Postmodern Theology and Jean-Luc Marion (a brief opening move)
I would like to spend some time expounding on postmodern approaches to theology beginning with Jean-Luc Marion and ending up at my own position on the matter where I will argue that a move to the “post” in Catholic thought is not an optional thing: it must be engaged with and, at the very least, taken very seriously.
I also want to say that, as we all know, ‘postmodern’ is a thorny and ugly word that has been mangled by postmodern supporters and detractors alike, so, please don’t get caught up with the word, plain and simple.
If Marion needs any orthodox street cred, then, know that Franciscan University of Steubenville (who many consider to be very orthodox for some reason; I plead the fifth) dedicated their annual conference on Christian philosophy to him last year. Add to that, their own English professor and local leader in Communion and Liberation (hardly heterodox, by most standards), Dr. Stephen Lewis, is the translator of his most recent book, The Erotic Phenomenon, and a scholar of his important work in philosophy, theology, and literature.
Let me begin here, briefly, by citing a passage from the foreword of Marion’s book, God Without Being, written by David Tracy, that is very descriptive:
One classic modern theological strategy wants to correlate the claims of reason and the disclosures of revelation. The other strategy believes that reason functions best in theology by developing rigorous concepts and categories to clarify theology’s sole foundation in revelation. On this second view, since revelation alone is theology’s foundation, any attempt at correlation is at best a category mistake–at worst, an attempt to domesticate the reality of God by means of reason and being. As the title God Without Being suggests, Professor Marion embraces the second, revelation based strategy for Christian theology.
I will resume by laying out Marion’s genealogical argument against being rooted in the history of the phenomenological concept of giveness (suprisingly rooted in analytic, not continental, philosophy) and the earlier error of the Cartesian cogito. From there I will explain the useful distinction of idol and icon that he uses to make his argument for a God Without Being.
Please let me know if this sounds like a good idea or not, or if I should try a different approach. After all, I am kind of just making it up as I go along.
Trackbacks
- Postmodern Theology and Jean-Luc Marion: Being and Giveness « Vox Nova
- On the Dangers of Liberal Society, part I « Vox Nova
- Postmodern Theology and Jean-Luc Marion: From ‘ego cogito’ to ‘ego amans’ « Vox Nova
- Postmodern Theology and Jean-Luc Marion: An interlude on the ‘theological turn’ « Vox Nova
- Postmodern Theology and Jean-Luc Marion: An interlude on the ‘theological turn,’ continued « Vox Nova
- Postmodern Theology and Jean-Luc Marion: Recap « Vox Nova
Comments are closed.
I think it’s a good idea, but your working definition of postmodernism is definitely needed. Lyotard’s correspondence (The Postmodern Explained) generally treats the term as a way of responding to the “universal emancipation” promised by modernity, and that is my own starting point.
Jonathan
Read the post-moderns, and until you do, don’t pretend you are one. You aren’t. You are a modern. Everything you say, everything you do, is very very very very modernist.
Henry my friend let us not go down that very strange road of un-charity again, here or behind the scenes. All I will say to you on this question is here:
http://vox-nova.com/2009/04/30/postmodern-conservative/
Respond as you wish, and this is my last response to you in this thread. As far as I can tell, my views on postmodernism “rightly understood” or otherwise are very much in line with Policraticus and P.A. Lawler and several others that I highly respect.
Sam,
I look forward to the rest of your series.
Sam
How much Tracy have you read?
Sounds like a good idea, Sam, or at least one I’m interested in hearing. I don’t know much about theology beyond some of the basics, but I’m eager to learn about postmodern approaches to theology.
Sam,
I would look forward to such postings.
For those new to Marion who want a good introduction to his thought, I would recommend (in addition to reading Marion himself, of course) “Reading Jean-Luc Marion: Exceeding Metaphysics” by Christina M. Gschwandtner (Indiana University Press).
I am glad to see that there is some interest here. I plan to move very tediously, backing up and clarifying before moving forward, so, please help me along with your questions as I plod along. In reply to your questions here I feel like I have a lot of backing up to do already.
I am thinking I will use comments to clarify, unless there is some major work needed to be done that will require a whole new post. I hope this makes sense and is agreeable to you.
jonathanjones: I sincerely dislike the word ‘postmodern.’ Marion himself understands his work firmly rooted in phenomenological tradition. He has written quite compellingly (at least to me) on the uses of phenomenological concepts (giveness, excess, saturation) in theology and that use seems to be what has garnered him the title of postmodern theologian.
Myself, I see postmodernism as a poor description of the enlightenment project of critical ontology as described in Kant’s essay, “What is Enlightenment?” This is not only conceptual (as I will soon write about). Growing out of the Kantian critical ontological tradition (which was not invented by Kant, of course), the 19th and 20th has been almost soley dedicated to the questioning of being. So, that’s what I mean by the word and I think Marion shares that sensibility.
As far as postmodern pedigree, I have none (I really have no pedigree to speak of unless we’re talking about dog food); but Marion was a student of Derrida’s and uses his Gxd (the best I could do to represent, God under erasure) idea, among other things, in a very unique and original way, I think.
My own work in ‘postmodern’ thought is best represented by my dissertation (that will hopefully be approved today): “Literacy, Eros and Constitution: Reading, Writing, and Speech as Erotic Subjectification in William James across Merleau-Ponty, Foucault, and Marion”
Henry: Nothing other that his foreword here. I wish I could read more because I here lots about him. But that brings me to my next reply to…
Kyle: Don’t get to excited. I know very little about theology. Marion has been a blessing to me in that his theological thought is built on a foundation of phenomenology that lets me in through the philosophical backdoor, so to speak.
Alien: Yes that book is very good, I recomend it too.
The treatment I will give will be based on the following books (ones I find very readable to a general public), primarily: “God Without Being” and “The Erotic Phenomenon.”
I will also rely heavily on some of Marion’s articles on giveness, phenomenology, and theology. Add to that, I had the great pleasure of hearing him give a great talk on the history of the concept of giveness that clarified a lot for me, and surprised everyone in the room, I think. That talk was one of many encounters I had with him during the conference I mentioned in this post (including his own addressing of my paper on him and William James which was exhilarating and scary!)
Thanks for reading.
Peace.