Secularization as Kenosis
Secularization as Kenosis Secularization as Kenosis
216 | postmodern condition and secularity to say that the hermeneutics Vattimo has in mind is a sort of transcendental science, but he does assert that the nature of hermeneutics is more than a coincidence and that it is not without liability for the cultures and religions it encounters. He speaks of hermeneutics as a specific Geschick, which cannot be explained exhaustively in terms of positive science. Anthropology cannot dissolve metaphysics, rather it becomes, itself, part of the metaphysical tradition. 204 In hermeneutics, there can be no radical alterity, but rather a reciprocal relation of alterity and sameness. Vattimo asserts that both sameness and alterity have always been present in the history of hermeneutics. As a discipline, hermeneutics had its origin in the collapse of European unity. As a philosophical theory, it attained dominance in the time of a “fully unfolded metaphysical and scientific-technological unification.” 205 Hermeneutics emerged in the context of unity breaking down and attained dominance in a context of Western ‘homologation.’ For Vattimo it is therefore likely that the “eventuality of Being” is inseparable from the “homologation of the Western world”. 206 The political significance of hermeneutics is then that the course of Western culture is not a mere pluriformity of contingent forms of life. Rather, hermeneutics is an ontological and normative undertaking. The discourse of “radical alterity” turns out to be “an internal aspect of the general process of Westernization.” 207 For Vattimo, thus, the context of a hermeneutic culture is neither one of total (Western, imperialistic) organization, nor one of authentic alterity, but a gigantic construction site, in which the founding texts of Western tradition have lost their authority and are interpreted in dialogue with countless other texts. In Vattimo’s eyes, the idea of a merely descriptive anthropology, which claims superiority over theological and metaphysical ‘imperialistic’ ways of engaging other cultures, is highly suspect. In the post-imperialistic situation of cultural reapprochment, Vattimo sees not a valuefree encounter. In our time we see alterity disappear as a consequence of the ubiquity of contamination. Therefore the role of hermeneutics in our day is to express an ontology. 208 If there is one philosophical school, which Vattimo criticizes for seeing the modern secular West as a corrupted society, in which authentic human existence is thwarted, it is the Frankfurt school of Adorno and Marcuse. Their criticism of culture was in fact an ascetic ideal, which resisted ‘cultural industry’. One could only withdraw from its influence by means of avantgarde Art, like Beckett’s prose and Schönberg’s atonal music: “Die Disharmonie evoziert die Schönheit nur als ihr utopisches Gegenteil – alles andere ist Täuschung und Lüge.” 209 Vattimo refuses to see mass society as a threat to human 204 Vattimo writes: “It is only through the use of these profoundly Western categories that anthropology becomes a science, or . . . a part of the metaphysical enterprise of reducing the world to measurable objectness. . . . this in turn raises questions about the possibility of thinking about anthropology as a discourse on cultures that are other.” Vattimo, End of Modernity, 135. 205 Vattimo, End of Modernity, 154. 206 Vattimo, End of Modernity, 155. 207 Vattimo, End of Modernity, 156. or, as Vattimo puts it even more paradoxically: “Hermeneutics starts out by trying to see anthropology as an ideal site for verifying its own notion of Being as eventuality and alterity, but ends up by returning to reflect upon the significance of sameness, and on the relation between the latter and the metaphysical homologation of the world.” Vattimo, End of Modernity, 156–7. 208 “Hermeneutics first emerges as a technical discipline in Europe in the age of the collapse of traditional Christian unity, but it is perhaps in this condition of contamination that hermeneutics instead develops into an ontology.” Vattimo, End of Modernity, 159. 209 In Vattimo’s social theory, the idea of such an aesthetic sphere of ‘authentic’ human existence is highly suspect. It isolates authentic experience from the social. Instead, Vattimo proposes seeing the
secularization as kenosis | 217 freedom, rather he claims that secularization enables a plural society, whose greatest virtue is that it tolerates a great variety of religious and cultural identities. His political theory flows quite naturally from his account of the postmodern condition. For Vattimo the dissolution of metaphysics and the end of socialism are parallel processes. In the weakening of philosophy there is a shift away from the founding of political systems, to a deliberative democracy understood as a separation of politics and truth. 210 Cultures, ethical and economic systems are as many contingent entities, which in our postmodern era should be radically questioned. Vattimo’s political theory is designed to acknowledge religious and cultural diversity. The politics that flows from Vattimo’s secularization thesis urges us to give up on strong metaphysical claims, and to fully acknowledge the historical contingency of our religious and cultural identities. Vattimo associates any hierarchical ordering of society with arbitrariness and authoritarianism. 211 This thesis is quite ambiguous on the role of religion in western societies, since Vattimo on the one hand underscores the necessity of a certain humility with regard to the truth of Christianity, while on the other hand assigning a very specific and unique role to the Christian religion as the only religion that understands God in a kenotic way. Likewise, Vattimo is committed to a discourse of tolerance and plurality, but he resists the attempt to accept plurality as a mere contingent, anthropological fact. Whereas much of postmodern theorizing in the postwar period begins from a disenchantment with the course of European history, and its view of a close alignment of religion and politics as the best trajectory for an emancipatory politics, Vattimo sees the democratic project of the Western European states as a continuation of Christianity. 212 Novalis’ famous phrase, Die Christenheit oder Europa, is for Vattimo as valid today as it was in the nineteenth century. He insists on the weak nature of postmodern ontology and relativism in truth theory. They must avoid the dangers of political radicalism. An increasing plurality is thus a sufficient remedy against fascism and other forms of totalitarian politics. In this heterotopian idea of society, Vattimo tries to undermine the danger of the dominant, utopian political theories of the twentieth century. For Vattimo, the weakness and the strength, the particularity and universality of Christianity coincide. Today, in a world in which more and more religious and cultural identities claim recognition, Christianity should understand itself as the inventor of a profane space in which identity conflicts can be solved in a peaceful manner. It is precisely the missionary claim to universality that tends towards its disappearance. The concrete difference will be that when Christianity presents itself as a strong, rights-claiming identity, it will occasion an understanding of secularity in the ‘French’ laïcistic sense: an understanding of secularity that can only deal with religious identities by pushing them back into the private domain. Instead, when Christianity is interpreted as a weak identity, it will show that emergence of modern and postmodern society not as a threat to human freedom and authentic existence, but as a new form of being in the world and as new forms of community. Vattimo, ‘Grenzen’, 22. 210 Vattimo, Nihilism & Emancipation, 83–4. 211 Th. de Wit comments: “In the style of some nineteenth century liberals and anarchists he invariably associates vertical ‘state-like’ relations with violence, militarism, arbitrariness capriciousness, authoritarianism . . . , while by contrast their subversion and unmaking are associated with kenosis (‘friendship with God’), with an ‘ethic of non-violence’, and with caritas, which, according to Vattimo, constitutes the only limit to secularisation’.” De Wit, ‘Return to Religion’, 398. 212 He writes: “Europe, as a project of political construction totally based on the willingness of citizens and states with equal rights to join, is today the most concrete and visible manifestation of an anti-naturalistic (that is ‘Marxist’, Christian, and socialist) politics.” Vattimo, Nihilism & Emancipation, 118.
- Page 1 and 2: 5 Secularization as Kenosis Want di
- Page 3 and 4: secularization as kenosis | 177 for
- Page 5 and 6: secularization as kenosis | 179 the
- Page 7 and 8: secularization as kenosis | 181 can
- Page 9 and 10: secularization as kenosis | 183 equ
- Page 11 and 12: secularization as kenosis | 185 an
- Page 13 and 14: secularization as kenosis | 187 bey
- Page 15 and 16: of history. In this sense, modern s
- Page 17 and 18: secularization as kenosis | 191 to
- Page 19 and 20: secularization as kenosis | 193 pro
- Page 21 and 22: secularization as kenosis | 195 wri
- Page 23 and 24: secularization as kenosis | 197 rel
- Page 25 and 26: secularization as kenosis | 199 I w
- Page 27 and 28: secularization as kenosis | 201 sec
- Page 29 and 30: secularization as kenosis | 203 the
- Page 31 and 32: secularization as kenosis | 205 as
- Page 33 and 34: secularization as kenosis | 207 thi
- Page 35 and 36: secularization as kenosis | 209 whi
- Page 37 and 38: secularization as kenosis | 211 sec
- Page 39 and 40: secularization as kenosis | 213 ern
- Page 41: secularization as kenosis | 215 . .
- Page 45 and 46: secularization as kenosis | 219 and
- Page 47 and 48: secularization as kenosis | 221 rel
- Page 49: secularization as kenosis | 223 dua
secularization <strong>as</strong> kenosis | 217<br />
freedom, rather he claims that secularization enables a plural society, whose greatest<br />
virtue is that it tolerates a great variety of religious and cultural identities. His political<br />
theory flows quite naturally from his account of the postmodern condition. For Vattimo<br />
the dissolution of metaphysics and the end of socialism are parallel processes. In the<br />
weakening of philosophy there is a shift away from the founding of political systems, to<br />
a deliberative democracy understood <strong>as</strong> a separation of politics and truth. 210 Cultures,<br />
ethical and economic systems are <strong>as</strong> many contingent entities, which in our postmodern<br />
era should be radically questioned. Vattimo’s political theory is designed to acknowledge<br />
religious and cultural diversity. The politics that flows from Vattimo’s secularization<br />
thesis urges us to give up on strong metaphysical claims, and to fully acknowledge<br />
the historical contingency of our religious and cultural identities. Vattimo <strong>as</strong>sociates<br />
any hierarchical ordering of society with arbitrariness and authoritarianism. 211 This<br />
thesis is quite ambiguous on the role of religion in western societies, since Vattimo on<br />
the one hand underscores the necessity of a certain humility with regard to the truth of<br />
Christianity, while on the other hand <strong>as</strong>signing a very specific and unique role to the<br />
Christian religion <strong>as</strong> the only religion that understands God in a kenotic way. Likewise,<br />
Vattimo is committed to a discourse of tolerance and plurality, but he resists the attempt<br />
to accept plurality <strong>as</strong> a mere contingent, anthropological fact. Where<strong>as</strong> much of postmodern<br />
theorizing in the postwar period begins from a disenchantment with the course<br />
of European history, and its view of a close alignment of religion and politics <strong>as</strong> the<br />
best trajectory for an emancipatory politics, Vattimo sees the democratic project of the<br />
Western European states <strong>as</strong> a continuation of Christianity. 212 Novalis’ famous phr<strong>as</strong>e,<br />
Die Christenheit oder Europa, is for Vattimo <strong>as</strong> valid today <strong>as</strong> it w<strong>as</strong> in the nineteenth<br />
century. He insists on the weak nature of postmodern ontology and relativism in truth<br />
theory. They must avoid the dangers of political radicalism. An incre<strong>as</strong>ing plurality is<br />
thus a sufficient remedy against f<strong>as</strong>cism and other forms of totalitarian politics. In this<br />
heterotopian idea of society, Vattimo tries to undermine the danger of the dominant,<br />
utopian political theories of the twentieth century. For Vattimo, the weakness and the<br />
strength, the particularity and universality of Christianity coincide. Today, in a world<br />
in which more and more religious and cultural identities claim recognition, Christianity<br />
should understand itself <strong>as</strong> the inventor of a profane space in which identity conflicts<br />
can be solved in a peaceful manner. It is precisely the missionary claim to universality<br />
that tends towards its disappearance. The concrete difference will be that when<br />
Christianity presents itself <strong>as</strong> a strong, rights-claiming identity, it will occ<strong>as</strong>ion an understanding<br />
of secularity in the ‘French’ laïcistic sense: an understanding of secularity<br />
that can only deal with religious identities by pushing them back into the private domain.<br />
Instead, when Christianity is interpreted <strong>as</strong> a weak identity, it will show that<br />
emergence of modern and postmodern society not <strong>as</strong> a threat to human freedom and authentic existence, but<br />
<strong>as</strong> a new form of being in the world and <strong>as</strong> new forms of community. Vattimo, ‘Grenzen’, 22.<br />
210 Vattimo, Nihilism & Emancipation, 83–4.<br />
211 Th. de Wit comments: “In the style of some nineteenth century liberals and anarchists he invariably<br />
<strong>as</strong>sociates vertical ‘state-like’ relations with violence, militarism, arbitrariness capriciousness, authoritarianism<br />
. . . , while by contr<strong>as</strong>t their subversion and unmaking are <strong>as</strong>sociated with kenosis (‘friendship with God’),<br />
with an ‘ethic of non-violence’, and with carit<strong>as</strong>, which, according to Vattimo, constitutes the only limit to<br />
secularisation’.” De Wit, ‘Return to Religion’, 398.<br />
212 He writes: “Europe, <strong>as</strong> a project of political construction totally b<strong>as</strong>ed on the willingness of citizens<br />
and states with equal rights to join, is today the most concrete and visible manifestation of an anti-naturalistic<br />
(that is ‘Marxist’, Christian, and socialist) politics.” Vattimo, Nihilism & Emancipation, 118.
Change language