Page 94 - Cultural Studies Dictionary

FOUNDATIONALISM

Foundationalism Foundationalism is the generic name given to the philosophic
attempt to give absolute universal grounds or justifications for the truth of
knowledge and values. Poststructuralism, pragmatism and postmodernism are anti-
foundationalist philosophies that are strongly represented within cultural studies. 71
That is, they argue that the provision of universal foundations for knowledge or
values is not possible and that justifications take place within the bounds of
historically and culturally specific language-games.
The adoption of a foundationalist epistemology allows thinkers to make
universal truth-claims where truth is taken to be an accurate representation of an
independent object world. It follows that once we know the truth about the
workings of the social world then we can intervene strategically in human affairs
with confidence in the outcomes. In particular, Enlightenment philosophy and the
theoretical discourses of modernity have championed ‘reason’ as the source of
progress in knowledge and society. That is, modern reason has been conceived as
leading to certain and universal truths that would, through the demystification of
religion, myth and superstition, lay the foundations for humanity’s forward path.
Enlightenment thinkers hailed human creativity, rationality and scientific
exploration as underpinning the break with tradition that modernity heralds.
Enlightenment philosophy is foundationalist because it sought universal
propositions that would apply across time, space and cultural difference.
By contrast, anti-foundationalism holds that knowledge is specific to language-
games so that we cannot found or justify our actions or beliefs in any universal
truths. This argument indicates a loss of faith in the foundational schemes and
universalizing epistemology that have justified the rational, scientific, technological
and political projects of the modern world. Anti-foundationalism suggests that
while we can describe this or that description of the world to be more or less useful
and as having more or less desirable consequences, we cannot claim it to be true in
the sense of correspondence with an independent reality. Further, since in this view
human history has no telos, or historical end-point to which it is unfolding, then
human ‘development’ is best understood as the outcome of numerous acts of
chance and environmental adaptation which make the ‘direction’ of human
evolution contingent. ‘Progress’ or ‘purpose’ can only be given meaning as a
retrospectively told story.
Nevertheless, we do not, according to supporters of anti-foundationalism, require
universal foundations to pursue a pragmatic improvement of the human condition
on the basis of the values of our own tradition. Answers to the key questions about
what kind of human being we want to be and/or what kind of a society we want to
live in are not metaphysical or epistemological in character but rather are pragmatic
and value-based. It is not possible to escape values any more than we can ground
them in metaphysics so that historically and culturally specific value-based
knowledge is an inevitable and inescapable condition of human existence.
Subsequently, judgements are made by reference to likely or intended
consequences as measured against our values rather than being founded on
transcendental truth.