sustainability dharma

Theory (or postmodern theory) will only make sense when we look at the definitions of Modernity, Modernism and Postmodernism because theory can be said to be interchangeable with the term “postmodernism”.

Modernity (also the Modern) is the development of Western history of, say, the last five centuries. Characterized by the rise of capitalism, science and technology, and rational thought, it challenged traditional authority, that of the Christian Church and legitimacy of political power. It can be seen as the beginning of liberalism. But from it also came even more brutal forms of power, like the absolutism of Louis XIV, XV and XVI. And countries such as England and the Netherlands saw political instability but saw the gains through capitalism and Imperial expansionism. And during the Enlightenment the very notion of “Modernity” becomes self-aware, defining itself against previous traditional ways of lifes, Christian dogma and superstition. So by the 19th century transformation and upheaval was seen as the rule.

Modernity can be seen as beginning of the ideas of progress and evolution, and of ideas as different as capitalism and communism. And even today the technological progress is still a place of much of our misplaced hopes. Modernity is now no longer something we celebrate but rather it is something to which we feel we are condemned.

Modernism (also Modernist) which moved on from the novelty, the “scandal and challenge”, of Modernity is a constellation of intellectual and artistic Western ideals from the mid-nineteenth century. And it is a late development of Modernity. Modernism is an awareness of Modernity’s conflict and upheaval. But it also thoroughly believed, perhaps more than Modernity, in progress and evolution. And it had hoped to solve problems brought about by Modernity with more radical and absolute forms of Modernity, creating even more absolute answers. An example of Modernism in politics is Marxism. And Expression, Symbolism, Cubism, Futurism and Art Nouveau are further examples of Modernist art movements.

Postmodernism (also, Postmodernity, the Postmodern and Postmodernist) can be defined as the dismantling of the ideas and beliefs of Modernism, and does not replace the latter. Postmodernism maintains a relationship with and relativism to Modernism. It returns with rigour to older ideals but in renewed fashion. In art and literature figure painting and realism respectively becomes important once again. Irony and pastiche – rather than metaphysics and parody – become the main vehicles for expression. And with its borrowing of styles it becomes clear that Postmodernism is both anti-authoritarian and anti-foundational in outlook.

Examples of Postmodernism are Deconstruction, Psychoanalytic Criticism, New Historicism, Cultural Materialism, Feminist Criticism, Queer Theory, Poststructualism, Neo-Marxist Criticism, Post-colonial Theory, Reader Response Theory, Postmodernism (as a self-aware position), New Pragmatism, etc. Names associated with Postmodernism are Derrida, Foucault, Barthes, Kristeva, Said, Lyotard, Baudrillard, Fredric Jameson, Raymond Williams, Deleuze, Lacan, etc.

Lately I have been thinking about what to do with this blog. It has been a while since I wrote anything substantial especially about sustainability.

I had tried to write about the two things which are most important to me – sustainability and Buddhism – and show how they work together in me as one concept or idea. After all every person is one individual with multiple concepts. Sometimes they are complementary, at other times they are contradictory. We are pluralistic. We have influences from all directions.

But to be honest it has been hard to sustain writing about them both as though they were one concept. So I feel it is now time to concentrate on one topic: sustainability. While Buddhism is still important to me it is far more personal and also more difficult to write about. Besides, focusing on one subject is better, more logical and makes for easier-to-understand writing. It also makes it easier to write. After all don’t we write to be read?

Is it possible to blog on indefinitely, sustainably? This question has bothered me for some time, because it is something I have had to face myself.

A fellow blogger who had started around the same time I started this blog has called it quits, at least in the non-profit form. He has decided to concentrate on freelance writing to which he has my full support. If one’s writing is good enough for it to be paid work – if there is a readership that can turned into a livelihood – then go for it.

How sustainable is blogging, especially the kind we do – topic-based blogging? There are four important qualities, I think, which is necessary for a (niche) blog to work.

Familiarity
Undoubtedly the most important quality. Without thorough knowledge of the topic it is near impossible to sustain the writing. But this is only true if you are writing as a pundit. If you are writing from the point of view that of a novice and your personal experience so far then it will work. Then this type of blog is more akin to a journal blog – a record of your journey towards the goal of this knowledge.

Time
Without time to blog then no blog will survive. As a father, a full-time postgraduate student, a teacher and a blogger twenty-four hours is simply not enough. Something has to give. And I don’t think it is fatherhood, research, or my vocation. If you placed blogging up at the top then seriously something must be very wrong with your relationships or priorities.

Spirit of charity
Blogging – especially niche blogging – is truly close to charity… that is unless you have signed up for Adsense. But by and large bloggers have more sense than adsense (except if you are that good then you can cut a living from blogging). Most of us are just satisfied to share with other what we know and make new friends.

Sense of fun and enjoyment
Blogging has to be fun. Otherwise it will feel like a chore.

**

Of the four qualities I have three – familiarity, spirit of charity and a sense of enjoyment. Time is something which is hampering me here. While I do apologise to my readers sometimes for the lack of postings but I think they understand. But also these days my blog is generally supported by new readers rather than regulars. I think people all move on after a while.

Coming back to my friend and his blog I am not saying he lacks charity. His case is different because now he is choosing a professional path. And for that I cheer him on. To me, blogging is only sustainable if there are these qualities. Otherwise there is no inclination to write.

So I am checking out the US death toll statistics in the War Against Terror and I am bombarded by:

• a car advertisement,
• a jewellery advertisement, and
• an internet phone advertisement.

Not to mention there was a pop-up ad which my browser had blocked for me.

So my friend asks me why I hate advertising so much? And here is the answer. Some things are just tasteless and this is one of them.

“Texts, like dead men, have no rights”, wrote the Bible critic, Robert Morgan, suggesting that the meaning of texts today are in the hands of the readers, and out of the hands of its authors. But does that mean we can interpret it as we like and do to it as we like?

One of my favourite(?) modernist principles goes by the long name of hyper-protected cooperative principle. But really it just means that when we say or write something it follows a certain convention so that the person or people it is intended for can make sense of it. In other words, we intend such messages to have a particular meaning.

Texts, of course, are written to have particular “meaning”. They are written (I will stick with written texts for now) to either persuade or dissuade. But to suggest that we use it for no other purpose than its intended meaning is to (un)wittingly shield the text. But what exactly are we wanting to shield the text from?

For postmodern critics to suggest that texts have no rights is a way to open it up to investigation for hidden – usually more sinister – agendas and values which have been cleverly camouflaged by a textual strategy. It is precisely because the agendas and values are less palatable (if they would be known) that their writers want to hide them. Thus writers also open themselves up for scrutiny once they produce text. And this writer is not immuned from this.