By Lewis Loflin | Published May 9, 2025
The debate between postmodernism and Enlightenment liberalism reflects a deep divide over truth, society, and human nature. Enlightenment liberalism, rooted in reason and universal principles, promised progress but faltered with historical failures. Postmodernism, reacting with skepticism toward objective truth, challenges these ideals but risks eroding shared values. Both, however, overlook the human psyche’s complexity and impose conformity, disrupting natural diversity. A minimal-intervention approach, respecting human variability, offers a better path.
Born in the 17th–18th centuries with thinkers like John Locke and Immanuel Kant, Enlightenment liberalism championed reason, science, and universal principles to build a just society. It drove democracy and medical advances, yet its promise of a rational paradise fell short. The atomic bomb, a scientific triumph, enabled mass destruction, while colonial empires used “civilizing” rhetoric to justify exploitation. These failures suggest its universalist goals misjudged human nature’s complexity.
Emerging mid-20th century, postmodernism—led by thinkers like Jacques Derrida (deconstruction) and Michel Foucault (power dynamics)—rejected Enlightenment optimism. Jean-François Lyotard’s “incredulity toward metanarratives” dismissed grand progress stories, favoring subjective, fragmented perspectives. Derrida exposed biases in texts, and Foucault viewed reason as a control mechanism in institutions like prisons. While this critique highlights oppressive norms, rejecting reason and shared culture can undermine societal cohesion.
| Aspect | Enlightenment Liberalism | Postmodernism |
|---|---|---|
| View of Truth | Objective, universal | Subjective, culturally shaped |
| Core Method | Reason, science | Deconstruction, skepticism |
| Societal Goal | Harmonious progress | Diverse perspectives |
| Flaw | Overlooks human variability | Risks eroding shared values |
Both ideologies prioritize systems over the human psyche. Enlightenment liberalism sought rational conformity, assuming education could standardize behavior, ignoring emotional and individual diversity. Postmodernism deconstructs these systems but focuses on power, not the psyche’s unpredictable responses. Unlike gravity, human behavior resists scientific repeatability, defying both ideologies’ attempts to mold it.
By emphasizing ideology, both impose conformity, disrupting human diversity. Enlightenment liberalism’s universal norms often required force, as seen in colonial assimilation or moral codes. Postmodernism, while rejecting norms, can introduce new pressures, like mandated cultural shifts. Historical examples—Soviet indoctrination, modern social policies—show conformity rarely occurs without coercion, clashing with humanity’s natural variability, which I see as an unchangeable law like gravity.
Rather than reshaping society through ideology, we should focus on minimal intervention: address clear harms (e.g., violence, self-destructive behavior) while respecting individual and cultural differences. Targeted laws (e.g., against crime) or mental health support work without enforcing broad molds. This avoids the alienation of Enlightenment’s uniformity or postmodernism’s deconstruction, preserving the freedom and diversity that define us.
Postmodernism and Enlightenment liberalism both fall short by neglecting the human psyche and enforcing conformity. Liberalism’s rational utopia stumbled on human complexity, while postmodernism’s skepticism risks fragmenting shared progress. Embracing human diversity as a natural law and limiting intervention to clear harms offers a balanced path. For more on challenging ideological overreach, explore my pole shift debunk or other articles on BristolBlog.com.