DOCSLIB.ORG

Biblical Hermeneutics and Postmodernism Around What Humpty Dumpty and Trustworthy and Therefore Reconstruction

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Biblical Hermeneutics and Postmodernism Around What Humpty Dumpty and Trustworthy and Therefore Reconstruction July 2020 Faith Baptist Theological Seminary Biblical Hermeneutics and 1900 NW FOURTH STREET Postmodernism ANKENY, IOWA 50023 By Douglas Brown, PhD FAITH.EDU In Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking Glass, Humpty Dumpty Dr. Jim Tillotson, President and Alice share this playful exchange: Dr. Douglas Brown, Seminary Dean “And only one for birthday presents, you know. There’s glory for you!” Upcoming Modules: “I don’t know what you mean by ‘glory’,” Alice said. August 10-14 Greek Exegesis I Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course you History of Fundamentalism don’t—till I tell you. I meant ‘there's a nice knock-down Contemporary Christianity argument for you!’” August 17-21 “But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down Hermeneutics Introduction to Biblical Counseling argument’,” Alice objected. Prayer: Theology and Praxis “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a September 21-25 scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean— Old Testament Seminar neither more nor less.” Theology Seminar “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” Upcoming Online Classes August 25-October 19 “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be Advanced Soteriology master—that’s all.” Theological Research October 20-December 14 While Carroll wrote long before the rise of postmodernism, his Expositional Messages fictional dialogue anticipated the hermeneutical chaos raised in postmodern thinking. We see Alice’s confusion and January 13-March 8 Humpty Dumpty’s disdain. Alice can’t quite wrap her mind Denominational Theology Baptism: History, Theology, & Practice Dr. Brown: Biblical Hermeneutics and Postmodernism around what Humpty Dumpty and trustworthy and therefore reconstruction. Kevin is saying; meanwhile Humpty authoritative. Truth was Vanhoozer affirms, “While Dumpty appears to enjoy the thought to exist “from modern historical critics may confusion his semantic above,” as revealed by God. not view the authors of the wordplay is causing. This is the It was objective and Bible as inspired, the original same kind of confusion knowable. In the area of meaning remains the object postmoderns champion. hermeneutics there was a of interpretation for them as Carroll’s fantasy has become variety of approaches toward well.”1 In relation to the Bible, reality. Postmodernism raises the Bible. Most premodern this led to the historical critical fundamental questions about theologians, however, shared method.2 Historical criticism the validity of a common understanding led to entrenched skepticism communication. Questions that the meaning of the text and anti-supernaturalism such as, where does meaning could be uncovered and about the Bible’s historicity. originate? Who (or what) understood. There was Historical critics demanded controls meaning? How do confidence that God’s that biblical miracles must be we know what truth is? Is truth authorial intent in Scripture interpreted with the objective and knowable? Is could be discovered though experience of today. In other communication even the study of God’s Word. words, since modernists did possible? not see or experience The Enlightenment marked miracles, they believed that The purpose of this article is to the beginning of the modern miracles simply are not help believers better era in Western thought. With possible. Vanhoozer understand postmodernism the rise of reason in religion summarizes the similarity and how postmodern thinking and philosophy, rationalism between the premodern and has affected the became the accepted the modern eras: “the pursuit interpretation of the Bible. authority. The supernaturalism of premodernity and After exploring the historical of the Bible came under modernity alike shared a roots of postmodernism, we attack as theologians began similar aim in interpretation: to will discuss what postmodern to doubt the miraculous. The recover the meaning of the hermeneutics looks like and miracles of the Bible were text, understood in terms of how it has crept into accounted for or explained the intention of the author. Christianity. Finally, I will offer away through natural means. In short, the author’s intention some guidance for how Truth was still thought to be is the object of traditional followers of Christ should objective and knowable, but interpretation, the longed-for respond to postmodernism. instead of coming from God it ‘home of meaning’ where was found in the material the author’s will, words, and The Rise of Postmodernism world. Truth was thought to world coincide.”3 In order to understand be discovered primarily postmodernism, it is helpful to through rational and Many believe that survey its historical empirical means—the postmodernism, which arose background. Scholars scientific method. Generally, in the second half of the basically divide Western modernists believed they twentieth century, is the thought into three basic eras: could investigate and gather logical outcome of premodernism, modernism, data objectively without bias. modernism:4 “Postmodernism and postmodernism. In the Hermeneutically, modernism is a reaction (or perhaps more premodern worldview, there asserted that the meaning of appropriately, a disillusioned was a basic belief in God. The a text can be discovered response) to modernism’s Bible was accepted as true primarily through historical failed promise of using human Dr. Brown: Biblical Hermeneutics and Postmodernism Dr. Douglas Brown Doug Brown (PhD, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School) is the academic dean and senior professor of Biblical Studies at Faith Baptist Theological Seminary. He has taught at Faith since 1999 and serves as an assistant pastor at Faith Baptist Church in Cambridge, Iowa. reason alone to better postmodernism sees truth The ramifications of mankind and make the as relative and subjective. postmodernism have been world a better place.”5 Each interpreter creates his catastrophic not only in Postmodernism finds its or her own truth. What is hermeneutics but across roots in existential true for one may not be society. Morally, people philosophy as expressed in true for another. The have abandoned especially the writings of ultimate authority is not absolutes and opted for Martin Heidegger. One of found in God radical relativism. Right is its defining goals is the (premodernism), the world now wrong, and wrong is disavowal of objective (modernism), but the right. Culturally, society has truth.6 For postmoderns, individual. D. A. Carson plunged headlong into truth is not something to be states this well: radical pluralism.9 It is no found or discovered. This “Postmodernism is an longer acceptable to hold type of pursuit is impossible outlook that depends not a exclusive beliefs. In fact, for a couple of reasons. little on what are perceived one is expected to First, truth cannot be to be the fundamental approve others’ beliefs. discovered because every limitations on the power of Tolerance is now society’s interpreter is laden with pre- interpretation: that is, since greatest virtue. In relation to understanding and biases interpretation can never be religion, postmodernism that prevent him from more than my leads ultimately to seeing outside his own interpretation or our universalism. situation. Second, interpretation, no purely Hermeneutically, it has led postmoderns reject the objective stance is to the abandonment of existence of universal possible.”8 Truth is merely truth and the absence of metanarratives to explain how each individual meaning. As an absolute, the world—absolute truths perceives it. postmodernism espouses do not exist in postmodern the untenable conundrum thinking.7 Instead, that no one can claim the Dr. Brown: Biblical Hermeneutics and Postmodernism truth. Carson asserts, thinking, the reader not only meaning.16 Following Friedrich “Philosophical pluralism has controls the meaning but Nietzsche, he attacked generated many approaches actually creates it. The text is Western philosophy and in support of one stance: merely an opportunity to especially traditional views on namely, that any notion that explore the reader’s own epistemology—the theory of a particular ideological or perspectives. Vanhoozer knowledge and truth. In order religious claim is intrinsically explains: “Postmodernity is the to better grasp superior to another is triumph of situatedness—in postmodernism, one must necessarily wrong.”10 Abdu race, gender, class—over begin to wade into the Murray claims that the culture detached objectivity. quagmire of epistemology, is now post-truth.11 The Oxford Postmoderns typically think of metaphysics, and theories of Dictionary, which selected interpretation as a political truth.17 Adu-Gyamfi “post-truth” as its 2016 word of act, a means of colonizing summarizes this well: the year, defines it as and capturing texts and “relating to or denoting whole fields of discourse.”14 “Postmodernism permits the circumstances in which reader unlimited freedom in objective facts are less The autonomy of the reader is reading, complete influential in shaping public seen in the field of autonomy, the liberty or opinion than appeals to poststructuralism, for license to interpret the text emotion and personal example. Poststructuralists see without restraint. Once the belief.”12 Murray explains that a text as a web of signs with text is empty of any objective in post-truth thinking facts are infinite possible meanings—a content, it is open to any subordinated to preferences. playground for playing number of readings. So the semantic games.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Catechism in the Worshiping Community B Y G E Ra L D J
    Copyright © 2007 Center for Christian Ethics at Baylor University Catechism in the Worshiping Community B Y G E ra L D J . Ma ST How much of Christian teaching should be explanation and how much example? Without denying the significance of words, the books reviewed here explore the neglected significance of worship and everyday practices in shaping the hearts and minds of growing believers. n passing along the faith to the next generation of church members, how much of Christian teaching should be explanation and how much Iexample? Is the faith best described or best performed? Are we most persuaded by word or by deed? Without denying the significance of words, many recent authors of books about doctrine and catechism emphasize the neglected significance of liturgical and everyday practice in shaping the minds and bodies of growing believers. Perhaps the best explanation for this turn to the performative in theories of catechism can be found in a massive new volume on theological method which argues that doctrine can best be conceived as a drama—a stage on which the enactment of Scripture unfolds in the life of the Church. In his book, The Drama of Doctrine (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2005, 488 pp., $39.95), Kevin Vanhoozer, Research Professor of Systematic Theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, relies extensively on the work of Catholic theologian Han Urs von Balthasar to develop the claim that “what lies at the heart of gospel is not an idea or an ideal or an experi- ence, but an action” (p. 50). Vanhoozer positions his work at the edge of changing understandings about the meaning of doctrine.
    [Show full text]
  • Theological Interpretation of Scripture: Yes, But
    Chapter 12 Theological Interpretation of Scripture: Yes, But D.A. Carson Theological Interpretation of Scripture (TIS) is partly disparate movement, partly a call to reformation in biblical interpretation, partly a disorganized array of methodological commitments in hermeneutics, partly a serious enter­ prise and partly (I suspect) a fad. Different writers speak of TIS in fairly diverse ways. One might even argue that some people who offer the best theological interpretation of Scripture (note the lowercase letters) have very little con­ nection with the movement known as TIS: one need search no farther than the honoree of this volume, whose astonishing range of expertise includes competent exegesis ofthe documents of both Testaments, an impressive grasp of the history of interpretation, a deep understanding of many nuances in the patristic period, in the Reformation age, and in contemporary (especially European) theology, and whose interpretation of Scripture is never flaccid or narrowly historical, but invariably profoundly theological. If all who align themselves with TIS were committed to pursuing the kind of theological inter­ pretation of Scripture exemplified in the writings of Henri Blocher (most of whose work, sadly, has never been translated into English), the chapter I am now writing would be very different. Another writer who does not connect his work with TIS but who is traveling down a parallel path is Peter Leithart,l who prefers to speak of entering into the depths of the text. Always evocative and sometimes provocative, Leithart provides another parallel to the TIS tradition: his actual handling of biblical texts, while invariably stimulating, is less frequently convincing.2 As I worked to canvas the literature, I had expected to write something that said "Yes" to an array of important points, and then to introduce my list of objections or questions with "But"-and indeed, not a few have written essays 1 See especially his Deep Exegesis: The Mystery ofReading Scripture (Waco, TX: Baylor University, 2009).
    [Show full text]
  • Putting on Christ: Spiritual Formation and the Drama of Discipleship
    Journal of Spiritual Formation & Soul Care Copyright 2015 by Institute for Spiritual Formation 2015, Vol. 8, No. 2, 147–171 Biola University, 1939-7909 Putting on Christ: Spiritual Formation and the Drama of Discipleship Kevin J.• Vanhoozer Trinity Evangelical Divinity School Abstract. C. S. Lewis called for spiritual formation long before the term became pop- ular: “Every Christian is to become a little Christ. The whole purpose of becoming a Christian is simply nothing else” (Mere Christianity, 171). Lewis’s call to become little Christs recalls Paul’s exhortation to “put off” the old self and “put on” Christ. This paper explores what this change of costume involves from the perspective of what a “theodramatic” approach to theology that I have developed in The Drama of Doctrine and Faith Speaking Understanding. I there argue that the role of doctrine is to (1) indicate what is in Christ and (2) direct those in Christ to participate in Christ by playing their parts in the drama of redemption. This theatrical model raises an important issue concerning the disciple’s self-understanding: Is it healthy for Chris- tians to think in terms of “acting out” what is “in Christ” (their new identities as Christ’s disciples) or does this encourage a false sense of self – a “put on”? I respond to this question in four steps where I (1) present a theodramatic anthropology, (2) describe discipleship as the project of growing into/putting on Christ, (3) consider three objections to my previous work about the relationship between persons/roles and role-playing, and (4) respond to the objections by offering a dogmatic descrip- tion of putting on Christ (i.e., spiritual formation) in soteriological, pneumatologi- cal, and eschatological terms.
    [Show full text]
  • The Multiple Self: Exploring Between and Beyond Modernity and Postmodernity John A
    University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository Minnesota Law Review 1997 The ultM iple Self: Exploring between and beyond Modernity and Postmodernity John A. Powell Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Powell, John A., "The ultM iple Self: Exploring between and beyond Modernity and Postmodernity" (1997). Minnesota Law Review. 1669. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr/1669 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Minnesota Law Review collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Multiple Self: Exploring Between and Beyond Modernity and Postmodernity john a. powell* [W]e are all androgynous, not only because we are all born of a woman impregnated by the seed of a man but because each of us, help- lessly and forever, contains the other-male in female, female in male, white in black, and black in white. We are a part of each other... [Nione of us can do anything about it. -James Baldwin' I frequently have difficulty sorting out how to think about a number of issues in my life. The problem is not so much that I do not know what I think and feel. Instead, it is that I think and feel many different and conflicting things2 and I do not have the capacity to simply sort them out. Sometimes, I let the different voices engage each other in a dialogue and find an intrasubjective solution.
    [Show full text]
  • “Te Great Merit of Köstenberger's and Patterson's Volume Is Its Three
    “!e great merit of Köstenberger’s and Patterson’s volume is its three- dimension account of biblical interpretation. !e authors rightly focus on the history, literature, and theology of the Bible—what they call the hermeneutical triad. Call it hermeneutics in real 3-D. A three-stranded hermeneutical cord may not be easily broken, but it’s easy to grasp by fol- lowing this introductory textbook. Another merit is the authors’ reminder that biblical interpretation is not only about method but about virtue: a heart-felt humility before the divine text is as important as any heady procedure.” —Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Blanchard Professor of !eology, Wheaton College Graduate School “I am "lled with admiration. I learned much from this vigorous book. It is a work of great clarity that summarizes the best principles of general hermeneutics with the best principles of biblical interpretation. Professor Köstenberger’s and Patterson’s students are lucky to have such a trenchant and learned guide—and so are the readers of this "ne book.” —E. D. Hirsch, Jr., Professor Emeritus of Education & Humanities, University of Virginia and Founder, Core Knowledge Foundation “!ere are certain topics of must-reading for serious Bible students— hermeneutics is at the top. !ere are certain books of must-reading for a topic—Andreas Köstenberger’s work on hermeneutics is one of them. It is clear, concise, and yet deep, and manages to cover most of the needed areas. !us it becomes an invaluable guide for the student working through the labyrinth of issues that make up the task of biblical interpretation.
    [Show full text]
  • Modernity Versus Postmodernity Author(S): Jürgen Habermas and Seyla Ben-Habib Source: New German Critique, No
    Modernity versus Postmodernity Author(s): Jürgen Habermas and Seyla Ben-Habib Source: New German Critique, No. 22, Special Issue on Modernism (Winter, 1981), pp. 3-14 Published by: New German Critique Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/487859 . Accessed: 14/01/2014 13:17 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. New German Critique and Duke University Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to New German Critique. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 128.59.129.186 on Tue, 14 Jan 2014 13:17:35 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Modernityversus Postmodernity* by JiirgenHabermas Last year,architects were admittedto theBiennial in Venice, following paintersand filmmakers.The note sounded at thisfirst Architecture Bien- nial was o'he of disappointment.I would describe it by sayingthat those who exhibitedin Venice formedan avant-gardeof reversedfronts. I mean that theysacrificed the traditionof modernityin orderto make roomfor a new historicism.Upon thisoccasion, a criticof the German newspaper, FrankfurterAllgemeine Zeitung, advanced a thesis whose significance reaches beyond thisparticular event; it is a diagnosisof our times:"Post- modernitydefinitely presents itselfas Antimodernity."This statement describesan emotionalcurrent of our timeswhich has penetratedall spheres of intellectuallife.
    [Show full text]
  • The Rise and Domestication of Historical Sociology
    The Rise and Domestication of" Historical Sociology Craig Calhoun Historical sociology is not really new, though it has enjoyed a certain vogue in the last twenty years. In fact, historical research and scholarship (including comparative history) was central to the work of many of the founders and forerunners of sociology-most notably Max Weber but also in varying degrees Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim, and Alexis de Tocqueville among others. It was practiced with distinction more recently by sociologists as disparate as George Homans, Robert Merton, Robert Bellah, Seymour Martin Lipset, Charles Tilly, J. A. Banks, Shmuel Eisenstadt, Reinhard Bendix, Barrington Moore, and Neil Smelser. Why then, should historical sociology have seemed both new and controversial in the 1970s and early 1980s? The answer lies less in the work of historical sociologists themselves than in the orthodoxies of mainstream, especially American, sociology of the time. Historical sociologists picked one battle for themselves: they mounted an attack on modernization theory, challenging its unilinear developmental ten- dencies, its problematic histori<:al generalizations and the dominance (at least in much of sociology) of culture and psycllology over political economy. In this attack, the new generation of historical sociologists challenged the most influential of their immediate forebears (and sometimes helped to create the illusion that historical sociology was the novel invention of the younger gener- ation). The other major battle was thrust upon historical sociologists when many leaders of the dominant quantitative, scientistic branch of the discipline dismissed their work as dangerously "idiographic," excessively political, and in any case somehow not quite 'real' sociology. Historical sociology has borne the marks of both battles, and in some sense, like an army always getting ready to fight the last war, it remains unnecessarily preoccupied with them.
    [Show full text]
  • Editorial: Postanarchism
    Editorial: Postanarchism SAUL NEWMAN Postanarchism is emerging as an important new current in anarchist thought, and it is the source of growing interest and debate amongst anarchist activists and scholars alike, as well as in broader academic circles. Given the number of internet sites, discussion groups, and new books and journal publications appearing on postanarchism, it is time that the challenges it poses to classical anarchist thought and practice are taken more seriously. Postanarchism refers to a wide body of theory – encompassing political theory, philosophy, aesthetics, literature and film studies – which attempts to explore new directions in anarchist thought and politics. While it includes a number of different perspectives and trajectories, the central contention of postanarchism is that classical anarchist philosophy must take account of new theoretical directions and cultural phenomena, in particular, postmodernity and poststructuralism. While these theoretical categories have had a major impact on different areas of scholarship and thought, as well as politics, anarchism tends to have remained largely resistant to these developments and continues to work within an Enlightenment humanist epistemological framework1 which many see as being in need of updating. At the same time, anarchism – as a form of political theory and practice – is becoming increasingly important to radical struggles and global social movements today, to a large extent supplanting Marxism. Postanarchism seeks to revitalise anarchist theory in light of these new struggles and forms of resistance. However, rather than dismissing the tradition of classical anarchism, postanarchism, on the contrary, seeks to explore its potential and radicalise its possibilities. It remains entirely consistent, I would suggest, with the libertarian and egal- itarian horizon of anarchism; yet it seeks to broaden the terms of anti-authoritarian thought to include a critical analysis of language, discourse, culture and new modalities of power.
    [Show full text]
  • "Political Postmodernity." Anarchism and Political Modernity. New York: Continuum, 2012
    Jun, Nathan. "Political postmodernity." Anarchism and Political Modernity. New York: Continuum, 2012. 155–186. Contemporary Anarchist Studies. Bloomsbury Collections. Web. 25 Sep. 2021. <http://dx.doi.org/10.5040/9781501306785.ch-006>. Downloaded from Bloomsbury Collections, www.bloomsburycollections.com, 25 September 2021, 23:20 UTC. Copyright © Nathan Jun 2012. You may share this work for non-commercial purposes only, provided you give attribution to the copyright holder and the publisher, and provide a link to the Creative Commons licence. 6 Political postmodernity Defi ning postmodernity One of my foremost goals has been to show that anarchism, both historically and theoretically, has constituted a movement beyond political modernity. At the highest level of generality, I have defi ned political modernity in terms of representation—representation of the subject, of society, of the world, of the relationships among them. To the extent that anarchism has distinguished itself chiefl y as a critique of, and alternative to, representation, to the extent that it has moved beyond the discourse of political modernity, it is fair to say that I have achieved this goal. But I want to go a step further and reiterate a claim I made earlier—namely, that anarchism is rightly termed the fi rst “postmodern” political philosophy. Rudolf Pannwitz, who was the fi rst to use “postmodern” as a sociological term de l’art in 1917, defi ned postmodernity as “nihilism and the collapse of values in contemporary European culture.” 1 If we generalize (and soften) Pannwitz’s defi nition a bit—such that “postmodern” refers only to what is generally opposed to, or stands outside, or moves beyond modernity— there is nothing anachronistic about calling the anarchists “postmodern,” especially in juxtaposition to what I identifi ed as characteristically “modern” in previous chapters.
    [Show full text]
  • How Far Beyond Chicago? Assessing Recent Attempts to Reframe the Inerrancy Debate — Jason S
    Themelios 34.1 (2009): 26-49 How Far Beyond Chicago? Assessing Recent Attempts to Reframe the Inerrancy Debate — Jason S. Sexton — Jason Sexton is a licensed minister with the Evangelical Free Church of America and PhD candidate in Systematic Theology at The University of St. Andrews, Scotland. he doctrine of inerrancy has been a watershed issue among evangelicals in the West, perhaps now Tmore evident than ever.1 While the inerrancy debate never entirely dissipated from its last spell in the late 1970s and early 1980s, it recently surged to the forefront of discussions about an evan- gelical doctrine of Scripture both in North America and abroad. This transpired with recent events in the Evangelical Theological Society (hereafter, ETS) dealing with inerrancy2 and fresh publications of at least a dozen books, articles, and reviews.3 With this new rally, one might say that evangelicalism is 1 It was designated a “watershed” over three decades ago by Harold Lindsell, The Battle for the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), 26–27, and eight years later by Francis A. Schaeffer, The Great Evangelical Disaster (Wheaton: Crossway, 1984), 44. The degree of watershed was challenged early by Richard H. Bube, “Inerrancy Is/Is Not the Watershed of Evangeli- calism: None of the Above,” Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation 29 (March 1977): 46–47, who called for “revelational inerrancy,” asserting that the term “inerrancy” outlived its usefulness. Some, however, see the inerrancy debate as a watershed for other reasons—because of a “classically modern” view of truth that made inerrancy the “foundational Christian doctrine upon which all others depend.” Jeffery Stephen Oldfield, “The Word Became Text and Dwells Among Us? An Examination of the Doctrine of Inerrancy” (PhD thesis, University of St Andrews, 2007), 232–33.
    [Show full text]
  • Existentialism, Globalisation and the Cultural Other Gavin Sanderson Flinders University [email protected]
    International Education Journal Vol 4, No 4, 2004 Educational Research Conference 2003 Special Issue http://iej.cjb.net 1 Existentialism, Globalisation and the Cultural Other Gavin Sanderson Flinders University [email protected] Globalisation is not a new phenomenon but the world has never before been subject to global forces that are characterised by such extensity, intensity, velocity and impact. Modern technology and communications effectively compress human time and space and we regard the world as a smaller place. One outcome of this has been greater contact with the ‘Cultural Other’. No longer can we think of ‘strangers and the strange’ as dislocated entities that are peripheral to our own lives1. For this to be a positive experience for all parties, there are some shortcomings to acknowledge and some hurdles to overcome. Concisely, we have been inconsistent in our efforts to connect with the Cultural Other. Furthermore, current neo-liberal globalisation agendas would not seem to augur well for improving on this record. This paper examines our contemporary engagement with the Cultural Other from an existential perspective and introduces the idea of the ‘fear of the unknown’ as a foundation of our difficulty in accepting Otherness. It also offers a way forward by means of the internationalisation of the self. Existentialism, Globalisation, Cultural Other, ‘Known Unknown’, Internationalisation INTRODUCTION This paper was originally going to focus on the impact of world events on tertiary education in Australia. The more thought that was given to the foundation themes it dealt with, however, the more it was realised that they are neither new nor exclusive to education, yet they are at the same critical to it.
    [Show full text]
  • Poststructuralism and Postmodernism in International Relations
    Poststructuralism and Postmodernism in International Relations Poststructuralism and Postmodernism in International Relations Aslı Çalkıvik Subject: International Relations Theory Online Publication Date: Nov 2017 DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.013.102 Updates to sections “Disciplinary Context of the Poststructural/Postmodern Turn” and “Poststructural/Postmodern Approaches in IR”; new section “On Value and Develop­ ment,” references, and links to digital materials. Updated on 31 March 2020. The previous version of this content can be found here. Summary and Keywords Poststructural/postmodern international relations (IR) is a mode of critical thinking and analysis that joined disciplinary conversations during the 1980s and, despite the dismis­ sive reception it has initially faced, it is a vibrant and expanding area of research within the field today. Providing a radical critique of politics in modernity, it is less a new para­ digm or theory. Instead, it is better described as “a critical attitude” that focuses on the question of representation and explores the ways in which dominant framings of world politics produce and reproduce relations of power: how they legitimate certain forms of action while marginalizing other ways of being, thinking, and acting. To elaborate the in­ sights of poststructuralism/postmodernism, the article starts off by situating the emer­ gence of these critical perspectives within the disciplinary context and visits the debates and controversies it has elicited. This discussion is followed by an elaboration of the ma­ jor themes and concepts of poststructural/postmodern thought such as subjectivity, lan­ guage, text, and power. The convergences and divergences between poststructuralism and its precursor—structuralism—is an underlying theme that is noted in this article.
    [Show full text]