Mon, 26 Sep 1994 14:00:41 -0700 for <SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU>
Date:         Mon, 26 Sep 94 16:27:12 EDT
From: "T R. Young" <34LPF6T@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU>
Organization: Central Michigan University
Subject:      Postmodernity and the question of alienation
To: GRADUATE STUDENTS IN SOCIOLOGY <SOCGRAD@UCSD.EDU>
Part III of a mini-lecture [that's getting a bit long] on the Drama of
Human Knowledge brought to you by rebels, misfits and malefactors everywhere.

In the last exciting installment, I made the case that in terms of both
content and social organization, pre-modern sensibility, modern enquiry
and postmodern deconstruction are complementary in the epistemological
endeavors of human beings.  Carrying on from there, I want to point you
to some interesting differences in understanding alienation.  Alienation
has a long and venerable career in psychology and sociology.  In psychology,
one was alienated from the drives and traumas buried deep in the psyche; an
alienist was one who helped the neurotic sort out such hidden compulsions
which otherwise were beyond help.  Setting that aside, the concept is even
more interesting [to me] when it points at the larger sources of distorted
knowledge, feelings and doings.
A.  Purposes of the enquiry and human knowledge in each epoch/mode of thought
    1.  Pre-modern: knowing of god/spirit world/ultimate reality
    2.  Modern: reduction of the gap between subjective understanding and
        putatively objective reality.
    3.  Postmodern: varies...for some it is the debunking of claims of truth;
        opposition to cultural hegemony [esp. Euro-American].  For some it is
        the construction of a macro-social psychology which shows the politics
        embedded in both pre-modern theodicy and modern enquiry.  For me, it
        is an effort to help built a world in which praxis is spread widely
        in the population [lecture on Praxis another time].
B.  Sources of Human Alienation [in addition to personal troubles]
    1.  Separation from God; entrapment in the sorrow, pain and misery
        which is [said to be] an inescapeable part of life in this world.
    2.Discrcrepancy between subjective knowledge and objective reality; ignor-
        ance of the universal laws of nature and society.
    3.  loss of control of the knowledge process; exclusion from the building
        critique of the social institutions/roles in which one must live out
        one's life.
C.  Solutions to the problem of alienation:
    1.  Reunification with God...perfect communication with spirit world.
        Salvation by means of good work, meditation or worship; in christianity
        salvation is sometimes seen to be a gift of divine grace.
    2.  Absolute Truth.  That's what grad school is all about: hypothecation,
        verification/falsification, model building and testing.  The quest
        for a perfect description of how the world and all its creatures,
        great and small work.
    3.  Varies from critical self reflection to change and renewal in social
        life worlds.  Sometimes it presumes the sociology of fraud every
        where in which case, a narrow, self serving solipcism will suffice.
D.  Views on Change:
    1.  Change is deviancy from God's plan...or from Nature [human or other-
        wise.
    2.  Change is neutral and the result of natural laws; competition, survival
        of the fittest society, progress toward 'modern' high tech division
        of labor.
    3.  Flucuation between order and less order; no natural end state toward
        which any given society is headed/no anchor points to judge progess.
E.  Sources of Change:
    1.  The unfolding of God's Plan; the slow accomplishment of perfect harmony
        with nature.
    2.  Struggle for existence; adaptation, the iron laws of market or society
    3.  Contradictions within the social order [Marx]; bifurcation points on
        key parameters [Chaos/Complexity theory].
F.  Ethical Character of Change:
    1.  Variation from God's plan is evil, sin, folly or madness.
    2.  Change is neutral; it has no ethical content
    3.  Varies; one can judge but only if one specifics one's values/politics.

End of Part III.  More in another lecture on Reason and Rationality.
                                                                       T.R.