In the 1980s, anthropology took a postmodern turn expressed in deconstruction and a “loss of certainty” in the social sciences and philosophy (Rynkiewich, 2011, p. 12). In the West, the individual was traditionally thought of as the “basic unit of society”. But neuroscience has increasingly cast doubt upon the objectivity of the individual’s perception of reality. It turns out that people do not perceive the world “as it is”, but in a highly fragmented and subjective way (p. 16-17). Thus “grand theories” of early anthropologists came to be seen as founded more upon their own Western philosophical tradition than observable human practice (p. 20). In my highly culturally diverse context of Western Europe, Christian witness that makes sweeping claims about the world are expected to come with the disclaimer, “in my opinion”. 

Since the emergence of anthropology as a discipline, a variety of successive attempts have been made to define culture. Some modern anthropologists believed that cultural differences could be explained by a universal evolutionary process. From a Western perspective, the peoples of the world could be conceived as moving from being savages, to barbarians, to civilized (Whiteman, 2020, p. 2). Another extrapolation from the notion of cultural evolution held that societies processed from “magic to religion to science” (p. 2). But the Darwinian theory was countered by historical particularism which argues that “historical, geographic and environmental factors” cause cultural development rather than a uniform evolutionary trajectory (Whiteman, 2020, p. 2). Later, missionaries found the interpretive definition of culture helpful, which defines culture as consisting of symbolic forms used to communicate and propagate knowledge and feelings about life (p. 3). These symbols may appear to have a straightforward meaning but have deeper meanings only discoverable through extensive field study (p. 4). In Portugal where I live, the religious symbols of Catholicism are present everywhere. As an Evangelical, it is easy for me to interpret Catholic architecture and liturgical art superficially versus seeking a thick understanding such as Geertz would recommend (Hua Cai, 2024). 

A common denominator in postmodern conceptions of culture is that it is a means people use to adapt to their environments (Rynkiewich, 2011, p. 20). “Entangled in language”, culture gives shape to the phenomena of our world, in a process that is learned and shared (p. 21,22). And culture is “peculiar” as a lens we acquire for seeing and interpreting the world while soon forgetting that culture is a “social construct” (p. 22). The linguistic turn of modern philosophy in the work of Wittgenstein and others ended up not offering a universal conception of language. I find this evident in my conversations with Europeans about spiritual matters as strident affirmations regarding the correct use of terms is perceived as arrogant. 

Postmodern anthropology critiques a modern ethnocentrism that seeks to understand non-Western cultures through its own unique perspective (Rynkiewich, 2011, p. 24). Cultural relativism, pioneered by anthropologist such as Franz Boas holds that each culture possesses knowledge which is original and constitutional, only to be understood within its own context (p. 25). I agree with the approach of methodological relativism which seeks to keep prejudices from distorting the interpretation of culture. Judgement is suspended initially while the anthropologist seeks to understand a culture. But aspects of a culture that undermine justice, for example, should be judged at the right stage of research, but not prematurely (p. 25). Even the most postmodern interlocutors I encounter in Portugal generally agree to the appropriateness of some degree of judging cultural phenomena. 

While modern anthropology tended to treat culture as something existing apart from human beings, the postmodern turn deconstructs culture by restoring agency to human beings (Rynkiewich, 2011, p. 30). This account reminds us that culture doesn’t do anything, people do. However, people’s actions are always contingent on their environments (p. 30). A constructivist view like this holds that while culture has powerful influence over people, it is also contingent on the materials and agency of people (p. 31). I find this perspective helpful in dialoguing with a population who values individual freedom and the subjectivity of human experience. As I witness to my experience of Christ to another human being – no matter what culture they represent – a constructivist account unites us in our shared experience of making sense of the world with the resources available. 

It has been argued that what unites postmodernism is: 

a commitment to a set of cultural projects that privilege heterogeneity, fragmentation, and difference and a widespread mood in literary theory, philosophy, and the social sciences that question the possibility of impartiality, objectivity, or authoritative knowledge (Whiteman, 2000, p. 5). 

It is easy to see why the postmodern turn in anthropology has received much criticism. Its attack on the objectivity of ethnography undermines the scientific legitimacy of anthropology as a field (p. 6). The obsession with polyvocality (multiple versions of reality or truth) and reflexivity threatens to make anthropologists overly anti-objectivist and introspective (p. 6,7). 

I believe that the concept of culture should still be used by missiologists as a heuristic descriptive device which acknowledges that culture is “contested, contingent, constructed, contextual, complex, changing, and creative” (Whiteman, 2000, p. 9). What is problematic is when missionaries use the concept of culture “prescriptively instead of descriptively”, such as in essentialist paradigms of people groups and honor/shame cultures (p. 9). We do a disservice to the field of missions studies when we try to reduce the complexity of the cultural phenomenon of our world in ways that “papers over complexity and camouflages important and critical differences in human beings” (p. 9). Polycentric missiology is a promising paradigm which recognizes the existence of “plural realities” and even plural Christianities (p. 9-10). If we hope to be able to combat racism and ethnocentrism, we must embrace the beneficial points of postmodernism such as cultural relativism without relinquishing critical thought (p. 10). 

References

Hua Cai. (2024). The predicament of social sciences in the 20th century: A dialogue with Clifford Geertz’s essay “Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture” (Part I). International Journal of Anthropology and Ethnology, 8(1), 1–20. Directory of Open Access Journals. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41257-023-00102-2

Rynkiewich, Michael A. (2011). Soul, Self, and Society: A Postmodern Anthropology for Mission in a Postcolonial World. Cascade Books  

Whiteman, D. (2020). The Concept of Culture in Missiology: To abandon or adapt considering the rise of postmodern anthropology. Biola University.