A new epistemology?

Professor Tim Clydesdale has written an interesting piece in the Chronicle of Higher Education in which he suggests a new epistemology is dominant in the universities of America. There are echoes of Allan Bloom's 'Closing of the American Mind' here, as he suggests that today's university student sees knowledge as something to be approached more democratically, with less acceptance of expert knowledge, and not necessarily an acceptance of traditional notions of 'knowledge for knowledge's sake', 'the transformative power of the liberal arts' and so on. This he rightly suggests represents a challenge to university educators. Since it's a higher education opinion piece he doesn't try to outline in detail his view on this presumed epistemology its philosophical foundations, but one part of his stimulating commentary caught my attention and intersected with the observations of many that notions of 'truth' and textual authority continue to be challenged (see for example my posts on 'Truth and the Internet' here and here). Many of us have observed how younger generations in particular (but not exclusively) no longer place as much credence on authoritative texts nor supposed knowledgeable people. It seems experience, credentials, publications and even position carry little value for younger generations who are quick to say 'So what?' 'I'm not so sure about that' or 'Well that's one opinion among many'. He wrote:

Today's students know full well that authorities can be found for every position and any knowledge claim, and consequently the students are dubious (privately, that is) about anything we [academics and scholars] claim to be true or important.

In a piece that was published in Case 15 (here), I commented that for the postmodern person, knowledge, varies with the individual, circumstances and time and leads to the catch cry, ‘that might be true for you, but not for me’. Just as the serpent in the Garden of Eden suggested to Adam and Eve that they could have access to all the knowledge that God possessed as creator (Genesis 3:1-5), the deconstructive postmodernist (a term that I think comes closest to describing Clydesdale's 'new epistemology') suggests that we can have access to the tree of knowledge because we create it, it is in us.

While accepting that it is good to question knowledge and that some would see this more pluralistic view of knowledge as a good thing, Clydesdale contrasts this new attitude to that of students in an earlier age who were prepared to accept the authority of teachers and university professors more readily. He continues:

"Of course, this new epistemology does not imply that our students have become skilled arbiters of information and interpretation. It simply means that they arrive at college with well-established methods of sorting, doubting, or ignoring the same."

In my earlier Case 15 article I also pointed out that the process of democratisation of knowledge, has led to the creation of new interpretive communities where ideas are shared, interpretations are co-constructed and knowledge in turn is shared with others. Barthes wrote of the ‘death of the author’ over forty years ago, so this is not a new development, although I would agree with Clydesdale that it is a more common epistemological starting point than it was once. But for me, what have had the greatest impact have been the social changes inherent in modern western societies in combination with new forms of communication. The changing nature of families and their instability has meant that peer groups are now more important sources of advice, support and knowledge than was once the case. And while one could not blame new communication technology for the undermining of political, parental, teacher, police or scholarly authority, its development has accompanied significant social changes to families and the place of the church, and increasingly pluralistic societies precipitated by increasing globalisation, occurring at the same time that post modern thinking had taken hold of the academy (something that many argued is now changing).

The Internet continues to add weight to and support this shift from authorial and textual power to the reader/student and their interpretive communities. In particular, the Internet has done much to negate individual authorship in favour of shared authorship. Phenomena such as Wikipedia make it increasingly difficult to identify a single author and in effect supports the notions of the young that they will weigh every issue up, not just accept your view even if you're a teacher, professor, politician or even their mum. Once again, we need to recognise that universities, schools and families should be places where we encourage the young to question, argue and explore ideas. But what does this mean for the way we approach a different generation?

Clydesdale's conclusion is that we should approach our students with greater respect and with patience:

"The onus is on us to better convey the value that a robust intellectual life adds to the public good. And we need to begin by respecting our students (and the wider public) not just as persons but as the arbiters of knowledge that they have become. Specifically, we must respect students as thinkers, even though their thinking skills may be undeveloped and their knowledge base shallow. Moreover, our respect must be genuine. Students have keen hypocrisy sensors and do not like being patronized."

I find this a challenge, but I think there is great wisdom in what he is suggesting. While I will never retreat from my belief that there are truths which I will defend vigorously (most notably, biblical teaching and the gospel of Christ), nor will I compromise in watering down or sanitising the message of the gospel, we do need to consider how we engage with such a different generation whether as an academic, teacher, parent or preacher. Clydesdale's point intersects with the views of others in recent times including John Stackhouse who points out in his book Humble Apologetics that “If we are going to defend and commend our faith, we must do it in a new mode: with a different voice and in a different posture. Our apologetics must be humble.”

Clydesdale finishes with these helpful words:

"Some of us need an attitude adjustment. It is not just residential-college students who live in a bubble — many faculty members do as well. We take for granted our privileged status, become consumed by petty controversies, talk only to ourselves, and ignore the wider public that makes our work possible. It is tempting, I know, to want to curse the culture and withdraw into like-minded enclaves. But neither catharsis nor retreat will satisfy those who demand accountability, raise financial support for public higher education, or generate more students who cherish college as an opportunity to learn and think."

While Clydesdale was writing this article for a general higher education academic readership, we could also redirect his thoughts to any of us would be apologists and even preachers. This is something that Tim Keller considers at length in his excellent book The Reason for God, which I reviewed on this blog (here). The message of the gospel must not be sanitised or modified for this generation, but we must give careful consideration to how we engage a questioning generation in a consideration of the truth.

You can read Clydesdale's excellent piece here.

Bill Henson - Part 2

When I wrote a post about Bill Henson's controversial photographic work and the action by Australian police in closing down his most recent exhibition, it wasn't clear where this would end. In the past week we have seen the police drop all charges and Henson's supporters quietly celebrating the defeat of the "the philistines" who questioned his work. End of story? Well no.

As Miranda Devine writes in her opinion piece "Picture this: society draws the line" in the Sydney Morning Herald (14.6.08), the art community cannot simply conclude that art is beyond question from other interpretive communities, even if they choose to show it to an exclusive and 'safe' group of supporters. Devine notes that the art of Henson is not just being questioned by the police and government censors; nor just blogs like mine that have raised concerns in terms of the rights of children as well as moral and ethical concerns. In recent days a large group of psychologists, social workers and child-protection advocates have raised their concerns in a very public way in the form of an open letter. The group believes that the concern about Henson's work has been sidetracked into a pointless discussion about art versus pornography; when as they and others suggest it is about the protection of children and their developmental inability to give informed consent. The spokesman (Chris Goddard) states:


"We are particularly concerned [by the suggestion] Mr Henson's photographs are in some way so special as to be above the question of consent"

As I pointed out in my previous blog post, no interpretive community (even the art community) can hide behind postmodern notions that art appreciation and how any work is 'read' is all relative. The meaning is not just in the knower (rather than the work), all such meanings or interpretations of art are not simply relative. A photograph of a naked 13 year-old girl might be, in the eyes of some simply art, but it is still a photograph of a real naked 13 year-old girl. Like many others (it would seem), I find his use of such images, and the way that he does it, in the name of art to be inappropriate. I'm pleased that I am not alone. As Devine points out, it seems that:

"....community tolerance for underage exploitation has found its limits".

I'm pleased about this and would hope that the community at large might continue to consider where it draws the line on many issues that affect society. I'd also be keen to continue to encourage others to consider on what basis they make such decisions. I know what my yardstick is for informing my worldview and the choices I make about what is just and unjust, appropriate and inappropriate, right and wrong. It is the teaching of the Bible and the wisdom and truth of God that it communicates.

Was Bill Henson caught out by postmodernism?

In Australia we have just had a major controversy caused by an art exhibition featuring the photographic work of Bill Henson. Henson is a one of our most famous living artists and has gained widespread international acclaim. However, last week the police were called to a gallery where his latest exhibition was to be opened. For non-Australians who read this blog the key details are: Henson has for a long time included photographs of young pubescent children. In his own words he likes to express "..ideas about humanity and vulnerability and our sense of ourselves living inside our bodies and our bodies in space" and has been interested in the transition from childhood to adulthood (amongst other things).

What triggered the confrontation with police was the use of a photograph of a naked 13 year old girl on the invitation to the exhibition opening and the use of some images of the same girl on the gallery's website. Hetty Johnston an activist for Braveheart (an organization fighting against child pornography) contacted the police, the exhibition was shut down, the art removed from the gallery by police and the images removed from the website. The police are still investigating and are expected to lay charges against the artist and gallery.

I haven't written this post to comment on the work itself and have never seen it except via the media in the last week. Nor am I trying to make judgements about the artist or his motives. However, it appears that about one third of the images in the exhibition featured photographs of a young teenage boy and girl in varied poses including one of the girl fully naked with exposed genitals. If this is true then I think that there is good reason for concern.

But for me, what is intriguing about this confrontation has been the way various individuals and groups have responded. For some his work is viewed as pornography while for others it is seen as high art exploring issues that are important. Edmund Capon, Director of the Art Gallery of NSW has described his art this way:

"Henson's images are veritable symphonies of decadence and beauty, of squalor and opulence, of mysterious darkness and ominous light, of quiet obsession and subversive ecstasy."

The Prime Minister described some of the images this way:

"Whatever the artistic view of the merits of that sort of stuff - frankly I don't think there are any - just allow kids to be kids."

Hetty Johnston (Braveheart) commented:

"You can call it anything you want, but at the end of the day, these are images of naked adolescents."

Judy Annear (Senior Curator at the Art gallery of NSW) in defended Henson's work in the Sydney Morning Herald but acknowledged that his 'edgy' work can cause some people to "take a step away" from it. She suggested that:

"In the end it's only a representation. We're not being asked to agree or approve."

Postmodernism asserts that meaning or interpretation varies with the individual, circumstances and time. You can almost hear the postmodern art critic saying ‘the art might be offensive to you, but not for me’. In Annear's words, "it's only an interpretation". Postmodernism shifts the focus from the artist and the work to the viewer and his or her context. In a sense postmodernists would claim that we don’t go to a gallery to discover what an artist has depicted representationally, but rather to experience the artwork and to discover for yourself just what it might mean. The meaning is seen as in the knower not the work, and all such meanings or interpretations are relative.

Of course, while supporters of postmodernism focus on the interpreter they also see others as influencing our meanings. While not commenting specifically about art, Stanley Fish suggests that it is in interpretive communities, rather than any work (whether text, art, film) that meaning and interpretations are produced. In considering the relationship between an interpreter (e.g. a gallery viewer), an interpretive community (e.g. art enthusiasts) and a source of knowledge or interpretation (e.g. photographic art), Fish sees the interpretive community as determinative. And here is the problem for Henson. While the relatively closed community of art critics might well see his work as a “veritable symphon(y) of decadence and beauty”, others outside this limited interpretive community might just see it as pornography and as photographs that are in breach of the law. Non-members of the art community have not been prepared to accept the deconstructionist view that there is no connection between the signifier (e.g. a photo) and the signified (e.g. a naked 13 year old girl). They have asked why was this young girl photographed this way? Is she old enough to give consent? What responsibility did her parents have in this? Could these images be exploited by others?

For many outside the art community, the photos are not a representation, they are a photo of a 'real' 13 year old girl. What’s more, they might assert that the very artistic devices used by Henson (e.g. subtle lighting, poses that appear sexual to many etc) signal that the artist might just intend for the viewer to see the art as concerned with teenage sexuality and hence object to the work on moral and legal grounds. Furthermore, they might just conclude that this is exploitation and perhaps even abuse of children.

I asked the question in the title to this post "Was Bill Henson caught out by postmodernism". The outrage by the arts community is unwarranted in my view. The defence of Henson that I've hard in the media has typically been based on three lines:

* he's one of our greatest artists;
* he's been doing this for 30 years;
* it's art and so should be viewed differently.

None of these arguments have convinced me of anything, nor have they negated the concerns raised by those outside the arts community. There seems to have been long-term acceptance of Henson's work within the arts community, but things went pear-shaped when the gallery did two things. First its used one of the images on the exhibition invitation and sent it outside the tight arts community. Second, it placed some of the images on the Internet opening the images up to the whole world. This permitted new interpretive communities to examine Henson's work and draw different conclusions to the arts community. And this highlights one of the problem with postmodernism, it promotes meaning and interpretation as relative, but its adherents often seem to want to place limits on interpretive possibilities when the viewpoint is at odds with their own.

You can read a Sydney Morning Herald article about the exhibition here.