In the twentieth century, formal, university-based god-talk tended to react to major movements in philosophy, particularly to the three great “masters of suspicion:” Marx, Nietzsche and Freud. Some god-talkers sought to do theology in philosophical language, hoping to reach the wider, non-religious audience of the modern world. Other god-talkers used philosophy to find a sturdier position for the traditional claims of organized religion.
Because of this (over)reaction to modern philosophy, university-based theology is now irrelevant to most “postmodern” folks, even though interest in pop spirituality and fundamentalism is on the rise. Developments in philosophy since World War II have been largely ignored by university theology, or else absorbed with such pedantry or faddishness as to render it unreadable. It often seems as though current philosphically-engaged theologians avoid reading the philosophers themselves and instead get their information from their perpetually angry neighbors in the English department (who probably never read it first hand themselves). Incorporating one or two key terms from a contemporary philosopher’s first noteworthy work (some twenty years after the fact) does not cut it.
This is not to say that god-talk needs to speak in “Foucauldese,” “Rortyese” or “Zizekese” to be relevant. Doing so would be no guarantee of a larger audience. But university-based god-talk should quit pretending it is philosophically informed until it enters into a significant engagement with post-Vietnam philosophy. Doing so would at least lend it greater credibility inside the university itself. Philosophers like Bataille, Lacan, Levinas, Derrida, and Kristeva have made significant contributions to god-talk, but you would never know it if you were chained to a lecture podium in your local theology department. (There are some notable exceptions.)
After some encouragement from my boss, I am going to try and devote a little more of MyIrony’s space to theology. For those of you who are not theologically afflicted (read, “theologically educated”), this post will be a digestible intro.
“Theology” comes from the Greek words “theos” and “logos.” “Theos” means god/deity/divinity and “logos” means word/reason/ratio. In other words, theology is god-talk. (I will use the two terms interchangeably.) Although “theology” usually refers to the organized theological discipline, more loosely it can be used to label any talk about god, spoken or written, casual or deliberate, well-reasoned or ad hoc.
Theology is not religion. To be sure, organized religion employs god-talk on its own behalf (a mixed blessing for religion and theology both), but religion does not “own” god-talk. Often, theologians stand outside organized religion and critique it–explaining not only the many instances of god-talkers getting burned at the stake but also the many instances of god-talkers instituting major reforms that the religious hierarchy could not.
Click to continue reading “A plea for god-talk”
Almost every negative review of The Matrix: Reloaded has involved three criticisms. One, it wasn’t as good as the original. Two, it wasn’t deep. Three, Keanu can’t act. Love it or hate it but, please, don’t expect me to swallow these reasons…
It wasn’t as good as the original. Why? Either because (a) the sequel should have been a completely new thing, just like the original, or (b) nothing should have changed–it should have been just like the original. If this is your reasoning, you should just stay home and toss off to the original again. Today’s life lesson: new is different.
It wasn’t deep. What is this “deep” of which you speak? How much is it? Where can I find some? Don’t only shallow people talk about things being deep?
And besides, several philosophers and theologians disagree with you. When you’ve put as much thought into your critique of the Matrix as they have into theirs, I’ll be happy to listen. Or if you can show me you know something about “deep” that they don’t.
A variation of this critique is “it wasn’t as deep as the original.” I’ll refer you to above.
Keanu can’t act. I have only one response to this breaking news item: Whoa.
05.24.03 | Permalink | Comments Off on Five years
No blogging this weekend–off celebrating our fifth anniversary. While you’re here, look around and enjoy the new little graphics tweaks.
Phillip Agre argues that the central actor in civil society is the “issue entrepreneur.” Civil society is (re)formed by people discussing issues that interest them–you’re not going to join an organization if its mission doesn’t get you excited somehow. For the most part, the battle lines on any particular issue don’t move much (abortion, for example). But when there’s a crisis, the issue entrepreneur can move in and broker power between the different interested groups and lead them to commit to new rules of engagement, probably moving the front line in the process.
But we’re not talking about Nietzsche’s “world historical man” or even Saul Alinsky’s troublesome community organizer. It’s not quite that heroic. The success of the issue entrepreneur depends upon pre-existing networks of social trust, which depend upon people having basic social skills. The social network operates in a four-dimensional lattice structure:
1. in the vertical dimension, individuals who stake out a given issue on the national level will generally network with those who stake out the same issue on either the global or the regional level;
2. in the geographic dimension, individuals who stake out issues in a given geographic jurisdiction will generally network with their counterparts in other jurisdictions;
3. in the institutional dimension, individuals who stake out a given issue within one institutional context will generally network with those who stake out the same issue in other institutions; and
4. in the ideological dimension, individuals who stake out ideological related positions on different issues in similar institutional locations will generally network with one another.
The issue entrepreneur is the one staking out the issues, researching them, and connecting the different points on the lattice structure. When a crisis happens, he is in a position to move and reshape the lattice in his favor–if his networking skills are strong enough.
So two questions come up:
1. Is the blogosphere such a four-dimensional lattice?
2. Are (some) bloggers issue entrepreneurs?
(Hat tip to Mark Woods for the Agre article.)
05.20.03 | Permalink | Comments Off on All in the family?
(A little something from work.) Ravaged by decades of religious wars, the great powers of Europe in 1648 signed the Treaty of Westphalia, signaling the rise of the sovereign, centralized nation-state as the key actor in international affairs. Religious rivalries of course continued, but wars would now be fought for king and country, not doctrine. Society increasingly secularized, religion become just one facet of civil society among others. Secular ideologies-sometimes uncannily similar to the theological forbears-mobilized the masses for total war. Until the collapse of the Soviet Union, rivalries between European nation-states (and their increasingly independent colonies) shook the world.
But now the global order based on the sovereignty of competing nation-states draws to a close. One nation-state towers over the rest. Called the “indispensable nation” by Madaline Albright, the United States demonstrated its dominance with now two wars with Iraq. But elsewhere, the nation-state seems lest robust.1 The bonds of the expanding European Union grow closer, and a newly formed African Union hopes to follow in its footsteps. Periods of regional anarchy and genocide followed hard upon the collapse of failed nation-states in the Balkans, sub-Saharan Africa, and Central Asia. And no nation seems able to challenge the US’ lead in military technology for decades to come.
Money talks…
Others wonder if economics, not geopolitics, is the new order of the day. Global economic institutions like the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank exercise considerable power over the faltering economies of the youngest nation-states. Multi-national corporations control wealth more vast than that of most nations. Impoverished nations jockey for the corporations’ attention, who can supply sorely needed social services in exchange for government cooperation. A global division of labor is emerging, with the wealthy, less populated north moving its capital around the poor, overpopulated south.2
Click to continue reading “All in the family?”
« Previous Entries
» Next Entries
