Postmodernism and Toleration

The trademark of "postmodern" critiques and insights is metaphor of glasses. Or lens, etc. Our individual and community views are each drastically different because of personal and collective histories. I "see" the world radically different from even my next door neighbor because of personal relationships, regional affiliations, religious identity, gender identity, social identity...etc. Postmodernism is right to critique, especially those in the West, those who have controlled most of the power and influence in human community. A Western Sociologist who has stamped a label like "religion" on a way of living and perspective in Asia may be considered abusive to an ancient tradition whose political power dwarfs the influence of the West. Yes, in the USA, we should question our methods of inquiry against a history of imperialism and colonialism.

Certain critiques against "toleration of the other" use the postmodern insight to demonstrate how "toleration" has led to economic, religious, and political disadvantage. I also dislike the word "tolerate" because it hints at passivity or apathy toward global (not to mention diversity within local) neighbors. There are traditions I cannot accept because of endorsements of violence, abuse, greed, and selfishness. For dramatic effect, I cannot accept tribal traditions of human sacrifice or religious dogma that calls for genocide. I will not tolerate injustice to creation: including human life and our environment.

However, I vigilantly seek to honor differences in perspective. I trust the creative God to have planted mustard seeds in the diversity of human culture. Because I honor the love, grace, mystery, and breadth of God I have known in Christianity, I will not simply "tolerate" my religiously different neighbor. I will love her. To love her, I must affirm her, and to affirm her I must know her. To know her, I must seek her out. Yet, I do know her before meeting her, in a way. We are both human. Our shared humanity is the first connection we have and in my humanity I desire the ability to flourish. I must trust her, as a fellow creature, to also desire flourishing. In our desires to flourish, we have a common place to address more demanding issues of our national and international stages.

The Postmodernist wisely cautions against over-generalization and unacknowledged biases. The skeptics of Postmodernism remind us we are not completely alien to one another. Here, in the space where I hoped to work out a decent approach to defining religion, I have succumbed to the individual bias of postmodern theory and have deconstructed with no hint of new theory construction. My theory of religion includes the ancient, the mystical, the political, the economic, the faithful, the now, the social....and the Divine/Ultimate Reality. Because all these dimensions, and more, are part of the human experience. Religion does not remain static...as much as we prefer to think so. If a wisdom teaching or salvific narrative were static and universally understood, then there would be no teachers---no need to record histories of interpretation. "Religion" or tradition requires human participants who are continually transformed by history, culture, and interpersonal relationships. Without humanity, tradition or religion does not exist. Tradition is not an always embodied as an organization, but is usually ingrained as a dimension of human experiences. 

Realization

Entertain yourself with my italicized commentary... such comments are glimpses of a constant humming behind all verbal and written reflection.

The last weeks have afforded the great generosity of temporary employment and intended declaration of intent for an adjunct teaching position. If you ever thought academics have their own coded language and intentionally prevent the common person from understanding, you may be correct. But, I do assure you that academics--generally--do not intentionally pursue the prevention of understanding. The whole enterprise seeks to open up understanding in precise language not limit understanding with careless speech. I had the great occasion to speak with a future boss and assume a chair of the Humanities department would be "on the same page" as a theologian. [Pause for laughter...]

In fact, when I classified myself as a feminist theologian interested in economic and environmental ethics, he did not know what those labels meant. I thought, Uh-oh, now it's time to get theological/philosophical with a philosopher...which has never gone well in the past.The intense and respectful questioning stare of the man increased my nervousness and imprecise use of language. So how do you concisely define feminism? Honesty was my only savior as I told him it had been a while since someone listened to me with such great intensity. I was not prepared for an academic conversation and have been out of practice these last 3.5 months.

Abruptly, the conversation changed toward possibly teaching a course in Spring 2011. Did I pass some secret test? The course would be Introduction to World Religions--a dual humanities and world perspective credit for Associate level students. The prospect of teaching religion is exciting. The realization that I have the power to characterize complex, rich, spiritual, and bodily traditions is terrifying. Why have we designed systems with such roles of highly concentrated power? In this college, I have an additional task of addressing an audience that is not necessarily privileged in the same degree as students in my previous alma maters. It will be a challenge for me to find ways of connecting the world to their worlds and learning from the range of different life paths in the classroom. God help me to be generous.

It never occurred to me in graduate school that I would be teaching a course on world religions. It never occurred to me that I would have a very strong critical reaction to the methodology of a world religion textbook. One introductory text book I read claimed to be "interdisciplinary" but it was truly a historical/sociological lashing against "theologian and religion scholars." After a few chapters, I could articulate in my mind how I found this man's "interdisciplinary" method deficient and downright insulting to students of religion. This critique became a highlight for my first imaginary lecture on the "nature of religion." Congratulations, self, you just realized you actually embody an academic mode. Should someone give you a gold star? Like many experiences in life, you won't recognize yourself or your training until you react to circumstances in a certain way in a different context. I find myself immensely grateful toward my inter-religious dialogue/theology of religion and comparative theology courses. Without them I would not have stumbled across a great teaching resource Subverting Greed or have been seriously considered for this teaching position.