System.
* Tip for psychonauts: Touch is the oldest sense and hardest to fool. Not even full-blown psychotic breaks generate hallucinations that you can reach out and grab. If you want to know if something is real, touch it. This is a good way to figure out if you’re dreaming — if you can’t feel the stuff around you, try to go lucid.
Jack
19 Jun 09 at 11:15 am