신학과 사회이론 - 세속이성을 넘어서
존 밀뱅크 (지은이),서종원,임형권 (옮긴이)새물결플러스2019-02-24
원제 : Theology and Social Theory: Beyond Secular Reason
미리보기
정가
45,000원
양장본826쪽152*225mm1239gISBN : 9791161291000
책소개
급진 정통주의의 비판 대상인 근대적 세속 이성이 그 활동영역이라고 할 수 있는 세속부문을 형성한 최초의 사례로 과학적 정치학과 정치경제학을 지목하면서, 그 두 분야가 신학에 대해 태생적으로 지니고 있는 왜곡된 성격을 분석한다.
또 이데올로기적 자유주의와는 변별되는 근대성의 또 다른 측면인 실증적 접근방식을 취급하는데, 밀뱅크는 사회를 총체적이고도 근본적인 실체로 상정하는 실증주의의 환원적 태도는 신학에서 말하는 신적 섭리에 유사한 대체물이라고 비판한다. 따라서 이러한 실증주의의 후예인 현대 사회학뿐 아니라 그 방법론을 그리스도교에 대한 분석에 적용한 종교사회학의 막다른 상황을 지적하는 가운데, 사회에 대한 대안적 담론으로서의 신학을 재정립하기 위한 포석을 놓는다.
목차
감사의 글
제2판 서문
서론
제1부 신학과 자유주의
제1장 정치신학과 새로운 정치학
제2장 정치경제학은 신정론이자 경쟁의 법칙
제2부 신학과 실증주의
제3장 사회학 I: 말브랑슈에서 뒤르켐까지
제4장 사회학 II: 칸트에서 베버까지
제5장 숭고함에 대한 감찰: 종교사회학 비판
제3부 신학과 변증법
제6장 헤겔에 대한 동의와 반대
제7장 마르크스에 대한 동의와 반대
제8장 초자연의 토대를 놓기: 현대 가톨릭 사상의 맥락에서 살펴본 정치신학과 해방신학
제4부 신학과 차이
제9장 과학, 권력, 실재성
제10장 존재론적 폭력 또는 탈근대적 문제들
제11장 덕의 차이, 차이의 덕
제12장 다른 도성: 신학은 하나의 사회과학
책속에서
근대 신학이 처한 비애는 그 거짓된 겸손에 있다. 신학에 있어 이러한 태도는 치명적인 질병이다. 왜냐하면 신학이 메타담론이기를 포기한다면, [...] 만약에 신학이 여타의 담론들을 자리매김하고, 그 한계를 정해주며, 때로 비판하는 과업을 더 이상 수행하려고 하지 않는다면, 이러한 담론들이 역으로 신학을 자리매김하는 일이 불가피하게... 더보기
한때 “세속”(secular)이란 말은 존재치 않았다. [...] 오히려 사제권(sacerdotium)과 왕권(regnum)이라는 이중의 측면으로 이루어진, 단일한 그리스도교 왕국 (Christendom)이 존재했다. 중세 시대에 세속을 가리키던 세쿨룸(saeculum)이란 말은 공간이나 영역이 아니라 시간, 즉 타락과 종말(eschaton)사이의 중간기(interval)를 의미했다. [...] 이론상으로나 실제에 있어서, 하나의 영역으로서 “세속 부문”(the secular)을 정립하거나 혹은 상상해내야만 했다. [...]
이렇듯 신학이 지배권을 절대적 주권과 절대적 소유권의 문제로 환원함으로써 팍툼(factum)을 인간 자율성의 영역으로 확보해온 과정을 살펴볼 수 있다. 이로써 팍툼은 하나의 세속 부문, 즉 세속에 대한 세속적 지식이 자리 잡을 수 있는 공간이 되어버린다?이러한 공간은 인간이 만든 여타의 모든 지형도들만큼이나 허구적인 것에 불과하다.
_제1장 “정치신학과 새로운 정치학” 중에서 접기
역사적 관점에서 볼 때, 여기서 정작 중요한 것은 합리성이냐 비합리성이냐 하는 문제가 아니라, 차라리 정치경제학에 관한 이러한 탁월한 시각에 내포된 “신이교적” 성격이며 그리스도교 신학이 거부해온 리비도 도미난디(libido dominandi: 지배의 욕망)에 대한 노골적 찬양의 태도인 것이다. 여기서 다시금 우리는 세속이성의 “자율성”이 자신의 독립을 위한 조건으로서, 그리스도교가 일찌기 문제시했던 바로 그 관점에 대한 찬동을 포함하고 있음을 목도한다.
[...]
정치경제학은 도덕적 입장을 고려하는 가운데 경제적 제반 관계의 형식적 측면을 추상화하여 탐구했던 하나의 해방된 세속 학문이 아니었다고 결론내릴 수 있겠다. 도리어 그것은 도덕과는 상관없는 형식적 메커니즘의 형성을 구상하고 또한 촉진함으로써 세속의 성립을 허용했을 뿐 아니라 세속의 보존과 지배에도 일조했다. 이렇듯 정치경제학을 은폐하고 있는 “새로운 과학”이라는 가면을 벗겨내고 나면, 그것이 경쟁법칙이자 신정론이자 그리스도교적 덕성에 대한 이단적 재 정의에 불과함을 알게 된다.
_제2장 “정치경제학은 신정론이자 경쟁의 법칙” 중에서 접기
따라서 “과학적 연구”는 사회적 전체로부터 시작할 수 없고, 개인의 행동에서부터 시작할 수도 없다. 요컨대 실증적 과학만이 아니라 자유주의적 과학도 성립할 수 없는 셈이다. 그렇다고 이 둘을 조합할 수도 없다. 왜냐하면 사회적인 것과 개인적인 것은 둘 다 전적으로 우발적이며, 서로가 서로에게 끊임없이 변형을 가하기 때문이다. [...] 사회와 개인의 관계는 도식 대 내용의 관계나, 전체 대 원자적 부분 간의 관계와 같지 않다. 따라서 이율배반은 오로지 서사를 통해서만 매개될 수 있다. 사회적 행동을 가능케 하는 제반 조건에 대한 적절한 “선험적” 성찰을 하다 보면 결국 역사에 대한 서술이 불가피함을 깨닫게 된다. “사회과학”이 들어설 자리는 그 어디에도 없다.
_제3장 “사회학 I: 말브랑슈에서 뒤르켐까지” 중에서 접기
그렇지만 “현세적”이란 용어는 베버가 선험적으로 가정한 범주로서, 경제?정치적 내지 성애적 활동이 지닌 “자연적” 성격에 따라 설정된 한계 내에 존재하는 영역이다. 반대로 신학이 근대의 경제적 실천에 미친 영향에 관한 핵심은 금욕주의가 “현세”로 넘어간 것이 아니라, 오히려 신학이 “현세”를, 즉 인간의 도구적 조작이 가능하도록 하나님이 넘겨주신 영역으로서의 세속을 발명(invention)한 것이다. [...] 베버는 이러한 변화를 반 정도밖에 파악하지 못했으므로, 금욕(ascesis) 개념이 그 본령이 되는 목적론적 전제로부터 갈라져 나온 것에 관심하기보다는 근대적 금욕의 실천이 이전과는 다른 새로운 영역에서 전개된 것에 집중했다.
_제4장 “사회학 II: 칸트에서 베버까지” 중에서 접기
더보기
추천글
신학과 사회이론의 초판이 출간되었을 때 그 반응은 가히 충격 그 자체였다. 그 후 15년이 경과한 현재, 충격은 많이 가시었지만, 세속 이성의 보편적 타당성에 대해 의문을 제기하는 이들이 더욱 늘어나고 있다. 이 시점에서 본서의 개정판이 출간되는 것은 참으로 시의적절하다고 하겠다. 본서에서 밀뱅크가 제시한 대안적 관점은 초판 이후에도 꾸준히 확대되고 풍부해졌다. 그것이 개정판 속에 녹아들어 있으므로 더욱 반가운 일이다. - 찰스 테일러 (철학자, 『세속의 시대』 저자)
『신학과 사회이론』은 엄청난 폭발력을 지니고 있음이 드러났다. 따라서 밀뱅크의 새로운 서문이 추가된 개정판이 출시된 것은 우리에게 커다란 행운이 아닐 수 없다, 이 책은 다시 읽을 때마다 즐거움을 선사한다. 행간마다 생각을 촉발하는 경이로움으로 가득하기 때문이다. - 스탠리 하우워어스 (듀크 대학교 신학부 교수)
밀뱅크의 본 작품은 조직신학 분야의 걸작이다. 본서가 보여준 훌륭함과 지적 자극을 인정치 않는다면 그것은 무척이나 인색한 일일 것이다. - THES (Times Higher Education Supplement)
존 밀뱅크는 근대 사회사상의 전개과정에 대한 훌륭한 비평을 제시함과 동시에 그 지배적 패러다임에 대해 예리한 비판을 가하면서, 아울러 근대성이 이룩한 성취 속에 내재한 근본적 한계를 적시한다. - Journal of Religion
존 밀뱅크가 본서에서 보여준 대담하고 야심적이며 지적으로 치밀한 기획은 다른 무엇과도 견줄 수가 없다. - Studies in Christian Ethics
본서가 울려내는 화음의 절묘한 아름다움과 취급하는 주제의 광범위함에 말문이 막힐 지경이다. - Modern Theology
저자 및 역자소개
존 밀뱅크 (John Milbank) (지은이)
저자파일
최고의 작품 투표
신간알림 신청
영국 성공회의 신학자며, 노팅엄 대학교(University of Nottingham)의 종교·정치·윤리 교수다. 본서 『신학과 사회이론』(초판, 1990)의 출간 이후 또한 픽스톡(C. Pickstock) 및 워드(G. Ward)와 편집·출판한 Radical Orthodoxy: A New Theology(1999)를 통해 오늘날 급진 정통주의(radical orthodoxy)로 알려진 새로운 신학운동의 주창자로서 국제적 영향력을 인정받고 있다. 밀뱅크는 옥스퍼드 대학교에서 역사학을 전공했고, 케임브리지 대학교에서 로완 윌리엄스(Rowan Williams)의 지도하에 신학을 공부했으며, 버밍엄 대학교에서 비코(G. Vico)에 관한 연구로 철학박사 학위를 받았다. 주요 저서로는 본서 외에도 The Word Made Strange(1997), Truth in Aquinas(2001, Pickstock과 공저), The Suspended Middle: Henri de Lubac and the Debate Concerning the Supernatural(2005), 그 밖에 국내에 번역·소개된 슬라보예 지젝(Slavoj ?i?ek)과의 대담을 기록한 『예수는 괴물이다』(마티, 2013) 등이 있다.
접기
최근작 : <신학과 사회이론>,<예수는 괴물이다> … 총 55종 (모두보기)
서종원 (옮긴이)
서울대학교 서양사학과와 동대학원 및 감리교신학대학원을 졸업했다. 이후 미국 에모리 대학교를 거쳐, 프린스턴 신학교에서 중세 신비사상을 연구하여 철학박사 학위를 받았다. 서양 중세에 있어 아우구스티누스 전통과 디오니시오스 사상 간의 합류가 주된 학문적 관심사다. 주요 논문으로 “위그 드 생-빅토르의 '노아 방주'(Arca Noe)에 나타난 영적 상승과 하나님 형상의 회복”(한국교회사학회지), “디오니시오스가 아우구스티누스를 만났을 때: 중재(mediation)와 무매개성(immediacy) 및 위계(hierarchia)의 개념을 중심... 더보기
최근작 :
임형권 (옮긴이)
고려대학교 철학과를 졸업하고 프랑스 스트라스부르 대학교에서 루터-에라스무스 논쟁 연구로 신학 석사 학위를, 존 밀뱅크와 그의 신학적 스승인 앙리 드 뤼박의 관계를 연구하여 신학박사 학위를 받았다. 대표 논문으로는 '세계관과 성서 해석','유목 공동체(nomad city)로서의 교회- 존 밀뱅크(John Milbank)의 아우구스티누스적 교회론', '구속 경륜 속에서 유대인-아우구스티누스의 유대인에 대한 입장', '앙리 드 뤼박(Henri de Lubac)의 불교 연구-비교 신학의 시각에서' 등이 있고, 옮긴 책으로는 존 하워드 요... 더보기
최근작 : … 총 5종 (모두보기)
---
출판사 제공 책소개
급진 정통주의(Radical Orthodoxy)는 그 이름부터 의문을 자아낸다. 기독교 정통주의를 천명하는 신학이론이 어떻게 급진적일 수 있는가? “정통”을 수식하는 “급진”이란 말은 그 어원이 함의하는 대로 “근본(적)”이라는 뜻으로 이해하는 것이 더 적절하지 않을까? 이 새로운 신학운동에 대한 질문은 계속해서 이어진다. 그것이 표방하는 정통이 이른바 세속적 근대성을 비판하고 극복하기 위해서 아우구스티누스로 대표되는 교부신학의 준거를 대안으로 제시하는 것이라면, 이는 과거의 정태적이고 유기적인 공동체에 호소하는 복고적 태도가 아닌가? 기독교의 자의적 세계관에 기초해서 사회과학 일반에 대한 신학의 우위를 내세우는 것은 근거 없는 신앙지상주의가 아닌가? 근대성(modernity)을 넘어선 “탈근대 신학”(postmodern theology)을 지향한다는 미명하에 모든 사상의 “공존가능성”(compossibility)을 상정하는 것은 뻔한 자유주의적 어법 뒤에 근대성의 또 다른 얼굴인 가치중립적 합리주의를 감추고 있는 것은 아닌가? 이러한 다소 신랄하고 때로 오해 섞인 질문들에 대해 당장에 속 시원한 해답을 내어놓기에 앞서, 우리에게 필요한 것은 아직도 한국 신학계에 그 전모가 드러나지 않은 급진 정통주의의 지형을 먼저 파악하는 것이 아닐까? 국내에 처음으로 번역·출간된 존 밀뱅크의 신학과 사회이론(Theology and Social Theory)은 급진 정통주의 기획의 효시가 되는 기념비적 저작으로서, 최근 들어 의문과 논란의 핵으로 부상하고 있는 급진 정통주의의 영토를 답사하고자 하는 신학적·인문학적·과학적 지성들 앞에 그 비밀의(theurgic) 초대장을 내밀고 있다.
신학과 사회이론은 모두 4부로 구성되어 있다. “신학과 자유주의”(Theology and Liberalism)라는 제목이 붙은 제1부에서는 급진 정통주의의 비판 대상인 근대적 세속 이성(secular reason)이 그 활동영역이라고 할 수 있는 세속부문(the secular)을 형성한 최초의 사례로 과학적 정치학과 정치경제학을 지목하면서, 그 두 분야가 신학에 대해 태생적으로 지니고 있는 왜곡된 성격을 분석한다. 제2부 “신학과 실증주의”(Theology and Positivism)에서는 이데올로기적 자유주의와는 변별되는 근대성의 또 다른 측면인 실증적 접근방식을 취급하는데, 밀뱅크는 사회를 총체적이고도 근본적인 실체로 상정하는 실증주의의 환원적 태도는 신학에서 말하는 신적 섭리(providence)에 유사한 대체물이라고 비판한다. 따라서 이러한 실증주의의 후예인 현대 사회학뿐 아니라 그 방법론을 그리스도교에 대한 분석에 적용한 종교사회학의 막다른 상황을 지적하는 가운데, 사회에 대한 대안적 담론으로서의 신학(사회과학으로서의 교회론)을 재정립하기 위한 포석을 놓는다.
제3부 “신학과 변증법”(Theology and Dialectics)에서는 근대성에 대한 본격적 비판 작업을 수행한 헤겔 철학과 마르크스 사상을 취급한다. 여기서 흥미로운 것은 저자가 두 사상가에 대해 양동 작전을 구사하는 점이다 이를테면 6장의 경우 헤겔의 공헌 중에 계몽주의적 세속 이성에 대한 비판을 통해 철학적 로고스(logos)를 신학적 로고스(Logos)로 변모시킬 가능성을 발견하면서도, 그가 자유주의적 이데올로기의 변종인 “변증법”에 매몰된 것을 영지주의적 이단에 비견한다. 7장에서는 마르크스가 자본주의와 근대국가의 작동기제를 비판한 것을 세속 권력에 대한 해체의 시도라고 긍정하는 한편, 그의 변증법적 유물론과 유토피아적 미래상에 잠재한 자유주의적 요소에 대해서는 비판의 시선을 거두지 않는다. 현대 가톨릭 사상을 다룬 8장이 “변증법”과 함께 묶여 있는 것이 다소 부자연스러워 보이지만, 해방신학을 비롯한 정치신학이 “변증법”의 한 갈래인 마르크스의 사회이론에 의존하고 있음을 감안한다면 어느 정도 이해할 수 있겠다. 8장에서 정작 중요한 것은 밀뱅크 자신이 영향 받았다고 공언하는 가톨릭의 “새로운 신학”(nouvelle théologie)을 취급하는 대목이다. 그는 “자연의 초자연화”(supernaturalizing of the nature)를 상정하는 앙리 드 뤼바크(Henri de Lubac)의 통합주의(integralism)를 “초자연의 자연화”를 말하는 라너(K. Rahner)의 통합주의와 비교하면서, 전자의 원류가 되는 모리스 블롱델(Maurice Blondel)의 “행동”(action)의 철학을 소개한다. 이 점에서 8장은 급진 정통주의의 기획을 추동해 가는 저자의 신학 방법론 내지 형이상학적 틀과 관련하여 중추적 의미를 지닌다고 볼 수 있다.
“신학과 차이”(Theology and Difference)라는 이름의 제4부는 본서의 꽃이라고 할 수 있는데, 그것은 여기서 급진 정통주의의 기획이 어째서 정통적이면서, 아니 정통적이기에 참으로 급진적(radical)일 수 있는지에 대한 이유가 제시되기 때문이다. 그것은 아우구스티누스를 비롯한 교부신학을 바라보되 그것을 넘어 그리스도교의 본래적 서사(narrative)를 회복하려 한다는 점에서 정통적이며, 그러한 정통적 시각에 따른 통합적·유비적·참여적 전망이 근대성을 극복하려고 하는 다른 탈근대의(postmodern) 사회이론들보다 더 나은 대안을 제시한다는 점에서 급진적이라고 하겠다. 이렇듯 세속 이성이 구축한 근대성을 넘어서려는 탈주선(ligne de fuite) 위에서 밀뱅크는 급진 정통주의와 다소간 변별되는 두 개의 목소리를 만난다. 그 하나는 데리다·리오타르·들뢰즈 등으로 대표되는 탈근대주의 철학이 그 태생적 한계로 인해 지닐 수밖에 없는 니체적 허무주의(Nietzschean nihilism)며, 이에 대해 그는 “존재론적 폭력”(ontological violence)이라는 제목이 붙은 10장에서 그 원류인 니체와 하이데거로부터 시작하여 대항 계보학적 접근을 통해 비판적으로 다룬다. 다른 하나의 목소리는 11장에 등장하는 매킨타이어(A. MacIntyre)의 철학적 실재론이다. 밀뱅크는 자신의 기획과 가장 유사해 보이는 매킨타이어의 입장이 차이에 근거한 귀족적 탁월성을 추구하는 고대적 덕성에 대한 예찬인 반면에, 자신이 말하는 “차이의 덕”(virtue of difference)은 무한자(The Infinite One)이신 하나님 안에 다수의 차이를 조화로이 포용하는 기독교적 덕성(곧 평화의 존재론)에 기반한 것임을 천명한다. 끝으로 지금껏 근대성에 대한 비판과 거부(1부와 2부) 및 근대성을 비판한 세속적 시도에 대한 신학적 평가(3부와 4부)를 전개하는 가운데 부분적으로 예시되고 어렴풋이 제시되었던 저자의 목소리가 마침내 “다른 도성”(The Other City)이라는 제목이 붙은 12장에서 하나로 어우러져 웅장한 화음을 울려낸다.
본서가 취급하는 서구의 사상 조류는 “플라톤으로부터 들뢰즈까지”(all the way from Plato to Deleuze)를 망라할 정도로 광범위하며 세속 사상을 대하는 그 신학적 비평의 시각은 치밀하고도 예리하다. 한마디로 밀뱅크의 기획은 세상(saeculum)을 품어내는 넓이와 깊이에 있어 신국론(De civitas Dei)에 비견될 만하다고 하겠다. “들을 귀가 있는” 독자라면 사회이론의 울창한 숲속으로 난 좁은 길을 거쳐 십자가(Crux) 저편 “평화의 도성”을 향해 우리를 안내하는 온화하고도 확신에 찬 테올로기아(Theologia)의 소리를 결코 물리치지 않을 것이다. 접기
마니아 읽고 싶어요 (1) 읽고 있어요 (0) 읽었어요 (2)
등록
마이페이퍼 > 마이페이퍼
스포일러 포함 글 작성 유의사항
구매자 (1)
전체 (1)
공감순
John Milbank는 포스트 모던 시대에 주변부로 밀려난 신학이 어떻게 다시 모든 학문의 중심이 될 수 있는지를 논증한 이 시대 최고의 신학자입니다. 추천합니다. 구매
박사 2019-05-25 공감 (1) 댓글 (0)
Thanks to
----
Theology and Social Theory: Beyond Secular Reason Paperback – 16 December 2005
by John Milbank (Author)
4.4 out of 5 stars 10 ratings
See all formats and editions
Hardcover
$213.95
6 New from $213.95
Paperback
$56.44
17 New from $56.44
Publisher : Wiley-Blackwell; 2 edition (16 December 2005)
Language : English
Paperback : 480 pages
Customer Reviews: 4.4 out of 5 stars 10 ratings
Product description
Review
Praise for the First edition
"Milbank's work is a tour de force of systematic theology. It would be churlish not to acknowledge its provocation and brilliance."
Times Higher Education Supplement<!--end-->
"The thesis is relatively simple, its orchestration is stunning in scope as well as in harmonies."
Modern Theology
"John Milbank’s sprawling, ambitious and intellectually demanding book is in a class of its own."
Studies in Christian Ethics
"John Milbank has written a masterful review of the development of modern social thought that at the same time offers a criticism of its dominant paradigms and suggests inherent limits on its accomplishments."
Journal of Religion
Praise for the Second Edition
“Theology and Social Theory has proven to be a bombshell… We are, therefore, extremely fortunate to have this second edition with Milbank’s dazzling new ‘Preface’. Re-reading this book is always a pleasure, because it is filled with surprises that force thought.”
Stanley Hauerwas, Duke University
"When the first edition was published the reaction was one of shock. Now, fifteen years on, the shock has worn off; more and more people are questioning the universal competency of secular reason. But this make all the more important the publication of this second edition. Milbank develops an alternative which has been steadily developing and enriching in the intervening years."
Charles Taylor, McGill University
"[Theology and Social Theory] remains a dense, challenging and elusive masterpiece of a book, which has lost none of its power to intrigue and repel in equal measure."
Times Literary Supplement, Sept 2006
"This second edition is a vital aid to any reader who wishes to understand more fully how Theology and Social Theory relates to Milbank's continued publications and radically orthodox sensibilities."
Theological Book Review
"An influential and important book … instructive for students in that it analyses and challenges contemporary assumptions about society and religion." Teaching Theology & Religion
Review
Praise for the First edition
"Milbank's work is a tour de force of systematic theology. It would be churlish not to acknowledge its provocation and brilliance."
Times Higher Education Supplement
"The thesis is relatively simple, its orchestration is stunning in scope as well as in harmonies."
Modern Theology
"John Milbank?s sprawling, ambitious and intellectually demanding book is in a class of its own."
Studies in Christian Ethics
"John Milbank has written a masterful review of the development of modern social thought that at the same time offers a criticism of its dominant paradigms and suggests inherent limits on its accomplishments."
Journal of Religion
Praise for the Second Edition
?Theology and Social Theory has proven to be a bombshell? We are, therefore, extremely fortunate to have this second edition with Milbank?s dazzling new ?Preface?. Re-reading this book is always a pleasure, because it is filled with surprises that force thought.?
Stanley Hauerwas, Duke University
"When the first edition was published the reaction was one of shock. Now, fifteen years on, the shock has worn off; more and more people are questioning the universal competency of secular reason. But this make all the more important the publication of this second edition. Milbank develops an alternative which has been steadily developing and enriching in the intervening years."
Charles Taylor, McGill University
"[Theology and Social Theory] remains a dense, challenging and elusive masterpiece of a book, which has lost none of its power to intrigue and repel in equal measure."
Times Literary Supplement, Sept 2006
"This second edition is a vital aid to any reader who wishes to understand more fully how Theology and Social Theory relates to Milbank's continued publications and radically orthodox sensibilities."
Theological Book Review
"An influential and important book ? instructive for students in that it analyses and challenges contemporary assumptions about society and religion." Teaching Theology & Religion
Very poor Neutral Great
Customer reviews
4.4 out of 5 stars
4.4 out of 5
10 global ratings
5 star
61%
4 star
13%
3 star
26%
2 star 0% (0%)
0%
1 star 0% (0%)
0%
--------------------
3.0 out of 5 stars Difficult stuff - full of technical language and assumes wide knowledge of philosophers
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on 3 April 2018
Verified Purchase
Everyone agrees that this book is a difficult read. There are two reasons for that - it's full of of the technical language of philosophers (don't even think of buying it if you don't know what 'ontic' means), and plenty of references which assume familiarity with the doctrine of philosophers over the past 300 years. I think the basic point which Milbank makes is that there is no such thing as social science - you can describe cultures but that doesn't mean you can that you can *deduce* underlying reasons or make predictions. So Marx was wrong to think that societies all head in a predictable direction. This rescues theology as a valid way to explain how and why societies are the way they are - it's because God made them like that.
3 people found this helpful
Report abuse
maudi
5.0 out of 5 stars Five Stars
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on 27 November 2015
Verified Purchase
Brilliant!
Report abuse
Yin-An Chen
5.0 out of 5 stars Five Stars
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on 30 November 2014
Verified Purchase
good
Report abuse
barryb
5.0 out of 5 stars THE 1ST COMPLETE "PHRONEOLOGY" EVER WRITTEN:
Reviewed in the United States on 20 August 2014
Verified Purchase
THE 1ST COMPLETE "PHRONEOLOGY" EVER WRITTEN:
What is a "Phroneology"? It is a "Theology of Phronesis". And "Phronesis" is equal to "the art of standing-in at the threshold of praxis" (my definition). Milbank has dedicated 450 pages to a complete explication of this motivational realm that informs the individual's "psyche" or "soul" and prepares it for the differentiation of "praxis".
Secular postmodernism already has emphasized the "motivational-body-state" in the sub-consciousness and it has received additional support in cognitive and neuro-psychology. But these secular dimensions have no objective criteria for critiquing the motivational-body-state. Instead; we are confronted by "traces" of difference or "otherness" that we do our best to inscribe within our body state; and we rely on "intersubjectivity" and reciprocal feedback from praxis in order to erase or re-inscribe the "blank-slate" of this motivational base that never really reaches a normative consensus.
For Milbank, the primary culprit of this deterioration of "transcendence" has been liberalism and "secular-postmodernism" he proposes a three-step process to address this problem and to re-claim the realm of "Phronesis" for Christianity and for a new narrative of transcendence, which he labels "Meta-Narrative". This process consists of: DECONSTRUCTION - TRACING - & ENCODING.
1st we start with DECONSTRUCTION: this is the deconstruction of "liberalism and secularism" in order to free-up important fundamental concepts that have been concealed. They need to be unveiled and have new life breathed into them. Specifically these concepts are: LOGOS, VIRTUE, & PHRONESIS.
The most significant "negative" element that will be revealed in this deconstruction is the current presence of the "capitalist economy" as a destructive model for society that emphasizes "harmony-of-utility" as the only morality. It is an ethical-nightmare; and we all live in it.
2nd, we address the idea of TRACING the freed-up concepts that can contribute to a "linguistic-idealism", coupled with Christian "virtue".
This leads us to the obvious conclusion that this linguistic model can only be exscribed as "NARRATVE". And; Milbank says it also forces us to negate the tendency in secular-postmodernism, which practices phenomenological reduction to "Noemata" that constitute spiritual experience. Milbank says "No"; as Christians we couple this narrative with the underlying conviction of a finitude related to "Infinite-Telos".
3rd, we address the process of "ENCODING" this linguistic model, by writing our own "meta-narrative"
Now comes the fun part: Milbank accepts "Dialectic" functionally; but it cannot be accepted as the foundation of "Alethia-truth". We do employ a three stage dialectic in our "encoding" project, which consists of: NEGATION - PRESERVATION - & TRANSCENDENCE.
NEGATION: negates the axioms of "nihilism" and "positivism"; in order to clean the slate before proceeding.
PRESERVATION: clings to these three concepts we freed-up: LOGOS - VIRTUE - & PHRONESIS
LOGOS: includes doxa-signs, bearing witness, and faith-relation.
VIRTUE: means charity, forgiveness, and patience.
PHRONESIS: establishes the priority of the "self-governed-soul"
TRANSCENDENCE: is the actual moment of writing the meta-narrative, while involved in dialogue at the composition-threshold. And there is a referential and foundational reference for this construction: the "Exemplary-Narrative-of-Christ's-life". We write the narrative to inform our "praxis" with this originary narrative as our focal-point. And this in-turn informs our "praxis" and also falls back into the "psyche" to inscribe our motivational base; called the realm of "PHRONESIS"
A masterful work indeed; and highly recommended to all who desire to stay current with postmodernism, while reinforcing their Christian convictions. 5 stars.....
Read less
5 people found this helpful
----
Report abuse
Charles W. Murry
4.0 out of 5 stars Revision or Retraction? Extended Review of Preface to 2nd Edition
Reviewed in the United States on 3 April 2014
Verified Purchase
In this revised edition of John Milbank's seminal 1990 publication, a publication itself which has served as a founding document for that theological sensibility known as Radical Orthodoxy, Milbank has left largely unaltered the central thesis of the first edition. That thesis, which I explicated in a review of the first edition (For a more favorable review of the main text, please see it on amazon.com for the 1st edition), hinges around the notion of mythos and the modern/postmodern problematic and perpetual dissembling regarding secularity's own unfounded foundations. These foundations, Milbank contends, can be deconstructed into an ontology violence, best characterized by force and counterforce. Milbank wishes to lift the veil on the pretensions of reason as such ("reason in the mode of cold regard" as he calls it) by persuading that this ontology is unnecessary and, what is more, not the only one at hand. Unfortunately, the one at hand has also fallen prey to this very nihilistic ontology and this fall constitutes the modern "pathos of theology," which Milbank says is a false humility. Thus, Milbank wishes not only to invalidate modern social theory, but call into question the modern practice of theology.
These goals remain in the revised edition. What is new is the preface in which Milbank attempts to address some of the most common criticisms of the first edition and offer "clarifications" and "a certain limited mode of apologetic" (xvi). What criticisms does Milbank address? Milbank counters what he perceives to be the predominant complaint among sociologist: that his project was one of rejecting sociological reductionism. Milbank contends that sociologists have misunderstood his point. This, however, will come as cold comfort as Milbank drives the missed point home: Milbank is not arguing against reductionism in sociology, but arguing against the whole idea of sociology itself. Milbank, as if to make this remark palatable to sociologists, remarks that "sociology is an exploded paradigm" and that the only ones who have not caught on to this are "theologians themselves--who are still so often belated" (xii). Of course, this leaves one wondering whom Milbank's audience is if most sociologists have conceded to defeat. Yet, it seems unlikely that sociologists see their discipline as an "exploded paradigm." In response to the banalities of such assertions, I merely refer Milbank to the public library or classroom sociology curriculum whose primary texts (and lectures) do not doubt the validity of their enterprise, despite (in spite?) of postmodern philosophical ramblings (can we thank the instrumentalizing of reason and specialization and concomitant compartmentalizing of knowledge for this?). Milbank seems to make a mistake similar to the first edition of TST, namely in an overestimation of consensus--there was never quite as much methodological consensus as his narrative seem to indicate nor is there now quite as much consensus that sociology is an "exploded paradigm."
Milbank notes further protests from the dialectical tradition (he has mind Gillian Rose) but reiterates that despite calls emancipation there simply is no ground of freedom and of mutual recognition of another's freedom so that there is "no surety against history resuming its sinister inventiveness" (xiii). Further protests from `left-Nietzscheanism' object to the accusation that their discourse upholds nihilism and ontological violence: Milbank says they still smuggle mode of stoicism or Kantianism because "mere formal tolerance" was not enough: "The attempt to bend their diagnoses of the historical sway of arbitrary power to the cause of `emancipation' was never truly plausible" (TST2, xiii). Also says that "the most radical thinker of difference never pretended anything other than that it was grounded in an `ontology of violence'" (xiv).
These responses by Milbank to his critics bring to mind Robert Schreiter's own criticism that not only is Milbank's approach "shocking in its repudiation of modernity" but that it is "sometimes a little annoying in its dismissive tone." The dismissive tone elides into clarifications and a limited mode of apologetic when Milbank addresses another salient critique of his work (and, by implication, Radical Orthodoxy): that Milbank's narrative itself is yet another manifestation of violence. Kevin Hector has addressed this issue, attempting to provide covenantal theology correctives to what he perceives as a too abstract notion of God and creation. This abstract nature of Milbank's work is subject of criticism in later works as well and has negative effects on the implantation of Milbank's practical theology (see R. R. Reno's critic of "Being Reconciled" where "Jesus saves by his absence..." as well as Wendy Dackson's critique that Milbank's theology only seems to work in a world where there is a single, normative reading of Christianity--but there is not).
Milbank attempts to clarify his own narrative at this point by asking "how to choose between these two alternative genealogical strategies? My book seemed to suggest that there are no grounds for such a choice" (TST2, xvi). We would do well at this point to recall that his book seemed to do more than suggest by stating that "these fundamental intellectual shifts are...no more rationally justifiable than the Christian position themselves" (TST, 1). That fact notwithstanding, Milbank proceeds to note that "the careful reader will realize that throughout the book the attitude towards `secular reason' is never as negative as it appears to be on the surface" (TST2, xiv). Milbank then begins to set the stage for asserting that there are grounds for a reasonable choice. He says: "First of all, from the point of view my ontology, the `choice' for peaceful analogy and the Augustinian metanarrative is not really an ungrounded decision, but a `seeing' by a truly-desiring reason of the truly desirable" (TST2, xvi). The first sign of trouble is: "from my point of view." What is a "true" desire and what is a "reason" is precisely what is in question. If this is all that Milbank means, he has proceeded no further than Lindbeck and suffers the same criticisms that Lindbeck is vulnerable to, including those made by Milbank. Milbank has neither moved beyond secular reason nor offered an alternative different than George Lindbeck's "intrasystematic truth" which is at odds with Thomistic notions of truth and knowledge.
Milbank then notes that the second form of clarification (which is in the apologetic mode) appeals to the "inchoate current human preference for peace over violence that is both innate (from my metaphysical point of view) and a post-Christian residue, so also I can appeal to a certain bias towards reason rather than unreason (present for similar reasons)" (xvi). Again, the first sign of trouble is: "from my metaphysical point of view." Milbank is not simply engaging in a "certain limited mode of apologetic," but entirely changing the logic of TST; he has gone from saying that the secular, nihilistic, ontology of violence and the ontology of peace are fundamental in just such a way that theoretical expositions will never convince the adherent of one tradition to change to that of another to now saying that the difference is between reason and unreason. This is just the criticism he charges against MacIntyre, saying that there just is no way that one tradition can be rationally presented to another so as to convince that other to change allegiances. This is the foundation for Milbank's description of what constitutes a mythos. The problems with this change are multiple and complex. One must then ask if his criticisms of Alasdair MacIntyre are justified given this change, and if they are, how is the entire program of TST not undermined? A further problem is how Milbank is using "unreason." The sense is that it either means "no-reason" or that it means "unreasonable." In the former case, which would be consistent with nihilistic violence/chaos, which must be managed by a fabricated reason, we are simply back to the choice of whether the universe is either meaningful or meaningless--but that means we are back right where we started and Milbank's clarification offers nothing more than the tautologies he railed against in TST. In the latter case, the immediate question arises of the criteria or standards by which "unreasonable" and "reasonable" are to be adjudicated. Milbank's argument in TST just is that there are no such standards and that this is the belief of "pure reason" or, as Milbank refers to it, "reason in the mood of cold regard" (xvii).
What Milbank means by "unreason" is further elaborated upon in his assertion that nihilism is the conclusion, regardless presentation, of "pure reason" and constitutes the "ontological reign of non-sense or unreason" (xvii). It is here that Milbank gives further clarification about what he means by `unreason.' Unfortunately, this is about as much clarification as we can squeeze out of Milbank and here the use remains somewhat still ambiguous. Here we see that Milbank takes as synonyms "non-sense" and "unreason." We could imagine from a theological point of view, one in which fallen nature and sin are salient factors of which to take account in how human beings come to apprehend truth and their collective ends, that "unreason" intimates the defiant attitude of the sinful creature. Unreason is the refusal of the creature to truly desire. Milbank would surely assert that this is what unreason is, but unreason will not do all the work to which Milbank puts it. In equating unreason with non-sense, Milbank immediately collapses the distinction between the theological perspective in which truly-desiring reason is directed to God and "reason in the mood of cold regard." Why is this the case? It is because non-sense is only non-sense according to some standard, but what standard is Milbank invoking? If it is an aesthetic appeal of a "better" narrative, then Milbank has only smuggled back in his original assertions in the guise of "reason" and "unreason." In other words, tautologous affirmations of tautologies, to use Milbank's own criticism. At best, if the reason and unreason (non-sense) is just that judged by internal and systematic consistency within a particular mythos, then Milbank, again, has asserted nothing other than his original theses: there can be no reason for one to switch allegiance, regardless of the arguments put forward. If Milbank has abandoned this assertion, then he has abandoned the heart of TST, and if this is the case, then in large part, his criticisms of that other confused voice of Alasdair MacIntyre (the benign form of postmodernism ) must be abandoned as well. Milbank's limited mode of apologetic is certainly that: limited. It is, at best, inconsistent and evasive of an actual clarification. At worst it is misleading.
Given these "clarifications," Milbank is able to argue that the "Catholic perspective saves not just the human bias towards peace and order, but also the human bias towards reason. Reason, for Catholic tradition, `goes all the way down'....For this reason a full `rationalism' is linked with a Biblical mythos alone" (TST2, xvii). With this statement, Milbank continues to change (if he were to hold this line) the fundamental nature of TST. Hinted at above was that the concept of mythos has been abandoned by Milbank in his "clarifications" and "limited mode of apologetic." The fact that Milbank's position has become somewhat incoherent is given in the fact that he has abrogated the defining characteristics he gave to the notion of mythos in TST in an attempt to resolve the criticism that his ontology of peaceful difference is simply one choice among others. That incoherence is crystallized when, given this abrogation, he continues to use the notion of mythos without qualification in his assertion that it is only in and through the Biblical mythos where reason is fully rational (one should also be weary when arguments invoke the word "Biblical"). Is there any irony then when the obvious conclusion is presented by Milbank that to "choose" his position, that is, his particular rendering of "the Augustinian metanarrative" is to "elect reason" (there are conflicting interpretations of this narrative so the question also remains: who is the authoritative interpreter of Augustine? Milbank takes himself to be). Tautology again! While in TST Milbank explicitly rejected argument, here it "becomes possible to argue." But some would reason that the facts of nature simply force one to the conclusion, because reasonable, that at bottom, there is no-sense in the cosmos, perhaps even that there is only violence, only chaos. Indeed, someone would argue that that reason compels one to recognize meaninglessness. There are evolutionary explanations of why the human mind has a "bias...towards meaning." These arguments may (indeed, they should) be convincing--to an Augustinian in particular or Christians in general, but they will not be, in accordance with Milbank's own understanding of the notion of mythos, to anyone else. They might be pleasing to hear; they might be more suitable to the mind's aesthetic palate, but so are some lies, so is the more fantastical tale told in Yann Martel's fantasy novel The Life of Pi.
A final note on the Preface to the second edition and the way in which it undermines the original work: Milbank makes the concession that in all the distortions in Christianity, distortions which he cannot deny, that there "remains truth in all these distortions and even that, just as Irenaeus learned much from Valentinus, the distortions develop better certain aspects of orthodoxy which orthodoxy must then later recoup" (TST2, xv). This runs completely counter to the arguments in TST or at least makes them no longer intelligible. Distortion becomes almost indistinguishable from order: What is distortion other than error or sin? Yet, "the distortions develop better certain aspects of orthodoxy..." Privations, negativity (which, in distorting, they conceal), do a "better" job at revealing the truth. How does Milbank write such a sentence without immediately recognizing his own criticism of the "mythical generator" of dialectical inquiry, of his critique and rejection of the claim that truth is best revealed through concealment? If distortions (concealments) do a better job at revealing "certain aspects" of the truth, than Milbank has relinquished his original TST claims.
Fortunately, much of the rest of the text of TST remains unaltered with the exception of factual and grammatical changes. There are a few areas where language has been toned as well. For example, in the original publication Milbank asserts that "true society implies absolute consensus, agreement in desire, and entire harmony among its members," which is "exactly...what the Church provides" (TST, 402). In the revised edition, the same sentence has omitted the word "absolute" as a qualifier of "consensus" and "entire" as a qualifier of "harmony" and added the word "begins" with regard to the activity of the Church (TST, 406). I can only assume that some of what has motivated the concessions in the Preface has trickled down into the body here and there. Given the minor changes in the main body of TST, the Preface to the Second edition is best discarded in favor of the still powerful critique Milbank provides of secular reason's self-repeating enthymemes, that is, secularity's own mythos. Mythos is more than this, obviously, because it applies and is applied by Milbank to Christianity as well as modernity and the modern and postmodern conceptions of social theory. However, the fact that while it is true that it applies equally to Christianity, or any narrative for that matter, fundamentally, it becomes a term of accusation, of polemic, in Milbank's treatise on the foundations of modern social theory, a theory whose very foundations and perpetually positivist stance (even when it purportedly takes an anti-positivist stance) means to present the face of a non-mythos. Insofar as social theory does this, it presents a mask, and all its reasoned conclusions, its acceptable-because-reasonable-conclusions, are the result of its dissembling vis-à-vis its own pagan-esk presuppositions. Milbank's use of the term mythos and application to social theory intends to lift the mask, expose the dissembling of secular reason, and thus undermine those very foundations and positivist assumptions. The underlying mythos, of course, is the one already noted, an ontology of violence: this is the unstated assumption in the enthymeme of secular reason.
Thus the point for Milbank is that the Church, that Christianity, tells a better story than that of secular modernity whose story is founded upon an ontology of violence and whose narratives inevitably incorporate that violence in an account of human nature, human teleology, and the social context in which human nature is played out in pursuit of its telos. It is a narrative where violence and power are intrinsic and therefore ineliminable dimensions of the human story and, consequently, includes inevitable irruptions and perpetual manifestations of violence and power, sometimes masked, sometimes unmasked. This is what TST should be known for.
Read less
8 people found this helpful
Report abuse
See all reviews
---
Theology and Social Theory: Beyond Secular Reason
by John Milbank
4.10 · Rating details · 189 ratings · 25 reviews
This is a revised edition of John Milbank's masterpiece, which sketches the outline of a specifically theological social theory.
The Times Higher Education Supplement wrote of the first edition that it was "a tour de force of systematic theology. It would be churlish not to acknowledge its provocation and brilliance". Featured in The Church Times "100 Best Christian Books" Brings this classic work up-to-date by reviewing the development of modern social thought. Features a substantial new introduction by Milbank, clarifying the theoretical basis for his work. Challenges the notion that sociological critiques of theology are 'scientific'. Outlines a specifically theological social theory, and in doing so, engages with a wide range of thinkers from Plato to Deleuze. Written by one of the world's most influential contemporary theologians and the author of numerous books. (less)
GET A COPY
KoboOnline Stores ▾Book Links ▾
Paperback, 448 pages
Published February 1st 2006 by Wiley-Blackwell (first published September 1st 1993)
Original TitleTheology and Social Theory: Beyond Secular Reason (Political Profiles)
ISBN1405136847 (ISBN13: 9781405136846)
Edition LanguageEnglish
Other Editions (6)
Theology and Social Theory
Theology and Social Theory: Beyond Secular Reason
111x148
Theology and Social Theory: Beyond Secular Reason
Theology and Social Theory
All Editions | Add a New Edition | Combine
...Less DetailEdit Details
FRIEND REVIEWS
Recommend This Book None of your friends have reviewed this book yet.
READER Q&A
Ask the Goodreads community a question about Theology and Social Theory
54355902. uy100 cr1,0,100,100
Ask anything about the book
Be the first to ask a question about Theology and Social Theory
LISTS WITH THIS BOOK
This book is not yet featured on Listopia. Add this book to your favorite list »
COMMUNITY REVIEWS
Showing 1-30
Average rating4.10 · Rating details · 189 ratings · 25 reviews
Write a review
Jacob Aitken
Aug 04, 2011Jacob Aitken rated it really liked it · review of another edition
Shelves: beauty, continental-philosophy, ecclesiology, economics, ontology
Milbank could have taken a course in how to be understood by the common man.
Thesis: Milbank convincingly argues that secular modernity is built upon presuppositions that are just as religious as those of Christianity. Even worse, they rest upon a more shaky foundation of faith.
Milbank argues that modern discussions of "secular" reason are historically off-center. There was a time when there was no secular. The saeculum used to refer to the time between the Advents. Now it refers to the area off-limits to Jesus. It now has spatial, rather than temporal significance.
Milbank notes that "secular" disciplines such as sociology have their own religious presuppositions which they then import upon the theological. In other words, all disciplines have their own "story to tell." All of these stories are built upon religious presuppositions. It is Milbank's contention that the Christian story is the best one.
Milbank then critiques communism, capitalism, and Durkheimian sociologies. This was a hard section to read and I really didn't understand it.
Milbank goes through a thorough interaction with postmodernism, noting that postmodern scholars see an "ontology of violence." Given the modern reality, such ontologies are inevitable. This is arguably the most important section of the book since it sets the stage for Milbank's later works.
He ends with an Augustian discussion of an "ontology of peace."
Problems with the book:
I can read 5 or 6 languages and have read hundreds of books of upper level theology and philosophy and most of the time I had no idea what Milbank was talking about. (less)
flag8 likes · Like · 3 comments · see review
David
Sep 06, 2019David rated it it was amazing
Shelves: theology, sociology, philosophy
The first thing to say about this book is that it is a heavy, amazing, profound and deep piece of theological engagement with philosophy, sociology and cultural ideas. The second thing to say is, it is an incredibly challenging read. I put this up there with David Bentley Hart's Beauty of the Infinite as books which stretched me more than any other. Milbank demonstrates a familiarity with Aristotle, Plato, Augustine, Aquinas, Durkheim, Marx, Hegel, Kant, Nietzsche, Delueze, Foucault and much more. The audience for this work is other professional theologians, of which I am not. There were times as I read where I thought I should give up and find something easier.
It reminds me of the first time I read The Silmarillion, Tolkien's history of Middle Earth from creation to the Third Age. Anyone who enjoys The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings ought to also read The Silmarillion. That said, its much different. Its like the Old Testament of Middle Earth. It is filled with names upon names upon names. I was lost. Then the second time I read it, I decided not to try to keep up with all the names. Instead, I wanted to get the plot and the themes. By the third time through, it became my favorite Tolkien book.
Now, there is about a .0001% chance I ever read Theology and Social Theory again. But I thought of my experience with The Silmarillion as I read. There may be some readers who are familiar with the nuances of Durkheim and Weber or Nietzsche and his interpreters. I imagine those readers would find Milbank's work even richer (and perhaps they'd be able to critique it too). The rest of us can settle into the fact we will never have that depth of understanding, yet if we focus on the themes of the book, there is much that we can learn.
Milbank demonstrates that the secular is not a neutral ground (and he echoes and cites Charles Taylor, someone I have read*). The problem recent theology has run into is that it tries to present theology in terms inherited from other fields. Thus, social theory is the ultimate arbiter. Milbank calls on theologians to not take this path. The reality is that these social theories themselves are not given or proven but are up for debate as to whether they can deliver what they promise. Further, historically they grow out of forms of Christian thought and to this day they remain similar as far as it takes a level of faith to accept them. In other words, there is no proof that tells us naturallly found truths are all there is. This is a philosophical statement and thus up for debate.
Now, somewhere a Christian apologist is drooling. Being familiar with Christian apologetics, it would be tempting to enlist Milbank in the crusade to defend the faith. Certainly there is some overlap, perhaps some apologists have even learned from Milbank. To the overconfident materialist or naturalist, pointing out that, against his insistence, some truths cannot be found in science alone, is worthwhile. We all do begin with assumptions and presuppositions. Yet, Milbank is not an apologist. The biggest difference is that many Christian apologists seek to meet their secular interlocutors on neutral ground and prove faith is reasonable (the evidence demands a verdict, after all). I imagine Milbank would say that they are still making something else the ultimate: this supposed neutral territory where we can reasonably weigh our ideas. One of Milbank's points is that no such territory exists.
Throughout, Milbank is critiquing secular social theories. In the end, Milbank's call is for Christians to tell an alternate story. The only coherent secular story ends up being nihilism, which Milbank seems to say (again, he's writing some heavy stuff and maybe I misunderstood) really only Nietzsche consistently put forth as many of Nietzsche's interpreters try to add things on that do not really work. At the root of the nihilist story is violence, the world rests in violence. I think the idea is that difference leads to conflict and violence. How do we exist in difference without violence. Well, we don't. There is no greater reality than that the powerful survive and the weaker do not. The option here is difference, violence and power.
Conversely, the Christian story deals with difference in a totally different way. The root of Being is God as Trinity. So there is difference seen in Father, Son and Spirit. Yet this difference is not inherently violent but is held up by love and peace. Evil, Milbank argues, though in line with the best of the Christian tradition, is not even a real positive thing. It is a negative, not adding anything new but merely corrupting what is already good. Evil, and violence, are overcome in the Christian story of ultimate Being creating a world filled with love and peace.
Honestly, the last chapter is worth the price of the book. I may go back and read that three or four times.
As a take-away on a very practical level: I work in campus ministry and there are all sorts of ideas floating around. Debates are sometimes enjoyable but rarely does anyone change their mind. Yet most people do not deal with the logical implications of their views. Telling the Christian story includes critiquing the other stories. Not critiquing from that non-existence neutral place, but just asking people if how they act really lines up with what they really believe. Can their passions and desires and hopes and dreams truly rest on how they view the world working? On the flip side, we are called to tell a better and more compelling story that invites people into a way of life geared towards love and peace. Through that, we discover this is not just a way of life but ends up being the way most in line with how we were created to live in the first place.
*As a sidenote, it is awesome when Milbank cited authors I was more familiar with. He mentions Taylor a bit, and also Rene Girard as well as Alasdair MacIntyre. All four of those writers have written some of my favorite books of all time, books that stretched and challenged me. It is cool to get a glimpse of the academic world where there is not just awe in their brilliance (which is how I read them) but critiques of their ideas (which I don't fully get as its all a bit too nuanced). It also makes me wonder who the popularizer of someone like Milbank is? After all, James KA Smith wrote a book summarizing Charles Taylor (as have some others) and I've read a few books on the thought of Girard. I suppose the place to go would be other books on Radical Orthodoxy?
There's always more books...sigh... (less)
flag5 likes · Like · 2 comments · see review
Ryan
Aug 08, 2012Ryan rated it it was amazing
Shelves: philosophy, theology
Milbank provides a new and refreshing argument with age old (but necessary) results. Christianity must cease taking its cue from the "secular science" and, rather, work within the Christian tradition itself for means of addressing the world. This was the thrust of recent theological movements such as the "Yale school" like Lindbeck and Frei, and was further popularized by Hauerwas, with Barth's rejection of liberalism being the progenitor. (Of course, Christianity has long before Barth understood this). Milbank, however, not only argues positively for Christianity working on its own terms, but also critically demonstrates that the "secular" is actually defined and traces its origin to (heretical) theological claims. Thus the modern social sciences (politics, economics, sociology, dialectics, Marxism, nihilism, etc.) are rooted not in a separate secular sphere, but in heretical (pagan/gnostic) religion. Fantastic read, although there is significantly more critical than constructive theology involved. In fact, until the last chapter, one wonders where the Christianity is in the book. But this is a necessary emphasis for Milbanks argument
Addendum: Much that has been influenced by and continues the conversation of this book - going under the name Radical Orthodoxy - is fantastic theology. However, it sometimes becomes unnecessarily dense. If theology is to serve the church it must translate into not just the thought of the church but also the life of the church. And at times I feel that RO fails simply because of the over-technical density of the works. Its critiqques are extremely important, but it would be better if they were communicated for the common people rather than require a degree in theology to understand. (I have a BA in Theology, much of this was incomprehensible to me) (less)
flag4 likes · Like · comment · see review
Aung Sett Kyaw Min
Jul 09, 2020Aung Sett Kyaw Min rated it liked it
Milbank has achieved something of a totalizing meta-critique of secular reason and modernity, identifying the latter with a certain 'perverted' theology (e.g. according a positive status to evil) mixed with pagan thinking. Above all, Milbank endeavors to restore mythic narrativization qua religion as an impetus in its own right that cannot be reduced either methodogically or substantially to the category of the social.
Accordingly, in the wake of generalized nihilism and the apparent triumph of the post-tructuralist ontology of violence that that only recognizes forces and glorifies every moment as equally worthy of affirmation as any other moment, we need to be able to 'narrate' a counter ontology in which genuine peace is not only possible, but also infinitely within reach, if only we open our hearts towards a non-foundationalist participation in God's creative overflowing, exemplified by charity as the virtue of virtues. Now, such a counter-ontology does not and cannot strictly claim to be more rational than the ontology of violence, as Milbank himself fully admits. At a certain level, one simply 'narrates' how things hang together in the broadest possible sense and hope for the best. Yet it does entail that the Catholic Christian tradition, specifically Augustine's vision of a reciprocal exchange between the whole and the part such as the whole is fractally recapitulated in every part (thus refusing the classical antinomy between the polis and the psyche) presents a world in which genuine peace and not just a perpetual suspension of warfare, can be realized.
Milbank's clever meta-critical perspective is not without its faults, however, as Milbank himself often lapses into treating the religious as motor that drives all difference making. Everything is confused theology. In this regard, it is tempting to see Milbank as turning Feuerbach on his head. Milbank is also not very forthcoming about his own theological and christological vantage point from which he prosecutes the critique, at times presenting the Thomistic tradition as the 'kernel' of Christianity in opposition to which all other traditions are heterodox and pagan deviations (see the passages where he simply dismisses the problem of evil) Nonetheless, Milbank is to be commended for reckoning seriously with the postmodern challenge to any and all self-legitimizing traditions and discourses (e.g theology, philosophy, sociology) to double down on their particularity. (less)
flag2 likes · Like · see review
Daniel Klawitter
Mar 28, 2013Daniel Klawitter rated it it was amazing
Freaking brilliant. Far smarter than any of the "new atheist" authors, this is heavy, heavy stuff, but serious as hell (or heaven). The Radical Orthodox movement begun by Milbank has produced some of the most penetrating philosophical/theological insights of the last two decades: authors who use the lingo of postmodernism to critique it (and often nation states as well) from a specifically liturgical/sacramental standpoint. Moving beyond the cliches of "conservative/liberal" to an indictment of modernity itself, this book is a recovery of Augustinian illumination and a vigorous defense of the best elements of the Xian project. A deeply learned critique of nihilism. (less)
flag2 likes · Like · comment · see review
Earl
Apr 18, 2019Earl rated it liked it
Shelves: theology
Milbank has really done a good job at surveying the history of sociology and secular culture, offering different readings of well-known theories. My only concern here is that he already interprets them according to the Radical Orthodoxy agenda, and uses quite complicated language to explain an "alternative history of theory" that seems to be incomprehensible. A dense text, I think, which needs to be further supplemented with his other works. (less)
flag1 like · Like · comment · see review
David Mosley
Apr 16, 2012David Mosley rated it really liked it · review of another edition
Recommends it for: Colin Nicolle
A challenging work that reminds its readers theology should not be subsumed within or under the social sciences but is the science by which all others ought to be measured.
flag1 like · Like · comment · see review
Robert Heckner
---
Jun 23, 2017Robert Heckner rated it really liked it
This book is intellectually demanding in both good and bad ways. On the good side, it is thought-provoking, tightly argued, well-round, and intellectually challenging. On the bad side, it is dense, at times overly scholarly, and heavy on what is essentially just name-dropping. Furthermore, the positive arguments of Milbank are until the last chapter (and even for a majority of that chapter) mostly to be gleamed from scattered insight or extremely deep reading of his manifold critiques. Personally, I would prefer a book in which Milbank lays out his arguments, clearly, concisely, and positively; as opposed to a tome that is a times obtuse, rarely concise, and composed almost entirely of critiques of previous thinkers.
However, these criticisms not withstanding, Milbank has offered a rare work of scholarship that is provoking, tightly argued, abundantly researched, profoundly erudite, and insightful. Anyone interested in serious political theology, the relationship between social science and theology, or broad theological themes in modernity should read, if not all, at least some of this book. (less)
flagLike · comment · see review
Kenneth Mattebo
Oct 24, 2019Kenneth Mattebo rated it really liked it
Shelves: theology
It´s in the end when you want a great option for new paths of thinking theologically that you can get disappointed. Oh, and yeah, some bundling together of authors to fit Milbanks grand narrative that seems to maby be a bit overplayed (so the experts say). But the main thesis is spot on and relevant: The secular does not have ontological status. It is a parentheses in the great story of God creating and rescuing. This book will challenge for a long time.
flagLike · comment · see review
JR Roach
---
Jan 18, 2018JR Roach rated it really liked it
Fascinating, enthralling, challenging, confounding - a wonderful journey whether you end up being convinced or not.
