Transforming Exclusion

Engaging Faith Perspectives

Hannah Bacon, Wayne Morris, Hannah Bacon, Wayne Morris

• Publisher: T&T Clark
• Year: 2011
• ISBN:
  9780567616487
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Teología y religión
• Subtopic: Religión

Transforming Exclusion is concerned with the interface between the study of religion & theology and issues surrounding exclusion. Religious beliefs can be important in shaping attitudes that can lead to the exploitation or marginalization of both humans and non-humans. At the same time, religious beliefs and practices have much to offer in transforming the world, creating a more equitable place for all who occupy it. At other times, the voices of members of religious communities are suppressed and marginalized by other more dominant religious or secular individuals or communities. This book addresses all of these aspects of social exclusion and aims to demonstrate that the study of theology and religion, in addressing religious communities and society more widely, have important contributions to make in creating a more just world. The issue of exclusion is engaged with from a range of different perspectives by scholars involved in fieldwork with religious communities, systematic, contextual and practical theologians, and practitioners involved in the preparation of individuals and groups for a range of ministries and professions.

1 Postmodernism: Reasons to be Cheerful!

Steve Knowles

The term postmodernity is variously used to describe the differing strands, themes and ideas, not all interrelated, that have developed as a form of critique and reaction to modernity. It is a description for the zeitgeist. Such reaction has been stimulated, in general terms, by a loss of faith in the progressivist and speculative discourses characteristic of the Enlightenment programme. This stultifying legacy (according to most postmodern theorists),¹ with its emphasis on the authoritarian nature of reason, and inflexible, fixed and totalizing agenda, is giving way to ideas from the postmodern vantage point which, in contrast, include fragmentation, diversity, instability, ephemerality, otherness and discontinuity.

To attempt, with any precision, a definition of postmodernism is notoriously difficult. David Harvey notes, ‘No one exactly agrees as to what is meant by the term, except, perhaps, that “postmodernism” represents some kind of reaction to, or departure from, “modernism” ’.² Indeed, arguably, the attempt to define it is antithetical to that which is deemed postmodern. There are two main reasons for this. First, it is due in part to the ambiguous nature of the term. Does it refer to a break with modernity (Foucault)? Does it show a continuous link with modernity (Lyotard)? Perhaps it refers to a stage within a degenerative modernity (Habermas)? Or does the prefix ‘post’ simply question the influence of modernity as we know it (Lyon)? The whole situation is made even more difficult when one considers that there is a certain amount of confusion as to what modernity itself actually refers to.³ Furthermore, it is important to remember that postmodernity cannot be explained as if it was one process, state or attitude. It is not. Many postmodern thinkers would reject the idea because, for them, no one thing or idea is monolithic. All is open to further fragmentation and interpretation.

With the above in mind, it will come as no surprise that many ideas associated with the postmodern turn have been interpreted in a variety of ways. Moreover, postmodernism has been understood by many to be a direct threat to the Christian religion. In this chapter, two specific areas will be explored. First, I will examine one trait of postmodern thought that has become something of a slogan for the postmodern intellectual ferment and centres upon the so-called demise of the metanarrative. The demise of the metanarrative is seen by many theologians to constitute a complete undermining of the biblical story. I will argue that this is not as clear cut as many believe, due to the ambiguous nature of the term. I will suggest that a fresh reading of Jean-François Lyotard, the key thinker in regard to metanarratives, shows that Christianity and postmodernism are not as incompatible as some would argue. There is, I conclude, a case for arguing that Christianity does not constitute a metanarrative. This will help in alleviating a sense of exclusion from dialogue within the postmodern climate. Secondly, and on a more practical note, I will analyse the concept of the decentred self, which will in turn provide a link to the concept of community and its importance in postmodern times. The purpose of this is (a) to demonstrate that postmodernism is not the bane of Christian faith (or religion in general), as has been reported by some theologians; and (b) to propose that ‘doing’ theology at a local level will help in alleviating the spectre of exclusion by incorporating certain postmodern ideas.

The Demise of the Metanarrative

In 1979, the French philosopher Jean-François Lyotard published a slim volume, entitled The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. The substance of this volume was to report on the current state of knowledge in the most advanced societies. The significance of his work is his insistence that we have a crisis of narratives which, indeed, defines the postmodern situation. In particular, Lyotard sought a break with any narrative of science. Lyotard suggests that science is not satisfied simply with seeking the truth; rather it is compelled to legitimize itself by its own narrative. He succinctly defines postmodern in the following way: ‘Simplifying to the extreme, I define postmodern as incredulity toward metanarratives.’⁴ This statement sets the tone for Lyotard’s critical analysis of what he understands to be the biggest difficulty with the modernist world view. Primarily, Lyotard has in mind Enlightenment thought that, in simplistic terms, constitutes the idea that science acts as the great emancipator of humanity, because of its ability to legitimize itself through the discovery of knowledge. Gary Browning observes that ‘Lyotard picks out science and the justification of scientific knowledge as emblematic of a legitimating absolutist modern self-image.’⁵ Lyotard uses ‘the term modern to designate any science that legitimates itself with reference to a metadiscourse . . . making explicit appeal to some grand narrative, such as dialectics of Spirit, the hermeneutics of meaning, the emancipation of the rational or working subject, or the creation of wealth.’⁶ Here we have Lyotard citing what can be described as quintessential modern metanarratives. They are the Hegelian idea of the Absolute Self, the Marxist hope for the future, and Adam Smith’s notion of wealth creation which has developed into a capitalist narrative of liberation from poverty via, among other things, techno-industrial development. The crux of the problem, for Lyotard, lies in the legitimation of such knowledge. For Lyotard, the two key types of metanarrative that he singles out for treatment in The Postmodern Condition are that of the ‘speculative’ variety and the metanarrative of ‘emancipation’. A brief examination of what Lyotard says about these two paradigm examples will now be undertaken.

The central motif of the speculative metanarrative that Lyotard notes can be found in the thought of Hegel. Lyotard notes how Hegel’s project of totalization is an example of a rational (meta)narrative that attempted to link the sciences and progress towards becoming ‘spirit’, thus resulting in a metanarration of a universal history of spirit, ‘spirit is “life”, and “life” is its own self-presentation and formulation in the ordered knowledge of all its forms contained in the empirical sciences’.⁷ In a nutshell, for Hegel (as understood by Lyotard), humanity makes progress through the increase of knowledge. This knowledge then finds legitimacy within itself, with the ramification that knowledge then dictates to society. All claims to knowledge are collected under the umbrella of this metanarrative and, depending on how they correspond to it, will be judged accordingly. It is this holistic approach to knowledge and how knowledge itself conforms to such a speculative metanarrative that determines its legitimacy. According to Lyotard, ‘True knowledge, in this perspective, is always indirect knowledge; it is composed of reported statements that are incorporated into the metanarrative of a subject that guarantees their legitimacy’.⁸ Because the status of knowledge is now so unbalanced and fragmented, with the result that legitimacy itself is under question, the speculative metanarrative has broken down.

The other metanarrative to be scrutinized is that of emancipation. It is a narrative that has ‘humanity as the hero of liberty. All people have a right to science’.⁹ It is the educational policies of the French republic that kick-started such an outlook. After the French Revolution, the ideal was to enable the masses to partake in education: education for the masses, instead of just the dominant and privileged few. This type of emancipatory narrative that found liberation through education became vital for the Marxist narrative. Instead of the self-legitimation of knowledge found in the progression of the empirical sciences, there is the hope of liberation (emancipation) of the proletariat through revolution. Legitimacy is found from within the people.

These two examples of narratives (myths), both speculative and emancipatory, are what Lyotard considers to be the major paradigm examples of metanarratives which have lost credibility in the current postmodern climate. Moreover, the proliferation of disciplines within the sciences illustrates that unity can no longer be assumed in an overarching scientific narrative, which means overall authority is no longer possible. Scientists are therefore forced, within their own respective communities, to assert their own disciplinary boundaries. This has the knock-on effect of demolishing appeals to a central legitimating authority. Science no longer has the ability to liberate humanity by means of absolute knowledge.

It is, however, for Lyotard, these two metanarratives of speculation and emancipation that give legitimation to others. As a consequence, the meaning of such narratives is in line with reference to the dominant metanarrative, and they receive their legitimation in relation to how far they are compatible with them. These smaller narratives are integrated through the progress of science and knowledge into the unified historical setting in which the grand narratives generate. Moreover, delegitimation is underway. The explosion of technologies since the Second World War has, for Lyotard, shifted the emphasis ‘from the ends of action to its means’,¹⁰ from a future hope of the betterment of society to dealing with the here and now.

I think it is clear from analysis thus far that Lyotard’s aversion to metanarratives is not based specifically on their actual scope – how big a story – but on the nature of their claims; where their legitimation has its roots. What is clear from the main metanarrative examples that Lyotard cites is that he clearly has in mind those that are a product of modernity (one could be more specific and suggest the Enlightenment). They are those narratives that find their legitimation in their ‘appeal to the universality of reason’.¹¹

It is important to note from the outset that in The Postmodern Condition, Lyotard does not explicitly mention Christianity as a metanarrative. I have highlighted above the main targets that Lyotard has in mind. In the words of David Lyon, ‘Lyotard’s book plunges right into the fate of Enlightenment thought in an age of globalized high technology.’¹² For sure, the Christian story is as big a story as they come. However, when the term ‘meta’ is used in philosophical discourse, it refers to a difference of level, rather than purely the size, of that discourse. This is a valuable point that the Christian philosopher Merold Westphal makes. Westphal argues that Christianity is a meganarrative, rather than a metanarrative. Furthermore, he categorically claims that Christianity is not a metanarrative.¹³ This conclusion is based upon three points that are designed to simultaneously describe what a metanarrative is and highlight why Christianity does not qualify as such. The first two are straightforward interpretations of Lyotard’s own understanding and have already been referred to above. That is that ‘meta’ is not a description of size, but of level of discourse, and secondly, that metanarratives are narratives that find their legitimation in some sort of overarching universal reason. Westphal argues that Christianity fits with neither of these. The third point, however, could be construed to be more contentious. Westphal writes, the ‘difference between the Christian story and modernity’s metanarratives concerns origins. The former has its origin in revelation, not in philosophy, and most especially modern philosophy, grounded in the autonomy of the human subject.’¹⁴ What Westphal is deliberately trying to do is separate the Christian story (narrative), through ...