Theology and the political imagination
[My aim is] to put theology into conversation with political theory in an attempt to expand our current political and pluralist imagination. Political theory is nothing if not an exercise of imagination, offering new or different pictures of collective life in the hopes of remolding, refashioning, or altogether altering contemporary political arrangements. Indeed, the success or popularity of a political theory could be said to depend upon the extent to which it offers a picture of political society and life that is more attractive and persuasive than that of the status quo. To take but one example, imagination was crucial in fostering the move to organize collective life into nations, for nations are, as Benedict Anderson shows, imagined political communities. Yet today, the concept of nationhood is so entrenched that, according to Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, “the nation becomes the only way to imagine community! Every imagination of a community becomes overcoded as a nation, and hence our conception of community is severely impoverished. This is where theology can play a subversive role, challenging the givens of our current political situation by presenting an alternative picture of political community and social reality. This is to think of imagination as Walter Brueggemann defines it, as “the human capacity to picture, portray, receive, and practice the world in ways other than it appears to be at first glance when seen through a dominant, habitual, unexamined lens.” By applying a Christian imagination to the question of difference, we have an opportunity to be critical of social reality and to undertake the ethical task of creating alternative pictures of communal and political life. By ensuring that this undertaking is primarily theological, we offer, as William Cavanaugh puts it, “a different kind of political imagination, one that is rooted in the Christian story,” but one that can nevertheless help augment the political imagination of contemporary political theory and pluralist society.
Kristen Deede Johnson, Theology, Political Theory, and Pluralism: Beyond Tolerance and Difference, Cambridge Studies in Christian Doctrine Series (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 22-3.
Very postmodern. I like it.
We definitely suffer in terms of politics a profound failure of imagination. The Christian kergyma–particularly, with its conception of communio– has a hitherto virtually untapped potential for the political good.
Every time I read something like this, I find myself nodding in agreement. I think Cavanaugh’s critique of the nation-state is accurate. However, I have not been successful at finding communities that embrace his brand of anti-nationalism.
The communites I have found that reject the nation-state and the various idolatries the come with modernism, have been traditionalists, either groups who have been attached to the Society of Saint Pius X, the Fraternity of St. Peter, or eastern rite traditions. Across the country, small communities of traditionalists have been sucessful with actually living differently and having different values than their neighbors, and rejecting the excessive nationalism and the state as concieved by iberalism is part of their fundamental constitution. Yet it is uncommon to encounter people in these communites who are in any way familiar with Cavanaugh, and as far as I am aware, Cavanaugh has not looked to traditionalists as communites involved with living out many of the theological principles he articulates.
I find that curious.
As a political theory major, quotes that give my studies some purpose are always appreciated. :)
We can imagine (and I’ve wondered about this for a while) how different our communities would be if they were parish-oriented: if everyone in a parish (or just about) lived within walking distance of the church, sent their children to its school, did 90% of their shopping with local merchants and knew their neighbors from all of those settings.
Actually, I’ve always believed that a Christian Church that wasn’t top-heavy with bureacracy, one that was at least egalitarian, if not “democratic” (as it seems the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council wanted it to be), that was as rooted in community, as Chase (above) describes, is actually the SURVIVAL model for the continuance of human life on this planet.
“Political theory is nothing if not an exercise of imagination, offering new or different pictures of collective life in the hopes of remolding, refashioning, or altogether altering contemporary political arrangements. ”
A strange definition of political theory. Hopefully her imagination is constrained by reason.
In any event, I’m going to check out William Cavanaugh. Seems like an interesting fellow worth reading.
“this is where theology can play a subversive role, challenging the givens of our current political situation by presenting an alternative picture of political community and social reality.”
I’m tired of trendy academic talk about “subversion.” This approach often treats theology in opposition to the status quo, rather than treating it in its own right. What are the options besides subversion and co-optation?
Also, isn’t political theory only a pressing subject in times of constitutional crisis? While I’m often annoyed and concerned by the failings of the present, I sure don’t categorize it as a crisis.
Also, isn’t political theory only a pressing subject in times of constitutional crisis? While I’m often annoyed and concerned by the failings of the present, I sure don’t categorize it as a crisis.
You probably haven’t had a bomb dropped on you lately.
A strange definition of political theory. Hopefully her imagination is constrained by reason.
Which rationality?
Michael,
I’m sorry I don’t understand your question.
I said “reason”. I don’t believe in different types of reason – reason is universal. I meant to ask: is her theory reasonable or is it not?
I’ll try to preempt your response here – obviously people understand things in different ways and with different reasons – but I don’t think I’m saying anything that contradicts that.
I meant to ask: is her theory reasonable or is it not?
I’ve just started the book so I’ll let you know. But I’m not sure why you would immediately doubt the reasonableness of her theory simply because it includes the category of imagination.
Ben, can you give some evidence that the traditionalist communities you cite resist nationalism?
Michael,
Because imagination is often detached from reality.
Michael,
Most of it is personal experience. There are certainly patriots to be found in traditionalist communities. But they mostly avoid idolatrous nationalism.
The most notable example would have been the homily I heard last Christ the King Sunday, when the presiding priest told us “in the United States our king is not Jesus Christ but Satan” This was in an FSSP Chapel. The rest of the homily was every bit as radical as anything the Rev. Wright has preached. Nobody left the church when he said this, and nobody was angry with him later–not even parishoners who are active duty military.
the SSPX is more radical. Most of my contact with them has been with people who now worship at FSSP churches. A place to start may be their FAQ on Liberalism:
http://www.sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/catholic_faqs__theological.htm#liberalism
The crest of the SSPX is a symbol of the royalist resistance to the French Revolution. How much more against the modern state can you get than that?
Because imagination is often detached from reality.
I think you are missing her point.
I think you are missing mine?
Zach,
I think “imagination” has a technical meaning here, like its used to denote things that exist contingently on human creativity and not necessarily part of the “natural” world. For example, if no humans existed, nobody would have ever “imagined” the political realm, so politics wouldn’t exist.
Adam,
Fair enough. But I don’t think the word was chosen arbitrarily, it’s likely the originator of the term intended some of the other connotations as well as his technical use of the word.
Other connotations being “the product of imagining; a conception or mental creation, often a baseless or fanciful one.”
or “the faculty of producing ideal creations consistent with reality, as in literature, as distinct from the power of creating illustrative or decorative imagery.”
Zach – Adam is right, “imagination” has a technical meaning which is not uncommon in political theory or theology, as you state above.