Love and Philology: The Necessity of Christian Ideology
By Travis Timmons
As Richard F. Thomas states, philology is "a relationship of affection,' 'respect,' and 'close proximity' to a 'text,' [which] necessarily involves reverence on the part of the critic toward the text." Despite ideological differences between those critics and scholars who believe that objective truths about language and literature may be discovered using philological methods and those who do not believe this, it is the understanding that philological activity necessitates proximity to texts that provides both structuralist and poststructuralist theorists with the common understanding that "what is at stake, then, is clearly the nature of reading." This is of great importance since the attitude one adopts while "reading" is highly scrutinized in current literary studies. In order to join in this dialogue, one's ideology must be perceived as being inclusive to those who have been previously prevented from participating. Christian critics and scholars are suitably equipped for this task. Affection, respect, and reverence toward "the other" are concepts deeply embedded in Christian doctrine and practiced in daily actions. A Christian who truly practices this ideology can approach all texts with sincere care, an attitude that is attractive in the current environment of critical values that desires to "valorize term B."
Sadly, Christianity is often associated with western hegemony and brutality due to historical episodes such as the Inquisition, the Thirty Years War, and colonial imperialism. This results in the conception that Christian ideology is oppressive. In this regard, the signifier "Christianity" is cloaked in a symbolic mode of representation far removed from its signified—the essence of Christianity. If Christians are to dialogue fruitfully in the poststructuralist environment of literary studies, they must overturn this misrepresentation of Christianity. Christian theorists must demonstrate a humble awareness of negative historical stereotypes and attempt to overturn these through participation in literary studies that achieves trans-cultural connectivity. Christianity, by its very nature, is apt for such engagement.
Before illustrating this, however, a there must be a
clarification. I am not arguing that Christian ideology must be compromised in order for participation in literary studies to be achieved, nor do I advocate such an approach. Rather, I want to show that before Christian critics can be listened to, they need to first listen sincerely to others. The goal for Christian ideology is to be accepted as a legitimate critical voice. Yet this does not mean that tenants of the Christian faith are abandoned in the process. It is reasonable to expect that if Christian critics first demonstrate care in achieving dialogical connectivity, the tenants of Christian ideology can be accepted in the same manner in which it is recognized that postcolonial or feminist theorists have certain tenants that cannot be compromised. A mentality favoring inclusive participation does not necessarily mean compromising an ideological core. Instead, it is the nature of the core beliefs that matters; and this is why Christianity offers a valuable and indispensable critical voice.
Philology concerns the nature of reading. The pertinent question, then, is whether philological methods or ideology—a precondition from our existing in a particular culture and time—determines how we read a text and what interpretative conclusions will be decided upon. Jonathan Culler challenged the assumption that texts can be read outside the framework of ideological preconceptions by arguing that textual interpretation requires ideology that both guides and constrains our application of philological methods. Today this is a commonsensical notion initiating its own set of issues. Barbara Johnson observes: "Reading through expectation ('the screen of received ideas')—rather than through an encounter with the text's language—leads to blindness." She continues that interpretive "blindness" prevents us from encountering "unexpected otherness," preventing us from learning "something one doesn't already know." This awareness leads to asking the question of how each reader is oriented toward a text, and consequently an examination of the ideological framework that influences the reading.The deconstruction movement highlighted certain previous ways of reading that reinforced western modes of dominance over "the other," which Stephen Owen describes as "not immediate, and not immediately one's own." Owen's comment implies that encountering otherness causes surprise because it distant from our own immediate experience. Thus, in order to understand what is "other," it is tempting to first desire it as a possession, using one's ideology to mark it as one's own. Deconstructionists challenged this stance it by demonstrating the instability of existing hierarchies that practiced this form of dominance. For instance, New Critics in the South attempted to explain away the complexity of William Faulkner's novels by claiming that his fiction possesses a homogenous set of values that are "heterosexual, male-centered, white, and Christian." It was not until the advent of post-structuralism in the 1960s that this view was overturned and Faulkner's work was appreciated as a profoundly modern corpus in its complex treatment of sexual, racial, and religious themes. This example poignantly illustrates the agenda of the deconstructionist project and the pejorative categories associated with Christianity, which is grouped with other oppressive and previously dominant ideological values.
The association with oppression, however, could not be farther from the essence of the Christian faith. In reality, poststructuralists ought to find aspects of Christianity complimentary with their own framework. Most importantly, Christian ideology is akin to the deconstructionist project in the sense that it is opposed to ideological movements that practice cruel oppression. Christians are commanded to follow Christ's example of love and concern for humanity. This doctrine is inclusive since it upholds the dignity of all humans. Otherness is treated with respect, not with the desire to possess it. This is congruent with Thomas' definition of philology as "a relationship of'affection,' 'respect,' and 'close proximity' to a 'text.'" A Christian can approach the unfamiliarity of otherness with open reception and legitimate care. Like the Bereans, Christians are called to read carefully. If Christians are truly practicing their faith when engaging in exegesis, they cannot help but be welcomed as concerned members of the literary community.
Nevertheless, the stigmatized signifier "Christianity" still stands. To many critics and scholars "Christianity" stands for dominance and oppression. Responding to this conception is a crucial test for Christians.
If this stigma is to be overturned, it must be done with philological action that does not ignore past oppression or erect elitist barriers between "us" and them." Philology should not be used as a tool to prove that "we" are right and "they" are culturally backward. This antagonistic attitude is unhealthy and will only create further alienation between cultural groups. In order to achieve trans-cultural connectivity, Christians can affirm the common bond provided by human experience and cognition that throughout history has been lived out and is documented in the scriptures, which itself is a treasure-trove of human experience.
The ability to strengthen existing cross-cultural connections is another benefit of Christian ideology. Carolivia Herron argues that philology serves a valuable function in asserting interconnections between works from differing historical periods and cultures in a way that is complimentary and beneficial for both works: "[T]hrough philological tools I can demonstrate that the African oral epic, Ham-Bodedio, was composed in a manner that illuminates the manner in which Milton dictated Paradise Lost." Herron notes that participants on both sides will show interest: "Miltonists are too curious about Milton to stay away from scholarship such as this—they are compelled by their own love of Milton to consider African epic." For Christian critics and scholars, interconnectivity is meaningful within Christian ideology because Christians are called to extend themselves across cultural barriers by action that demonstrates love and concern for all humans in the name of the gospel.
The assertion of textual interconnectivity is a crucial component of poststructuralist theory; it acts as a political counterbalance to ideology emphasizing canonized cultural dominance over lesser-known works. In the instance of Afro-American literature, Herron states that developing interconnections "is a political method for bringing African and Afro-American literature before the minds and considerations of those who hold the power of canonical reading lists in their hands." Christian ideology would be a sympathetic and sincere audience in such cases. Subversive genres, such as Afro-American literature, would be "revalorized," while polemic reactions against hegemony could be defused by the example of Christian ideology.
A Christian ideological identity requires Christians who passionately practice their faith in both their lives and their work. Without this sincerity, Christians will be unable to revalorize the signifier "Christianity" and thus lack a legitimate footing for participating in the contemporary critical environment as commentators on complex issues such as race and gender. If they are excluded from these debates, however, it will be difficult for Christian critics to comment on notions of God's transcendent relationship to language and literature. It is only by beginning this process with Christ-like love that we can achieve participation. Christians are called to imitate the example of Christ in this
respect—to observe, listen, and live actively in our world and apply this passion to literary studies. Christian ideology is an invitation for all people to participate in eternal beatitude. This open hand, however, can only be extended with love and care; established by philological work that searches for comparison and commonality across cultural barriers.
As Richard F. Thomas states, philology is "a relationship of affection,' 'respect,' and 'close proximity' to a 'text,' [which] necessarily involves reverence on the part of the critic toward the text." Despite ideological differences between those critics and scholars who believe that objective truths about language and literature may be discovered using philological methods and those who do not believe this, it is the understanding that philological activity necessitates proximity to texts that provides both structuralist and poststructuralist theorists with the common understanding that "what is at stake, then, is clearly the nature of reading." This is of great importance since the attitude one adopts while "reading" is highly scrutinized in current literary studies. In order to join in this dialogue, one's ideology must be perceived as being inclusive to those who have been previously prevented from participating. Christian critics and scholars are suitably equipped for this task. Affection, respect, and reverence toward "the other" are concepts deeply embedded in Christian doctrine and practiced in daily actions. A Christian who truly practices this ideology can approach all texts with sincere care, an attitude that is attractive in the current environment of critical values that desires to "valorize term B."
Sadly, Christianity is often associated with western hegemony and brutality due to historical episodes such as the Inquisition, the Thirty Years War, and colonial imperialism. This results in the conception that Christian ideology is oppressive. In this regard, the signifier "Christianity" is cloaked in a symbolic mode of representation far removed from its signified—the essence of Christianity. If Christians are to dialogue fruitfully in the poststructuralist environment of literary studies, they must overturn this misrepresentation of Christianity. Christian theorists must demonstrate a humble awareness of negative historical stereotypes and attempt to overturn these through participation in literary studies that achieves trans-cultural connectivity. Christianity, by its very nature, is apt for such engagement.
Before illustrating this, however, a there must be a
clarification. I am not arguing that Christian ideology must be compromised in order for participation in literary studies to be achieved, nor do I advocate such an approach. Rather, I want to show that before Christian critics can be listened to, they need to first listen sincerely to others. The goal for Christian ideology is to be accepted as a legitimate critical voice. Yet this does not mean that tenants of the Christian faith are abandoned in the process. It is reasonable to expect that if Christian critics first demonstrate care in achieving dialogical connectivity, the tenants of Christian ideology can be accepted in the same manner in which it is recognized that postcolonial or feminist theorists have certain tenants that cannot be compromised. A mentality favoring inclusive participation does not necessarily mean compromising an ideological core. Instead, it is the nature of the core beliefs that matters; and this is why Christianity offers a valuable and indispensable critical voice.
Philology concerns the nature of reading. The pertinent question, then, is whether philological methods or ideology—a precondition from our existing in a particular culture and time—determines how we read a text and what interpretative conclusions will be decided upon. Jonathan Culler challenged the assumption that texts can be read outside the framework of ideological preconceptions by arguing that textual interpretation requires ideology that both guides and constrains our application of philological methods. Today this is a commonsensical notion initiating its own set of issues. Barbara Johnson observes: "Reading through expectation ('the screen of received ideas')—rather than through an encounter with the text's language—leads to blindness." She continues that interpretive "blindness" prevents us from encountering "unexpected otherness," preventing us from learning "something one doesn't already know." This awareness leads to asking the question of how each reader is oriented toward a text, and consequently an examination of the ideological framework that influences the reading.The deconstruction movement highlighted certain previous ways of reading that reinforced western modes of dominance over "the other," which Stephen Owen describes as "not immediate, and not immediately one's own." Owen's comment implies that encountering otherness causes surprise because it distant from our own immediate experience. Thus, in order to understand what is "other," it is tempting to first desire it as a possession, using one's ideology to mark it as one's own. Deconstructionists challenged this stance it by demonstrating the instability of existing hierarchies that practiced this form of dominance. For instance, New Critics in the South attempted to explain away the complexity of William Faulkner's novels by claiming that his fiction possesses a homogenous set of values that are "heterosexual, male-centered, white, and Christian." It was not until the advent of post-structuralism in the 1960s that this view was overturned and Faulkner's work was appreciated as a profoundly modern corpus in its complex treatment of sexual, racial, and religious themes. This example poignantly illustrates the agenda of the deconstructionist project and the pejorative categories associated with Christianity, which is grouped with other oppressive and previously dominant ideological values.
The association with oppression, however, could not be farther from the essence of the Christian faith. In reality, poststructuralists ought to find aspects of Christianity complimentary with their own framework. Most importantly, Christian ideology is akin to the deconstructionist project in the sense that it is opposed to ideological movements that practice cruel oppression. Christians are commanded to follow Christ's example of love and concern for humanity. This doctrine is inclusive since it upholds the dignity of all humans. Otherness is treated with respect, not with the desire to possess it. This is congruent with Thomas' definition of philology as "a relationship of'affection,' 'respect,' and 'close proximity' to a 'text.'" A Christian can approach the unfamiliarity of otherness with open reception and legitimate care. Like the Bereans, Christians are called to read carefully. If Christians are truly practicing their faith when engaging in exegesis, they cannot help but be welcomed as concerned members of the literary community.
Nevertheless, the stigmatized signifier "Christianity" still stands. To many critics and scholars "Christianity" stands for dominance and oppression. Responding to this conception is a crucial test for Christians.
If this stigma is to be overturned, it must be done with philological action that does not ignore past oppression or erect elitist barriers between "us" and them." Philology should not be used as a tool to prove that "we" are right and "they" are culturally backward. This antagonistic attitude is unhealthy and will only create further alienation between cultural groups. In order to achieve trans-cultural connectivity, Christians can affirm the common bond provided by human experience and cognition that throughout history has been lived out and is documented in the scriptures, which itself is a treasure-trove of human experience.
The ability to strengthen existing cross-cultural connections is another benefit of Christian ideology. Carolivia Herron argues that philology serves a valuable function in asserting interconnections between works from differing historical periods and cultures in a way that is complimentary and beneficial for both works: "[T]hrough philological tools I can demonstrate that the African oral epic, Ham-Bodedio, was composed in a manner that illuminates the manner in which Milton dictated Paradise Lost." Herron notes that participants on both sides will show interest: "Miltonists are too curious about Milton to stay away from scholarship such as this—they are compelled by their own love of Milton to consider African epic." For Christian critics and scholars, interconnectivity is meaningful within Christian ideology because Christians are called to extend themselves across cultural barriers by action that demonstrates love and concern for all humans in the name of the gospel.
The assertion of textual interconnectivity is a crucial component of poststructuralist theory; it acts as a political counterbalance to ideology emphasizing canonized cultural dominance over lesser-known works. In the instance of Afro-American literature, Herron states that developing interconnections "is a political method for bringing African and Afro-American literature before the minds and considerations of those who hold the power of canonical reading lists in their hands." Christian ideology would be a sympathetic and sincere audience in such cases. Subversive genres, such as Afro-American literature, would be "revalorized," while polemic reactions against hegemony could be defused by the example of Christian ideology.
A Christian ideological identity requires Christians who passionately practice their faith in both their lives and their work. Without this sincerity, Christians will be unable to revalorize the signifier "Christianity" and thus lack a legitimate footing for participating in the contemporary critical environment as commentators on complex issues such as race and gender. If they are excluded from these debates, however, it will be difficult for Christian critics to comment on notions of God's transcendent relationship to language and literature. It is only by beginning this process with Christ-like love that we can achieve participation. Christians are called to imitate the example of Christ in this
respect—to observe, listen, and live actively in our world and apply this passion to literary studies. Christian ideology is an invitation for all people to participate in eternal beatitude. This open hand, however, can only be extended with love and care; established by philological work that searches for comparison and commonality across cultural barriers.
posted by Tim Hoskins at 6:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home