Modernity
Friday, June 26, 2009
Since I’ve been somewhat hard on our resident theology blogging mega-stars of late, it seems only fair to point out when Halden does well:
I’m completely and utterly tired of massive Christian critiques of “modernity.” Its not that I don’t think there something useful to learn from many of these, its just that they tend to go way off the rails. We often hear statements like the “modernity is a dead end and the only way forward is the recovery of classical, Christian orthodoxy.”
I don’t really think I even understand what this is really supposed to mean. What on earth do we mean by “way forward”? What does it mean to say that “orthodoxy” is going to move us beyond modernity to wherever we’re supposed to be? I assume that “we” are the world system as it once was at some point and we really, really want it to be that way again. This seems to me to be a boiled-down statement of John Milbank’s nostalgia for a sort of neo-fascist premodernity.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009 at 9:01 am
The irony is that a hallmark of modernity is its penchant for self-critique as Kolakowski argues. To that end, “postmodern” is really a phase of modernity. Terms like “post” are a definitive cut-off in time from one era to another. It is more ideological than factual and so, quite inherently modern.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009 at 7:27 pm
Isn’t Fascism a product of a post-Christian medieval outlook? I mean fascism is inherently intertwined with the state-form, which emerged after the middle ages. I see Halden’s point, but it seems to me that the labor that seeks to identify the constellation called ‘modernity’ is helpful if only to attempt to upset the powers that have been installed in the name of such an epoch (i.e., corporations, banks, yes, even Churches etc.). Private property and the taking the means of production out of the hands of the workers is the logic called modernity as the emergence of the state-form.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009 at 8:56 am
With fascism, I think its important to know “which fascism”. I see fascism as a 20th century phenomena with a few antecedents in the 19th century, that was the result of a unique combination of factors of this time, and subject to quite wide-ranging geographic and temporal variances that ensures that it is not co-equal to Nazism. So essentially tracing any 20th century political movement back to the middle ages seems misplaced in particular because fascism re-cast what the state was to some degree. This is why neoliberalism can’t be traced back to Smith as well. Moreover, with this in mind, we shouldn’t always see fascism as pro-state.
PS Creston if you log into WordPress.com and browse the blogs it will automatically have your details on each one of your comments.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009 at 11:32 am
Thanks, Alex! I can understand both sides of the debate re: situating ‘modernity’ etc. On the whole, I think it a worthy venture, but with some major hang-ups. BTW/ how do I subscribe to this blog? Thanks, Creston
Wednesday, July 1, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Toward the bottom of the sidebar, there is a section called “Feeds et al.” Click on the link that says “Entries” and if you’re using Firefox, it will give you the option to add it to whatever RSS service you’re using (like Google Reader). Otherwise, you can copy the link and paste it somewhere depending on what software you’re using.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Creston, Addressing your comment: are you saying that if Milbank is advocating a return to medieval types of values, he can’t be advocating fascism, since fascism is irreducibly modern? That’s fair enough, but I would counter that in our present context it is impossible to actually return to those values and the attempt to do so winds up echoing a lot of fascist themes.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Adam, thanks for your help with my blog etc. Regard your query about Milbank and fascism. No. Certainly, in our epoch, fascism is a dangerous reality (perhaps it is already upon us, making such charges devoid of force apart from its rhetorical bounce). All I was saying was that Fascism (as we have come to know it today) simply didn’t exist before the rise of the nation state (cf. Perry Anderson’s book on this). Does that mean it can’t happen if one draws upon a medieval vision to guide a politics in our time? No. Obviously, we remain under the weight of the nation-state (despite what Michael and Toni say in their brilliant analysis in Empire). But all this talk about Milbank advocating a fascist outlook seems far-fetched–he’s too catholic and not nationalistic enough. This is where his medieval outlook in some sense might actually resist a fascistic move–basically because it resists (but does not always prevent) the bankers, etc. from hi-jacking the modes of production from the workers. Regardless, I find that Milbank’s Trinitarian ontology can be used to fund a revolution on the social and economic level that is more communistic (in its non-centralized fashion) and joins up with a struggle for justice. Dan Bell’s essay “The Fragile Brilliance of Glass: Empire, Multitude, and the Coming Community” that is forthcoming in the Pol. Theol. journal I’m editing, fleshes this out nicely. I would like to actually see an argument for this claim. Thanks for your time!
Wednesday, July 1, 2009 at 6:17 pm
At this point I think it should be said that fascism is strongly opposed to capitalism, and for the prevention of the ‘hijacking of modes of production from the workers’. Corporatism, which is a largely fascist form of organisation attempts to provide intermediate bodies between the state in the form of guilds, societies, religious groupings etc and is opposed to capitalistic modes of production. To be fair, however, which various Pope’s supported corportatism initially, and then rightly opposed when it became the tool of fascism.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009 at 6:19 pm
PS
Vitally, Creston, what do you mean by fascism as we have come to know it? What attributes define fascism for you?
Thursday, July 2, 2009 at 8:33 am
In response, I’ll just say that I agree with Zizek’s argument in Monstrosity about Milbank’s fascist vision.
Thursday, July 2, 2009 at 8:38 am
Hey, Alex! I’m just using the term ‘fascism’ in its straightforward sense–as it composes a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology as well as corporatist economic ideology. This is from wiki. And Adam–Ok, I see what you mean, via the Zizek reference. Nice!