The Problem with Metanarratives

There is one final point to be made about modernity:

9. Modernity is in deep, deep trouble. The very metanarratives that promised so much -- technology, rationality, human rights, theology -- have all failed us to some extent. Modern people are plagued by uncertainty, alienation, bureaucratization, and despair.

• Science has brought advances, but it cannot save us. It has just as much power to alienate us and destroy us. We can strive to cure cancer; we can also dominate others using the products of science, and produce weapons of mass destruction. It is easy to say that the scientists themselves are not responsible, but it is the politicians, but many scientists do believe that they do bear some responsibility.
  
  
• Technology has also brought advances, but despite the promises of Star Trek, it cannot save us either. Technology seems to bring as many opportunities for harm and destruction as it does for salvation.
  
  
• Marxism explained the world coherently, and brought relief to workers; yet, it also allowed a new set of excesses. Stalin condemned more people to death than the Nazis did, in the gulags in Siberia.
  
  
• In our liberal society, we have the problem of the definition of the abstract ideals of justice, equality, and freedom. Each person defines these in their own terms, and equality for some has come to mean marginalization for others. It is difficult to imagine a world of abstract ideals that actually takes the past (especially past inequities and transgressions) into account
  
  
• Religious excesses are not limited to the middle ages -- there is plenty of evidence that theocratic systems are not the answer either. And, the rationality of conservative religion is undergirded by a belief in the "rational" principle of inerrancy, which allows the most arbitrary of decisions about biblical meaning.

The point is clear. Even if you play by the rules, even if you buy into the metanarrative, there are no guarantees. In other words, the supposedly universal story isn't universal. The supposed rational story allows the most irrational things. That which defines morality allows and even necessitates immorality. That which is supposed to bring deliverance actually can bring domination.


Now, there are three possible responses to this:

1. One might say that the problem is that the existing metanarratives have not been stringently followed. What has caused the problems (it might be argued) is not the rational structures, but the non-rational tradition and superstition that keeps encroaching on rationality. If people only were good Christians, or good Marxists, or good liberals, or good scientists, all would be well.

However, it seems that for any of the metanarratives that have been given, there is a justification of actions and beliefs that are either harmful or contradict the metanarrative itself. In other words, in each case one has to become "irrational" at points in order to preserve the rationality of the metanarrative. It is not our failure to keep the ideals; rather, it seems that the very keeping of the ideals poses problems.


2. It could be that we just haven't found the right metanarrative yet. The problem is that it seems that the conflicting beliefs and needs of peoples do not fit into one overall story. The way that metanarratives work is to marginalise certain groups of people. But notice that that is circular. How do you decide before you have a metanarrative, which group should be marginalised?


3. The post-modern response is to question the very project of making metanarratives at all. Fixing up the current metanarratives will not work, because the problems exist exactly to the extent that the metanarratives achieve their stated goals. It is not the failure, but the success of the metanarrative that causes the problems. More metanarratives will not work, for the simple reason that we now live in a diverse world. Whose metanarrative will it be? There is no a priori way of deciding this.