Secularization as Kenosis

secularization as kenosis | 215
. . . the idea that there is a radical separation between the history of salvation and secular
history by virtue of which the meaning of revelation would be exclusively apocalyptic:
the unveiling of the senselessness of world history in light of an event so other
that the times and rhythms of history can only have a negative sense, to be annulled
in the paradox of the leap of faith, or treated as a time of trial. 198
Vattimo thus opposes any form of a doctrine of ‘two regiments’. Instead his position
leads to an identification of sacred and profane history. The eventual convergence of
Christianity and secularity can on the one hand be seen as a universal victory of Christianity.
On the other hand it can equally well be regarded as the ultimate affirmation of
secularism and as a theological finessing of the modern critique of religion. 199 The idea
that there is a difference between philosophy and theology, between sacred and secular
history, is regarded as an obstacle to the single universal truth in which philosophy incorporates
theology. 200 Vattimo, unlike for instance Lyotard, for whom politics remains
a conflict between a ‘desire for justice and a desire for the unknown’ proposes thinking
of a postmodern politics in terms of charity and tolerance. Whereas for Lyotard
paralogy is a central notion, for Vattimo the homologation of the world is central. 201
In the human sciences, and especially in cultural anthropology, the idea that different
cultures are as many incommensurable forms of life is influential. Vattimo laments
the widespread application of this idea. He defends a different position within postmodernism.
Most explicitly he does so in confrontation with Rorty’s application of the
concept. For Rorty the result of the postmodern critique of transcendental philosophy
would make any claim to truth explainable in terms of cultural anthropology. According
to Vattimo, this idea of cultural anthropology and alterity needs serious revision
and is no longer convincing in the light of new developments, most notably globalization.
In the process of globalization, we do not only become aware of countless different
cultures, but we also see them melt more and more together. In the light of his idea of
hermeneutics, Vattimo speaks of a disappearance of alterity. 202 On the one hand there
is an increasing sense of difference in postmodern culture; a development that makes
unilinear accounts of progression implausible. This is what Vattimo calls the ‘utopian
crisis’. 203 On the other hand the postmodern condition is one of a growing sense of
unity. In the global village of communication technology, everyone is aware of belonging
to a single, human community.
For Vattimo, cultural anthropology cannot be a neutral affair, but is itself ideologically
laden and always seriously influences its object. Therefore, the western cultural
anthropologist cannot neutrally engage (non-Western) religion, but will itself alter and
produce cultural and religious forms. Philosophy and hermeneutics cannot dissolve in
cultural anthropology, as Rorty suggests, but have an ontological meaning. This is not
198 Vattimo, Belief, 81.
199 Frankenberry, ‘Weakening Religious Belief’, 278.
200 Giovanni Leghissa, ‘Säkularisierung und Philosophie’, in: Giovanni Leghissa, editor, Abschied. Theologie,
Metaphysik und die Philosophie heute (Wien: Turia + Kant, 2003), 20.
201 Welsch, Postmoderne Moderne, 184. With regard to Lyotard, Welsch writes that the postmodern
philosophy of language, to which heterogenity is fundamental, is inherently unjust and conflicting: “Die
Unlösbarkeit des Streits – die Unvermeidlichkeit des Unrechts – ist eine Folge dieser Verfassung der Sprache
selbst. Grundlegende Heterogenität und wirkliche Gerechtigkeit sind inkompatibel.” Welsch, Postmoderne
Moderne, 233.
202 Vattimo, Beyond interpretation, 160.
203 Gianni Vattimo, ‘Utopia Dispersed’, Diogenes 53 No.1 (2006), 18.