Previous Posts (in descending order):<\/p>\n
Postmodern Theology and Jean-Luc Marion: From \u2018ego cogito\u2019 to \u2018ego\u00a0amans\u2019<\/a><\/p>\n Postmodern Theology and Jean-Luc Marion: Being and\u00a0Giveness<\/a><\/p>\n Postmodern Theology and Jean-Luc Marion (a brief opening\u00a0move)<\/a><\/p>\n I apologize for breaking my promise (to move to Marion\u2019s notion of \u2018idol\u2019 and \u2018icon\u2019 in this post), but, as this series is moving along, I am feeling that I need to interrupt the description of Marion that I am offering here and comment, briefly, on what postmodern theology means to other things in general.<\/p>\n In particular, I would like to describe what it might mean to culture, informed by intellectual sentiments and developments. Among those intellectual voices that inform culture at large, I am especially interested in what this means for the Church; that is to say, our identity within\u2014indeed as the thing itself\u2014the Church. I hope this interlude doesn\u2019t wear on your patience too much, especially since a great deal of descriptive work to be done is still hanging in the balance in this series.<\/p>\n The development of phenomenology has always been pregnant with theological uses and meaning, but with Levinas it hit the mark without apologies. (This is not completely accurate, of course, since at least three of Husserl\u2019s students [Scheler, Von Hildebrand, and Heidegger] had a great deal of theological insight.) Since the impact of Levinas reached the Anglophone world around the 1990\u2019s, French continental thought has been leading Phenomenology and the Theological Turn<\/a><\/em> (as you can see in the link to the book bearing the same title). At the forefront of this theological turn in phenomenology has been the seminal, contemporary voice of Jean-Luc Marion.<\/p>\n What is strange is that neither the academy nor the culture at large was particularly attuned to this theological turn in the 90\u2019s into the new millennium. Unlike the incredible popularity of Cornel West, Jacques Derrida, and Michel Foucault; Levinas, Marion et al, have not garnered the status of celebrity (for better and for worst, I think).<\/p>\n This is strange, to be sure, since West\u2019s impact on postcolonial and critical race theory is primarily the fruit of radical black theology<\/em> (James Cone, et al); Derrida became interested in things Christian in his later thought (as I recently posted here<\/a>); and Foucault\u2019s later interests reveal similar parallels (see: Eric Paras\u2019 Foucault 2.0<\/a>).<\/p>\n Nonetheless, postmodern thought has largely been reticent\u2014if not hostile\u2014to admit that this turn to theology\u2014particularly Christian, Catholic theology\u2014is both imminent and inevitable to the project of critiquing the product of the liberal, secular Enlightenment: modernity.<\/p>\n In timely fashion\u2014as the polemics between theism and atheism have reached a new (bookselling) high\u2014this \u2018theological turn\u2019 has begun to sprout outside the confines of phenomenological dioscourse and into the culture at large. The militant Marxist\/materialist\/atheist\/theologian, Slavoj Zizek (who you can view here<\/a> lecturing on what he calls, \u2018materialist theology\u2019), has brought serious theological considerations into the continental\/critical discussion with a public celebrity that the previous phenomenologists, including Marion, lacked. (You can witness this clearly in his most recent book, The Monstrosity of Christ<\/a><\/em>, that features theologian John Milbank en contra<\/em>; edited by Creston Davis, who [rightly, in my mind] sees this \u2018theological turn\u2019 as one exceeding the limits of postmodernism et al.)<\/p>\n This is strange and predictable thing, to be sure. In a way, it only reinforces the secularist mentality by using Zizek\u2019s atheism as an \u201cexcuse\u201d that somehow sanitizes theological discussion for the modern man or, at worse, renders it sterile and takes Zizek to be more of an enigmatic spectacle than a serious theologian. Lacking devotion, modernity can trust him (although I think they are in for a big surprise if they read his new book) to use the \u201cGod-word\u201d and the \u201cChristian-word\u201d that have been taboo for over a century.<\/p>\n That is to say that, despite Marion\u2019s engagement with (highlighted by his famous debate with his former teacher, Derrida, at Villanova in 1997, on the subject of \u201cGift)\u201d and impact upon (a point is seems rather uncontroversial) postmodern thought, his (Marion\u2019s) devout Catholicism makes him too orthodox a figure to lead a culturally significant \u2018theological turn.\u2019 Only now, that a heterodox identity comes along, can secular culture pay serious attention and sell him (Zizek) over and over in the very capitalistic machine he rails against.<\/p>\n Let me be clear: I welcome Zizek\u2019s significant role in steering the current of this \u2018theological turn\u2019 of the day, but, at the same time, I am also unwilling to find it altogether fascinating or noble, since, after all, this kind of turn has been happening long before Zizek (or Marion, for that matter). In a stroke, this is to say that there is nothing\u2014perhaps, \u201cshould be nothing\u201d is the better expression here\u2014particularly new about this turn to theology. For one, its literature largely relies on ancient, not new, texts. Also, I would hope that there is always<\/em> a turn to God to be found in any cultural movement (even ones we find to be quite evil).<\/p>\n Having tortured my point too long here, in this post, I will extend this interlude into the next entry by commenting on the effects (as I see them) that this \u2018theological turn\u2019 might have in phenomenology,postmodernism, and culture at large; in particular, the Church. I will feature two foreseeable effects:<\/p>\n 1.) the end of the \u201cGod (and not-God) taboo\u201d and\u2026<\/p>\n 2.) a new\/old reconsideration of Eucharistic theology (among other things, of course).<\/p>\n Then, I will return to the major project of this series and decribe Marion\u2019s notion of \u201cIdol\u201d and \u201cIcon\u201d that leads to understanding the idea of excess and saturated phenomenon which, at its highest possibility, is God.<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Previous Posts (in descending order): Postmodern Theology and Jean-Luc Marion: From \u2018ego cogito\u2019 to \u2018ego\u00a0amans\u2019 Postmodern Theology and Jean-Luc Marion: Being and\u00a0Giveness Postmodern Theology and Jean-Luc Marion (a brief opening\u00a0move) I apologize for breaking my promise (to move to Marion\u2019s notion of \u2018idol\u2019 and \u2018icon\u2019 in this post), but, as this series is moving along, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1216,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[27,345,98],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-7993","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-philosophy","category-sam-rocha","category-theology"],"yoast_head":"\n