Len over at Next Reformation posted something so good I wished I had posted it. :) I've posted my favorite bits here, but you can read it in it's entirety here if you want. (The words in parantheses are mine).
"...and I chimed in with a favorite quote: “God help me always to seek the truth.. and protect me from those who have found it” attributed to Sir Thomas More. Later I got thinking about the connection of knowledge and power; these two are inseparable in the modern world, as Foucault and others pointed out. Those who have knowledge tend to use it to strengthen their own positions, and to impose their will on those “down the ladder.” Yes.. the whole issue connects with colonialism, the Enlightenment (and I would say modernism in general), and is through those grids to models of leadership and change.
...Brueggemann reminds us that fidelity (relationship, commitment to love) is far more important than certitude. Certainty is highly over-rated, and is the favorite bastion of every brand of fundamentalism, whether expressed in politics or religion...
Ultimately, the Lord is unlikely to ask is, “Were you right?’ than, “Were you faithful to the truth you knew?” This latter question has to do with faithful following (obedience), the life of a disciple.
...But certainty, in times of rapid change, becomes a commodity we seek. In times like these, we look for those who seem to know where they are going, even if they are only spouting yesterday’s truth. When everything that can be shaken is shaking, we look for solid ground.
...The imaginative saint knows that mystery is as important as knowledge, and that to worship is to bow before a God who is totally Other. We learn to honor the questions as much as the answer, because to be a disciple is to be a learner - one who is on a journey from the known, to the unknown.
In recent years we in the western church have been enamored with certainty, and related, with propositions. As a writer, I understand the passion for words. As a lover, I am intimately acquainted with their limits.
The dominant ways of knowing were one with the dominant culture. Epistemology was translated into an ethic. Since our primary way of knowing has been objectification, the direct application of power, inevitably our culture thrives on violence and oppression. Violence against women, against the poor, against our environment, against those who are too different from us. Heidegger’s calculative thinking versus meditative thinking fits here. The root meaning of “objective” is “to oppose.”
But what if knowledge has less to do with individual mastery and more to do with openness and community? I remember Edith Schaeffer’s words,
“A completely new work would never have been possible if we had not been uprooted in every way, and if in that uprooting we had not decided to pray for God’s solution and leading every step of the path as it wound through unknown territory.”
(All of this isn't about relativism. Jesus is the absolute Truth personified. But I don't think anyone's cornered the market on absolute truth, as no one has a total and complete revelation of Jesus.)
I really like Len's insights into knowledge as a form of power and his connection with colonialism. Having been a student of relations between the global north (first world) and the global south (third world), he is absolutely right to connect the Enlightenment modernist period with it's colonial history. I've been thinking a lot about empire lately and this post was refreshing. What do you think? Any thoughts on Len's post? I'd love to hear what anyone else's impressions are...
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
On Knowledge as Power, Enlightenment and Modernist Thinking
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
sounds like a critique of logocentricism, to which Derrida and Foucalt have responded with Deconstruct(ivism)- all knowledge does not equal power.
I've found that to be true personally when relating with an older generation - my enlightened Western views are not necessarily better, but are at times more backwards than the traditional (perhaps even superstitious) views of grandparents who come from "older" societies... in other words, "grandma is always right" is less cliche and actually holds some ancient wisdom to it?
Personally in my faith journey these ideas have become more prominent in my thinking as of late, now that u bring it up... "Reason" has a way of silencing inspiration and illumination, and a sort of anti-conscience results - like there are no consequences to our actions, so we take a libertarian posture towards grace... my how this sentiment is more "Enlightenment" and actually so un-Christian... it is a sort of godlessness.
I've also begun to discover the destructive tyranny of reason to simple faith. Hence my little homily last Sunday about the place of guilt in our spirituality... guilt - is it the Holy Spirit / conscience as driving force towards holiness.. or an expendable, Freudian by-product that can be tossed out of our system folder, without the risk of crashing the system...
hmmm. you're making me think here. Maybe I ought to post about this too.
I like the appreciation of mystery and questioning that the article espouses. However, to say that fidelity is more important than knowledge misses the fact that without knowledge there can be no fidelity. We are faithful to our ideas of who God is, not necessarily to God himself. We only have true fidelity to God when our ideas of God our true.
"When the maps no longer describe the territory, we become seekers and learners. And that process, in turn, generates community."
While the process of learning can generate community, it most often does so among people who arrive at the same answer, not among people who arrive at different answers through their questioning. To the extent that uncetainty is extolled and certainty is denigrated, there will be a tendency for people to arrive at different conclusions or no conclusion at all. While unity and community can be generated through uncertainty, it is often a shallower unity and a looser community that that formed around a shared conclusion.
Ultimately, nobody on the planet claims perfect certainty in all matters spiritual or otherwise. There are things which we think we know for certain and things about which we are uncertain. It is good to question the basis for certainty in matters, because many things like the canon of Scripture have been received with absolutely no thought on the part of Christians. On the other hand, for a people of the book, if the canon is uncertain, then there is no basis for certainty in anything. It is accepted primarily because the philosophy of Sola Scriptura assumes it. Most people accept the Trinity without ever questioning it. While I believe to reject the Trinity is heretical, one should be able to acknowledge that Scripture itself is ambiguous on points that many of us take for granted, like the coeternal existence of the Son and the Father.
MB
Well said, MB.
Thanks, great comments both!
Wayne, you bring in some great thoughts (appreciation of the wisdom and knowledge of previous generations, and that 'reason' can lead to anti-conscience.) Personally, I prefer to name the transforming work of the Holy Spirit 'conviction' rather than 'guilt' since conviction from the Lord tends to give us a sense of relief that God is calling us on the carpet and helping us to see where we've missed it, to get free from the sin (or wrong thinking or wrong heart attitude) and repent. Whereas guilt feels more hopeless, more oppressive. But I think that semantics aside, we're talking about the same thing. :)
MB, excellent point that without knowledge there can be no fidelity. Thanks for that! And I think what you said about community forming around shared conclusions holds true in my experiences.
To no one in general: I think Len's post is not necessarily 'knowledge' versus 'fidelity' - but how 'knowledge' is used in social relationships, and especially to form superior/subordinate power relations. On the large scale, Enlightenment knowledge played out with colonialism. (I still see a lot of a colonial mindset in western culture even with good intentions of "development" of the third world. The attitude still seems to be that we are superior, we have the answers, let us help you develop into our image).
And on a smaller scale, knowledge can be imparted to serve others, to reinforce fidelity/love (of God and of others) - to facilitate others (with an attitude of "Here's some information, if it helps you, then great! Discern and draw your conclusions. Or, discern and apply/adapt as your context deems appropriate.") Or knowledge can be used as a tool of power (with an attitude of "I know more than you, so that gives me a position of status and power over you. Here, let me teach you. You should do it my way, because I'm right.")
"But what if knowledge has less to do with individual mastery and more to do with openness and community?" I think this means we all learn from each other... As Wayne brought up, that can be multi-generational, or cross-cultural. And As MB talked about different conclusions - Can we still honor and esteem each other (fidelity/commitment to love) even when our conclusions (knowledge) vary? I think, yes!!! :)
It's true that uncertainty isn't a greater virtue than certainty. But we would all agree that humility is a greater virtue than pride.
Thanks again, guys - brilliant stuff! And I hope more people comment too!
Post a Comment