Isaiah, (the critical realist?), describing the righteous judge-
"He shall not judge by what his eyes see, or decide disputes by what his ears hear, but with righteousness he shall judge the poor, and decide with equity for the meek of the earth." (Isaiah 11:3-4).
There seems to me to be an inherent connection between the insight, that knowing is not like seeing, and the prophetic call for justice. Things, in society, are not as they appear- structures that are not seen, are not only real, they are meaningful, determinative and often unjust. There is no way to discern from the surface of things what is really happening, what forces are at work. To really work for justice then, requires an active engagement of the knower with reality.
Naive realism tends to construe issues of justice and poverty as merely matters of personal responsibility. The surface shows available opportunity (of some sort) and personal lack of initiative while not revealing underlying factors such as the lack of competitive education from an early age for certain sectors of society. This is what Isaiah calls to "judge by what [one] sees..."
The cynic despairs, justice is an impossibility- and really has no ultimate ground.
The critical realist recognizes that the drive to know (common to all) has an existential counterpart, the drive to the good. Despite the immense difficulty involved, to deny the drive to the good (justice) is to deny something that is essentially human. Critical realism is by far, the harder road. The naive realist and cynic are equally at home with their ability to maneuver out of responsibility. Neither, however, are satisfied, having suppressed something of what it means to be truly human.
All human longing is tied up with these drives, and to deny them is dangerous.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I guess I tend to verge somewhat towards cynicism. I try to avoid using the word justice when I deal with issues. I'd rather use the word j-st-s.
I've also recently stated my views as a matter of our participation in the remaking of the rules of the game. The problem often deals with the potential for selectivity in the focus/frame that is used to look at an issue. This is aptly illustrated by the recent conflict in the NAE over whether they would take a stand on Global Warming or wait for the evidence to get more solid.... These sorts of conflicts happen, even among equally biblically-commited devout Christians. We do often work out what the proper shared focus/frame shd be, but this is something that isn't per se "natural".
I think one of the key diffs between critical realism and instrumentalism is that instrumentalism maintains that selectivity is inevitable and that the frames/focuses we use end up impacting "reality". It's kind of an anti- ontological realism, but not necessarily anti moral realism.
I think that's an important distinction. I agree with critical realism when it comes to Scripture(and therein a moral realism that transcends our fallible cultural understandings of moral values), but not-so-much when it comes to understanding our social-political-economic "realities". I think that tends to be subject to under-determination and the frames we use end up changing "our reality" so that it's not so transcendent or like that elephant we're just feeling up different parts of.
dlw
I just got a draft of the Other Journal that deals with SubSaharan Africa. One deals with Structural Sin from a S. African perspective.
It raises some interpretive issues it'd be interesting to read you comment on.
dlw
Dave, I think critical realism is a viable and helpful philosophical orientation towards Scripture on one hand and towards culture and society on the other.
The article that you linked to was a good example. (http://www.theotherjournal.com/article.php?id=113)
One of the things Lonergan talks about in reference to interpretation of a text is that one must come to terms with one's limits in regards to understanding the text. In many ways, most people, (myself included) just do not measure up to the task.
Our historical/cultural horizon is the beginning of our encounter with a text- that is, the questions we are asking may be quite different than those the text is answering and our resulting interpretation is hence skewed.
Critical realism challenges interpreters to acknowledge this and seek to allow the text and the thought world of the author to determine the text's meaning. For Lonergan this means learning the language of the author, studying the history of the time period, reading and re-reading everything a certain author has written and to learn to allow the questions the text and author were concerned with determine interpretation. After all this, any interpretation is at best provisional, open to nuance, etc.
Beyond this, I would argue that it is perfectly in line with critical realism (though as far as I can tell not explicit in Meyer or Lonergan) to add that the issue of poverty/affluence has a profound effect on reading (especially Scripture).
As an affluent white evangelical westerner, there are certain underlying, implicit structures at work in my encounter with a text. For instance, philosophical presuppositions about truth/knowledge, reality, how God is defined, etc. There are social concerns and committments, an inherited interpretive tradition that has overlooked the poor.
As a critical realist I am forced to acknowledge that tradition, not to then deny it and begin a again free of presuppositions, this is impossible, but rather to be reflective about it as I enter into an encounter with, for example the gospel of Mark.
The article, "Structural Sin: A South African Perspective" (see link above) is a good example. There are certain very subversive elements in the text that are passed over when they don't fit into certain theoretical/theological frameworks. When the texts are read by poor/marginalized people who have a first hand understanding of unjust structures, they make connections other readers miss. In a certain way, their thought world may more closely resemble that of a First-Century Galilean peasant, living in a politically charged, unjust society.
Also, for the interpreter such as myself, critical realism, more than an answer in itself, is a call to diligence and holding off judgment. It is also a challenge to action. I wouldn't hesitiate to say that for some to understand the gospel of Mark, it may take something analogous to Jesus' call to the rich young ruler to follow, selling his/her goods and living among the poor in order to measure up to the text.
There is much more that could be said, but on to culture. The book Divided by Faith by Emerson and Smith (search on Amazon) was groundbreaking for me personally. It was a sociological study of race and evangelicalism in the United States. The central claim of the book is that evangelical theology actually hinders reconciliation and justice because of its emphasis on individual salvation. As an evangelical and a white American with a concern for justice/reconciliation, this was a problem for me. And looking back on my process of dealing with the tension, I was forced to hold off judgment, not rejecting evangelical theology as a whole, rather looking back to where in the tradition are the roots of the problem. I think it was in that process that I became a critical realist, and it was over many years and is still in development. But I was faced with the reality of church failure in US history and the dynamic call of prophetic Christian faith which brought me back to Scripture. I had to learn the interpretive structures which were handed down to me, bring them to the surface and reflect on them. Critical realism is about resolving radical conflicts by seeing the philosophical presuppositions underlying certain secondary committments which are the focus.
Thus, in looking at my own culture/society, critical realism, for me, is an orientation which refuses to accept appearance and looks at what structures, economic, social, and otherwise which are at work to impact people's lives. It does not mean coming to an objective understanding, but aims at provisional, probable judgments about society and the relations that make it up. That said, the effects of slavery and historic racism (past and present) have been so intertwined with the structures of our society that they are in one sense invisible (not to those who suffer but to those who live in comfort). This requires an orientation to reality which is engaged in a multi-disciplinary approach to understanding.
All that said, and much left unsaid, my point is, once we've seen something of our own located-ness in history/culture we can approach understanding the located-ness of an author/text which we want to understand.
Okay, that seems like a good elaboration of what you wrote in the initial post, though I was hoping for more interaction with the article, but I understand if you're too busy to put a lot of time into that.
I am with you, I think. My path was a little different, but similar. I knew Emerson when he taught at Bethel College. I first became aware of racial reconciliation issues when I was at Bethel and delved into them when I was part of the Urban House during my senior year, reading "More than Equals" by Spencer Perkins and Chris Rice, as well as texts on Poverty and Christian Responsibility, including the then handbook of the Christian Community Development Association.
I think we're in a similar place, despite our different paths, though we approach the matter with somewhat different vocabularies.
I can agree that my tendency to cynicism/skepticism stems in part from how I am writing from a privileged standpoint and can afford to shift the burden of proof onto others and tend to play it safe. I don't know, I'm sure others would think that I'm a wild-eyed idealist who has tons of zany ideas that in their view have little chance of coming into being in the near future.
It is a tribute to Critical realism that our own lives and the way we see the world are so easily subject to being framed in so many different seemingly contradictory ways.
From what I've read so far, I'd like to see you get your hands a little dirtier in dealing with specific issues as it comes across a little bit like you're still rehearsing what you've been reading.
One sentence that came across to me as a bit awkward is "Critical realism is about resolving radical conflicts by seeing the philosophical presuppositions underlying certain secondary committments which are the focus."
I'm not sure how bringing up the presuppositions resolve conflicts, it sounds like you're advocating for more than that, ie a perspective that relativizes the importance of conflicting presuppositions.
Dave,
I'd like to get more in depth. I am in a lot of ways rehearsing what I've read, but there are some specific ways that these ideas take form that I'm thinking of.
Quickly, on the issue of resolving conflicts I was not very clear. The process is one that lays bare the root difference, the disparity of horizon which leads to the conflict. The claim is that many conflicts are rooted in epistemological presuppositions about what it means to know the real and whether or not it is even possible. Once these are laid bare, it may be that conversion is called for (intellectual, moral or religious). The first step is clarifying, the second is conversion. That was too brief, but at the heart of it (for Lonergan and Meyer) is the myth that "knowing is like seeing" (see my other posts). This myth underlies many epistemological conflicts (e.g. between idealism and empiricism). Idealism supposes knowing the real is like seeing and despairs of the possibility. Empiricism supposes knowing the real is analogous to seeing and hence claims that known by the senses is all that can be known. Lonergan's reality is one mediated by meaning, and the sense world is a part of it.
So, Critical Realism sees a text in light of the thought world surrounding it. A good example is from N.T. Wright. He looks at the interpretation of Jesus statement: "Repent and believe in me"
Luther's critique of the Catholic reading (which in Latin was something like "do pennance and follow me") was based on his going back to the greek text. Rather than "do pennance" he translated it repent. The result was a sort of individual's change of heart before God. N.T. Wright, acknowledges this as an improvement upon the Catholic reading but takes it a step further. In examining First-Century history, he notes that politics and religion are not separate spheres and that to separate them is a modern phenomena. Also, he came across a statement from Josephus, who was a general in the Jewish War (who incidentally went over to the Romans). He notes that when Josephus came upon another general whom he wished to convert to his agenda he used the same phrase as Jesus, "repent and believe in me." Wright's conclusion is that not only is Jesus advocating a change of heart before God, he is advocating a way of life, which was of course both religious and political. The point is that by studying the time period, knowing the history, comparing texts etc. we can gain better access to what a specific text means, and because for Lonergan, reality is mediated by meaning (not by sense experience), we can gain access to provisional, at best, probable judgments about the meaning of a text.
Critical Realism then wants to locate the division of religious/political spheres in philosophical presuppositions about the nature of knowledge of various sorts. The Enlightenment has a lot to do with this sort of compartmentalization or division and Critical Realism takes account of that.
Let me give another historical example concerning race/justice. David L. Chappell wrote a book called A Stone of Hope: Prophetic Religion and the Death of Jim Crow, the thesis of which is that the main force behind the actual social change in the Civil Rights Movement was not white Liberalism, rather was prophetic black religion.
He does not use the term Critical Realism and I doubt he would identify with any of its manifestations. However, he does have this interesting philosophical note. He explains that he shies away from idealists like Weber towards materialists ilke Marx while calling for dialogue. In discussing the role of "culture" and "ideas" vs. material causes, he does not negate either but says, "One thing both sides have to acknowledge is that the line between culture and material reality is not self-evident or consistently clear. We cannot communicate at all, however, if we do not acknowledge some sort of line."
His book is a historical inquiry into "a particular kind of religious culture in a particular political situation" and in it he challenges one of the myths of American liberalism which is the idea of slow continued progress through political institutions. The real impetus for the change came from Black religion. The point, for me, getting back into our larger discussion of justice and critical realism is that idealism on one hand, empiricism on the other, both miss something due to their understandings of knowing. A way between is needed which is not just "dialogue" over the abyss, but which takes into account the conflicting epistemologies and accounts for this relation (of sense and meaning) in a more satisfactory way.
Muddling on,
Tom
well done Tom,
Your differences between idealism and empiricism/naive realism at the beginning may need some revision, but the example of the importance of contextual knowledge for the interpretation of scripture is very well chosen as is the Chappell example of the need to get behind our presented realities and look into the real dynamics.
I think one can say that our political system in the US, at least in the past, was more dynamic/adaptable, while at the same time tending to moderate changes some) but the impulses for change tended to come from outside with third parties or intermediary institutions.
As I understand it, the cause of the recent decline in the quality of the US's democracy is because so many white USEvangelicals turned away from their past political quietism but failed to develop very deep habits of political deliberation and were easier to manipulate as a result.
That and many historically poorer more recent immigrant groups that had supported the Democratic party machine became more economically conservative as their income grew.
And, of course, we also need to account for how the general turn to hyper-individualism/consumerism led to an apathy on political matters so a sizeable fraction of the population decides who to vote for by putting their finger out in the air around election-time and deciding if they are better or worse off than they were during the last election....
dlw
I guess I could add that, from my perspective, if you really want to change the dynamics of US politics, you don't need to get all USEvangelicals affirming a Wallis-style God's Politics, but rather get enough people to change their habits of political deliberation/action.
Wallis/Sider/Campolo can be good role models in this regard, but Wallis tends to be excessively idealistic, Sider log-rolls with the more conservative members of the NAE too much and puts too much of a stake with taking a "biblically-balance" approach as advocated in their last year's "evangelical call to civic responsibility" and Campolo's main message has been framing self-sacrificial acts on the behalf of the poor as a-political stuff that all Christians shd do as part of following Jesus. This is great, but it doesn't approach how we deal with the ubiquitous conflicts we face with each other in politics.
dlw
ps, you don't need to follow up all my links, I'm cool with that... It takes more time, but it's a discipline to refer back to what you are talking about.
Your point about politics is interesting because I would say that if evangelicals would be more critical in their political deliberation, they would realize that we are very naive about how we choose who we vote for.
The liberal/conservative debate is hopeless if all it is is an attempt at conversation. Really, neither side understands the other and there are deep philosophical roots that lie in their common assumptions. Walker Percy in his novel the Thanatos Syndrome talks about how liberals and conservatives need each other for the sake of arguing. Rarely is attention actually turned toward resolving conflict constructively. Stanley Hauwerwas in a book (co-written by someone I can't remember) Resident Aliens talks about how conservative and liberal Christians really have a lot of the same presuppositions, which need to be challenged and these, not secondary political positions are the real source of conflict.
Out of time,
Tom.
That sounds interesting. I haven't read a whole lot of Stanley Hauerwas.
They talk a lot of political theology over at generousorthodoxy. I've found I don't necessarily care a good deal for political theology. I guess I'm more concrete oriented and it seems like it's often geared at a higher level than it needs to be.
I'm with Stanley Hauerwas on the need for Christians to promote alternatives to state-based violence for dealing with the war on terrorism.
The fact of the matter is that those of us who fell more on the fundamentalist side of the fundamentalist-modernist schism in the early 20th ctry tended to be political quietists for the most part for the majority of the 20th ctry and that's why the agenda for debates were largely determined by others.
I think we need to work towards establishing a viable third party system that would be open to ideas like what I talk about in my ideal-type platform.
dlw
Post a Comment