Let me begin by confessing, up front, that I am no theologian. My training is in rhetoric. However, any sweeping survey of rhetorical studies, both ancient and contemporary, would be incomplete without addressing the vast connections between both fields. Rhetoric informs theology and, if you agree with Kenneth Burke, theology informs rhetoric -- they are both mutually dependent (i.e. Burke would argue God is a function of language, so when language dies God dies). For my inaugural post, I thought it would be good, mainly for my sake in being a theological novice, to start with what I'm familiar -- namely, the rhetorical -- and point out one way in which I see the two fields overlapping. And in case you're wondering, I am including a large selection of a recent paper I completed on rhetorical discourse and religious fundamentalism. In this post I will argue that Christian theology offers a rhetorical framework, in God's ethic of love, which dictates the performance of the social. As you read, please view this as jumping off point, and not an all-encompassing, fully thought-out exercise. I simply want to begin the larger pursuit of seeing the intersections of rhetoric and theology (I'd recommend reading Burke's landmark study The Rhetoric of Religion for a more comprehensive analysis)
If language predicates the existence of the social then rhetoric gives us a means of navigating the difference made possible by the principle of the negative, and God's ethic of love limits the possibilities of movement within the paradox of the always and already fractured relationship between "I," "You," and "We." Thus, Burke famously says:
If men [and women] were not apart from one another, there would be no need for the rhetorican to proclaim their unity. If men [and women] were wholly and truly of one substance, absolute communication would be of man's [and woman's] very essence. (qtd. in Biesecker 100).
So we can see, now, that language itself is proof of our incompleteness. Absolute communication, or unity, should never be a goal of an individual or community, because we know it is not possible. But what is possible, and what should be a goal, is the pursuit of love and love in the pursuit of the "other." As Biesecker concludes, "For Burke, that is to say, it is precisely the impossibility of closing the gap between self and other that keeps us engaged with one another, talking to one another, courting one another; that forever keeps us 'promot[ing]' social cohesion by acting rhetorically upon [our]selves and one another'" (100). The principle of the negative may be the motivation that keeps us "acting rhetorically upon ourselves," but God's ethic of love powerfully dictates how we are to act rhetorically. If the central message of the bible, and indeed the central message of Christianity, is the love of God and others, we can see why a Christian might be so well-equipped to engage in discourse that never forecloses difference, and act not only of responsibility but love.
4 comments:
I originally got a degree in Bible and Religion, and having studied quite a bit of theology I came to the realization that theology's beauty is that there is no subject that it does not inform, nor any that it is not informed by. This is why I am now a scientist as well as a theologian.
That being said, I have found lately that rhetoric and literary criticism are actually the disciplines that offer me the most hope for a refreshed spirituality. I am one of many theologians who have found themselves jaded with the "tried and true" methods of connecting with God. Language is far too often taken for granted in the many ways that it shapes us and the worlds that we live in. That's why I'm glad to see a conversational blog including people who are not limited to the theological language game.
Great post! I completely agree that our performance of the social, our responsibility toward and dependence upon an Other, is one of the most concordant characteristics between Christianity and postmodernity.
Do you think this recognition of the self as socially constructed, at least in part, necessarily bears the seeds of kenosis because it dispels any illusion of autonomy? Once I realize that my identity is contingent upon an Other or, more accurately, a community of others, I am able to embrace Bakhtin’s conception that “any truth we might achieve in this life is available only as a relationship.”
Burke’s idea that language and God are inextricably bound presents an interesting conception of immanence—if the divine logos pervades and is perpetuated by manifold discourses, contact and negotiation between multiple and divergent perspectives can be conceived of as an essential element in any process of understanding.
Might it not be too much of a stretch to claim an emerging theme between these two introductory posts? Namely, the pursuits of this blog eschew the declarative, the imperative, and the foundational in favor of something more performative. Although you are indeed making a case for the primacy of language/communication, while at the same time arguing its incompleteness, which is in turn a foundational shift, (very popular move among us English Majors) what kind of foundation does that place us on? And how did you/we arrive here? I fall into the easy temptation of viewing the primacy of language as just another way our fallible human understanding attempts to explain our situation. I view it not along a progression of human thought and understanding, but as a pattern of thought that will soon be replaced with another narrative to explain our situation. That doesn’t mean that language is not foundational, but it doesn’t mean that it is either. It only means that the narratives we tell one another are conditioned by our cultural situations more than they are a progression or evolution of stories that fit within a rational framework. This is hard for me to think about, because I am painfully aware that my brief analysis here is attempting to stand outside and above the narratives I am describing. If I believe what I have written, it is impossible for me to have that distance. I am complicit. It is a blasé point, I’m well aware, and even in making it, I decry the very thought that it is possible to make, but there is something going on here that needs smoothing over. I guess I’m asking us to think about the problem of: “can we say that we are right that we cannot get anything right”? It sounds like a very James Dobson approach to post-modernism, but I feel the need to ask it here. (btw, if you haven’t had a chance to listen to Dobson’s rhetorical analysis of Obama’s “Call to Renewal Speech” you are in for a real treat. Fascinating stuff in need of a post.)
This is why I’m leaning towards the performative as a way out of all this head scratching. Maybe I don’t need to make any kind of declarative statement about knowledge anyways. Perhaps I can yield, or hold those questions in eternal suspension because they are not that helpful in the formation of my humanity and community. Or, as Daniel has done, I can use those parts of the narratives that embolden me to engage in agreed upon practices that help reflect the commitments I have made to the story of Christianity.
Good post. Elaborating a Christian rhetoric is a monumental task, and this is a great first step.
Might I suggest an addition? Here you've proposed love as a unifying "principle" (I use the term loosely) that informs the way we carry on the business of addressing the Other. This is a deeply Christian idea, but is it not also a Hindu one, a Muslim one, and a Jewish one? Of course, this is a very good thing, because various religious narratives can rally around the same project of a rhetoric of love. But there is another, more distinctly Christian, idea that could shape the way we conduct ourselves, and that's the doctrine of the Incarnation. Not only do we address the Other in love, but we do so by presenting ourselves--in flesh and ligaments, bowels and excrement--in a finite body. This body is vulnerable, and can and may be beaten, lacerated and trampled over. But we present ourselves anyway, because of this call of the Other. This ties in to Bryce's idea of the performative, but I propose this as a possible way out of the fear of the declarative. I have to disagree with Bryce (if I'm understanding him) and say we do not eschew the declarative, because we always declare through our way of being. YHWH is the God who Is, Jesus came and was, the Church is today, and Christ is the one who is to come.
Of course, this brings up the issue of how we speak in a way that is declarative and yet regards the Other, but this is a subject we can address later. Great post, and great comments.
Post a Comment