The failure of the grand narrative of modernity – achieving it all: absolutism, progress, reason – is shattered. Its replacement is the master narrative of post-modernity – achieving nothing: relativism, play, contradiction. The former attempted to construct a unified story for all humanity, while the latter left behind shards, fragments, and sub-plots with no beginning or end. Unfortunately, many Christians have bought into one or the other of these story lines and uncritically woven it into the biblical faith. Moving away from the power schemes of modern or post-modern meta-narratives is an essential task for believers, if we are to be able to present the gospel in a credible and persuasive manner to a world that has lost its way.
Monday, October 21, 2013
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
It’s not mundane; it’s important. The problem is in figuring out how the necessary ‘relating to’ of the interpreter might alter or impinge on one’s interpretation. That is, can we get to that unalloyed truth of the ‘interpreted’ that is distinct from the interpreter? Many who are swayed by the “grand narrative of modernity” – a “view from nowhere” approach to knowledge –would say ‘yes’. Those living under the master narrative of post-modernity would emphatically say ‘no’.
But which, from an epistemological perspective, is closer to the truth? The modern chases an illusory objectivity. The post-modern (still perhaps being not ‘post’ modern enough) denies that subjectivity, the truth in one’s mind, the ‘poesis’—the truth that is made—might indeed be that of God’s.
Sorry. I meant to comment this to your earlier post. :(
Ryan,
Thanks for your excellent comment! I thought that maybe you put the two posts together, so that was great.
I agree with you about the problem of figuring out how the 'relating' of the interpreter affects the 'what's' interpreted. As I tried to say in the post that your comment appeared on, the view from nowhere never really existed - therefore unimpeded access was an illusion. But much of PM that assumes that there is no, let's say 'objectivity' at all, are equally making it up as they go along. Seems to me, if we want to move closer to a truer perspective, we need something like a relation and distinction or subjective objectivity type of formulation. Neither interpreter or interpreted are effaced, but there is a tension that cannot be resolved. As interpreters we may alter the interpreted, but at least in some cases, we will soon be confronted with our limits, to make the interpreted what it is.
I like the notion of "not pm enough!) and while the 'poesis' may be that of God, it also may not be.
“…and while the 'poesis' may be that of God, it also may not be.” Agreed. And perhaps this is why we should value ‘critical realism’ as an appropriate via media. For the critical realist takes both the subjective and objective seriously while leaving open the door that other answers and perspectives might provide a more thorough/coherent solution to the question at hand (a better explanation to the truth of reality)—that all interpretations are not equal, some warranting greater respect than others to speak more to ‘what is, that it is; of what is not, that it is not.'
Ryan,
Thanks for the feedback. Just finished a discussion with about 30 on these topics. Interesting.
In my writings, I have used the term 'hermeneutical realism' to avoid any pretentions of 'critical' equating objective, without the subjective - not that you're saying that, but just to mention an alternative to critical.
All interpretations are not equal. Well said!
Post a Comment