Response to Wilcoxen's "postmodernism" letter

To the Editor:

In regards to Ms. Christine Wilcoxen's rant on "postmodernism" published in the July 3 edition of the Greene County Daily World, I'd like the opportunity to respond to her errors and misconceptions. 

As a graduate teaching assistant at the University of Southern Illinois and a scholar of postmodern texts, I found her "analysis" to be laughable at best. As a Lintonian, I found it to narrow-minded and ignorant.

To begin, Ms. Wilcoxen's definition of postmodernism as a "political correctness ... (in which) whatever you believe is true ... regardless of what you believe" could not be more wrong. The term she is grasping for is "post-structuralism," or more specifically "relativism," a theory that holds that dogmatic lines of thought should be questioned and examined. "Postmodern" is a term used to label the different aesthetic (architecture, literature, art, etc.) disciplines of our time. Whether you enjoy these works or not, it is inescapable and indisputable that we're currently living in the postmodern era.

To confound her mistake, Ms. Wilcoxen then goes on to display an array of illogical arguments. In her attempt to discredit a line of thinking that she, herself, cannot even define, she makes a strong case for the very "idiotic" post-structural thought that she condemns.

I ask: how is it "logical" to dismiss any thought without first considering it fully? How can Ms. Wilcoxen so easily criticize postmodern thought without even understanding what it entails? 

Consideration enables innovation and progress, and ultimately improves society. By simply believing in Christianity (or any other faith, belief, or creed) without first questioning its logic leads to complacency and ignorance.

Ms. Wilcoxen asks: what if the Bible is true? What then? 

Easily she could be asked: what if the Torah is true? The Koran? None of the above? These possibilities must be considered (through personal researh and careful consideration -- both areas in which Ms. Wilcoxen's letter lacked considerably) before assuming one path or dogma to be "correct," if such an assumption is even possible to achieve.

To clarify, I have no problem with Ms. Wilcoxen's religious beliefs or preferences, but to dismiss a line of thought and questioning without even understanding it -- that is perilous territory.

Perhaps it is wholly possible that the most "idiotic" and "illogical" (not mention dangerous) "way of thinking" is the closed mindedness on display in Ms. Wilcoxen's letter of the 3rd.

Jared Y. Sexton

Linton/Murphysboro, Ill.