Postmodernism is to blame. We’ve killed the meta-narratives, challenged authority, destabilized knowledge, eradicated Truth. It needed to be done, and the world is better for it. Postmodernism validates the voices of the marginalized by seeking to bring their voices into the forefront of the conversation, or at least ensure that they have a place at the table. It rightly questions foundational beliefs at the heart of society, justice, religion, politics, and gender identity. But of course, it has been hijacked, watered down, and distorted into The Philosophy of Meh. Now anyone can be a skeptic! Climate change? Meh. Evolution? Meh. There are no facts, only local knowledges, right? Societal norms dictate that certain voices carry more authority than others, but now we know that what’s really going on here: the oppression of the minority by the ruling powers, who “create” knowledge and disseminate it to the masses, thereby furthering their grip.
Postmodernism is an important quasi-philosophical movement. But, like any good idea, it has been diluted as it filters down to those who are able to grab only snippets of a complex maze of ideas and questions. Postmodernism is an exercise that involves extensive deconstructive work. The term “deconstructive” is significant here, in opposition to, say, “destructive” work. Postmodernism methodically takes apart the pieces of a working engine to examine each piston thoroughly and seek any flaws and determine consequences of those flaws. It requires one do the work, understand what he or she is looking for, and ultimately acknowledge that the engine as a whole is not in need of a major overhaul. Postmodernism breaks down expertly, layer by tedious layer, until the foundation of an idea is reached. That idea is then examined, its practical implications considered, painstakingly projected through thought experiments, then rebuilt if necessary. Postmodernism disassembles the engine. The philosophy of Meh simply wrecks the car because it can.
The difference is crucial. The difference between healthy skepticism and poisonous cynicism is that skepticism is earned. It is earned by a commitment to do the work, to first understand the deconstructive target as an expert in the field would, with the eye of a scientist first and philosopher second. First one must understand what the underlying assumptions are behind the idea, then determine to what extent those ideas are merely social constructs (most of them are), and finally decide if this now-deconstructed idea necessitates a reconstruction with alterations, or perhaps merely a simple reminder to the affected societies that these ideas are in fact social constructions and therefore may be changed according to the will of the people. Understanding comes before evaluation.
People are dismissive. Whether it is aimed toward a professor, a doctor, a lawyer, law enforcement, a general sense of distrust permeates American culture, and this can be at least partially attributed to the perversion of postmodernism as it devolves into the Philosophy of Meh. The consequences may be dire; people who doubt climate change because they somehow feel empowered to flippantly dismiss the overwhelming scientific evidence believe themselves to be intelligent skeptics who will be proved right eventually. These people are not skeptics, however, because their skepticism is not earned. They are cynics whose doubt comes out of convenience, laziness, and a pathetic non-understanding of two extraordinarily complex ideas (environmental science and postmodern thought).
Postmodernism is for skeptics. Not cynics.