Customer Reviews

Theology and Social Theory (Signposts in Theology)

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Theology and Social Theory boldly argues that political economics, sociology and other forms of classical social theory are far from scientific. Many will not consider this news. Milbank's reasons are, however, novel. He persuasively contends that these social "sciences" are riddled through and through with theological premises and heretical ones at that! Milbank demonstrates that the social sciences provide theoretical groundwork for secular (read anti-Christian) praxis. Social scientific definitions of religion, for example, restrict religion to a purely private realm and thereby create autonomous space for unjust economic and social practices. Defanging Christianity by inventing "religion" makes room for secularity. Milbank's conclusion: theologians who take their cue from social theory fall captive to false theological claims and so sell their souls for a mess of pottage. Agree or not, Milbank must be read

Milbank appears to have struck a nerve. A glance at the user profile of the writer below will you give you a sense of where this guy is coming from. In effect this "review" is a fairly desperate attempt to circle the wagons around the dogmas of the left-academic establishment. The point that is missed here (and it's one of the keys to Milbank's argument) is that these folks do indeed have not just "assumptions" but dogmas, comprising in effect a secular, materialist religion, one that sees nothing at work in the world except amoral "power relations." (The only thing that matters in the end is who has the power.) That there are still people out there who can be moved to a spirited defense of this point of view, which has served as the ideological foundation of so many of the horrors of the 20th century, is more than a little depressing.

Milbank begins, "Once there was no secular..." and goes on to argue convincingly that the entire idea of a secular sphere is a creation of secular reason (social theory). The secular is a sphere of violence, present in antiquity, interupted by Christianity, and then through the Church's failure to imagine and practice peace, unleashed in a more pure form. Secular theory and practice are, ontologically violent and are born of the pagan stories of violent creation and stand in contrast to the Christian creation story of peaceful emanation.

The boldness of Milbank's thesis is matched by his thorough analysis of and engagment with secular social theorists from Machiavelli to Deleuze. Milbank dedicates most of the book to a re-narration of the history of secular social theory from the perspective of Christian theology. This serves to unmask the secular as one way of living in the world and not inevitably the way things are. Milbank calls for theology to stop deferring to secular social theory and to recognize itself as an alternative to the secular, as the social theory for "the other city," the city of God. An impressive and inspiring book.

This is a large work that I would only recommended to scholars and graduate students that have done quite a bit of reading in social theory prior to cracking open this book. I found myself that I enjoyed those chapters more in which I was more familar with the texts and ideas being studied. Other parts of the book left me wanting to do more background reading. It is obvious that Milbank has an incredibly erudite knowledge of both theology and social theory, and it seems to me that this a text that can be quite easily misunderstood. For the patient, however, I believe that its contents are a powerful message for Christian theology that just now seems to be able to see itself as philosphically on par with the Enlightenment tradition and its successors beyond apologetics. Milbank's critique the servility of theology behind the profane narratives of humanity and history and ends his work with the articulation of a Neo-Platonist, Christian alternative. Of course, it pisses some people off, since it refuses to bow to popular assertions such as "Christianity is a tool for supporting and promoting patriarchal domination," and other such tripe.

Milbank's work is dense, frustrating, painfully difficult, and nothing less than brilliant. Not only does he persuasively demythologize modernity's own demythologization of Christianity, he levels the great icons of the post/modern age in the process! As the cover states, this book is a 'tour de force' of the highest degree, and truly epic in proportions. As one completes the final page (not a small feat indeed!) one is left with the sentiment that western history might just need to be rewritten.

"Milbank could have taken a course in how to be understood by the common man.

Thesis: Milbank convincingly argues that secular modernity is built upon presuppositions that are just as religious as those of Christianity. Even worse, they rest upon a more shaky foundation of faith. Milbank argues that modern discussions of "secular" reason are historically off-center. There was a time when there was no secular. The saeculum used to refer to the time between the Advents. Now it refers to the area off-limits to Jesus. It now has spatial, rather than temporal significance.

Milbank notes that "secular" disciplines such as sociology have their own religious presuppositions which they then import upon the theological. In other words, all disciplines have their own "story to tell." All of these stories are built upon religious presuppositions. It is Milbank's contention that the Christian story is the best one. Milbank then critiques communism, capitalism, and Durkheimian sociologies. This was a hard section to read and I really didn't understand it. Milbank goes through a thorough interaction with postmodernism, noting that postmodern scholars see an "ontology of violence." Given the modern reality, such ontologies are inevitable. This is arguably the most important section of the book since it sets the stage for Milbank's later works. He ends with an Augustian discussion of an "ontology of peace."

Problems with the book: I can read 5 or 6 languages and have read hundreds of books of upper level theology and philosophy and most of the time I had no idea what Milbank was talking about. In order to get more out of the book, I recommend the following:

1) read the book through the first time. Simply write off as a temporary loss the stuff you don't understand.
2) read some of the guys with whom Milbank interacts: Marx, Ruskin, Derrida, MacIntyre, etc. This makes some of the more difficult chapters easier to understand.
3) reread the book. It *will* become clearer and offer a fresh vision for a public faith.

Good Parts of the Book: For those who can understand it (all six of them), this book is the beginning of the end of modern politics and can hopefully point us toward a pre-modern society.

Milbank's Theology and Social Theory is a large and complex text that put Milbank and subsequent Radical Orthodoxy on the theological map. Its second edition (reviewed here) has a helpful and clarifying introduction to this trajectory. (Theology and Social Theory was first published in 1990; its 2nd ed. in 2006). Critical and sweeping, the argument and subsequent effect of this book in theology make it essentially a postmodern theological polemic.

As the subtitle suggests, Milbank's book attempts to move "beyond" secular reason. His indictment of secularity and its modern forms of social and philosophical thought - as well as all theological traditions that borrow or depend on them - is that they are varieties of paganism.

Milbank's critique and argument are mainly against all forms of modern theology: its underpinnings in classic liberalism and Kantian epistemology, as well as all forms of liberation theology, with their indebtedness to Hegelian/Marxist perspectives on history and existentialism (which Milbank speaks much less of).

Milbank's chief intellectual opponents, alluded to amidst his sweeping critiques, are Kant (his critique of metaphysics, unknowable ding-an-sich, and autonomous subject), Hegel/Marx (phenomenology and dialecticism), and the autonomy of naturalism and secular reason at the heart of modern social theory. Milbank methodologically rejects (while borrowing from) all forms of dialecticism, positivism, or autonomous claims of rationality or universality in accessing "truth." He argues these methodological assumptions and corresponding presuppositions as arbitrary and deconstructable, arguing they erect circular and self-referential (he quips tautological) theories.

Milbank argues that liberalism is a formalism that rests on the false project of secularity, human freedom. He rejects this because of its ontological individualism and hypostatizing of difference and arbitrary forces of power.

Milbank's claims his answer is thoroughly postmodern. In response to the failure and miscarriage of secularity (which he rightly acknowledges as a "child" of the Church), Milbank argues a (paradoxical?) particular Catholic Christian orthodoxy via Augustine, one which he does not argue as the true universal, but rather logically more desirable to the chaos of arbitrary forces, formalism, and ontology of violence at the heart of secularity and liberal theory. Staying true to his ontological grounding, he argues that the foundations and underpinnings of secular reason - in all its forms of liberalism, positivism, and dialecticism - are the result of a narrative structure. He, then, suggests that the particularity and distinct Christian mythos and corresponding ontology are a more desirable alternative. This mythos and ontology come via Augustine (mainly Civitas Dei), who offers a peaceful counter-ontology that counters the ontology of violence assumed in postmodern discovery of difference, as well as a counter-ethics (ecclesiology) that is grounded in Jesus Christ and continues through his body, the Church.

I think Milbank's interpretation of social theory and his sweep of argument are intriguing, with its implications and force of argument more important than his involved and sometimes obscure critical dialogue with his intellectual opponents. While opening some critical spaces for critical reflection and questions, I think Milbank short-sells and even mistreats liberation theology, some postmodern philosophers, and the development of social theory. Some of the critical theory of the Frankfort School, which he refers to but wants to overcome, do a better job of critiquing positivism and science, I think. He is obviously indebted to this tradition, but moves quickly to his ontological argument instead. (Milbank's critique of Marx, to which this school is indebted, noted.)

In the end, Theology and Social theory is shaped by a particular hermeneutic - that of the failure and crisis of the modern project. Milbank is self-confessedly interested in metanarrative in this book. Thus, that seems to be how he reads most everyone he critiques - from an almost obscuring meta-level. While creative and brilliant, in this mode his critiques often short-shrift a clearer and more representative treatment of the figures he's taking on. It leads one to want to dig deeper to see if the substance of Milbank's sweeping criticism is really there.

Of course, under the tutelage of Milbank's ontological argument - what falls short of Christian theology falls short because its substance is not really there.

This book is a challenging read for students, and yet well worth the time spent working through it. Keep a philosophical dictionary at your side while reading the introduction.

John Milbank's title - `Theology and Social Theory' - is important - for it means something like `Christian theology and Pagan theology'. Social theory is pagan theology. Milbank believes we should see a straight confrontation between `The Christians' and the sinister new social engineers.

Milbank tells us that the West tradition is not one tradition. It is has always been two contesting traditions, Christian, and something else that usually remains nameless, but which he just calls paganism. Paganism has always been around, right through the high days of Christendom. It is a constant temptation, and the secular or modern world is its latest revival. So the modern secular world is not non-religious. It just relates to an alternative religion, not the Christian one, but a pagan one.
You may say that secular modernity does not look particularly religious. That is because secularity doesn't need to make its belief system explicit. But it is the job of Christian theologians to make explicit what that system is. Modernity is the classical religion of pagan Greece and Rome back again, back not explicitly as religion, but back as a mode of social engineering, and the atomising logic it produces. Social theory, and the social sciences therefore, decide that we are individuals, by definition individuated and divided from one another, so that other people are by nature a problem, a problem that always solves itself one way or another, by exercise of power, that is, by some individuals robbing others of their individuality.

Milbank is, rightly, critical of much contemporary theology because it is gullible enough to believe that what it thinks of new issues, `modern' and `postmodern', really are new. Modern theology has not had the confidence in the Christian tradition to search it for answers to the questions. It has got into the habit of sourcing its ideas from outside. Milbank believes that theology must escape the ghetto of social theory, and stop being merely private religion, an inoffensive metaphorical talk, about our own inner spiritual or emotional states, that has no impact on the world. We can leave this ghetto by following Augustine and the whole catholic Christian intellectual tradition that understands the distinctiveness of the Christian community, the Church. What about everything Milbank has done since 'Theology and Social Theory'? It is all still waiting for one thing to fall into place for Milbank - the doctrine of the God whom Augustine loved.

I purchased the book out of admiration of John Milbank's writing style. I agree with John Milbank's "Red Toryism" and his admiration for the writings of Rowan Williams. His comparison of the status of the Anglican Communion to Eastern Orthodoxy is wishful thinking. His central thesis that reason being divorced from theology is non-sensical is compelling. I prefer his writing in "Radical Orthodoxy." I fail to see the relevance of Slavoj Zizek, whom he cites, to the field of theology.