fasten your seatbelts...
I am about to embark on a little experiement. No it's big...
I find myself plunged in the darkness, pitted against the likes of Foucault Rose and Bhabha, with only Kierkegaard as far as I am aware, for companionship.
Essay: "think about your own subjectification and subjectivity and in terms of the issues raised on the course, discuss aspects of your own formation referring to regulatory pracitices, textx, media texts, images and practices etc."
Yes, I am about to deconstruct my faith through an analysis of social construction theory and 'truth' debates. This means plunging into a MASSIVE set of arguments both in critical psyhclogy, sociology and media and culture. I'm doing a howle module week by week lokoing at all the arguments and counter arguments. IT'S MAAHUSIVE! And enagaging with some of the greatest, and most scary deep thinkers of all time.
The time has finally come.
Problem is, are there any credible thinkers out there who engage with faith and whether it's a social construction. who REALLY critically engage with foucault, social constructionist thinkers and those who do away with truth? And who come out on the side of faith? Other than kierkergaard?
Problem is I'm not sure there ever would be and maybe that will be the conclusion of this essay. Maybe I can explain away my faith as a social construction through the eyes of these guys. 'Experience' arguments do not stand either for many reasons I will go into at a later date.
This is the problem and this is the experiment. For I know that the essential core of my faith rests within an essentialist argument. And I cannot prove it. It's about 'a leap of faith' as Kierkegaard writes. And by doing away with this faith we get to, as Kant writes, a d'isenchanted world' where we no longer know magic or wonder. Everything is knowable do-able. Well that's modernity. Now with postmodernity not only do we live in disenchantment where there's no magic but even if, by chance we do discover magic, we can never ever prove it to anyone. Science is an empty method and has no credibility becuase everything is a social process. everything and everyone are completley conditioned by their surroundings.
And yet, from the depths of my heart cries the sacred romance. It's there in the sunrise, it's there in the lily pad and the eye of a tadpole. It's there whispering at times, shouting at others that no matter how much these theoriss want to prove that my faith isnt the truth but rather a conditioning, the sacred romance calls and draws me into it's heart.
The sadness is that I feel I am embarking on something that eventually will make me sadder. That I can never theoretically prove the sacred romance. or can I? Surely the Author of this romance, being bigger than all this can draw a way to exlpain it all. Or maybe not, becuase that requires Magic and Power.
the experiement has two possible outcomes...
1) I discover that it is possible to prove not everything is a social construct and therfore faith doesn't have to be. I take a step up the ladder of proving everything and manage to take a few more knocks out of one of the greatest thinkers of all time. Unlikely.
2) I disocver that no matter what there's always counter arguments to whatever I, and others come up with. Faith can never be explained anyway, even if I can prove not everything is a social construct.
Either way, the Sacred Romance will continue to hold me in it's grasp.
However, this embarkation maybe one that becomes a whole life long project for me. I think I'm either going to saddened by the lack of Christian sociologist who are there, hanging with todays generation of foucault. And maybe I'll become one of those. alternatively, I'm goona be surprised and encouraged at just how much material there is and the fact i don't know of it no is both naivety, arrogance and the enemy's attempt to silence the Sacred Romance. In which case, I'm gonna start trumpeting.
Fasten your seatbelts, this is gonna be on hell of a ride....
posted by becci brown @ 12:56 pm
3 comments
3 Comments:
Its very easy to prove that not everything is a social construction.
Have you heard of Amy Orr-Ewing? She was at ChristChurch doing theology and now works for Zeccharius Trust, which aims to do what you're trying to do. One of her books 'Why trust the Bible' sounds lightweight, but isn't ~ its very academic!!! It also gives you loadsa potential references.
Science isn't a totally empty method though. There are many scientists (and social scientists) who do engage with Foucault et al, and have very persuasive arguments. Foucault fails his own test and should've been written off in the first few pages! By telling us words are a source of oppression and power, he himself makes himself that object of power.
Very few human geographers argue in favour of social constructionism, for example. Its very easy to prove that not everything is a social construction. Try Karl Popper for sciency stuff ~ he leads you into areas that might help. Ali told you once that we had moved beyond postmodernity ~ he was right.
Your set question is itself very subjective though and logically impossible (how can you objectively think about your subjectivity? Its at the heart of African development theory... - you have to existential, and that's logically impossible. The question by its nature excludes that which doesn't answer its own question, suggesting material which opens itself to any interpretation. It was the sort of question we were taught to attack as being rubbish.
That's my twopenny's worth anyhow. I'm just a geographer...
Having done the same sort of course though I found a way through it all and it simply came down to this - can you accept two apparently dialectical positions can hold true at the same time? (i.e. can something be described as one thing, AND its opposite at the same tie). That quickly takes you back to God, and back to faith.
thanks, some of that stuff is helpful.
Yeah, although i ahvent read amy's book ive flicked through it. its ok. I know amy. shes the wife of Frog who runs a church in peckham that alot of the CU go to. good folk.
Thing is there is alot of Christian stuff written on these things but very rarely do they go deep enough to challenge the thinkers head on. properly.
Kierkergaard is pretty good.
i find counter argument's like the one to foucault there not really adequate enough either. like the old 'there is no truth, is that a truth?' just a backlash with no real thought.
i emailed tom price who does the bethinking website for UCCF. he's really good and suggested some really helpful books
i do agree though that not everything is a social construct and there's lots of theorists of course that back that up too.
HOwever I can;t deny the fact that alot of what we do is a social construct. i would be naive and arrogant to assume otherwise!!
thanks though, tis helpful!
don't even understand the question you've been set.... eek.
tom's a star
marcus honeysett?
Post a Comment
<< Home