Since the Berger reading and our discussion of social construction and nomos, the first thing that came to my mind was (thanks to my English background) Jacques Derrida and deconstructionist theory. When Berger explained that a primary goal of mankind is finding meaning (logical), I couldn't help but wonder if there were any points at which the idea of nomos came directly in contact (or contradiction) with deconstructionism. I haven't yet had the time to do any looking into that myself, but brief thoughts on it for now:
Deconstructionism, put simply, challenges the attempt to establish an exact meaning - what I read, then, as rather in direct opposition to the idea of nomos... though if we're being tricky, I suppose (as Prof. Staub pointed out) a social constructionist would tell me that it's all socially constructed anyways. That'd be a rather frustrating little discussion/debate, though, wouldn't it? heh...
To relate it to a more recent reading, though, take the Avalos piece on conflict caused by scarcity. Space issues I can get behind, and clearly group privileging - and attitudes of supremacy as a whole - is pretty much bound to cause conflict, yes. But I have a hard time considering his first and last points, "access to God/ inscripturation" and salvation matters of scarcity. If person A believes that they are on the path to salvation, what should it matter if person B is or not? I can't think of any faith that sets an achieving-salvation quota, and how could one consider something scarce if one simultaneously believes that their religion is the way to salvation? ...It's all socially constructed anyways, eh? tut tut... the discussion could go on forever, I think.
*Regarding Derrida and deconstructionism: I once explained it in terms of color blindness tests - I see "x" number in "y" image because of the colorings, but how am I to say my "green" looks the same as your "green"? ...To put it in basic terms, I think. Or check out this little clip of the man himself (though, for the record, I have no explanation for the woman speaking in the last half):
It's a very long time since I studied it, but doesn't Calvinism posit that there is a strictly limited number of the 'elect' - i.e. those destined for salvation? Of course, it doesn't change the political economy of faith or acts, since no-one gets to know who is elect before death, and the decision about who gets saved is God's alone, and no amount of works or faith can change it. I may be misremembering, of course. But I'd be amazed if it is the only faith that argues for limited seating in heaven.
ReplyDeleteAh, yes, valid reminder - Calvinists would tell me that some people are preordained for salvation. As you already noted, though, how much that really changes "the political economy of faith" (well put)... that would have to qualify as a sort of scarcity, sure, but as you said, who is saved is preordained by God, so taking any kind of action (violent or non-violent) wouldn't help you. And the argument was that a "scarcity" of salvation is a cause of conflict...
ReplyDelete