la política del empleo, 1964 (núm 122)
IV. Problemas del empleo asociados con el subdesarrollo económico
One of the core elements of modernity is the need to erect walls and boundaries that will keep the world neatly controlled and divided. Modernity is overly confident in its ability to control – and thereby virtually eradicate – nature, among other things (cf. O Brien 2004:297). So the wall separating religion from politics will stop the irreligious passions from starting a war; the boundary between nature and culture will enable the ordered life to not be tempted by the wild of nature (cf. Leithart 2008:30; Brooklyn College:2009). The fundamental boundary is the “Us” vs “Them”. Martin Buber’s concept of the “I- Thou” relationship is an expression of this (cf. Santrime 2001:61-65) 27. As soon as there is a distinction made between I – Thou, “Us” vs “Them”, there is an opportunity to control that which is not yours. And Modernity is partly founded on the need to control, as well the central idea of progress. Even the word modern hints at the idea of progress. This distinction of “Us” vs “Them” is both temporal and spatial; temporal because it distinguishes sharply between the present and the past, and spatial as it sharply distinguishes between those who are up to date and those who are stuck in a past that the modern person has transcended (cf. Leithart 2008:31). This division extends itself into many other divisions. For example, the thought may go along these lines: “We moderns organise ourselves into rationally constituted nations; They are organised by irrational
27 See Chapter 6.2 in examining how to re-claim Buber’s thoughts
blood-bound tribes. We are rational; they are irrational” (Leithart 2008:32). Between religion, politics, arts, life, culture, these divisions are crated, but the more modern person who believes they have advanced, they have progressed, and they are the curators of creation.
This notion of control extends itself onto the view of creation, and thus the ethical response to creation. The modern notion rest on the thought that
We know nature as it truly is and thus have the ability to control nature in ways they never imagined. We can arrive at certain knowledge of the world through scientific knowledge of the world through scientific investigation; they operate by guesswork, tradition and opinion” [italics added] (Leithart 2008:32).
And this dualistic Modernistic concept of the otherworldly is ecologically problematic; and is seen strongly within the Church as well (cf. Elvey 2006:63). This theory of progress rests on a notion that there is a cut in time; there is all that went before, and there is all that is to come. In the middle, a great divide is dug by the modern thought. And in this divide, one can place “Us”, those who live in the present and are moving to the future, and “them”, those who are still lost in the past (cf. Leithart 2008:32).
Modernity’s efforts to control are also illustrated in the quest to control and define time. Pre-modern thought treated time as a localised enterprise; often each village had their own church clock, which did not matter if it was exactly the same time as the village down the road. As modernism arose the shift came to be that time needed to be correctly regulated and controlled (this was practical in some cases, as the development of Rail Transport meant that time was important to run the train safely). And so the uniformity of
time began to permeate all cultures, and is seen in the fact that all cultures, regardless of their acknowledgement of Christ, celebrated the Millennium (cf. Leithart 2008:29).
Another key component of the modern controlling mind is that of Objectivity. During the middle ages, the mystics held particularity in a very high regards; however, this was another element that was lost during the advance of modernism (cf. Paton 2009). This problem is illustrated when considering the notion of Objectivity as a way of knowing; or more specifically, how the myth of Scientific Objectivity as being the prime way of knowing has been perpetuated. This gift from the “Age of Reason” has also come with a hefty price. It has been a good thing to think big, to think logically and clearly, and think impartially, and in terms of the whole unit. But the hefty price that has developed is that “Objectivity” has become a pernicious myth, which is not only self-contradictory, but has served to eliminate other ways of knowing – especially anything linked to the spiritual part of humanity. “In brief, it is contradictory because it cannot escape its own gravity: the belief that the objective is a superior (or the only) way of knowing what is true, is in itself a subjective belief.” (Paton 2009). Lyotard introduced this idea of “incredulity toward grand narratives’. These grand or metanarrative are an all-inclusive belief system that explains all reality, and thus shapes the view of the world (cf. Erickson 1999:18; Lakeland 1997:35). This theory dismissed two myths – “that science leads to progress or the betterment of humanity, and that science contributes to uncovering the ‘truth.”’. Instead, his views allow for a multiplicity of meaning, each legitimate in its own right (cf. Kretchmar 2008:2).
Thus, the downside of this myth of Scientific Objectivity is that any other approach to truth, whether the personal, the emotional, the spiritual, the traditional, the individual or imaginative are vilified – if not side-lined. This even extends to the way the bible is interpreted and to one’s theology. Soon, the “correct” ways of biblical interpretation (almost always handed to one from an authority above) creates division, creates ‘heretical no-go areas’ and taboos within communities (cf. Paton 2009). This again shows the quest of control, over thought, over life, over God – which leaves little space for questioning, for one to doubt, for one to explore. And inevitably, in the name of this larger, ‘objective’ truth; “individuals who cannot in good conscience “toe the line” are given an ultimatum: our way, or the highway” (Paton 2009).
And this controlling worldview has changed the nature of Christian thought and action as well. Despite the insistence that God is both immanent and transcendent (especially in the Incarnation), the divine transcendent often came to be valued more highly than the material, corporeal immanence of God (cf. Elvey 2006:67-68; Erickson 1998:161-164). This led (and still does lead) to God’s immanence being seen as being dependant on transcendence in the relationship between Creator and creation. The distinction between Creator and creation tends towards dualism when the creator is understood to be active in bringing creation into being. This can result in a view in which God, the primary agent, operates in the world without being part of its essence (cf. Elvey 2006:68). So modernity presents itself as both a fulfilment and a rejection of the impulse of Christianity and medieval Christendom. Christianity had promised that the truth would set one free. This in light of the fact that the Bible begins with a command “take dominion” of creation, to “rule and subdue it” (cf Stravridis 2006). Consequently, as modern civilisation advanced, 58
often at the hands of the missionaries and monks who worked together and brought in new technologies, the new Christian moderns believed that anyone who refused to adopt the better, progressive modern ways, are primitive, and thus lesser. These lesser humans needed to be controlled, to “the glory of God”. And if humanity could be controlled to fulfil God’s will, then obviously the ethical actions towards creation became ones of dominance and control (cf. Leithart 2008:31).
This affected all aspects of theology and ethics. As a result Creator came to be written with a capital and creation with a small letter, which reflects this dualism (cf. Elvey 2006:63). The valuation of ‘Creator over creation’ can fuel a very dualistic rendering of life. Yet the Incarnation and the doctrine of the Trinity suggest a far more complex and dynamic situation (cf Stravridis 2006). In Jesus, God brought together a divine and human agenda and being, and this otherworldliness avoids dualism and offers a chance to the entire cosmos to share in “Gods transcendence of nature” (Elvey 2006:65-66). However a modern worldview fails to comprehend and live out this paradox, but instead, the focus on the otherworld dominates belief.
The otherworldly is the belief that anything that is natural needs to be subordinate to an Idea of God, Truth or Good (cf. Elvey 2006:65 Brooklyn College:2009). Within this dualistic framework, nature and humanity’s place in nature is devalued and insubstantial; the diversity and the interconnectedness of the earth become meaningless (cf. Elvey 2006:65; Wildman 2008)). In general, this dualism leads to an eschewal of responsibility to non-human creatures and the environment in general. This focus on the otherworldly
can at times lead to the extreme of waiting for an earth destroying apocalypse (a common view in Dispensationalist28 theology (cf. Erickson 1998:1168-1170). Even in a moderate form, this leads to a hyper-separation dualism (cf. Elvey 2006:64; 80). This dualism results in a left-right hand right hand split, in which infinite is seen as good; and the remaining matter is seen as a background.
This is especially evident regarding the meaning of death in Christian systems of belief. Often the fact that the meaning of life is elsewhere (in ‘heaven’) is highlighted; not in this world, but in another world that is only accessible to humans (cf. Erickson 1998:1168). The idea the heaven is in another place and that Christians are in an alienated state on earth fuels this dualism, and further separates nature for the Christian understanding of eternal life. This ‘salvation’ is above and beyond the nature and world that is currently inhabited (cf. Elvey 2006:63-64; Stravridis 2006).
So the Particular, under the modern consensus and controlling worldview, has been ousted by the general, by the safe, by that within control. “Take away the particular and you are left with knowledge in place of wisdom.” (Paton 2009). Creation ceased to be seen as having any particular value, rather the treatment and ethics around how creation is treated was based on the idea of the greater good or the bigger story. A small forest in a small impoverished country did not need to be treated or thought of, as God’s big story for humanity to control creation was at work.
28 A school of Eschatology which relies on a complete literal reading of scripture and a belief that the world will be destroyed and that god will tale his servants to a spiritual; heaven. (cf. Erickson 1998:1168-1170).
Again though, one must be careful of being too simplistic when discussing modernity. Modernism claimed many things; one needs to examine whether it actually achieved what IT had claimed (cf. Leithart 2008:36). Max Weber described modernisation as a process of rationalisation and disenchantment. Thus in its truest claim for itself, modernity should bereft of any outside magic and meaning; life will be reduced to scientific precision and mathematical mechanism. Yet this was never the case; the world actually never emptied of wonder. As Leithart (2008:36 - 37) gives as an example; one can take all of the finest classical music and download it and compartmentalise it onto a metal item no smaller than a match box; that fact in itself actually causes one to wonder. “...the world has never been as modernised as moderns hoped and antimoderns feared” (Leithart 2008:37).