Postmodern Implosion and the Rise of Defensive Conservatism

The experience of implosion is known in postmodernist teaching. In the modern era, what dominated was a process of differentiation, specialization, and fragmentation. Everything was divided into smaller and more specific fields. Society believed in systems, because systems were needed for organization, administration, and managerial control.

Illustration by magnific.com

Modernity was essentially about separation and categorization. Every field was broken down into increasingly narrow specializations. Medicine split into many branches, psychology fragmented further, dentistry became its own field, and so on. This was an “explosive” movement outward — everything separated into distinct compartments.

Postmodernism moves in the opposite direction. If modernity emphasized separation and rigid boundaries, postmodernity involves the collapse of those boundaries. The walls between categories begin to dissolve. Distinctions that once felt absolute become blurred.

This collapse often creates anxiety and disorientation. People who were accustomed to rigid structures panic when the old frameworks no longer function. They no longer know what should become the reference point for meaning or identity. That inability to endure uncertainty often produces defensive reactions, sometimes even destructive ones.

Many conservative or dogmatic movements can be understood as reflexive defensive reactions against this implosion. In religion, for example, some traditions become more open and accommodating toward diversity, while others respond by becoming increasingly rigid and absolutist. The harsher and more dogmatic the response, the more it often reflects fear and insecurity rather than deep reflection.

I think these reactions are usually more like reflexes than genuine reflection. When people feel threatened, they instinctively retreat to older identities, traditions, or forms of certainty. Conservatism in many churches today can also be seen as a modern reaction to rapid cultural change.

Historically, Europe experienced enormous suffering because of this inability to tolerate difference and free thought. Religious wars, persecution, torture, and violence eventually forced societies to slowly develop ideas such as human rights, freedom of belief, and freedom of expression. These values did not emerge peacefully; they were born from long histories of conflict and trauma.

Even today, these tensions remain unresolved. During crises — such as migration waves or political instability — primitive tribal instincts quickly reappear, even in Western societies that claim to value openness. The formation of the European Union, for example, revived old nationalistic tensions between countries like France, Germany, and Britain.

Postmodern critical thinking, therefore, is valuable because it trains people not to react emotionally or defensively when confronted with difference. It encourages reflection instead of reflex. Unfortunately, critical thought is still often treated as dangerous or toxic, even among educated groups.

I also see a contrast between “reflex” and “reflection.” Reflex is immediate defensive reaction, while reflection requires deeper thought and self-awareness. Military systems, for example, rely heavily on reflexive obedience and discipline because they are built for survival and defense. But when fear escalates without reflection, it can lead to arms races, biological weapons, escalating violence, and destructive competition between nations.

At its extreme, fear-driven self-defense can become irrational and self-destructive. The logic becomes: “the best defense is total domination or preemptive destruction.” This mentality drives militarization and endless escalation.

Yet even within rigid systems like the military, there are still individuals capable of reflection — people who question the structure itself and recognize the dangers of purely reflexive thinking.