Is the option for tentativity in anticipation of a more comprehensive, more accurate picture of reality? Can a postmodern maintain firm beliefs in anything, e.g. religion, law, politics? Can he, for example, assert the goodness of God, or the excellence of democracy?
 

Postmodernism provides an unconventional reading of reality. The conventional way embraces a particular stance and considers that stance as a privileged choice. We can see that very clearly in modernism where a narrative becomes an overarching narrative a kind of meta-narrative, for it goes beyond the influence of history, or the possible mediation of the subject and language. Modernity presumes a stable subject within an understanding of a stable history directed by an idea or a logos. And from this subject it believes that truth is possible because first and foremost there is truth to discover and uncover. The subject's role then is to unfold this truth. And oftentimes this particular understanding is so general that it transgresses individuality. It speculates a particular structure that encompasses everything into it and as a consequence marginalizes those that do not share with it. Structuralism presents reality as wounded by an Idea that everything that comes into it is predetermined or predisposed. The Idea keeps the secrets of the world so that successful unlocking of the idea leads consequently to the unfolding of these secrets and provides a sense of imagined superiority to the finder in believing that he got THE TRUTH.

The option for tentativity in postmodernism is an experience of defiance against this superstructure. It proceeds with a strategic critique on two of the most important presumptions of modernity, namely, that the subject, as the source of truth, is stable and becomes the unifying ontological factor and secondly, that language is consistent in providing reliable and meaningful description of reality. Nietzsche questioned the identity of the subject. He compared the subject with Dionysus, the god of masks. The I is masked so that knowing the I through tearing its mask one after another ends up with no I left. The uncertainty concerning the identity of the I leads to the uncertainty to all our claims for truth so that what is left is nothing but perspectives. Nietzsche insists that there is only one way in resolving the problem and that is by changing one's perspective all the time. Our perspective is making judgments tentative. If consistently followed then we can logically conclude that there is no secret to unfold or one universal idea of truth that serves as an ARCHE encompassing and absorbing everything into it and thereby transgressing cultural boundaries and individual autonomy. There is no homogeneity; only heterogeneity. There is no preeminence except the tentativity of multifarious perspectives and not a single one pretends a privileged understanding. Nietzsche adds that language too is unable to get us through a clearer picture of reality. It is always littered with metaphors and metonymies. He emotively asserts the malleability of our perspectives so that truth, as is understood by structuralists, is simply an unattainable luxury.

Freud too shares his own suspicion on the subject. The conscious ego is determined by the unconscious id and this is made manifest in terms of dreams and slips of the tongue. In the Note on the Mystic Writing Pad Freud explains that the psyche is like a virgin surface that still retains permanent traces. We have memory traces that are not part of conscious memory, which may be energized into consciousness and affect us. This idea amazed both Derrida and Lacan. In his Dialectic of Recognition Lacan stressed that our knowing is influenced by how others respond to us. Our contact with many different people then secures an unstable image because we cannot be certain of others response. Lacan concludes that ego is illusory. We don't have a fixed set of characteristics and skeptical of any underlying truth. Further, he claims that development of the unconscious is related to the development of language. There is no subject that is independent of language. Dreams speak of the unconscious and manifest itself in glissement (slippage) like dreams whose meanings are elusive. So, too, is language. Against Saussure, meaning always slide along the signifying chain. No signification is ever closed, no sentence is ever saturated. A signifier can always become a signified and vice-versa.

Derrida picked this up and relate this to the concept of Differance. If the identity of the speaking subject and language is unstable then we have no other option but to defer our interpretations of the text (reality). Differance is a recognition of the temporality of our claims to truth. Following Nietzsche, he also talks of the metaphoricity of language. The signifier is not always related to the signified. There is no one to one correspondence so that meaning is not immediately clear to us. It is moving continually along the chain of signifiers so that we cannot be precise of its exact location. He uses the idea of the pharmakon and hymen in his article Dissemination to assert his earlier contention in The Margins that concepts are indeed malleable. Pharmakon can either mean a cure or a poison and hymen positions itself neither in between the outside and the inside of a woman. We cannot also identify it to belong to the center. It simply belongs to no definite side. Postmodern assumes this posture. It does not seek allegiance to one of the binaries but tries to keep loyalty in being decentered. This posture can be translated as a kind of undecidability. We cannot decide for any particular understanding of reality is temporal.

The implication is catastrophic to modernity in the sense that knowledge becomes malleable, fluid, particular and heterogeneous. There is no definable moment. No "now" to speak of. Metaphors constitute language so that modernity's claim for a transcendental subject, or a kind of "cunning" of reason (in Hegelian history), or an Absolute Idea that structures our understanding of reality is suspect. Against Husserl, there is simply no unqualified presence (a Transcendent Ego) for Derrida and consequently no priority of speech over writing. Phonocentrism is the effect of the unqualified presence of the logos. Existence is a text and understanding requires unabated reading and rereading, writing and rewriting. In this reading fissures always happen so that we continually defer and double read our text. We are assuming the posture of self-erasing our text or of disassembling our perspectives and refuse to stand still. This makes our constructs very fragile and very temporary. Hence postmodernism can be construed as an insurrection against centralized power unrelenting to give in to diversity.

Lyotard comes into the picture with his critique of the scientific. Science is a kind of narrative that, in man's longing for comfort in life, constitute life and instrumentalize life. He defies this particular understanding of life and call science as just one form of narrative that society has among other narratives. This calls for a suspicion of the preeminence of science with regards to the interpretation of life. Social bonds that are carefully organized by science are broken and restructured so that we don't find one particular narrative marginalizing the others. One narrative is equal with the rest. Hence, the only bond that binds people is the recognition of the multiplicity of language games. In this multiplicity, the spirit of dancing secures the moment. Dancing to the rhythm of play subdued the ambiance that elicits contingency defying any form of seriousness. Play (as in Gadamer) is known not in the rules but in playing.

Further, Postmodernism redirects our attention to a kind of fascination on the surface for it believes that there is no depth to unfold down or to unreveal (of being for Heidegger). All that we know is nothing but a sequel to another story. If ever there is a GRAND STORY such a story is always mediated. Such mediation not only replaces the capital letters with the lower case thereby masking it off (as in Dionysian masks) with all pretenses and rendering it ordinary but also allows other little stories to be heard. Hence, the spirit of tolerance and condescension reigns thereby presenting a less pretentious world.

Summarizing all these arguments, we can say then that the best option is tentativity. For it bespeaks of a humble acceptance of the fact that we cannot speak of truth as THE truth, for truth remains within the boundaries of human temporality. And this particular understanding of the truth is NOT an anticipation for a more accurate picture of reality. There is simply no accurate picture or a picture that pretends to be more lucid or privileged interpretation (of reality) because the subject is unstable and the object, as it is presented to the subject, is always mediated by language which is intrinsically metaphorical. There is no one single interpretation. There is no unified meaning within the relation of the signifier and the signified. There is no unqualified presence. Hence we can only be incredulous to metanarratives and live like pagans (as Lyotard says).

But is the option for tentativity means that postmodernists are not capable of possessing firm beliefs, that is, in law, religion and politics? Does it follow that allowing ourselves mesmerized in dancing (to the tune of play) we are no longer capable of seriousness about dignity and preservation of human life, of protection of the rights of the weak and of the innocent, of the necessity of justice and allegiance to truth. Personally I don't think there is sound logical relation between the postmodernists' choice for tentativity with having firm beliefs. I don't think Lyotard and Derrida categorically calls for the complete dismissal of all universals. To my understanding what these pillars of postmodernism are trying to say is that we cannot be too na�ve in limiting our interpretations of text to one possible interpretation but to open our eyes to the multiplicity of equally sound interpretations. I still believe, for instance, that the presidency is an office of public trust and once incidents of corruption and immorality erode this trust, the president has no more mandate to govern and remain in his office. I believe that life is always valued and that society must take care of it. I believe that justice and democracy, the best governments to ensure full expression of human freedom, should be preserved. And above all I still believe that there must be a God that is good and just for life becomes an empty journey without no particular direction to take. But do these beliefs in conflict with the message of postmodernism? I don't think they do. I agree with Lyotard that society still takes some narratives for narratives are like nutrients that sustain the lifeworld. Myths and rituals are still important to society and I don't think it is the intention of Derrida to completely abrogate narratives. The intention of the Margins is to challenge our assumptions and expose the binaries hiding underneath; assumptions that create unjustified legitimations that make us very unwilling to accommodate and condescend with those who do not share our claims to truth. Marginalizations happen because of intellectual pride and unfounded fear and insecurity that the metanarrative being adhered to has no meta in it but just another kind of narrative. Postmodernism teaches us humility and justice. Humility that all we know is temporary; others might be correct. Justice because we give others a chance to speak up and be heard. And this is the only concept that cannot be deconstructed for deconstruction is justice. Hence we continually reevaluate the meaning of the law and their applicability to various situations. The judge should interpret and appropriate the law according to the needs of the moment.

Postmodernism shaped most of our ethical principles from ethical legitimation through adherence to a Divine to ethical discourses' sensitivity to particularity and plurality of the opinions of participants. Lyotard, along with Rorty, insists that the validity claim (of what is right or wrong) depends on attained social predominance. It takes into consideration social acceptability as the basis for ethics. While attacking Habermas idea of consensus through discourse, he defends the discourse ethics idea that every subject must get the chance to articulate his/her interests. Levinas's influence on Derrida softens his stand with regards to ethics. He emphasizes individual particularity in intersubjectivity through friendship a kind of modification of Levinas's phenomenology of the face. In the encounter of the FACE we feel obligated and morally responsible to the other. Hence, postmodernism is capable of having a particular understanding of good as basis of moral actions, with a caveat though, that such discourse respects the particular.

I think the Catholic Church while adhering to her most sacred tenets, is still open to the spirit of postmodernism. The hierarchy dramatically changed paradigms from a ghetto mentality to a more dialogical one. The Second Vatican Council documents open its door to the possibility of Ecumenical dialogue. In missiology, the Church specifically calls for the respect of indigenous cultures' belief systems. The word of God has to incarnate itself in the richness and uniqueness of every culture. While it promotes unity among all churches in one roof (of the Vatican) it further contextualizes such unity in diversity. The Word enfleshed and take roots in where it is planted. Further, new theologies emerged and enriched our understanding of the church. From a more hierarchical one where authority resides from top to bottom, to a more participative church - empowering the laity to take active role in the propagation of the faith. Leonardo Boff in Eclesiogenesis calls for the restructuring of the church hierarchy along this line. He promotes, along with Gustavo Gutierez, the concept of basic eclesial communities. In Papua New Guinea we initiated pastoral programs like the New Image of the Parish the prime objective of which is to make the gospel more meaningful to them. The laity are being involved by organizing and training them to give retreats and conduct Bible sharing.

The traditional concept of salvation with emphasis solely on the soul has changed to holistic salvation (liberation theology). The word of God simply cannot take root in the context of political repression. We cannot preach the Word to a hungry stomach or to a people oppressed by an unjust system. The Church then remains sensitive to the signs of the times.

CONCLUSION

The option for tentativity is the only option possible to us. It is not in anticipation for a more comprehensive or accurate picture of reality. It believes that our understanding of reality must be heterogeneous, particular and temporal for reality is mediated by language that is intrinsically metaphorical and by a subject that is unstable. Hence it calls for the continuous opening of the agora where all shoppers can roam around and enjoy the ambiance of freedom, of being equal to other shoppers and where human relations are not distorted by possessions of power. While it holds with these values dearly, postmodernism still believes that we are capable of having firm beliefs of God, of goodness, of justice, and of democracy but without any pretense of possessing THE TRUTH. Simply put the message of Postmodernism is nothing but liberation.