De-Fragmenting Modernity - A Review
Paul Tyson’s 2017 book, De-fragmenting Modernity: Reintegrating Knowledge with Wisdom, Belief with Truth, and Reality with Being, is a place for those trying to bring order back to the modern world. This is not a book for the philosophical novice, and even those familiar with language like epistemology and ontology will have to read Tyson carefully. At the same time, the thesis and the argument are worth the work.
Tyson’s basic thesis is that “being, knowing, and believing always have their meanings in relation to each other.” (7) Unfortunately, the category of being has largely been ejected from the cultural imagination. This is part of what makes Tyson a challenge to read: He is resurrecting concepts and speaking in terms that are foreign to the way contemporary Western culture is constructed and communicates.
As the title indicates, Tyson is critical of modernity. Here he joins a line of other voices, which includes those who would like to return to some sort of pre-medieval synthesis and those who think that even the misshapen constraints of modernity are too restrictive. Tyson deals less with the cultural impacts of modernity than he does with the philosophical roots of modernity.
The beginning of an answer to what ails modernity, according to Tyson, is restoring the concept of ontology (the study of being) to the cultural imagination and then bringing being, wisdom, and truth back together in conversation. This process begins with the reconstruction of basic cultural assumptions, which begins by recognizing one’s hidden preconceptions and then trying to reconcile them with another set. The challenge is real.
One huge challenge Tyson identifies is that cultural assumptions are often masked, even (or perhaps especially) for those who specialize in pointing out the assumptions of others. He writes, “When modern theological thinking tries to be ‘scientific’ in modern terms––appealing to notions of objective proof and instrumental effectiveness––it is entirely unrelated to ancient theology. This is as true of ‘liberal’ theology as it is of ‘fundamentalist’ theology in modernity.” (37)
Tyson’s point here will be shocking to some, but he is far from the first to note that many fundamentalists have adopted basically modern approaches to theology. This has sometimes resulted in sub-orthodox formulations of doctrine, even among those most concerned with orthodoxy. The reductionistic tendency of our culture shapes us unless we consistently seek to challenge them, interrogating them to evaluate their integrity. That interrogation must not be done skeptically, with the cynicism entailed in the approach of the college sophomore, but honestly with a repeated attempt to ask “Is this right?” or “What am I missing?”
Tyson’s work fits well into the conversation with individuals like Zygmunt Bauman, Charles Taylor, and others. Tyson comes at the questions from a more directly philosophical angle, rather than the cultural or sociological angle of others. Everyone doing cultural analysis of modernity’s failings is engaged in philosophy, but Tyson’s analysis ventures little beyond philosophy.
De-fragmenting Modernity is a worthwhile volume for those philosophically minded and willing to invest some energy into careful reading. As we continue to try to restore a deeper sense of reality in our lives, including among our circles of friends and family, the foundational work Tyson is doing can be a source of conversation and discovery.
The way we talk about humans also has moral implications, which are more significant than how we treat our pets. In his 2011 book, Less than Human: Why We Demean, Enslave, and Exterminate Others, David Livingstone Smith explores how language changes culture and leads to the justification of extreme violence against others, especially when they become perceived as less than human.