/N"EING(UMAN !#ONVERSATIONWITH,ONERGANAND,EVINAS
-ARQUETTE3TUDIESIN4HEOLOGY !NDREW4ALLON EDITOR &REDERICK-"LISS5NDE...
25 downloads
572 Views
1MB Size
Report
This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form
/N "EING (UMAN ! #ONVERSATION WITH ,ONERGAN AND ,EVINAS
-ARQUETTE 3TUDIES IN 4HEOLOGY !NDREW 4ALLON EDITOR &REDERICK - "LISS 5NDERSTANDING 2ECEPTION -ARTIN !LBL 0AUL %DDY AND 2ENE -IRKES /3& EDITORS $IRECTIONS IN .EW4ESTAMENT -ETHODS 2OBERT - $ORAN 3UBJECT AND 0SYCHE +ENNETH (AGEN EDITOR 4HE "IBLE IN THE #HURCHES (OW 6ARIOUS #HRISTIANS )NTERPRET THE 3CRIPTURES *AMIE 4 0HELPS /0 EDITOR "LACK AND #ATHOLIC 4HE #HALLENGE AND 'IFT OF "LACK &OLK #ONTRIBUTIONS OF !FRICAN !MERICAN %XPERIENCE AND 4HOUGHT TO #ATHOLIC 4HEOLOGY +ARL 2AHNER 3PIRIT IN THE 7ORLD #$ +ARL 2AHNER (EARER OF THE 7ORD #$ 2OBERT - $ORAN 4HEOLOGICAL &OUNDATIONS 6OL )NTENTIONALITY AND 0SYCHE 2OBERT - $ORAN 4HEOLOGICAL &OUNDATIONS 6OL 4HEOLOGY AND #ULTURE 0ATRICK 7 #AREY /RESTES ! "ROWNSON ! "IBLIOGRAPHY 0ATRICK 7 #AREY EDITOR 4HE %ARLY 7ORKS OF /RESTES ! "ROWNSON 6OLUME ) 4HE 5NIVERSALIST 9EARS 0ATRICK 7 #AREY EDITOR 4HE %ARLY 7ORKS OF /RESTES ! "ROWNSON 6OLUME )) 4HE &REE AND 5NITARIAN 9EARS 0ATRICK 7 #AREY EDITOR 4HE %ARLY 7ORKS OF /RESTES ! "ROWNSON 6OLUME ))) 4HE 4RANSENDENTALIST 9EARS *OHN -ARTINETTI 3* 2EASON TO "ELIEVE 4ODAY 'EORGE ( 4AVARD 4RINA $EITAS 4HE #ONTROVERSY BETWEEN (INCMAR AND 'OTTSCHALK *EANNE #OVER )"6- ,OVE4HE $RIVING &ORCE -ARY 7ARDS 3PIRITUALITY )TS 3IGNIlCANCE FOR -ORAL 4HEOLOGY $AVID ! "OILEAU EDITOR 0RINCIPLES OF #ATHOLIC 3OCIAL 4EACHING -ICHAEL 0URCELL -YSTERY AND -ETHOD 4HE /THER IN 2AHNER AND ,EVINAS 77 -EISSNER 3* -$ 4O THE 'REATER 'LORY ! 0SYCHOLOGICAL 3TUDY OF )GNATIAN 3PIRITUALITY 6IRGINIA - 3HADDY EDITOR #ATHOLIC 4HEOLOGY IN THE 5NIVERSITY 3OURCE OF 7HOLENESS 4HOMAS - "REDOHL #LASS AND 2ELIGIOUS )DENTITY 4HE 2HENISH #ENTER 0ARTY IN 7ILHELMINE 'ERMANY 7ILLIAM - 4HOMPSON AND $AVID , -ORSE EDITORS 6OEGELINS )SRAEL AND 2EVELATION !N )NTERDISCIPLINARY $EBATE AND !NTHOLOGY
$ONALD , 'ELPI 3* 4HE &IRSTBORN OF -ANY ! #HRISTOLOGY FOR #ONVERTING #HRISTIANS 6OLUME 4O (OPE IN *ESUS #HRIST $ONALD , 'ELPI 3* 4HE &IRSTBORN OF -ANY ! #HRISTOLOGY FOR #ONVERTING #HRISTIANS 6OLUME 3YNOPTIC .ARRATIVE #HRISTOLOGY $ONALD , 'ELPI 3* 4HE &IRSTBORN OF -ANY ! #HRISTOLOGY FOR #ONVERTING #HRISTIANS 6OLUME $OCTRINAL AND 0RACTICAL #HRISTOLOGY 3TEPHEN ! 7ERNER 0ROPHET OF THE #HRISTIAN 3OCIAL -ANIFESTO *OSEPH (USSLEIN 3* (IS ,IFE 7ORK 3OCIAL 4HOUGHT 'REGORY 3OBOLEWSKI -ARTIN ,UTHER 2OMAN #ATHOLIC 0ROPHET -ATTHEW # /GILVIE &AITH 3EEKING 5NDERSTANDING 4HE &UNCTIONAL 3PECIALTY h3YSTEMATICSv IN "ERNARD ,ONERGANS -ETHOD IN 4HEOLOGY 4IMOTHY -ASCHKE &RANZ 0OSSET AND *OAN 3KOCIR EDITORS !D FONTES ,UTHERI 4OWARD THE 2ECOVERY OF THE 2EAL ,UTHER %SSAYS IN (ONOR OF +ENNETH (AGENS 3IXTY &IFTH "IRTHDAY 7ILLIAM 4HORN 0HILLIP 2UNKEL AND 3USAN -OUNTIN EDITORS $OROTHY $AY AND 4HE #ATHOLIC 7ORKER -OVEMENT #ENTENARY %SSSAYS -ICHELE 3ARACINO /N "EING (UMAN ! #ONVERSATION WITH ,ONERGAN AND ,EVINAS )AN #HRISTOPHER ,EVY *OHN 7YCLIF 3CRIPTURAL ,OGIC 2EAL 0RESENCE AND THE 0ARAMETERS OF /RTHODOXY
/N "EING (UMAN ! #ONVERSATION WITH ,ONERGAN AND ,EVINAS
-ICHELE 3ARACINO
-ARQUETTE 5NIVERSITY 0RESS
-ARQUETTE 3TUDIES IN 4HEOLOGY .O 3ERIES %DITOR !NDREW 4ALLON ,IBRARY OF #ONGRESS #ATALOGUING IN 0UBLICATION $ATA 3ARACINO -ICHELE /N BEING HUMAN A CONVERSATION WITH ,ONERGAN AND ,EVINAS BY -ICHELE 3ARACINO P CM -ARQUETTE STUDIES IN THEOLOGY NO )NCLUDES BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES AND INDEX )3". PBK ALK PAPER -AN #HRISTIAN THEOLOGY ,ONERGAN "ERNARD * & ,EVINAS %MMANUEL #ATHOLIC #HURCH$OCTRINES ) 4ITLE )) -ARQUETTE STUDIES IN THEOLOGY "43
DC
Ú -ARQUETTE 5NIVERSITY 0RESS !LL RIGHTS RESERVED
4ABLE OF #ONTENTS $EDICATION !CKNOWLEDGEMENTS )NTRODUCTION #HAPTER /NE 0HILOSOPHICAL &OUNDATIONS "ERNARD ,ONERGANS 0HILOSOPHICAL "ACKGROUND 2EN£ $ESCARTES )MMANUEL +ANT &RIEDRICH .IETZSCHE %MMANUEL ,EVINASS 0HILOSOPHICAL "ACKGROUND -ARTIN (EIDEGGER *ACQUES ,ACAN #OMPATIBLE 4ERRAIN #ONmICTING 4RADITIONS AND !SSUMPTIONS #ONCLUSION #HAPTER 4WO 4HE /PEN 0OSTURE OF ,ONERGANS 3UBJECT 4RANSITION FROM &ACULTY 0SYCHOLOGY TO )NTENTIONALITY !NALYSIS ,ONERGANS !UTHENTIC 3UBJECT /PENNESS OF THE 3UBJECT AS 'IFT 4HE %MBODIMENTS OF ,ONERGANS 3UBJECT #ONCLUSION #HAPTER 4HREE ,EVINASS 3UBJECT AS 0OSTURED FOR THE /THER ,EVINASS .OTION OF THE &ACE )MPLICATIONS OF /PENNESS
-ICHELE 3ARACINO /N "EING (UMAN
3UBJECTIVITY AS A 0OSTURE OF /PENNESS FOR THE /THER 4HE #ORPOREALITY OF ,EVINASS 3UBJECT #ONCLUSION #HAPTER &OUR 4HE )SSUE OF !LTERITY 0ROBLEMS IN )NTERPRETING /THERNESS ,ONERGAN ON "EING (UMAN IN THE -IDST OF THE /THER 2EVISITING ,EVINASS /THER #ONCLUSION #HAPTER &IVE &IGURING 3UBJECTIVITY IN 0OSTMODERN #ONTEXT 4HE 0ROTEAN 3UBJECT /PENNESS AS 'IFT AS !NSWER TO 0OSTMODERN 1UESTIONS OF /THERNESS 4HE #ONNECTION BETWEEN /PENNESS AND &REEDOM /PENNESS !N )NVITATION TO 3OLIDARITY ! &IGURE OF /PEN %MBODIED 3UBJECTIVITY 4HE 0ROTEAN 3UBJECT #ONCLUSION #HAPTER 3IX #ONCLUSION !VENUES FOR &URTHER 4HEOLOGICAL AND 0HILOSOPHICAL 2ESEARCH 'ENDER AND 2ACE 4HEORY IN #HRISTIAN !NTHROPOLOGY .EW 1UESTIONS FOR 3ACRAMENTAL 4HEOLOGY %VALUATION OF THE $IALOGUE BETWEEN ,ONERGAN AND ,EVINAS "IBLIOGRAPHY )NDEX
)NTRODUCTION
$EDICATION &OR MY FATHER
!CKNOWLEDGEMENTS 4HIS STUDY BRINGS TOGETHER SO MANY OF MY INTERESTS SPANNING FROM MY LOVE FOR THE #ATHOLIC TRADITION TO MY AFlNITY FOR WHAT SOME CALL A POSTMODERN SENSIBILITY 7RITING THIS BOOK WHICH EXAMINES THE SIG NIlCANT CONNECTION BETWEEN RELIGION AND CULTURE ON WHAT IT MEANS TO BE HUMAN HAS BEEN A PRIVILEGE EVEN A GIFT THAT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE WITHOUT THE ENCOURAGEMENT AND SUPPORT OF COLLEAGUES FRIENDS AND FAMILY 3O MUCH ABOUT BEING HUMAN IS RELATED TO GIFTAN OPENNESS TO ANOTHER WITHOUT EXPECTATION OF REWARD OR COMPENSATION 4HE FOL LOWING SCHOLARS HAVE GIVEN ME THE GREATEST GIFTS ANY PERSON COULD WANT INTELLECTUAL CHALLENGE AND EMOTIONAL SUPPORT 7HILE WRITING THIS WORK MY MENTOR - 3HAWN #OPELAND WAS A SOURCE OF KNOWLEDGE WISDOM AND CARE "Y ENCOURAGING ME TO ATTEND -ARQUETTE 5NIVERSITY TO STUDY 2OMAN #ATHOLIC THOUGHT AT THE DOCTORAL LEVEL SHE OPENED ME NOT ONLY TO A WORLD OF IDEAS BUT TO A COMMUNITY OF SCHOLARS ) HAVE A GREAT DEAL OF AFFECTION AND RESPECT FOR EACH OF THE FOLLOWING THINKERS AS ) WORKED CLOSELY WITH THEM AS THEY SERVED ON MY DISSERTA TION COMMITTEE IN WHICH THIS WORK ORIGINATED &ROM THE 4HEOLOGY $EPARTMENT MY TEACHER AND FRIEND "RADFORD (INZE CONTINUES TO BE A PERSON WITH WHOM ) SHARE IDEAS AND LEARN FROM AS HIS EXCITEMENT FOR THE INTELLECTUAL LIFE IS INSPIRING AND CONTAGIOUS #HRISTINE &IRER (INZE AND 0HILIP 2OSSI ALSO NURTURED AND RElNED MY RESEARCH BY CHALLENGING ME ON THE ISSUES OF JUSTICE AND MODERNITY RESPECTIVELY #LIFF 3PARGO OF -ARQUETTE 5NIVERSITYS %NGLISH $EPARTMENT PROVED INVALUABLE IN HELPING ME WORK THROUGH THE RIGORS OF CONTEMPORARY CONTINENTAL THEORY )NTRODUCING ME TO THE THOUGHT OF %MMANUEL ,EVINAS #LIFF WENT BEYOND SUPPORTING A PROJECT OUTSIDE OF HIS DISCIPLINE TO COMMITTING TO ITS FULlLLMENT BY ENGAGING IN READING GROUPS AS A WAY OF FURTHER DEVELOPING MY UNDERSTANDING OF ,EVINASIAN THOUGHT !S EACH OF THESE TEACHERS HAS HELPED TO HONE MY WORK THROUGH CAREFUL QUESTIONING AND PROOFREADING !NDREW 4ALLON THE $IRECTOR OF -ARQUETTE 5NIVERSITY 0RESS PUSHED ME FURTHER ON THE QUESTION OF SUBJECTIVITY ESPECIALLY
-ICHELE 3ARACINO /N "EING (UMAN
IN TERMS OF AFFECTIVE INTENTIONALITY ) AM EXTREMELY APPRECIATIVE OF HIS COMMITMENT TO THIS PROJECT ) WOULD ALSO LIKE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE SUPPORT THAT MY FAMILY HAS PRO VIDED THROUGHOUT THIS ENDEAVOR -Y PARENTS 'UY AND 0HYLLIS 3ARACINO HAVE SHOWN ME THE GIFT OF BEING LOVED AND SUPPORTED UNCONDITIONALLY -Y SISTER AND BROTHER #AROLYNN AND -ARK WERE ENCOURAGING OF THIS PROJECT IN INNUMERABLE WAYS FROM COMEDIC RELIEF TO MONETARY SUPPORT #AROLE %INHORN MY MOTHER IN LAW WAS HELPFUL IN PROOFREADING EARLY DRAFTS OF THE TEXT !ND lNALLY ) WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE MY HUSBAND +ENNETH %INHORN WHO ASIDE FROM OPENING HIMSELF TO BRAIN STORM ING PROOFREADING AND IMPROMPTU ANALYSIS HAS CHALLENGED ME TO RISK BEING HUMAN NOT ONLY IN THEORY BUT ALSO IN PRACTICE )T IS WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF FAMILY THAT ) CAN ONLY BEGIN TO IMAGINE THE POSSIBILITY OF BEING HUMAN FOR OTHERS
)NTRODUCTION
)NTRODUCTION
4
HE HISTORY OF THE /THER HAS BEEN A HISTORY OF SUFFERING 4HE 3HOAH THE -IDDLE 0ASSAGE THE #RUSADES AND NOW THE RISE OF INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM ARE INSTANCES IN WHICH HUMANITY CON TINUES TO CAUSE THE /THERS SUFFERING /NE WONDERS WHY SUFFERING STILL OCCURS 4HIS IS PERHAPS MOST SURPRISING CONSIDERING THE PROGRESS MADE IN THE AREAS OF RIGHTS FREEDOM AND JUSTICE SINCE THE %NLIGHTENMENT #OULD IT BE THAT HUMANITY HAS BECOME ANESTHETIZED TO SUFFERING /R MAYBE WE HAVE BECOME FORGETFUL OF THE ANGUISH OF THE PAST AND BLIND TO THAT OF THE PRESENT 7HILE THESE QUESTIONS INmUENCE OUR ENGAGE MENT WITH OTHERS THEY ARE MERE SYMPTOMS OF A DEEPER PROBLEM AN INABILITY TO DEAL WITH DIFFERENCE 'RAPPLING WITH DIFFERENCE WHETHER IT BE IN RELATION TO CLASS GENDER RACE OR RELIGION IS DIFlCULT 5NDER THE CURRENT PRETENSE OF TOLERANCE IT HAS BECOME UNFASHIONABLE TO ASSERT THAT ONE PERSONS OPINION ON THE ISSUE OF DIVERSITY IS MORE LEGITIMATE THAN THAT OF ANOTHER 4HIS FAILURE TO SPEAK ABOUT THE IMPLICATIONS OF DIFFERENCE IS LINKED TO ANOTHER IS SUEA LACK OF CONlDENCE IN RELIGION TO HELP US UNDERSTAND THE QUES TION OF DIFFERENCE 7HEREAS RELIGIOUS COMMUNITIES USED TO PROVIDE A FOUNDATION FOR THINKING ABOUT BEING HUMAN IN RELATIONSHIPS MANY PEOPLE ARE AVOIDING ORGANIZED RELIGION FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS )N PLACE OF RELIGION PEOPLE SUBSTITUTE A SECULARIZED RELATIVIST ETHICS IN ORDER TO DEAL WITH OUTSIDERS #LEARLY IN THE CURRENT POSTMODERN PLURALIST CONTEXT BOTH RELIGIOUS AND SECULAR WORLDVIEWS NEED TO BE ANALYZED 4HE HUMAN RESPONSE TO SUFFERING CAN NEITHER BE A NOSTALGIC RETREAT INTO RELIGIOUS IDEALISM NOR AN OUTRIGHT CAPITULATION TO A RELATIVIST MENTAL ITY 3UCCESS IN UNDERSTANDING DIVERSITY DEPENDS ON THE VERY WAY IN WHICH WE NEGOTIATE BETWEEN THEOLOGICAL AND SECULAR INTERPRETATIONS OF BEING HUMAN )N OTHER WORDS BOTH TRAJECTORIES OF ANTHROPOLOGY RELIGIOUS AND SECULAR ARE NECESSARY IN FOSTERING COMMUNITY IN THE TWENTY lRST CENTURY 3ECULAR INTERPRETATIONS OF THE SUBJECT ARE NOT TO BE TAKEN LIGHTLY 4HEY ARE GROUNDED IN A SOPHISTICATED THEORETICAL ACCOUNT OF METAPHYSICS
-ICHELE 3ARACINO /N "EING (UMAN
THAT DESCRIBES THE SUBJECT AS ENMESHED IN AND EMERGING FROM A MATRIX OF COMPETING NARRATIVES SCHEMA AND PERSPECTIVES 4HIS THEORETICAL ACCOUNT OF BEING HUMAN CAN BE TRACED TO MUCH OF CONTEMPORARY CONTINENTAL THOUGHT IN WHICH THE SUBJECTS IDENTITY IS THEORIZED TO BE AN EFFECT OF VARIOUS DISCOURSESSTORIES THAT FRAGMENT AND DECENTER THE SUBJECT )N THIS PREDICAMENT THE SUBJECT IS BURDENED BY hA CON TESTATION OF MULTIPLE CONmICTING DISCOURSES x MAKING IT DIFlCULT IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE TO ACCOUNT FOR AGENCYv #ADY (ENCE RELATED TO THE CONmICTED AND FRAGMENTED NATURE OF SUCH SUBJECTIVITY IS THE HUMAN PERSONS INABILITY OR REFUSAL TO MAKE ACCURATE JUDGMENTS ABOUT WHAT IS TRUE AND GOOD !LTERNATIVELY THEOLOGICAL ACCOUNTS OF BEING HUMAN SPECIlCALLY WITHIN THE #HRISTIAN WORLDVIEW MAINTAIN A STABLE NOTION OF SUBJECTIVITY IN WHICH THE HUMAN PERSON IS CAPABLE OF AND RESPONSIBLE FOR JUDGING AND ACTING IN THE FACE OF CHANGE AND DIVERSITY 0UT ANOTHER WAY #HRISTIAN THEOLOGY CLAIMS THAT EVEN THOUGH HUMAN BEINGS HAVE DISTINCTIVE EXPERIENCES COME FROM VARIOUS SOCIAL LOCATIONS AND ARE IN COMPLICATED RELATIONSHIPS WITH 'OD AND THEIR NEIGHBOR THESE CONTINGENCIES NEED NOT LEAD TO FRAGMENTATION 7HATS MORE FOR #HRISTIANS FRAGMENTATION IS NOT INTERPRETED AS NORMATIVE RATHER IS EXPLAINED PEJORATIVELY AS THE ALIENATION RESULTING FROM SIN FROM THE FALL OF HUMANITY 9ET THE CONCRETE SUFFERING OF THE /THER IN HISTORY PROHIBITS THEOLOGIANS FROM DISMISSING THE FRAGMENTED EXPERIENCE OF BEING HUMAN &RAGMEN TATION IS NOT A MYTH )T IS THE CONFUSED IDENTITY BORN OF THE SUBJECTS LIVED EXPERIENCE 7HEN THIS CONFUSION ESCALATES FROM THE INDIVIDUAL TO SOCIETAL REALM IT HAS A WAY OF LEADING TO A hCYCLE OF DECLINEvGIV ING RISE TO THE EFFECTS OF THE SOCIAL SINS OF COLONIALISM RACISM SEXISM AND CLASSISM #OPELAND 5NDOUBTEDLY THEOLOGIANS NEED TO TAKE THE FRAGMENTED LIFE OF THE PERSON QUITE SERIOUSLY )N AN EFFORT TO REVERSE THIS CYCLE OF DECLINE THEOLOGIANS NEED TO CONSIDER BOTH SECULAR CONTEMPORARY THEORY WITH ITS RECEPTIVITY TO THE INTRICACIES OF OTHER NESS AND #HRISTIAN THEOLOGY WITH ITS CALL FOR JUDGMENT IN THE MIDST OF SUCH OTHERNESS -OST PEOPLE LIVE BETWEEN TWO WORLDS SECULAR AND RELIGIOUS BOTH OF WHICH INFORM THEIR DECISIONS AND BEHAVIOR "OTH DISCOURSES SPEAK TO OUR MODERN DILEMMA OF HOW TO BE HUMAN IN THE FACE OF THE /THER
)NTRODUCTION
)N AN EFFORT TO TEASE OUT SOME OF THE ISSUES COMPLICATING THE INTER PRETATION OF BEING HUMAN IN THE MIDST OF ALTERITY ) HAVE BROUGHT A CONTINENTAL *EWISH THINKER %MMANUEL ,EVINAS INTO A POSTHUMOUS CONVERSATION WITH A 2OMAN #ATHOLIC THEOLOGIAN "ERNARD *& ,ONERGAN 4OGETHER THESE TWO THINKERS EMPHASIZE THE TENSIONS WITHIN OUR CULTURE REGARDING OUR ENGAGEMENT OF DIFFERENCE 7HILE ,EVINAS IS NOT THE STRAW MAN FOR SECULAR RELATIVIST THOUGHT HIS DISTINCT STRAND OF CONTEMPORARY CONTINENTAL THEORY UNDERSCORES THE COMPLEXITY OF ALTERITY IN SOCIETY !T THE SAME TIME ,ONERGAN WHILE NOT THE ONLY VOICE WHO CAN ARTICULATE A THEOLOGICAL ANTHROPOLOGY OF SUBSTANCE REMAINS CERTAINLY ONE OF THE FEW THEOLOGIANS TO LINK ANTHROPOLOGY MOST DIRECTLY WITH KNOWING ACTING AND LOVING FOR OTHERS &OR SOME ,ONERGAN AND ,EVINAS MAY SEEM LIKE UNLIKELY DIALOGUE PARTNERS !LTHOUGH THEY ARE CONTEMPORARIES IN AGE THEIR RELIGIOUS BACKGROUNDS AND PHILOSOPHICAL PROJECTS ARE QUITE DISTINCTIVE ,ET ME EXPLAIN FURTHER ,ONERGAN WAS BORN IN "UCKINGHAM 1UEBEC IN AND ENTERED THE 3OCIETY OF *ESUS IN (E SPENT HIS LIFE ATTEMPTING TO MODERNIZE 2OMAN #ATHOLIC THOUGHT BY FREEING IT FROM THE SHACKLES OF CLASSICIST NOTIONS OF CULTURE STATIC THEOLOGICAL MANUALS AND AHISTORICAL PROPOSITIONS ,ONERGAN WROTE WITH A CLEAR MEMORY OF THE ATROCITIES OF 7ORLD 7AR )) AS WELL AS WITHIN A #ANADIAN SOCIETY ENTRENCHED IN AN ECONOMIC DEPRESSION !S A RESULT HE WAS ATTENTIVE TO QUESTIONS ABOUT THE HUMAN GOOD ORDER AND CIVILIZATION *UDGING FROM HIS GOALS AND CAREER MANY WANT TO CATEGORIZE ,ONERGANS THOUGHT AS IN LINE WITH THE AIMS OF MODERNITY %VEN AS THE NOTION OF MODERNITY IS CONTESTED ONE COULD ARGUE THAT MODERNITY REFERS TO A WORLDVIEW CONSUMED WITH QUESTIONS OF FREEDOM AUTONOMY KNOWLEDGE DOMINATION PROGRESS AND RATIONALISM .ONETHELESS IT IS INCORRECT TO TYPE ,ONERGAN AS MODERN IN THE SENSE THAT HE BLINDLY EMBRACES RATIONALISM 2ATHER HE CAN BE UNDERSTOOD AS MODERN SINCE HIS WORK IS GROUNDED IN A CONCRETE STRUGGLE TO ADEQUATELY ENGAGE HUMAN REASON )N ,ONERGANS THOUGHT THERE IS AN EXPLICIT CRITIQUE OF THE WEAKNESSES OF MODERN OR %NLIGHTENMENT INTERPRETATIONS OF SUBJECTIVITY !S HE TESTS THE LIMITS OF RATIONALISM HE TRANSCENDS THE CRUDE AND COMMON SENSE LABEL OF MODERN AND REACHES THE BOUNDARIES OF CONTEMPORARY CONTINENTAL THOUGHT &URTHERMORE ,ONERGAN UNDERSTANDS THE SUBJECT BEYOND COGNITION THUS AGAIN TRANSCENDING THE BOUNDARIES OF MO
-ICHELE 3ARACINO /N "EING (UMAN
DERNITY 3PECIlCALLY HE EXPLAINS THAT AUTHENTIC SUBJECTIVITY EMERGES IN RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE AND CONVERSION 4HROUGH FEELING FOR OTHERS BY WAY OF INCARNATE BEING THE SUBJECT IS CONVERTED INTO A POSITION OF BEING IN LOVE WITH 'ODAN IDEA WHICH ECHOES POSTMODERNITYS EMPHASIS ON THE DISLOCATED SUBJECT 5LTIMATELY FOR ,ONERGAN IT IS IN THE AFFECTIVE THAT IS INTUITIVE AND NON CONCEPTUALIST RELATIONSHIP WITH THE /THER THAT WE BECOME AUTHENTICALLY HUMAN "ORN IN ,ITHUANIA IN ,EVINAS ON THE OTHER HAND IS OFTEN CATEGORIZED AS POSTMODERN ,IKE MODERNITY A UNIVERSAL UNDERSTANDING OF POSTMODERNITY IS CONTESTED )N THE S POSTMODERNISM REFERRED TO CHANGES IN ART AND ARCHITECTURE 4URNING FROM ART TO THEORY THE TERM POSTMODERNISM BECOMES NUANCED 4HE POSTMODERN WORLDVIEW ACCORDING TO 0AUL ,AKELAND IS CHARACTERIZED BY A SUSPICION OF THE NO TION OF A NEUTRAL STANDPOINT AND MASTER OR META NARRATIVES THAT ERASE OTHERNESS -OREOVER FOR ,AKELAND POSTMODERN PHILOSOPHERS MUST BE LIKE THE BRICOLEUR AND PASTE VARIOUS THEORIES IDEAS AND NOTIONS TOGETHER 4HE WAY IN WHICH ,EVINAS JUGGLES HIS ENGAGEMENT OF THE (EBREW 3CRIPTURES HIS EMPLOYMENT OF THE LANGUAGE OF DISRUPTION AND ALTERITY AS WELL AS HIS REJECTION OF THE PRIMACY OF ONTOLOGY COLORS HIS WORK AS THOROUGHLY POSTMODERN !T THE SAME TIME HOWEVER ,EVINAS ATTENDS TO QUESTIONS OF FREEDOM AND SUFFERING BOTH OF WHICH ARE EASILY TYPED AS ISSUES OF MODERNITY $URING 7ORLD 7AR )) ,EVINAS WAS RECRUITED AS AN INTERPRETER OF 2USSIAN AND 'ERMAN AND EVENTUALLY IMPRISONED IN A 'ERMAN LABOR CAMP )T IS NOT SURPRISING THAT FOR ,EVINAS SUFFERING IS A THEME NOT ONLY IN HIS WORK BUT ALSO IN HIS LIFE 7RITING IN THE SHADOW OF THE 3HOAH ,EVINAS STRUGGLES AGAINST 7ESTERN NOTIONS OF ONTOLOGY DUE TO THEIR EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT VIOLENCE TOTALIZATION THEMATIZATION AND BIAS TOWARDS THE /THER )N ADDITION TO PROBLEMATIZING THE IDEA OF BEING ,EVINAS OFFERS A CRITIQUE OF THEOLOGY BECAUSE OF ITS ONTOLOGICAL AND POSITIVIST ORIENTATION 3PECIlCALLY ,EVINAS INSISTS THAT THEOLOGY TOO OFTEN CON FUSES HUMANITY WITH DIVINITY THUS THEMATIZING 'OD INTO AN OBJECT OR THING ,EVINASS DISAVOWAL OF ONTOLOGY AND POSITIVIST THEOLOGY AS WE
&OR A COMPREHENSIVE EXPLORATION INTO THE BREADTH OF POSTMODERN DISCOURSE SEE ,INDA (UTCHEONS 4HE 0OLITICS OF 0OSTMODERNISM AND ! 0OETICS OF 0OSTMODERNISM (ISTORY 4HEORY &ICTION )N BOTH THOSE TEXTS SHE EXPLORES THE CONNECTIONS AMONG THE POSTMODERN PRESENCE IN ART MEDIA AND THEORY
)NTRODUCTION
WILL BEGIN TO UNDERSTAND IS RELATED TO HIS FEELINGS FOR THE /THER WHO SUFFERSCOMPASSION EXTENDING FROM THE TRAUMA OF THOSE WHO WERE TORTURED IN THE 3HOAH TO THE PLIGHT OF THE PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED 4HEREFORE EVEN THOUGH ,EVINAS IS POSTMODERN IN THE SENSE THAT HE IS ATTENTIVE TO ALTERITY AND THE POWERS THAT THREATEN IT HE IS MODERN IN HIS CONCERN FOR SUFFERING AND DEMAND FOR JUSTICE ! MORE NUANCED WAY TO DESCRIBE HIS THOUGHT IS IN THE DISCOURSE OF CONTEMPORARY CONTINENTAL THEORY FOR HIS STARK REJECTION OF MODERN NOTIONS OF BEING OBJECTIVITY AND REALITY LOCATE HIM IN THE CAMP OF SUCH CONTEMPORARY CONTINENTAL THINKERS AS *ACQUES $ERRIDA AND *EAN &RAN½OIS ,YOTARD &ROM THIS BRIEF SKETCH WE CAN BEGIN TO APPREHEND HOW BOTH THINK ERS ENCOURAGE US TO UNDERSTAND THE SUBJECT AS SOCIAL AND OPEN FOR THE /THER 7HILE SOME SCHOLARS INSIST ON LUMPING EACH THINKER INTO EITHER A MODERN OR POSTMODERN CAMP WE WILL COME TO REALIZE THAT THESE THINKERS DEFY AND OVERmOW THOSE CATEGORIES 7HILE ,ONERGAN #ATHOLIC AND THEOLOGICAL AND ,EVINAS *EWISH AND THEORETICAL MAY EMPLOY DIFFERENT DISCOURSES IN THEIR DISCUSSION OF WHAT IT MEANS TO BE HUMAN IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT ONLY IN CONJUNCTION WITH ONE ANOTHER THROUGH BOTH THEOLOGY AND THEORY CAN WE SPEAK TO THE CONTEMPORARY PREDICAMENT OF BEING HUMAN IN RELATION TO OTHERS 3IGNIlCANTLY BOTH ,ONERGAN AND ,EVINAS IMPLORE US TO THINK ABOUT BEING HUMAN IN TERMS OF GIFT "EING OPENED ORIENTED AND POSTURED BY THE /THER IS A GIFT OF RELATIONSHIP !S SOME MAY BE AWARE OF GIFT IS A FREQUENTLY EMPLOYED TERM IN THEOLOGY AND PHILOSOPHY SO IT IS EASY TO CONFUSE ITS MEANING )N MY STUDY GIFT IS ROOTED IN $ERRIDAS WORK ! GIFT IS SOMETHING THAT NEVER APPEARS AS SUCH AND IS NEVER EQUAL TO GRATITUDE TO COMMERCE TO COMPENSATION TO REWARD 7HEN A GIFT IS GIVEN lRST OF ALL NO GRATITUDE CAN BE PROPORTIONATE TO IT ! GIFT IS SOMETHING THAT YOU CANNOT BE THANKFUL FOR !S SOON AS ) SAY @THANK YOU FOR A GIFT ) START CANCELING THE GIFT ) START DESTROYING THE GIFT BY PROPOSING AN EQUIVALENCE THAT IS A CIRCLE WHICH ENCIRCLES THE GIFT IN A MOVEMENT OF REAPPROPRIATION 3O A GIFT IS SOMETHING THAT IS BEYOND THE CIRCLE OF REAPPROPRIATION BEYOND THE CIRCLE OF GRATITUDE
4HROUGH $ERRIDAS WORK WE CAN REALIZE THE PARADOXICAL NATURE OF GIFT 7HILE WE DESIRE TO ENCIRCLE DEVOUR AND ENGULF THE GIFT IT ALWAYS LEAVES
-ICHELE 3ARACINO /N "EING (UMAN
A REMAINDER A WRAPPING AND A TRACE 4HE SUBJECTS GIFTED OR GRACED RELATIONSHIP WITH THE /THER IS SIMILARLY BEYOND REAPPROPRIATION AND SATISFACTION 4HE /THER TURNS THE SUBJECT INSIDE OUT THAT IS OPENS THE SUBJECT TO BEING HUMAN FOR OTHERS (UMANITY EMERGES IN THE PERFOR MANCE OF SERVICE CHARITY AND OBLIGATIONSHOULDERING THE BURDEN OF ANOTHER !ND EVEN AS WE MAY TRY TO FREE OURSELVES FROM OBLIGATION OUR RESPONSIBILITY FOR OTHERS IS LIMITLESS 4HIS MEANS THAT WE CAN NEVER DO ENOUGH TO RELEASE OURSELVES FROM OBLIGATION !LL SOCIAL RELATIONS AND PRACTICES BRING ABOUT NEW RESPONSIBILITIES -Y DISCUSSION OF GIFT DOES NOT END WITH $ERRIDA INDEED FOR ,EVINAS THE NOTION OF GIFT IS EVEN RADICAL ,EVINAS ARGUES THAT THE SUBJECT SHOULD APPROACH THE /THER NOT IN GRATITUDE OR APPRECIATION BUT IN PERSONAL OBLIGATION 4HIS APPROACH IS NOT BASED ON FAMILIARITY ANDOR ON KNOWLEDGE BUT IN RISK AND THE UNKNOWNTHE SUBJECT BECOMES HUMBLE AND VULNERABLE IN THE FACE OF THE /THER 4HE RESPONSE OF THE /THER IS NOT ONE OF THANKS AND APPRECIATION BUT OF INGRATITUDE 4HE NOTION OF INGRATITUDE UNDERSCORES THE ASYMMETRICAL RELATION AND LIMITLESS OBLIGATION BETWEEN SUBJECT AND /THER ,EVINAS LIKE $ERRIDA MAINTAINS THAT GRATITUDE AND THANKS CANCEL THE RADICAL GENEROSITY OF THE GIFT AND THE INTANGIBLE NATURE OF THE RELATION -OVING BEYOND $ERRIDA ,EVINAS REFERS TO INGRATITUDE AS A SENSE OF BEING AWAKE AND VIGILANT TO THE COMPLEX ALTERITY OF THE SITUATION 4HE /THERS INGRATITUDE PROHIBITS THE SUBJECT FROM BECOMING COMPLACENT FOR THE SUBJECT IS ALWAYS OBLIGATED TO THE /THER (ENCE THE RELATION OF BEING OPEN FOR THE /THER IS A GIFT OF AN OBLIGED SUBJECT WHO DEMANDS NOT THANKS BUT INGRATITUDE ,ONERGAN ALSO UNDERSTANDS THE OPENNESS OF THE SUBJECT IN TERMS OF GIFT 'IFT IS NOT EXPLAINED EXPLICITLY IN TERMS OF ALTERITY BUT IMPLICITLY BY WAY OF THE LANGUAGE OF GRACE AND CONVERSION !CCORDING TO ,ONER GAN RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE WAKES US FROM OUR SLUMBER AND REORIENTS US IN A POSTURE FOR THE /THER 'OD CALLS US INTO A GRACED STATE OF BEING HUMAN &OR ,ONERGAN A GRACED STATE IS ONE IN WHICH WE REACH TOWARD 'OD IN DESIRE AND AUTHENTIC SUBJECTIVITY EMERGES IN THIS RELATIONSHIP OF TRANSCENDENCE .OTICE FOR ,EVINAS AND ,ONERGAN THE GIFT OF OPEN NESS IS NOT MERELY COGNITIVE OR VOLITIONAL BUT AFFECTIVEA CALL AND DESIRE FROM OUTSIDE THE SUBJECT FROM ABOVE 4HE AFFECTIVE DIMENSION
)NTRODUCTION
OF BEING ATTENTIVE TO ALTERITY IS AT THE HEART OF MY DISCUSSION OF GIFT AND OF OUR TASK OF BEING HUMAN IN THE MIDST OF THE /THER !S ) DISCUSS BEING HUMAN IN TERMS OF GIFT METHODOLOGICALLY MY WORK REMAINS IN THE lELD OF INTERPRETATION )NTERPRETATION INVOLVES THREE MOMENTS UNDERSTANDING THE TEXT JUDGING YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE TEXT AND STATING YOUR JUDGMENT OF THE TEXT ,ONERGAN C 5NDERSTANDING THE TEXT IN QUESTION IS NOT A MATTER OF SCAN NING A BOOK OR TAKING A LOOK BUT OF EXACTING THE MEANING OF THE TEXT EVEN IF THE MEANING CONTRADICTS ONES ORIGINAL UNDERSTANDING !RGU ABLY THE PROCESS OF UNDERSTANDING INVOLVES A GENEROSITY ON THE PART OF THE INTERPRETER IN THAT IF THERE APPEARS TO BE A DISCONTINUITY IN THE TEXT THE READER QUESTIONS HISHER INTEGRITY INSTEAD OF THAT OF THE TEXT "EYOND THE STAGE OF UNDERSTANDING IS THE TASK OF JUDGING IN WHICH THE INTERPRETER NEEDS TO KNOW NOT ONLY WHAT THE AUTHOR MEANS BUT MUST REALIZE HISHER BIASES IN ORDER TO AVOID IMPUTING ONLY HISHER QUESTIONS ONTO THE TEXT ! SENSE OF INTELLECTUAL HONESTY OUGHT GUIDE THE INTERPRETER AS SHE STRUGGLES SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH HISHER INTENTIONS AS WELL AS WITH THE AUTHORS !T SOME POINTS IN THE DISCUSSION ONE MIGHT HAVE TO ARGUE THAT ONE SCHOLARS IDEA ANDOR ARGUMENT IS INCOMMENSURABLE WITH ANOTHERS CLAIM #ONSEQUENTLY HONEST INTERPRETATION IS NOT CORRELATIVE OR REDUCTIONIST BUT RATHER DIALECTICAL AND DIALOGICAL !S ) ENGAGE THE DISCONTINUITIES WITHIN AND BETWEEN ,ONERGANS AND ,EVINASS WORK ) HIGHLIGHT BOTH THE COMMONALTIES AND CONmICTS THAT EMERGE FROM AN ENCOUNTER BETWEEN THESE UNIQUE THINKERS !FTER UNDERSTANDING AND JUDGING ) ARTICULATE MY UNDERSTANDING OF BOTH OF THESE THINKERS WRIT INGS ON BEING HUMAN AND ANTICIPATE HOW THIS STUDY HAS IMPLICATIONS FOR THE WAY THAT THEOLOGIANS EXPLAIN THE DOCTRINE OF ANTHROPOLOGY 4HE PLAN OF MY STUDY IS AS FOLLOWS !BOVE ) HAVE ATTENDED TO THE PROBLEM CONTEXT INTERLOCUTORS AND METHOD OF THE BOOK ! BRIEF BIO GRAPHICAL REVIEW OF ,ONERGAN AND ,EVINAS SERVED TO SITUATE MY ANALYSIS OF THEIR WRITINGS 4O FURTHER CONTEXTUALIZE THESE THINKERS ) CLARIFY THE PHILOSOPHICAL BACKGROUND OF ,ONERGANS AND ,EVINASS ANTHROPOLOGI CAL PROJECTS IN #HAPTER /NE ) BEGIN BY ADDRESSING THE PHILOSOPHICAL LEGACIES OF 2EN£ $ESCARTES )MMANUEL +ANT AND &RIEDRICH .IETZSCHE IN ORDER TO EXPLAIN ,ONERGANS CRITIQUE OF THE %NLIGHTENMENT SUBJECT -UCH OF ,ONERGANS WORK ON THE SUBJECT BUILDS ON THE INADEQUACIES OF THESE THINKERS INTERPRETATIONS OF SUBJECTIVITY ,ATER IN THAT CHAPTER
-ICHELE 3ARACINO /N "EING (UMAN
) INVESTIGATE THE THOUGHT OF -ARTIN (EIDEGGER AND *ACQUES ,ACAN IN ORDER TO COMPREHEND ,EVINASS CONCERNS ABOUT BEING HUMAN 4HESE PHILOSOPHERS EACH IN THEIR DISTINCT WAY SET THE STAGE FOR ,EVINASS WORK ON IDENTITY AND ALTERITY )N THE SECOND HALF OF #HAPTER /NE ) DISCUSS BOTH THE OVERLAPPING AND INCOMMENSURABLE THEMES IN THE DIALOGUE BETWEEN ,ONERGAN AND ,EVINAS )N THE SECOND CHAPTER ) EXPLORE ,ONERGANS THOUGHT ON #HRISTIAN ANTHROPOLOGY "Y WAY OF AN INTRODUCTION ) DISCUSS ,ONERGANS TRANSITION FROM FACULTY PSYCHOLOGY TO INTENTIONALITY ANALYSIS AS WELL AS MAP HIS THOUGHTS ON BIAS AND CONVERSION 4HEN ) FORMALLY BEGIN MY INVES TIGATION OF ,ONERGANS ANTHROPOLOGY BY PINPOINTING THREE IMPORTANT CHARACTERISTICS OF HIS NORMATIVE SUBJECT WONDER TRANSCENDENCE AND INTERSUBJECTIVITY 4HROUGH AN ANALYSIS OF THESE CHARACTERISTICS WE WILL BEGIN TO UNDERSTAND THAT HUMANITY IS OPENED TO OTHERNESS ON THREE LEVELS FACT ACHIEVEMENT AND GIFT !S ) INVESTIGATE ALL THREE LEVELS ) FOCUS ON OPENNESS AS GIFT THE POINT AT WHICH THE SUBJECT FALLS IN LOVE WITH 'OD AND OTHERS 4HROUGH FALLING IN LOVE WITH 'OD THE SUBJECT IS CALLED TO BE ATTENTIVE TO THE COMPLEXITY OF OTHERNESS ,ONERGANS THOUGHTS ON THE CORPOREAL CHARACTER OF PERSONHOOD AND RELATIONSHIP CONCLUDE THIS CHAPTER 4HE STRESS IN CONTEMPORARY CONTINENTAL THOUGHT ON THE COMPLEXITY OF SUBJECTIVITY SPECIlCALLY IN THE WORK OF ,EVINAS IS THE FOCUS OF #HAPTER 4HREE 4HERE ) DENOTE ,EVINASS SUBJECT AS POSTURED FOR THE /THER IN FOUR PHASES &IRST ) EXPLORE ,EVINASS NOTION OF FACING IN WHICH THE /THER DEMANDS THAT THE SUBJECT OPEN AND TRANSCEND HISHER EGOISM 3ECOND ) HIGHLIGHT THE COMPLEXITY OF OPENNESS AND ITS CONNECTION TO QUESTIONS OF FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY 4HIRD THE WAYS IN WHICH SPEECH TIME AND POSTURE MARK THE SUBJECTS RELATION FOR THE /THER ARE EXAMINED ,EVINASS GENDERED DESCRIPTION OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SUBJECT AND /THER CONCLUDES MY STUDY )MPORTANTLY THE NOTION OF SHOULDERING IS INTRODUCED AS A WAY OF EXPLAINING THE SUBJECTS RE SPONSIBILITY FOR OTHERS IN NON GENDERED TERMS "OTH THE SECOND AND THIRD CHAPTERS LINK THE ISSUE OF SUBJECTIVITY TO NOTIONS OF EMBODIMENT AS WE CANNOT ADEQUATELY ADDRESS WHAT IT MEANS TO BE HUMAN WITHOUT EXPLAINING THE BODY OF THE HUMAN PERSON )N THE CURRENT THEOLOGICAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL CONTEXT HOWEVER THE MEANING OF EMBODIMENT IS NOT EASILY UNDERSTOOD 7ILLIAM ,A &LEUR ARGUES THAT
)NTRODUCTION
THE SUBJECT OF THE BODY IS A RELATIVELY NEW lELD OF TO YEARS OLD !LTERNATIVELY MANY THEOLOGIANS AND PHILOSOPHERS OBJECT TO THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE STUDY OF THE BODY IS NEW 4HEY CLAIM TO THE CONTRARY THAT THE QUESTION OF BODY AND SACRAMENTALITY HAS BEEN THE QUESTION OF #HRISTIAN LIFE AND THOUGHT FOR TWO THOUSAND YEARS FOR hSACRED KNOWLEDGE WAS ENCOUNTERED THROUGH THE BODYv -ELLOR AND 3HILLING .ONETHELESS ,A &LEURS POINT OUGHT NOT BE DISMISSED THE WAYS IN WHICH THE CONTEMPORARY MEDICAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES GRAPPLE WITH ISSUES OF BODY ARE GROWING EXPONENTIALLY ! NUMBER OF QUESTIONS ARISE IN THIS DISCUSSION (OW DOES THE BODY RELATE TO KNOWLEDGE )S THERE SUCH THING AS A NORMATIVE BODY OR ARE BODIES TEXTS AND CANVASES TO BE INVENTED (OW IS EMBODIMENT RELATED TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF GENDER RACE AND CLASS (OW DOES EMBODIMENT CONNECT WITH SUBJEC TIVITY /VERALL IN THIS STUDY ) ASSUME BODY TO MEAN THE mESHINESS OF BODY THAT IS THE SHAPE PIGMENT SIZE AND POSTURE OF THE BODY THAT IS AN INTEGRAL DIMENSION IN OUR ENGAGEMENT WITH OTHERS 4HE ISSUE OF BODY IS SO IMPORTANT TO MY ANALYSIS FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS .OT MERELY BECAUSE AS SUBJECTS WE REACT AND RELATE TO OTHERS THROUGH EXPRESSION GESTURE AND POSTURE AS WELL AS ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT OUR EXPRESSIONS GESTURES AND POSTURES BUT ALSO BECAUSE THE BODY IS THE SITE OF OUR RELATIONSHIP OF OBLIGATION WITH OTHERS &OR TOO LONG 7ESTERN THEOLOGY AND PHILOSOPHY HAS LINKED OUR RELATIONS WITH OTHERS IN TERMS OF KNOWING AND WILLING BY WAY OF COGNITION AND VOLITION 7HAT WE WILL REALIZE AS WE INTERROGATE ,ONERGANS AND ,EVINASS WORK IS THAT BEING OPEN FOR THE /THER IS NOT ONLY A FUNCTION OF OUR MIND AND WILL BUT ALSO OF OUR FEELINGS 7HILE THE BODY IS NOT THE LOCATION OF THE FEELINGS IT IS MOST OBVIOUSLY THAT BY WHICH FEELINGS ARE SENSED (ENCE EMBODIMENT IS MY STARTING POINT FOR AN ANALYSIS OF HOW FEEL INGS AFFECT BEING HUMAN FOR OTHERS 4HE CONVERSATION DOES NOT END THERE 7HILE FEELINGS AND AFFECTION ARE IN A COMMONSENSE MANNER CONNECTED TO OUR INTERPRETATION OF BODY IT IS MORE IMPORTANT TO MY INVESTIGATION TO EXACT HOW ,ONERGAN AND ,EVINAS EXPLAIN FEELING AS PART OF OUR UNDERSTANDING AND RELATING TO THE /THER )N #HAPTER &OUR ) CONSIDER HOW ,ONERGANS AND ,EVINASS CLAIMS ABOUT THE EMBODIED SUBJECTS OPENNESS RELATE TO THE CURRENT QUANDARY OVER HOW TO INTERPRET DIFFERENCE 7E OFTEN IGNORE THE CONCRETE REALITY OF DIFFERENCE BY DEMOCRATIZING IT FETISHIZING IT AND ERASING IT )T IS HERE
-ICHELE 3ARACINO ,ONERGAN AND ,EVINAS
THAT ) OUTLINE HOW ,ONERGAN AND ,EVINAS CAN HELP US REFRAME AND EVEN CHANGE OUR DESTRUCTIVE BEHAVIOR TOWARD OTHERS )N THIS CHAPTER MORE OVER ) CONSIDER EXPLICITLY HOW THE GIFT OF OPENNESS HAS THE POTENTIAL TO ORIENT THE SUBJECT IN HISHER FREEDOM AND MOVE TOWARD JUSTICE )T WILL BECOME CLEAR THAT A NEW BOTH SECULAR AND THEOLOGICAL TROPE TO CAPTURE WHAT IT MEANS TO BE HUMAN IS NEEDED IN THE CONTEMPORARY DISCUS SION OF ANTHROPOLOGY 3IGNIlCANTLY ) DESIGNATE PROTEAN SUBJECTIVITY WITH ITS EMPHASIS ON THE OPEN CHANGING EVOLVING AND DEVELOPING ORIENTATION OF THE HUMAN PERSON AS THIS NEW TROPE !CCORDINGLY IN #HAPTER &IVE ) DETAIL THE NOTION OF PROTEANISM IN ORDER TO HIGHLIGHT THE RESILIENT SACRIlCIAL AND COMMUNAL DIMENSIONS OF BEING HUMAN ) CLAIM THAT PROTEANISM CAPTURES THE POSITIONAL AND INTERDEPENDENT CHARACTER OF BEING HUMAN UPHELD IN RELIGIOUS THOUGHT WHILE AT THE
^0HILOSOPHICAL &OUNDATIONS
0HILOSOPHICAL &OUNDATIONS
4
HIS CHAPTER EXPLORES THE PHILOSOPHICAL FOUNDATIONS OF ,ONERGANS AND ,EVINASS PROJECTS )T IS AN IMPOSING TASK FOR BOTH THINKERS RELATE TO A VARIETY OF PHILOSOPHERS 2ATHER THAN CATALOGUING THE OVERWHELMING NUMBER OF THINKERS WHO HAVE SHAPED BOTH OF THESE SCHOLARS LIFES WORK ) HIGHLIGHT ONLY THOSE PHILOSOPHERS WHO HAVE INmUENCED THEIR INTERPRETATION OF SUBJECTIVITY )N MY ANAL YSIS IMPORTANT QUESTIONS ABOUT BEING HUMAN EMERGE INCLUDING HOW SUBJECTIVITY IS CONNECTED TO KNOWLEDGE RELATED TO THE BODY AND ROOTED IN INTERSUBJECTIVITY )T IS MY HOPE THAT BY UNDERSTANDING THESE ISSUES WE CAN APPRECIATE HOW ,ONERGAN AND ,EVINAS INTERPRET SUBJECTIVITY IN TERMS OF A CORPOREAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE /THER -Y EXPLORATION INTO THE PHILOSOPHICAL BACKGROUND OF THESE TWO THINKERS UNFOLDS IN FOUR STAGES &IRST ) DEMONSTRATE HOW ,ONERGAN RETHINKS SUBJECTIVITY BEYOND A COMMONSENSE #ARTESIAN EMPIRICISM +ANTIAN IDEALISM AND .IETZSCHEAN EXISTENTIALISM 2EWORKING THE ANTHROPOLOGY OF %NLIGHTENMENT PHILOSOPHY ,ONERGAN DEVELOPS A RElNED NOTION OF AUTHENTIC SUBJECTIVITY 3ECOND ) EXPLAIN ,EVINASS ACCOUNT OF BEING HUMAN BY FOCUSING ON HIS CRITIQUE OF ONTOLOGY EXEMPLIlED IN THE WORK OF -ARTIN (EIDEGGER AS WELL AS ON HIS RE JECTION OF PSYCHOANALYTIC THEORY AS PRESUPPOSED BY THE ANALYSIS OF *ACQUES ,ACAN )N CONTRAST TO THESE ONTOLOGICAL (EIDEGGERIAN AND PSYCHOANALYTIC ,ACANIAN TRAJECTORIES ,EVINAS EXPLAINS SUBJECTIVITY IN TERMS OF A PROPHETIC ETHICAL RELATION OF BEING FOR THE /THER )N THE THIRD AND FOURTH SECTIONS ,ONERGANS AND ,EVINASS OVERLAPPING CONCERNS AS WELL AS SOME INCOMMENSURABLE ISSUES ARE ADDRESSED 4HE WAY IN WHICH THEY APPROPRIATE PHENOMENOLOGY PARTICULARLY THE WORK OF %DMUND (USSERL AND -AURICE -ERLEAU 0ONTY PROVES INTEGRAL TO THESE LAST TWO SECTIONS
-ICHELE 3ARACINO ,ONERGAN AND ,EVINAS
"ERNARD ,ONERGANS 0HILOSOPHICAL "ACKGROUND 0INPOINTING WHOSE PHILOSOPHICAL OR THEOLOGICAL VOICE IS MOST PRESENT IN ,ONERGANS LIFES WORK IS A PAINSTAKING PROCESS 4HOMAS !QUINAS IS AN OBVIOUS PRESENCE IN ,ONERGANS WORLDVIEW PARTICULARLY SINCE ,ONERGAN WROTE HIS DISSERTATION ON THIS THIRTEENTH CENTURY THEOLOGIAN ,ONERGAN B )T COULD BE ARGUED THAT %DMUND (USSERL IS AN EQUALLY IMPOR TANT lGURE IN ,ONERGANS THOUGHT BECAUSE RETHINKING PHENOMENOLOGY IS AT THE HEART OF ,ONERGANS PROJECT /NE CANNOT IGNORE THE INmUENCE OF -AURICE -ERLEAU 0ONTY ON ,ONERGANS WORK ESPECIALLY IN RELATION TO HIS INVESTIGATION OF THE CORPOREAL REALITY OF BEING !LL OF THESE INmU ENCES UNDOUBTEDLY WILL BE EXPLORED AS MY INVESTIGATION OF OPENNESS UNFOLDS 4O BEGIN WITH HOWEVER IT IS CRUCIAL TO FOCUS ON ,ONERGANS UNDERSTANDING OF SUBJECTIVITY IN TERMS OF KNOWING AND INTENDING REAL ITY %VEN AS THE IMPORTANCE OF ,ONERGANS WORK NEEDS TO BE GRASPED BEYOND THE SCOPE OF COGNITION IT IS IN HIS UNDERSTANDING OF COGNITION THAT ,ONERGAN BEGAN HIS STUDY OF THE SUBJECT ,ONERGANS RESEARCH INTO THE COGNITIONAL PROCESS OF THE SUBJECT TOOK FORM DURING THE YEARS OF &OLLOWING THAT PERIOD HE PUBLISHED TWO KEY WORKS ON COGNITIONAL THEORY )NSIGHT AND -ETHOD IN 4HEOLOGY C BOTH OF WHICH DEMONSTRATE THE CON NECTIONS BETWEEN ADEQUATE UNDERSTANDING AND THEOLOGICAL INQUIRY )N ,ONERGAN DELIVERED -ARQUETTE 5NIVERSITYS !QUINAS ,ECTURE ENTITLED 4HE 3UBJECT IN WHICH HE DISCUSSED THE MODERN hNEGLECTv OF THE HUMAN SUBJECT IN PHILOSOPHY AND THEOLOGY "Y USING THE TERM hNEGLECT v ,ONERGAN SIGNALED THE WAY PHILOSOPHERS HAVE INSUFlCIENTLY EXPLORED THE DIMENSIONS OF BEING HUMAN BY IGNORING THE COMPLEX PROCESS OF COGNITION 4HE TEXTS MENTIONED ABOVE PROVIDE THE BASIS FOR MY DISCUSSION OF COGNITIONAL THEORY ,ONERGANS THEORY OF COGNITION ATTEMPTS TO ISOLATE AND STUDY THE OPERATIONS INVOLVED IN THE HUMAN PROCESS OF KNOWING 4HESE OPERATIONS INCLUDE THE ACTS OF hSEEING HEARING TOUCHING SMELLING TASTING INQUIR ING IMAGINING UNDERSTANDING CONCEIVING FORMULATING REmECTING MARSHALING AND WEIGHING THE EVIDENCE JUDGING DELIBERATING EVALUAT ING DECIDING SPEAKING WRITINGv ,ONERGAN C "Y DELINEAT ING THE PROCESS THROUGH WHICH HUMAN BEINGS UNDERSTAND ,ONERGAN
^0HILOSOPHICAL &OUNDATIONS
DISTINGUISHES AMONG THE OPERATIONS OF EXPERIENCING UNDERSTANDING JUDGING AND DECIDING !CCORDING TO ,ONERGAN HUMAN COGNITION UNFOLDS IN FOUR STAGES )NITIALLY THE PERSON EXPERIENCES OR ENCOUNTERS SENSE DATA WHICH PROVOKES A QUESTION WHAT IS IT 7HAT FOLLOWS IS AN ATTEMPT TO UNDERSTAND AND JUDGE THE SENSE DATA BY MARSHALING AND WEIGHING EVIDENCE ANSWERING THE QUESTION OF IS IT SO 4HIRD THE PERSON REmECTS ON THE LEGITIMACY OF THE JUDGMENT AND ASKS WHETHER WHAT SHE PROPOSES CAN BE VERIlED AS TRUE IS IT REALLY SO &INALLY THE SUBJECT ACTS ON WHAT SHE HAS VERIlED TO BE TRUE THAT IS DECIDES ON AND COMMITS TO A COURSE OF ACTION SINCE IT IS TRUE ) MUST DO X /NLY WHEN ALL FOUR OPERATIONS ARE INTEGRATED DOES THE AUTHENTIC KNOWING SUBJECT BEGIN TO EMERGE ,ONERGAN ARGUES THAT %NLIGHTENMENT THOUGHT DEVELOPED IN THE WORK OF $ESCARTES +ANT AND .IETZSCHE FAILS TO ADDRESS THESE ISSUES OF UNDERSTANDING AND BEING ADEQUATELY -ODERN CONSCIOUSNESS AS EXPLICATED BY THESE THREE THINKERS LEADS TO TRUNCATED IMMANENTIST AND ALIENATED NOTIONS OF SUBJECTIVITYALL OF WHICH ARE UNSUCCESS FUL AT CAPTURING THE COMPLEX EXPERIENCE OF BEING HUMAN ,ONERGAN DElNES THE PROBLEMATIC TRUNCATED SUBJECT AS A PERSON WHO DOES NOT KNOW HIMHERSELF BECAUSE SHE EQUATES REALITY WITH WHAT IS SENSED INDULGING IN PICTURE THINKING "Y THE PHRASE PICTURE THINKING ) REFER TO THE WAY THAT THE TRUNCATED SUBJECT FAILS TO QUESTION AND EVALUATE WHAT SHE SENSES OR SEES )NSTEAD THE TRUNCATED SUBJECT ASSUMES WHAT IS SEEN IS REAL UPHOLDING THE COMMONSENSE LOGIC THAT TO SEE IS TO BELIEVE !S SHE CORRELATES THE SEEN WITH A STATIC IDEA OF THE REAL THE TRUNCATED SUBJECT FAILS TO QUESTION HISHER PRESUPPOSITIONS 7ITHOUT QUESTIONING HISHER EXPERIENCE THIS TRUNCATED SUBJECT ASSUMES THAT HISHER PARTICULAR EXPERIENCE IS NORMATIVE AND REFUSES TO TRANSCEND THE WORLD OF POSITIVIST PICTURE THINKING &OR BETTER OR FOR WORSE ,ONERGAN ASSOCIATES THIS TRUNCATED SUBJECT WITH THE #ARTESIAN SUBJECT 4HE SECOND TYPE OF INAUTHENTIC SUBJECT THAT ,ONERGAN DISCUSSES IS THE IMMANENTIST SUBJECT WHO IS TRAPPED WITHIN HIMHERSELF 4HE IM MANENTIST SUBJECT ORIGINATES FROM A +ANTIAN IDEALISM WHICH PROPOSES THAT ALL KNOWLEDGE IS ENMESHED WITHIN REPRESENTATIONS AND IDEALS 7HEREAS THE TRUNCATED SUBJECT EQUATES THE WORLD OF SENSE WITH REAL ITY THE IMMANENTIST SUBJECT INFERS THAT THE WORLD OF SENSE IS MERELY A REPRESENTATION OF REALITY 4HUS ANY JUDGMENT IN REGARD TO THAT IDEAL
-ICHELE 3ARACINO ,ONERGAN AND ,EVINAS
REALITY IS MERELY A DECISION BASED ON REPRESENTATIONS ,ONERGAN MAIN TAINS THAT SUCH hTHINKINGv LEADS TO RELATIVISM 4HE STANCE OF THE RELATIVIST LEADS TO ,ONERGANS THIRD KIND OF INAUTHENTIC SUBJECT IN MODERNITY THE ALIENATED SUBJECT 4HIS ALIENATED SUBJECT IS ENTRENCHED FOR ,ONERGAN IN THE PHILOSOPHY OF .IETZSCHE !RGUABLY ALL OF .IETZSCHES WRITINGS ARE NOT PROBLEMATIC FOR ,ONERGAN /NLY THOSE WRITINGS AND INTERPRETATIONS OF .IETZSCHE THAT FOSTER A NIHILISTIC RECKLESS AND INAUTHENTIC SUBJECTIVITY ARE DISPUTED %VEN THOUGH ,O NERGAN DOES NOT EXPLICITLY STATE IN 4HE 3UBJECT THAT .IETZSCHES THEORY IS PROBLEMATIC HE ARGUES THAT THOSE EXISTENTIAL THEORIES THAT UPHOLD THE hDEATH OF 'ODv MENTALITY ARE hABSURDv AND DANGEROUS -OREOVER IN AN ESSAY h4IME AND -EANING v ,ONERGAN CHARGES .IETZSCHE WITH ESPOUSING THE DEATH OF 'OD MANTRA A #ONNECTING THESE RATHER VAGUE REFERENCES ) WILL EXPLICATE THE ISSUES OF THE ALIENATED SUBJECT IN TERMS OF .IETZSCHES ANTHROPOLOGY WHICH FOR ,ONERGAN IS GROUNDED IN AN EXTREME EXISTENTIALISM 4HERE ARE TWO FORMS OF EXISTENTIALISM FOR ,ONERGAN /N THE ONE HAND THERE IS A PRAISEWORTHY FORM OF EXISTENTIALISM WHICH SUPPORTS THE SUBJECTS OPTION FOR THE HUMAN GOOD THROUGH A PROCESS OF OPEN NESS AND CONVERSION /N THE OTHER HAND THERE IS AN EXTREME FORM OF EXISTENTIALISM WHICH TEMPTS THE SUBJECT TOWARD A POSTURE OF RELATIVISM A DISPOSITION TO APATHY IN WHICH ALL OPINIONS AND VIEWS ARE VALID !S THE hGOOD EXISTENTIALISTv SORTS AND UNDERSTANDS THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN POSITIONS AND COUNTERPOSITIONS THE hEXTREME EXISTENTIALISTv IS LULLED INTO A SENSE OF ALIENATION !LIENATION OCCURS BY WAY OF THE PERSONS REFUSAL TO COMMIT TO THE HUMAN GOOD THROUGH ENGAGING IN THE DYNAMIC STRUCTURE OF KNOWING ACTING AND LOVING 4HUS THE ALIENATED SUBJECT UNDERSTANDS HIMHERSELF AS ALONE POWERLESS HOPELESS INEFFECTIVE AND IGNORANT RATHER THAN CONNECTED POWERFUL HOPEFUL CAPABLE AND KNOWLEDGEABLE ,ONERGAN PRIVILEGES THE EXISTENTIAL SUBJECT BECAUSE SHE IS FREE AND RESPONSIBLE YET AT THE SAME TIME ,ONERGAN ACKNOWLEDGES THAT AN EXTREME EXISTENTIALIST ATTITUDE COULD LEAD TO A RECKLESS POSTURE AND INAUTHENTIC LIVING (AVING ONLY BRIEmY INTRODUCED THE WAYS IN WHICH ,ONERGANS UNDERSTANDING OF THE SUBJECT IMPLICITLY OFFERS A CRITIQUE OF THE %NLIGHTENMENT SUBJECT BELOW ) WILL DEVELOP HIS ARGU
&OR AN INFORMATIVE ESSAY ON ,ONERGANS RELATIONSHIP TO EXISTENTIALIST THOUGHT SEE -ARK $ -ORELLI h,ONERGAN AND %XISTENTIALISMv A
^0HILOSOPHICAL &OUNDATIONS
MENT FURTHER THROUGH AN EXPLORATION OF THE SPECIlC IDEAS OF $ESCARTES +ANT AND .IETZSCHE
2EN£ $ESCARTES %VEN AS A CONTESTED TERM MODERNITY CAN MOST EASILY BE DElNED AS THE WORLDVIEW INAUGURATED BY THE EMPHASIS ON THE OCULAR GAZE OF THE SUBJECT A GAZE THAT BECAME CONmATED WITH REASON AND KNOWLEDGE $ESCARTESS INTERPRETATION OF SUBJECTIVITY IS TYPIlED BY THE ATTITUDE OF COGITO ERGO SUM AND EPITOMIZES THE MODERN TENDENCY TO EQUATE VISION SEEING OR LOOKING WITH KNOWING 4HIS COLLAPSE OF SEEING THE WORLD INTO KNOWING THE WORLD BECOMES ,ONERGANS DElNITIVE PROBLEM WITH #ARTESIAN THEORY )N AN EFFORT TO GET AT THE HEART OF #ARTESIAN THEORY IT MIGHT HELP TO TURN TO PHILOSOPHER 2OBERT # 3OLOMON WHO POINTS OUT THAT $ESCARTES DID NOT SO MUCH DISCOVER SUBJECTIVITY AS hESTABLISH THE CENTRALITY OF THE HUMAN MINDv OR THE COGITO $ESCARTESS TURN TO THE SUBJECT ACCORDING TO 3OLOMON CAN BE SUMMARIZED IN THREE POINTS HIS METHOD OF DOUBT HIS EGOCENTRIC PREDICAMENT AND HIS EMPHASIS ON POINT OF VIEW &OR THE PURPOSE OF THIS ANALYSIS ) WILL CONCENTRATE ON THE EGOCENTRIC PREDICAMENT OF THE SUBJECT 7ITH THE PHRASE hEGOCENTRIC PREDICAMENT v 3OLOMON REFERS TO THE WAY IN WHICH THE SUBJECT TAKES HISHER BEING AND PERSPECTIVE FOR GRANTED )N OTHER WORDS THE #ARTESIAN EGOCENTRIC SUBJECT POSITS HIMHERSELF AND ASSUMES HISHER BEING TO THE EXTENT THAT THERE IS NO RIGOROUS QUESTIONING OF SUBJECTIVITY OR OBJECTIVITY !S PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED ,ONERGAN IS TROUBLED BY THE EMPIRICIST INCLINATION OF #ARTESIAN THEORY BECAUSE IT EQUATES REALITY WITH EXPERIENCE ALONE AND DISREGARDS FURTHER INVESTIGA TION AND VERIlCATION 4HIS CONmATION OF LOOKING WITH REALITY LEADS TO A NAÆVE NOTION OF OBJECTIVITY 7HATS MORE THIS INSUFlCIENT NOTION OF OBJECTIVITY RESULTS IN AN UNSATISFACTORY ACCOUNT OF SUBJECTIVITY WHICH IS THE KEY PROBLEM FOR ,ONERGAN !NOTHER ISSUE WHICH ARISES IN #ARTESIAN THEORY IS A DICHOTOMY BE TWEEN MIND AND BODY )N $ISCOURSE ON -ETHOD AS $ESCARTES CONmATES THE COGITO WITH THE SOUL HE REDUCES SUBJECTIVITY TO THE REALM OF THE RATIONAL 6EITCH 4HIS CHASM BETWEEN BODY AND MIND IS MORE EXPLICITLY DEVELOPED IN THE 3IXTH -EDITATION WHERE HE DRAWS
-ICHELE 3ARACINO ,ONERGAN AND ,EVINAS
A STARK SEPARATION BETWEEN THE LOCATION AND FUNCTION OF THE BODY AS WELL AS OF THE SOUL $ESCARTES STATES ) CERTAINLY DO POSSESS A BODY WITH WHICH ) AM VERY CLOSELY CONJOINED NEVERTHELESS BECAUSE ON THE ONE HAND ) HAVE A CLEAR AND DISTINCT IDEA OF MYSELF IN AS FAR AS ) AM ONLY A THINKING AND UNTHINKING THING IT IS CERTAIN THAT ) ;THAT IS MY MIND BY WHICH ) AM WHAT ) AM= AM ENTIRELY AND TRULY DISTINCT FROM MY BODY AND MAY EXIST WITHOUT IT 6EITCH
)T BECOMES EVIDENT THAT AS $ESCARTES DISTINGUISHES THE MIND FROM THE BODY HE PRIVILEGES THE MIND OVER THE BODY )N OTHER WORDS TO THE EXTENT THAT THE MIND CAN SURVEY BOTH THE MIND AND BODY THROUGH A PROCESS OF INTROSPECTION OR AN ACTIVITY OF SIMPLE LOOKING $ESCARTESS PHILOSOPHY EMPOWERS THE MIND OVER THE BODY )NDEED THE COGITO COMES TO KNOW ITSELF THROUGH THE ACT OF PERCEPTION OR LOOKING 2ELATED TO THE WAY IN WHICH $ESCARTES PRIVILEGES THE MIND OVER THE BODY IS HIS CLAIM THAT THE MIND IS hINDIVISIBLEv AND THE BODY hDIVIS IBLEv 6EITCH $ESCARTES WRITES 4HERE IS A VAST DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MIND AND BODY IN RESPECT THAT BODY FROM ITS NATURE IS ALWAYS DIVISIBLE AND THAT MIND IS ENTIRELY INDIVISIBLE &OR IN TRUTH WHEN ) CONSIDER THE MIND THAT IS WHEN ) CONSIDER MYSELF IN SO FAR ONLY AS ) AM A THINKING THING ) CAN DISTINGUISH IN MYSELF IN NO PARTS BUT ) VERY CLEARLY DISCERN THAT ) AM SOMEWHAT ABSOLUTELY ONE AND ENTIRE x "UT QUITE THE OPPOSITE HOLDS IN CORPOREAL OR EXTENDED THINGS FOR ) CANNOT IMAGINE ANY ONE OF THEM ;HOW SMALL SO EVER IT MAY BE= WHICH ) CANNOT EASILY SUNDER IN THOUGHT AND WHICH THEREFORE ) DO NOT KNOW TO BE DIVISIBLE 6EITCH
.OTICE THAT $ESCARTES ASSUMES THAT CONSCIOUSNESS IS UNIlED MONOLITHIC AND THUS OBJECTIVE #ORPOREALITY APPEARS FRAGMENTED IN COMPARISON TO THE UNIlED MIND IS SUBORDINATED TO THE SITE OF REASON AND EVEN IS DISCONNECTED FROM REASON AND KNOWLEDGE ALTOGETHER &EMINIST PHILOSO PHER 3USAN "ORDO ARGUES THAT WHEN TAKEN TO AN EXTREME THE #ARTESIAN COGITO IN FACT ERASES THE BODY 4HE mESH OF THE SUBJECT BECOMES DISCONNECTED FROM THE ACTIVITY OF THE COGITO %VEN IF $ESCARTES PRIVILEGES
^0HILOSOPHICAL &OUNDATIONS
THE BODY BECAUSE OF THE EMPHASIS HE PLACES ON THE ACT OF PERCEPTION HE SEVERS COGNITION FROM ANY CONCRETE BODILY SOURCE )N OTHER WORDS ALTHOUGH #ARTESIAN THOUGHT lGURES COGNITION IN SENSUAL METAPHORS IT FAILS TO SCRUTINIZE PHENOMENOLOGICALLY OR OTHERWISE HOW THE SUBJECTS BODY IS IMPLICATED IN THE ACTIVITY OF UNDERSTANDING ,ONERGAN REJECTS THE TRUNCATED SUBJECT FOUND IN #ARTESIAN METAPHYSICS FOR TWO MAIN REASONS &IRST HE ARGUES THAT PHILOSOPHYS OBSESSION WITH THE SOUL AND THE CONmATION OF THE SOUL WITH THE COGITO HAS LED TO AN INAD EQUATE UNDERSTANDING OF OBJECTIVITY 4OO OFTEN OBJECTIVITY IS CORRELATED WITH THE PICTURE THINKING OR OCULARCENTRIC LOGIC PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED 3ECOND ,ONERGAN DISAGREES WITH THE FACILE SEPARATION BETWEEN BODY AND MIND ,ONERGANS UNDERSTANDING OF COGNITION DEMONSTRATES THE INEXTRICABLE LINK BETWEEN BODILY EXPERIENCE AND THE ACTIVITY OF KNOW ING THEREBY COMPLICATING $ESCARTESS ASSUMPTION THAT THE MIND AND BODY ARE SEPARABLE "Y ISOLATING THE DISTINCT AND DISCRETE LEVELS OF THE SELF ASSEMBLING ACTIVITY OF THE STRUCTURE OF HUMAN KNOWING INCLUDING THE OPERATIONS OF EXPERIENCING UNDERSTANDING JUDGING AND DECIDING ,ONERGAN INTEGRATES THE BODY AND MIND IN AUTHENTIC SUBJECTIVITY AND READS SUBJECTIVITY IN TERMS OF A HOLISTIC EMBODIED EXPERIENCE 4HE HOLISTIC APPROACH TO KNOWING WHICH ,ONERGAN UPHOLDS DEMANDS THAT WE ARE ATTENTIVE NOT ONLY TO THE RATIONAL ASPECT OF BEING HUMAN BUT ALSO TO THE INTUITIVE AND AFFECTIVE DIMENSION OF BEING HUMAN 4HE FAILURE TO MENTION THE IMPORTANCE OF CORPOREALITY AND AFFECTIVITY IN $ESCARTESS EXPLANATION OF SUBJECTIVITY PUSHES ,ONERGAN INTO RETHINKING BEING HUMAN IN TERMS OF NOT ONLY REASON AND WILL BUT ALSO IN TERMS OF FEELINGA POINT ADDRESSED IN MORE DETAIL IN THE NEXT CHAPTER
)MMANUEL +ANT !S WE TURN OUR FOCUS FROM $ESCARTES TO +ANT WE CAN DISCERN A SHIFT IN EMPHASIS FROM THE PERSON TO THE WORLD )T IS FAIR TO SUGGEST THAT THIS CHANGE FROM A PRESUMED #ARTESIAN COGITO TO AN IDEALIZED +ANTIAN SUBJECT OCCURRED DURING THE hEIGHTEENTH CENTURY ;WHEN IN= 'ERMAN PHILOSOPHY THERE IS A CHANGE FROM THE ORIENTATION OF INTROSPECTION TO INTERSUBJECTIVITYv -OHR !S $ESCARTES CLAIMS THAT THE SUBJECT IS KNOWN BEFORE THE WORLD +ANT ASSERTS THAT THE SUBJECT CAN
-ICHELE 3ARACINO ,ONERGAN AND ,EVINAS
ONLY BE KNOWN THROUGH THE WORLD 0UT ANOTHER WAY AS #ARTESIAN THOUGHT TAKES THE COGITO FOR GRANTED AND INTERPRETS INTROSPECTION AS A REAL POSSIBILITY +ANTIAN LOGIC DOUBTS THE VALIDITY OF THE COGITO AND IS SKEPTICAL OF ANY KNOWLEDGE DERIVED FROM INTROSPECTION &OR THE SAKE OF SIMPLICITY ) WILL DISCUSS +ANT AS ,ONERGAN UNDERSTOOD HIM )T MUST BE ADMITTED HOWEVER THAT WHILE ,ONERGANS AUTHENTIC SUBJECT EMERGES IN RESPONSE TO WHAT HE READS AS INADEQUATE INTERPRET ATIONS OF SUBJECTIVITY FOUND IN THE THEORIES OF $ESCARTES +ANT AND .IETZSCHE ,ONERGAN MAY HAVE FAILED TO GRASP THE NUANCE OF +ANTIAN PHILOSOPHY ,ONERGAN ADHERES TO THE DOMINANT INTERPRETATION OF +ANT IN WHICH +ANT IS THOUGHT TO UPHOLD AN ATOMISTIC INDIVIDUALISTIC AND INTUITIONIST INTERPRETATION OF ANTHROPOLOGY )N 4HE 3UBJECT ,ONERGAN MAINTAINS THAT THE +ANTIAN SUBJECT IS TRAPPED IN AN IDEALIST STATE AND UNABLE TO MOVE FORWARD BY JUDGING AND DECIDING ,ONERGAN SCHOLARS MOREOVER HAVE EXTENDED ,ONERGANS ASSUMPTION THAT +ANTIAN ANALYSIS IS BASED ON INTUITION 3ALA .EVERTHELESS CONTEMPORARY SCHOLARSHIP AS DEMONSTRATED IN THE WORK OF PHILOSOPHER /NORA /.EILL SHOWS THAT +ANT DID NOT INTEND TO TOTALLY DEBUNK THE NOTIONS OF KNOWLEDGE OR REASON IN HIS PROJECT %VEN AS +ANT IDENTIlED THE PROBLEM OF AN EXTREME AND ARBITRARY RATIONAL ISM HE INSISTED THAT JUDGMENT IS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO MOVE FORWARD AND CONSTRUCT COMMUNITY 3TILL ,ONERGANS INTERPRETATION OF +ANT ON THIS POINT IS CRUCIAL TO HIS CRITIQUE OF IDEALIST SUBJECTIVITY AND ITS INADEQUACIES #LEARLY ,ONERGAN CONmATES THE IMMANENTIST SUBJECT WITH THE +ANTIAN SUBJECT WHICH HE ASSOCIATES WITH THE ANTHROPOLOGY OF THE #RITIQUE OF 0URE 2EASON +ANT "Y THE TERM IMMANENTIST ,ONERGAN REFERS TO THE INAUTHENTIC SUBJECT OF MODERNITY WHO REFUSES TO KNOW THEREBY LIVING IN A WORLD OF INTUITIONA MILIEU IN WHICH SEEING IS EQUIVALENT TO KNOWING ,ONERGANS REPUDIATION OF THE +ANTIAN IMMANENTIST SUBJECT BECOMES CLARIlED WHEN CONNECTED TO HIS INVESTIGATION OF THE #ARTESIAN SUBJECT )N ,ONERGANS VIEW THE #ARTESIAN TRUNCATED SUBJECT LEADS TO THE +ANTIAN IMMANENTIST SUBJECT 2ECALL THAT THE TRUNCATED SUBJECT CORRELATES WHAT SHE SEES WITH REALITY AN ACTIVITY THAT LEADS TO THE DANGER OF PICTURE THINKING !CCORDING TO ,ONERGAN THE TRUNCATED SUBJECT BEGINS TO DOUBT THE REALITY OF WHAT SHE SEES AND THIS DOUBT RESULTS
^0HILOSOPHICAL &OUNDATIONS
IN IMMANENTISM 4HE IMMANENTIST SUBJECT PROFESSES THAT WHAT SHE SEES IS MERE APPEARANCE AND IS UNABLE TO MAKE ANY TRUTHFUL JUDGMENTS ABOUT REALITY 4HIS INSIDIOUS SKEPTICISM WHICH ,ONERGAN ASSOCIATES WITH THE +ANTIAN SUBJECT RENDERS THE SUBJECT POWERLESS TO MAKE ANY INFALLIBLE JUDGMENTS 4HE ASSUMPTION THAT ALL JUDGMENTS ARE FALLIBLE IS PROBLEMATIC FOR SUCH AN ASSUMPTION IS VULNERABLE TO THE CHARGE OF CIRCULARITY ,ONERGAN lNALLY IS FRUSTRATED WITH THE ATTITUDE OF THE IM MANENTIST SUBJECT WHO REFUSES TO KNOW "Y CONTESTING THIS RELUCTANCE TO KNOW REALITY ,ONERGAN ATTEMPTS TO TRANSCEND THE IMMANENTISM AND SKEPTICISM OF THE +ANTIAN SUBJECT )RONICALLY ,ONERGANS CONCERN FOR CERTAINTY AND INFALLIBILITY SEEMS STRANGELY #ARTESIAN !CCORDING TO ,ONERGAN THE +ANTIAN SUBJECTS INABILITY TO KNOW REALITY IS LINKED TO THE SUBJECTS INADEQUATE NOTION OF OBJECTIVITY +ANT UNDERSTANDS OBJECTIVITY AS hOBJECTS IN RELATION TO SUBJECTS IT IS NOT THE OBJECTIVITY OF @THINGS IN THEMSELVESv "ROWN 4HIS MEANS THAT AS HUMAN BEINGS UNDERSTAND AND SITUATE THE WORLD IN RELATION TO THEMSELVES THEY CANNOT ESCAPE CONSCIOUSNESS OR TRANSCEND EXPERI ENCE TO KNOW ANYTHING FOR CERTAIN 3INCE +ANTIAN THEORY INTERPRETS OBJECTIVITY AS CONDITIONED BY PERCEPTION ,ONERGAN ARGUES THAT THE +ANTIAN SUBJECTS KNOWLEDGE OF REALITY CAN NEVER TRANSCEND PERCEPTION ,ONERGAN INSISTS HOWEVER THAT PERCEPTION ALONE IS NOT KNOWLEDGE )F HUMAN BEINGS LIVE ONLY BY EXPERIENCE OR PERCEPTION THE OPERATIONS OF UNDERSTANDING AND JUDGMENT BECOME OBSCURED AND THE SUBJECT BECOMES REDUCED TO PICTURE THINKING 4HE TRAP OF PICTURE THINKING BECOMES EXACERBATED WHEN ONE APPLIES THIS IDEALISM TO THE QUESTION OF THE SELF ,ONERGAN EXPLAINS THAT IT IS PROBLEMATIC TO THINK THAT BECAUSE EXPERIENCE SHAPES OUR KNOWLEDGE WE CAN NEVER OBTAIN ANYTHING MORE THAN IDEAL KNOWLEDGE OF OURSELVES 3ELF KNOWLEDGE TRANSCENDS IDEALS OF SELF 3ELF KNOWLEDGE FOR ,ONERGAN IS PERFORMATIVE BECAUSE THE SUBJECT ONLY KNOWS HIMHERSELF BY AP PROPRIATING AND AFlRMING HIMHERSELF AS A KNOWER ACTOR AND LOVER !LTERNATIVELY INTUITION ABOUT THE SELF DOES NOT CONSTITUTE OBJECTIVITY BECAUSE IT LACKS UNDERSTANDING JUDGING AND DECIDINGTHAT IS IT REMAINS ONLY AT THE LEVEL OF DESCRIPTION ,ONERGANS INSISTENCE ON THE NECESSITY OF OBJECTIVITY ALLOWS HIM TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE ACTIVITIES OF DESCRIPTION AND EXPLANATION $E
-ICHELE 3ARACINO ,ONERGAN AND ,EVINAS
SCRIPTION REFERS TO THE ACTIVITY OF INTERPRETING THINGS SOLELY IN RELATION TO ONES OWN EXPERIENCE WHEREAS EXPLANATION REFERS TO THE COMPLEXITY OF UNDERSTANDING THINGS IN RELATION TO AND AMONG THEMSELVES !RGUABLY THE +ANTIAN SUBJECT IS AN IMMANENTIST SUBJECT BECAUSE SHE UNDERSTANDS OBJECTIVITY ONLY AT THE LEVEL OF DESCRIPTION ONLY IN RELATION TO SELF )N ORDER FOR THE SUBJECT TO AVOID BEING IMMANENTIST AND BECOME AUTHENTIC SHE MUST TRANSCEND THIS SELF CENTERED IDEAL ORIENTED DESCRIPTIVE RIDDEN WORLD 3UCH TRANSCENDENCE IS ONLY POSSIBLE WHEN THE SUBJECT KNOWS HIMHERSELF !CCORDING TO ,ONERGAN h;'=ENUINE OBJECTIVITY IS THE FRUIT OF AUTHENTIC SUBJECTIVITYv C /BJECTIVITY THEN IS THE ABILITY TO DISTINGUISH AND EXPLAIN WHAT IS TRUE AND IS ONLY POS SIBLE WHEN ONE TRANSCENDS AN EGOIST POSTURE AND BECOMES RATIONALLY SELF CONSCIOUS ABOUT ONES COGNITIONAL PROCESS !UTHENTIC SUBJECTIVITY EMERGES WHEN ONE AFlRMS THAT SHE IS A KNOWER 4HE +ANTIAN SUBJECT THAT IS THE IMMANENTIST SUBJECT NEVER ACHIEVES GENUINE SUBJECTIVITY BECAUSE SHE DOES NOT FOLLOW THROUGH TO THE LEVEL OF REmECTIVE QUESTIONING 3HE REFUSES TO ASK WHETHER WHAT APPEARS TRUE IS INDEED TRUE 3INCE THE +ANTIAN SUBJECT NEVER ASKS THE QUESTION OF h)S IT SO v JUDGMENT REMAINS SIMULTANEOUSLY IDEALIZED AND IMMANENT ,ONERGAN SCHOLAR 'IOVANNI 3ALA CLARIlES HOW +ANTS MODEL OF KNOWING IS AN INTUITIVE MODEL IN WHICH THERE IS NO GAP OR SECOND STEP BETWEEN A THING BEING INTUITED AND A THING BEING KNOWN -OREOVER 3ALA EX PLAINS THAT THERE IS NO JUDGMENT hBY WHICH WE KNOW REALITYv (E DEMONSTRATES THAT +ANTS THEORY FAILS TO ATTEND EXPLICITLY TO AN EXPANSION OF CONSCIOUSNESS FROM THE REALM OF SENSE AND INTUITION TO THE REALM OF CRITICALLY MEDIATED KNOWLEDGE AND RESPONSIBLE ACTION )N ,ONERGANS ESTIMATION +ANTS UNDERSTANDING OF SUBJECTIVITY AND KNOWLEDGE REMAINS AT THE LEVEL OF EXPERIENCE SO JUDGMENT REMAINS A REPRESENTATION OF REALITY !LL THESE CONCLUSIONS ABOUT +ANT CAN BE TRACED TO HIS STATEMENT ABOUT REPRESENTATION h*UDGMENT IS THEREFORE THE MEDIATE COGNITION OF AN OBJECT HENCE THE REPRESENTATION OF A REPRESENTATION OF ITv ! " P
&OR A DISCUSSION OF THE CONNECTION BETWEEN +ANTS INTERPRETATION OF PHENOMENON AND NOUMENON AND THE ACTIVITIES OF DESCRIPTION AND EXPLANATION SEE ,ONERGAN
^0HILOSOPHICAL &OUNDATIONS
)N ORDER TO AVOID THE IDEALIST STANCE OF THE +ANTIAN SUBJECT 3ALA SUPPORTS ,ONERGANS INTERPRETATION OF JUDGMENT AS A DElNITIVE YES OR NO ANSWER BASED ON THE DYNAMIC PROCESS OF ANSWERING SUCH QUESTIONS AS h7HAT IS IT v h)S IT SO v AND h)S IT REALLY SO v &OR ,ONERGAN OBJECTIVITY IS POSSIBLE THROUGH THE RESPONSIBLE PERFORMANCE OF AUTHENTIC SUBJECTIV ITY THROUGH EXPERIENCING UNDERSTANDING JUDGING AND DECIDING 0UT ANOTHER WAY RESPONSIBILITY ACCORDING TO ,ONERGAN EMERGES OUT OF THE INTEGRATION OF ONES EMBODIED COGNITIVE PROCESS OF EXPERIENCING UNDERSTANDING JUDGING AND DECIDING 2ESPONSIBILITY BRINGS FORTH AUTHENTIC SUBJECTIVITY )SSUES OF EMBODIMENT AND SENSUALITY ARE RELATED TO THE RESPONSIBLE PERFORMANCE OF AUTHENTIC SUBJECTIVITY ,ONERGANS AUTHENTIC SUBJECT IS A mESH AND BLOOD PERSON WITH FEELINGS AND GOALS 3UCH FEELINGS AND AFFECTION FOR OTHERS ARE INTEGRAL TO BEING HUMAN IN THAT THEY SIGNAL HUMAN VALUES AND GROUND ETHICAL INTERACTIONS WITH OTHERS )N ,ONERGANS VIEW +ANT PROBLEMATICALLY DEVALUES THE BODY OR AT THE VERY LEAST DENIGRATES THE HUMAN ASPECTS OF FEELING AND SENSUALITY +ANT SEEKS A MIDDLE GROUND BETWEEN THE RATIONALIST TRADITION THAT EXPLAINS KNOWLEDGE A PRIORI BY WAY OF PROOFS AND THE EMPIRICIST TRADITION THAT UNDERSTANDS ALL KNOWLEDGE AS A POSTERIORI BASED ON EXPERIENCE &URTHERMORE +ANT DISTINGUISHES BETWEEN THE TRANSCENDENTAL AND THE EMPIRICAL SELF BY CONTRASTING A PERSON DETERMINED BY WILL AND A PERSON IMPRISONED BY SENSE INCLINATION &OR +ANT THEN THESE TWO ASPECTS OF THE PERSON ARE DIFFERENTIATED AND OPPOSED )N THIS POLEMIC BETWEEN THE RATIONAL AND THE SENSUAL A HIERARCHY FAVORING THE ACTIVE OVER THE PASSIVE DEVELOPS +ANT WORKS WITH AN OPPOSITION BETWEEN THE SENSUOUS WILL AND THE RATIONAL WILL AN OPPOSITION CONCEIVED OF IN TERMS OF PASSIVITY AND ACTIVITY 4HE RATIONAL WILL ACTIVATED BY REPRESENTATIONS OF PRINCIPLE WHICH ARE VALID AND IN FORCE IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES IS ACTIVATED ALWAYS WILLS ALWAYS IS THE IDEAL STATE OF THE WILL 4HE SENSUOUS WILL THAT ACTIVATED BY REPRESENTATIONS OR SENSUOUS PARTICULARS IS ACTIVATED FROM THE OUTSIDE IT IS DEPENDENT SERVILE REACTIVE !ND IT IS ACTI VATED BY THE PROMISE OF PLEASURE THE REPRESENTATIONS OF SENSUOUS PARTICULARS CONTAIN IT IS THUS ACTIVATED CONTINGENTLY +ANT DEVALUES
-ICHELE 3ARACINO ,ONERGAN AND ,EVINAS THE SENSUOUS WILL ALLEGING ITS CONTINGENCY AND ITS DEPENDENCY ITS SERVILITY 4HE RATIONAL WILL IS A WILL MOTIVATED FROM WITHIN BY ITS OWN REPRESENTATIONAL FACULTY AND MOTIVATING ITSELF ALWAYS ,INGIS
!S +ANT LINKS PASSIVITY TO A NEGATIVE READING OF SENSE AND FEELING HE DEGRADES HUMAN SENSUALITY AND IMPLIES THAT THE PASSIVE SUBJECT IS TRAPPED AND BOGGED DOWN BY FEELING )NDEED +ANTS UNDERSTANDING OF FEELING IMPEDES HUMAN FREEDOM )T IS NOT TOO MUCH TO SUGGEST THAT ,ONERGAN WOULD UNDERSTAND THIS PEJORATIVE CONNOTATION OF SENSE EXPERIENCE AS AN OBSTACLE TO RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE AND ETHICAL RESPONSI BILITY ,ONERGAN WOULD REJECT THE DISMISSAL OF RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE AND ETHICAL OBLIGATION TO WHICH THIS POSITION MIGHT TEND BECAUSE FEELING AND RESPONSIBILITY ARE INTEGRAL PARTS OF CONVERSION TO GENUINE SUBJEC TIVITY )NDEED FOR ,ONERGAN RELIGIOUS FEELING AND OPENNESS ARE THE CULMINATION OF APPROPRIATION )T IS AT THE JUNCTURE BETWEEN THE HEAD REASON AND THE HEART FEELING FOR OTHERS BEYOND SELF THAT AUTHENTIC SUBJECTIVITY EMERGES 0HILOSOPHER #HARLES 4AYLOR LINKS +ANTS INTERPRETATION OF FREEDOM TO THAT OF 2OUSSEAUS IN WHICH FREEDOM THRIVES IN AN IMMANENTIST ENVIRONMENT WHICH IS DRIVEN BY SELF DETERMINATION )T IS INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT WHEREAS $ESCARTES VALIDATES HUMANITYS DEPENDENCE ON 'OD THAT IS ON THE )NlNITE BOTH +ANT AND 2OUS SEAU DEVALUE ANY SORT OF DEPENDENCE ON 'OD OR OTHERS &URTHERMORE A POSTURE OF PASSIVITY DEPENDENCE ON OTHERS ANDOR RELIANCE ON THE TRANSCENDENT IS DEEMED AS A VICE OF THE SUBJECT 4HE IDEAL SUBJECT FOR +ANT AND 2OUSSEAU IS SELF SUFlCIENT SELF DETERMINED AND SELF MADE !T THE SAME TIME HOWEVER ,ONERGAN VIEWS THE +ANTIAN SUBJECT AS ENMESHED IN THE WORLD OF INTUITION 4HIS UNDERSTANDING OF +ANTS THEORY PROVES CONTRADICTORY FOR ,ONERGAN FOR HOW COULD A SUBJECT ENMESHED IN EXPERIENCE AND INTERSUBJECTIVE RELATIONSHIPS ACHIEVE AUTONOMOUS FREEDOM %VEN THOUGH +ANT AFlRMS SELF AUTONOMY AND ABHORS PASSIVITY HIS INSISTENCE ON THE PRIMACY OF EXPERIENCE MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE SUBJECT TO BE TRULY FREE ,ONERGAN ARGUES THAT IN ITS COMMITMENT TO SELF SUFlCIENCY THE +ANTIAN SUBJECT IS INCAPABLE OF TRANSCENDING ITS OWN EXPERIENCE 5LTIMATELY FOR ,ONERGAN THE +ANTIAN IMMANENTIST SUBJECT IS INADEQUATE PRECISELY BECAUSE THE
^0HILOSOPHICAL &OUNDATIONS
SUBJECT REFUSES TO TRANSCEND THE LEVEL OF EXPERIENCE 4HE PROBLEMS OF THE IMMANENTIST SUBJECT LEAD TO EVEN MORE SERIOUS ISSUES RELATED TO THE ALIENATED SUBJECT
&RIEDRICH .IETZSCHE 3IMILAR TO THE WAY IN WHICH ,ONERGAN INTERPRETS $ESCARTES AND +ANT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DOMINANT READING OF THEIR WORK ,ONERGAN READS .IETZSCHES ANTHROPOLOGY PARTICULARLY IN 4HE 3UBJECT IN TERMS OF A PERSON WHO DISMISSES 'OD AND MORALITY #ONTEMPORARY COMMENTATORS ON .IETZSCHE MIGHT REJECT ,ONERGANS ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT .IETZSCHE !* (OOVER IN &RIEDRICH .IETZSCHE (IS ,IFE AND 4HOUGHT DISCUSSES THE AMBIGUITY OF .IETZSCHES REFERENCE TO THE @$EATH OF 'OD AND CLAIMS THAT MANTRA HAS BEEN OVER USED ABUSED AND LARGELY MISUNDERSTOOD BY SCHOLARS 7ITH THIS SAID IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT THIS DISCUSSION OF .IETZSCHE IS BASED ON ,ONERGANS RATHER SKETCHY REFERENCES TO HIM AND HIS REACTION TO #HRISTIANITY 0UT SHARPLY IT IS FAIR TO SAY THAT .IETZSCHE MIGHT NOT RECOGNIZE HIMSELF IN ,ONERGANS WRITINGS .IETZSCHE OFFERED A CRITIQUE OF #HRISTIAN AND HUMANISTIC MORALITY BECAUSE IT LED TO DOGMATIC THINKING OR WHAT HE TERMED A HERD MEN TALITY (E CONTENDED THAT IT WAS THE RESPONSIBILITY AND DESTINY OF THE HUMAN PERSON TO OVERCOME SUCH PASSIVITY !S WITH +ANT PASSIVITY HAS NEGATIVE CONNOTATIONS .IETZSCHES 4HE 7ILL TO 0OWER WAS COMPILED FROM SCHOLARLY NOTES AND PAPERS AFTER HIS DEATH )N THAT TEXT .IETZSCHES THOUGHT ON SUBJECTIVITY KNOWLEDGE AND POWER IS BROUGHT TO LIGHT AND WE ARE PRESENTED WITH AN UNDERSTANDING OF SUBJECTIVITY THAT ,ONERGAN INTERPRETS AS EXISTENTIAL ,ONERGAN EMPHASIZES THE IMPORTANCE OF EXISTENTIALISM AND ETHICS THROUGH THE DELINEATION OF THE SUBJECT AS AUTHENTIC NOT ONLY ON THE LEVELS OF EXPERIENCING UN DERSTANDING JUDGING AND DECIDING BUT ALSO ON THE LEVEL OF DOING THAT IS CHOOSING AND ACTING ,ONERGAN ASSERTS h"Y HIS OWN ACTS THE HUMAN SUBJECT MAKES HIMSELF WHAT HE IS TO BE AND HE DOES SO FREELY AND RESPONSIBLY INDEED HE DOES SO PRECISELY BECAUSE HIS ACTS ARE THE FREE AND RESPONSIBLE EXPRESSIONS OF HIMSELF 3UCH IS THE EXISTENTIAL SUBJECTv .IETZSCHES SUBJECT lTS ,ONERGANS DElNITION OF
-ICHELE 3ARACINO ,ONERGAN AND ,EVINAS
EXISTENTIALISM BY BECOMING SUBJECT IN HISHER ACTIONS YET ,ONERGAN REJECTS THE .IETZSCHEAN BRAND OF EXTREME EXISTENTIALISM BECAUSE IT ALIENATES THE SUBJECT FROM GOODNESS 2ECALL HOW THE IMMANENTIST SUBJECT OF +ANTIAN METAPHYSICS IS TRAPPED IN A MYRIAD OF REPRESENTATIONS ALL SEEMING VALID 4HIS MAZE OF IDEALS lCTIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS PARALYZES THE SUBJECT AND RENDERS HIMHER POWERLESS TO MAKE ANY JUDGMENTS ABOUT WHAT IS GOOD 4HIS IMPOTENT SUBJECT BECOMES ALIENATED FROM GOODNESS VALUE AS WELL AS SELF WHEN FACED WITH HAVING TO CHOOSE ACT AND LOVE IN THE MIDST OF ALL THESE DUBIOUS REPRESENTATIONS 1UESTIONS SUCH AS THESE ARISE WHEN EXISTENTIAL REmECTION TURNS INTO A hTRAPv ,ONERGAN (OW DO WE CHOOSE WHEN WE CANNOT BE SURE OF THE CHOICES (OW DO WE ACT WHEN ONE DECISION SEEMS TO HAVE THE SAME EFFECT AS ANOTHER 7HAT IS THE POINT OF ACTING WHEN WE CANNOT BE SURE THE WORLD IS GOOD ANYWAY 4HE ALIENATED SUBJECT IS UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND AND JUDGE ADEQUATELY AND POOR ETHICAL AND MORAL DECISION MAKING AND HUMAN RELATING IS A RESULT !CCORDING TO ,ONERGAN .IETZSCHES SUBJECT IS A CASUALTY OF THE TRAP OF EXTREME EXISTENTIALISM !S .IETZSCHES SUBJECT INTERPRETS THE WORLD AS A JUMBLE OF CHOICES AND PERSPECTIVES SHE REFUSES TO CHOOSE THE GOOD MORAL OVER THE BAD IMMORAL OPTIONS )NSTEAD AT ANY COST THE ALIENATED SUBJECT CHOOSES FOR HIMHERSELF IN THE WAKE OF THE DOGMATIC SLUMBER AND INSTABILITY OF THE WORLD !RGUABLY ,ONERGAN SHOULD EMBRACE THE WAY .IETZSCHES SUBJECT IMPLICITLY OFFERS A CRITIQUE OF DOGMATISM AND APATHY (OWEVER WHILE ,ONERGAN COMMENDS .IETZSCHE FOR ACKNOWLEDGING THE NEED FOR CULTURAL REFORM IN THE FACE OF MALAISE AND REGRESS ,ONERGAN DOES NOT ACCEPT THE VIOLENCE ASSO CIATED WITH THE SUBJECTS OVERCOMING BOTH OF 'OD AND NATURE &ROM A ,ONERGANIAN PERSPECTIVE THE .IETZSCHEAN SUBJECT IS AN ALIENATED SUBJECT WHO IS UNABLE AND UNWILLING TO ENGAGE HISHER OWN AUTHENTIC SUBJECTIVITY THROUGH APPROPRIATING THE DYNAMIC STRUCTURE OF KNOW ING DOING AND LOVING 4HIS ALIENATED SUBJECT OF .IETZSCHES THEORY IS AN EXTREME EXISTENTIALIST SUBJECT WHO MAINTAINS THAT THE WORLD IS A MULTIPLICITY OF PERSPECTIVESALL OF WHICH ARE VYING FOR THE TRUTH AND POWER 9ET .IETZSCHES SUBJECT GOES TO GREAT LENGTHS TO MAKE HISHER PARTICULAR PERSPECTIVE KNOWN AND PROMINENT %VEN SO ,ONERGANS NOTION OF THE HUMAN GOOD IS ABSENT FROM THE HORIZON OF THE ALIENATED
^0HILOSOPHICAL &OUNDATIONS
SUBJECT THAT IS FROM THE WORLDVIEW OF THE âBERMENSCH 4HE SITUATION OF THE âBERMENSCH IS ONE OF MAN OVER AND AGAINST NATURE MAN OVER AND AGAINST MAN !S ,ONERGAN VALIDATES THE EXISTENTIAL SUBJECT WHO OPTS FOR RELATIONSHIP AND THE HUMAN GOOD IN MOMENTS OF CRISIS HE REJECTS THE .IETZSCHEAN SUBJECT WHO OPTS MERELY FOR SELF .IETZSCHE UNDERSTANDS THE SELF AS A POINT IN WHICH VISION FAILS PER SPECTIVE IS LIMITED AND LANGUAGE BECOMES INADEQUATE THUS CATEGORIZING SUBJECTIVITY NEGATIVELY IN TERMS OF ITS LIMITS )N HIS INTERPRETATION OF THE @) AND PERSPECTIVISM .IETZSCHE CLAIMS THAT WE DElNE THE @) AS WE hSET UP A WORD AT THE POINT AT WHICH OUR IGNORANCE BEGINS AT WHICH WE CAN SEE NO FURTHERv 4HUS HIS NOTION OF SUBJECTIVITY EVOLVES INTO AN IDEAL GRAMMATICAL lCTION h4HE @SUBJECT v .IETZSCHE DECLARES hIS NOT SOMETHING GIVEN IT IS SOMETHING ADDED AND INVENTED AND PROJECTED BEHIND WHAT THERE ISv #ONTEMPORARY CONTINENTAL THEORISTS SUCH AS $ERRIDA AND ,YOTARD HAVE DEVELOPED THIS THEME IN WHICH ACCORDING TO .IETZSCHE SUBJECTIVITY IS INTERPRETED AS A lCTION BECAUSE IT IS LIMITED AND PARTICULAR ,ONERGAN REJECTS THE NOTION OF A SUBJECT AS lCTION IN ORDER TO DEMONSTRATE HOW SUBJECTIVITY SHOULD BE PERCEIVED IN TERMS OF HISTORY AND PERSPECTIVE )T IS NOT AS IF .IETZSCHE GIVES UP ON THE NOTION OF SUBJECTIVITY ALTOGETHER (E DEVELOPS VARIOUS CARICATURES OR IDEAL TYPES OF SUBJECTIVITY NONE OF WHICH INCLUDING THE SAINT THE SCIENTIST THE ATHEIST OR THE PRIEST CAN EXPLAIN THE NATURE OF TOTAL MAN /NLY HIS NOTION OF A SUPERMAN OR âBERMENSCH DESCRIBES THE COMPLETE POTENTIAL OF HUMANITY 4HIS OVER MAN OR âBERMENSCH AGGRESSIVELY STAMPS OUT MEANING FOR HIMHERSELF IN OVERCOMING NATURE 4HE OVERMANS POSTURE OF EGOISM AND DISREGARD FOR OTHERS IS DISCARDED BY ,ONERGAN 4HE RECKLESS FREEDOM THAT ACCOMPANIES .IETZSCHES RENDITION OF SUBJECTIVITY IS REJECTED OUT RIGHT BY ,ONERGAN SINCE ,ONERGAN WANTS TO EMPHASIZE NOT ONLY THE POSSIBILITIES BUT ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITIES ASSOCIATED WITH BEING HUMAN !BOVE ) HAVE ATTEMPTED TO SHOW THAT ,ONERGANS UNDERSTANDING OF SUBJECTIVITY IS PREDICATED UPON THE INADEQUATE DESCRIPTIONS OF THE SUBJECT FOUND IN #ARTESIAN +ANTIAN AND .IETZSCHEAN THOUGHT ) NOW TURN TO A DISCUSSION OF HOW ,EVINASS CONSTRUCTION OF SUBJECTIVITY DEVELOPS #ENTRAL TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF ,EVINASS SUBJECT ARE HIS CONCERNS ABOUT THE UNSATISFACTORY ACCOUNT OF BEING HUMAN IN ONTOLOGICAL PHILOSOPHY AND PSYCHOANALYTIC THEORY
-ICHELE 3ARACINO ,ONERGAN AND ,EVINAS
%MMANUEL ,EVINASS 0HILOSOPHICAL "ACKGROUND ,IKE ,ONERGAN MANY IMPORTANT THINKERS INmUENCED %MMANUEL ,EVINASS WORK 0LATOS NOTION OF BEYOND BEING FRAMES ,EVINASS CRI TIQUE OF ONTOLOGY #ATHOLIC THINKERS INCLUDING *EAN 7AHL GROUND ,EVINASS APPROPRIATION OF PHENOMENOLOGY AND EXISTENTIALISM "OTH (USSERLS AND -ERLEAU 0ONTYS READINGS OF INTENTIONALITY AND COR POREALITY RESPECTIVELY PROVIDE ,EVINAS WITH A BASIS FOR IMAGINING AN INCARNATIONAL ETHICS ,EVINAS NOT ONLY STUDIED WITH (USSERL BUT ALSO WROTE HIS DISSERTATION ON THE FATHER OF PHENOMENOLOGY .EVERTHELESS BELOW ) WILL EMPHASIZE THAT ,EVINASS INTERPRETATION OF BEING OPEN FOR OTHERS CAN BE UNDERSTOOD BEST FROM THE INADEQUACIES IN THE WORK OF TWO OTHER IMPORTANT THINKERS NAMELY -ARTIN (EIDEGGER AND *ACQUES ,ACAN -ANY LINKS CAN BE MADE BETWEEN ,EVINASS UNDERSTANDING OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SUBJECTIVITY AND ALTERITY AND THE WORK OF -ARTIN (EIDEGGER AND *ACQUES ,ACAN 4HESE THEORISTS ARE NOT AS EASILY TYPED POSTMODERN AS ARE $ERRIDA ,YOTARD AND &OUCAULT .ONETHELESS (EIDEGGER AND ,ACAN BOTH GRAPPLE WITH SOME POSTMODERN ISSUES THAT ARE ENCOMPASSED BY ,EVINASS THEORY (EIDEGGERS EMPHASIS ON THE CONTINGENT AND ANTI FOUNDATIONALIST PREDICAMENT OF THE SUBJECT THAT IS THE SITUATION OF BEING THROWN INTO THE WORLD SURFACES IN CONTEM PORARY CONTINENTAL THEORYS ATTENTION TO THE DISLOCATED AND UNSTABLE DILEMMA OF THE SUBJECT -OREOVER ,ACANS PREOCCUPATION WITH DESIRE AND THE SPLITTING OF THE SUBJECT ARE TWO KEY QUESTIONS THAT ARISE IN POSTSTRUCTURALIST ACCOUNTS OF THE HUMAN PERSON )N THE FOLLOWING SEC TION ) EXPLORE THE CONTRIBUTIONS THAT THESE PHILOSOPHERS HAVE MADE TO THE CONVERSATION ON SUBJECTIVITY AND DIFFERENCE IN ORDER TO BRING TO LIFE THE MILIEU IN WHICH ,EVINAS LIVED AND RESEARCHED
-ARTIN (EIDEGGER ,EVINASS RELATIONSHIP WITH (EIDEGGER WAS UNDOUBTEDLY COMPLICATED !S (EIDEGGERS FORMER STUDENT ,EVINAS RESPECTED THE RIGOR OF (EI DEGGERS PHILOSOPHICAL INSIGHTS /N A PERSONAL LEVEL HOWEVER ,EVINAS
^0HILOSOPHICAL &OUNDATIONS
LAMENTED (EIDEGGERS INVOLVEMENT WITH THE .ATIONALIST 3OCIALIST 0ARTY )T IS IN LIGHT OF THESE TWO OPPOSING FACTORS THAT THE DIVERGENCE OF ,EVINASS THOUGHT FROM THAT OF (EIDEGGERS SEEMS MORE POIGNANT THAN A MERE IN HOUSE SCUFmE BETWEEN MASTER AND DISCIPLE )N WHAT FOLLOWS ) SCRUTINIZE THE WAY IN WHICH ,EVINAS DEPARTS FROM (EIDEGGERS UNDERSTANDING OF SUBJECTIVITY AND DIFFERENCE -Y DISCUSSION WILL FOCUS ON THREE POINTSHOW (EIDEGGER IGNORES INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCE VALORIZES INDEPENDENCE AND ISOLATION AND CONmATES OPENNESS WITH SEEING ,EVINASS CRITICISM OF (EIDEGGERS NOTION OF OPENNESS WILL BE DEVEL OPED MOST FULLY BECAUSE IT RELATES TO QUESTIONS OF FREEDOM POWER AND RESPONSIBILITY WHICH ARE SIGNIlCANT ISSUES IN OUR CONTEMPORARY PLURALIST CONTEXT &IRST AND FOREMOST ,EVINAS ACCUSES (EIDEGGERS ANTHROPOLOGICAL SUBJECT OF BEING UNABLE TO ENGAGE SOMEONE WHO IS DIFFERENT THE /THER !S ,EVINAS COMMENDS (EIDEGGER FOR PINPOINTING THE INADEQUACIES OF THE NOTION OF BEING IN RELATION TO SUBJECTIVITY HE DENOUNCES HIM FOR NOT EXAMINING SUBJECTIVITY IN RELATION TO INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES 4HIS SAME POINT IS MADE BY 2ÓDIGER 3AFRANSKI IN HIS INTELLECTUAL BIOGRAPHY OF (EIDEGGER (EIDEGGER THE INVENTOR OF hONTOLOGICAL DIFFERENCE v NEVER CONCEIVED OF DEVELOPING AN hONTOLOGY OF DIFFERENCEv /NTOLOGICAL DIFFERENCE MEANS THE DISTINCTION OF "EING FROM THAT WHICH IS !N ONTOLOGY OF DIFFERENCE WOULD MEAN ACCEPTING THE PHILOSOPHICAL CHALLENGE OF THE DISPARITY OF PEOPLE AND THE DIFlCULTIES OR OPPORTUNITIES ARISING AS A RESULT
&OR (EIDEGGER THE SUBJECT THE EXISTENT IS ALWAYS INDIVIDUAL THE ONE BEING THERE $ASEIN !ND YET (EIDEGGERS ANTHROPOLOGY TENDS TO DISREGARD ANY NOTION OF A PLURALITY OR FECUNDITY OF RELATIONS AMONG EXISTENTS )T OVERLOOKS THE LARGE NUMBERS OF DISTINCTIVE INDIVIDUALS WITHIN ANY GIVEN COMMUNITY !S SUCH (EIDEGGERS SUBJECT ACTS AS IF
3IMILAR TO THE WAY IN WHICH ,EVINAS FOUND (EIDEGGERS ACCOUNT OF BEING PROBLEMATIC IN THAT IT IGNORES A FECUNDITY OF RELATIONS (ANNAH !RENDT IS TROUBLED BY THE PRIVATE AND INDIVIDUALISTIC CHARACTER OF (EIDEGGERS OPENNESS !CCORDING TO 3AFRANSKI h,IKE (EIDEGGER (ANNAH !RENDT IS GUIDED BY THIS IDEA OF OPENNESS BUT SHE IS PREPARED TO SEE THIS IDEA REALIZED ALSO IN PUBLICNESS 3HE EXPECTS OPENNESS NOT FROM THE TRANSFORMED RELATIONSHIP OF THE INDIVIDUAL WITH HIMSELF THAT IS NOT FROM (EIDEGGERS @AUTHENTICITYBUT FROM THE CONSCIOUSNESS OF PLURALITY FROM
-ICHELE 3ARACINO ,ONERGAN AND ,EVINAS
HE IS ANONYMOUS AND ALONE -OREOVER HE IS UNDERSTOOD AS LEGITIMATE IN PARTICIPATING IN HIS INDEPENDENT AND ISOLATED ADVENTURE OF BEING THERE 4HE INDEPENDENT AND DISCONNECTED PREDICAMENT OF $ASEIN IS A SECOND IMPLICATION OF (EIDEGGERS THEORY THAT WORRIES ,EVINAS (EIDEGGERS $ASEIN IS CONSTRUCTED IN OPPOSITION TO THE #ARTESIAN STATIC EGOCOGITO AND REFERS SPECIlCALLY TO THE SUBJECT hEXISTING IN THIS ;FREE= PLAYING lELD IN ;AN= OPEN MANNERv 3AFRANSKI $ASEINS ENGAGEMENT OF THE WORLD IS AN EXISTENTIAL QUEST REQUIRING ISOLATION AND INDEPEN DENCE !CCORDING TO *EAN ,UC -ARION $ASEIN UNLIKE COGITO KNOWS ITSELF ONLY BY KNOWING ITS UNCERTAINTY 4HIS lELD OF UNCERTAINTY ACCORDING TO -ARION OPENS UP POSSIBILITIES FOR THE SUB JECT !S A RESULT $ASEIN LIVES EITHER AUTHENTICALLY OR INAUTHENTICALLY ACCORDING HISHER ACTIONS IN THE FACE OF SUCH INCERTITUDE $ASEIN CRE ATES HIMSELF BY ENACTING HIS FREEDOM IN THE UNCERTAIN WORLD 3AFRANSKI WRITES h-AN IS THE BEING THAT DOES NOT UNQUESTIONING REST IN "EING BUT THAT MUST IN A PRECARIOUS SITUATION ALWAYS lRST ESTABLISH MAP OUT CHOOSE HIS RELATION WITH "EINGv "Y CONSTRUING THE SUBJECTS ENGAGEMENT WITH "EING IN EXISTENTIALIST TERMS OF AUTONOMY FREEDOM AND INDIVIDUALISM (EIDEGGER RETURNS TO THE 'REEK IDEA OF BEING h4O 'REEK THINKING THE WORLD IS A STAGE ON WHICH MAN MOVES AMONG THE OTHERS LIKE HIM AND AMONG THE THINGS IN ORDER TO ACT THERE AND TO SEE AND TO BE ACTED ON AND BE SEENx -AN IS THE OPEN SPOT OF BEINGv 3AFRANSKI )N RESPONSE TO (EIDEGGER ,EVINAS WANTS TO MAINTAIN THE CONTINGENT CHARACTER OF $ASEIN YET POSITIONS THE SUBJECT NOT IN FRONT OF A MYRIAD OF POSSIBILITIES BUT AS OBLIGATED TO THE /THER &OR ,EVINAS BEFORE THE SELF THERE IS THE /THER !ND THE TRACE OF THE /THER POSITIONS THE SUBJECT INTO A POSTURE OF BEING OPEN FOR OTHERS (ERE ,EVINAS REJECTS (EIDEGGERS EMPHASIS ON SELF MASTERY AND UNBRIDLED FREEDOM THAT IS ROOTED IN A NOTION OF SUBJECT AS INDEPENDENT AND DISCONNECTED FROM OTHERS !S ,EVINAS REJECTS (EIDEGGERS $ASEIN BECAUSE OF THE CORRELATION BETWEEN BEING AND FREEDOM HE CONTESTS (EIDEGGERS UNDERSTANDING OF BEING IN TERMS OF SEEING )N OTHER WORDS ,EVINAS RESISTS THE THEMATIZA OUR REALIZATION THAT OUR "EING IN THE WORLD MEANS SHARING A WORLD WITH @MANY AND BEING ABLE TO SHAPE IT /PENNESS EXISTS ONLY WHERE THE EXPERIENCE OF HUMAN PLURALITY IS TAKEN SERIOUSLYv
^0HILOSOPHICAL &OUNDATIONS
TION THAT EMERGES IN $ASEINS SURVEY OF OPENNESS )N AN ESSAY ENTITLED h)S /NTOLOGY &UNDAMENTAL v ,EVINAS WRITES #OMPREHENSION FOR (EIDEGGER ULTIMATELY RESTS ON THE OPENNESS OF BEINGx )T IS THIS THAT (EIDEGGER DESCRIBES IN THEIR MOST FORMAL STRUCTURE THE ARTICULATIONS OF VISION WHERE THE RELATION OF THE SUBJECT WITH THE OBJECT IS SUBORDINATED TO THE RELATION OF THE OBJECT WITH LIGHT WHICH IS NOT AN OBJECT 4HE UNDERSTANDING OF A BEING WILL THUS CONSIST IN GOING BEYOND BEING L£TANT INTO THE OPENNESS AND IN PERCEIVING IT UPON THE HORIZON OF BEING 4HAT IS TO SAY COMPREHENSION IN (EIDEGGER REJOINS THE GREAT TRADITION OF 7ESTERN PHILOSOPHY TO COMPREHEND THE PARTICULAR BEING IS ALREADY TO PLACE ONESELF BEYOND THE PARTICULAR 4O COMPREHEND IS TO BE RELATED TO THE PARTICULAR THAT ONLY EXISTS THROUGH KNOWLEDGE WHICH IS ALWAYS KNOWLEDGE OF THE UNIVERSAL
&ROM THIS PASSAGE IT IS EVIDENT THAT ,EVINAS WORRIES ABOUT $ASEINS TENDENCY TO THEMATIZE DIFFERENCE BY WAY OF VISION )N CONTRAST TO (EIDEGGERS $ASEIN ,EVINASS SUBJECT IS UNABLE TO NEUTRALIZE DIFFERENCE OR MORE IMPORTANTLY THE ONE WHO IS DIFFERENT WITH A PRECONCEIVED TERM IDEA OR IMAGE &OR ,EVINAS THE /THER POSITIONS THE SUBJECT IN A POSTURE OF PASSIVITY INTO A POSITION OF BEING OPEN FOR OTHERS RATHER THAN FOR SELF !S ,EVINAS OPPOSES (EIDEGGERS THEMATIZING NOTION OF SUBJECTIVITY HE IMPLICITLY REJECTS THE MODERN WAY IN WHICH WE REDUCE WHAT IS IN FRONT OF US ALTERITY TO OURSELVES THE SAME THROUGH VISUALIZATION 4HEREFORE ASIDE FROM OPPOSING BOTH (EIDEGGERS LACK OF ATTENTION TO INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCE AND (EIDEGGERS INTERPRETATION OF SUBJECTIVITY AS ISOLATED AND AUTONOMOUS ,EVINAS ALSO DISPUTES THE WAY THAT (EIDEG GER CONmATES VISION WITH THE OPENNESS OF THE SUBJECT 4HIS IS THE THIRD WAY IN WHICH ,EVINAS DEPARTS FROM (EIDEGGERS THOUGHT (EIDEGGERS OPENNESS IS NOT A HUMBLE DISPOSITION OF THE SUBJECT BUT AN AGGRES SIVE GAZING POSTURE OF THE PERSON IN POWER !CCORDINGLY OPENNESS AS BEING IS NOT PEACEFUL AND RESPONSIBLE BUT TOTALIZING AND VIOLENT /N 3AFRANSKIS ACCOUNT SEEING IN THE CLASSICAL WORLD IS CORRELATIVE WITH BEING h;&=OR 0LATO THE HIGHEST BEING WASAS AN IDEAASSIGNED TO SEEINGv 3IMILARLY (EIDEGGER UNDERSTANDS FREEDOM AND BEING IN RELATION TO THE SUBJECTS OPENNESS &OR (EIDEGGER THE SUB
-ICHELE 3ARACINO ,ONERGAN AND ,EVINAS
JECT EMERGES IN THIS OPENNESS h)F THIS OPENNESS DID NOT EXIST MAN COULD NOT DISTINGUISH HIMSELF FROM WHAT SURROUNDS HIM (E COULD NOT EVEN DISTINGUISH HIMSELF FROM HIMSELF v 3AFRANSKI )N THIS SCENARIO BEING TAKES SHAPE AS A PERSON SEES AND IS SEEN RATHER THAN AS THE PERSON ACTS RESPONSIBLY TOWARD OTHERS )N THIS OPENNESS $ASEIN SEES THINGS AND PEOPLE AS TOOLS TO CREATES HIMSELF THUS $ASEIN IS CONCERNED 3ORGE ONLY FOR HIMSELF ,EVINAS ALTERNATIVELY REJECTS THIS SUBJECTS UTILITARIAN POSTURE TOWARD THE WORLD AND ASSERTS THAT hTHE THINGS WE LIVE FROM ARE NOT TOOLS NOR EVEN IMPLEMENTS IN THE (EIDEGGERIAN SENSE OF THE TERMv ,EVINAS REGARDS SENSATION IN TERMS OF DESIRE NOT IN TERMS OF INSTRUMENTAL VALUE )N THE )NTRODUCTION TO ,EVINASS /THERWISE 4HAN "EING !LPHONSO ,INGIS COMMENTS h;&=OR ,EVINAS PRIOR EVEN TO THIS OPERATIVE GEARING IN WITH THE lELD OF INSTRUMENTAL CONNECTIONS THERE IS THE SENSUOUS CONTACT WITH THE MATERIALv E XXVI &OR ,EVINAS AND (EIDEGGER THEREFORE THE SENSUAL MATERIAL WORLD IS THERE "UT FOR ,EVINAS IT ALREADY EXISTS BEFORE IT IS USEFUL TO THE SUBJECT 4HIS SENSUAL WORLD NOT ONLY EXISTS BUT ALSO IMPINGES ON THE SPACE OF THE SUBJECT )T ORDERS AND POSTURES THE SUBJECT FOR BOTH DESIRE AND RESPONSIBILITY 4HE WORLD OF THE SENSIBLE THEN IS NOT TO BE GRASPED COMPARTMENTALIZED OR ENGULFED IN OPEN SPACES OR IN THE PANORAMA RATHER THE WORLD OF THE SENSIBLE STRUCTURES THE HUMANITY OF THE SUBJECT 4HE WORLD OF THE SENSIBLE THAT IS DESIRE FOR THE /THER OPENS HUMANITY TO ALTERITY )N SUMMARY THE FOCUS OF (EIDEGGERS PHILOSOPHY IS THE SINGULAR MAN $ASEIN WHO MAPS OUT THE WORLD FOR HIMSELF AT ALL COSTS 2OGER "URGGRAEVE IN %MMANUEL ,EVINAS 4HE %THICAL "ASIS FOR A (UMAN 3OCIETY WRITES OF THE SELF CENTERED FOCUS OF $ASEIN ;4HIS= ) MAKES ITSELF THE FOCUS OF A TOTALITY THE WORLD IS THERE FOR HIM 4HUS IT TRIES INCREASINGLY TO DRAW THE WORLD INTO ITS OWN CIRCLE OF EXISTENCE AS A MEANS OF EXISTENCE AND AT THE SAME TIME IT TRIES AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE TO CONSOLIDATE AND EXPAND THIS CIRCLE 4HIS IS ONLY POSSIBLE BY REDUCING THE OTHER TO ITSELF BY POSITING ITSELF AS THE LAW AND @MEASURE OF ALL THINGS 4HE ) IS ALLERGIC TO THE OTHER AS OTHER PRECISELY BECAUSE OF ITS NATURAL EGOCENTRISM THAT MANIFESTS ITSELF IN THE UNTIRING AND NEVER ENDING STRUGGLE OF SELF AFlRMATION AND SELF DEVELOPMENTv
^0HILOSOPHICAL &OUNDATIONS
,EVINAS RESISTS THE WAY (EIDEGGER PRIVILEGES MAN AS THE EGOCENTRIC SURVEYOR CARTOGRAPHER DISCOVERER OR SCIENTIST AND ARGUES THAT $ASEINS ATTITUDE OF EGOISM AND @MINENESS *EMEINIGKEIT UNDERMINES THE SIG NIlCANCE OF THE INCARNATE REVELATION OF THE HUMAN AND DIVINE /THER )MPORTANTLY ,EVINASS REJECTION OF THIS SELF CENTERED EGOISM IS EVIDENT IN THE MANNER IN WHICH HE REWORKS (EIDEGGERS FORMULATION OF SUBSTI TUTION (EIDEGGERS $ASEIN DEALS WITH OTHERS BY PUTTING HIMSELF IN THE PERSPECTIVE OF OTHERSSEEING IT FROM THEIR VIEW SEEING THE WORLD FROM BEING THERE (OWEVER ,EVINASS THOUGHT GOES BEYOND A LEGISLATED MORAL CODE WHICH ATTEMPTS TO SEE ANOTHER PERSONS PERSPECTIVE &URTHERMORE ,EVINASS WORK DElES A VOLITIONAL INTENTIONALITY INSTEAD HIS ETHICAL PROJECT PROPOSES THAT PEOPLE ARE INTERCHANGEABLE WITH OTHERS ON THE BASIS OF THEIR FEELINGS AND DESIRE FOR THE /THER !S ,EVINAS REORIENTS OUR UNDERSTANDING OF SUBJECTIVITY AS ONE BORN OF DESIRE FOR THE /THER HE CONTESTS THE THEMATIZING EGOCENTRIC AND AGGRESSIVE POSTURE OF $ASEIN 7E WILL SOON GRASP THAT ,EVINAS REPUDIATES A SIMILAR UTILITARIAN ORIENTATION IN PSYCHOANALYTIC THEORY
*ACQUES ,ACAN #ONTEMPORARY CONTINENTAL THEORY OWES MUCH OF ITS THEORETICAL RIGOR REGARDING ALTERITY TO THE CONTRIBUTION OF *ACQUES ,ACAN 4HIS PSYCHO ANALYTIC PHILOSOPHER HAS INmUENCED GREATLY THE WAY IN WHICH OTHERNESS IS ACCOUNTED FOR IN 7ESTERN CULTURE !LTHOUGH ,EVINAS AND ,ACAN DID NOT HAVE ANY KNOWN SCHOLARLY COMMUNICATION THE ISSUES THAT ABSORB BOTH OF THESE THINKERS HAVE IMPLICATIONS FOR OUR UNDERSTANDING OF SUB JECT AND /THER IN THE POSTMODERN CONTEXT 4HE CONNECTIONS BETWEEN THESE THINKERS ARE SO STRONG THAT A COLLECTION OF ESSAYS WAS WRITTEN TO EXEMPLIFY THAT POINT ENTITLED ,EVINAS AND ,ACAN 4HE -ISSED %NCOUNTER (ARASYM )N WHAT FOLLOWS IT WILL BECOME CLEAR THAT ,ACANS BRAND OF PSYCHOANALYSIS UNDERSTANDS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SUBJECT AND /THER IN TERMS OF LACK WHICH POSES A PROBLEM FOR ,EVINASS READING OF SUBJECTIVITY AS FOR THE /THER -OREOVER ASIDE FROM REJECTING THE TE NETS OF PSYCHOANALYSIS ESPECIALLY ITS EMPHASIS ON LACK ,EVINAS IMPLIES THAT THE 7ESTS FASCINATION WITH PSYCHOANALYSIS HAS UNDERMINED THE IMPORTANCE OF *EWISH RELIGIOSITY AND SPIRITUAL TRANSCENDENCE 4HESE PROBLEMS WITH PSYCHOANALYTIC THEORY ARGUABLY COULD BE
-ICHELE 3ARACINO ,ONERGAN AND ,EVINAS
ONE OF THE REASONS THAT ,EVINAS EXPLAINS BEING HUMAN THROUGH THE RHETORIC OF NEED AND OBLIGATION ,ACANS PROJECT REINTERPRETS SUBJECTIVITY IN RELATION TO 3IGMUND &REUDS PSYCHOANALYSIS AS WELL AS IN LIGHT OF 'EORG 7ILHELM &RIEDRICH (EGELS PHILOSOPHY REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SUBJECT AND /THER 3IGMUND &REUD A TWENTIETH CENTURY PIONEER OF CONTINENTAL PSYCHOANALYSIS DEVELOPED A MODEL FOR EXPLAINING THE SELF BASED ON BIOLOGY AND DESIRE )N HIS hCOMMITMENT TO DETERMINISM IN THE DOMAIN OF THE PSYCHE A PENCHANT FOR BIOLOGICAL MODES OF EXPLANATION v &REUD TRACES HUMAN BEHAVIOR BACK TO AN ORGANIC ORIGIN AND A PATHOLOGICAL RATIONALE $EWS !CCORDING TO &REUD THE FOUNDATION OF THE HUMAN SUBJECT IS THE BIOLOGICAL !S A RESULT EROS BECOMES THE FOUNDA TION OF THE DEATH AND SEX DRIVES ,ACAN RESISTS A &REUDIAN REDUCTIONIST AND DETERMINISTIC MODEL OF SELF CONSCIOUSNESS IN HIS INSISTENCE THAT THE SUBJECTS PATHOLOGY CANNOT BE REDUCED TO BIOLOGY OR HISTORY ALONE #RITICAL THEORIST 0ETER $EWS EXPLAINS ,ACANS OPPOSITION TO ORGANICISM AND REDUCTIONISMWHETHER INSIDE OR OUTSIDE PSYCHOANALYSISLEADS HIM TO OPPOSE THIS VIEW THE OSCIL LATION BETWEEN LOVE AND AGGRESSION FASCINATION AND RIVALRY WHICH IS CHARACTERISTIC OF MANY HUMAN RELATIONSHIPS CANNOT BE TRACED BACK TO A BIOLOGICAL FOUNDATION BUT IS RATHER A CONSEQUENCE OF THE ONTOLOGICAL PRECARIOUSNESS OF THE EGO OF ITS FUNDAMENTAL ALIENATION OR BEING OTHER
)N ,ACANIAN ANALYSIS SELF CONSCIOUSNESS EMERGES IN THE EGOS NEGO TIATION WITH ALTERITY 4HE STATE OF BEING OTHER HOWEVER IS NOT DUE TO SOME PATHOLOGICAL CAUSE AS IN THE CASE OF &REUD BUT ACTUALLY ENSUES FROM THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SUBJECT AND /THER 4O FURTHER EXPLICATE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SUBJECT AND /THER ,ACAN GRAPPLES WITH (EGELIAN THEORY %MPLOYING (EGEL ,ACAN UPHOLDS THE IDEA THAT SELF CONSCIOUSNESS IS RELATIONAL 9ET CONTRARY TO (EGEL ,ACAN PROPOSES THAT TWO SUBJECTS ARE NEVER PRESENT SIMULTANEOUSLY IN RELATION (ENCE IN RESPONSE TO (EGELS SUPPOSITION THAT SELF CONSCIOUS NESS IS ONLY POSSIBLE IN THE PRESENCE OF TWO SUBJECTS ,ACAN ARGUES THE SUBJECT ONLY REACHES SELF CONSCIOUSNESS THROUGH AN OBJECT IN WHICH THE SUBJECT DISSOLVES OR DISSIPATES ,ACANIAN PSYCHOANALYSIS DIFFERS FROM (EGELIAN DIALECTICAL THEORY IN THAT ,ACAN ASSERTS THAT THERE IS ALWAYS
^0HILOSOPHICAL &OUNDATIONS
AN ABSENCE OR LACK WHICH PROHIBITS THE PRESENCE OF TWO SUBJECTS ,ACAN FURTHER ARGUES THAT AN ASYMMETRICAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SUBJECT AND /THER DEVELOPS DUE TO THIS LACK 2EWORKING THE PHILOSOPHICAL ORIENTATIONS OF (EGEL AND ,ACAN ,EVINAS CLAIMS THAT THE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN SUBJECT AND /THER IS NEITHER ONE OF PRESENCE AS IN THE CASE OF (EGEL NOR ONE OF ASYMMETRICAL LACK AS IN THE DISCOURSE OF ,ACAN )NSTEAD ,EVINAS INTUITS THE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN SUBJECT AND /THER AS ASYMMETRICAL YET LACKING NOTHING ,EVINASS POSITION THAT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SUBJECT AND /THER LACKS NOTHING BECOMES EVEN MORE CLEAR WHEN CONTINUING TO ANALYZE ,ACANS THOUGHT ON SUBJECTIVITY AND OTHERNESS ,ACANS SUBJECT DEPENDS ON AN OBJECT THAT SHE IS LACKING 3INCE THIS LACK CAN CAUSE THE SUBJECT SICKNESS OR PATHOLOGY IT IS PROJECTED ONTO AN ILLUSORY OBJECT/THER THEREBY CREATING THE ILLUSION THAT THE SUBJECT IS FULlLLED COMPLETELY BY THAT OBJECT/THER 4HE TERM LACK AS ,ACAN UNDERSTANDS IT IS TRANSLATED FROM THE &RENCH TERM MANQUE ,ACANIAN TRANSLATOR !LAN 3HERIDAN NOTES THAT ,ACAN REWORKS THE NOTION OF LACK CREATING THE EXPRESSION MANQUE Í ãTRE THAT IS TRANSLATED INTO %NGLISH AS @WANT TO BE ,ACAN XI ,ACANS SUBJECT WANTS TO BE SOMEONE SHE IS NOT WANTS TO POSSESS WHATEVER SHE LACKS 4HIS LACK EVENTUALLY IS DEFERRED OR DISPLACED ONTO AN /THER CONSEQUENTLY THE /THER BECOMES A TOOL INSTRUMENT OR MORE STRONGLY PUT A FOIL FOR THE SUBJECT 4HE SUBJECTS STABILITY DEPENDS ON THE LACK OR VOID IN THE /THER WHAT ,ACAN TERMS OBJET PETIT A "UT EVEN AS THE FULlLLMENT OF THE SUBJECTS LACK IS ALWAYS TEMPORARY THIS mEETING PARASITIC RELATIONSHIP PROVIDES THE SUBJECT WITH JOUISSANCE PLEASURE 4HE DESIRE FOR DESIRE IS PLEASURABLE AND ENJOYABLE YET INSATIABLE 4HE DESIRE FOR WHAT THE SUBJECT LACKS BREEDS MORE DESIRE
4HIS LACK OF SATISFACTION AND UNENDING DESIRE IS ROOTED IN THE MIRROR STAGE ,ACAN UNDERSTANDS THE MIRROR STAGE AS THE MOMENT IN WHICH THE EGO IS SHATTERED IE THE POINT AT WHICH THE SUBJECT BECOMES FRAGMENTED 3EE h4HE -IRROR 3TAGE AS &ORMA TIVE &UNCTION OF THE )v ,ACAN 7HEN WE AS CHILDREN lRST ENCOUNTER OUR REmECTION IN THE MIRROR WE MISTAKE THE IMAGE FOR OURSELVES 4HE IMAGE IS MISTAKEN AS LONG AS WE PRETEND IT IS FULLY US 7E WILL NEVER BE SATISlED BY THE IMAGE IN THE MIRROR AND THUS WE WILL ALWAYS DESIRE MORE 7E DESIRE THAT THING THAT CANNOT BE FULLY SIGNIlED 4HE OTHER OR THE OBJET PETIT A HELPS THE SUBJECT NEGOTIATE THIS DESIRE TO lND THE SIGNIlER TO REPRESENT ITSELF 4HIS GAP OR REMAINDER WHICH CANNOT BE SIGNIlED OR SATISlED FULLY LEADS THE SUBJECT TO SPEAK 4HIS SPEECH IS THE MATERIAL OF ,ACANS PSYCHOANALYSIS )NTERESTINGLY FOR ,EVINAS SPEECH IS GIFT
-ICHELE 3ARACINO ,ONERGAN AND ,EVINAS
3IGNIlCANTLY FOR ,ACAN DESIRE IS SELF SERVING WHILE FOR ,EVINAS DESIRE IS THE SEED OF OBLIGATION TO OTHERS )N HIS INTERPRETATION OF METAPHYSICS ,EVINAS PRIVILEGES THE NOTION OF DESIRE OVER NEED ,EVINAS COMPLICATES MATTERS WHEN HE DISCUSSES THE PREDICAMENT OF THE /THER NOT IN TERMS OF A ,ACANIAN LACK BUT IN TERMS OF A REAL MATERIAL NEED )N OTHER WORDS THE PREDICAMENT OF THE /THER FOR ,ACAN IS ONE OF PROJECTED LACK DE lCIENCY DEFORMITY AND STIGMA !LTERNATIVELY ,EVINAS UNDERSTANDS THE PREDICAMENT OF THE /THER TO BE ONE THAT SIGNIlES A CONCRETE MATERIAL NEED )N THIS INSTANCE THE TERM @NEED DOES NOT CONNOTE THE NEED FOR ONESELF THAT IS AN EGOISM THAT UTILIZES THE WORLD FOR ME INSTEAD NEED REFERS TO THE DEMAND OF THE /THER !CCORDING TO ,EVINAS THE NEED OF THE /THER IS EXTERIOR TO THE UNCONSCIOUSNESS OF THE SUBJECT RENDERING THE /THER FREE FROM THE MIND GAZE OF THE SUBJECT 4O BURDEN SUBJECTIVITY FURTHER ,EVINAS UNDERSTANDS THE SUBJECT AS A HOSTAGE FOR THE /THER (E WRITES h6ULNERABILITY EXPOSURE TO OUTRAGE TO WOUNDING PASSIVITY MORE PASSIVE THAN ALL PATIENCE PASSIVITY OF THE ACCUSATIVE FORM TRAUMA OF ACCUSATION SUFFERED BY A HOSTAGE WHO SUBSTITUTES HIMSELF FOR THE OTHERS ALL THIS IS THE SELF v E !S HOSTAGE FOR THE /THER THE SUBJECT SUBSTITUTES HIMHERSELF FOR THE /THER NOT OUT OF VANITY EGOISM OR PRIDE BUT OUT OF RESPONSIBILITY ,INGIS EXPLAINS h4O ACKNOWLEDGE THE IMPERATIVE FORCE OF ANOTHER IS TO PUT ONESELF IN HIS PLACE NOT IN ORDER TO APPROPRIATE ONES OWN OBJECTIV ITY BUT IN ORDER TO ANSWER TO HIS NEED TO SUPPLY FOR HIS WANT WITH ONES OWN SUBSTANCEv ,EVINAS E XXII 3UBSTITUTION FOR ,EVINAS HENCE IS NOT DUE TO THE SUBJECTS LACK BUT MOTIVATED BY THE DESIRE TO FULlLL THE NEED OR DEMAND OF THE /THER .EED IS NOT SOME SPIRITUAL ILLUSIVE WINDOW DRESSING IT IS A REAL EMERGENCY 4HE SUBJECT DESIRES THE /THER AND POSTURES FOR THE /THER IN ORDER TO PROVIDE MATERIALLY OR SPIRITUALLY FOR THAT NEED ,ACANIAN AND ,EVINASIAN THEORY PRESENTS US WITH DISTINCT EXPLANATIONS OF SUBJECTIVITY AND DESIRE ,ACANS SUBJECT STRUGGLES IN AN EGOIST POSTURE TO SECURE HISHER IDENTITY THROUGH THE USE OF THE /THER 4HE /THER FOR ,ACAN IS CONJURED BY THE SUBJECT DE FACTO IN ORDER TO lLL THE HOLES IN THE SUBJECT TO SECURE THE GAP OR OPENNESS OF THE SUBJECT 0ARADOXICALLY THE /THER IS UNATTAINABLE IN ITS FULLNESS BECAUSE IT IS OF SOME OTHER TIME CONTEXT OR PAST %VEN AS THE /THER IS UNATTAINABLE ,ACAN CONTENDS THAT THE DESIRE FOR THE ILLUSORY /THER CAUSES THE SUBJECT TO SPEAK 4HE
^0HILOSOPHICAL &OUNDATIONS
EGO MOI SPLITS FROM THE ) JE DURING THE SUBJECTS SPEECH ACT )NDEED THE EGO IS SPLIT FROM THE PRESENCE THAT IS SPEAKING ,ACAN %ACH TIME THE SUBJECT ATTEMPTS TO REPRESENT HIMHERSELF BY SPEAKING SHE IS THWARTED BECAUSE THE UTTERANCE ONLY WORKS TO OVERDETERMINE THE LACK )N EACH ATTEMPT AT SPEECH THERE IS ALWAYS SOMETHING MORE TO BE SAID SOMETHING MORE TO BE ACCOUNTED FOR h,ACAN DESCRIBES IT AS A @REMAINDER UN RESTE OR A @PIECE OF WASTE UN D£CHET IT IS THAT WHICH IS ALWAYS LEFT BEHIND IN EVERY ATTEMPT OF THE SUBJECT TO REPRESENT ITSELF v $EWS ,ACANS SUBJECT ATTEMPTS TO ACCOUNT FOR THIS WASTE BY SAYING EVEN MORE FABRICATING STORIES AND LIES .ONETHELESS THE RECKLESS PURSUIT OF TRYING TO REPRESENT HIMHERSELF AS REAL AND WHOLE IS ULTIMATELY FUTILE FOR THERE IS ALWAYS SOMETHING LEFT TO SAY .OTICE THAT IN ,ACANIAN THEORY LANGUAGE IS EMPLOYED FOR THE SELF RATHER THAN FOR THE /THER !LTERNATIVELY ,EVINAS CONTESTS THIS SELF SERVING RENDITION OF LANGUAGE "Y RELYING ON THE (EBREW 3CRIPTURES AND THE NOTION OF REVELATION HE CLAIMS THAT SPEECH IS FOR THE /THER 3IMPLY PUT SPEECH BEARS WITNESS TO THE /THER ANSWERS THE /THERS COMMAND )MPORTANTLY THE /THER IS NOT KNOWN THROUGH THE SUBJECTS LACK BUT IS SENSED BY A RADICAL PASSIVITY OR A POSTURE OF PEACE )N THIS WAY ,EVINASS ALWAYS ALREADY PRIMORDIAL /THER REFUSES TO BE AN OBJECT OR AN @IT THAT IS A PRODUCT OF OUR THEMATIZATION DE FACTO )T IS WORTH NOTING THAT ,EVINASS REJECTION OF PSYCHOANALYSIS SPECIlCALLY ,ACANS OBJECTIlCATION OF THE /THER SEEMS TO ECHO -ARTIN "UBERS THOUGHT ON INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS 3TILL THERE ARE SOME NOTABLE DIFFERENCES %VEN AS THE EXISTENTIAL RELATION OF THE SUBJECT AND THE /THER THE @4HOU IS OF PRIMARY IMPORTANCE TO ,EVINAS THE CONNECTIONS BETWEEN ,EVINAS AND "UBER OUGHT NOT BE EXTENDED TOO FAR ,EVINAS DEBUNKS "UBERS ) THOU RELATION BECAUSE IT ULTIMATELY REDUCES THE THOU TO A THEME DU -OREOVER HE ACCUSES "UBERS INTERPRETATION OF THE ) THOU DU RELATION OF BEING TOO INFORMAL AND NOT ALLOWING FOR ENOUGH DISTANCE ,EVINAS REFUSES TO INTERPRET OTHERNESS AS SIMPLISTICALLY A NEAR AND FAMILIAR FRIEND OR AN OBSCURE AND DISTANT 'OD (E REPLACES "UBERS NOTION OF THE THOU WITH THE NOTION OF )LLEITY "Y EMPHASIZING THE NOTION OF )LLEITY WHICH STEMS FROM THE PRONOUN HE IL RATHER THAN FROM THE PRONOUN YOU DU ,EVINAS AT TEMPTS TO AVOID FACILE THEMATIZATIONS OF THE /THER 3IMON #RITICHLEY EXPLAINS THAT FOR ,EVINAS h)LLEITY DESCRIBES MY NON THEMATIZABLE
-ICHELE 3ARACINO ,ONERGAN AND ,EVINAS
RELATION WITH THE )NlNITE THE DIRECTION OF TRANSCENDENCE IT DOES NOT BUTTRESS ANY POSITIVE THEOLOGYv !GAIN THIS TERM GUARDS AGAINST THEMATIZING AND FAMILIARIZING THE /THER !LTERITY ACCORDING TO ,EVINAS IS NOT FAMILIAR BUT MYSTERIOUS AND JARS THE SUBJECT FROM HISHER CONTENTMENT FOR THE /THER !BOVE WE HAVE LEARNED THAT ,EVINASS NOTION OF SUBJECTIVITY DEPARTS FROM THAT OF ,ACANS &IRST AS THE ,ACANIAN SUBJECT DESIRES THE /THER IN ORDER TO BECOME SOMEONE WHO SHE IS NOT THE ,EVINASIAN SUBJECT DESIRES THE /THER IN ORDER TO FULlLL THE NEED OR EMERGENCY OF THE /THER 3ECOND ACCORDING TO ,ACAN SPEECH STABILIZES THE SUBJECT FOR SELF WHILE IN THE DISCOURSE OF ,EVINAS THE SIGNIlCATION OF SPEECH COMES FROM THE /THER !RGUABLY AS HE DEPARTS FROM THE UTILITARIAN AND AGGRESSIVE THEORIES OF (EIDEGGER AND ,ACAN ,EVINAS ATTEMPTS TO GLORIFY THE PARTICULAR PREDICAMENT AND DEMAND OF THE /THER
#OMPATIBLE 4ERRAIN !MONG THESE DIVERGING PHILOSOPHICAL BACKGROUNDS ,ONERGAN AND ,EVINAS SHARE SOME COMMON IDEAS IN REGARD TO THE QUESTION OF BEING HUMAN IN THE MIDST OF OTHERNESS &IRST BOTH THINKERS ARGUE THAT MO DERNITY FAILS TO DEPICT THE SUBJECT IN RELATION TO OTHERNESS 4HIS LACK OF ATTENTION TO A RELATIONSHIP OF TRANSCENDENCE IS LARGELY DUE TO THE WAY IN WHICH THE MODERN SUBJECT IS LOCKED UP WITHIN HIMHERSELF THAT IS IMPRISONED BY A POSTURE OF IMMANENCE 3ECOND BOTH ,ONERGAN AND ,EVINAS ARGUE THAT THE MODERN OBSESSION WITH SEEING FRUSTRATES RESPONSIBLE BEHAVIOR AMONG HUMAN BEINGS 4HIRD BOTH ,ONERGAN AND ,EVINAS AFlRM THE IMPORTANCE OF FEELING AND CORPOREALITY IN ANY CONTEMPORARY INTERPRETATION OF SUBJECTIVITY "ELOW ) WILL EXPLAIN EACH OF THESE COMMONALTIES FURTHER 3PECIAL ATTENTION WILL BE GIVEN TO THEIR APPROPRIATION OF QUESTIONS OF INCARNATION AND CORPOREALITY
&OR ,EVINASS THOUGHTS ON "UBER SEE h-ARTIN "UBERS 4HOUGHT AND #ONTEMPORARY *UDAISM v h-ARTIN "UBER 'ABRIEL -ARCEL AND 0HILOSOPHY v AND h!PROPOS OF "UBER 3OME .OTES v IN /UTSIDE THE 3UBJECT
^0HILOSOPHICAL &OUNDATIONS
,ONERGAN AND ,EVINAS CONTEND THAT BEING HUMAN INVOLVES MORE THAN EGOISM IT DEMANDS RELATIONSHIP WITH OTHERS THUS MAKING SELF TRANSCENDENCE A KEY FEATURE OF SUBJECTIVITY ) ALREADY DISCUSSED THAT BOTH THINKERS PROBLEMATIZE THE MODERN SUBJECT BECAUSE SHE IS CONSUMED BY SELF TOO IMMANENTIST OR PARALYZED BY THE NEEDS OF THE SELF !S ) NOTED EARLIER ,ONERGANS CRITIQUE OF +ANTIAN IDEALISM ARGUES THAT IM MANENTIST THINKING THWARTS AUTHENTIC SUBJECTIVITY )MMANENTIST LOGIC LIMITS THE SUBJECTS CAPACITY FOR KNOWLEDGE TO THE LEVEL OF EXPERIENCE AND REPRESENTATION THEREFORE BLOCKING ANY MOVEMENT TOWARD JUDG MENT AND DECISION &OR ,ONERGAN INTELLECTUAL MORAL AND RELIGIOUS CONVERSION DRAW THE PERSON AWAY FROM AN INWARD CARRIAGE OF EGOISM TO AN OUTWARD STANCE OF OPENNESS #ONVERSION TOWARD THE HUMAN GOOD CULMINATES IN RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE IN FALLING IN LOVE WITH 'OD 7HEN THE SUBJECT FALLS IN LOVE WITH 'OD SHE SURRENDERS HIMHERSELF TO THE GOOD OF THE COMMUNITY AND THE NEEDS OF THE /THER 4HE WAY IN WHICH THE SUBJECT IS OPENED FOR OTHERS WHEN FALLING IN LOVE WITH 'OD WILL BE EXPLORED IN THE FOLLOWING CHAPTER &OR NOW IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT ,ONERGAN REJECTS THE IMMANENTIST SUBJECT ON INTELLECTUAL MORAL AND RELIGIOUS GROUNDS 4HEREFORE AT NO POINT SHOULD ,ONERGANS WORK BE UNDERSTOOD AS TOO INTELLECTUALIST FOR THE GIFTED POSTURE EMERGES MOST FULLY IN THE INTENSE MYSTICAL RELATIONSHIP WITH 'OD ,IKE ,ONERGAN ,EVINAS ALSO CONTESTS THE IMMANENTIST SUBJECT THROUGH A DISCUSSION OF BOTH PHILOSOPHY AND RELIGION /NE CANNOT HELP BUT NOTICE ,EVINASS FREQUENT REFERENCES TO 0LATOS 'OOD AS BEYOND HUMAN APPREHENSION 4HE DISTANCE BETWEEN HUMANITY AND 'OODNESS ALLOWS ,EVINAS TO EXPLAIN ALTERITY AS COMING FROM THE HITHER SIDE OF OUR FREEDOM FROM BEYOND BEING THAT IS hBEINGS OTHER OR THE OTHERWISE THAN BEINGv ,EVINAS E !SIDE FROM RELYING ON 0LATONIC AND .EO 0LATONIC SOURCES ,EVINAS DRAWS ON THE RICH RESOURCES OF *EWISH PROPHECY AND REVELATION TO OFFER A CRITIQUE OF A POSTURE OF IMMANENCE ,EVINAS CONTENDS THAT IMMANENTISM IS PROBLEMATIC BECAUSE 3CRIPTURE ILLUSTRATES THAT HUMANITY WHEN FACED BY A STRANGER OPENS FROM THE POSTURE OF FOR ITSELF TO A RELATIONSHIP OF FOR THE /THER -ICHAEL 0URCELL A PHILOSOPHER WHO HAS WRITTEN EXTENSIVELY ON THE CONNECTIONS BETWEEN THE THOUGHT OF +ARL 2AHNER AND ,EVINAS OUTLINES ,EVINASS POSITION AGAINST THE POSTURE OF IMMANENTISM AND UTILITARI
-ICHELE 3ARACINO ,ONERGAN AND ,EVINAS
ANISM 0URCELL ELUCIDATES ,EVINASS POSITION BY EXPOSING HOW PHILOSOPHY TRADITIONALLY HAS BEEN A PROJECT OF THE 'REEKS "Y ADVERTING TO THE ADVENTURE OF /DYSSEUS ,EVINAS LAMENTS THAT THE SUBJECT REMAINS TRAPPED WITHIN HIMSELF AND FOR HIMSELF ,EVINAS ACCORDING TO 0URCELL CONTRASTS THIS /DYSSEAN PHILOSOPHIC TRADITION WITH THE !BRAHAMIC RE LIGIOUS TRADITION IN ORDER TO EXPOSE THE RADICALLY DIFFERENT DISPOSITIONS OF THE IMMANENT AND TRANSCENDENT SUBJECTS /DYSSEUS JOURNEYS FOR HIS OWN PURPOSE IN VIOLENCE AND CONQUEST BUT THEN CIRCLES BACK TO )THACA !BRAHAM LEAVES HIS HOME IN OBLIGATION TO THE 'OD OF )SRAEL AND NEVER RETURNS "Y WAY OF TYPOLOGY ,EVINAS ILLUSTRATES THAT THE !BRAHAMIC SUBJECT DOES NOT DESIRE TRANSCENDENCE IN AND OF ITSELF NOR DOES THE !BRAHAMIC SUBJECT SEEK TO RETURN TO THE COMFORT OF HIMHERSELF BUT IS CONSTANTLY DISPLACED BY AND DISPOSED FOR THE NEEDS OF THE /THER (E IS THE ETHICAL SUBJECT /N THE OTHER HAND THE /DYSSEAN IMMANENTIST STANCE IS UNETHICAL BECAUSE IT DENIES RELATIONSHIP WITH OTHERS IN A RETURN TO SELF "Y EXPLORING THE METAPHYSICAL GROUNDING OF ,ONERGANS AND ,EVINASS WORK WE CAN COMPREHEND WHY THEY BOTH JETTISON THE IDEA OF THE SUBJECT AS IMMANENTIST !S ) ARGUED EARLIER A STANCE OF IMMANENTISM IS EXACERBATED BY THE TRAP OF PICTURE THINKING 4HE SECOND COMMONALITY BETWEEN ,ONERGAN AND ,EVINAS IS DERIVED FROM THEIR CRITIQUE OF THE OCULARCENTRISM OF THE 7EST AND THEIR DISCREDITING OF THE IDEA THAT SEEING IS EQUIVALENT WITH KNOWING PERSONS AND THINGS #ULTURAL THEORIST $AVID -ICHAEL ,EVIN CLARIlES THE COMMONSENSE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE NOTION OF BEING AND SEEING IN MODERNITY h&OR ALL OF US THAT CAN SEE VISION IS OF ALL THE MODES OF PERCEPTION THE ONE WHICH IS PRIMARY AND PREDOMINANT AT LEAST IN THE CONDUCT OF OUR EVERYDAY LIVESv ,EVIN QUESTIONS THE OCULARCENTRISM OF MODERNITY AND DISCUSSES HOW CONmICT ARISES BETWEEN VISION AND KNOWLEDGE VISION AND ONTOLOGY VISION AND POWER AND VISION AND ETHICS %CHOING ,EVINS CONCERN ,ONERGANS COGNITIONAL THEORY DEBUNKS THE IDEA THAT SEEING IS EQUIVALENT TO KNOWING 3IGHT IS ONLY ONE OF THE SEVERAL MEANS OF EXPERIENCE AND MORE IMPORTANTLY EXPERIENCE IS ONLY ONE OF THE FOUR LEVELS IN THE ACTIVITY OF KNOWING 4HEREFORE SEEING DOES NOT EQUATE TO KNOWING )NSTEAD KNOWING IS CONSTITUTED IN THE EXPERIENCING UNDERSTANDING JUDGING AND DECIDING IN REGARD TO ONES EXPERIENCING SEEING THE EXPERIENCING UNDERSTANDING
^0HILOSOPHICAL &OUNDATIONS
JUDGING AND DECIDING IN REGARD TO ONES UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT ONE THINKS ONE SEES THE EXPERIENCING UNDERSTANDING JUDGING AND DECID ING IN REGARD TO ONES JUDGING OF WHAT ONE KNOWS ONE SEES AND THE EXPERIENCING UNDERSTANDING JUDGING AND DECIDING IN REGARD TO ONES DECIDING OF WHAT ONE IS TO DO BECAUSE OF WHAT ONE SEES !CCORDING TO ,ONERGANS EXPLANATION OF COGNITIONAL THEORY PICTURE THINKING DOES NOT ALLOW FOR THE IMAGE THAT IS SEEN TO BE QUESTIONED OR CONTEXTUALIZED 0ICTURE THINKING ALLOWS ONLY FOR THE IMAGE TO BE TAKEN AT FACE VALUE &URTHERMORE ,ONERGAN ASSERTS THAT SUCH ABSTRACT ONE DIMENSIONAL THINKING LEADS TO THE TRAP OF CONCEPTUALISM !S PICTURE THINKING IDENTIlES WHAT ONE SEES WITH REALITY IT FOSTERS A CONCEPTUALIST ATTITUDE THAT DISREGARDS CONTEXT MEANING HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT ,ONERGAN WRITES h;#=ONCEPTUALISM IGNORES HUMAN UNDERSTANDING AND SO IT OVER LOOKS THE CONCRETE MODE OF UNDERSTANDING THAT GRASPS INTELLIGIBILITY IN THE SENSIBLE ITSELF )T IS CONlNED TO A WORLD OF ABSTRACT UNIVERSALS AND ITS ONLY LINK WITH THE CONCRETE IS THE RELATION OF UNIVERSAL TO PARTICULARv #ONCEPTUALISM DENIGRATES EVEN IGNORES THE DEVELOPMENT OF MEANING AND REALITY THROUGH HISTORICAL CHANGE AND CULTURAL PAR TICULARITY )N HIS EXPLANATION OF COGNITIONAL THEORY ,ONERGAN POSES A MORE DYNAMIC RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN UNIVERSAL AND PARTICULAR FORMS OF KNOWLEDGE (E RENOUNCES THE RIGIDITY OF STATIC CONCEPTS AND EXPOSES HOW THE DANGEROUS UNDERSIDE OF CLASSICIST MENTALITY CAN DEEM ONE GROUP AS NORMATIVE UNIVERSAL AND IDEAL AND THE OTHER AS BARBARIC INCOMPLETE AND CONTINGENT !S 0ATRICK "YRNE EXPLAINS "Y @CONCEPTUALISM ,ONERGAN MEANT THE POSITION THAT REAL KNOWLEDGE OF ANYTHING IS ONLY IN GRASP OF THE CONCEPTS UNDER WHICH IT FALLS #ONCEPTS ARE FORMED BY ABSTRACTING THE UNIVERSAL FROM PARTICULAR MATTER SO THAT CONCEPTUAL KNOWLEDGE CONSISTS IN KNOWLEDGE OF THE UNIVERSAL &URTHERMORE SUCH KNOWLEDGE IS KNOWLEDGE OF THE ETERNAL UNIVERSAL NECESSARY AND UNCHANGINGx 4HIS QUALITY OF CONCEPTS STANDS IN SHARP CONTRAST WITH THE CHANGEABLENESS OF THE WORLD OF PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES
!S ,ONERGAN REJECTS CONCEPTUALISM ,EVINAS REPUDIATES THE GAZE OF MODERNITY THAT THEMATIZES AND CLAIMS TO KNOW THE /THER )N h$IACHRO NY AND 2EPRESENTATION v ,EVINAS COMMENTS ON HOW VISION HAS BEEN
-ICHELE 3ARACINO ,ONERGAN AND ,EVINAS
PRIVILEGED IN 7ESTERN METAPHYSICS h4HE SPHERE OF INTELLIGIBILITYTHE REASONABLEIN WHICH EVERY DAY LIFE AS WELL AS THE TRADITION OF OUR PHILOSOPHIC AND SCIENTIlC THOUGHT MAINTAINS ITSELF IS CHARACTERIZED BY VISION 4HE STRUCTURE OF A SEEING HAVING THE SEEN FOR ITS OBJECT OF THEMETHE SO CALLED INTENTIONAL STRUCTUREIS FOUND IN ALL THE MODES OF SENSIBILITY HAVING ACCESS TO THINGSv &OR ,EVINAS SUCH OCULARCENTRIC LOGIC LEADS TO A CONCEPTUALIZATION OR THEMATIZATION OF DIFFERENCE ,EVINAS IN HIS CONSIDERATION OF THE SUBJECTS RELATION WITH THE /THER FOCUSES ON THE WAY IN WHICH HUMANS WANT TO KNOW AND UNDERSTAND EACH OTHER YET INSISTS THAT THE RELATION ITSELF THAT IS THE COMMITMENT FOR THE /THER PRECEDES ANY CONCEPT OF THE /THER !S A RESULT HE CLAIMS THAT HUMAN BEINGS ARE BEYOND mAT CONCEPTS AND FACILE THEMATIZATIONS )N h)S /NTOLOGY &UNDAMENTAL v ,EVINAS EXPLAINS /UR RELATION WITH THE OTHER AUTRUI CERTAINLY CONSISTS IN WANTING TO COMPREHEND HIM BUT THIS RELATION OVERmOWS COMPREHENSION .OT ONLY BECAUSE KNOWLEDGE OF THE OTHER AUTRUI REQUIRES OUTSIDE OF ALL CURIOSITY ALSO SYMPATHY OR LOVE WAYS OF BEING DISTINCT FROM IMPASSIBLE CONTEMPLATION BUT BECAUSE IN OUR RELATION WITH THE OTHER AUTRUI HE DOES NOT AFFECT US IN TERMS OF A CONCEPT (E IS A BEING £TANT AND COUNTS AS SUCH
!CCORDING TO ,EVINAS WE RECOGNIZE THE /THER NOT MERELY BY A VISION IMAGE OR CONCEPT BUT IN AN ENCOUNTER lRST BY SPEECH ADDRESS OR COMMAND AND THEN BY CONCEPT )N AN EFFORT TO DIFFUSE FURTHER THE HEGEMONY OF OCULARCENTRIC LOGIC IN h$IACHRONY AND 2EPRESENTATION v ,EVINAS EXPLICITLY REJECTS KNOWING WITH SEEING h)N THOUGHT UNDER STOOD AS VISION KNOWLEDGE AND INTENTIONALITY INTELLIGIBILITY THUS SIGNIlES THE REDUCTION OF THE OTHER ;!UTRE= TO THE 3AMExv 4HROUGH EXAMINING THE SIMILARITIES BETWEEN CONCEPTUALISM AND THEMATIZATION WE CAN ASCERTAIN HOW ,ONERGAN AND ,EVINAS BOTH REFUTE THE ASSUMPTION THAT SEEING IS A KEY FEATURE OF SUBJECTIVITY ,ONERGANS OBJECTION TO A STATIC CONCEPTUALIST MENTALITY IS FURTHERED BY ,EVINASS ETHICAL CONCERN FOR ALTERITY )T IS THE ETHICAL INTERSUBJECTIVE FEELING FOR THE /THER THAT CUTS ACROSS THE OCULARCENTRIC GAZE )N OTHER WORDS FOR ,ONERGAN AND ,EVINAS AFFECTIVE INTENTIONALITY SUPERCEDES REPRESENTA TIONAL INTENTIONALITY
^0HILOSOPHICAL &OUNDATIONS
4HE ALLUSION TO AFFECTIVE INTENTIONALITY LEADS TO THE THIRD COMMONALITY BETWEEN ,ONERGAN AND ,EVINASTHE WAY IN WHICH THEY EXPLORE ISSUES RELATED TO EMBODIMENT WHEN DISCUSSING SUBJECTIVITY AND OTHERNESS ,ONERGAN TAKES THE BODY FOR A FACT AND THE FACTUALITY OF THE BODY IS DUE TO THE BODYS CONNECTION TO THE DYNAMIC STRUCTURE OF KNOWING ACTING AND LOVING ,ONERGAN UNLIKE $ESCARTES AND +ANT ATTEMPTS TO INTEGRATE SENSUAL EXPERIENCE WITH A PERSONS POTENTIAL FOR KNOWLEDGE 2ECALL HOW KNOWING FOR ,ONERGAN IS A FOUR STEP ACTIVITY OF EXPERI ENCING UNDERSTANDING JUDGING AND DECIDING )MPLICITLY THEN THE BODY IS A KEY SOURCE OF SENSE EXPERIENCE ,ONERGAN DETAILS A VARIETY OF PATTERNS OF EXPERIENCE INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE BIOLOGICAL AESTHETIC INTELLECTUAL DRAMATIC SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL AND RELIGIOUS /N REmECTION HOWEVER IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT THE BIOLOGICAL PATTERN CERTAINLY IMPORTANT IN AND OF ITSELF ALSO INmUENCES THE SUBJECTS DRAMATIC PATTERN OF LIFE THAT IS THE SUBJECTS JOURNEY THROUGH THE WORLD AND ENCOUNTER WITH OTHER PERSONS ,ONERGAN ,ONERGANS EMPHASIS ON EMBODIMENT IN RELATION TO THE STRUCTURE OF KNOWING IS A DEPARTURE FROM THE VIEW OF MODERNITY THAT CONmATES SUBJECTIVITY WITH DISEMBODIED MINDS ,ONERGANS EMPHASIS ON ISSUES OF EMBODI MENT IS NOT LIMITED TO A DISCUSSION OF PATTERNS OF EXPERIENCE BUT ALSO ENCOMPASSES AN EMPHASIS ON THE IMPORTANCE OF FEELINGS DESIRE AND LOVE IN INTERSUBJECTIVE RELATIONS 4HESE EMOTIONS ARE INEXTRICABLY CON NECTED TO OUR BEING HUMAN PARTICULARLY WHEN BEING HUMAN IS FRAMED IN TERMS OF RIGHT RELATIONSHIP WITH 'OD AND OTHERS !FFECTIVITY FOR ,ONERGAN COMPLIMENTS REASON AND ACTION AND LEADS TO CONVERSION AND TRANSCENDENCE ,EVINAS TOO IS CONCERNED WITH THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERSON AND BODY "UT UNLIKE ,ONERGAN HIS ARTICULATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF BODY IS NOT EXPLICATED IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF SUBJECTIVITY )NSTEAD ,EVINASS INTEREST IN THE BODY IS EVIDENT IN HIS SENSUAL AND LUSH DESCRIPTION OF THE RELATION BETWEEN SUBJECT AND /THER IN BODILY METAPHOR (E EX PLAINS THE /THER IN TERMS OF FECUNDITY VOLUPTUOSITY AND EXCESS AND THE SUBJECTS RELATIONSHIP WITH THE /THER IN TERMS OF DESIRE LOVE AND MATERIAL AND SPIRITUAL GIVING 4HE CATEGORY OF SUBSTITUTION AS LENDING ONES BODY FOR ANOTHER UNDERSCORES ,EVINASS CONCERN FOR AN AFFECTIVE INCARNATIONAL INTERPRETATION OF BEING HUMAN )T IS NOT TOO STRONG TO SUGGEST THAT HIS THINKING PRIVILEGES BODY AND SENSUALITY TO SUCH AN
-ICHELE 3ARACINO ,ONERGAN AND ,EVINAS
EXTENT THAT THE ANALYTICAL AND COGNITIVE CAPACITIES OF THE SUBJECT ARE RENDERED NEARLY INCONSEQUENTIAL DElNITELY SECONDARY /F COURSE NOT ALL THINKERS ARE AS CONVINCED AS ,ONERGAN AND ,EVINAS THAT CONTEMPORARY PHILOSOPHICAL ANTHROPOLOGY OUGHT TO PURSUE AN INQUIRY INTO THE BODY 3UCH AMBIVALENT ATTITUDES TOWARD CORPOREALITY HAVE LED TO POLEMICAL READINGS OF EMBODIED SUBJECTIVITIES IN MODERN AND POSTMODERN OR CONTEMPORARY CONTINENTAL THEORY 3USAN "ORDO DISCUSSES THE DICHOTOMY BETWEEN THESE TWO DISCOURSES 3HE ASSERTS THAT THE MODERN READING AS ILLUSTRATED IN #ARTESIAN THEORY SUBJUGATES THE BODY TO THE MIND WHILE THE CONTEMPORARY CONTINENTAL READING FOSTERS ACCOUNTS OF BODY THAT ESSENTIALIZE AND REIFY THE BODY 3HE WRITES -Y POINT CAN BEST BE SEEN THROUGH EXAMINATION OF THE ROLE OF THE BODYTHAT IS OF THE METAPHOR OF THE BODYIN THEIR SEEMINGLY CONTRASTING EPISTEMOLOGIES OF @NOWHERE AND @EVERYWHERE &OR #ARTESIAN EPISTEMOLOGY THE BODYCONCEPTUALIZED AS THE SITE OF EPISTEMOLOGICAL LIMITATION AS THAT WHICH lXED THE KNOWER IN TIME AND SPACE AND THEREFORE SITUATES AND RELATIVIZES PERCEPTION AND THOUGHTREQUIRES TRANSCENDENCE IF ONE IS TO ACHIEVE THE VIEW FROM NOWHERE THE 'ODS EYE VIEWx ;!CCORDING TO POSTMODERN EPISTEMOLOGY= THE BODY ACCORDINGLY IS RECONCEIVED .O LONGER AN OBSTACLE TO KNOWLEDGE FOR KNOWLEDGE IN THE #ARTESIAN SENSE IS AN IMPOSSIBILITY AND THE BODY INCAPABLE OF BEING TRANSCENDED IN PURSUIT OF IT THE BODY IS SEEN AS THE VEHICLE OF HUMAN MAKING AND REMAKING OF THE WORLD CONSTANTLY SHIFTING LOCATION CAPABLE OF REVEALING ENDLESSLY NEW POINTS OF VIEW
)N THIS PASSAGE "ORDO DEMONSTRATES THAT AS MODERN THEORY ERASES THE BODY FROM THE PARAMETERS OF SUBJECTIVITYLEAVING THE BODY NOWHERE POSTMODERN THOUGHT FETISHIZES THE BODYRENDERING THE BODY EVERYWHERE !PPROPRIATING THE INSIGHTS OF -ERLEAU 0ONTY ,ONERGAN AND ,EVINAS AVOID THE EXTREME MODERN AND POSTMODERN POSITIONS OF THE BODY AS NOWHERE AND EVERYWHERE "ORN IN &RANCE IN -ERLEAU 0ONTY WAS A CONTEMPORARY OF BOTH ,ONERGAN AND ,EVINAS AND IS CITED BY EACH ON VARIOUS OCCASIONS ,ONERGAN ESTEEMS -ERLEAU 0ONTYS WORK h(E IS BRILLIANT ON THE SIGNIlCANCE OF ONES OWN BODY IN ONES OWN PERCEIVING SENTIENT AND SENSIBLE SPATIO TEMPORAL NEITHER PURELY POUR SOI NOR
^0HILOSOPHICAL &OUNDATIONS
PURELY EN SOI NOT GHOST IN MACHINE BUT INCARNATE SUBJECT NEITHER SUBJECT NOR BODY INTELLIGIBLE WITHOUT THE OTHERv 3IMILARLY PICKING UP ON THE PROTEAN QUALITY OF CORPOREALITY ,EVINAS FREQUENTLY CITES -ERLEAU 0ONTYS WORK SEE h%THICS AS &IRST 0HILOSOPHY v IN )MPORTANT FOR BOTH ,ONERGANS AND ,EVINASS WORK -ERLEAU 0ONTYS SCHOOL OF PHENOMENOLOGY FOSTERS BOTH AN AMBIGUOUS AND INCARNATIONAL APPROACH TO CONSCIOUSNESS AND RELATIONSHIPS )N 0HENOMENOLOGY OF 0ERCEPTION -ERLEAU 0ONTY INTERPRETS THE BODY SUBJECT AS DYNAMIC RATHER THAN STATIC 4HIS BODY SUBJECT MOVES ENACTS WITH AND TRANSFORMS THE LIFE WORLD INSTEAD OF MERELY TAKING UP SPACE )N HER COMMENTARY ON -ERLEAU 0ONTYS 0HENOMENOLOGY OF 0ERCEPTION -ONIKA ,ANGER EXPLAINS THE SUBJECTS ACTION IN THE WORLD AS AN hINCARNATE INTENTIONALITYv IN WHICH THE BODY hINHABITS SPACE AND PROJECTS ITSELF TOWARDS A PERCEPTUAL WORLDv !S THE SITE OF INCARNATE INTENTIONALITY THE BODY SUBJECT IS NOT AN INACTIVE RECEPTOR OF SENSORY ASSOCIATIONS BUT AN EMBODIED SUBJECT VIGOROUSLY EMBRACING THE WORLD %CHOES OF -ERLEAU 0ONTY CAN BE HEARD IN ,ONERGANS THOUGHT 3PECIlCALLY ONE COULD LINK -ERLEAU 0ONTYS INSISTENCE UPON AN EMBOD IED INTENTIONALITY A GESTURING TOWARD THE WORLD WITH ,ONERGANS WORK ON INCARNATE MEANING AND PHENOMENOLOGY OF A SMILE 3IGNIlCANTLY IN -ERLEAU 0ONTYS VIEW THE BODY SUBJECTS ENGAGEMENT WITH THE WORLD IS OFTEN COMPLICATED AND AMBIGUOUS BECAUSE SHE CAN NEVER SEPARATE HIMHERSELF FROM THE EXPERIENCE OF IT -ERLEAU 0ONTY URGES HUMAN BE INGS TO REVEL IN THE AMBIGUITY OF CORPOREAL SUBJECTIVITY (ERE ,EVINASS EMPHASIS ON THE EXCESSIVE VOLUPTUOUS AND MYSTERIOUS TENDENCIES OF INTERSUBJECTIVITY CAN BE DETECTED )N HER ATTEMPT TO MOVE BEYOND INTELLECTUALIST AND EMPIRICIST INTER PRETATIONS OF THE HUMAN PERSON -ARY 2OSE "ARRAL ASSERTS THAT -ERLEAU 0ONTY HAS CONSTRUCTED A hCOHERENT DOCTRINE OF HUMAN EMBODIMENT v THAT DEMONSTRATES HOW SUBJECTIVITY AND EMBODIMENT ARE INTERLOCKED RATHER THAN OTHER AND ALIENATED ENTITIES "ARRAL FURTHER GRASPS IN -ERLEAU 0ONTYS WORK THAT THE BODY IS AN EXPRESSION OF THE SUBJECT JUST AS THE WORD IS AN EXPRESSION OF THOUGHT )T IS THROUGH GESTURING OR MORE RELEVANT TO OUR PURPOSES THROUGH POSTURING THAT THE BODY SUBJECT LIVES IN THE WORLD "OTH ,ONERGAN AND ,EVINAS EACH IN THEIR OWN DISCOURSE WORK OUT HOW THE BODY SUBJECT OUGHT TO BE POSTURED &EELING AND SENSE GROUND THIS POSTURE OR WAY OF BEING
-ICHELE 3ARACINO ,ONERGAN AND ,EVINAS
OPEN TO OTHERS !GAIN INCARNATE BEING PREVENTS THE OCULARCENTRISM PREVIOUSLY ADDRESSED !WARE OF THE INmUENCE OF -ERLEAU 0ONTYS ANTHROPOLOGY !NDREW 4ALLON EMPHASIZES THE AFFECTIVE DIMENSION OF BEING HUMAN EMPLOYING THE WORK OF BOTH ,ONERGAN AND ,EVINAS TO ILLUSTRATE THE SIGNIlCANCE OF FEELING AND SENSE IN OUR RELATION TO OTHERS 7HILE COMMONSENSE OFTEN LIMITS OUR UNDERSTANDING OF FEELING TO THAT OF THE BODY OR MATERIAL REALM 4ALLON EXPLAINS THAT FEELING IS INTEGRAL TO THE HUMAN POTENTIAL FOR TRANSCENDENCE FOR 'OD AND OTHERS 7ORKING THROUGH CONTEMPORARY CONTINENTAL THEORY EXISTENTIAL PHILOSOPHERS AND THE THOUGHT OF 4HOMAS !QUINAS 4ALLON ARGUES THAT IT IS OUR AFFECTIVE IMPULSE FOR INTERSUBJEC TIVE RELATIONSHIPS THAT SUPERSEDES OUR RELIANCE ON REASON 5LTIMATELY 4ALLON ATTEMPTS TO DEMONSTRATE THE TRIUNE CHARACTER OF BEING HUMAN THAT IS THE INTEGRATED AFFECTIVE COGNITIONAL AND VOLITIONAL DIMENSIONS OF OUR RELATING TO OTHERS (IS INSIGHTS ARE SIGNIlCANT TO OUR MAPPING OF THE DIALOGUE BETWEEN ,ONERGAN AND ,EVINAS AS HE BRINGS TO LIGHT THE AFFECTIVE FOUNDATIONS OF BOTH THEIR ANTHROPOLOGIES )N THE SECTION ABOVE WE EXPLORED HOW ,ONERGAN AND ,EVINAS SHARE SIMILAR CONCERNS IN REGARD TO THE QUESTION OF SUBJECTIVITY 4HEY BOTH EMPHASIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF A RELATIONSHIP OF TRANSCENDENT "OTH ,ONERGAN AND ,EVINAS CONTEST THE MODERN PREOCCUPATION WITH OCULARCENTRIC LOGIC THROUGH THE IGNORANT AND AGGRESSIVE HABITS OF CONCEPTUALISM AND THEMATIZATION !ND BY BRIEmY WORKING THROUGH THE PHENOMENOLOGY OF -ERLEAU 0ONTY AND OTHER RELEVANT THINKERS WE LEARNED HOW THEY BOTH EMPHASIZE THE CONNECTION BETWEEN SUBJECTIVITY AND EMBODIMENT )N THE CONCLUDING SECTION WE WILL LOCATE THE POINTS AT WHICH DIALOGUE BETWEEN THE MODERN THEOLOGY OF ,ONERGAN AND THE POSTMODERN THEORY OF ,EVINAS BREAKS DOWN
#ONmICTING 4RADITIONS AND !SSUMPTIONS %VEN AMIDST ALL THE COMMONALTIES ,ONERGANS AND ,EVINASS DISTINCTIVE BACKGROUNDS LEAD THEM TO DIFFERENT CONCLUSIONS ABOUT BEING 4HE OP POSING WAYS IN WHICH THEY INTERPRET BEING ALSO CAUSES AN ADDITIONAL
^0HILOSOPHICAL &OUNDATIONS
CONmICT THE INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE WAYS THEY REGARD KNOWLEDGE )N THE NEXT FEW PARAGRAPHS ) WILL ELABORATE ON SOME OF THESE NOTEWORTHY DISTINCTIONS IN ,ONERGANS AND ,EVINASS WORLDVIEWS ,ONERGANS WORK IS GROUNDED IN A 2OMAN #ATHOLIC THEOLOGICAL WORLDVIEW WHICH IS BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT 'OD IS THE GROUND OF ALL BEING )MPLICIT IN ,ONERGANS WORK IS THE BELIEF THAT THE INCARNA TION OF #HRIST IS THE EXEMPLARY PERFORMANCE OF AUTHENTIC SUBJECTIV ITY #ONSEQUENTLY ALL #HRISTIANS DESIRE TO LIVE IN THE IMAGE OF 'OD TO IMITATE #HRIST IN THEIR BEING )N CONTRAST TO THE 2OMAN #ATHOLIC WORLDVIEW OF ,ONERGAN THERE IS A DElNITIVE *UDAIC GROUNDING TO ,EVINASS WRITINGS "Y GIVING SPECIAL ATTENTION TO 0LATONIC THOUGHT *EWISH 2EVELATION AND 4ALMUDIC COMMENTARY IN AN ESSAY h)DEOLOGY AND )DEALISM v ,EVINAS MAINTAINS THAT 'OD IS BEYOND BEING AND THAT HUMANITYS hDIRECT ENCOUNTERv WITH 'OD IS A #HRISTIAN AXIOM 4O BE SURE ,EVINAS IS NOT CONCERNED WITH MODELING BEING IN LIGHT OF THE #HRIST EVENT (E IS PREOCCUPIED WITH AN ETHICS THAT MOVES BEYOND BEING AS IMITATION OR AS FORCED MORALITY @"EYOND BEING IS AN IMPORTANT MANTRA FOR ,EVINAS !S 3EÕN (AND ELOQUENTLY CONVEYS IN HIS INTRODUCTORY REMARKS TO 4HE ,EVINAS 2EADER h)N THE AGE OF !USCHWITZ ,EVINAS SHOWS THAT TO BE OR NOT TO BE IS NOT THE ULTIMATE QUESTION IT IS BUT A COMMENTARY ON THE BETTER THAN BEING THE INlNITE DEMAND OF THE ETHICAL RELATIONv ,EVINAS 'OD FOR ,EVINAS ENTERS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SUBJECT AND /THER IN THE FACE OF THE /THER THAT IS IN THE VOICE OR DEMAND OF THE /THER !CCORDING TO ,EVINASS INTERPRETATION OF *UDAISM 'OD IS THE 4HIRD 0ARTY WHO IMPINGES ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SUBJECT AND /THER ,EVINASS COMPREHENSION OF *EWISH 2EVELATION IN TERMS OF MYSTERY AND HIDDENNESS AS WE WILL REALIZE FURTHER IN #HAPTER 4HREE PREVENTS HIM FROM BEING OVERCONlDENT WITH THE NOTION OF BEING !LTERNATIVELY ,ONERGAN WORKING WITHIN THE .EO 4HOMIST TRADITION PROBLEMATIZES AND COMPLICATES THE NOTION OF BEING IN ORDER TO REWRITE WHAT IT MEANS "EING FOR ,ONERGAN IS NOT SOMETHING THAT ALREADY EXISTS AS AN ALREADY OUT THERE NOW REAL RATHER BEING IS THE UNRESTRICTED DESIRE TO KNOW ACT AND LOVE FOR OTHERS 4HE DISCORD BETWEEN THEIR VIEWPOINTS ON THE TOPIC OF @BEING LEADS TO THE SECOND OBSTACLE THAT BLOCKS DIALOGUE BETWEEN ,ONERGAN AND ,EVINAS THEIR RIVAL DElNITIONS OF KNOWLEDGE
-ICHELE 3ARACINO ,ONERGAN AND ,EVINAS
4HE DIFFERENCE IN THE WAYS THEY VALUE KNOWLEDGE IS LARGELY DUE TO THE DISTINCTIVE WAYS IN WHICH THEY APPROPRIATE (USSERLIAN PHENOME NOLOGY 0HENOMENOLOGY IS hAN ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION PRESENTATION OF THE DATA STRUCTURED BY INSIGHT v AND (USSERL lXES THE SUBJECT AS THE CENTER OF THAT WORLD OF ACCOUNT AND DESCRIPTION ,ONERGAN !LTHOUGH (USSERL MAINTAINS THAT THERE IS A REALITY APART FROM WHAT THE SUBJECT THINKS ABOUT IT HE CONCERNS HIMSELF MOSTLY WITH THE TRUTH OF THE SUBJECTS EXPERIENCE 3PECIlCALLY (USSERL URGES THAT THE SUBJECT ATTENDS TO HISHER EXPERIENCE BY SUSPENDING HISHER INTERESTS AND COM MITMENTS THROUGH THE OPERATION OF THE TRANSCENDENTAL REDUCTION OR THE h%POCHEv $EWS (USSERL AND ,ONERGAN )N THIS PROCESS THE SUBJECT WITHDRAWS FROM THE WORLD OF THE @REALLY REAL AND FOCUSES ON HISHER INTENDING THAT IS EXPERIENCING THE WORLD BY WAY OF MAKING MEANING SYMBOL AND REPRESENTATION ,ONERGAN UPHOLDS (USSERLIAN PHENOMENOLOGY BY EMPHASIZING THE NOTION OF INTENDING OR INTENTIONALITY AS REFERRING TO HOW MEANING IS ALWAYS CONTEXTUALIZED )N OTHER WORDS ,ONERGAN INTERPRETS (USSERLS PHENOMENOLOGY AS CLAIMING THAT MEANING IS NOT NATURAL OR ESSENTIAL TO AN OBJECT OR HUMAN BEING BUT MEDIATED BY CONSCIOUSNESS !S (US SERLIAN INTENTIONALITY ATTENDS TO HOW CONSCIOUSNESS MEDIATES THE WORLD ACCORDING TO ,ONERGAN IT ACTUALLY PROHIBITS ANY GESTURE OF THEMATIZATION OR ASSIMILATION OF OTHERNESS OF THE THING OR PERSON IN QUESTION 7E WILL RETURN TO ,ONERGANS INTERPRETATION OF INTENTIONALITY IN THE NEXT CHAPTER FOR ,ONERGANS RELATIONSHIP TO (USSERLIAN PHENOMENOLOGY IS MORE COMPLICATED THAN lRST PRESENTED HERE %VEN THOUGH ,ONERGAN lNDS (USSERLS THEORY HELPFUL FOR UNDERSTANDING KNOWLEDGE AND TRUTH BECAUSE IT FOSTERS AN UNDERSTANDING OF MEANING AS CONSTRUCTED HE REJECTS (USSERLIAN PHENOMENOLOGY IN TOTAL BECAUSE IT FAILS TO MOVE BEYOND DESCRIPTION TO EXPLANATION )N )NSIGHT ,ONERGAN MENTIONS THAT PHENOMENOLOGY CAN EASILY TURN INTO AN EXERCISE IN EMPIRICIST AND IMMANENTIST THINKING !GAINST (USSERLIAN IMMANENTISM AND +ANTIAN SKEPTICISM THEN ,ONERGAN BELIEVES IN REASON AND INSISTS THAT HUMAN BEINGS CAN KNOW 4HIS IS A POWERFUL ARGUMENT 9ET IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT WE RECALL THAT KNOWLEDGE IS NOT A COMMONSENSE ASSUMPTION BASED ON PICTURE THINKING BUT IS THE FRUIT OF THE DYNAMIC PROCESS OF EXPERIENCING UNDERSTANDING JUDGING AND DECIDING (E FURTHER CONTENDS THAT TOO
^0HILOSOPHICAL &OUNDATIONS
OFTEN KNOWLEDGE IS ROOTED IN A NAÆVE REALISM WHICH ASSUMES A SIMPLE CORRELATION BETWEEN THE EMPIRICAL AND THE REAL 5NLIKE MANY IDEALISTS ,ONERGAN REFUSES TO CLAIM THAT THE SENSUAL ROOT OF HUMAN EXPERIENCE PROHIBITS PEOPLE FROM UNDERSTANDING AND JUDGING )NDEED HIS CRITICAL REALIST APPROACH ALLOWS HIM TO ARGUE THAT BEING THE DESIRE TO KNOW INTENDS TOWARD THE REAL THROUGH EXPERIENCING UNDERSTANDING JUDGING AND DECIDING )T IS ONLY THROUGH THE SUBJECTS WEIGHING THE EVIDENCE AND SORTING OUT POSITIONS AND COUNTERPOSITIONS THAT SHE CAN MAKE A JUDGMENT AND COMMENCE ACTION !LTERNATIVELY ,EVINAS DISPUTES THE VALIDITY OF (USSERLS TRANSCENDENTAL REDUCTION ON OTHER GROUNDS SPECIlCALLY HE EQUATES THE SUBJECTS ACT OR MOVEMENT TO KNOW REALITY AS A VIOLENT EVENT OF THEMATIZATION ,EVINAS PROBLEMATIZES INTENTIONALITY IN THE ESSAY ENTITLED h.ONIN TENTIONAL #ONSCIOUSNESSv C )N THE INTENTIONAL ACT OF MAKING MEANING OR REPRESENTING THE SUBJECT THE SUBJECT ERASES THE INDIVIDUALITY OF THE /THER THAT IS lXES THE /THER AS OBJECT IN THE SUBJECTS CONSCIOUSNESS )N THIS THEMATIZATION THE THING OR PERSON THAT THE SUBJECT IS INTENDING TO KNOW IS STRIPPED OF ALL ITS PARTICULAR ITY AND DISTINCTIVENESS AND IS ASSIMILATED INTO THE NEED AND USE OF THE SUBJECT ,EVINAS lNDS THE TRADITIONAL ACT OF KNOWING HOSTILE TOWARD THE INTEGRITY OF THE /THER 4HEREFORE ,EVINAS WHEN COMPARED TO ,ONERGAN IS LESS CONlDENT IN THE MERITORIOUS INTENTIONS OF KNOWING )NSTEAD OF REWORKING KNOWLEDGE AS HE REWRITES SUBJECTIVITY ,EVINAS SEEMS TO GIVE UP ON THE POSSIBILITY OF KNOWLEDGE ALTOGETHER (E CLAIMS THAT KNOWLEDGE IS SYNONYMOUS WITH THEMATIZATION AND REJECTS THE PRIMACY OF THE RATIONAL IN HOPE OF CONSTRUCTING WHAT (AND CALLS A hPOST RATIONAL ETHICSv ,EVINAS V ,EVINAS ASSOCIATES KNOWING WITH A GRASPING A HANDLING THAT HE INTERPRETS AS AN AGGRESSIVE ACT THAT ASSIMILATES OTHERNESS INTO THE SELF &OR ,EVINAS HENCE BEFORE GRASPING THERE IS A DESIRE FOR THE /THER 4HIS FEELING NOT REASON OR KNOWLEDGE GROUNDS INTERSUBJECTIVE RELA TIONS %VEN WITH THIS SAID IT WILL BECOME APPARENT IN THE FOLLOWING CHAPTERS THAT ,EVINAS LATER DEVELOPS A MORE NUANCED UNDERSTANDING OF REASON AND KNOWLEDGE &OR NOW HOWEVER IT IS IMPORTANT TO KEEP IN MIND TWO FUNDAMENTAL POINTS THAT APPEAR TO CAUSE CONmICT IN THE DIALOGUE BETWEEN ,ONERGANIAN AND ,EVINASIAN THOUGHT &IRST ,EVINASS UNDERSTANDING OF BEING IS DISTINCT FROM THAT OF ,ONERGANS THOUGHT
3ECOND THESE CONmICTING NOTIONS OF BEING RELATE TO DISPARATE INTER PRETATIONS OF KNOWLEDGE
#ONCLUSION )N THIS CHAPTER WE HAVE MAPPED THE WAY IN WHICH ,ONERGANS AND ,EVINASS RENDITIONS OF SUBJECTIVITY ARE SHAPED BY PARTICULAR PHILOSOPHICAL PROBLEMS ,ONERGAN WHILE WORKING WITHIN THE MODERN TRADITION OF INTERPRETING THE SUBJECT AS RATIONAL AND FREE BECAME DISSATISlED WITH THE %NLIGHTENMENTS VERSION OF SUBJECTIVITY !T THE SAME TIME ,EVINAS FOUND THE EXISTENTIAL AND PSYCHOANALYTIC APPROACHES TO SUBJECTIVITY INADEQUATE )N THE SECOND HALF OF THIS CHAPTER WE EXAMINED THE WAYS IN WHICH ,ONERGANIAN AND ,EVINASIAN ANALYSIS CAN BE UNDERSTOOD TO BE BOTH DIALOGICAL AND INCOMMENSURABLE 4HEY AGREE THAT THE IMMA NENT POSTURE OF THE MODERN SUBJECT IS PROBLEMATIC THAT THIS POSTURE LEADS TO AN EGREGIOUS OCULARCENTRISM AND THAT INTEGRATING QUESTIONS OF CORPOREALITY WOULD ENHANCE THE CURRENT INTERPRETATION OF SUBJECTIVITY (OWEVER ,ONERGANS AND ,EVINASS POSITIONS SEEM INCOMMENSURABLE BECAUSE THEY CONmICT OVER THE DElNITIONS OF BEING AND KNOWING 3IGNIlCANTLY THEIR COMMON CONCERNS ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF INTER SUBJECTIVE RELATIONS TEMPER THE SEEMINGLY POLEMICAL ISSUES
4HE /PEN 0OSTURE OF ,ONERGANS 3UBJECT
)
N THE PREVIOUS CHAPTER WE INTERROGATED ,ONERGANgS AND ,EVINASgS RESPECTIVE PHILOSOPHICAL BACKGROUNDS"Y SKETCHING ,ONERGANS UNDERSTANDING OF $ESCARTES +ANT AND .IETZSCHE WE WERE ABLE TO GRASP HOW ,ONERGAN BOTH CONTESTS THE %NLIGHTENMENT RENDITIONS OF THE SUBJECT AND PROPOSES A NOTION OF AUTHENTIC SUBJECTIVITY )N THIS CHAPTER ,ONERGANS CONTRIBUTION TO #HRISTIAN ANTHROPOLOGY IS FURTHER EXPLORED !RGUABLY ,ONERGANS GREATEST ACHIEVEMENT IS URGING THEO LOGIANS TO ADVERT TO THEIR COGNITIONAL OPERATIONS TO ENTER INTO THE PROCESS OF SELF APPROPRIATION AND TO INTERROGATE THE INTERCONNECTEDNESS OF KNOWING AND DOING %QUALLY IMPORTANT HOWEVER IS HIS DISCUSSION OF HOW WE ARE NOT ONLY OBLIGATED TO KNOW AND ACT IN THE FACE OF THE /THER BUT ALSO HOW WE ARE COMPELLED TO BE ATTENTIVE TO OUR FEELINGS FOR THE /THER %ACH OF THESE ISSUES IS SIGNIlCANT TO ANY DISCUSSION OF SUBJECTIVITY IN THE POSTMODERN PLURALISTIC WORLD )N ORDER TO SUFlCIENTLY ADDRESS ,ONERGANS CONTRIBUTION TO THIS CONVERSATION ) FOCUS ON FOUR THEMES HIS TRANSITION FROM FACULTY PSYCHOLOGY TO INTENTIONALITY ANALYSIS HIS INTERPRETATION OF THREE DIMENSIONS OF AUTHENTIC SUBJECTIVITY HIS INVESTIGATION OF THE SUBJECTS OPENNESS TO ALTERITY AND HIS CONCERN FOR THE EMBODIMENT OF THE SUBJECT )T IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE FOLLOWING ANALYSIS OF AUTHENTIC SUB JECTIVITY HIGHLIGHTS ,ONERGANS LATER WORK IN WHICH HE mESHES OUT HIS IDEAS ON INTENTIONALITY ANALYSIS AND HISTORICAL CONSCIOUSNESS $AVID 4RACY MAPS ,ONERGANS THOUGHT IN THREE PHASES 4HESE STAGES RANGE FROM HIS EARLIEST WORK ON !QUINAS TO A NEW CONTEXT WHICH SHIFTS THE FOCUS FROM !RISTOTELIAN THEORY AND THE -ANUALIST 4RADITION TO QUESTIONS OF INTELLIGIBILITY AND lNALLY TO A MODERN CONTEXT THAT MOVES PAST THE QUESTION OF INTELLIGIBILITY TO THE CULMINATING ISSUES OF MEANING AND HISTORY )T IS DURING THIS LAST PERIOD WHICH EMPHASIZES MEANING AND HISTORY IN WHICH ,ONERGAN PRESENTED HIS PAPER 4HE 3UBJECT AND WROTE -ETHOD IN 4HEOLOGY C 4HESE TWO
-ICHELE 3ARACINO /N "EING (UMAN
WORKS ARE VERY IMPORTANT TO OUR CONVERSATION )F WE FAIL TO GRASP THE SHIFTS IN ,ONERGANS THOUGHT AND CONTEXTUALIZE HIS WORK SOLELY WITHIN A 4HOMISTIC FRAMEWORK WE RUN THE RISK OF MISSING BOTH THE EXPAN SIVENESS AND DISTINCTIVENESS OF ,ONERGANS CONTRIBUTION TO 2OMAN #ATHOLIC THEOLOGY AS WELL AS HIS EMPHASIS ON AFFECTIVE INTENTIONALITY WHICH IS INTEGRAL TO THE SUBJECTS OPENNESS TO ALTERITY
4RANSITION FROM &ACULTY 0SYCHOLOGY TO )NTENTIONALITY !NALYSIS ,ONERGANS GOAL WAS TO BRING 2OMAN #ATHOLIC THEOLOGY UP TO THE LEVEL OF THE TIMES BY FREEING IT FROM THE STAGNANT LANGUAGE OF FACULTY PSY CHOLOGY 4HE %NCYCLOPEDIA OF 0SYCHOLOGY ASSERTS THAT FACULTY PSYCHOLOGY ORIGINATES IN 'REEK THOUGHT AND REFERS TO THE BELIEF THAT THE MIND IS AN AGGREGATE OF hSEPARATE POWERS OR FACULTIESv )N /N THE 3OUL AND /N -EMORY AND 2EMINISCENCE !RISTOTLE EXPLAINS THE HUMAN BEING IN TERMS OF lVE FACULTIES OF SENSE INCLUDING COMMON SENSE IMAGINATION MEMORY ACTIVE MIND AND PASSIVE MIND 4HESE CATEGORIES REMAINED PART OF PHILOSOPHICAL ANALYSIS THROUGH THE MEDIEVAL PERIOD DURING WHICH !QUINAS REFORMULATED !RISTOTLES CLAIMS IN TERMS OF THE POWERS OF WILL AND INTELLECT ,ONERGAN REWORKS THESE NOTIONS IN ORDER TO AVOID THE COMPARTMENTALIZATION OF KNOWLEDGE AND BEING (E ESCHEWS THE LANGUAGE OF FACULTY AND ESSENCE BECAUSE SUCH RHETORIC FAILS TO ACCOUNT FOR THE DYNAMIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE SUBJECT #ONTRARY TO THE DISCOURSE OF FACULTY PSYCHOLOGY ,ONERGAN EXPLAINS HUMAN COGNITION IN TERMS OF TIME DECISION CHOICE AND DESTINY )NTERESTINGLY THIS SHIFT ALLOWS HIM TO SPEAK OF THE INTENTIONAL AND EXISTENTIAL DIMENSIONS OF BEING HUMAN )N THE &OREWORD TO "ERNARD 4YRRELLS BOOK "ERNARD ,ONERGANS 0HILOSOPHY OF 'OD ,ONERGAN WRITES ABOUT THE SHIFT TO INTENTIONALITY ANALYSIS 7HERE FACULTY PSYCHOLOGY LEANS TO A PRIORITY OF INTELLECT OVER WILL INTENTIONALITY ANALYSIS HAS TO CONCEIVE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS FOR DELIBERATION AS SUBLATING QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS BOTH FOR REmECTION AND FOR INTELLIGENCE 4HERE FOLLOWS A FULLER AND HAPPIER APPREHENSION
^4HE /PEN 0OSTURE OF ,ONERGANS 3UBJECT
OF THE HUMAN PERSON AND IN PARTICULAR OF THE HUMAN PERSONS AP PROACH TO 'OD 4YRRELL IX X
!S WE HAVE ALREADY DISCUSSED IN THE PREVIOUS CHAPTER ,ONERGAN EM PLOYS THE LANGUAGE OF INTENTION IN ORDER TO HIGHLIGHT HOW THE SUBJECT INTENDS MEANING AND BEING IN HUMAN KNOWING &OR SOME LIKE ,EVINAS THE RHETORIC OF INTENDING MAY SEEM TO CONNOTE A CONCEPTUALIST VIEW OF KNOWINGIF ONE INTENDS SOMETHING ONE ALREADY HAS AN IDEA OF WHAT THAT THING OR PERSON IS 9ET ACCORDING TO ,ONERGANS APPROPRIATION OF (USSERLIAN PHENOMENOLOGY THE ACTIVITY OF INTENDING IS A RIGOROUS AND OPEN SURVEY OF THE SITUATION )F WE INTEND A QUESTION WE BOTH GRAPPLE WITH THE QUESTION AND ARE OPENED BY IT )T BECOMES CLEAR THAT ,ONERGAN USES THE (USSERLIAN TERM @INTENTIONAL IN OPPOSITION TO A NATURAL OR ESSENTIALIST READING OF A PERSON OR THING &OR ,ONERGAN (US SERLIAN INTENTIONALITY REFERS TO THE PROCESS OF AIMING TOWARD SOMETHING BUT NOT NECESSARILY IN AN OBJECTIFYING OR AGGRESSIVE MANNER )N OTHER WORDS INTENTIONALITY DOES NOT REFER TO AN OPPOSITION BETWEEN BEING ACTIVE OR PASSIVE ANDOR A DICHOTOMY BETWEEN SUBJECT AND OBJECT RATHER IT AIMS AT UNDERSTANDING THE EXTERNAL OBJECT IN ITSELF IN ALL ITS PARTICULARITIES &ROM ,ONERGANS PERSPECTIVE INTENTIONALITY AIMS AT AN EXPLANATORY UNDERSTANDING OF SOMETHING INCLUDING ITS PARTICULARITY AND DIFFERENCE &URTHERMORE WE WILL SOON REALIZE THAT INTENTIONAL ITY CAN AND SHOULD BE UNDERSTOOD IN TERMS OF AFFECTIVITY IN ADDITION TO COGNITION AND VOLITION )NTENDING A RELATIONSHIP WITH ANOTHER TRANSCENDS COGNITION AND WILL AND INVOLVES FEELING AND PASSION "Y APPROPRIATING (USSERLS INTENTIONALITY ANALYSIS ON A NUMBER OF LEVELS ,ONERGAN IS ABLE TO EMPHASIZE THE RATIONAL EXISTENTIAL AND AFFECTIVE NATURE OF BEING HUMAN 4HIS ALLOWS ,ONERGANS AUTHENTIC SUBJECT TO BE A DEVELOPING SUBJECT WHO DEMONSTRATES MOST FULLY HISHER AUTHENTICITY IN KNOWING IN DECISION AND IN RESPONSIBILITY "ELOW WE WILL CONTINUE TO EXPLORE ,ONERGANS REWRITING OF SUBJECTIVITY IN TERMS OF INTENTIONAL ITY THROUGH AN ANALYSIS OF THE HUMAN PERSON AS A DEVELOPING SUBJECT WHOSE CONSCIOUSNESS mOWS AND BECOMES DIFFERENTIATED AS SHE OPENS FOR 'OD AND OTHERS !S ,ONERGAN TRANSITIONS FROM EXPLAINING BEING HUMAN BEYOND FAC ULTY PSYCHOLOGY THROUGH THE DISCOURSE OF (USSERLIAN PHENOMENOLOGY HE EMPHASIZES THE SUBJECT AS AN IDEAL RATHER THAN AS AN ESSENCE 4HE
-ICHELE 3ARACINO /N "EING (UMAN
NOTION OF IDEAL DOES NOT RELATE TO IDEALISM BUT POINTS TO THE POTENTIAL OF ALL PEOPLE TO DEVELOP INTO WHAT ,ONERGAN DEEMS AUTHENTIC SUBJECTS 4HIS MEANS THAT ALL PEOPLE HAVE THE CAPACITY TO BECOME RATIONAL SELF CONSCIOUS SUBJECTS BY ENGAGING THE EMPIRICAL INTELLECTUAL REASON ABLE AND RATIONAL LEVELS OF THE STRUCTURE OF HUMAN BEING 4O DElNE THE HUMAN IN TERMS OF A POTENTIAL OR AN IDEAL INSTEAD OF AS A STATIC ESSENCE UNDERSCORES THE NOTION OF A PERSON ON A JOURNEY OF BECOM ING AN AUTHENTIC SUBJECT 0ROTEAN AND MALLEABLE THE HUMAN BEING IS NOT SOME X OR ESSENCE BUT RATHER A DYNAMIC AND DEVELOPING SUBJECT h4HE CONCRETE BEING OF MAN THEN IS BEING IN PROCESSv ,ONERGAN 0UT EVEN MORE GRAPHICALLY THE SUBJECT IS NOT SOME LUMP OF CARBON COMPOUNDS WATER BLOOD AND SPIRIT BUT A COMPLEX UNITY OF THE SPIRITUAL AND BIOLOGICAL DIMENSIONS OF CORPOREALITY )T MIGHT HELP TO NOTE THAT ,ONERGANS REJECTION OF ESSENCES IS RELATED TO HIS STANCE AGAINST THE THEORETICAL POSITIONS OF POSITIVISM A NAÆVE REALISM AND CONCEPTUALISM ! POSITIVIST ATTITUDE CORRELATES THE WORLD THAT IS SEEN OR TAKEN FOR GRANTED WITH THE WORLD OF REALITY WHAT ,O NERGAN CALLS THE ALREADY OUT THERE NOW REAL 4HIS WORLD IS POSITED BY THE NAÆVE PERSON WITHOUT ANY ATTENTION TO HOW MEANING MEDIATES THE WORLD )NDEED CONCEPTUALISM THRIVES IN SUCH A MILIEU !GAIN CON CEPTUALISM IS THE PRACTICE BY WHICH WE IMPUTE MEANING ONTO PERSONS AND OBJECTS WITHOUT SUFlCIENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE PARTICULARITIES OF THE PERSON OR THING IN QUESTION #ONCEPTUALIST THOUGHT RENDERS THE SUBJECT AS WELL AS THE OBJECT IN ESSENTIALIST TERMS WITHOUT ANY REGARD FOR MEANING AND DEVELOPMENT )N UNDERSTANDING THE SUBJECT AS AN IDEAL RATHER THAN AS AN ESSENCE ,ONERGAN AVOIDS BOTH DANGERS OF POSITIVISM AND CONCEPTUALISM 4O FURTHER mESH OUT HOW ,ONERGAN UNDERSTANDS THIS TENSION BETWEEN ESSENCE AND IDEAL IT IS NECESSARY TO EXAMINE HIS INTERPRETATION OF WHAT HE CALLS CLASSICIST AND PLURALIST MENTALITIES !CCORDING TO ,ONERGAN A CLAS SICIST NOTION OF CULTURE DERIVES FROM %UROPEAN AND %UROPEAN !MERICAN APPROXIMATION OF 'REEK IDEALS 4HIS APPROXIMATION CONCEIVES OF ITSELF NORMATIVELY AND CLAIMS THAT IT ALONE REPRESENTS CULTURE THAT ALL ELSE IS UNCULTURED 4HIS STATIC VIEW OF CULTURE PROBLEMATICALLY IGNORES HISTO RICITY OR CONTINGENCY ,ONERGAN REJECTS THIS ARROGANT CLASSICIST NOTION OF CULTURE AND INSTEAD DEVELOPS AND PRIVILEGES A NOTION OF CULTURE AS
^4HE /PEN 0OSTURE OF ,ONERGANS 3UBJECT
PLURALIST THAT IS CHANGING AND DIVERSE ! PLURALIST MENTALITY ASSUMES CULTURE TO BE CONTINGENT DYNAMIC AND DEVELOPING ,ONERGANS UNDERSTANDING OF THE HUMAN SUBJECT AND HUMAN CULTURE AS IDEAL AND PLURALISTIC RESPECTIVELY POSES SIGNIlCANT IMPLICATIONS FOR THEOLOGICAL ANTHROPOLOGY BOTH FOR INCULTURATION AND FOR CONSTRUCTING THEOLOGY IN A POSTMODERN CONTEXT &OR INSTANCE IF CROSS CULTURAL EVAN GELIZATION IS TO BE APPROPRIATE #HRISTIANS MUST GRAPPLE WITH CULTURAL DIVERSITY !S ,ONERGAN STATES hA CLASSICIST WOULD FEEL IT WAS PERFECTLY LEGITIMATE FOR HIM TO IMPOSE HIS CULTURE ON OTHERS &OR HE CONCEIVES CULTURE NORMATIVELY AND HE CONCEIVES HIS TO BE THE NORMx )N CON TRAST THE PLURALIST KNOWS A MULTIPLICITY OF CULTURAL TRADITIONS v AND HE WORKS WITHIN THOSE TRADITIONS TO COMMUNICATE THE #HRISTIAN TRUTH C )N ADDITION ,ONERGANS EMPHASIS ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE HUMAN PERSON AS WELL AS ON A PLURALIST MENTALITY MAKES NEW DEMANDS FOR THE THEOLOGIAN &OR THEOLOGY TO BE EFFECTIVE IN A GLOBAL POSTMODERN MILIEU IT NEEDS TO BE OPEN TO QUESTIONS ABOUT OTHERNESS AND JUSTICE 4HE PLURALIST NOT ONLY ALLOWS FOR THESE QUESTIONS TO EMERGE BUT DEMANDS THAT THEY DO 3IGNIlCANTLY AS ,ONERGANS NOTION OF PLURALISM STRONGLY CONSIDERS THE DEVELOPMENT OF HUMANITY AND ISSUES RELATED TO CULTURAL DIVERSITY IT DOES NOT FALL PREY TO RELATIVISM 4HE GROUND OF ALL HIS CLAIMS IS THAT BEING HUMAN DEMANDS NOT ONLY BEING ATTENTIVE TO OTHERNESS BUT ALSO ENGAGING IT THROUGH UNDERSTANDING ACTION AND LOVE !CCORDING TO ,ONERGAN ALTHOUGH HUMAN BEINGS ARE DIVERSE IN THEIR BODIES WORLD VIEWS AND CULTURES THEY ARE UNIlED BY THE OPERATIONS OF THE HUMAN MIND AND THE DESIRE FOR TRANSCENDENCE !ND EVEN THOUGH MEANING CERTAINLY DEPENDS UPON CONTEXT UNDERSTANDING THE CONTEXT IS ALWAYS POSSIBLE 4HE PROCESS OF KNOWING IS NOT ASSUMING YOU KNOW WHAT SOMEONE NEEDS WANTS OR HOW THEY LIVE BUT HUMBLY AND ARDENTLY ASKING QUESTIONS ABOUT THE COMPLEX REALITY THROUGH WHICH OTHER PEOPLE LIVE !S WE BEGIN TO THINK ABOUT HUMAN BEINGS AS HAVING THE POTENTIAL TO KNOW IN THEIR PARTICULAR CONTEXT RATHER THAN BEING STATIC AND ALL THE SAME WE MOVE TOWARD A PLURALIST ATTITUDE )N HIS DISCUSSION OF PLURALISM ,ONERGAN HIGHLIGHTS TWO DISTINCTIVE NOTIONS OF HUMANITY WHICH EMERGE FROM CLASSICIST AND EMPIRICAL MENTALITIES 4HE CLASSICIST MENTALITY GRASPS HUMANITY AS A STATIC AND UNCHANGING ABSTRACTION ESSENCE WHILE HISTORICAL MINDEDNESS EMPHA
-ICHELE 3ARACINO /N "EING (UMAN
SIZES THE DEVELOPMENT AND PERFORMATIVE ORIENTATION OF SUBJECTIVITY AND CULTURE IDEAL )N h4RANSITION FROM A #LASSICIST 7ORLD 6IEW v ,ONERGAN PRIVILEGES THE PERFORMATIVE AND PROTEAN SUBJECT IN HIS COMPARISON BETWEEN THE hTWO DIFFERENT APPREHENSIONS OF MANv /NE CAN APPREHEND MAN ABSTRACTLY THROUGH A DElNITION THAT APPLIES OMNI ET SOLI AND THROUGH PROPERTIES VERIlABLE IN EVERY MAN )N THIS FASHION ONE KNOWS MAN AS SUCH AND MAN AS SUCH PRECISELY BECAUSE HE IS AN ABSTRACTION ALSO IS UNCHANGINGx /N THE OTHER HAND ONE CAN APPREHEND MANKIND AS A CONCRETE AGGREGATE DEVELOPING OVER TIME WHERE THE LOCUS OF DEVELOPMENT AND SO TO SPEAK THE SYNTHETIC BOND IS EMERGENCE EXPANSION DIF FERENTIATION DIALECTIC OF MEANING AND OF MEANINGFUL PERFORMANCE B
!S WE CONTINUE TO EXPLORE BEING HUMAN IN POSTMODERNITY WE WILL GRASP MORE lRMLY HOW A PROTEAN DEVELOPMENTAL NOTION OF SUBJEC TIVITY TO WHICH ,ONERGAN ALLUDES IS A HELPFUL HEURISTIC FOR DISCUSSING OPENNESS TO ALTERITY !S YOU MIGHT HAVE ALREADY ANTICIPATED ,ONERGANS INTERPRETATION OF THE SUBJECT AS AN IDEAL IMPLICITLY EMPHASIZES THE NOTION OF THE PERSON AS SUBJECT RATHER THAN AS SUBSTANCE 3PECIlCALLY ,ONERGAN DELINEATES THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SUBSTANCE AND SUBJECT BY COMPARING THE SUBJECTS COGNITIVE ACTIVITY DURING THE STATES OF WAKING SLEEPING AND DREAMING 7HEN A PERSON SLEEPS SHE IS NOT A SUBJECT BUT RATHER IS A SUBSTANCE )N h%XISTENZ AND !GGIORNAMENTO v ,ONERGAN DECLARES h4O BE A SUBJECT ONE MUST AT LEAST DREAMv 9ET DREAMING DOES NOT REPRESENT A SUBJECT IN HISHER FULLEST MOST hLUMINOUSNESSv BEING FOR AUTHENTIC OR LUMINOUS BEING CAN BE ENACTED ONLY THROUGH RESPONSIBLE ACTIONS IN WAKING !CCORDING TO ,ONERGAN SUBJECTIVITY IS NEVER MERELY GIVEN BUT ACHIEVED THROUGH RIGOROUS ENGAGEMENT WITH AND APPRO PRIATION OF OUR CONSCIOUS AND INTENTIONAL OPERATIONS )N OTHER WORDS THE PERSON IS NOT AUTOMATICALLY A SUBJECT BUT BECOMES A SUBJECT THAT IS APPROPRIATES HISHER SUBJECTIVITY BY BEING ATTENTIVE INTELLIGENT REASONABLE AND RESPONSIBLE IN RELATION TO THE WORLD 3ELF APPROPRIATION A TERM FREQUENTLY USED BY ,ONERGAN AND ,ONERGAN SCHOLARS ALIKE REFERS TO THE WAY IN WHICH h;O=NE DISCOVERS ONES TRUE SELF ONE CONSCIOUSLY POSSESSES ONES DYNAMIC SELF TO THE EXTENT THAT
^4HE /PEN 0OSTURE OF ,ONERGANS 3UBJECT
SUCH A CONSCIOUS SELF POSSESSION TRANSFORMS ONES VERY LIFE AND EFFECTS A SELF TRANSCENDENCEv .AICKAMPARAMBIL 4HIS PROCESS OF DISCOVERY SEEMS TO ECHO (EIDEGGERS INTERPRETATION OF BEING 3TILL ,ONERGANS NOTION OF SELF APPROPRIATION CONCERNS THE SUBJECTS CAPACITY FOR SELF TRANSCENDENCE FOR 'OD AND OTHERS WHILE (EIDEGGERS SUBJECT LACKS SUCH CAPACITY 4HOMAS .AICKAMPARAMBIL IN HIS STUDY OF COG NITIONAL SELF APPROPRIATION ILLUSTRATES HOW SELF APPROPRIATION INVITES THE PERSON TO MOVE BEYOND THE WORLD OF IMMEDIACY DATA OF SENSE TO THE WORLD OF CONSCIOUSNESS THE INTERIOR COGNITIONAL PROCESS OF THE SUBJECT IN ORDER TO ACCESS THE TRANSFORMATIVE POTENTIAL OF THE SUBJECT &URTHERMORE - 3HAWN #OPELAND ADDS THAT SELF APPROPRIATION NOT ONLY ASKS PEOPLE TO DISCOVER WHO THEY ARE BUT TO UNDERSTAND THE IMPLICATIONS OF THEIR KNOWING FOR THE HUMAN GOOD &OR ,ONERGAN READERS THE HUMAN COGNITIONAL PROCESS WHICH LEADS TO SELF APPROPRIATION IS CRITICAL TO SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND PROGRESS 3ELF AFlRMATION AND SELF APPROPRIATION OF THE SUBJECT ARE INEXTRICABLY CONNECTED TO HISHER RESPONSIBILITY CHOICE AND DECISION )T IS NOT THAT THE SUBJECT DECIDES TO BE ACTIVE BUT THAT SHE IS THROWN INTO A SITUA TION THAT ALREADY DEMANDS UNDERSTANDING AND RESPONSIBILITY ,IKE THE EXISTENTIALIST PREDICAMENT OF BEING @THROWN GEWORFEN INTO A SITUATION ,ONERGANS SUBJECT IS THROWN INTO A PROCESS OF DESIRING TO KNOW !S 4ERRY 4EKIPPE PUTS IT 4HE 'ERMAN %XISTENTIALISTS USED THAT WORD ;GEWORFEN= TO CHARACTERIZE THE HUMAN SITUATION WE DO NOT CHOOSE TO BE WE lND OURSELVES ALREADY THROWN INTO EXISTENCE .O ONE ASKED OUR OPINION WE ARE SIMPLY HERE AND HAVE TO MAKE THE BEST OF IT +NOWING IS SIMPLY A PARTICULAR CASE WE ARE THROWN INTO KNOWING WITHOUT EVER HAVING BEEN CONSULTED ABOUT IT "Y THE TIME WE BECOME EXPLICITLY AWARE OF IT IT IS FAR TOO LATE TO DECIDE WHETHER WE WANT TO BECOME KNOWERS OR NOT WE ALREADY ARE
4HE SUBJECT IS OPENED JARRED AND REORIENTED TO KNOWLEDGE AS WELL AS TO OBLIGATION BY WAY OF THIS THROWNNESS 3UCH OPENNESS CONSTITUTES NORMATIVITY IN THE HUMAN SUBJECT 4HIS NORMATIVE SUBJECTIVITY TRAN SCENDS THE CONlNES OF SUBSTANCE BY BEING CONTINUALLY OPENED BY ASKING AND ANSWERING QUESTIONS THEREBY DEVELOPING INTO A SUBJECT
-ICHELE 3ARACINO /N "EING (UMAN
4HE SECOND SHIFT IN ,ONERGANS EXPLANATION OF THE SUBJECT IN TERMS OF INTENTIONALITY IS TO THE NOTION OF mOW AND DIFFERENTIATION OF CON SCIOUSNESS ,ONERGAN REFERS TO THE mOW OF CONSCIOUSNESS IN TERMS OF A hSUCCESSION OF ENLARGEMENTS OF CONSCIOUSNESS A SUCCESSION OF TRANSFORMATIONS OF WHAT CONSCIOUSNESS MEANSv 4HESE hENLARGEMENTSv OCCUR THROUGH TRANSFORMATIONS IN THE DYNAMIC STRUCTURE OF THE mOW OF CONSCIOUSNESS 7AKING REPLACES DREAMING )NTELLIGENT INQUIRY EMERGES IN WAKING TO COMPOUND INTELLIGENT WITH EMPIRICAL CONSCIOUSNESS #RITICAL REmECTION FOLLOWS UNDERSTANDING AND FORMULATION TO ADD RATIONAL CONSCIOUSNESS TO INTELLIGENT AND EMPIRICAL CONSCIOUSNESS "UT THE lNAL ENLARGEMENT AND TRANSFORMATION OF CONSCIOUSNESS CONSISTS IN THE EMPIRICALLY INTELLIGENTLY AND RATIONALLY CONSCIOUS SUBJECT DEMANDING CONFORMITY OF HIS DOING AND HIS KNOWING AND AC CEDING TO THAT DEMAND BY DOING REASONABLY
#ONSCIOUSNESS EXPANDS AND GROWS WITH THE PROGRESSION OF THE DIS INTERESTED AND DETACHED DESIRE TO KNOW AND AS OUR CONSCIOUSNESS mOWS AND EXPANDS WE BECOME MORE ATTENTIVE TO THE ACTUAL KNOWING PROCESS (ERE UNDERSTANDING UNFOLDS AND ENLARGES IN TIME 2ELATED TO ,ONERGANS THOUGHT THAT THE HUMAN mOW OF CONSCIOUSNESS ENLARGES IN TIME IS (USSERLS THEORY THAT HUMAN EXISTENCE IS EMBEDDED IN A TEMPORAL mOW &OR ,ONERGAN THE CATEGORY OF CONSCIOUSNESS DETERMINES THE SUBJECTS AUTHENTICITY ,ONERGAN IS VERY lRM ON THIS POINT 3TILL IN THEOLOGY AND PHILOSOPHY A CONSENSUS ON THE MEANING OF CONSCIOUSNESS IS DIFlCULT IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE TO REACH &OR INSTANCE ,ONERGAN UNDERSTANDS CON SCIOUSNESS DIFFERENTLY THAN ,EVINAS !LTHOUGH BOTH THINKERS SUPPORT THE NOTION OF A DISINTERESTED DESIRE TO KNOW IN ,ONERGANS CASE TO BE FOR THE /THER IN ,EVINASS CASE ,EVINAS EQUATES CONSCIOUSNESS WITH INTENTIONALITY AND ARGUES THAT SUCH A PREDISPOSED POSTURE PROHIBITS AUTHENTIC DISINTERESTEDNESS .EVERTHELESS LIKE ,ONERGAN ,EVINAS ARGUES THAT SLEEPING IS A COMPLETE DENIAL OF DESIRE AND RESPONSIBILITY &OR ,EVINAS THE CATEGORY OF hINSOMNIAv BECOMES A PRIVILEGED STATE OF ATTENTIVENESS WITHOUT INTEREST OR OBJECT AND DESIRE ROOTED IN INSOMNIA IS hA DISINTERESTED WAKEFULNESSv 0URCELL ,ONERGANS THEORY OF THE mOW OF CONSCIOUSNESS MIGHT BE STRENGTHENED IF IN THE SPIRIT
^4HE /PEN 0OSTURE OF ,ONERGANS 3UBJECT
OF ,EVINAS AN EXTRA STEP WAS ADDED BETWEEN SLEEPING AND WAKING NAMELY THE ACTIVITY OF THE INSOMNIACVIGILANCE WITHOUT AN OBJECT /NE COULD ARGUE THAT IT IS THIS STATE OF INSOMNIA THAT ,ONERGAN HAS COUNTERFACTUALLY IN MIND WHEN HE CLAIMS THAT THE SUBJECTS NORMATIVE STANCE IS ONE OF BEING ATTENTIVE )N ADDITION TO EMPHASIZING THE mOW OF CONSCIOUSNESS OF THE HUMAN PERSON ,ONERGANS SUBJECT HAS THE POTENTIAL FOR ENGAGING REALITY BY WHAT HE CALLS THE DIFFERENTIATION OF CONSCIOUSNESS )N HIS EXPLANATION OF THIS DIFFERENTIATION ,ONERGAN REFERS TO THE ABILITY OF HUMAN BEINGS TO ADVERT TO AND DISTINGUISH AMONG VARIOUS SECTORS OF CONSCIOUSNESS /N ONE LEVEL THE HUMAN PERSON SHIFTS FROM THE WORLD OF IMMEDIACY TO THE WORLD MEDIATED BY MEANING )N THE WORLD OF IMMEDIACY WHAT IS SEEN IS BELIEVED TO BE REALITY ,ONERGAN LINKS THIS WORLD WITH THE LIFE OF AN INFANT !S WE BECOME ADULTS HOWEVER WE LEARN TO DISTINGUISH WHAT IS SENSED FROM WHAT IS REAL 7E BEGIN TO UNDERSTAND OURSELVES AS SITUATED WITHIN HISTORY CULTURE AND CONTEXT )N THE FOLLOWING PASSAGE ,ONERGAN DISTINGUISHES BETWEEN UNDIFFERENTIATED AND DIFFERENTIATED CONSCIOUSNESS BETWEEN THE WORLD OF IMMEDIACY AND THE WORLD MEDI ATED BY MEANING )F ONE IS TO UNDERSTAND THIS ENORMOUS DIVERSITY ONE MUST ) BELIEVE ADVERT TO THE SUNDRY DIFFERENTIATIONS OF HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS ! lRST DIFFERENTIATION ARISES IN THE PROCESS OF GROWING UP 4HE INFANT LIVES IN A WORLD OF IMMEDIACY 4HE CHILD MOVES TOWARDS A WORLD MEDIATED BY MEANING &OR THE ADULT THE REAL WORLD IS THE WORLD MEDIATED BY MEANING AND HIS PHILOSOPHIC DOUBTS ABOUT THE REALITY OF THAT WORLD ARISE FROM THE FACT THAT HE HAS FAILED TO ADVERT TO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE WORLD OF IMMEDIACY AND ON THE OTHER HAND THE CRITERIA FOR THE WORLD MEDIATED BY MEANING A
/N ANOTHER LEVEL WITHIN THE WORLD MEDIATED BY MEANING THE HUMAN SUBJECT FURTHER DEVELOPS INTO THE SPHERES OF COMMONSENSE SCIENTIlC RELIGIOUS SCHOLARLY AND PHILOSOPHICAL CONSCIOUSNESS -OREOVER THESE SPHERES REPRESENT DISTINCTIVE WAYS OF KNOWING AND INTENDING MEANING IN THE WORLD MEDIATED BY MEANING &OR EXAMPLE WHEN THE SUBJECT ADVERTS TO COMMONSENSE SHE IS ACTING SPONTANEOUSLY IN INTERSUBJEC TIVE RELATIONSHIPS (ERE THE SUBJECT LEARNS BY PRACTICE AND MIMESIS 7HEN THE SUBJECT DEVELOPS THEORY AND METHOD FOR HISHER ACTIONS
-ICHELE 3ARACINO /N "EING (UMAN
SHE BEGINS TO EMBODY A SCIENTIlCALLY DIFFERENTIATED CONSCIOUSNESS 4HIS ALLOWS THE SUBJECT TO ATTEMPT TO GAIN EXPLANATORY KNOWLEDGE BY EFFECTIVELY ARTICULATING THE THEORETICAL UNDERPINNINGS OF THE SITUATION BY TRANSCENDING THE WORLD OF SELF 3IMILARLY A PERSON CAN DEVELOP A RELIGIOUS SCHOLARLY AND PHILOSOPHICAL DIFFERENTIATION OF CONSCIOUSNESS IN HISHER JOURNEY TOWARD AUTHENTIC SUBJECTIVITY !S THE SUBJECT RElNES HISHER CAPACITY FOR DIFFERENTIATING AMONG AND ADVERTING TO THE VARIOUS DIFFERENTIATIONS OF CONSCIOUSNESS SHE PARTICIPATES IN AND PERFORMS THE DEVELOPMENTAL AND PROTEAN DIMENSION OF BEING HUMAN 3O FAR OUR ANALYSIS OF ,ONERGANS TRANSITION FROM CATEGORIES OF FACULTY PSYCHOLOGY TO THE DISCOURSE OF INTENTIONALITY HAS ENTAILED TWO SHIFTS IN THOUGHT &IRST WE NOTED THAT ,ONERGAN PROMOTES AN UNDER STANDING OF THE HUMAN PERSON THAT IS NOT MERELY BASED IN THE STATIC CONCEPT OF SUBSTANCE BUT IS FRAMED IN TERMS OF A DEVELOPING SUBJECT 3ECOND WE ALSO GRAPPLED WITH HIS NOTIONS OF mOW AND DIFFERENTIATION OF CONSCIOUSNESS IN ORDER TO STRESS THE DYNAMIC STRUCTURE OF HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS 4HESE IDEAS LEAD TO A THIRD SHIFT FROM SELF TO 'OD AND OTHERS 4HE AFOREMENTIONED SHIFTS TO INTENTIONALITY ANALYSIS POINT TO THE DEVELOPING RATIONAL AND WILLING NATURE OF BEING HUMAN .ONETHELESS THERE IS A DIMENSION OF ,ONERGANS THOUGHT ON SELF TRANSCENDENCE THAT CAPTURES THE AFFECTIVE DIMENSION OF BEING HUMAN 4RANSCENDENCE IN ITS FULLEST SENSE REFERS TO THE SUBJECTS ABILITY TO DEVELOP A RELATIONSHIP WITH 'OD AND OTHERS THAT IS BASED IN HISHER OPENNESS TO CONVERSION ON INTELLECTUAL MORAL AND RELIGIOUS GROUNDS #ONVERSION ON ANY LEVEL POSITIONS THE SUBJECT IN A STANCE OF OUTWARD NESS AND RELATIONSHIP WITH OTHERS ) HAVE DISCUSSED ALREADY INTELLECTUAL CONVERSION AS IT RELATES TO THE SUBJECTS SELF APPROPRIATION AS A KNOWER AND EMERGES WHEN KNOWING IS NOT MERELY TAKING A LOOK )N AN ESSAY ENTITLED h#OGNITIONAL 3TRUCTURE v ,ONERGAN EXPLAINS THAT hAN ACT OF OCULAR VISION MAY BE PERFECT AS OCULAR VISION YET IF IT OCCURS WITHOUT ANY ACCOMPANYING GLIMMER OF UNDERSTANDING IT IS MERE GAPING AND MERE GAPING SO FAR FROM BEING THE BEAUTIFUL IDEAL OF HUMAN KNOW ING IS JUST STUPIDITYv (UMAN BEINGS CAN OVERCOME THIS STUPIDITY BY INTELLECTUAL CONVERSION BY AUTHENTICALLY EXPERIENCING UNDERSTANDING JUDGING AND DECIDING THEIR EXPERIENCING UNDERSTAND ING JUDGING AND DECIDING "EYOND INTELLECTUAL CONVERSION THERE IS MORAL CONVERSION OR THE SHIFT THAT OCCURS IN HISHER VALUES BECAUSE
^4HE /PEN 0OSTURE OF ,ONERGANS 3UBJECT
SHE IS OPENED INTELLECTUALLY OR RELIGIOUSLY /NES OPENNESS TO MORAL CONVERSION IMPLIES THAT VALUES ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN SATISFACTION THAT THE GOOD SUPERSEDES PERSONAL EGOIST NEED 4HE SUBJECTS RELIGIOUS CONVERSION lNALLY RELATES TO FALLING IN LOVE WITH 'OD AND IS CHARACTER IZED BY A COMPLETE REORIENTATION OF MIND AND HEART TOWARD 'OD )N BEING IN LOVE WITH 'OD THE SUBJECT IS REPOSITIONED INTO A POSTURE OF OPENNESS CHARACTERIZED BY GRACE AND CHARITY .OTICE HOW AFFECTIVE BEING THAT IS BEING IN RELATIONSHIP IS THE GROUND OF AUTHENTIC SUBJECTIVITY )T BECOMES CLEAR THAT THE PROCESS OF CONVERSION AT ANY LEVEL INVITES THE HUMAN PERSON TO TRANSCEND HISHERSELF AND TO BE OPEN FOR 'OD AND OTHERS ,ESS CLEAR IS THE FACT THAT CONVERSION IS NOT A SIMPLE TURNING OR CHANGE BUT A TRANSFORMATION THAT NOT ONLY AFFECTS THE SUBJECT BUT ALSO HISHER RELATIONSHIPS WITH 'OD AND OTHERS )N h4HEOLOGY IN )TS .EW #ONTEXT v ,ONERGAN WRITES )T ;CONVERSION= IS NOT MERELY A CHANGE OR EVEN A DEVELOPMENT RATHER IT IS A RADICAL TRANSFORMATION ON WHICH FOLLOWS ON ALL LEVELS OF LIVING AN INTERLOCKED SERIES OF CHANGES AND DEVELOPMENTS 7HAT HITHERTO WAS UNNOTICED BECOMES VIVID AND PRESENT 7HAT HAD BEEN OF NO CONCERN BECOMES A MATTER OF HIGH IMPORT 3O GREAT A CHANGE IN ONES APPREHENSION AND ONES VALUES ACCOMPANIES NO LESS A CHANGE IN ONESELF IN ONES RELATIONS TO OTHER PERSONS AND IN ONES RELATIONS TO 'OD
!S ONE WOULD IMAGINE CONVERSION IS CHALLENGING )T IS SO DIFlCULT THAT IT CAN EVEN SOMETIMES BE BLOCKED THWARTED OR SKEWED BY WHAT ,ONERGAN CALLS BIAS OR SCOTOMA A BLIND SPOT WHICH CAUSES THE SUBJECT TO BE ALIENATED FROM ADEQUATE KNOWING APPROPRIATE DOING AND LIFE GIVING LOVING ,ONERGAN REFERS TO THIS ALIENATION AS BIAS AND IN )NSIGHT DISCUSSES FOUR AVENUES BY WHICH BIAS OCCURS &IRST THERE IS THE DRAMATIC BIAS THAT USUALLY OCCURS BY WAY OF PSYCHOLOGI CAL FACTORS LEADING TO THE REPRESSION OF VITAL INFORMATION -IRRORING A &REUDIAN CENSOR THIS BIAS PROHIBITS US FROM HAVING INSIGHTS ABOUT OURSELVES THAT WOULD REVEAL NEGATIVE FEELINGS OF FEAR PREJUDICE AND ANGER !DVERSE OR NEGATIVE FEELINGS CAN BREAK DOWN RELATIONS WITH OTH ERS RATHER THAN HELP BUILD THEM )N ADDITION TO DRAMATIC BIAS THERE IS THE INDIVIDUAL BIAS THAT OCCURS BECAUSE WE ARE NOT ABLE TO OVERCOME OUR EGOISM AND WE REFUSE TO BE ACCOUNTABLE TO VALUE COMMUNITY
-ICHELE 3ARACINO /N "EING (UMAN
AND 'OD 4HE EGOIST EMBODIES THIS BIAS AND BY hIMAGINING OTHERS TO BE INFERIOR AND UNWORTHY OF HIS OR HER CONCERN v THWARTS PROGRESS AND FURTHER QUESTIONING &LANAGAN (ERE INTERSUBJECTIVE RELATIONS ARE BROKEN BY INDIVIDUALISTIC NEEDS 7HEN INDIVIDUAL BIAS REACHES THE MACRO LEVEL AN INSIDIOUS GROUP BIAS DEVELOPS 3UCH AN ATTITUDE OFTEN ARISES WHEN ONE GROUP OR CLASS IS SOCIALLY ADVANTAGED OVER ANOTHER 4HIS PERVADES SO MUCH OF OUR WORLD AND PREVENTS THE mOURISHING OF PEACE AND JUSTICE &INALLY ,ONERGAN SPEAKS OF GENERAL BIAS TO WHICH MOST OF HUMANITY IS PRONE )T RESULTS FROM THE INABILITY TO GET BEYOND THE PARTICULARS OF THE HUMAN LANDSCAPE OR THE REALM OF COMMONSENSE MEANING 4O COUNTER THE PROBLEMS OF GENERAL BIAS ,ONERGAN ARGUES FOR AN EXPLANATORY AND HIGHER VIEWPOINT WHICH CAN CORRECT THE EGOCENTRIC DESCRIPTIVE AND LIMITED VIEWPOINT THAT FOSTERS GENERAL BIAS 4HERE NEEDS TO BE A COMPLEMENTARITY BETWEEN INTERESTED OR COMMONSENSE KNOWLEDGE AND DISINTERESTED OR THEORETICAL KNOWLEDGE IN A COMMUNITY IN ORDER TO LIMIT GENERAL BIAS !LL TYPES OF BIAS ARE INTEGRAL TO OUR CONVERSATION BECAUSE THEY CAN RESULT IN DECLINE &OR ,ONERGAN DECLINE REFERS TO THE DETERIORATION OF THE SOCIAL SITUATION AND RESULTS FROM THE SUBJECTS REFUSAL OF INSIGHT LEADING TO AN INATTENTIVE UNINTELLIGENT IRRATIONAL IRRESPONSIBLE AND UNFEELING POSTURE TOWARD THE WORLD "UT CONVERSION ON ANY OR ALL LEVELS STRUGGLES AGAINST BIAS THAT LEADS TO DECLINE BECAUSE IT DRAWS THE SUBJECT OUT OF A SELF CENTERED POSTURE TO A STANCE FOR THE HUMAN GOOD FOR OTHERS FOR 'OD AND OPENS HIMHER TO INSIGHT )N CONVERSION GOOD BECOMES REALIZED NOT ONLY AS A POSSIBILITY BUT ALSO AS A RESPONSIBILITY 4HAT WHICH IS GOOD ACCORDING TO ,ONERGAN IS CONCRETE .ECESSARY TO THE REALIZATION OF THE HUMAN GOOD ARE THE COMPONENTS OF SKILLS FEELINGS VALUES BELIEFS AND COOPERATION 4HESE COMPONENTS BUILD ON ONE ANOTHER AND GOODNESS RESULTS FROM THE INDIVIDUAL AND COOPERATIVE ENGAGEMENT OF THESE ACTIVITIES IN LIGHT OF THE DESIRE TO UNDERSTAND )N -ETHOD IN 4HEOLOGY C ,ONERGAN CHARTS THE STRUCTURE OF THE HUMAN GOOD &ROM HIS GRAPHIC DEPICTION OF THE HUMAN GOOD IT IS CLEAR THAT THE STRUCTURE DOES NOT ARTICULATE A STATIC ABSTRACT OR IDEAL NOTION OF THE GOOD !LTERNATIVELY THE STRUCTURE MAPS THE POSSIBILITIES FOR HUMAN AUTHENTICITY DEVELOPMENT AND PROGRESS ,ONERGANS DYNAMIC STRUCTURE OF THE HUMAN GOOD EMPHASIZES THE WAY IN WHICH THE INDIVIDUALS CAPACITY POTENTIAL AND FREEDOM FOR A
^4HE /PEN 0OSTURE OF ,ONERGANS 3UBJECT
PARTICULAR GOOD IS INEXTRICABLY CONNECTED TO THE GOOD OF ORDER WHICH REPRESENTS A BALANCE BETWEEN PERSONAL AND COMMUNAL GOALS !LTHOUGH WHAT THE INDIVIDUAL DEEMS NECESSARY AND GOOD IS IMPORTANT FOR THE HUMAN GOOD FOR ,ONERGAN THE NEEDS AND VALUES OF THE COMMUNITY TEMPER ANY INDIVIDUAL EGOISM OR BIAS 2ELATED TO THE WAY IN WHICH ,ONERGAN STRESSES THE IMPORTANCE OF COMMUNITY IS HIS NUANCED UN DERSTANDING OF FEELINGS AND VALUES ,ONERGAN EXPLAINS IN h.ATURAL 2IGHT AND (ISTORICAL -INDEDNESSv THAT FEELINGS ARE IMPORTANT BECAUSE THEY hREVEAL VALUES TO USv YET FEELINGS ALONE ARE NOT ENOUGH TO ATTAIN THE HUMAN GOOD !S FEELINGS OPEN HUMANITY TO WHAT IS GOOD hTHEY DO NOT BRING COMMITMENT ABOUTv #OMMITMENT ARISES BEYOND FEELINGS IN UNDERSTANDING JUDGING AND IN THE FREE ACT OF DECISION )N ADDITION TO AFFECTIVITY THEREFORE VOLITION AND COGNITION BRING ABOUT THE GOOD -OREOVER ONLY IN COOPERATION AND COLLABO RATION WITH OTHERS CAN THE GOOD OF THE ORDER BE ACHIEVED )NDEED PROGRESS FOR THE COMMUNITY DEPENDS ON THE VALUES THAT FOSTER THE GOOD OF THE ORDER 3TARTING WITH VALUES AT THE VITAL LEVEL THAT IS VALUES THAT PROMOTE BASIC LIVING LIKE FOOD AND SHELTER ENACTING THE HUMAN GOOD ENTAILS QUESTIONING VALUES AT THE SOCIAL IE POLITICAL ECONOMIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL CULTURAL BOTH EVERYDAY CULTURE ;COMMONSENSE= AND REmEXIVE CULTURE ;THEORETICAL= PERSONAL AND THE RELIGIOUS LEVEL $EVELOPING TOWARD THE HUMAN GOOD TRANSPIRES THROUGH OUR DYNAMIC EXPERIENCING UNDERSTANDING JUDGING AND DECIDING WHAT IS VALUABLE BEGINNING WITH HUMANITYS MOST BASIC VITAL NEEDS AND CULMINATING IN OUR TRANSCENDENT RELIGIOUS ASPIRATIONS
,ONERGANS !UTHENTIC 3UBJECT &ROM THE ABOVE STUDY OF ,ONERGANS SHIFT FROM FACULTY PSYCHOLOGY TO INTENTIONALITY ANALYSIS IT SHOULD BE CLEAR THAT ,ONERGAN UNDERSTANDS THE AUTHENTIC SUBJECT AS INTELLECTUALLY MORALLY AND RELIGIOUSLY POSTURED OR ORIENTED TOWARD THE GOOD ) USE THE TERM POSTURE BECAUSE IT EMPHASIZES THE CORPOREAL DIMENSION OF BEING HUMAN 0OSTURE CONNOTES THE TOTAL PERSONNOT MERELY THE HEAD OR HEARTIN THE PROCESS OF BECOMING A SUBJECT 4HE SUBJECTS STANCE EMBODIES HISHER ETHICS OF THINKING AND REVEALS INITIATIVE TOWARD RESPONSIBLE ACTION 4HE HUMAN PERSON CANNOT
-ICHELE 3ARACINO /N "EING (UMAN
MASQUERADE AS ,ONERGANS GOOD EXISTENTIAL SUBJECT SHE STRAINS IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN AN AUTHENTIC STANCE IN RELATION TO THE WORLD !LL THE WHILE THIS STANCE IS SUSTAINED BY FEELINGS OF LOVE AND AFFECTION "ELOW WE WILL EXPLORE THE DISTINCTIVE POSTURE OF ,ONERGANS AUTHENTIC AND CONVERTED SUBJECT IN THREE PHASES 7HEREAS IN THE PREVIOUS SECTION ) MAPPED BROADLY ,ONERGANS THEORETICAL SHIFT FROM ESSENCE TO INTENTIONAL ITY IN #HRISTIAN ANTHROPOLOGY ) NOW DElNE SPECIlCALLY THE THREE MARKS OF ,ONERGANS AUTHENTIC SUBJECT &IRST ) EXAMINE HOW PURE UNRESTRICTED DESIRE OR WONDER INVITES THE SUBJECT TOWARD TRANSCENDENCE 3ECOND ) EXPLORE THE WAY IN WHICH THE SUBJECT STRIVES TOWARD TRANSCENDENCE THROUGH UNDERSTANDING ,ASTLY ) EMPHASIZE HOW THE SPONTANEITY OF INTERSUBJECTIVE RELATIONS FURTHER POSITIONS THE SUBJECTS TRANSCENDENCE IN RELATION TO OTHERS -Y DISCUSSION OF WONDER AND DESIRE LOOSELY MIR RORS *EROME -ILLERS ESSAY h!LL ,OVE IS 3ELF 3URRENDERv )N THAT TEXT -ILLER SHOWS THAT CONTEMPORARY CONTINENTAL THINKERS ARE NOT THE ONLY PHILOSOPHERS FOR WHOM DESIRE IS A CATEGORY OF LOVE AND JUSTICE !CCORDING TO -ILLER ,ONERGANS INTERPRETATION OF DESIRE IS NOT ABOUT SELF POSSESSION AS SOME POSTMODERN THINKERS INCLUDING ,YOTARD AND ,EVINAS WOULD HAVE US BELIEVE 2ATHER ,ONERGANS INTERPRETATION OF DESIRE IS ABOUT SURRENDERING ONES HEART IE WHOLE SELF FOR OTHERS 4HOUGH ) DISAGREE WITH -ILLERS READING OF ,EVINAS ) WHOLEHEARTEDLY SUPPORT HIS CLAIM THAT SURRENDER IS NOT A SELF ACTIVATED PROCESS BUT A GIFT OF DESIRE THAT IS hINCOMMENSURABLE WITH ANY ECONOMY THAT INTEL LIGENCE MIGHT HAVE INSTITUTED ON ITS INITIATIVEv !S WE BEGIN TO EXPLORE ,ONERGANS NOTION OF AUTHENTIC SUBJECTIV ITY WE WOULD BE RIGHT TO NOTICE THAT HIS EMPHASIS ON THE SUBJECTS UNRESTRICTED DESIRE TO KNOW IS QUITE STARK 4HIS UNRESTRICTED DESIRE OR WONDER IS INEXTRICABLY CONNECTED TO AUTHENTICITY FOR IF THE PERSON LACKS THE DESIRE TO UNDERSTAND BIAS CANNOT BE TRANSCENDED !T THE HEART OF ,ONERGANS ANTHROPOLOGY IS A GREAT CONlDENCE IN THE HUMAN PERSON TO KNOW ACT AND LOVE THE /THER 4HROUGH KNOWING ACTING AND LOVING WE BECOME HUMAN BEINGS )T IS IMPERATIVE TO REALIZE THAT BEING IS NOT A SIMPLE TERM FOR ,ONERGAN !S HE CLAIMS THAT THE SUBJECTS UNRESTRICTED DESIRE TO KNOW INTENDS AND LEADS TO BEING ,ONERGAN ARGUES THAT BEING IS NOT AN OBJECT THAT IS ALREADY OUT THERE NOW REAL
^4HE /PEN 0OSTURE OF ,ONERGANS 3UBJECT
BUT THAT WHICH IS INTENDED IN QUESTIONING )N OUR ASKING OF QUESTIONS WE BECOME AUTHENTIC BECAUSE OF OUR INTENTION TO KNOW )N OUR INNATE DESIRE TO KNOW THIS WONDER hA WANTING A DESIRE TO UNDERSTANDv IS A CONSTITUTIVE FACTOR IN AUTHENTIC SUBJECTIVITY &LANAGAN 4HE EFFECT OF WONDER AND QUESTIONING OPENS HUMANITY TO THE POSSIBILITY OF BEING HUMAN OF TRANSCENDENCE "EING OPEN TO WONDER IS NEVER EASY )N OUR ORDINARY LIVES A LINE OF QUESTIONING IS OFTEN BASED ON HAVING A CERTAIN ANSWER IN MIND 4HIS SITUATION IS BEST ILLUSTRATED IN THE CLASSROOM 3OMETIMES STUDENTS ARE FRUSTRATED BY A QUESTION BECAUSE THEY DO NOT KNOW WHAT THE TEACHER EXPECTS OF THEM 4HEY DO NOT REALIZE THAT THE ONLY EXPECTATION IS FOR THEM TO THINK CRITICALLY 4HE SAME LOGIC CAN BE FOUND IN ,ONERGANS THOUGHT ON WONDER &OR ,ONERGAN THE WONDER OF THE AUTHENTIC SUBJECT IS NOT INTENT ON PROVING AN ALREADY ASSUMED IDEA BUT RATHER BEING OPEN TO THE UNKNOWN 4HE AUTHENTIC SUBJECT DEMONSTRATES HUMILITY THROUGH HISHER DISINTERESTEDNESS .OTICE THAT THERE IS A CHARITABLE OPEN DISPOSITION TO WONDER %VEN AS ,ONERGANS AUTHENTIC SUBJECT IS OPEN TO WONDER AND THE UNKNOWN WITHOUT BIAS AND PRECONCEIVED NOTIONS SHE IS STILL CALLED TO JUDGE AND ACT IN THE FACE OF THE /THER )N OTHER WORDS ALTHOUGH ,ONERGANS ANTHROPOLOGY RESPECTS THE AMBIGUITY OF SITUATIONS IT RE QUIRES HUMANITY TO MAKE DECISIONS )T DOES NOT ALLOW FOR A RELATIVIST STANCE !S A RESULT WE MUST ACCEPT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF OUR JUDGMENTS )N h-ETHOD IN #ATHOLIC 4HEOLOGY v ,ONERGAN WRITES h-INDS REACH KNOWLEDGE ONLY THROUGH JUDGMENTv A !RGUABLY ,ONERGAN DOES NOT VALORIZE WONDER FOR WONDERS SAKE BUT INTERPRETS WONDER AS THE IMPETUS OF OUR EXPERIENCING UNDERSTANDING JUDGING AND DECIDING IN RELATION TO OTHERS 4OO OFTEN HOWEVER WE FALL INTO THE TRAP OF RELA TIVISM AND BECOME COMPLACENT WITH AND TOLERANT OF EVERY OPINION &OR INSTANCE IN A MEDIA DRIVEN SOCIETY IT IS NOT TOO STRONG TO SUGGEST THAT AS IMAGES OF VIOLENCE AND SUFFERING CONSTANTLY BOMBARD US WE BECOME CONFUSED DISORIENTED AND DEADENED 3UCH A NUMB STATE IS CONGENIAL TO RELATIVISM %VEN AS OUR JUDGMENTS ARE SLOWED DOWN BY THE CONSTANT hCINEMATIC mOW OF REPRESENTATIONS v ,ONERGAN ARGUES THAT AN INACTIVE POSTURE TOWARD SUCH EVENTS IS PROBLEMATIC IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE 7E CANNOT PRETEND AS IF REPRESENTATIONS AND
-ICHELE 3ARACINO /N "EING (UMAN
SITUATIONS DO NOT MATTER FOR THESE SITUATIONS POSTURE US IN OBLIGATION AND RESPONSIBILITY 7E ARE COMMITTED NOT BY KNOWING WHAT IT IS AND THAT IT IS WORTH WHILE BUT BY AN INABILITY TO AVOID EXPERIENCE BY THE SUBTLE CON QUEST IN US OF THE %ROS THAT WOULD UNDERSTAND BY THE INEVITABLE AFTERMATH OF THAT SWEET ADVENTURE WHEN A RATIONALITY IDENTICAL WITH US DEMANDS THE ABSOLUTE REFUSES UNRESERVED ASSENT TO LESS THAT THE UNCONDITIONED AND WHEN THAT IS ATTAINED IMPOSES UPON US A COMMITMENT IN WHICH WE BOW TO AN IMMANENT !NANKã ,ONERGAN
)T IS IN THIS STATEMENT OF THE SPONTANEITY AND UNPREDICTABILITY OF DESIRE THAT THE ETHICAL FORCE OF ,ONERGANS THOUGHT SURFACES !S LONG AS THE WORLD SURROUNDS US AND COMMUNITY EXISTS WE ARE IMPLICATED IN THE ENGAGEMENT WITH THE REAL AND ARE COMMITTED TO ACTION AND JUSTICE )T IS INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT ALTHOUGH HE HAS A DEEP RESPECT FOR THE SKEPTIC ,ONERGAN INSISTS THAT SKEPTICISM CAN ONLY BE A TEMPORARY POSITION )N HIS EXPLANATION OF SELF KNOWLEDGE ,ONERGAN ARGUES THAT A PERSON CANNOT CLAIM THAT SHE IS NOT A KNOWER WITHOUT BEING CON TRADICTORY -OREOVER A PERSON CANNOT ASSERT THAT SHE DOES NOT KNOW BECAUSE SUCH A RESPONSE DEMONSTRATES KNOWING 4HE ONLY RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT ONE IS A KNOWER IS A hYESv OR SILENCE ,ONERGAN 7ESTERN %UROPEAN PHILOSOPHYS FASCINATION WITH THE POWER OF WON DER OBVIOUSLY IS NOT LIMITED TO THE THOUGHT OF ,ONERGAN h%VER SINCE ITS FOUNDATION WONDER HAS BEEN PHILOSOPHYS VIRTUEv .ANCY )N THE BEGINNING OF HIS h-ETAPHYSICS v !RISTOTLE BOLDLY CLAIMS h!LL MEN BY NATURE DESIRE TO KNOWv ,ONERGAN FOLLOWS IN THIS TRADITION IN HIS ASSERTION THAT AUTHENTIC SUBJECTIVITY EMERGES IN THIS BEING OPENED UP BY WONDER AND CHALLENGED TO TRANSCEND ONESELF IN THE DYNAMIC PROCESS OF KNOWING AND LOVING )T BECOMES APPARENT THAT ,ONERGANS UNDERSTANDING OF WONDER IS NOT A SOLITARY ACTIVITY )T IS ACTUALLY INSPIRED BY SOMEONE OR SOMETHING OUTSIDE THE SUBJECT 7ONDER EMERGES IN A MOMENT OF INTERSUBJECTIVITY OR SPONTANEOUS DYNAMISM WHEN WE ARE POSED WITH A QUESTION BY THE /THER h1UES
^4HE /PEN 0OSTURE OF ,ONERGANS 3UBJECT
TIONING THEN IS A SPONTANEOUS A PRIORI WAY OF KNOWING YOUR OWN NOT KNOWING AND OF LEADING YOU TOWARD AN INSIGHTv &LANAGAN !UTHENTIC SUBJECTIVITY IS BORN IN THE EROS TO KNOW THAT IS IN THE BIRTH OF THE QUESTION WHICH LEADS THE PERSON TO A POSTURE OF WANTING TO TRANSCEND HISHER PREVIOUS HORIZON 4HIS POTENTIAL FOR TRANSCENDENCE IS THE SECOND DElNING CHARACTERISTIC OF ,ONERGANS AUTHENTIC SUBJECT THAT WE NEED TO EXAMINE 7ONDER OPENS THE SUBJECT TO TRANSCENDENCE &OR ,ONERGAN TRANSCENDENCE DOES NOT REFER TO THE SHEDDING OF ONES SKIN BUT TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF A PERSON COGNITIVELY ETHICALLY AND RELIGIOUSLY 4RANSCENDENCE MIRRORS THE INTELLECTUAL MORAL AND RELIGIOUS CONVERSION WHICH ) PREVIOUSLY EXPLAINED AND IS BASED IN THE TRANSCULTURAL FOUNDATION OF THE SUBJECT (ERE TRANSCULTURAL DOES NOT MEAN THAT ALL HUMANS ARE THE SAME REGARD LESS OF THEIR EXPERIENCES OR CONTEXT BUT THAT THE STRUCTURE OF HUMAN KNOWING IS PRESENT IN ALL HUMANS THROUGHOUT VARIOUS TIMES PERIODS AND CULTURES 4HUS THAT WHICH IS KNOWN IS NOT TRANSCULTURAL BUT THE STRUCTURE FOR KNOWING IS 4HE POTENTIAL FOR HUMAN CREATIVITY FOR EXPE RIENCING UNDERSTANDING JUDGING AND DECIDING IS THE TRANSCULTURAL 3IGNIlCANTLY SIMILAR TO THE WAY ,ONERGAN NUANCES THE TERM @TRANS CULTURAL HE lNESSES THE NOTIONS OF @FOUNDATIONS AND @FOUNDATIONAL #ONTEMPORARY CONTINENTAL THINKERS RESIST AND DEBUNK FOUNDATIONALISM BECAUSE IT CONNOTES SOMETHING THAT IS LIMITING CONTROLLING DOMINATING AND TOTALITARIAN &OR INSTANCE *EAN &RAN½OIS ,YOTARD ARGUES THAT FOUN DATIONS TOTALIZE AND ERASE ALL OTHERNESS BY WAY OF REDUCTIONIST CONCEPTS AND CRUSHING MASTER NARRATIVES A B )NDEED IT APPEARS THAT TO BE A FOUNDATIONALIST IS TO CLAIM THAT THERE IS SOME OVERARCHING STORY METANARRATIVE ARCHE END OR INTENTION FOR ALL OF HUMANITY REGARDLESS OF ONES PREDICAMENT AND LIFE EXPERIENCE 4HEOLOGIAN *OHN % 4HIEL FURTHER DENOTES FOUNDATIONS AS hBELIEFS OR EXPERIENCES THAT ARE CERTAIN IN THEMSELVES AND THAT IN TURN SUPPORT THE BELIEFS DERIVED FROM THEM IN AN EXTENDED SYSTEM OF KNOWLEDGEv ,ONERGANS PROJECT HOWEVER DOES NOT INTERPRET FOUNDATIONS AS A SET OF BELIEFS AND DOES NOT lLL THOSE FOUNDATIONS WITH SOME ARBITRARY CONTENT OR CONCEPT (IS WORK CLARIlES FOUNDATIONS TO MEAN THE PERSONAL EMBODIMENT OF OUR COMMITMENTS )N A REAL SENSE WE ARE OUR FOUNDATIONS
-ICHELE 3ARACINO /N "EING (UMAN
,ONERGAN ILLUSTRATES THE SUBJECTS TRANSCULTURAL FOUNDATIONAL POTENTIAL FOR TRANSCENDENCE IN TERMS OF A ROCK (E WRITES h4HE ROCK THEN IS THE SUBJECT IN HIS CONSCIOUSNESS UNOBJECTIlED ATTENTIVENESS INTELLIGENCE REASONABLENESS RESPONSIBILITYv C 4HE WAY IN WHICH THE SUBJECT DEMONSTRATES AUTHENTIC OR INAUTHENTIC SUBJECTIVITY IS WHAT CONSTITUTES HISHER FOUNDATIONS !UTHENTICITY HERE DOES NOT DENOTE A (EIDEGGERIAN AUTHENTICITY BECAUSE SUCH AUTHENTICITY ACCORDING TO ,ONERGAN IS SELF CENTERED RATHER AUTHENTICITY REFERS TO THE SUBJECTS OPENNESS TO CONVERSIONIT IS WHAT FORTIlES THE ROCK !S PERSONAL IDENTITIES ARE ALWAYS SHIFTING ACCORDING TO A PERSONS POSITION CONTEXT NETWORK OF RELATIONS AND HISTORY THE ROCK CORE OR THE FOUNDATION OF THE SUBJECT REMAINS IN HISHER ACTION OF KNOWING DOING AND LOVING 4HE ONE HUMAN NATURE OF HUMANITY RESIDES IN EACH PERSONS DESIRE TO KNOW AND LOVE 'OD AND OTHERS &OR ,ONERGAN hTHE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION IS 7HO AM ) )T CAN BE ANSWERED IN MANY DIFFERENT WAYS SINCE WE HAVE A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT EMERGENT IDENTITIES (OWEVER OUR FOUNDATIONAL IDENTITY IS THAT OF A CONCRETE CONTINGENT KNOWER CHOOSER LOVERv &LANAGAN &OUNDATIONS MORE THAN ANY CONCRETE CONTENT ARE ABOUT COMMITMENTS 2EALIZING OUR COMMITMENTS AND BEING OPENED IN TRANSCENDENCE ARE NOT DEPENDENT ON JUST ANY THEORY OF COGNITION BUT ON THE CORRECT APPROPRIATION OF THE ACTIVITY OF KNOWING 7HILE CORRECT APPROPRIA TION OF THE STRUCTURE OF KNOWING LEADS TO SELF TRANSCENDENCE IMPEDI MENTS REMAIN 2ECALL FROM #HAPTER /NE THAT ,ONERGAN ISOLATES THREE FORMS OF THE INAUTHENTIC SUBJECT OF MODERNITY THE TRUNCATED SUBJECT THE IMMANENTIST SUBJECT AND THE ALIENATED SUBJECT )N THE lRST CASE TRANSCENDENCE IS THWARTED BY THE TRUNCATED SUBJECT OR THE #ARTESIAN POSITIVIST SUBJECT WHO EQUATES WHAT SHE SEES WITH REALITY )N THE SECOND CASE TRANSCENDENCE IS FRUSTRATED BY THE IMMANENTIST SUBJECT WHOSE KNOWLEDGE IS LIMITED TO REPRESENTATIONS AND IDEALS ,ONERGAN POSTULATES THAT +ANTIAN IDEALIST THOUGHT FAILS ON THE LEVEL OF JUDGMENT BECAUSE THE IMMANENTIST SUBJECT REFUSES TO JUDGE HISHER EXPERIENCE AND INSISTS THAT ALL KNOWLEDGE IS BASED ON REPRESENTATIONS OF THE REAL 4HE IDEAL IST THEREFORE IS INCLINED TO BELIEVE THAT ALL IMAGES OF REALITY ARE EQUAL &URTHERMORE THIS SAME IDEALISTIMMANENTIST SUBJECT INTERNALIZES OR RETAINS INFORMATION AS PICTURES IDEALS AND REPRESENTATIONS AND REFUSES TO MAKE A PUBLIC COMMITMENT TO REALITY !LTHOUGH ,ONERGAN UPHOLDS
^4HE /PEN 0OSTURE OF ,ONERGANS 3UBJECT
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE WITHDRAWAL TO INTERIORITY HE CLAIMS THAT THE RETREAT INTO INTERIORITY CANNOT BE AN END IN ITSELF 2ATHER THIS IS A REmECTIVE STEP IN THE DYNAMIC PROCESS OF KNOWING WHICH CULMINATES IN A POSTURE OF RESPONSIBILITY AND PERSONAL COMMITMENT )NTERIORITY IS THE LEVEL AT WHICH THE SUBJECT ENGAGES THE COGNITIONAL PROCESS THAT IS OBJECTIlES IT IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND THE IMPLICATIONS OF KNOWING FOR ONESELF AS WELL AS FOR OTHERS 4HIS REFERENCE TO INTERIORITY IS CRITICAL BECAUSE IT PINPOINTS WHERE ,ONERGAN BOTH CONTINUES AND BREAKS FROM MODERN INTERPRETATIONS OF SUBJECTIVITY )N HIS WORK 3OURCES OF THE 3ELF #HARLES 4AYLOR EXPLAINS HOW THE NOTION OF INWARDNESS OR INTERIORITY BECOMES COMPLI CATED AFTER THE %NLIGHTENMENT 0REVIOUS TO THE ADVENT OF MODERNITY INTERIORITY REFERRED TO A SACRED SPACE !S IN THE CASE OF !UGUSTINES THEOLOGY INWARDNESS WAS UNDERSTOOD AS hTHE @SPACE IN WHICH WE COME TO ENCOUNTER 'ODv .EVERTHELESS 4AYLOR ARGUES THAT $ESCARTESS INTERPRETATION OF INWARDNESS MOVES TO OBJECTIFY THIS SPACE BY ASSUMING THAT ONE CAN EXTRACT ONESELF COGITO FROM THE SPACE AND SURVEY IT %VEN TUALLY REmECTION UPON ONESELF BEGAN TO CONNOTE SEEING OBJECTIFYING REIFYING THIS SPACE AS SOMEHOW DISCONNECTED FROM THE MIND RATHER THAN THE MIND AND SPACE BEING INEXTRICABLY CONNECTED 4AYLOR DElNES THIS SUBJECT OF MODERNITY AS A @DISENGAGED SUBJECT IN WHICH THE PERSON OBJECTIlES THE WORLD THROUGH A POSTURE OF INWARD TURNING ;4=HE MODERN IDEAL OF DISENGAGEMENT REQUIRES A REmEXIVE STANCE 7E HAVE TO TURN INWARD AND BECOME AWARE OF OUR OWN ACTIVITY AND OF THE PROCESSES THAT FORM US 7E HAVE TO TAKE CHARGE OF CONSTRUCTING OUR OWN REPRESENTATION OF THE WORLD WHICH OTHERWISE GOES ON WITHOUT ORDER AND CONSEQUENTLY WITHOUT SCIENCE WE HAVE TO TAKE CHARGE OF THE PROCESSES BY WHICH ASSOCIATIONS FORM AND SHAPE OUR CHARACTER AND OUTLOOK $ISENGAGEMENT DEMANDS THAT WE STOP LIV ING IN THE BODY OR WITHIN OUR TRADITIONS OR HABITS AND BY MAKING THEM OBJECTS FOR US SUBJECT THEM TO RADICAL SCRUTINY AND REMAKING
!LTHOUGH THE STANCE OF THE DISENGAGED SUBJECT IS INWARD EGOISTIC AND LIMITED IT MASQUERADES AS OBJECTIVE AND UNENCUMBERED 4HE DISEN
&OR A SUSTAINED DISCUSSION OF 4AYLORS @DISENGAGED SUBJECT FROM A ,ONERGANIAN PERSPEC TIVE SEE *IM +ANARIS h%NGAGED !GENCY AND THE .OTION OF THE 3UBJECTv
-ICHELE 3ARACINO /N "EING (UMAN
GAGED SUBJECT IS UTILITARIAN AND EMPLOYS THE WORLD AROUND HIMHER FOR SELF ALONE 4HE HUNCHED CLOSED CLOISTERED STANCE OF THIS MODERN SUBJECT IS POSTURED INWARD RATHER THAN OUTWARD 4HE DISPOSITION OF THIS SUBJECT IS AGGRESSIVE TOWARD AND CONTROLLING OF NOT ONLY ONESELF BUT OF OTHERS )N THE MODERN TRADITION THIS POLEMICAL POSTURE HAS BEEN DEEMED AS NORMATIVE WHICH HAS LED TO REGRESS DECLINE AND CATASTROPHE IN HISTORY -OST DElNITELY THE POSTURE OF THE DISENGAGED MODERN SUBJECT IS AN UNACCEPTABLE DISPOSITION TO ,ONERGANS THEORY BECAUSE IT THWARTS SELF TRANSCENDENCE !S HE NUANCES INWARDNESS AND REmECTION TO MEAN NOT A SIMPLE OBJECTIFYING OF THE SELF AS IN THE CASE OF THE DISENGAGED SUBJECT BUT RATHER AS ONLY ONE STEP IN THE ACTIVITY OF UNDERSTANDING ,ONERGAN BREAKS WITH MODERN THOUGHT ON INTERIORITY 4HE UNRESTRICTED DESIRE TO KNOW PROHIBITS THE SUBJECT FROM ADOPTING AN INWARD POSTURE )NSTEAD OF DISMISSING THE VALIDITY OF SELF REmECTION ALTOGETHER ,ONERGAN SHOWS THAT REmECTION IS ONLY ONE STEP IN THE ARDUOUS TASK OF KNOWING 2EmEC TION ON ONESELF COMES AFTER ATTENDING TO THE EMPIRICAL THE EXPERIENCE THAT mOWS THROUGH THE BODY #ONSEQUENTLY ,ONERGAN UNDERSTANDS THE BODY AS A FACT OF HUMANITY THAT ENABLES THE RECEPTION OF SENSE DATA INSTEAD OF SOMETHING TO BE REIlED IGNORED OR DISMISSED 4HE EYES ARE NECESSARY FOR VISION THE EARS FOR HEARING AND THE MOUTH FOR TAST INGALL OF WHICH ARE CONNECTED TO THE ACT OF KNOWING )T IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE SUBJECT TO DISENGAGE FROM HISHER BODY OR THE WORLD BECAUSE SHE IS ALREADY INCARNATE IN THE WORLD 3TILL IN ORDER TO AVOID BECOM ING A DISENGAGED SUBJECT ,ONERGANS SUBJECT IS INVITED BY WONDER INTO QUESTIONING BEYOND MERE REmECTIONS ,ONERGANS SUBJECT IS OBLIGED TO UNDERSTAND JUDGE AND DECIDE IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE SELF TRANSCENDENCE AND AVOID BEING ALIENATED FROM 'OD AND OTHERS 4RANSCENDENCE CAN BE BLOCKED BY A THIRD INSTANCE BY ALIENATED SUBJECTIVITY WHICH WE INTERPRETED IN LIGHT OF .IETZSCHES âBERMENSCH 4HE TRAP OF ALIENATION IS THE lNAL IMPEDIMENT TO SELF APPROPRIATION AND SELF TRANSCENDENCE )F THE PERSON DOES NOT TAKE ACTION TOWARD THE GOOD THEN SHE REMAINS IN AN EGOIST POSTURE AS AN INAUTHENTIC SUBJECT 4HIS REVIEW OF THE INAUTHENTIC SUBJECTIVITY OF MODERNITY ILLUSTRATES HOW ,ONERGANS TRANSCULTURAL NORMATIVE SUBJECT EXPERIENCES TRANSCENDENCE THROUGH ATTENDING TO THE LEVELS OF CONSCIOUSNESS BREAKING FREE FROM
^4HE /PEN 0OSTURE OF ,ONERGANS 3UBJECT
PICTURE THINKING AND MAKING JUDGMENTS AND DECISIONS IN LINE WITH THE GOOD 4RANSCENDENCE DOES NOT TAKE PLACE IN ISOLATION BUT WITHIN A COMMU NITY AND IN THE PRESENCE OF 'OD ,ONERGAN TAKES COMMUNAL RELATIONSHIPS SERIOUSLY 4HIS INTERSUBJECTIVE DEMAND IS THE THIRD NORMATIVE FEATURE OF THE HUMAN PERSON !UTHENTIC SUBJECTIVITY IS ONLY GENUINE WHEN IT ADMITS TO THE TENSION BETWEEN THE SPONTANEOUS DESIRE FOR INTERSUBJEC TIVITY AND THE GOOD OF THE LARGER ORDER )NTERPRETING ,ONERGANS USE OF AUTHENTICITY IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT TENDS TO BE EMPLOYED BY VARIOUS SCHOLARS IN DISPARATE FASHIONS &OR EXAMPLE WHAT DISTIN GUISHES ,ONERGANS NOTION OF AUTHENTICITY FROM THAT OF (EIDEGGERS IS THAT ,ONERGANS AUTHENTIC SUBJECTIVITY IS ALWAYS IN RELATION TO ANOTHER PERSON AND TO THE COMMUNITY !S A RESULT ,ONERGAN UNDERSTANDS (EIDEGGERS $ASEIN TO BE A HUMAN BEING WHO EXPERIENCES INQUIRES AND REmECTS WITHOUT AFlRMING HIMHERSELF 4HE ACTIVITIES OF $ASEIN ARE UNDERSTOOD BY ,ONERGAN AS SELF SERVING FOR HISHER PERSONAL BENElT (EIDEGGERS CONVERSION TO AUTHENTICITY %IGENTLICHKEIT IS DRIVEN BY THE EXISTENCE OF A GOOD BUT GOODNESS FOR $ASEIN IS ACHIEVED AT THE EXPENSE OF THE /THERS NEEDS /NE COULD ARGUE THAT $ASEIN IS IN FACT RELATIONAL EVEN THOUGH ANXIETY AGGRESSION AND EGOISM CHARACTERIZE THIS POSTURE ,ONERGANS SUBJECT IS SIMILAR TO (EIDEGGERS IN THAT THE PERSON IS RELA TIONAL (OWEVER ,ONERGANS SUBJECT DIFFERS FROM (EIDEGGERS BECAUSE ,ONERGANS INTERPRETATION OF INTERSUBJECTIVITY IS BASED ON KNOWLEDGE AND SELF SURRENDER RATHER THAN POWER AND EGOISM ,ONERGAN ALSO CONTESTS (EIDEGGERS EMPHASIS ON BEING IN THE WORLD BECAUSE IT TENDS TO COLLAPSE ONES PERSONAL HORIZON INTO THAT OF THE EN TIRE WORLDTHE UNIVERSE OF BEING )N h! $ElNITION OF -ETAPHYSICS v ,ONERGAN EXPLAINS THE SHORTSIGHTEDNESS OF $ASEIN h.OW THIS UNIVERSE OF BEING IS NOT IDENTICAL WITH @MY WORLD(EIDEGGERS 7ELT -Y WORLD IS CENTERED ON MEx 4HIS RESULTS NORMALLY IN A TENSION BETWEEN ONES OWN WORLD AND WHAT IS BEYOND ONES HORIZONv (EIDEGGERS $ASEIN SEEMS TO IGNORE THE REALITY OF BEING BEYOND THIS WORLDA THEME THAT WE PREVIOUSLY EXPLORED IN ,EVINASS CRITIQUE OF (EIDEGGER !S ,EVINAS INTUITS BEYOND BEING ,ONERGAN EXPRESSES THE
&OR A COMPARISON OF ,ONERGANS AND (EIDEGGERS TREATMENT OF THE AUTHENTIC SUBJECT SEE *OSEPH &LANAGAN 3* h7HERE THE ,ATE ,ONERGAN -EETS THE %ARLY (EIDEGGERv
-ICHELE 3ARACINO /N "EING (UMAN
REALITY OF A UNIVERSE BEYOND THE SUBJECTS PERSONAL WORLD ,ONERGAN DEALS WITH THE PROBLEM OF THE SELF CENTERED POSTURE OF (EIDEGGERS SUBJECT BY EMPHASIZING THE IMPORTANCE OF INTERSUBJECTIVE RELATIONSHIPS AS A WAY OUT OF ONES PERSONAL WORLD !BOVE WE HAVE INVESTIGATED THREE MARKS OF ,ONERGANS AUTHENTIC SUBJECT &IRST WE NOTED HOW WONDER FUNCTIONS AS AN IMPETUS FOR TRANSCENDENCE 4HEN WE DISCOVERED HOW THE SUBJECT SPURRED ON BY DESIRE TRANSCENDS HISHER OWN IGNORANCE THROUGH APPROPRIATING THE TRANSCULTURAL COGNITIONAL PROCESS &INALLY THE INTERSUBJECTIVE RELA TIONSHIP WAS LOCATED AS THE SITE AT WHICH WONDER QUESTIONING AND TRANSCENDENCE OCCURS FOR THE SUBJECT 4HIS DISCUSSION OF ,ONERGANS CONVERTED AUTHENTIC AND TRANSCULTURAL SUBJECT SETS THE STAGE FOR THE FOLLOWING EXPLORATION OF THE SUBJECTS POSTURE OF OPENNESS IN TERMS OF GIFT
/PENNESS OF THE 3UBJECT AS 'IFT 5P UNTIL THIS POINT WE HAVE FOCUSED ON WONDER TRANSCENDENCE AND INTERSUBJECTIVITY MAINLY IN TERMS OF KNOWING AND DOING COGNITION AND VOLITION 7HILE THESE FACETS ARE SIGNIlCANT TO ,ONERGANS PROJECT THERE IS A DIMENSION OF HIS WORK WHICH NEEDS TO BE EXPLORED MORE ACUTELY )N HUMANITYS DISINTERESTED DESIRE TO KNOW TO TRANSCEND SELF AND TO BE FOR OTHERS THERE IS AN INTENDING BEYOND MERE COGNITION OR VOLITION 4HIS OTHER INTENDING IS AN AFFECTIVE INCLINATION AN OUTWARDNESS OF FEELING FOR THE /THER ,ONERGAN ADDRESSES THIS OUTWARD POSTURE FOR OTHERS IN TERMS OF OPENNESS /PENNESS IS NOT MERELY A RESULT OF MIND OR WILL BUT THE GROUNDING OF OUR FEELING FOR OTHERS &OR ,ONERGAN THE HUMAN SUBJECT IS GRACED AND GIFTED IN HISHER OPENNESS )N AN ESSAY ENTITLED h/PENNESS AND 2ELIGIOUS %XPERIENCE v ,ONERGAN EXPLAINS THE OPENNESS OF HUMANITY IN THREE WAYS OPENNESS AS FACT OPENNESS AS ACHIEVEMENT AND OPENNESS AS GIFT !LTHOUGH OUR STUDY FOCUSES PRIMARILY ON THE THIRD LEVEL THAT OF OPENNESS AS GIFT ) WILL SUMMARIZE ALL THREE OF THESE /NE SHOULD NOT CONFUSE OPENNESS WITH THE COMMONSENSE MEANING OF TOLERANCE WHICH IS A CASUAL STANCE PATIENT OF RELATIVISM 4HE NOTION OF OPENNESS ALSO SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS A METAPHOR FOR
^4HE /PEN 0OSTURE OF ,ONERGANS 3UBJECT
A MERELY SPIRITUAL TRANSCENDENCE /PENNESS IS THE EVENT BY WHICH THE WHOLE PERSON MIND WILL AND BODY IS CHALLENGED TO TRANSCEND PREVIOUS HORIZONS BY BEING CALLED INTO QUESTION BY 'OD AND OTHERS 4HE lRST WAY IN WHICH THE SUBJECT IS OPEN IS IN TERMS OF FACT ,ONERGAN PROPOSES THAT THE SUBJECTS PURE DESIRE TO KNOW WHICH WE PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED IS A FACT /PENNESS OF THE SUBJECT AS FACT REFERS TO THE MATE RIAL AND SPIRITUAL FABRIC OF THE HUMAN THAT GIVES IMPETUS TO WONDER AND LEADS TO THE PROCESS OF UNDERSTANDING /PENNESS AS FACT ENTAILS THE EVENT IN WHICH THE SUBJECT IS THROWN INTO A SITUATION AND OPENED BY CURIOSITY AND WONDER 3IMPLY PUT OPENNESS AS FACT IS OUR DESIRE TO TURN TOWARD A HIGHER VIEWPOINT 4HE SECOND PHASE IN ,ONERGANS DISCUSSION OF THE OPENNESS OF THE SUBJECT RELATES TO HIS EMPHASIS ON THE IMPORTANCE OF ACHIEVEMENT /PENNESS AS ACHIEVEMENT REFERS TO THE SELF APPROPRIATION OF THE SUBJECT THAT IS THE PERSONS CONSCIOUS INTENTIONS IN REGARD TO HISHER DESIRE TO TURN TO A HIGHER POSITION !CHIEVEMENT NOT ONLY REFERS TO THE SUBJECTS AWARENESS OF THE PROCESS OF UNDERSTANDING BUT ALSO ENCOMPASSES HISHER METHODICAL VERIlCATION OF OBJECTIVITY REALITY AND BEING 0AYING ATTENTION TO OUR COGNITIONAL PROCESS AND BEING OPEN TO THE SELF CORRECTIVE DYNAMISM OF UNDERSTAND ING IS LARGELY WHAT ,ONERGAN MEANS BY OPENNESS AS ACHIEVEMENT 7E ARE OPENED BY OUR DILIGENCE TO THE ACTIVITY OF UNDERSTANDING 4HE EMPHASIS ON THE ATTENTIVENESS OF THE SUBJECT SHOULD SOUND FAMILIAR AND CALL TO MIND THE EXPLICATION OF THE AUTHENTIC AND TRANSCULTURAL SUBJECT THAT WE EXPLORED IN THE PREVIOUS SECTION 4HERE WE LEARNED THAT IT IS NOT ENOUGH TO EXPERIENCE ONES EXPERIENCING UNDERSTANDING JUDGING AND DECIDING BUT THE ACTUAL PROCESS MUST ALSO BE DUPLICATED 4HROUGH OUR ACHIEVEMENT OR AS WE AFlRM OURSELVES AS KNOWERS WE DISTINGUISH OURSELVES AS CONSCIOUS SUBJECTS INSTEAD OF AS MERE DRIFTERS WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE OF OURSELVES OR OF GOODNESS 3TILL IN h%XISTENZ AND !GGIORNAMENTO v ,ONERGAN WARNS US AGAINST BECOMING TOO SMUG AND COMPLACENT WITH OUR ACHIEVEMENT ) HAVE SPOKEN OF AN OPPOSITE OF DRIFTING OF AUTONOMY DISPOSING OF ITSELF OF OPEN EYED DELIBERATE SELF CONTROL "UT ) MUST NOT MIS REPRESENT 7E DO NOT KNOW OURSELVES VERY WELL WE CANNOT CHART THE FUTURE WE CANNOT CONTROL OUR ENVIRONMENT COMPLETELY OR THE
-ICHELE 3ARACINO /N "EING (UMAN INmUENCES THAT WORK ON US WE CANNOT EXPLORE OUR UNCONSCIOUS AND PRECONSCIOUS MECHANISMS /UR COURSE IS IN THE NIGHT OUR CONTROL IS ONLY ROUGH AND APPROXIMATE WE HAVE TO BELIEVE AND TRUST TO RISK AND DARE
/PENNESS AS ACHIEVEMENT THEN IS A LIFELONG JOURNEY OF DILIGENCE AND RESPONSIBILITY THAT REQUIRES HUMILITY TRUST AND RISK !CHIEVEMENT OPENS THE SUBJECT TO A VULNERABLE POSITION h;4=RULY AUTHENTIC KNOWERS ARE CONTINUALLY STRUGGLING KNOWERS ALWAYS ON ALERT FOR FURTHER QUES TIONS THAT WILL ADVANCE THEIR ACCUMULATED KNOWING OR REVERSE THEIR MISTAKEN ASSUMPTIONS AND JUDGMENTv &LANAGAN 9ET THE AUTHENTIC SUBJECT REFUSES TO COWER IN THE FACE OF STRUGGLE AND RISK !S SHE TRANSCENDS HISHER LIMITS BY POSTURING FORWARD SHE OVERCOMES COMPLACENCY IGNORANCE OR BIAS ,ONERGAN EXPLAINS THAT THE SUBJECT ENGAGES TRANSCENDENCE BY hSTRETCHING FORTH TOWARDS THE INTELLIGIBLE THE UNCONDITIONED THE GOOD OF VALUE 4HE REACH NOT OF HIS ATTAINMENT BUT OF HIS INTENDING IS UNRESTRICTEDv C /PENNESS AS ACHIEVE MENT IS THE PROCESS BY WHICH THE SUBJECT IS OPENED AND INVITED INTO A POSTURE OF ASCENDING TO THE GOOD 'OODNESS NONETHELESS CANNOT BE ACHIEVED BY OUR REACH ALONE 'OD MOVES US TOWARD SELF SURRENDER AND SPARKS OUR TRANSCENDENCE TOWARD AND FOR THE GOOD 4HE SELF SURRENDER THAT IS CALLED FORTH BY 'OD IS PART OF OUR FALLING IN LOVE WITH 'ODAN EVENT THAT OPENS HUMANITY TO RELIGIOUS CONVERSION AND AUTHENTIC SUBJECTIVITY 3UCH AN EPIPHANY REPRESENTS THE THIRD DIMENSION OF OPENNESS AS GIFT !S IS THE QUESTION OF 'OD IS IMPLICIT IN ALL OUR QUESTIONING SO BEING IN LOVE WITH 'OD IS THE BASIC FULlLLMENT OF OUR CONSCIOUS INTENTIONALITY 4HE FULlLLMENT BRINGS A DEEP SET JOY THAT CAN REMAIN DESPITE HUMILIATION FAILURE PRIVATION PAIN BETRAYAL DESERTION 4HE FULlLLMENT BRINGS A RADICAL PEACE THAT THE WORLD CANNOT GIVE 4HE FULlLLMENT BEARS FRUIT IN A LOVE OF ONES NEIGHBOR THAT STRIVES MIGHT ILY TO BRING ABOUT THE KINGDOM OF 'OD ON THIS EARTH /N THE OTHER HAND THE ABSENCE OF THAT FULlLLMENT OPENS THE WAY TO TRIVIALIZATION OF HUMAN LIFE IN THE PURSUIT OF FUN TO THE HARSHNESS OF HUMAN LIFE ARISING FROM THE RUTHLESS EXERCISE OF POWER TO DESPAIR ABOUT HUMAN
^4HE /PEN 0OSTURE OF ,ONERGANS 3UBJECT
WELFARE SPRINGING FROM THE CONVICTION THAT THE UNIVERSE IS ABSURD ,ONERGAN C
4HE DRAMA OF OUR FALLING IN LOVE WITH 'OD INVITES OUR OPENNESS TOWARD THE GOOD FOR OUR NEIGHBOR AND FOR 'OD )N h4HE &UTURE OF #HRISTI ANITY v ,ONERGAN WRITES THAT BEING IN LOVE WITH 'OD IS AN hEXISTENTIAL STANCEv THROUGH WHICH TRANSCENDENCE OCCURS IN THE SUBJECTS REACH TOWARD THE GOOD B 4HE STANCE OR POSTURE THAT STRUCTURES THE SUBJECTS REACH TOWARD TRANSCENDENCE IS NOT ONE OF AGGRESSION AND EGOISM BUT OF SURRENDER AND PEACE !S PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED IT IS TOO EASY TO IMAGINE TRANSCENDENCE IN COMMONSENSE TERMS AS AN EPISODE IN WHICH WE MOVE FROM ONE PLACE OR TIME TO ANOTHER OR FROM ONE SKIN TO ANOTHER ,ONERGANS TECHNICAL UNDERSTANDING OF TRANSCENDENCE HOWEVER NEITHER REFERS TO A TEMPORAL OR SPATIAL MOVEMENT OR TO A TOTAL BIOLOGICAL TRANSFORMATION 4RANSCENDENCE SIGNIlES THE SUBJECTS SIMULTANEOUS PUSHING TOWARD AND BEING DRAWN TO THE LIMITS OF UNDERSTANDING *EAN ,UC .ANCYS READING OF TRANSCENDENCE AS A MOVEMENT OF PUSHING THE LIMIT IS A HELPFUL HEURISTIC FOR INTERPRETING ,ONERGANS NOTION OF TRANSCENDENCE !CCORDINGLY WE CAN EXPLICATE TRANSCENDENCE AS THE INVITATION AND ACHIEVEMENT OF THE SELF WHO IS ENCLOSED IN BIAS AND IGNORANCE TO PUSH BEYOND HISHER LIMITS TOWARD A RELATIONSHIP WITH 'OD TOWARD BEING OPENED TO GIFTED AUTHENTIC SUBJECTIVITY 4HIS PUSH HOWEVER IS NOT MERELY INTELLECTUAL OR MORAL BUT INCLUDES A DIMENSION OF FEELING SUCH AS LOVE PASSION OR CHARITY THAT BREAKS THE SUBJECT OPEN 4HIS AFFECTIVE FEELING FOR THE /THER IS WHERE ,ONERGANS CONCERN FOR ETHICS EMERGES MOST FULLY 4HE GOODNESS OF BEING DEMANDS A POSTURE OF AU THENTIC SUBJECTIVITYA STANCE THAT IS NOT DEPENDENT ON THE OUTCOME FOR ONLY OURSELVES BUT FOR THE WHOLE OF THE COMMUNITY 4HIS IS WHAT ,ONERGAN CALLS THE HUMAN GOOD !UTHENTIC SUBJECTIVITY OPENS THE SUBJECT TO 'OD AND NEIGHBOR AT ALL COSTS 2EJECTING BOTH THE EGOIST SUBJECT WHO IS OPENED OVER AND AGAINST THE WORLD AND THE DISEMBOD IED SUBJECT WHO IS COMPLETELY OTHERWORLDLY AND ETHEREAL ,ONERGAN EMPHASIZES THE OPEN GIFTED SUBJECT WHO WORKS WITHIN THE WORLD AND IN RELATIONSHIP WITH 'OD 3IGNIlCANTLY THE SUBJECT WHO IS OPENED WHEN IN LOVE WITH 'OD lNDS HIMHERSELF IN A DIFFERENT BOND THAN THAT OF A ROMANTIC OR lLIAL
-ICHELE 3ARACINO /N "EING (UMAN
LOVE )N HIS ESSAY ENTITLED h4HE 2ESPONSE OF THE *ESUIT v ,ONERGAN CLAIMS THAT BEING IN LOVE WITH 'OD IS A RELATIONSHIP OF hSELF SUR RENDER v hWITHOUT LIMITS OR QUALIlCATIONSv IT IS A GIFTED RELATIONSHIP WITH 'OD THAT BRINGS A hRADICAL PEACEv B )N h/PENNESS AND 2ELIGIOUS %XPERIENCE v HE FURTHER EMPHASIZES THE MYSTICAL ASPECT OF THIS RELATIONSHIP ARGUING THAT THE GIFT OF OPENNESS IS hAN EFFECT OF DIVINE GRACEv )N AND THROUGH THIS GIFTED RELATIONSHIP THE BODY SUBJECT IS DISPLACED ORIENTED OR POSTURED WHEN FALLING IN LOVE WITH 'OD INTO BEING RESPONSIBLE TO HISHER NEIGHBOR ,ONERGAN SCHOLAR &REDERICK ,AWRENCE REFERS TO THE REORIENTATION THAT OCCURS IN RELIGIOUS CONVERSION AS @DISPLACEMENT 4HE RELATIONSHIP WITH 'OD IS THE lNAL POINT AT WHICH THE SUBJECT IS OPENED AND CONVERTED BY GIFT FOR 'OD OTHERS AND GOODNESS )N THE SECTION ABOVE WE EXPLORED THE OPENNESS OF THE SUBJECT ON THREE LEVELS FACT ACHIEVEMENT AND GIFT 4HESE THREE LEVELS OF OPENNESS ARE ANALOGOUS TO THE THREE NORMATIVE FEATURES OF THE SUBJECT INCLUDING WONDER TRANSCENDENCE AND INTERSUBJECTIVITY /PENNESS AS FACT REFERS TO THE DISINTERESTED DESIRE OF THE SUBJECT TO KNOW OPENNESS AS ACHIEVE MENT STRESSES THE SUBJECTS SELF APPROPRIATION AND SELF TRANSCENDENCE AND OPENNESS AS GIFT EMPHASIZES THE SUBJECTS INTERSUBJECTIVE RELATIONS WITH 'OD AND OTHERS 4HE GIFT OF OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH 'OD CONCERNS OUR MYSTERIOUS LOVE OF AND FOR 'OD 4HIS LOVE TRANSCENDS OUR GRATITUDE AND RECIPROCATION )N BEING IN LOVE WITH 'OD AND THUS OPENED BY 'OD WE ARE POSTURED IN A STANCE OF HUMILITY TRUST AND RESPONSIBILITY FOR 'OD AND FOR OTHERS #LEARLY AS ,ONERGAN STATES IN h4HE &UTURE OF #HRISTIANITY v THERE IS A CONNECTION BETWEEN OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH 'OD AND OUR RELATIONS WITH OTHERS AND STRANGERS h'ODS GIFT OF HIS LOVE OVERmOWS INTO THE LOVE OF ONES NEIGHBORv B
4HE %MBODIMENT OF ,ONERGANS 3UBJECT 2ELATED TO THE OPENNESS OF THE SUBJECT FOR 'OD AND OTHERS IN TERMS DESIRE AND FEELING IS ,ONERGANS UNDERSTANDING OF BEING HUMAN IN CORPOREAL TERMS 2ECALL FROM MY INTRODUCTORY REMARKS THAT ) ALLUDED TO THE FACT THAT AFFECTIVE INTENTIONALITY CANNOT BE LOCATED MERELY IN
^4HE /PEN 0OSTURE OF ,ONERGANS 3UBJECT
TERMS OF BODY )NTERESTINGLY ,ONERGANS INTEGRATION OF BODY AND MIND IS QUITE PROGRESSIVE IN THAT WORKS TO RID #HRISTIAN ANTHROPOLOGY OF THAT PRECISE DANGER )N THIS SECTION THEREFORE ) FOCUS SPECIlCALLY ON HOW ,ONERGAN CONNECTS THE ACTIVITIES OF THE MIND AND BODY IN HIS ACCOUNT OF BEING HUMAN ) lRST INVESTIGATE HOW HE UNDERSTANDS THE BODY AS A RECEPTOR FOR COGNITIVE ACTIVITY 4HEN ) EXPLORE HOW THE SUBJECT SENSES THROUGH VARIOUS PATTERNS OF EXPERIENCE ! DISCUSSION OF HOW ,ONERGAN UNIlES THE BODILY AND SPIRITUAL REALMS INTO A HOLISTIC HUMAN SUBJECT COMPLETES MY EXAMINATION OF HUMAN CORPOREALITY ,ONERGAN ASSUMES THAT THE BODY FUNCTIONS AS A VEHICLE AND RECEPTOR OF MEMORIES AND ACTS 4HE PERSON AS RECEPTOR HOWEVER IS NOT A STATIC DEVICE OR A PASSIVE MASS BUT AN ENGAGED SUBJECT THAT RECEIVES AND PROCESSES INFORMATION THROUGH THE BODY !S PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED ,ONERGANS EXPLANATION OF THE SUBJECT AS AN ACTIVE EMBODIED SUBJECT RESONATES WITH THE WORK OF -AURICE -ERLEAU 0ONTY 2EFERENCING -ER LEAU 0ONTY IN AN ESSAY ENTITLED h!RT v ,ONERGAN DESIGNATES THE HUMAN PERSON AS AN ACTIVE hFEELING SPACEv THAT RECEIVES DATA OF SENSE )NSISTING THAT THE SUBJECT ACTIVELY ATTENDS TO HISHER RECEPTION OF SENSATIONS MEMORIES AND EVENTS ,ONERGAN STATES 4O BE ALIVE THEN IS TO BE A MORE OR LESS AUTONOMOUS CENTRE OF ACTIVITY )T IS TO DEAL WITH A SUCCESSION OF CHANGING SITUATIONS IT IS TO DO SO PROMPTLY EFlCACIOUSLY ECONOMICALLY IT IS TO ATTEND CONTINUOUSLY TO THE PRESENT TO LEARN PERPETUALLY FROM THE PAST TO ANTICIPATE CONSTANTLY THE FUTURE
4HE EMBODIED SUBJECT PERFORMS AS A hCENTRE OF ACTIVITYv AND THE WAY IN WHICH THE BODY PERCEIVES THE WORLD AFFECTS HOW THAT PERSON UNDERSTANDS THE CONTEXT AND MAKES DECISIONS )N ADDITION TO DENOTING THE BODY AS A RECEPTOR OF EXPERIENCE ,O NERGAN DISTINGUISHES AMONG THE VARIOUS WAYS OR PATTERNS BY WHICH THE BODY RECEIVES EXPERIENCE "EFORE ) EMBARK ON AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE DISTINCTIVE PATTERNS OF EXPERIENCE IT IS NECESSARY TO REMEMBER HOW EXPERIENCE ITSELF IS ROOTED IN A BODILY REALITY ,ONERGAN EXPLAINS h4HE NOTION OF THE PATTERN OF EXPERIENCE MAY BE BEST APPROACHED BY REMARKING HOW ABSTRACT IT IS TO SPEAK OF SENSATION .O DOUBT WE ARE
-ICHELE 3ARACINO /N "EING (UMAN
ALL FAMILIAR WITH ACTS OF SEEING HEARING TOUCHING TASTING SMELLING 3TILL SUCH ACTS x HAVE A BODILY BASISv 4HE BODY IS THE FOUNDATION OF ,ONERGANS NORMATIVE SUBJECTFOR WITHOUT EYES THERE WOULD BE NO SEEING WITHOUT EARS THERE WOULD BE NO HEARING AND SO ON 3INCE IT WOULD BE INADEQUATE TO LUMP ALL EXPERIENCE TOGETHER ,ONERGAN DIVIDES OUR EXPERIENCE INTO IDEAL OR CONSTRUCTED PATTERNS OF EXPERIENCE WHICH ARE INTERCONNECTED AND OVERLAPPING 4HESE PATTERNS OF EXPERIENCE INCLUDE BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO THE BIOLOGICAL AESTHETIC INTELLECTUAL DRAMATIC SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL AND RELIGIOUS 4HE NOTION OF A PATTERN OF EXPERIENCE IS AMENABLE TO OUR DISCUSSION OF SUBJECTIVITY BECAUSE IT ALLOWS US TO MAGNIFY THE COMPLEXITY OF HUMAN EXPERIENCE IN TERMS OF COGNITION WILL AND AFFECTION 7HEN A PERSON SMELLS A mOWER HISHER BIOLOGICAL PATTERN OF EXPERIENCE IS BROUGHT TO THE FORE IN THE ACTUAL PHYSICAL BENDING TOWARD THE PLANT AND IN SMELLING THE SCENT WITH HISHER OLFACTORY APPARATUS 4HE PSYCHOLOGICAL PATTERN OF THE SUBJECT MAY BE INVOLVED IF THE SCENT OF THE mOWER CAUSES THE PERSON TO REMEMBER SOMETHING OR SOMEONE ,ONERGANS SYSTEMATIZING OF THE PATTERNS OF EXPERIENCE IS NOT MEANT TO LIMIT THE KNOWING OF THE HUMAN SUBJECT BUT TO BETTER UNDERSTAND IT 4HESE PATTERNS OF EXPERI ENCE MOREOVER ARE NOT DIRECTIVES FOR HOW HUMANS SHOULD LIVE LIFE BUT POSSIBILITIES FOR HUMANITY 4HE PATTERNS DO NOT THEMATIZE OR CONSTRUCT THE SUBJECTIVITY OF THE HUMAN BEING RATHER THEY OPEN THE PERSON FOR AUTHENTIC LIVING ,ONERGAN EXPLAINS h)M NOT ATTEMPTING AN EXHAUSTIVE ACCOUNT OF POSSIBLE PATTERNS OF EXPERIENCE )M TRYING TO BREAK DOWN THE NOTION THAT MAN IS SOME lXED ENTITYx (UMAN LIVES ARE NOT ALL THE SAMEv ,ONERGAN INTRODUCES THESE PATTERNS IN ORDER TO EXPLAIN THE MANY INmUENCES ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PERSON 4HE IDEAL AND AUTHENTIC SUBJECT WHOM WE PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED DEVELOPS IN AND THROUGH ATTENDING TO THESE PATTERNS OF EXPERIENCE )N THIS STUDY ) FOCUS MAINLY ON THREE PATTERNS OF EXPERIENCE THE BIOLOGICAL DRAMATIC AND SOCIAL PATTERNS OF EXPERIENCE 4HE BIOLOGICAL PATTERN OF EXPERIENCE RELATES TO THE INSTINCTIVE AND THE PHYSIOLOGICAL EXPERIENCE OF BEING HUMAN "Y ACCENTING THE BIOLOGICAL PATTERN OF EXPERIENCE OF HUMANITY WE CAN UNDERSCORE THE REALITY THAT AUTHEN TIC SUBJECTS ARE EMBODIED NOT MERELY METAPHORICALLY BUT LITERALLY &URTHERMORE BY REALIZING THE IMPORTANCE OF EMBODIMENT WE CAN START TO UNDERSTAND HOW OUR BODIES BOTH RESPOND TO AND ARE AFFECTED
^4HE /PEN 0OSTURE OF ,ONERGANS 3UBJECT
BY EXTERNAL STIMULI INCLUDING OTHER PEOPLE AND OBJECTS )MPLICIT IN ,ONERGANS DISCUSSION OF THE HUMAN PERSON IS THE IDEA THAT BIOLOGY BOTH CONDITIONS AND IS SHAPED BY THE EXTERNAL WORLD !S PREVIOUSLY STATED HUMANITY IS NOT STATIC RATHER IT DEVELOPS %VEN THOUGH OUR BIOLOGICAL COMPOSITION IS OPEN TO DEVELOPMENT WE MUST ALSO REALIZE THAT OUR BODY MARKS OUR INDIVIDUALITY /UR BIOLOGY WHICH ENCOMPASSES OUR SEX SKIN TONE PHYSICAL ABILITY AND MENTAL CAPACITY PARTICULARIZES US AND HIGHLIGHTS OUR VARIOUS TALENTS AND STRENGTHS 4HESE DIFFERENCES NEED NOT APPEAR LIMITING RATHER THEY SHOULD BE UNDERSTOOD AS DISTINCTIVE GIFTS AND POTENTIALITIES FOR DEVELOPMENT !S PARTICULAR EMBODIED SUBJECTS WE ENGAGE THE WORLD 4HE WAY IN WHICH THE SUBJECT DEALS WITH OTHERS IN THE WORLD BRINGS TO THE FORE THE DRAMATIC PATTERN OF EXPERIENCE THE PERSONAL NARRATIVE OF THE SUBJECTS LIVED LIFE IN THE WORLD ,ONERGANS DISCUSSION OF THE DRAMATIC PATTERN OF EXPERIENCE RESONATES WITH THE SPONTANEOUS INTERSUBJECTIVITY THAT WE ALREADY DISCUSSED AND ILLUMINATES HOW EACH PERSON IS ALREADY INVOLVED WITH AND RESPONSIBLE FOR OTHERS !S MEMBERS OF COMMUNITIES HUMAN BEINGS HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO MOVE TOWARD THE GOAL OF THE HUMAN GOOD BY WAY OF BECOMING AUTHENTIC SUBJECTS ,ONERGANS INTEREST IN THE DRAMATIC PATTERN OF EXPERIENCE OF THE SUBJECT SHOULD REMIND US OF THE WAY IN WHICH HE PRIVILEGES THE GOOD EXISTENTIALIST SUBJECT A PERSON WHO lNDS HIMHERSELF IN A SITUATION THAT DEMANDS UNDERSTANDING ACTION AND LOVE 4HE SOCIAL PATTERN OF EXPERIENCE EXPRESSES THE HUMAN PERSONS CONCRETE RELATIONSHIPS AS SHE MOVES INTO THE LARGER COMMUNITY !S THE SUBJECT DRAMATICALLY ENGAGES THE WORLD SHE IS ENCOURAGED TO PARTICIPATE IN INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS IN THE POLITICAL ECONOMIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL SPHERES OF SOCIETY 7E CAN INFER FROM ,ONERGANS WRITINGS THAT AS THE DRAMATIC SUBJECT TRANSCENDS HIMHERSELF SHE BECOMES A SOCIAL SUB JECT !S SOCIAL SUBJECT THE HUMAN PERSON RELIES ON AND ACTS IN CERTAIN INSTITUTIONS PLAYS A ROLE IN THE ECONOMIC WELL BEING OR DISINTEGRATION OF THE COMMUNITY AND EITHER BENElTS FROM OR IS ALIENATED BY CERTAIN TECHNOLOGICAL DISCOVERIES )NDEED THE WAY IN WHICH WE ENGAGE THE WORLD EFFECTS EITHER PROGRESS OR DECLINE ,ONERGAN WRITES h4HE DRAMATIC SUBJECT AS PRACTICAL ;IE THE SOCIAL SUBJECT= ORIGINATES AND DEVELOPS CAPITAL AND TECHNOLOGY THE ECONOMY AND THE STATE "Y HIS INTELLIGENCE HE PROGRESSES AND BY HIS BIAS HE DECLINESv 4HE SOCIAL PAT
-ICHELE 3ARACINO /N "EING (UMAN
TERN OF EXPERIENCE THEREFORE TRACES THE PRACTICAL AND CONCRETE LIVING OF THE SUBJECT AMONG OTHERS %VEN AS ,ONERGAN COMPLEXIlES OUR THEOLOGICAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE HUMAN PERSON THROUGH HIS DISCUSSION OF THE PATTERNS OF EXPERIENCE HE WARNS US AGAINST INTERPRETING THE SUBJECT AS STRATIlED BY EXPERIENCE ,ONERGAN ARGUES THAT THE SUBJECT IS UNIlED AND WHOLE THROUGH THE INTERCONNECTEDNESS OF HISHER SPIRITUAL AND MATERIAL DIMENSIONS 4HE BODY IS THE MATERIAL BASE OF THE PERSON AND THE MIND PROVIDES FOR THE SPIRITUAL FOUNDATION OF THE HUMAN )NDEED THESE MATERIAL AND SPIRITUAL REALITIES TOGETHER FOSTER THE POSSIBILITY OF SELF TRANSCENDENCE !GAIN TRANSCENDENCE DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE SPIRITUAL REALM LEAVES THE MATERIAL REALM BEHIND BUT RATHER MEANS THAT THE WHOLE PERSON POSTURES FORWARD IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THE ANTICIPATION OF SOMETHING GREATER /NE PROBLEM SURFACES IN ,ONERGANS EXPOSITION OF THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE MIND AND BODY OR BETWEEN THE SPIRITUAL AND MATERIAL DIMENSIONS !T CERTAIN POINTS IN HIS WRITINGS ,ONERGAN IMPLIES THAT THE SPIRITUAL COMPONENT OF THE HUMAN IS COMPREHENSIVE AND THUS SUPERIOR TO THE MATERIAL COMPONENT )N THE CITATION BELOW HE ARGUES THAT THE CENTRAL FORM OF THE PERSON IS THE SPIRITUAL BASE SEEMINGLY UNDERMINING THE IMPORTANCE OF BODILY EXPERIENCE ! SOLUTION SEEMS TO RESULT FROM A SIMPLE PRINCIPLE NAMELY THAT MATERIAL REALITY CANNOT PERFORM THE ROLE OR FUNCTION OF SPIRITUAL REALITY BUT SPIRITUAL REALITY CAN PERFORM THE ROLE OR FUNCTION OF MATERIAL REALITY x FOR THE SPIRITUAL IS COMPREHENSIVE WHAT CAN EMBRACE THE WHOLE UNIVERSE THROUGH KNOWLEDGE CAN PROVIDE THE CENTRE AND GROUND OF UNITY IN THE MATERIAL CONJUGATES OF A SINGLE MAN
%VEN AS ONE WANTS TO AT lRST ARGUE THAT ,ONERGANS THOUGHT CONTAINS A SUBTLE DUALISM IT IS NECESSARY TO REALIZE THAT HE IS ATTEMPTING TO EMPHA SIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF BEING HUMAN IN TERMS OF OUR FEELING FOR OTHERS RATHER THAN ONLY IN TERMS OF OUR KNOWING OR ACTING IN RELATION TO OTHERS -OREOVER AS WE RECALL ,ONERGANS ESTEEM FOR THE CORPOREAL PHENOM ENOLOGY OF -ERLEAU 0ONTY IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT ,ONERGAN IS FERVENTLY IN FAVOR OF A #HRISTIAN ANTHROPOLOGY THAT INTEGRATES EMBODIMENT INTO THE INTELLECTUAL MORAL AND SPIRITUAL LIFE OF THE SUBJECT
^4HE /PEN 0OSTURE OF ,ONERGANS 3UBJECT
#ONCLUSION )N THIS CHAPTER WE HAVE TRACED ,ONERGANS UNDERSTANDING OF SUBJECTIVITY FROM HIS REJECTION OF THE STATIC NOTIONS OF FACULTY PSYCHOLOGY TO THE MORE DYNAMIC AND PROTEAN LEANINGS OF INTENTIONALITY ANALYSIS )MPLICIT IN THIS DISCUSSION IS ,ONERGANS ASSUMPTION THAT THE SUBJECT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO DEVELOP HIMHERSELF BY REJECTING BIAS AND BEING OPEN TO INTELLECTUAL MORAL AND RELIGIOUS CONVERSION 4HROUGH CONVERSION THE SUBJECT JOURNEYS TOWARD BECOMING AN AUTHENTIC SUBJECT )N THE SECOND SECTION OF THE CHAPTER THEREFORE ) OUTLINED THREE DIMENSIONS OF AU THENTIC SUBJECTIVITY THE DESIRE TO KNOW A CAPACITY FOR TRANSCENDENCE AND A POTENTIAL FOR RELATIONSHIP WITH 'OD AND OTHERS IN COMMUNITY ) THEN ARGUED THAT BY DEVELOPING ONESELF AS AUTHENTIC THE SUBJECT IS OPENED FOR 'OD AND OTHERS !S A RESULT OPENNESS BECAME AN IMPORTANT THEME IN THE THIRD SECTION WHERE ) EXPLORED WHAT ,ONERGAN MEANT WHEN HE EXPLAINED OPENNESS OF THE SUBJECT BY WAY OF FACT ACHIEVE MENT AND GIFT ,ASTLY ) DEMONSTRATED THAT ,ONERGANS SUBJECT UNLIKE THE DISEMBODIED SUBJECT OF MODERNITY AND THE OVERDETERMINED BODY OF POSTMODERNITY IS A SPECIlC CORPOREAL SUBJECT WHO IS CONTINUOUSLY CHALLENGED TO KNOW ACT AND LOVE IN THE FACE OF OTHERS
,EVINASS 3UBJECT AS 0OSTURED FOR THE /THER
,
EVINAS LIKE ,ONERGAN HAS A PROFOUND FAITH IN THE ABILITY OF THE SUBJECT TO REACH AUTHENTIC SUBJECTIVITY )N FACT IN AN ESSAY ENTITLED h6IOLENCE OF THE &ACE v ,EVINAS UNDERSCORES THE VALUE IN ALL OF US TO hTO ASPIRE TO SAINTLINESSv !LSO AS IN THE CASE OF ,ONERGAN THE NOTION OF POSTURE IS CRUCIAL TO ,EVINASS DISCUSSION OF SUBJECTIVITY )NDEED FOR ,EVINAS HUMAN BEINGS ARE CALLED INTO A POSTURE OF SAINTLINESS THROUGH A DRAMATIC ENCOUNTER WITH THE /THER %VEN AS ,EVINAS SPEAKS OF FACING AS THAT ON WHICH SUBJECTIVITY IS BASED AND RESPONDS TO ) AM INTERESTED MORE IN THE NOTION OF POSTURE THAN OF FACING 0OSTURE REFERS TO THE STANCE IN WHICH THE SUBJECT lNDS HISHER BEING IN BECOMING OPEN FOR THE /THER RATHER THAN IN TERMS OF SELF )N ORDER TO GET AT THE ROOT OF WHAT ,EVINAS MEANS BY SAINTLINESS OR BEING FOR THE /THER THIS CHAPTER WILL UNFOLD IN FOUR PARTS )N THE lRST SECTION ,EVINASS NOTION OF FACING AN ENCOUNTER THAT INVITES THE SUBJECT INTO A STANCE OF OPENNESS FOR THE /THER IS DETAILED 4HE IMPLICATIONS OF THIS OPENNESS ARE THEN EXPLORED IN THE SECOND SECTION OF THIS CHAPTER &ROM THERE ) SHOW HOW THE FACE CALLS FORTH THE RESPONSIBLE SUBJECT TO BE OPENED THROUGH DISCOURSE THROUGH THE DEMANDS OF TIME AND THROUGH PHYSICAL POSTURING &INALLY ,EVINASS GENDERED DESCRIPTION OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SUBJECT AND /THER CONCLUDES MY INVESTI GATION )N USING ,EVINASS THOUGHT ON SUBJECTIVITY TO COMPLICATE AND DEEPEN OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE HUMAN PERSON IN THE CONTEMPORARY LANDSCAPE ) HOPE TO ALLOW THE PLAY BETWEEN ,ONERGANS AND ,EVINASS THOUGHT TO GUIDE US TOWARD A MORE APT ARTICULATION OF SUBJECTIVITY FOR OUR POSTMODERN CONTEXT
,EVINAS EMPLOYS THE PHRASE FOR THE /THER A FEW OF HIS WORKS INCLUDING THE ESSAY h'OD AND 0HILOSOPHY v IN /F 'OD 7HO #OMES TO -IND D )N HIS MOST COMPREHENSIVE WORK /THERWISE 4HAN "EING E ,EVINAS REFERS TO THIS SAME APPROACH AS THE hONE FOR THE OTHERv
-ICHELE 3ARACINO /N "EING (UMAN
,EVINASS .OTION OF THE &ACE 4HE PHENOMENON OF FACING CAN BE DETECTED IN BOTH HIS CONFES SIONAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL WORKS TO DIFFERENT DEGREES !S *ILL 2OBBINS HAS OBSERVED h;T=HE CONFESSIONAL WRITINGS ARE THE PLACE IN ,EVINASS WORK WHERE HE MAKES EXPLICIT THE REFERENCE TO *UDAISM THAT IS LARGELY IMPLICIT IN THE PHILOSOPHICAL WORKSv !ND NOWHERE IS HIS *EWISH RELIGIOSITY WRITTEN MORE LARGELY THAN IN HIS DESCRIPTION OF ETHICS AS A RELATION OF FACING (IS WRITINGS ON THE *EWISH TRADITION AND THE 4ALMUD IN $IFlCULT &REEDOM MAKE APPARENT THAT THE HEURISTIC OF COVENANTAL OBLIGATION INFORMS ,EVINASS ETHICAL NOTION OF THE FACE WHICH IS ROOTED MOST SPECIlCALLY IN THE THEOPHANY IN %XODUS )N THIS TEXT 'OD AS /THER INITIATES THE FACE TO FACE ENCOUNTER WITH -OSES BUT NEVER SHOWS HIS ACTUAL FACE TO -OSESS NAKED EYE ,EVINAS COMMENTS ON THIS ENCOUNTER IN h2EVELATION IN THE *EWISH 4RADITIONv h4HE /LD 4ESTAMENT HONOURS -OSES AS THE GREATEST OF THE PROPHETS -OSES HAD THE MOST DIRECT RELATIONSHIP WITH 'OD DESCRIBED IN %XODUS AS @FACE TO FACE !ND YET THE VISION OF THE DIVINE FACE IS REFUSED AND ACCORDING TO %XODUS ONLY 'ODS @BACK IS SHOWN TO -OSESv 7E CAN INFER FROM ,EVINASS COMMENTS THAT THE FACE TO FACE CONVERSATION SIGNIlES A PERSONAL ENCOUNTER WITH 'OD WHEREBY 'ODS NEARNESS AND PROXIMITY SUMMONS HUMANITY IN OBLIGATION 3IGNIlCANTLY SINCE -OSES NEVER SEES HIS INTERLOCUTORS FACE THERE REMAINS AN ELEMENT OF MYSTERY WHICH EVOKES AWE IN THE SUBJECT 4HE PROHIBITION AGAINST GAZING WHICH OCCURS IN THE THEOPHANY ACCENTUATES THE SEPARATION AND ALTERITY THAT EXISTS BETWEEN DIVINITY AND HUMANITY 4HE TENSION BETWEEN 'ODS PROXIMITY AND DISTANCE LEADS TO A PARA DOXICAL PREDICAMENT IN WHICH 'ODS REVELATION IS INTERPRETED SIMUL TANEOUSLY AS INTIMATE AND GOOD WHILE ALSO DISTANT AND MYSTERIOUS !S THE INTIMACY OF THIS RELATIONSHIP UNDERSCORES THE INTERSUBJECTIVITY OF HUMANITY THE DISTANCE HIGHLIGHTS THE DISTINCTIVENESS OF BOTH PARTIES )N OTHER WORDS EVEN THOUGH THERE IS A DElNITE FEELING OF INTIMACY PRESENT IN THE NON VISUAL ENCOUNTER OF THE FACE THE ALTERITY THAT IMBUES THE RELATIONSHIP IS CAUSE FOR RESPECT AND RESPONSIBILITY -ORE GENERALLY THE VACILLATION BETWEEN THE PROXIMITY AND DISTANCE DETERMINES THE RELATION
^,EVINASS 3UBJECT AS 0OSTURED FOR THE /THER
OF THE SUBJECT TO THE /THER AND LEADS TO THE RESPONSIBLE POSTURING OF HUMANITY FOR THE /THER !S ,EVINAS DISCUSSES THE ETHICAL RELATION BETWEEN SUBJECT AND /THER WE CAN BEGIN TO GRASP THAT HE INTERPRETS THE FACE IN TWO WAYS AS A mEETING TRACE OF THE )NlNITE NON THEMATIZABLE 'OD AS WELL AS A STANCE THAT PEOPLE EMBODY IN THEIR INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS 4O BE SURE WHILE ,EVINAS INTUITS 'OD AS A TRACE IN FACING DEVISING A NOTION OF DIVINITY IS NOT ,EVINASS PRIMARY GOAL (E RESISTS THEOLOGIZING MOST PROBABLY BECAUSE OF THE WAY IN WHICH POSITIVIST THEOLOGY HAS REDUCED 'OD TO AN OBJECT A THEME (IS MAIN CONCERN RATHER IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE SUBJECT THAT IS CALLED FORTH BY THE TRACE OR PASSING OF THE )NlNITE 4HEREFORE THE TRACE CANNOT BE DElNED AS A PRESENCE INSTEAD LIKE AN ETHEREAL VISITATION THE TRACE ENTERS AND WITHDRAWS AT THE COMMAND OF THE /THER AS A NON PRESENCE OF THE )NlNITE 7HETHER FACING THE TRACE OF 'OD OR OF A HUMAN BEING THE PERSON ONLY BECOMES SUBJECT IN RESPONSE TO THE ETHICAL RELATION OF THE FACE 4HE SOCIAL RELATION OF FACING ORIENTS THE PERSON TO A POSITION OF SAINTLY SUBJECTIVITY &OR ,EVINAS EVIDENTLY BEING HUMAN ONLY EMERGES IN THE FACE OF ALTERITY $IFFERENCE IS THE IMPETUS FOR ETHICAL BEING FOR SAINTLY SUBJECTIVITY $IFFERENCE AS THE NON PRESENCE OF THE )NlNITE OR AS THE TRACE OF AN OTHER SHOULD MAKE THE PERSON IN QUESTION SHUDDER AND PAUSE THAT IS CONVERT HIMHER TO BEING A SUBJECT FOR THE /THER .EVERTHELESS SOME TRACES OF ALTERITY AS STARK AS THEY MAY BE DO NOT FAZE US 4O EMPHASIZE THIS POINT ,EVINAS ACKNOWLEDGES THE BIBLICAL TRIAD OF THE WIDOW THE ORPHAN AND THE POOR AS A TRACE OF OUR IRRESPONSIBILITY TO AND IGNO RANCE OF OTHERS &AR BEYOND THESE BIBLICAL REFERENCES HOWEVER WE CAN lND INSTANCES IN EVERYDAY LIFE THAT CALL US TO BE MOVED 4ESTIMONIES OF (OLOCAUST SURVIVORS MEDIA IMAGES OF INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM AND STATISTICS ON GLOBAL POVERTY ARE ALL MARKERS OF SUFFERING THAT SHOULD CAUSE US TO mINCH AND DISRUPT OUR APPARENTLY SEAMLESS LIVES 4HESE IMAGES SIGNIFY THE NEEDS OF THE /THER AS EMERGENCIES THAT CALL FOR US TO RESPOND 9ET ONE WONDERS WHETHER THESE TRACES INCRIMINATE US HOLD US HOSTAGE OR EVEN MAKE US PAUSE ,EVINASS UNDERSTANDING OF SUBJECTIVITY IS PREDICATED ON A NOTION OF BEING HELD HOSTAGE BECAUSE OF SUCH EMERGENCIES
-ICHELE 3ARACINO /N "EING (UMAN
!S HOSTAGE FOR THE /THER THE SUBJECT IS CALLED TO CARE FOR THE /THER IN NON TOTALIZING WAYS THAT IS BY WAY OF THE GESTURES OF JUSTICE GENEROSITY AND SACRIlCEALL OF WHICH GO BEYOND THE EXPECTATION OF A PAYBACK OR RETURN 4HE TERM HOSTAGE IS A POWERFUL IMAGE FOR *EWS AND #HRISTIANS ALIKE FOR ONE CANNOT HELP BUT THINK OF THE MOMENTS IN WHICH !BRAHAMS SON )SAAC AND 'ODS SON *ESUS ARE HELD HOSTAGE FOR OTHERS )MPORTANTLY THESE SITUATIONS ARE NOT ONES OF SIMPLE EXCHANGE )T IS NOT SURPRISING THEN FOR ,EVINAS THE NOTION OF SACRIlCE MUST BE READ BEYOND A SYMMETRICAL SUBSTITUTION OR EQUAL TRADE )N THE SAME DISCOURSE OF $ERRIDA HE ARGUES THAT SACRIlCE SHOULD NOT BE UNDERSTOOD IN TERMS EQUAL EXCHANGE 3ACRIlCE INSTEAD IS THE GIFT THAT LEAVES A REMAINDER AND IN GIVING FOR THE /THER WE ARE FUELED BY THE DESIRE TO OFFER MORE THAN IS POSSIBLE TO GIVE -OREOVER SACRIlCE INVOLVES A MATERIAL ANDOR SPIRITUAL OPENNESS OF THE SUBJECT FOR THE /THER WHICH SURPASSES RECIPROCITY )N THE CONTEMPORARY !MERICAN CONTEXT OPENNESS MIGHT INVOLVE THE RELINQUISHMENT OF POWER AND PRESTIGE FOR OTHERS !FlRMATIVE ACTION POLICIES FOR INSTANCE INVOLVE SUCH SACRIlCE ,EVINAS WHILE NOT EXPLICITLY REFERRING TO THESE ISSUES FORCES US TO THINK ABOUT THEM AS HE INSISTS THAT IN OUR EXISTENCE WE ARE ALREADY TAKING THE PLACE OF ANOTHER )N AN ESSAY ENTITLED h0HILOSOPHY AND 4RANSCENDENCE v HE DEMANDS THAT WE CONSIDER THE PROBLEMATIC WAYS IN WHICH OUR WELL BEING IS SECURED ONLY AT THE COST OF ANOTHERS WELL BEING )N SACRIlCE NONETHE LESS OUR WELL BEING COMES SECOND TO THE /THERS NEED FOR JUSTICE &OR ,EVINAS SACRIlCE IS A RESPONSIBILITY OF ALL FOR ALL "EING FOR THE /THER WHETHER MALE OR FEMALE *EW OR #HRISTIAN OR BLACK OR WHITE DEMANDS SUCH SELmESS OPENNESS )N HIS INTRODUCTORY REMARKS TO 4IME AND THE /THER 2ICHARD #OHEN A FOREMOST ,EVINASIAN SCHOLAR EXPLAINS THE RANDOM DIMENSION OF BEING CHOSEN FOR THE /THER h)N THE FACE OF THE /THER GOODNESS EMERGES AS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE SUBJECT WHICH HAS ALWAYS ALREADY BEEN RESPONSIBLE PRIOR TO ANY EXPLICIT AGREEMENTS PRIOR EVEN TO THE SUBJECTS ABILITY TO WELCOME THE /THER /BLIGATION INSERTS INTO THE EGOv ,EVINAS #LEARLY ,EVINASS THEORY TRANSCENDS IDENTITY POLITICS OR COMMUNITIES BOUND BY RACE CREED OR CULTURE /NLY THE NEED OF THE /THER MATTERS FOR ALTERITYS CALL FOR COMMUNITY CUTS ACROSS CATEGORIES OF ACCIDENTAL DIFFERENCE AND SIGNALS PERSONS IN NEED OF JUSTICE AND SOLACE
^,EVINASS 3UBJECT AS 0OSTURED FOR THE /THER
,EVINAS EXPLAINS THE NEED OF THE /THER AND THE DEMAND FOR SACRI lCE THROUGH THE LANGUAGE OF NUDITY AND NAKEDNESS "Y EMPLOYING THE RICH RHETORIC OF DRESS MASK AND ADORNMENT HE ILLUSTRATES HOW THE TRACE OF THE FACE DENUDES UNDRESSES AND DISARMS THE SUBJECT AN EVENT IN WHICH THE SELF S UNITY IS BROKEN BEFORE THE FACE OF THE /THER 4HE SUBJECT IN ITS APPROACH OF THE /THER MIGHT ATTEMPT TO RELATE TO HIMHER THROUGH STEREOTYPICAL THEMES THROUGH A MASK OF DIFFERENCE .EVERTHELESS THE DEMAND AND VULNERABILITY OF THE /THER CUTS ACROSS THIS MASK #ONSEQUENTLY THE SUBJECT IS OPENED UP FOR THE /THER AS SHE IS CALLED INTO QUESTION BY THE UNTHEMATIZABLE /THER ,EVINAS WRITES IN h4RANSCENDENCE AND (EIGHTv 4HE PUTTING INTO QUESTION OF THE SELF IS PRECISELY A WELCOME TO THE ABSOLUTELY OTHER 4HE /THER DOES NOT SHOW ITSELF TO THE ) AS A THEME 2ATHER THE EPIPHANY OF THE ABSOLUTELY /THER IS A FACE BY WHICH THE /THER CHALLENGES AND COMMANDS ME THROUGH HIS NAKEDNESS THROUGH HIS DESTITUTION (E CHALLENGES ME FROM HIS HUMILITY AND HIS HEIGHT
!S THE SUBJECT OPENS FOR THE /THER THE /THER IS NAKED IN THAT SHE RESISTS ANY ACT OF THEMATIZATION OR OBJECTIlCATION ,EVINASS /THER RE VEALS HIMHERSELF ONLY BY APPEALING TO THE SUBJECT "Y REVEALING ONESELF THROUGH A CALL THE /THER MAINTAINS HISHER INDEPENDENCE FROM THE PRECONCEIVED IDEAS OF THE SUBJECT AND COMMANDS THE SUBJECT TO NOTICE HISHER PARTICULARITY AND SINGULARITY ,EVINAS WRITES h4HE NUDITY OF THE FACE IS A DESTITUTION WITHOUT ANY CULTURAL ORNAMENTv "Y USING THE PHRASE @CULTURAL ORNAMENT ,EVINAS ATTEMPTS TO UNDERSCORE HOW WE SOMETIMES IMPUTE CHARACTERISTICS ONTO PEOPLE WITHOUT ATTEND ING TO THEIR DISTINCTIVENESS AND PARTICULARITY HENCE STEREOTYPING THEM 7E UNJUSTLY RELATE TO PEOPLE BY COMMONSENSE TYPING ANDOR A MASK &OR SAINTLY SUBJECTIVITY TO EMERGE THE SUBJECT MUST BE REPOSITIONED IN A RELATIONSHIP WITH THE /THER NOT BASED ON MASKS TYPES OR THEMES BUT ON FEELING FOR THE /THER )T IS WORTH NOTING THAT THE TYPING TO WHICH ,EVINAS REFERS RESONATES WITH THE WAYS IN WHICH ,ONERGAN ARGUES AGAINST THE PRACTICE OF CONCEPTUALISM THE AGGRESSIVE ACTION WHERE HU MAN BEINGS lX OTHERS BY STATIC AND INAPPROPRIATE CONCEPTS WITHOUT ATTENDING TO THE SPECIlC SITUATION !S ,EVINAS SPEAKS OF THE NUDITY OF THE FACE HE BOTH CAUTIONS THE SUBJECT AGAINST CONCEPTUALISM AND ALERTS
-ICHELE 3ARACINO /N "EING (UMAN
THE READER TO THE ALTERITY OF THE /THER (E AFlRMS AN IDEA OF JUSTICE IN WHICH WE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR OTHERS BEYOND OUR MASKS )N ADDITION TO PINPOINTING THE DANGERS OF RELATING TO OTHERS BASED ON A TYPE OR MASK ,EVINAS USES THE TERM hHEIGHTv TO CONNOTE THE RADICAL ALTERITY OF THE /THER AS WELL AS TO UNDERSCORE THE INTANGIBLE DEPTH AND EXCELLENCE OF THE TRACE OF THE /THER )N h-EANING AND 3ENSE v ,EVINAS EXPLAINS THAT hHEIGHT INTRODUCES A SENSE INTO BEINGv 4HIS SENSE ACCENTUATES THE PHYSICAL AND SPATIAL DIMENSIONS OF THE PARTICULARITY OF THE /THER AND THE TRANSCENDENT REACH OF THE SUBJECT FOR THE /THER 4HROUGH THE NAKEDNESS AND HEIGHT OF ALTERITY THE SUBJECT IS CALLED TO GIFTED SUBJECTIVITY FOR THE /THER 4HROUGH THE RAW NEED AND STARK FACE OF THE /THER THE SUBJECT IS UNDRESSED THAT IS MADE VULNERABLE 4HE SUBJECT IS TURNED INSIDE OUT AS SHE IS OPENED FOR THE /THER BY THE /THERS DEMAND ,EVINASS COMMITMENT TO THE /THER IS NOT BASED ON STEREOTYPING OR THEMATIC REmECTION 2ATHER ACCORDING TO ,EVINASS THOUGHTS IN h4RANSCENDENCE AND (EIGHT v RESPONSIBLE SUBJECTIVITY OR SAINTLY BEING EMERGES FROM WITHOUT IN THAT hTHE PUTTING INTO QUESTION OF THE ) BY THE /THER IS AN IPSO FACTO ELECTION THE PROMOTION TO A PRIVILEGED PLACE ON WHICH ALL THAT IS NOT ) DEPENDSv 3AINTLY SUBJECTIVITY IS NOT ABOUT BEING GOOD OR NICE BUT ABOUT ONES ENTIRE EXISTENCE BEING REORIENTED FOR OTHERS 0LAYING WITH THE #ATHOLIC NOTION OF SAINTHOOD IS NOT ACCIDENTAL HERE ,EVINAS KNOWS THE HOLISTIC REALITY OF BEING A SAINT WHICH IS BASED ON A UNDENIABLE CALL FROM BEYONDA CALL THAT TURNS ONES SENSE OF SELF INSIDE OUT FOR OTHERS &OR ,EVINAS MOREOVER THIS RESPONSIBLE SAINTLY SUBJECTIVITY PRE DATES #ATHOLICISM AND IS BORN IN A *EWISH NOTION OF CHOSENNESS "EING CHOSEN BY 'OD AND FOR 'OD ASSUMES COVENANTAL RESPONSIBILITY THAT IS PRIOR TO ALL DELIBERATION AND REmECTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH A PREDISPOSITION OF THE HEART !CCORDING TO 4HE *EWISH %NCYCLOPEDIA A *EWISH INTERPRETATION OF HEART ENCOM PASSES THE HUMAN CAPACITIES FOR KNOWING FEELING AND WILLING WHILE ALSO REFERRING TO THE hSEAT OF THE EMOTIONAL AND INTELLECTUAL LIFEv OF A PERSON "OTH OF THESE REFERENCES ARE NOTEWORTHY BECAUSE THEY ILLUMINATE THE FACT THAT ,EVINASS SUBJECT IS A HOLISTIC EMBODIED SUBJECT FOR WHOM INTELLIGIBILITY IS LOCATED IN SENSIBILITY RATHER THAN MERELY IN THE SPATIAL CONlGURATION OF THE MIND
^,EVINASS 3UBJECT AS 0OSTURED FOR THE /THER
"Y FURTHER UNPACKING ,EVINASS READING OF SUBJECTIVITY AS SENSIBILITY ONE CAN EASILY DETECT AN AFFECTIVE DIMENSION TO HIS ANTHROPOLOGY )N DEED SAINTLINESS IS ROOTED IN A CORPOREAL DESIRE TO BE FOR THE /THERA DEPARTURE FROM AN ETHICS THAT RESTS IN COGNITION AND WILL )T IS PASSION FOR THE /THER TO THE POINT OF DEATH THAT CONVERTS THE SUBJECT INTO BEING 4HE AFFECTIVE DIMENSION IN ,EVINASS THEORY ECHOES EVEN IF SLIGHTLY THE EMPHASIS ON FEELING WE CAN LOCATE IN ,ONERGANS LATER WORK &OR ,EVINAS HOWEVER THE INTERPRETATION OF FEELING IS MORE OBVIOUS THAN FOR ,ONERGAN 4O BE SURE IT IS FEELING THAT BRINGS US INTO RIGHT RELA TIONSHIP THAT IS SHALOM WITH OTHERS %VEN BEFORE QUESTIONING AND CONSCIOUSNESS THERE EXISTS OBLIGATION FOR THE /THER 0UT ANOTHER WAY BEFORE COGNITIVE REmECTION OR VOLITIONAL ACTION THERE IS AN AFFECTIVE ALMOST INTUITIVE FEELING FOR THE /THER !CCORDING TO ,EVINAS THE TRACE OF THE )NlNITE REVERSES THE ORDER OF HUMAN ACTION FROM A VOLUNTARY SITUATION IN WHICH THE SUBJECT ACTS TOWARD THE /THER IN NAÆVE FREEDOM TO A HOSTAGE SITUATION IN WHICH THE /THERS DEMAND FOR JUSTICE PRECEDES THE SUBJECTS REmECTION ON OR ENGAGEMENT OF FREEDOM 5P UNTIL THIS POINT THE NOTION OF )NlNITY HAS BEEN ALLUDED TO YET NOT EXPLAINED THOROUGHLY 7E CAN INFER FROM PREVIOUS DISCUSSIONS THAT ,EVINAS WORKS TOWARD AN UNDERSTANDING OF SUBJECTIVITY THAT TRANSCENDS MODERN FREE AND LIBERAL INTERPRETATIONS OF THE SUBJECT &URTHERMORE WE HAVE LEARNED THAT ,EVINASS SUBJECT PERFORMS A NORMATIVE ROLE BY BEING SUBJECTED TO OR EVEN HELD HOSTAGE FOR THE /THER THROUGH THE DESIRE FOR )NlNITY (IS UNDERSTANDING OF )NlNITY CERTAINLY IS EMBEDDED IN *EWISH RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE SPECIlCALLY TO THAT PARADOXICAL INTIMACY WITH THAT WHICH IS DISTANT THE REVELATION OF )NlNITY IN %XODUS .EVERTHE LESS AS MUCH OF ,EVINASS THEORY STANDS BETWEEN TWO WORLDS*EWISH THOUGHT AND 7ESTERN PHILOSOPHYIT IS ALSO NECESSARY TO TRACE HOW 7ESTERN PHILOSOPHICAL THOUGHT SPECIlCALLY IN THE WORK OF $ESCARTES INmUENCES ,EVINASS READING OF THE )NlNITE
!S ,EVINAS UPHOLDS #ARTESIAN METAPHYSICS HE LOCATES HIMSELF IN THE &RENCH #ONTINENTAL SCHOOL OF THOUGHT (IS UNDERSTANDING AND APPROPRIATION OF $ESCARTES MAKES SENSE IN LIGHT OF HIS EMPHASIS ON 0LATONIC THINKING )N h4RANSCENDENCE AND (EIGHT v HE STATES h)N AGREEMENT WITH 0LATO AND 0LOTINUS WHO DARE TO POSE AGAINST ALL GOOD SENSE SOMETHING BEYOND BEING IS NOT THE IDEA OF BEING YOUNGER THAN THE IDEA OF THE INlNITE 3HOULD WE NOT CONCEDE THAT PHILOSOPHY CANNOT CONlNE ITSELF TO THE
-ICHELE 3ARACINO /N "EING (UMAN
)N h%NIGMA AND 0HENOMENON v ,EVINAS LAMENTS THE ABSENCE OF A RESPONSIBLE PERSON hSOMEONE WHO IS NO LONGER AGGLUTINATED IN BEING WHO AT HIS OWN RISK RESPONDS TO THE ENIGMA AND GRASPS THE ALLUSION 3UCH IS THE SUBJECTIVITY ALONE UNIQUE SECRET WHICH +IERKEGAARD CAUGHT SIGHT OF v 4HIS MYSTERY THAT ,EVINAS REFERS TO IS THE INCOMPREHENSIBLE NON CORRELATIVE )NlNITE AN IDEA THAT HE RE TRIEVES FROM THE THOUGHT OF $ESCARTES )NlNITY FOR $ESCARTES REFERS TO THE DESIRE TRANSPOSED INTO THE SUBJECT THAT CAN LEAD THE SUBJECT TO NEW HEIGHTS TO TRANSCENDENCE 2EmECTING ON $ESCARTES AGAIN IN HIS EVOCATIVE ESSAY h4RANSCENDENCE AND (EIGHT v ,EVINAS CLAIMS THAT CONTRARY TO POSITIVIST READINGS OF IT THE )NlNITE IS NOT AN OBJECT THAT CAN BE THEMATIZED OR CONCEPTUALIZED BUT A TRACE THAT REORIENTS THE SUBJECT OUTWARD 4HE IDEA OF THE INlNITE IS NOT AN INTENTIONALITY FOR WHICH THE INl NITE WOULD BE THE OBJECT )NTENTIONALITY IS A MOVEMENT OF THE MIND ADJUSTED TO BEING )T TAKES AIM AND MOVES TOWARD A THEME )N THE THEME BEING COMFORTABLY ACCOMMODATES ITSELFx "EING IS THE UNCONCEALED THE THEMATIZEDTHAT ON WHICH THOUGHT STUMBLES AND STOPS BUT WHICH IT STRAIGHTAWAY RECOVERS 4HE IDEA OF THE INlNITE CONSISTS IN THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF ESCAPING FROM RECOVERY IT CONSISTS IN THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF COMING TO REST AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY HIDING PLACE OF ANY INTERIORITY WHERE THE ) COULD REPOSE HARMONIOUSLY UPON ITSELF
4HROUGH A CLOSE READING OF ,EVINASS COMMENTS WE CAN CONCLUDE THAT THE )NlNITE COUNTERS THE TOTALIZING ACTS OF INTENTIONALITY AND THEMATIZA TIONACTS THAT RENDER THE /THER AN OBJECT OR PROJECTION OF THE SUBJECTS NEED AND IMAGINATION !CCORDINGLY INTENTIONALITY AND THEMATIZATION PRIMACY OF ONTOLOGY AS HAS BEEN TAUGHT UP TO NOW AND AGAINST WHICH IN &RANCE *EAN 7AHL AND &ERDINAND !LQUI£ HAVE VIGOROUSLY PROTESTED !ND THAT INTENTIONAL ITY IS NOT THE ULTIMATE SPIRITUAL RELATION v ,EVINAS IS NOT ALONE IN THIS GENEROUS OR LESS CARICATURED READING OF $ESCARTES #HARLES 4AYLOR INTERPRETS THE #ARTESIAN COGITO IN LIGHT OF 'OD !LSO 4INA #HANTER ARGUES THAT $ESCARTES WAS NOT AS CERTAIN OR POSITIVIST AS HE IS CARICATURED TO BE 9ET THE $ESCARTES WE ENCOUNTER IN ,ONERGANS WORK 4HE 3UBJECT IS A TRADITIONAL READING OF $ESCARTES WHICH UPHOLDS THE AUTONOMOUS NATURE OF THE COGITO AND THE CERTITUDE ASSOCIATED WITH POSITIVIST EPISTEMOLOGY
^,EVINASS 3UBJECT AS 0OSTURED FOR THE /THER
DISREGARD THE /THERS DISTINCTIVENESS AND RELEGATE THE /THER TO HISHER MASK .ONETHELESS THE ALTERITY OF THE )NlNITE CALLS THE SUBJECT OUT OF HIMHERSELF AND POSTURES THE SUBJECT FOR THE RESPONSIBILITY OF BEING FOR THE PARTICULAR NEEDS OF THE /THER 4HE PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PHILOSOPHICAL STANCE OF IMMA NENCE ACCORDING TO ,EVINAS ARE CHECKED BY THE TRANSCENDENT DEMAND OF #ARTESIAN )NlNITY h$ESCARTES SHATTERS IMMANENCE THANKS TO THE IDEA OF THE INlNITEv h4RANSCENDENCE AND (EIGHT v 2ECALL FROM THE lRST CHAPTER THAT BOTH ,EVINAS AND ,ONERGAN ATTEMPT TO EXPLAIN BEING HUMAN BEYOND THE SCOPE OF IMMANENCE WHICH MEANS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE SELF 4HE IMMANENT SELF ACTS AS IF IT IS CLOSED OFF AND SELF SUFlCIENT IN RELATION TO OTHERS !CCORDING TO ,EVINAS AND ,ONERGAN HOWEVER A PERSON WHO IS CLOSED UP WITHIN HIMHERSELF EXHIBITS NEITHER AN AUTHENTIC NOR RESPONSIBLE POSTURE OF SUBJECTIVITY 1UITE APROPOS ,EVINASS READING OF THE #ARTESIAN )NlNITE CALLS THE SUBJECT FROM A POSITION OF CLOSEDNESS TO A POSTURE OF OPENNESS 4HIS CHANGE OF POSITION IS REMINISCENT OF THE SUBJECTS IMMEMORIAL PAST WITH THE /THER THAT IS TO AN ALWAYS ALREADY RELATIONSHIP WITH THE /THER !S $ESCARTES CLAIMS hTHAT THERE IS MANIFESTLY MORE REALITY IN INlNITE SUBSTANCE THAN IN lNITE TO WIT THE NOTION OF 'OD BEFORE THAT OF MYSELF v ,EVINAS ASSERTS A HUMAN BEINGS ATTACHMENT TO THE )NlNITE PRECEDES ANY REmECTION UPON HIMHERSELF 4WEYMAN %VEN THOUGH TO SOME THE #ARTESIAN IDEA THAT THE )NlNITE IS LOCATED INSIDE THE SUBJECT IS AN AXIOM THAT MAY APPEAR IMMANENTIST FOR ,EVINAS IT IS THE DAZZLING PRESENCE OF THE )NlNITE PLACED WITHIN THE SUBJECT THAT ACTUALLY OPENS THE SUBJECT FOR THE /THERAN OPENING THAT MARKS TRANSCENDENCE 4HE )NlNITE IS NOT A STATIC OBJECT OR ESSENCE RATHER IT IS THE MYSTERY THAT INCITES HUMANITYS DESIRE FOR GOODNESS )MPLICITLY THE NOTION OF GOODNESS IS NOT AN AMBIGUOUS OR CATCHALL TERM RATHER IT IS THE SEED OF HUMANITYS TRANSCENDENCE )N h4HE 2IGHTS OF -AN AND 'OOD 7ILL v ,EVINAS ELABORATES h'OODNESS A CHILDISH VIRTUE BUT ALREADY CHARITY AND MERCY AND RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE OTHER AND ALREADY THE POSSIBILITY OF SACRIlCE IN WHICH THE HUMANITY OF MAN BURSTS FORTHv C )NlNITY CALLS FORTH GOODNESS BY DEMANDING THAT
&OR MORE ON ,EVINASS THOUGHT ON $ESCARTESS READING OF )NlNITY SEE ,EVINASS ESSAY h4HE )DEA OF THE )NlNITE IN 5Sv C
-ICHELE 3ARACINO /N "EING (UMAN
THE SUBJECT OPEN TO BEING FOR THE /THER )NTERESTINGLY ,EVINAS DOES NOT REFER TO TRANSCENDENCE IN TERMS OF A lSSURE IN THE SUBJECT OR A PANORAMIC GAZE OF THE SUBJECT AS IN THE CASE OF ,ACANIAN AND (EIDEG GERIAN ANALYSIS )NSTEAD TRANSCENDENCE POINTS TO THE OPENNESS THAT IS BORN IN THE FACE OF THE /THER AND THAT ORIENTS THE SUBJECT FOR THE /THER ,EVINASS INTERPRETATION OF THE FACE WHEN UNDERSTOOD BOTH IN TERMS OF THE -OSAIC COVENANT AND AS A #ARTESIAN TRACE OF THE )NlNITE MARKS THE SUBJECTS TRANSCENDENCE #HALLENGING A TRADITIONAL IMMANENTIST UNDERSTANDING OF SUBJECTIVITY AS CLOSED ,EVINASS INTERPRETATION OF THE FACE DElANTLY MARKS THE SUBJECT AS OPEN FOR THE /THER h;4=HIS LOOK ;FACING=APPEALS TO MY RESPONSIBILITY AND CONSECRATES MY FREEDOM AS RESPONSIBILITY AND GIFT OF SELF v ,EVINAS
)MPLICATIONS OF /PENNESS 4HROUGH FACING THE SUBJECT IS CONVERTED PHYSICALLY AND MENTALLY INTO A POSITION OF OPENNESS 4HIS SEEMS TO BE A SELF EVIDENT STATEMENT .ONETHELESS AS ONE STRIVES TO UNDERSTAND THE FULL MEANING OF ,EVINASS ANALYSIS OF OPENNESS WHAT SEEMED AT lRST SELF EVIDENT QUICKLY BECOMES COMPLEX /N THE ONE HAND THE NOTION OF OPENNESS CAN BE UNDERSTOOD AS A METAPHOR THAT ILLUSTRATES HOW THE /THER POSITIONS THE SUBJECT WITH A DEMAND OR A QUESTION /N THE OTHER HAND THE IDEA OF POSITIONING THE SUBJECT AS OPEN GOES WELL BEYOND THE REALM OF THE METAPHORICAL )N THE lRST CHAPTER ) POINTED OUT THAT ,EVINASS USE OF OPENNESS IS NOT SYNONYMOUS WITH THE OPENNESS OF THE (EIDEGGERIAN $ASEIN BECAUSE ,EVINAS WANTS TO AVOID THE IMPERIALISTIC AND TOTALIZING IMPLICATIONS OF (EIDEGGERS UNDERSTANDING OF OPENNESS )N ORDER TO COUNTER THE UNBRIDLED FREEDOM AND EGOISTIC UTILITARIANISM CONNECTED WITH THE (EIDEGGERIAN READING OF SUBJECTIVITY ,EVINAS EXPLAINS OPENNESS AS A RELATIONSHIP OF PROXIMITY WITH THE /THER IN WHICH THE SUBJECT IS EX POSED TO UNLIMITED RESPONSIBILITY AND VULNERABILITY !GAIN OPENNESS IS ABOUT BEING CALLED TO OTHERS IN OBLIGATION WITHOUT ANY RECOURSE TO ONES OWN RIGHTS OR NEEDS 3TILL THERE IS MORE TO BE SAID ABOUT ,EVINASS DISCUSSION OF OPENNESS FOR AS HE DELINEATES THE SUBJECTS POSTURE AS OPEN FOR THE /THER HE DIS
^,EVINASS 3UBJECT AS 0OSTURED FOR THE /THER
TINGUISHES BETWEEN A COMMONSENSE OPENNESS AND COMPLETE OPENNESS !CCORDING TO A COMMONSENSE NOTION OF OPENNESS THE SELF CAN HIDE WITHIN HISHER INTERIORITY IN ORDER TO CONTROL INTERACTION WITH THE WORLD 4HIS TYPE OF OPENNESS RESONATES WITH THE TRADITIONAL UNDERSTANDING OF INTERIORITY IN WHICH THE SUBJECT IS CONCERNED FOR SELF IN AN EGOCENTRIC FASHION AND POSSESSES THE POWER TO LIMIT THE EXPOSURE OF SELF TO THE /THER )N OPPOSITION TO THIS COMMONSENSE LOGIC ,EVINAS ARGUES THAT TRANSCENDENCE IS ONLY POSSIBLE THROUGH A COMPLETE OPENNESS TO THE /THER TO THE POINT OF SUBSTITUTION AT WHICH THE SUBJECT TAKES ON THE /THERS SUFFERING AND PAIN #OMPLETE OPENNESS REFERS TO ONES INTERIORITY BEING OPENED CONVERTED AND TURNED INSIDE OUT TO AN EXTERIORITY OF BEING FOR ANOTHER )T IS THE CALL OF THE /THER BY WAY OF THE FACE THAT LEADS TO THE COMPLETE OPENNESS OF THE SUBJECT !S THE FACE OF THE /THER CALLS THE SUBJECT INTO QUESTION IT OPENS THE SUBJECT TO GLORIFY THE )NlNITE )N FACING THE HUMAN BEING IS ORIENTED TOWARD GENEROSITY AND PASSIVITY IN COMPLETE OPENNESS ,EVINAS ELUCI DATES THIS POINT IN h-EANING AND 3ENSEv 4HE MOVEMENT TOWARD THE /THER !UTRUI INSTEAD OF COMPLETING ME OR CONTENTING ME IMPLICATES ME IN A CONJUNCTURE WHICH IN A WAY DID NOT CONCERN ME AND SHOULD LEAVE ME INDIFFERENTWHY DID ) GET INVOLVED IN THE BUSINESS 7HENCE CAME THIS SHOCK WHEN ) PASSED INDIFFERENTUNDER THE /THERS !UTRUI GAZE 4HE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE /THER !UTRUI PUTS ME INTO QUESTION EMPTIES ME OF MYSELF AND EMPTIES ME WITHOUT END SHOWING ME EVER NEW RESOURCES ) DID NOT KNOW ) WAS SO RICH BUT ) NO LONGER HAVE THE RIGHT TO KEEP ANYTHING FOR MYSELF )S THE $ESIRE FOR THE /THER !UTRUI AN APPETITE OR A GENEROSITY 4HE $ESIRABLE DOES NOT GRATIFY MY $ESIRE BUT HOL LOWS IT OUT AND SOMEHOW NOURISHES ME WITH NEW HUNGERS $ESIRE IS REVEALED TO BE GOODNESS
/NE CAN HEAR OVERTONES OF *EAN &RAN½OIS ,YOTARDS THOUGHT ON THE GREAT TOTALIZING ZERO OR THE LIBIDINAL BAND IN WHICH THERE IS NO CLEAR INSIDE OR OUTSIDE AND THE BOUNDARIES BETWEEN INTERNAL AND THE EXTERNAL ARE BLURRED A &OR ,EVINAS IN THE POSTURE OF FOR THE /THER THE SUBJECT IS TURNED INSIDE OUT CREATING A POSTURE THAT PREVENTS ANY STANCE OF PURE IMMANENCE
-ICHELE 3ARACINO /N "EING (UMAN
4HE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE /THER THEREFORE IS KENOTIC AN EMPTYING OR OPENING EVENT 4HE FACE THE CARESS AND THE TRACE OF THE /THER CONVERT THE SUBJECT TO A STANCE OF SUBMISSION AND PASSIVITY AS OP POSED TO A POSTURE OF POWER AND DOMINATION 4HE TERM @PASSIVITY IS NOT MERELY THE OPPOSITE OF ACTIVITY AS ONE WOULD CONCLUDE FROM ITS COMMONSENSE MEANING RATHER PASSIVITY IS BEING NOT AS PRODUCTION OR REPRESENTATION BUT AS OBLIGATION AND HOSPITALITY *EAN ,UC .ANCY EXPLAINS h4HE PASSIVITY THAT IS AT ISSUE HERE CANNOT BE DETERMINED IN OPPOSITION TO ACTIVITY )T DOES NOT CONSIST IN BEING @PASSIVE BUT IN BEING IF WE CAN PUT IT THIS WAY PASSIBLE TO MEANING THAT IS CAPABLE OF RECEIVING OR WELCOMING ITv "EING PASSIVE IS NOT BEING INACTIVE THEREFORE BUT BEING CAPABLE OF WITNESSING TO THE /THER 0AS SIVITY IS THE ACT OF OPENNESS THROUGH WHICH THE SUBJECT ACKNOWLEDGES HISHER OBLIGATION TO THE /THER LAYS HIMHERSELF BARE FOR THE /THER SPEAKS TO THE /THER AND BEARS WITNESS TO THE )NlNITE 0ASSIVITY IS A NON AGGRESSIVE YET ACTIVE GESTURE OF HOSPITALITY ,EVINASS INTERPRETATION OF PASSIVE OPENNESS COMES OUT OF A NUANCED READING OF FREEDOM !S PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED ,EVINAS IN RESPONSE TO (EIDEGGER REJECTS A COMMONSENSE CORRELATION BETWEEN OPENNESS AND NAÆVE FREEDOM WHEREBY THE SUBJECT AGGRESSIVELY SURVEYS OTHERS AT HISHER OWN CHOICE WHIM OR FANCY BEFORE RELUCTANTLY OPENING HIMHERSELF IN HOSPITALITY AND CHARITY )NSTEAD ,EVINAS DElNES OPEN NESS IN TERMS OF EXPOSURE TO THE /THER THIS EXPOSURE IS PRIOR TO ANY EGOISTIC FREEDOM IN THAT IT PASSIVELY AWAITS THE /THER 4HIS COMPLETE AND VULNERABLE OPENNESS ACCORDING TO ,INGIS IS PRIOR TO THE OPENNESS TO SENSIBLE GIVEN BEINGSAND EVEN TO THE NOTHINGNESS OR CLEARING IN WHICH THEY ARE ARTICULATED 3UBJECTIVITY IS OPENED FROM THE OUTSIDE BY THE CONTACT WITH ALTERITYx "EFORE lNDING ITSELF A FREEDOM IN THE FREE SPACE OPENED BY THE PLAY OF BEING AND NOTHINGNESS WHERE AN EXERCISE OF OPTIONS IS POSSIBLE SUBJECTIVITY IS A SUBJECTION TO THE FORCE OF ALTERITY WHICH CALLS FOR AND DEMANDS GOODNESS OF IT ,EVINAS E XXI
/PENNESS TO THE /THER ARISES NEITHER AFTER REmECTION UPON REPRESSED MEMORIES AS IN THE CASE OF BOTH &REUDIAN AND ,ACANIAN PSYCHOANALYSIS NOR WITHIN THE EXISTENTIAL FREEDOM OF (EIDEGGERS BEING PRESENT IN THE
^,EVINASS 3UBJECT AS 0OSTURED FOR THE /THER
WORLD )NSTEAD OPENNESS TO THE /THER ENSUES IN ,EVINASS UNDERSTANDING OF PASSIVITY &OR ,EVINAS h4HE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE OTHER CAN NOT HAVE BEGUN IN MY COMMITMENT IN MY DECISION 4HE UNLIMITED RESPONSIBIL ITY IN WHICH ) lND MYSELF COMES FROM THE HITHER SIDE OF MY FREEDOM FROM A @PRIOR TO EVERY MEMORY AN @ULTERIOR TO EVERY ACCOMPLISHMENT FROM THE NON PRESENT PAR EXCELLENCE THE NON ORIGINAL THE ANARCHICAL PRIOR TO OR BEYOND ESSENCEv E )T FOLLOWS THAT THE OPEN PASSIVE STANCE OF ,EVINASS SUBJECT UNDERCUTS THE AGGRESSIVE POSTURE OF THE KNOWING SUBJECT &OR ,EVINAS EQUATES KNOWLEDGE WITH A STANCE OF POWER AND DElNES IT AS THE PRODUCT OF OCULARCENTRIC THEMATIZATION %VEN IN HIS EARLY WORK SUCH AS h4IME AND THE /THER v SENTIMENTS SUCH AS THESE CAN BE FOUND h;)=F ONE COULD POSSESS GRASP AND KNOW THE OTHER IT WOULD NOT BE OTHER 0OSSESSING KNOWING AND GRASPING ARE SYNONYMS FOR POWERv 3INCE ,EVINAS ASSUMES THAT KNOWLEDGE IS AGGRESSIVE AND TOTAL IZING HE DEBUNKS ANY VALORIZATION OF IT -OREOVER BY PRIVILEGING THE STRUCTURE OF RESPONSIBILITY HE RESISTS THE OCULARCENTRIC GROUNDING OF KNOWLEDGE 2ESPONSIBILITY IN THE FORM OF HUMILITY AND SUBMISSION RATHER THAN THEMATIZING IN THE FORM OF PRIDE AND AGGRESSION IS THE ANSWER TO THE FACE 4HE SIGNIlCANCE OF ,EVINASS REFORMULATION OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR OUR CURRENT CULTURAL SITUATION CANNOT BE OVERESTIMATED -ANY lND IT DIF lCULT TO DEAL WITH RESPONSIBILITY -ORE OFTEN THEN NOT RESPONSIBILITY IS FRAMED NEGATIVELY IN TERMS OF GUILT AND REPRESSION 4O THE CONTRARY IN A WORK ENTITLED h4HE /LD AND THE .EW v ,EVINAS APPROACHES RESPONSIBILITY IN TERMS OF SELmESS GIVING FOR THE /THER TO THE POINT OF EXCESS (E WRITES $EVOTION IN ITS DIS INTERESTEDNESS DOES NOT LACK ANY END BUT IS TURNED AROUNDBY A 'OD WHO IN HIS INlNITY hLOVES THE STRANG ERvTOWARD THE OTHER PERSON TO AND FOR WHOM ) HAVE TO RESPOND 2ESPONSIBILITY IS WITHOUT CONCERN FOR RECIPROCITY ) HAVE TO RESPOND TO AND FOR THE /THER WITHOUT OCCUPYING MYSELF WITH THE /THERS RESPONSIBILITY IN MY REGARD ! LOVE RELATIONSHIP WITHOUT CORRELATION LOVE OF THE NEIGHBOR IS LOVE WITHOUT EROS )T IS FOR THE OTHER PERSON AND THROUGH THIS TO 'OD
-ICHELE 3ARACINO /N "EING (UMAN
#LEARLY ,EVINAS PRIVILEGES THE STRUCTURE OF RESPONSIBILITY AS THE ESSENCE OF BEING HUMAN )T IS NOT TOO STRONG TO SUGGEST THAT BEING RESPONSIBLE IS THE MOST lTTING WAY OF LABELING ,EVINASS NORMATIVE ANTHROPOLOGI CAL SUBJECT 4HIS PREDISPOSITION OF BEING RESPONSIBLE FOR THE /THER IS ROOTED IN THE PRIMORDIAL GIFTED RELATION WITH THE /THER 4HIS GIFTED ETHICAL RELATION OPENS THE SUBJECT TO A POSTURE OF COMPLETE PASSIV ITYBEYOND COMPREHENSION AND COMPENSATION 4HE OPEN PASSIVE RESPONSIBLE POSTURE OF SUBJECTIVITY CAN BE INTERPRETED IN TERMS OF GIFT IN THAT lNDING ONESELF IN A POSITION OF OBLIGATION IS WITHOUT PARALLEL IS ASYMMETRICAL 'IFT RECALL IS A SENSE OF OPENNESS WITHOUT EXPECTATION OR COMPENSATION 4HE GIFT OF BEING FOR THE /THER IS NOT A RELATIONSHIP OF RECIPROCITY IN WHICH THE SUBJECT TALLIES ALL THAT SHE DOES FOR STRANG ERS AND EXPECTS SOMETHING IN RETURN )NSTEAD THE GIFT OF SUBJECTIVITY DEMANDS THAT THE SUBJECT EXIST BEYOND VOLITIONAL GIVING TO THE POINT OF OBSESSION FOR THE /THER 4HIS PASSIVE OPEN OBSESSED GIFTED SUB JECTIVITY INVOLVES A WEARING AWAY OF THE SELF 4O FURTHER EXPLICATE THE OPENNESS OF THE SUBJECT AS GIFT WE CAN DISTINGUISH GIVING FROM GIFT 'IVING IS LARGELY VOLITIONAL 7HILE FOR ,EVINAS SUCH LARGESSE IS IMPORTANT IT IS NOT OF PRIMARY IMPORTANCE TO THE POSTURE OF ,EVINASS SUBJECT 3UBJECTIVITY AS GIFT FOR ,EVINAS RATHER REFERS TO BEING ALREADY IN A POSITION OF RESPONSIBILITY AND ALREADY OF FERING MORE THAN ONE CAN AFFORD TO GIVE 4HIS GIFTED POSTURE BECOMES A RECURRING DISPOSITION AND OBSESSION IN WHICH THE SUBJECT TAKES LEAVE OF HIMHERSELF AND IS TURNED INSIDE OUT IN ORDER TO CARE FOR THE /THER 4HE NOTION OF OBSESSION UNDERSCORES THE FACT THAT THE SUBJECT DOES NOT MASTER THE /THER OR CONTROL THE ENCOUNTER WITH THE /THER 4O BE OBSESSED BY THE /THER IMPLIES INlNITE OBLIGATION TO THE /THER ,EVINAS EXPLAINS THIS OBSESSION 4HE RECURRENCE OF THE SELF IN RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE OTHERS A PERSECUT ING OBSESSION GOES AGAINST INTENTIONALITY SUCH THAT RESPONSIBILITY FOR OTHERS COULD NEVER MEAN ALTRUISTIC WILL INSTINCT OF @NATURAL BE NEVOLENCE OR LOVE )T IS IN THE PASSIVITY OF OBSESSION OR INCARNATED PASSIVITY THAT AN IDENTITY INDIVIDUATES ITSELF AS UNIQUE WITHOUT RECOURSE TO ANY SYSTEM OF REFERENCES IN THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF EVADING THE ASSIGNATION OF THE OTHER WITHOUT BLAME E
^,EVINASS 3UBJECT AS 0OSTURED FOR THE /THER
)N HIS DISCUSSION OF THE GIFTED OR OBSESSIVE POSTURE OF THE SUBJECT ,EVINAS PLAYS WITH OUR COMMONSENSE UNDERSTANDING OF INTERIORITY 4O SOME INTERIORITY MIGHT MEAN AN EXERCISE IN INTROSPECTION IMMANENTISM OR A FORAY INTO SELF ,EVINAS ARGUES OTHERWISE THAT IN ONES INTERIORITY OR RETURN TO ONESELF ONE IS WORN AWAY BY THE DEMAND OF THE /THER 4HIS WEARING AWAY OF THE SELF IS THE LOCUS OF THE GOOD AND THE SITE OF JUSTICE AND TRANSCENDENCE 4RANSCENDENCE IS NOT A LINEAR INTENTIONAL OR TELEOLOGICAL PURSUIT OF SATISFACTION INSTEAD IT IS COMPLETE OPENNESS THAT EMERGES IN ONES PASSIVE AND GIFTED INCLINATION FOR OTHERS 4HIS INCLINATION ORIENTS THE SUBJECT TO A SAINTLY OR RESPONSIBLE SUBJECTIVITY FOR THE /THER "ELOW WE WILL EXPLORE HOW THIS RESPONSIBLE SUBJECTIVITY EMERGES RATHER DRAMATICALLY IN TERMS OF SPEECH TIME AND POSTURE )T IS THERE THAT WE WILL CAPTURE A GLIMPSE OF ,EVINASS SOMEWHAT ILLUSIVE ANTHROPOLOGY WHICH IS BASED IN RELATIONS OF ASYMMETRICAL INTERSUB JECTIVITY
3UBJECTIVITY AS A 0OSTURE OF /PENNESS FOR THE /THER 7E HAVE ALREADY LEARNED THAT BY WAY OF THE SUBJECTS ENCOUNTER WITH ALTERITY SHE IS CONVERTED TO THE POSITION OF RESPONSIBLE SUBJECTIVITY BEING OPEN FOR THE /THER )N THIS SECTION ) TRACE MORE DELIBERATELY THE TURNING OF THE SUBJECT TOWARD RESPONSIBILITY BY EXAMINING THREE DISTINCT PHENOMENA LANGUAGE TIME AND POSTURE ) EXPLORE HOW LANGUAGE OR DISCOURSE MARKS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SUBJECT AND /THER SPECIl CALLY ,EVINASS CLAIM THAT THE FACE OR CALL OF THE /THER COMMANDS THE SUBJECT TOWARD OBLIGATION THROUGH SPEAKING 4HEN ) INVESTIGATE HOW THE DIMENSION OF TIME INmUENCES THE PERSON AS SUBJECT )N CONCLU SION ) HIGHLIGHT HOW THE SUBJECTS SENSUAL ENCOUNTER WITH THE /THER THROUGH TOUCH CARESS AND GESTURE COMMANDS THE SUBJECT TO SHOULDER AND POSTURE FOR THE /THER !CCORDING TO ,EVINAS LANGUAGE MEDIATES HUMAN REGARD AND INTER ACTION IT MARKS BOTH SUBJECTIVITY AND OTHERNESS #ONCRETELY THIS MEANS THAT THE SUBJECT RESPONDS TO ALTERITY THROUGH SPEECH AND SIG
-ICHELE 3ARACINO /N "EING (UMAN
NIlES HISHER OWN PRESENCE BY WAY OF SPEECH ,EVINAS DESCRIBES THE LINGUISTIC STRUCTURE OF SIGNIlCATION IN TERMS OF AN ETHICAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SUBJECT AND THE /THER 4HE SUBJECT IS CALLED TO RESPOND TO THE /THER IN THIS ETHICAL RELATION AND AT THE SAME TIME THE SUBJECT ANSWERS THIS CALL BY EXPOSING HIMHERSELF FOR THE /THER THROUGH SPEECH 4HIS CALL AND RESPONSE IS NOT ACHIEVED THROUGH THE SUBJECTS INTERIOR COMPREHENSION OR THEMATIZATION OF THE /THER RATHER THE FACE OF THE /THER EFFECTS A RESPONSE FROM THE SUBJECT 4HE SUBJECT SENSES THE /THERS NEED AND RESPONDS ACCORDINGLY )MPORTANTLY FOR ,EVINAS THE RELATION BETWEEN SUBJECT AND /THER IS BASED ON THE SUBJECTS AFFECTIVE RESPONSE TO THE /THER 7ITHIN THIS BOND THE SUBJECT TAKES A PASSIVE STANCE AS SHE WAITS AND LISTENS FOR THE DEMAND OF THE /THER INSTEAD OF AGGRESSIVELY TALK ING AT THE /THER AS IF THE /THER WERE AN OBJECT !FTER THE CALL THE SUBJECT IS OBLIGED TO RESPOND TO THE /THER )MPORTANTLY THE DISCOURSE OF THE SUBJECT DOES NOT BRING THE /THER ANY CLOSER )NSTEAD LANGUAGE ACCENTUATES THE DISTANCE AND DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO PARTIES 4HE DIALOGUE THAT ENSUES BETWEEN SUBJECT AND /THER TRANSCENDS THE PRIVACY OF THEIR WORLDS AND BECOMES A PUBLIC DECLARATION OF THEIR DIFFERENCES EVEN IN THE MIDST OF THEIR RELATION 4HIS PUBLIC DECLARATION CONSTRUCTS A RELATIONSHIP THAT IS NOT BASED ON SAMENESS BUT ROOTED IN DIFFERENCE ,ANGUAGE ,EVINAS SUGGESTS HIGHLIGHTS OR BEARS WITNESS TO THAT DIF FERENCE !ND IT IS THE OBLIGATION OF THE SUBJECT TO BEAR WITNESS TO THE /THER THROUGH LANGUAGE !S THE SUBJECT ATTESTS TO THE ALTERITY OF THE /THER THROUGH SPEECH SHE ACTUALLY SUBVERTS THE TOTALITY OF BEING WHICH ,EVINAS LINKS TO THE GAZE OR AN OCULARCENTRIC MENTALITY )T IS PRECISELY THE COMMAND OF THE /THER THAT HAS THE POWER TO ENTER FROM BEYOND THE PANORAMIC GAZE OF THE SUBJECT AND ALSO TO CUT ACROSS HISHER VISION AND HORIZON 4HE SUBJECTS LISTENING FOR AND RESPONDING TO THE CALL OF THE /THER SUBVERTS ANY TOTALIZING GAZE !S A RESULT AN ASYMMETRICAL DIALOGUE WITH THE /THER UNFOLDS QUITE DRAMATICALLY 4HE FACE WHICH CAN BE INTERPRETED AS A TRACE OF THE /THER AND THE )NlNITE IN THE SUBJECT CAUSES THE SUBJECT TO SPEAK TO THE /THER AND BEAR WITNESS -OREOVER BEARING WITNESS THE PERSON SIGNIlES HIMHERSELF AS SUBJECT AND THUS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE /THER .OTICE THE CORPOREAL DIMENSION OF THE PHRASE @BEARING WITNESS )N BEARING WITNESS TO THE /THER WE BEAR THE RESPONSIBILITY
^,EVINASS 3UBJECT AS 0OSTURED FOR THE /THER
FOR THE ENSUING DIALOGUE 4HROUGH SPEECH OR @THE 3AYING ,E $IRE THE SUBJECT IS EXILED FROM A CLOSED INTERIORITY AWAKENED FROM SLUMBER AND OBLIGED TO THE POINT OF OBSESSION 3AYING IS THE EVENT BY WHICH THE /THER COMMANDS THE SELF FROM BEYOND TO RISE AS SUBJECT 3UBJECTIVITY IS CONSTITUTED BY THE ETHICAL STRUCTURE OF THE SUBJECTS RESPONSE TO THE /THER BY WAY OF SPEECH THAT IS BY THE 3AYING 4HIS 3AYING IS MOTIVATED NOT BY A DESIRE TO FULlLL THE SUBJECTS LACK AS IN THE CASE OF ,ACANIAN THEORY BUT RATHER IS INSPIRED WITHIN THE SUBJECT BY THE NEED OF THE /THER ,EVINAS WRITES h3AYING IS A DENUDING OF THE UNQUALIlABLE ONE THE PURE SOMEONE x IT ABSOLVES ME OF ALL IDENTITY x AN OTHERWISE THAN BEING WHICH TURNS INTO A FOR THE OTHERv E 7HAT IS MOST IMPORTANT ABOUT SPEAKING IS NOT THE PHRASE THE CONTENT OR THE 3AID ,E $IT BUT THE POSTURE AND DISPOSITION BEHIND 3AYING !CCORDING TO ,EVINAS THE SIGNIlCANCE IS IN THE hCOMMITMENT OF AN APPROACH THE ONE FOR THE OTHERv -OREOVER TRANSCENDENCE IS LOCATED IN THE 3AYING AS DIALOGUE MARKS THE EVENT OF hPASSING OVER TO BEINGS OTHER OTHERWISE THAN BEINGv 4HE SUBJECTS UTTERANCE SIMULTANEOUSLY SIGNIlES THE SUBJECTS TRANSCENDENCE AND ADDRESSES THE /THER IN ALL HISHER ALTERITY )N SUM TRANSCENDENCE OCCURS IN TWO WAYS /N THE ONE HAND 3AYING IS REVELATORY AND LEADS TO TRANSCENDENCE IN THAT IT CUTS ACROSS THE TOTALIZING GAZE DEMANDS A RESPONSE AND FOSTERS DIALOGUE !ND ON THE OTHER HAND THROUGH 3AYING THERE IS A DENUDING OR A SIGNIFYING OF SUBJECT AND /THER WITHOUT CONTENT )N HIS DISCUSSION OF THE 3AYING AND THE 3AID ,EVINAS CALLS ATTENTION TO THE DANGERS OF IMPOSING SAMENESS ON OTHERS AND OF DISTANCING ONE SELF FROM OTHERS 7HEN WE DISTANCE OURSELVES FROM OTHERS IT BECOMES EASY TO IGNORE THEIR NEEDS )N ORDER TO COMBAT THIS DANGER ,EVINAS ACCENTUATES THE NEARNESS OR APPROACH OF SUBJECT FOR OTHERS 4HE NOTION OF APPROACH CONNOTES AN ACTIVE MOVEMENT A POSTURING OF THE SUBJECT TOWARD THE /THER IN WHICH LANGUAGE EMERGES 4HE APPROACH FOR THE /THER IS NOT GOVERNED BY DISTANCE AND OBSCURITY BUT BY CONVERSATION AND ENGAGEMENT (ERE THE TERM @PROXIMITY HAS A TECHNICAL MEANING h0ROXIMITY IS QUITE DISTINCT FROM EVERY OTHER RELATIONSHIP AND HAS TO BE CONCEIVED AS A RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE OTHER IT MIGHT BE CALLED HU MANITY OR SUBJECTIVITY OR SELF v ,EVINAS E 0ROXIMITY DOES NOT PRIVILEGE THE STANCE OF INTENTIONALITY GAZE OR CONSCIOUSNESS OF BEINGALL OF WHICH REDUCE THE /THER TO THE SAME AND CORRELATE THAT
-ICHELE 3ARACINO /N "EING (UMAN
WHICH IS IN FRONT OF THEM WITH A THEME (ERE ,EVINAS UNDERSTANDS CONSCIOUSNESS TO BE RELATED TO SELF INTEREST AND EGOISM A MOVEMENT THAT THREATENS THE SUBJECTS DISINTERESTEDNESS FOR AND WAKEFULNESS TO OTHERNESS 3IGNIlCANTLY PROXIMITY THROUGH LANGUAGE BREAKS THE EGOISM OF SUCH CONSCIOUSNESS AND DEFERS TO THE /THER &URTHERMORE FOR ,EVINAS THE RELATIONSHIP OF PROXIMITY THAT IS THE ONE FOR THE OTHER RELATION RESISTS ANY ATTEMPT TO EMPLOY COMMU NICATION FOR THE SAKE OF THE SELF ALONE !LL COMMUNICATION IS FOR THE /THER ,EVINAS EXPLAINS h4O COMMUNICATE IS INDEED TO OPEN ONESELF BUT THE OPENNESS IS NOT COMPLETE IF IT IS ON THE WATCH FOR RECOGNITION )T IS COMPLETE NOT IN OPENING TO THE SPECTACLE OF OR THE RECOGNITION OF THE OTHER BUT IN BECOMING A RESPONSIBILITY FOR HIMv E 4HE SELmESS IMPETUS OF COMMUNICATION ACCENTUATES THE NEED OF HUMANITY TO ENGAGE OTHERNESS NOT MERELY BECAUSE IT HELPS OUR CAREER OR IMAGE BUT BECAUSE WE ARE COMMANDED AND RESPONSIBLE TO DO SO )N OTHER WORDS ,EVINASS INTERPRETATION OF COMMUNICATION PRECLUDES ANY SELF SERVING POSTURE BECAUSE THE SUBJECT IS ALWAYS IN RELATION FOR THE /THER ! SELF SERVING POSTURE IS AN IMMANENTIST EGOIST STANCE WHICH IS OPPOSED TO A SELF GIVING POSTURE OR AN OPEN EXPOSED SUBJECTIVITY ,EVINASS NOTION OF SUBJECTIVITY UPHOLDS A SELF GIVING POSTURE THAT EXISTS PRIOR TO FREEDOM AND IN FREEDOM IS FURTHER OPENED FOR THE /THER 4HE INTRICACY OF THE 3AYING OF THE COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE SUBJECT AND /THER CUTS ACROSS THE SUBJECTS GAZE LEAVING THE SUBJECT NEAR AND EXPOSED TO THE /THER )MPORTANTLY WE MUST ALSO UNDERSTAND HOW COMMUNICATION THE ACT OF SIGNIlCATION IS GOVERNED BY TIME "Y SIGNIlCATION ,EVINAS DOES NOT REFER TO A REPRESENTATIONAL OR INTELLECTUAL MOMENT BUT AN AFFECTIVE RESPONSE TO THE /THERS CALL ,ANGUAGE IS THE RESPONSE FOR THE /THER THAT SIGNIlES BEING FOR THE /THER 3IMILARLY SO IS TIME !BOVE ALL ELSE ,EVINAS ARGUES THAT TIME IS NOT A POSSESSION OR EXPLOIT OF THE SUBJECT ALONE 4IME RATHER EMERGES IN THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SUBJECT AND /THER )T IS THROUGH THE LAPSING OF TIME OR WHAT ,EVINAS ALSO CALLS DIACHRONY THAT WE ARE PRESENTED WITH A SECOND WAY IN WHICH THE HUMAN BEING BECOMES A SUBJECT FOR THE /THER )F DIACHRONY MOST BASICALLY REFERS TO THE INTERVAL THAT IMPINGES UPON THE SUBJECT AS SHE ATTEMPTS TO MAKE MEANING OF THE PAST AND THE FUTURE IT ALSO UNDERSCORES THE ASYMMETRY BETWEEN THE SUBJECT AND /THER IN FACING
^,EVINASS 3UBJECT AS 0OSTURED FOR THE /THER
LISTENING AND RESPONDING ACROSS TIME "Y IMAGINING MOMENTS OF TIME AS EVENTS OF OTHERNESS ,EVINAS REFUTES ANY ASSUMPTION OF A PURE PRES ENCE #ONSEQUENTLY JUST AS HE RESISTS THE THEMATIZATION OF THE /THER BY CONSCIOUSNESS ,EVINAS CONTESTS THE NOTION OF SYNCHRONIC TIMETHAT STATIC MOMENT IN WHICH THE SUBJECT WOULD PRESENT HIMHERSELF FULLY !LTERNATIVELY ,EVINAS ASSERTS THAT THE SUBJECT IS NOT THE MARKER OF TIME OR EVEN AN EFFECT OF TIME /N THE CONTRARY SUBJECTIVITY WHICH IS ORIENTED BY THE /THER DISRUPTS SYNCHRONIC TIME 2ICHARD #OHEN OBSERVES 4HE IRREDUCIBLE ALTERITY OF THE /THER THE TIME OF THE /THER IMPINGES ON THE SUBJECTS TEMPORAL SYNTHESES FROM THE OUTSIDE DISRUPTING ITS UNITY WITH ANOTHER TIME THE TIME OF THE /THER OR ETHICS THE COM MAND WHICH COMES FROM ON HIGH !ND IN THE SAME EXTRAORDINARY MOMENT THE /THERS COMMAND CALLS FORTH A SUBJECTIVITY FOR THE OTHER ,EVINAS
!S THE SUBJECT RESPONDS TO THE COMMAND OF THE /THER AN INTERVAL ALREADY DISPLACES THE SUBJECTS ACCOUNT OF THE EVENT 4HE PASTS GRIP ON THE SUBJECT IS SO STRONG THAT IT POSITIONS HIMHER TOWARD THE /THER 4HE SUBJECT IS OPENED DECENTERED AND REPOSED BY THE LAPSING OF TIME BY DIACHRONY ,EVINASS DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE 3AYING AND THE 3AID MAY FURTHER OUR DISCUSSION OF DIACHRONY 7HEREAS THE 3AYING IS THE ATTEMPT OF THE SUBJECT TO RESPOND TO THE DEMAND OF THE /THER THE 3AID IS THE CONTENT OF MEANING WHICH IS DISPLACED ALREADY FROM THE HAPPENING (APPENINGS ONLY HAVE MEANING AND SIGNIlCATION IN DIACHRONIC TIME THAT IS OUT OF THE PRESENT TIME BECAUSE THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE SUBJECT AND /THER PROHIBITS SYNCHRONY 4HE SUBJECT AND /THER THUS ARE NOT SIMULTANEOUS OR SYMMETRICAL BUT ARE PROFOUNDLY DISTINCT POSITIONS 3IGNIlCANTLY IT IS THE DIACHRONY OR THE INTERVAL THAT DISTANCES THE SUBJECT FROM THE /THER WHICH CAUSES AND ALSO ALLOWS THE SUBJECT TO SPEAK )N OTHER WORDS IT IS BECAUSE OF THE SEPARATION BETWEEN THE SUBJECT AND THE /THER THAT THE SUBJECT ATTEMPTS TO CONVEY MEANING
-ICHELE 3ARACINO /N "EING (UMAN
!LTHOUGH ONE COULD ASSUME THAT SPEECH BRIDGES THE DIACHRONIC DISTANCE BETWEEN THE SUBJECT AND /THER IT IS ACTUALLY THE CASE AS PRE VIOUSLY EXPLAINED THAT LANGUAGE OVERDETERMINES THE ALTERITY BETWEEN THE TWO ,INGIS EXPLAINS THE MATRIX OF CONNECTIONS AMONG LANGUAGE DISTANCE AND TIME h4HE DISTANCE OF OTHERNESS OPENS UP THE INTERVAL OF DISCOURSE !CROSS THIS DISTANCE WE SPEAKx 4HE INTERVAL IS A CLEARING FOR EXPOSURE 4HINGS FOUND ELSEWHERE THINGS REMOTE ABSENT PAST FUTURE ARE GOING TO BE REPRESENTED IN THAT CLEARINGv )T IS IN THE DIACHRONIC INTERVAL THAT THE SUBJECT IS COMMANDED TO RESPOND TO THE STRANGER ,ANGUAGE DOES NOT CLOSE THE INTERVAL BUT UNDERSCORES THE ALTERITY h#OMMUNICATION DOES NOT ABOLISH THE DISTANCE )N THE WORD OF GREETING WITH WHICH ANOTHER ADDRESSES ME AND DRAWS ME NEAR SHE SETS BEFORE ME HISHER OTHERNESSv !S SPEECH CUTS ACROSS THE LAPSING INTERVAL OF DIACHRONY THE ALTERITY BETWEEN THE SUBJECT AND /THER IS VIGILANTLY MAINTAINED RATHER THAN ERASED )N THIS DISCUSSION OF DIACHRONY ,EVINASS CRITIQUE OF THE TOTALIZATION AND THEMATIZATION OF OTHERNESS AGAIN SURFACES )N COMPARISON TO THE AGGRESSIVE DISPOSITION OF THE KNOWING SUBJECT IN SYNCHRONIC TIME ,EVINAS ASSERTS THAT THE SUBJECT WHO EXPOSES HIMHERSELF IN DIACHRONIC TIME IS INDEED AN ETHICAL SUBJECT #OHEN COMMENTS ON WHAT IT MEANS TO BE SUBJECT IN RELATION TO TIME +NOWING CONCEALS RE PRESENTATION AND REDUCES THE OTHER TO PRESENCE AND CO PRESENCE 4IME ON THE CONTRARY IN ITS DIA CHRONY WOULD SIGNIFY A RELATIONSHIP THAT DOES NOT COMPROMISE THE OTHERS ALTERITY WHILE STILL ASSURING ITS NON INDIFFERENCE TO @THOUGHTx 4IME SIGNIlES THIS ALWAYS OF NONCOINCIDENCE BUT ALSO THE ALWAYS OF THE RELATIONSHIP AN ASPIRATION AND AN AWAITING ,EVINAS
4HE ETHICAL SUBJECT IS POSED IN A POSTURE OF PASSIVITY AWAITING THE ARRIVAL OF THE /THER !LL SPEECH MOREOVER AWAITS AND WELCOMES ALTERITY 4HE NOTION OF WAITING BRINGS SUCH ISSUES AS TELEOLOGY AND ESCHATOLOGY TO THE FORE )T IS IMPORTANT TO REALIZE THAT ,EVINASS RESPONSIBLE SUBJECTIVITY IS NOT BASED ON A CONTENT DRIVEN @END OR @TELOS BUT ON AN OPENNESS OR HOSPITALITY TO THE STRANGER THE ONE IN NEED OR THE ONE WHO WILL COME !LTHOUGH THERE IS A MESSIANIC GROUNDING TO ,EVINASS WORK HE OFFERS NO ULTIMATE ESCHATOLOGICAL VISION ,EVINAS PRIVILEGES THE ETHICAL
^,EVINASS 3UBJECT AS 0OSTURED FOR THE /THER
ACTIVITY OF WAITING OVER THE THEMATIZATING OF THE END THEREBY JETTISON ING REVEALED RELIGIONS TEMPTATION TO PRETEND TO KNOW THE FUTURE OF THE /THER ,EVINAS GIVES PREFERENCE TO AN ETHICAL DISPOSITION WHICH TENTATIVELY AND HUMBLY AWAITS THE /THER 4HIS ETHICAL STANCE OF WAITING CAN BE UNDERSTOOD IN TERMS OF A BLIND PASSIVITY OR AS A SEARCHING AND YEARNING WITHOUT CONTENT )N h4IME AND THE /THER v ,EVINAS EXPLAINS THAT hTHIS @NOT KNOWING THIS FUNDAMENTAL DISORDER IS THE ESSENTIAL )T IS LIKE A GAME WITH SOMETHING SLIPPING AWAY A GAME ABSOLUTELY WITHOUT PROJECT OR PLAN NOT WITH WHAT CAN BECOME OURS OR US BUT WITH SOMETHING OTHER ALWAYS OTHER ALWAYS INACCESSIBLE AND ALWAYS STILL TO COME ;Í VENIR=v ,EVINASS EMPHASIS ON WAITING WITHOUT KNOWING OR EXPECTING UN DERMINES OUR MODERN TENDENCY TO EXPECT CERTAIN REWARDS IN OUR BE ING FOR OTHERS /FTEN WE EXPECT A THANK YOU SOME SORT OF GESTURE OF GRATITUDE THAT MARKS OUR ACTING SAINTLY OR RESPONSIBLY TOWARD OTHERS "Y REVERSING OUR IDEA OF SUBJECTIVITY FROM A POSTURE OF ANTICIPATION WHICH INCLUDES MAKING ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT WHO PEOPLE ARE AND WHAT THEY OUGHT TO DO TO A POSTURE OF WAITING WHICH INVOLVES A PASSIVITY AND OPENNESS TO VULNERABILITY ,EVINAS NUANCES WHAT IT MEANS TO BE HUMAN "EING HUMAN IS ABOUT BEING FOR OTHERS WITHOUT ANY CONCEPT OF WHAT THAT BEING WILL BRING US )RONICALLY THIS *EWISH THINKERS IDEAS ABOUT SUBJECTIVITY ARE BOTH MESSIANIC AND NON MESSIANIC &OR ,EVINAS BEING HUMAN INVOLVES A SENSE OF WAITING BUT A WAITING WITHOUT CONTENT )T IS THROUGH SPEECH IN TIME AND BY WAY OF POSTURE THAT A PERSON WAITS FOR THE /THER !GAIN TIME HERE DOES NOT FUNCTION AS A POSSESSION OF THE SUBJECT RATHER TIME UNRAVELS DIACHRONICALLY SO THAT SUBJECTIV ITY FOR THE /THER BECOMES AN EFFECT OF THE LAPSING INTERVAL -OREOVER THE SUBJECT WAITS FOR THE CALL ATTENTIVELY AND VIGILANTLY WITHOUT ANY CONSCIOUS INTEREST IN OR KNOWLEDGE OF THE CONTENT OF THE CALL .OTICE THE RECEPTIVE APPROACH OF THE SUBJECT AS SHE PASSIVELY WAITS AND LISTENS FOR THE TIME OF THE /THER 3O FAR WE HAVE EXPLORED HOW THE LINGUISTIC STRUCTURE OF SIGNIlCATION DEVELOPS DIACHRONICALLY THAT IS HOW TIME LAPSES BETWEEN THE 3AYING AND THE 3AID CREATING AN INTERVAL THAT INSPIRES THE SUBJECTS RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE /THER ) NOW WANT TO EMPHASIZE THE PASSIVE APPROACH FOR THE /THER NOT ONLY IN THE 3AYING BUT ALSO IN THE ACTUAL POSTURE OF THE
-ICHELE 3ARACINO /N "EING (UMAN
SUBJECT ,EVINAS WRITES THAT IT IS IN hTHE VERY DE POSING OR DESITUATING OF THE SUBJECTv THAT DIACHRONY IS EXPOSED AND JUSTICE IS REVEALED E !LTHOUGH ,EVINAS DOES NOT DEVELOP THE NOTION OF @POSTURING IN DETAIL IN HIS WORK IT IS NOT ONLY A LOGICAL HEURISTIC FOR THINKING ABOUT SUBJECTIVITY IN CORPOREAL AND CONCRETE TERMS BUT ONE ) lND IMPLICIT IN MANY OF HIS WRITINGS )T IS NOT SURPRISING THEN THAT !LPHONSO ,INGIS ELABORATES ON ,EVINASS NOTION OF APPROACH AND POSTURE IN 3ENSATION )NTELLIGIBILITY IN 3ENSIBILITY AND &OREIGN "ODIES B ,EVINASS UNDERSTANDING OF PROXIMITY AS A POSTURE OR APPROACH SHIFTS THE EMPHASIS IN PHILOSOPHY FROM THEMATIZING THE /THER AS AN OBJECT TO BEING OPEN FOR THE /THER IN RELATIONSHIP %XTENDING ,EVINASS ASSERTIONS ABOUT APPROACH AND PROXIMITY ,INGIS EXPLAINS POSTURE AS A hDYNAMIC GESTALT A STRUCTURE SUCH THAT ANY DISPLACEMENT OF ONE PART INDUCES AN ORDERED DISPLACEMENT THROUGHOUTv (IS NOTION OF POSTURE IS FURTHERED BY HIS CLAIM THAT ONES STANCE IS AFFECTED AND DIRECTED BY OTHERS 4HROUGH JUST SEEING SOMEONE SEATED ON A STOOL BENCH OR COUCH MY BODY lNDS SPONTANEOUSLY THE POSTURE CORRESPONDING TO HIS AS ) GO TO JOIN HIMx/NES @BODY IMAGE ;POSTURE= IS NOT AN IMAGE FORMED IN THE PRIVACY OF ONES OWN IMAGINATION ITS VISIBLE TANGIBLE AUDIBLE SHAPE IS HELD IN THE GAZE AND TOUCH OF OTHERS
4HUS LIKE TIME AND SPEECH ONES POSTURE IS NOT A PRIVATE POSSESSION OF THE SUBJECT INSTEAD IT IS A FORM OF THE SUBJECT ENGENDERED BY THE POSI TION OF THE /THER )N SUCH A RELATION THE SUBJECTS STANCE IS REORIENTED CONTINUOUSLY BY THE NEEDS OF OTHERS 3PECIlCALLY THE NAKEDNESS AND HEIGHT OF THE /THER CALL THE SUBJECT INTO QUESTION AND POSITION THE SUBJECT FOR THE /THER )MPLICITLY THE NOTION OF @POSTURING CONNOTES CORPOREAL RESPONSIBILITY WHICH IS ABSENT FROM ANY OCULAR METAPHOR /NLY BY MOVING AWAY FROM THE COGNITION OF THE /THER WHICH ,EVINAS EQUATES WITH THE METAPHOR OF SEEING CAN MEN AND WOMEN RESPOND TO THE DEMAND AND COMMAND OF THEIR NEIGHBORS )N h%NIGMA AND 0HENOMENON v ,EVINAS EXPLAINS h4HE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE )NlNITE
&OR AN INTERESTING LINK BETWEEN ,EVINAS AND $ERRIDA ON DIACHRONIC TIME SEE $ERRIDAS WORK 3PECTERS OF -ARX 4HE 3TATE OF THE $EBT 4HE 7ORK OF -OURNING AND 4HE .EW )NTERNATIONAL
^,EVINASS 3UBJECT AS 0OSTURED FOR THE /THER
IS NOT A COGNITION BUT AN APPROACHvA POSTURE 4HE NOTION OF POSTURE IMBUES THE ETHICAL RELATION BETWEEN SUBJECT AND /THER WITH PHYSICAL MATERIAL KENOTIC SPATIAL AND SENSUAL TEXTURE %VEN IF HE DOES NOT SPECIFY THE POINT AT WHICH POSTURE BECOMES ETHICAL ACTION ,EVINAS EMPLOYS THE RHETORIC OF APPROACH PROXIMITY AND HEIGHT TO SHIFT FROM AN INTELLECTUALIST TO SENSIBLE ACCOUNT OF BE ING HUMAN 3UBJECTIVITY FOR ,EVINAS IS UNDERSTOOD NOT AS A COGNITIVE ACTIVITY BUT AS AN EMBODIED STANCE TOWARD ONES NEIGHBOR 0RACTICALLY SPEAKING HE INSISTS THAT ONE DOES NOT NEED TO KNOW HISHER NEIGH BORTHAT IS TO THEMATIZE OR CONCEPTUALIZE ONES NEIGHBORIN ORDER TO hTAKE THE BREAD OUT OF ONES MOUTH TO NOURISH THE HUNGER OF ANOTHER WITH ONES OWN FASTINGv ,EVINAS E +ANTIAN METAPHYSICS MAY LEAD TO THE DEVALUATION OF MATERIAL NEED BODILY OBLIGATION AND SPIRITUAL FEELINGS BUT BY EMPHASIZING SENSIBILITY ,EVINAS PRIVILEGES PRECISELY WHAT +ANT HAS NEGLECTED OR EVEN DISPARAGED -OREOVER IN OPPOSITION TO (USSERL ,EVINAS ARGUES THAT NOESIS INTENTIONALITY AND KNOWING LEAD TO TOTALITY THEMATIZATION AND OBJECTIlCATION )T IS ONLY BY WAY OF SENSIBILITY THAT HUMANS CAN ENTER INTO TRANSCENDENCE "Y SENSIBILITY ,EVINAS MEANS THE hSUSCEPTIBILITY TO BEING APPEALED TO AND ORDEREDv ,INGIS )N AN EFFORT TO PRIVILEGE SENSIBILITY OVER COGNITION ,EVINAS WRITES )N KNOWING WHICH IS OF ITSELF SYMBOLIC IS REALIZED THE PASSING FROM THE IMAGE A LIMITATION AND A PARTICULARITY TO THE TOTALITY #ONSE QUENTLY BEINGS ESSENCE IS MOVED INTO THE WHOLE CONTENT OF ABSTRAC TIONx 4HE IMMEDIACY ON THE SURFACE OF THE SKIN CHARACTERISTIC OF SENSIBILITY ITS VULNERABILITY IS FOUND AS IT WERE ANESTHETIZED IN THE PROCESS OF KNOWING E
)T IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT ALTHOUGH ,EVINAS HIGHLIGHTS THE PERILS OF COGNITION IN HIS ACCOUNT OF SENSIBILITY HE STILL ADMITS THAT IN FACING JUDGMENT AND DECISION BECOME NECESSARY )N HIS WORK h0HILOSOPHY AND *USTICE v ,EVINAS CLAIMS THAT hAT A CERTAIN MOMENT THERE IS A NECESSITY FOR @WEIGHING A COMPARISON A PONDERINGv C ,EVINAS OBVIOUSLY PRIVILEGES SENSIBILITY OVER COGNITION BECAUSE OF THE AGGRESSIVE AND TOTALIZING WAY IN WHICH COGNITION HAS BEEN CONSTRUED
-ICHELE 3ARACINO /N "EING (UMAN
IN 7ESTERN INTELLECTUAL TRADITIONS .EVERTHELESS HE UNDERSTANDS JUDG MENT AS A NECESSARY MOMENT IN HUMANITYS RELATIONSHIP WITH THE /THER /NE COULD ARGUE CONSEQUENTLY THAT THE WAY IN WHICH ,EVINAS lRST DISMISSES COGNITION AND THEN DEEMS IT NECESSARY SIGNALS A WEAKNESS AND CONTRADICTION IN HIS THOUGHT %VEN AMID THIS AMBIGUITY HOWEVER ,EVINASS DESIRE FOR JUSTICE EVEN IF MURKY IS PRESENT ,ET ME EXPLAIN FURTHER 2ECALL THAT ,EVINAS CLAIMS THAT RESPONSIBILITY IS PRIOR TO ANY QUESTION )N FACT THE QUESTION AND THUS CONSCIOUSNESS ONLY ARISES WITH THE ENTRANCE OF THE THIRD PARTY !S A RESULT IT IS THE ENTRANCE OF THE THIRD PARTY THAT OPENS THE ETHICAL RELATION BETWEEN THE SUBJECT AND /THER 4HE IMPORTANCE OF THE THIRD PARTY IS OFTEN UNDERESTIMATED IN MUCH OF THE SECONDARY WRITINGS ON ,EVINAS QUITE POSSIBLY BECAUSE WHO OR WHAT HE DESIGNATES AS THE THIRD PARTY IS AT BEST SLIPPERY OPAQUE AND INCONSISTENT ,EVINAS REFERS TO THE THIRD PARTY IN VARIOUS WAYS INCLUDING UNDERSTANDING THE THIRD PARTY AS THE STATE AS ANOTHER PERSON AND SOMETIMES EVEN AS 'OD 7HATEVER THE CASE THE ASYMMETRICAL SELF /THER RELATION IS ALWAYS INTERRUPTED SHADOWED AND COMPLICATED BY THE TRACE OF A THIRD PARTY THAT AFFECTS THE RELATIONSHIP )N SOME WORKS SUCH AS h%SSENCE AND $ISINTERESTEDNESS v HE DESIGNATES THE THIRD PARTY TO BE JUSTICE THAT hCOMPARES ASSEMBLES AND CONCEIVESv 4HE THIRD PARTY IN SUCH A SCENARIO WOULD BE THE QUESTION OF HOW INSTITUTIONS INCLUDING THE STATE SHOULD RUN IN LIGHT OF A PRIMORDIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH ALTERITY )N OTHER TEXTS ,EVINAS DEEMS 'OD AS A THIRD PARTY IN THE MIDST OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SUBJECT AND /THER (E OFFERS THE NOTION OF 'OD AS THE THIRD PARTY IN PART TO CHALLENGE THE #HRISTIAN CONTENTION THAT 'OD IS IN A DIRECT ENCOUNTER WITH HUMANITY THROUGH #HRIST (E IS UNEASY WITH THIS #HRISTIAN AXIOM BECAUSE IT RUNS THE RISK OF CREATING A SYMMETRY BETWEEN HUMANITY AND DIVINITY 5LTIMATELY WHETHER THE THIRD PARTY IS 'OD JUSTICE KNOWLEDGE THE WORLD OR THE STATE IT TENDS TO ENCROACH ON THE SPACE BETWEEN THE SUBJECT AND /THER !S A RESULT IN THE FACE OF THE THIRD PARTY THE SUBJECTS RESPONSIBILITY BECOMES EVEN MORE OBVIOUS /NE CAN GLEAN HOW ,EVINASS WORK DOES NOT LEAVE SOCIETY PREY TO NIHILISTIC POWERS TYRANNY OR CHAOS BUT DEFERS ALWAYS ALREADY TO THE /THER !S 4HOMAS +EENAN MAKES CLEAR WE ARE THROWN ALREADY INTO THIS RELATIONSHIP WITH AN /THER CONSEQUENTLY WE HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO JUDGE AND CALL FORTH JUSTICE 9ET
^,EVINASS 3UBJECT AS 0OSTURED FOR THE /THER
IN ORDER TO AVOID THE AGGRESSIVE CONNOTATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH COGNI TION AND JUSTICE ,EVINAS lRST EMPHASIZES RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHERS IN TERMS OF SENSIBILITY !S ,EVINAS ALLUDES TO THE SENSUAL AND EMBODIED POSTURE OF THE SUB JECT HE GIVES TEXTURE TO HUMANITY BEYOND THE FEATURES OF LANGUAGE AND TIME "Y INTERPRETING THE SUBJECT IN TERMS OF A CORPOREAL STANCE AND BEYOND THE PARAMETERS OF LANGUAGE AND TIME ,EVINAS CREATES A HOLISTIC NOTION OF BEING HUMAN 4HE EMBODIED SUBJECT OF WHICH ) SPEAK IS BY NO MEANS A COMMONPLACE INTERPRETATION OF ,EVINAS &RENCH FEMINIST THINKER ,UCE )RIGARAY ACCUSES ,EVINASS WORK OF BEING LOGOCENTRIC 3HE ARGUES THAT HUMANITYS OBLIGATION TO THE /THER CANNOT LIE SOLELY IN SPEECH AND OBLIGATION AS RESPONSE TO THE /THER MUST ALSO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT TOUCHING AND BODILY CONTACT &URTHERMORE )RIGARAY ASSERTS THAT THE MOST ELEMENTARY GESTURE OF LOVE IS NOT SPEECH BUT TOUCHING 0RESUPPOSING THAT THE ESSENCE OF MALENESS IS LANGUAGE SHE INSISTS THAT THE ONLY WAY IN WHICH WOMEN CAN BE TRULY OTHER IS TO MOVE OUT OF THE EXISTING LOGOCENTRIC SYSTEMS OF EXCHANGE (ENCE )RIGARAY ENCOURAGES WOMEN TO ENGAGE IN AN IMMEDIATE RELATIONSHIP WITH NATURE OR WITH 'OD AND TO REVEL IN EXTREME FORMS OF CARNALITY OR SENSIBILITY )T IS ONLY THROUGH THE BODY THAT IS THROUGH TOUCH THAT WOMEN CAN TRANSCEND BEING THEMATIZED INTO THE SAME WHICH IN THIS CASE IS THE MASCULINE GENDER )RIGARAY !LTHOUGH ) AGREE WITH THE SPIRIT OF )RIGARAYS CRITIQUE IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT ,EVINAS HAS PARTLY MET )RIGARAYS CHALLENGE BY PROPOSING A HIGHLY AFFECTIVE AND AESTHETIC ACCOUNT OF ETHICS (E DESCRIBES THE ETHICAL RELATION BETWEEN THE SUBJECT AND /THER IN A VOLUPTUOUS TERMINOLOGY THAT INCLUDES SUCH NOTIONS AS FECUNDITY CREATION DESIRE CARESS AND SHOULDERING 4HIS LANGUAGE OF VOLUPTUOUS EXCESS CONCRETIZES ,EVINASS CONCERN FOR THE BODY OF THE SUBJECT !S A QUALIlCATION TO THIS POTENTIAL IN ,EVINAS IF THE SENTIMENTS OF @CARESSING AND @SHOULDERING CONNOTE MATERIAL NEED AS WELL AS PHYSICAL ACCOUNTABILITY THIS MATERIALITY MAY TEND TO DISSIPATE IN THE VISUAL METAPHOR OF FACING !LTHOUGH FACING FOR ,EVINAS IS A KEY TROPE THAT DEMONSTRATES THE NEED OF THE /THER THE RHETORIC OF CARESS SHOULDERING AND POSTURING BETTER ILLUSTRATES THE PHYSICAL ENGAGEMENT BETWEEN SUBJECT AND /THER 4HE SUBJECT RESPONDS TO THE CARESS OF THE /THER IN A POSTURE OF SHOULDERING THE /THER )T IS
-ICHELE 3ARACINO /N "EING (UMAN
MY CONTENTION THAT THIS SHOULDERING ASPECT OF THE ,EVINASIAN SUBJECT HAS BEEN GROSSLY UNDERSTATED 4HROUGH THE TROPE OF SHOULDERING ,EVINAS ILLUSTRATES THE PARADOX OF BEING HUMAN )N ORDER TO ELUCIDATE THE NOTION OF SHOULDERING IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL TO RECALL THAT ,EVINAS LIKE ,ONERGAN RESISTS A COM MONSENSE INTERPRETATION OF INTERIORITY IN WHICH THE SUBJECT ASSUMES AN IMMANENTIST AND EGOIST STANCE 7HATS MORE FOR ,EVINAS THE /THER CALLS THE SUBJECT OUT OF HISHERSELF AND DEMANDS A RESPONSE /NLY THE SUBJECT WHO IS CALLED CAN SHOULDER THIS BURDEN CAN BE FOR THE /THER &OR ,EVINAS WITH A PERSONS SINGULARITY COMES THE GIFT OF BEING DISTINCT FROM AND THUS ACCOUNTABLE TO OTHERS ,INGIS EXPLAINS 4HAT THE WHOLE WEIGHT OF THE UNIVERSE IS ON MY SHOULDERS AND THAT ) CANNOT SHIFT THIS BURDEN UPON ANYONE ELSETHIS IS MY lND ING MYSELF WITHOUT A DOUBLE !ND THIS PREDICAMENT IS FOUNDED ON THE RELATIONSHIP WITH ALTERITY IT IS BEING ANSWERABLE WITHOUT LIMIT 4HE APPROACH OF THE OTHER HOLDING ME RESPONSIBLE FOR EVERYTHING EVEN FOR WHAT ) DID NOT DOTHIS UNLIMITED ACCUSATIONIS WHAT SINGULARIZES ME UTTERLY ,EVINAS E XXX
4HE SINGULARITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL IS A CHARACTERISTIC THAT ACTUALLY MARKS AND OPENS THE SUBJECT FOR THE /THER 9ET DISTANCE ALSO AFFECTS THE OPENING OF THE SUBJECT THE CLOSER THE SUBJECT BECOMES TO THE /THER THE MORE SHE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE /THER 2ECALL FROM MY ANALYSIS OF -OSESS ENCOUNTER WITH 'OD THAT INTIMACY BETWEEN SUBJECT AND /THER IS A KEY TENET IN ,EVINASS THOUGHT 2EMEMBER HOW ,EVINAS RESPONDS TO (EIDEGGERS DISTANCE WITH THE IDEA OF NEARNESS IN THAT THE PROXIMITY OF THE /THER OVERWHELMS THE PERSONAL SPACE OF THE SUBJECT AND EX PLODES HISHER INTERIORITY ,EVINAS NAVIGATES BETWEEN THESE TWO HUMAN INCLINATIONS IN HIS ANALYSIS OF SHOULDERING 4HE NOTION OF SHOULDERING WORKS TO EMPHASIZE THE RELATIONSHIP OF PROXIMITY BETWEEN SUBJECT AND /THER AS WELL AS THE SUBJECTS PARTICULAR OBLIGATION TO THE /THER 1UITE POIGNANTLY IN (UMANISME DE LAUTRE HOMME ,EVINAS EXPLAINS HOW ONE CANNOT SHIFT RESPONSIBILITY FROM ONES SHOULDERS #HRISTIAN THEOLOGIANS HAVE ALSO REALIZED THE SIGNIlCANCE OF THE META PHOR OF SHOULDERING #OPELAND EXPLAINS HOW THE PRACTICE OF SHOULDERING THE OPPRESSED AND MARGINALIZED IS A CONCRETE TASK DEMANDED OF ALL #HRISTIANS REGARDLESS OF SOCIAL LOCATION 2ESPONSIBILITY AS STAND
^,EVINASS 3UBJECT AS 0OSTURED FOR THE /THER
ING FOR AND WITH THE OPPRESSED hSHOULDER TO SHOULDERv EXPLODES OUR COMMONSENSE KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT IT MEANS TO BE IN SOLIDARITY 3UCH A NOTION OF SHOULDERING CONSIDERS THE PARTICULAR DIFFERENCES OF EACH PERSON YET BINDS INDIVIDUALS EVEN IN THEIR DIFFERENCES TO ONE ANOTHER IN A POSTURE OF RESPONSIBILITY 4HE METAPHOR OF SHOULDERING CONJURES PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY IN RELATION TO COMMUNAL RESPONSIBILITY SHOULDERING DEMONSTRATES A CORPOREAL RELATIONSHIP FOR OTHERS 7E NEED SUCH AFFECTIVE BODILY RHETORIC LIKE SHOULDERING AS WE IMAGINE SUBJECTIVITY IN THEOLOGY IN ORDER TO CAPTURE THE CONCRETE RE ALITY OF BEING HUMAN IN POSTMODERNITY 3IMILAR TO THE WAY IN WHICH ,ONERGANS USE OF THE TERMINOLOGY OF REmECTION INTERIORITY AND HORIZON RUNS AGAINST THE THRUST OF HIS ARGUMENT THE LANGUAGE OF FACING WORKS AGAINST ,EVINASS PROJECT !LL OF THESE WORDS SUPPORT THE OCULARCENTRIC CULTURE OF THE 7EST A CULTURE THAT HAS BECOME ANESTHETIZED TO IMAGES OF THE NEEDY AND SUFFERING #ONSEQUENTLY A CHALLENGE TO DEVELOP MORE BODILY mESHLY AND GRAPHIC SIGNIlERS OF SUBJECTIVITY AND OTHERNESS HAS EMERGED 3HOULDERING ANSWERS THAT CHALLENGE BY WAY OF CONNOTING AN EMBODIED POSTURE OF THE SUBJECT THAT IS FOR THE /THER 7E WILL REALIZE SHORTLY THAT UNLIKE METAPHORS OF MOTHERING AND FATHERING WHICH CONNOTE A SIMILAR SACRIlCIAL AND HOSTAGE SUBJECTIVITY OF BEING FOR THE /THER THE TERM @SHOULDERING IS NOT LIMITED TO GENDER OR AGE AND DESIGNATES A MORE INCLUSIVE WAY OF THINKING ABOUT ,EVINASS SUBJECT AS RESPONSIBLE TO OTHERS 3IMILAR TO THE CONNECTION BETWEEN SPEECH AND DIACHRONIC TIME IS THE LINK BETWEEN THE POSTURE OF SENSIBILITY AND AWAITING TIME )N h4IME AND THE /THER v ,EVINAS EXPLAINS HOW THE HUMAN BEING AWAITS THE EMBODIED DEMAND OF THE /THER h4HE SEEKING OF THE CARESS CON STITUTES ITS ESSENCE BY THE FACT THAT THE CARESS DOES NOT KNOW WHAT IT SEEKSx 4HE CARESS IS THE ANTICIPATION OF THIS PURE FUTURE ;AVENIR= WITHOUT CONTENTv 4HE ACTIVITY OF WAITING OVERDETERMINES THE PASSIVE STANCE OF THE SUBJECT ,EVINAS LOCATES SENSIBILITY AS THE VERY EVENT OF THE FUTURE %VEN THOUGH OUR SHOULDERING EMBRACING HEALING AND FEEDING OF OTHERS ARE INDISPENSABLE ACTS IN OUR OBLIGATION FOR OTHERS ,EVINAS LOCATES THE PRIMARY SIGNIlCANCE OF SUBJECTIVITY IN AWAITING THE /THER 3IMILAR TO THE WAY IN WHICH ,EVINAS PRIVILEGES THE 3AYING OVER THE 3AID AS WELL AS DIACHRONY OVER SYNCHRONY HE PRIVILEGES THE PHYSICAL POSTURE OF RECEPTIVITY TOWARD THE /THER OVER
-ICHELE 3ARACINO /N "EING (UMAN
ANY AGGRESSIVE HANDLING OF THE /THER )T BECOMES EVIDENT THAT NEITHER PUBLIC ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF NOR A DElNITIVE END TO OUR ACTIONS IS THE IMPORTANCE OF OUR POSTURE FOR THE /THER )NSTEAD THE POSTURE ITSELF IS OF THE UTMOST SIGNIlCANCE !S THE SUBJECT IS POSTURED OPEN AND EXPOSED FOR THE /THER SHE IS PLACED IN A RISK lLLED AND FRIGHTENING PREDICAMENT ,EVINAS COM MENTS UPON THE SUBJECTS VULNERABLE POSITION h4HE OPENNESS OF SPACE AS AN OPENNESS OF SELF WITHOUT A WORLD WITHOUT A PLACE UTOPIA THE NOT BEING WALLED IN INSPIRATION TO THE END EVEN TO EXPIRATION IS THE PROXIMITY OF THE OTHER WHICH IS POSSIBLE ONLY AS RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE OTHER AS SUBSTITUTION FOR HIMv E 4HIS SITUATION OF COMPLETE OPENNESS IS PARTICULARLY DANGEROUS BECAUSE THE SUBJECT HAS NO KNOWLEDGE OF HOW THE SITUATION WILL END 4HE SUBJECT CAN ONLY BE CERTAIN OF HISHER OBLIGATION FOR THE /THER TO THE POINT OF SUBSTI TUTION )N COMPLETE PASSIVITY THE SUBJECT IS AT THE MERCY OF THE /THER AT RISK OF MISTAKE MISCOMPREHENSION AND UNCERTAINTY .O LONGER IS THE SUBJECT A CARTOGRAPHER MAPPING UNCHARTED LAND IN AN EFFORT TO DOMINATE THE WORLD 2ATHER THE SUBJECT IS OPENED BY AND EXPOSED TO THE INCOMPREHENSIBLE IN ORDER TO SHOULDER THE /THER 4HIS IS A RADICAL CHANGE FROM THE POSTURE OF (EIDEGGERS $ASEIN IN WHICH THE SENSIBLE WAS THE EMPTINESS NOTHINGNESS AND VOID IN HIS HORIZON &OR ,EVINAS THE SENSIBLE WHICH IS PRECISELY A SUSCEPTIBILITY TO THE /THER CONTACTS THE SUBJECT AND POSTURES HIMHER FOR GOODNESS 4O REVIEW ) BEGAN THIS SECTION BY NOTING THAT SPEAKING TO THE /THER OPENS UP THE SUBJECT RESULTING IN TRANSCENDENCE #OMMUNICATION IS COMPLICATED BY THE IDEA OF THE SUBJECT BEING REORIENTED BY THE PASSING OF TIME ) ARGUED THAT ALTERITY AWAKENS THE SELF BOTH IN THE BEARING WITNESS TO THE /THER THROUGH LANGUAGE AND IN THE DISJOINTED NATURE OF TIME 5LTIMATELY ) FOUND THAT ,EVINASS THEORY OF SUBJECTIVITY EXTENDS BEYOND QUESTIONS OF LANGUAGE AND TIME BY TAKING ACCOUNT OF SENSIBILITY ,IKE LANGUAGE AND TIME THE TOUCH OF ANOTHER PERSON ORIENTS THE SUBJECT INTO A POSTURE FOR THE /THER 4HE NOTIONS OF CARESS AND SHOULDERING WORK TO AVOID THE OCULARCENTRIC LEANINGS OF THE NOTION OF FACING AND UNDERSCORE THE DRAMATIC AND MATERIAL ORIGINS OF TRANSCENDENCE )N THE NEXT SECTION ) WILL ARGUE THAT THE TRANSCENDING SUBJECT IS NOT MERELY POSTURED FOR THE /THER METAPHORICALLY BUT ALSO LITERALLY
^,EVINASS 3UBJECT AS 0OSTURED FOR THE /THER
4HE #ORPOREALITY OF ,EVINASS 3UBJECT )N DEVELOPING THE NOTION OF POSTURE IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT ,EVINAS IS AWARE OF THE SIGNIlCANCE OF CORPOREALITY FOR ANY ETHICAL ANALYSIS (IS THOUGHTS ON THE IMPORTANCE OF EMBODIMENT MIGHT BE SAID TO DEVELOP IN FOUR PHASES )NITIALLY ,EVINASS UNDERSTANDING OF THE BODY IS ROOTED IN HIS STUDY OF %DMUND (USSERL 3ECOND ,EVINASS ASSERTION THAT THE SUBJECT IS EMBODIED IS INEXTRICABLY CONNECTED TO QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MORTALITY OF HUMAN BEINGS )T IS THIS WEIGHT THAT CHARACTERIZES THE SUBJECTS RESPONSIBILITY FOR OTHERS TO THE POINT OF SACRIlCE AND SETS THE STAGE FOR THE THIRD AREA OF INQUIRY INTO THE ,EVINASIAN SUBJECT AS GENDERED &INALLY THE MATRIX OF CONNECTIONS AMONG BODY GENDER AND JUSTICE BECOMES CONCRETIZED &ROM HIS EARLY WRITINGS ON (USSERLIAN PHENOMENOLOGY ,EVINAS WAS INTRIGUED BY BOTH (USSERLS EMPHASIS ON THE BODY AND (USSERLS CRITIQUE OF THE WAY IN WHICH CLASSICAL METAPHYSICS DISEMBODIED THE SUBJECT AND REIlED THE /THER &OLLOWING (USSERLS LEAD ,EVINAS ARGUES THAT h;T=O BE EMBODIED IS TO BE A SUBJECT IN A WAY THAT DIFFERS FROM THE SUBJECTIVITY OF THE IDEALIST ANALYSESv B (ERE IDEALISM IS INTERPRETED AS A THEORY THAT UNDERSTANDS CONSCIOUSNESS AS MOVING AWAY FROM THE BODY )N ORDER TO COUNTER THE IDEALIST UNDERSTANDING OF THE SUBJECT (USSERLIAN PHENOMENOLOGY EXPLAINS CONSCIOUSNESS AS MOVING TOWARD AND THROUGH THE BODY &OR BOTH (USSERL AND ,EVINAS THEN CONSCIOUSNESS CANNOT BE SEPARATED FROM EMBODIMENT .EVERTHELESS DESPITE ,EVINASS RESPECT FOR (USSERLS PHENOMENOLOGY ,EVINAS WAS CONVINCED THAT (USSERLS WORK IS TOO INTELLECTUALIST AND hIN CONFORMITY WITH A VENERABLE 7ESTERN TRADITIONPRIVILEGE OF THE THEORETICAL A PRIVILEGE OF REPRESENTATION OF KNOWING AND HENCE OF THE ONTOLOGICAL MEANING OF BEINGv h.ONINTENTIONAL #ONSCIOUSNESS v C -OREOVER ,EVINASS CRITIQUE OF (USSERL DATES BACK TO HIS DISSERTATION IN WHICH HE ACCUSES (USSERL OF INTELLECTUALISM YET AT THE SAME TIME COMMENDS HIM FOR PAYING ATTENTION TO RELATIONSHIPS IN INTENTIONALITY ANALYSIS ,EVINASS WORK ULTIMATELY EXTENDS BEYOND (USSERLIAN PHENOMENOLOGY AND ENACTS A PHENOMENOLOGY SIMILAR TO THAT OF -ERLEAU 0ONTY )T IS -ERLEAU 0ONTYS WORK ON CORPOREALITY AND AMBIGUITY THAT ALLOWS ,EVINAS TO FRAME BEING FOR OTHERS IN TERMS OF VULNERABILITY AND RISK
-ICHELE 3ARACINO /N "EING (UMAN
,IKE -ERLEAU 0ONTYS SUBJECT ,EVINASS SUBJECT IS EMBODIED AND LIVES IN A WORLD THAT DEMANDS A RESPONSE IN SPITE OF AMBIGUITY 4HIS MEANS THAT FACE TO FACE INTERSUBJECTIVE RELATIONSHIPS ARE ALWAYS UNEASY 4HE ASYMMETRICAL RELATION WITH ANOTHER POSTURES US IN A PRECARIOUS SITU ATION IN WHICH WE DESIRE TO DO FOR OTHERS EVEN IF THERE IS A DANGER OF BEING HARMED 4HE VULNERABILITY CONNECTED TO OUR OBLIGATION FOR OTHERS ONLY WORKS TO UNDERSCORE EVEN MORE SHARPLY THE MORTAL RISK OF BEING FOR THE /THER !ND FOR ,EVINAS IT IS MORTALITY THAT MARKS THE SUBJECTS RELATIONSHIP TO THE /THER (E EXPLAINS IN h4IME AND THE /THERv 4HIS APPROACH OF DEATH INDICATES THAT WE ARE IN RELATION WITH SOME THING THAT IS ABSOLUTELY OTHER SOMETHING BEARING ALTERITY NOT AS A PROVISIONAL DETERMINATION WE CAN ASSIMILATE THROUGH ENJOYMENT BUT AS SOMETHING WHOSE VERY EXISTENCE IS MADE OF ALTERITY -Y SOLITUDE IS THUS NOT CONlRMED BY DEATH BUT BROKEN BY IT
)N QUITE ELOQUENT TERMS A PERSON WHO IS DYING CONFRONTS SUCH OTHER NESS "UT MORE IMPORTANTLY FOR MY ANALYSIS OF ,EVINAS THE IMPENDING DEATH OF ANOTHER PERSON ENLIVENS THE SUBJECT TO SUBSTITUTE HISHER OWN BODY FOR THE /THER 7E BECOME SAINTS THAT IS RESPONSIBLE SUBJECTS WHO SACRIlCE OUR BODIES FOR THE GOOD OF OTHERS ,EVINAS EXPLAINS THIS ALMOST SACRAMENTAL AND DElNITIVELY SAINTLY DIMENSION OF BEING HUMAN 4HE BODY IS NEITHER AN OBSTACLE OPPOSED TO THE SOUL NOR A TOMB THAT IMPRISONS IT BUT THAT BY WHICH THE SELF IS SUSCEPTIBILITY ITSELF )NCARNATION IS AN EXTREME PASSIVITY TO BE EXPOSED TO SICKNESS SUF FERING DEATH IS TO BE EXPOSED TO COMPASSION AND AS A SELF TO THE GIFT THAT COSTS 4HE ONESELF ON THIS SIDE OF THE ZERO OF INERTIA AND NOTHINGNESS IN DElCIT OF BEING IN ITSELF AND NOT IN BEING WITHOUT
&OR AN EXACTING ANALYSIS OF ,EVINASS DEVELOPMENT OF -ERLEAU 0ONTYS PHENOMENOLOGY SEE 4HEODORE $E "OERS 4HE 2ATIONALITY OF 4RANSCENDENCE $E "OER ARGUES THAT ,EVINAS REJECTS THE IDEA OF CONSCIOUSNESS WITHOUT INCARNATION THUS IN MANY WAYS THE PHRASE INCARNATE CONSCIOUSNESS IS PROBLEMATIC
^,EVINASS 3UBJECT AS 0OSTURED FOR THE /THER
A PLACE TO LAY ITS HEAD IN THE NO GROUNDS AND THUS WITHOUT CONDI TIONS !S SUCH IT WILL BE SHOWN TO BE BEARER OF THE WORLD BEARING IT SUFFERING IT BLOCKING REST AND LACKING A FATHERLAND )T IS THE CORRELATE OF A PERSECUTION A SUBSTITUTION FOR THE OTHER E P N
)NDEED THE BODY IS INDISPENSABLE FOR SUBJECTIVITY AS IT IS THE SITE OF PAS SIVITY PAIN AGING SACRIlCE AND GIFT h4HE CORPOREALITY OF THE SUBJECT IS THE PAIN OF EFFORT THE ORIGINAL ADVERSITY OF FATIGUEv 4HIS SAME FATIGUED BODY MOREOVER IS THE SITE OF JOY PLEASURE JOUISSANCE CRE ATION AND RESPONSIBILITY 4HE CONNECTION BETWEEN PAIN AND PLEASURE IS WEDDED BY THE POSTURE OF OPENNESS OF GIVING AT ALL COSTS 0AIN AND DEATH THEREFORE DO NOT ISOLATE THE SUBJECT BUT ORIENT HIMHER FOR THE /THER ,EVINAS WOULD CONCEDE THAT CONCERN FOR THE /THERS DEATH AND THE SUBJECTS SUBSTITUTION OF HIMHERSELF FOR ANOTHERS DEATH IS AN EXEMPLARY PERFORMANCE OF BEING SUBJECT 3UBSTITUTION FOR OTHERS IS AN IMPORTANT THEME IN ,EVINASS WRITINGS ON EMBODIED SUBJECTIVITY (E lGURES SUBSTITUTION THROUGH A VARIETY OF DISCOURSES THE MOST PROVOCATIVE AND STUNNING BEING HIS INTERPRETATION OF SUBSTITUTION IN TERMS OF MATERNITY )N BOTH HIS CONFESSIONAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL WRITINGS THE PROCREATIVE ROLE OF THE MOTHER IS A KEY TROPE FOR UNDERSTANDING THE APPROACH OR POSTURE OF BEING FOR THE /THER )N SUCH A RELATIONSHIP THE MOTHER IS A HOSTAGE OF THE CHILD SUBSTITUTING HERSELF FOR THE WELFARE OF THE CHILD "Y ANALOGY THE SUBJECT IS EXPOSED AND OPENED FOR THE /THER AS A MOTHER IS FOR HER CHILD ,IKE A MOTHER THE SUBJECT CANNOT AVOID THE /THER FOR SHE IS EXPOSED AS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE /THER TO THE POINT OF DEATH )T IS INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT ,EVINAS lNDS NOT ONLY THE METAPHOR OF MATERNITY A PROTEAN SYMBOL FOR OUR BEING HUMAN BUT HE ALSO IS INTRIGUED BY THE NOTION OF PATERNITY !S ,EVINAS EMPLOYS THE TERM hMATERNITYv TO CAPTURE THE EXCESSIVE GIVING OF THE SUBJECT HE UTILIZES THE TERM hPATERNITYv TO CONCRETIZE THE SEPA RATION BETWEEN SUBJECT AND /THER 2ECALL HOW ,EVINAS IS CONCERNED WITH MAINTAINING A SEPARATION BETWEEN SUBJECT AND /THER IN ORDER TO
-ICHELE 3ARACINO /N "EING (UMAN
RESPECT THE /THERS ALTERITY !CCORDINGLY ,EVINAS IMAGINES THE FATHER AS DIFFERENT FROM HIS CHILD !T THE SAME TIME THE BOND OF PATERNITY SOLIDIlES THE OBLIGATION BETWEEN THEM !SIDE FROM EMPLOYING THE ANALOGIES OF MATERNITY AND PATERNITY ,EVINAS EXPLAINS HUMANITYS ATTRACTION TO THE )NlNITE AS WELL AS TRAN SCENDENCE FOR THE /THER IN GENDERED LANGUAGE 3INCE HE CONSISTENTLY DESCRIBES THE /THER IN FEMININE LANGUAGE INCLUDING THE TERMS OF FECUNDITY AND VOLUPTUOSITY ONE BEGINS TO WONDER IF HIS SUBJECT IS PRESUMED TO BE MASCULINE /NE OF THE EARLIEST PROTESTS AGAINST ,EVINASS CHAUVINISM ORIGINATED IN THE WORK OF FEMINIST EXISTENTIALIST 3IMONE DE "EAUVOIR )N HER MOST FAMOUS WORK 4HE 3ECOND 3EX SHE QUESTIONS THE WAY IN WHICH ,EVINAS LINKS SUBJECTIVITY WITH GENDER 3HE MUSES ) SUPPOSE THAT ,EVINAS DOES NOT FORGET THAT WOMAN TOO IS AWARE OF HER OWN CONSCIOUSNESS OR EGO "UT IT IS STRIKING THAT HE TAKES A MANS POINT OF VIEW DISREGARDING THE RECIPROCITY OF SUBJECT AND OBJECT 7HEN HE WRITES THAT WOMAN IS MYSTERY HE IMPLIES THAT SHE IS MYSTERY FOR MAN 4HUS HIS DESCRIPTION WHICH IS INTENDED TO BE OBJECTIVE IS IN FACT AN ASSERTION OF MALE PRIVILEGE XL
#ONTRARY TO DE "EAUVOIRS CLAIMS MANY ASSERT THAT ,EVINASS WORK ATTEMPTS TO TRANSCEND BINARY CONlGURATIONS OF MALE AND FEMALE &OR INSTANCE ,EVINASIAN SCHOLAR 3IMON #RITCHLEY ARGUES THAT ,EVINAS DOES NOT EMPLOY THE RHETORIC OF FECUNDITY AND MATERNITY LITERALLY OR IN AN ATTEMPT TO ESSENTIALIZE GENDER P N 4HE /THER IS DESCRIBED IN SENSUAL LANGUAGE ONLY TO OVERDETERMINE THE EXCESSIVE QUALITY OF HISHER NEED /N A VERY BASIC LEVEL THIS MEANS THAT NOT ALL WOMEN ARE OTHER AND THAT NOT ALL MEN ARE SUBJECTS RATHER THE POSI TION OF THE ONE IN NEED IS EXPRESSED BY EXCESSIVE AND EROTIC LANGUAGE !RGUABLY THERE IS NO CONCRETE EVIDENCE FOR DEEMING ,EVINAS A SEXIST OR FOR REGARDING HIS WORK AS ESSENTIALIST WITH RESPECT TO GENDER 4HE MANNER IN WHICH ,EVINAS TEXTURES THE /THER THROUGH SUCH GENDER SPECIlC RHETORIC TELLS US SOMETHING ABOUT HIS UNDERSTANDING OF MA TERIALITY SPECIlCALLY THAT A HUMAN BEING IS ONLY A SUBJECT BY WAY OF HISHER EMBODIED RESPONSIBILITY 7E WILL RETURN TO ,EVINASS CONFRONTATION WITH THE POLITICS OF GEN DER IN THE FOLLOWING CHAPTER &OR NOW IT IS IMPORTANT TO REALIZE THAT
^,EVINASS 3UBJECT AS 0OSTURED FOR THE /THER
FOR ,EVINAS THE BODY IS THE SITE OF ETHICSTHE INCARNATION OF ETHICAL OBLIGATION 0UT ANOTHER WAY IT IS THROUGH THE BODY THAT THE EVENT OF BEING SUBJECT THAT IS BEING FOR THE /THER TAKES PLACE ,EVINAS EXPLAINS h4O TAKE IT AS AN EVENT IS TO SAY THAT IT IS NOT AN INSTRUMENT SYMBOL OR SYMPTOM OF POSITION BUT IS POSITION ITSELF THAT IN IT IS EFFECTED THE VERY TRANSFORMATION OF AN EVENT INTO A BEINGv 4HE WAY IN WHICH HUMANITY IS BODILY POSED AND ORIENTED FOR OR AGAINST THE /THER IS INDICATIVE OF HISHER SUBJECTIVITY &OR ,EVINAS A PERSON IS CALLED TO BE SUBJECT AND THUS POSITIONED BY THE /THER 4HIS CALL WHICH EMERGES IN THE FACE IS HEARD OUT OF TIME BY THE SUBJECT AND WITNESSED TO IN HISHER VERBAL AND PHYSICAL RESPONSES FOR THE /THER 4HE BODY BECOMES THE SITE OF THE ETHICAL RELATION BETWEEN SUBJECT AND /THER )N ADDITION ,EVINAS REMINDS US THAT THE BODY IS THE BOUNDARY BE TWEEN INTERIORITY AND EXTERIORITY 2EMEMBER THAT INTERIORITY IMPLIES AN AFlNITY FOR EGOISM WHILE EXTERIORITY REFERS TO THE OBLIGATION OF FOR THE /THER !S EMBODIED A HUMAN BEING STANDS TENSELY BETWEEN THE LIMITS OF INTERIORITY AND THE EXPOSURE OF EXTERIORITY /NE CAN BEGIN TO GRASP THAT THE TENSION WITHIN ONES STANCE IS AMBIGUOUS &OR ON ONE LEVEL TO STAND SE TENIR MEANS TO BE IN CONTROL OF ONESELF TO MASTER ONESELF TO TAKE HOLD OF ONESELF AND TO HIDE WITHIN ONES INTERIOR DWELL ING 3TILL ON ANOTHER LEVEL TO STAND SE TENIR MEANS TO BE GROUNDED BY SOMETHING OTHER THAN ONESELF TO BE BOUND AND RESPONSIBLE TO THE POINT OF EXTERIORITY AND TO BE FOR THE /THER )T IS PRECISELY IN THIS LIM INAL SPACE BETWEEN SELF AND /THER THAT THE BODY SUBJECT INCARNATES THE TENSION BETWEEN AN EGOIST AND A HOSPITABLE POSTURE IN THE EVENT OF BEING OPENED FOR THE /THER 4HE OPEN SUBJECT WHO POSTURES FOR THE /THER TO THE POINT OF DEATH IS THE SITE OF JUSTICE
-ICHELE 3ARACINO /N "EING (UMAN
#ONCLUSION )N THIS CHAPTER ) EXPLAINED ,EVINASS INTERPRETATION OF SUBJECTIVITY IN TERMS OF AN EMBODIED POSTURE THAT IS OPENED BY THE FACE OF /THER 4HE FACE AS A TRACE OF THE )NlNITE COMMANDS THE SUBJECT TO EXPOSE HIMHERSELF IN A POSTURE OF PASSIVITY AND GENEROSITY 4HIS KIND OF GIVING TRANSCENDS SIMPLE HANDOUTS AND DEMANDS THAT THE SUBJECT OPEN TO THE POINT OF SUBSTITUTION 4HE WAY IN WHICH THE FACE OPENS THE SUBJECT TO A DISPOSITION OF PASSIVE AND GIFTED RESPONSIBILITY THEN WAS BROKEN DOWN INTO THREE CATEGORIES INCLUDING SPEECH TIME AND POSTURE !S LANGUAGE IS THE MEDIUM BY WHICH THE SUBJECT GLORIlES AND BEARS WIT NESS TO ALTERITY SPEECH SIMULTANEOUSLY RECOGNIZES DIFFERENCE AND MARKS RELATIONSHIP 3UCH BEARING WITNESS TAKES PLACE OVER DIACHRONIC TIME IN WHICH THE INTERRUPTED MOMENT MARKS ALTERITY "ESIDES BEING ATTENTIVE TO LANGUAGE AND TIME ) ATTEMPTED TO REWORK ,EVINASS INTERPRETATION OF SHOULDERING THROUGH THE IDEA OF POSTURING 0OSTURING EMBODIES THE SUBJECTS RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE /THER )N MY ANALYSIS OF POSTURE IT BECAME CLEAR THAT ,EVINASS WORK IL LUSTRATES THE IMPORTANCE OF AN INCARNATIONAL ETHICS !ND IN THE LAST SECTION WE LEARNED THAT BOTH (USSERLS AND -ERLEAU 0ONTYS PHENOME NOLOGY PROVIDED THE FOUNDATION FOR ,EVINASS INCARNATIONAL ETHICS 4HE CONNECTION BETWEEN CORPOREALITY AND MORTALITY WAS EXPLORED AND AN EMPHASIS WAS PLACED ON THE SUBJECTS BODILY RESPONSIBILITY OF SUBSTITUTION FOR THE /THER %VEN AS ) PROBLEMATIZED HOW SUBSTITUTION AND SACRIlCE IS OFTEN FRAMED IN FEMININE RHETORIC ,EVINASS WORK SEEMS TO COUNTER ANY CHARGE OF GENDER ESSENTIALISM !S THE IDEA OF THE BODY AS THE SITE OF ETHICS AND JUSTICE WAS BROUGHT TO THE FORE THE NOTION OF SUBJECT AS POSTURED FOR THE /THER BECAME EVEN MORE POIGNANT
^4HE )SSUE OF !LTERITY
4HE )SSUE OF !LTERITY
)
N THE PREVIOUS CHAPTERS WE EXAMINED ,ONERGANS AND ,EVINASS INTERPRETATIONS OF SUBJECTIVITY BOTH OF WHICH ASSUME THAT BEING HUMAN EMERGES ONLY IN RELATION TO OTHER PEOPLE )N THIS CHAPTER WE CONTINUE TO EXPLORE THE IMPLICATIONS OF INTERSUBJECTIVE RELATIONSHIPS BY FOCUSING ON THE QUESTION OF DIFFERENCE 4HEORETICALLY THE TERM DIFFERENCE CAN BE DElNED AS A CONTESTATION OF SAMENESS )N ORDINARY SOCIAL PRACTICES HOWEVER DIFFERENCE IS NOT ALWAYS UNDERSTOOD AS SUCH &OR EXAMPLE WHEN DIFFERENCE IS INTERPRETED FROM A COMMONSENSE PERSPECTIVE IT OFTEN IS EXPLAINED BY WAY OF BINARIES AND DICHOTOMIES &ROM SUCH A STANDPOINT IT IS ARGUABLE THAT OTHERNESS IS THE OPPOSITE OF EVERYTHING WITH WHICH THE SUBJECT IDENTIlES !S FEMINISTS AND CRITI CAL RACE THEORISTS HAVE LONG POINTED OUT THIS THINKING IS PROBLEMATIC IN THAT IT FAILS TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE COMPLEXITY OF THE SUBJECT IN RELATION TO THE /THER $IFFERENCE MAY HAVE NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH GENDER RACE CULTURE OR RELIGION BUT MAY BE RELATED TO ONES ABILITIES OR GIFTS )N WHAT FOLLOWS ) INVITE #HRISTIANS TO FREE THEMSELVES FROM THE DUALISTIC FRAMEWORK THAT TOO OFTEN CONCEPTUALIZES DIFFERENCE IN EITHEROR TERMS "Y DEVELOPING AN UNDERSTANDING OF DIFFERENCE WHICH HAS ROOTS IN RELIGIOUS ALTERITY AS WELL AS IN CONTEMPORARY THEORY ) ILLUSTRATE THAT SUBJECTIVITY AND DIFFERENCE ARE INEXTRICABLY CONNECTED "OTH ,ONERGANS THEOLOGY AND ,EVINASS THEORY ARE PERTINENT TO THIS DISCUSSION 4HE ENSUING DISCUSSION OF ALTERITY IS AN ARDUOUS AND TAXING ONE %VEN IN SOME OF THE BEST CONTEMPORARY TREATMENTS INADEQUATE IN TERPRETATIONS OF OTHERNESS EXIST #ONSIDER THE POLITICAL THEORY OF )RIS -ARION 9OUNG !LTHOUGH ) RESPECT 9OUNGS WORK IN THE AREA OF THEORIZING JUSTICE ) AM CRITICAL OF HER POLEMICIZATION OF DIFFERENCE AND OTHERNESS 3HE DESCRIBES DIFFERENCE IN POSITIVE TERMS REFERRING TO THE HETEROGENEITY PLURALITY AND AMBIGUITY OF SITUATIONS GROUPS AND INDIVIDUALS !LTERNATIVELY SHE READS OTHERNESS IN A NEGATIVE LIGHT EM
-ICHELE 3ARACINO /N "EING (UMAN
PHASIZING IT AS AN ESSENTIALIST CONCEPT OR PREJUDICIAL TYPE THAT IS IMPUTED ONTO SOCIAL GROUPS OR INDIVIDUALS AS A STIGMA (ER ARGUMENT IS SUSPECT "Y CONTRASTING THE IDEAS OF DIFFERENCE AND OTHERNESS 9OUNG UPHOLDS THE BINARY OPPOSITION BETWEEN NORMATIVE AND DEVIANT SUBJECTIVITY ,IKE ,ACAN SHE ASSERTS THAT OTHERNESS STEMS FROM THE SUBJECT AND AS A CREATION OF THE SUBJECT IS PROJECTED ONTO OTHERS )F IN A ,EVINASIAN MODE 9OUNG WOULD CLAIM THAT OTHERNESS IS NOT A RESULT OF LACK AS WE ENCOUNTERED IN THE WORK OF ,ACAN BUT AS A POSITION INCOMMENSURABLE WITH THE POLITICS OF THE SAME HER THEORY OF JUSTICE WOULD BECOME MORE VALUABLE 2EADING ALTERITY AS AN INCOMMENSURABLE POSITION FACILITATES A BOND BETWEEN SUBJECT AND /THER A RELATIONSHIP THAT LEADS TO OBLIGA TION AND JUSTICE -Y AIM HERE IS NOT TO DEBUNK 9OUNGS THEORY BUT TO UNDERSCORE THE COMPLEXITY OF UNDERSTANDING ALTERITY "ELOW MY INVESTIGATION OF ALTERITY BEGINS BY COMMENTING ON THE WAYS IN WHICH 7ESTERNERS HAVE DIFlCULTY DEALING WITH DIVERSITY IN THE HUMAN COM MUNITY )T ENDS IN A DEMONSTRATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF OTHERNESS IN RELATION TO BOTH ,ONERGANS AND ,EVINASS THOUGHT
0ROBLEMS IN )NTERPRETING /THERNESS 'RAVE PROBLEMS ARISE WHEN WE UNDERSTAND ALTERITY IN TERMS OF BINARY OPPOSITIONS -OST PREVALENT IS THE SITUATION IN WHICH ARGUMENTS REGARD ING DIFFERENCE END UP IN LIBERAL DEBATE AND EQUAL RIGHTS LANGUAGE !S EXEMPLIlED LATER IN SUCH CASES LIBERAL INITIATIVES SPIRAL INTO TOTALITAR IAN MOVEMENTS OF SAMENESS )N ADDITION TO IGNORING THE POLITICS OF DIFFERENCE THROUGH LIBERAL RIGHTS LANGUAGE MODERN 7ESTERN CULTURE INSUFlCIENTLY DEALS WITH DIFFERENCE BY SUFFUSING IT IN THE RHETORIC OF POPULAR CULTURE AND POSTMODERN JARGON &EW WOULD ARGUE ABOUT THE DANGERS OF BOTH THESE TENDENCIES )T IS NOT TOO STRONG TO SUGGEST NEV ERTHELESS THAT THE MOST INSIDIOUS HAZARD ASSOCIATED WITH BINARY LOGIC IS THE INCLINATION TO DISTORT OTHERNESS INTO AN IMAGE OF AN EXOTIC AND ANTAGONISTIC EVIL 4HE CURRENT SITUATION IN THE h7AR !GAINST 4ERRORISMv WORKS TO EMPHASIZE THIS PROBLEM )N THE lRST CASE THE NEED TO EXPRESS DIVERSITY IN SOCIETY IS OBSCURED BY THE PROLIFERATION OF EQUALITY AND RIGHTS LANGUAGE 4HE RHETORIC OF EQUALITY IS BASED ON THE IDEA THAT ALL PEOPLE ARE CREATED EQUALAN IDEA
^4HE )SSUE OF !LTERITY
THAT LEADS TO THE LEGAL AFlRMATION THAT ALL PEOPLE ARE THE SAME REGARD LESS OF GENDER RACE OR CLASS &ROM A THEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE THIS LOGIC SEEMS REASONABLE SINCE HUMAN CREATION HAS JUST ONE HUMAN NATURE 4HERE ARE NOT DISTINCTIVE HUMAN NATURES FOR WOMEN MEN BLACKS OR WHITES )NDEED ALL OF CREATION IS GROUNDED IN ONE HUMAN NATURE EVEN AS SOCIAL AND BIOLOGICAL FEATURES SUCH AS RACE AND SEX PARTICULAR IZE HUMAN BEINGS 4HIS PARADIGM IS SIMPLE ENOUGH BUT THE LOGIC OF EQUALITY OFTEN COLLAPSES UNDER THE RUBRIC OF THE SAME %QUAL RIGHTS MOVEMENTS TEND TO IGNORE THE ACCIDENTS OF INDIVIDUALITY IN ORDER TO FOSTER THE DEVELOPMENT OF A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY 7HEN THE GOAL OF LIBERAL PROGRESS IS TAKEN TO AN EXTREME THE CONTINGENT FACTORS OF GENDER RACE AND CLASS ARE READ AS OBSTACLES TO OUR FREEDOM AND ABILITY TO SECURE THE FRUITS OF DEMOCRACY #OMPLICATING THE SITUATION FURTHER THE CURRENT DESIRE FOR EQUALITY IS INTERTWINED WITH THE AIMS OF THE POLITICAL CORRECTNESS MOVEMENT 0OLITICAL CORRECTNESS IS THE PRACTICE IN WHICH ONE ATTEMPTS TO ADDRESS DIFFERENCE IN NON PEJORATIVE NEUTRAL TERMS #OPELAND EXPLORES THE HISTORY AND IMPLICATIONS OF THE TERM POLITICAL CORRECTNESS IN HER ESSAY h0OLITICAL #ORRECTNESS AND THE ,IFE OF THE -INDv B !CCORDING TO #OPELAND BOTH CONSERVATIVES AND LIBERALS MANIPULATE THE TENETS OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS FOR THEIR OWN GAIN ,IBERALS EMPLOY POLITICAL CORRECTNESS NAIVELY WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING THE SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS OF DIFFERENCE WHILE CONSERVATIVES MOCK THE POLITICAL CORRECTNESS MOVE MENT BY DISREGARDING THE SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS OF HISTORY CONTEXT AND DEVELOPMENT !LTHOUGH ) AM VEXED BY THE CONSERVATIVE ATTITUDE TOWARDS POLITICAL CORRECTNESS ) AM BOTHERED MORE BY THE LIBERAL PRESUPPOSITION THAT DIFFERENCE CAN BE EFFECTIVELY ENGAGED THROUGH SIMPLISTIC EGALITAR IAN RHETORIC 4HE LIBERAL POSITION REFUSES TO UNDERSTAND DIFFERENCE AS THE GROUND OF COMMUNITY )NSISTING ON POLITICALLY CORRECT LANGUAGE AND PRACTICE LIBERALS REDUCE DIFFERENCE TO THAT WHICH IMPEDES COMMUNITY !CCORDING TO LIBERAL RHETORIC ALTERITY DOES NOT STRUCTURE A RELATIONSHIP OF JUSTICE BETWEEN SUBJECT AND /THER BUT RATHER ALTERITY THWARTS JUSTICE 7HEN DIFFERENCE IS INTERPRETED IN SUCH A NEGATIVE LIGHTAS AN OBSTACLE TO JUSTICE THEN IT MUST BE FRAMED IN TERMS OF THE ACCIDENTAL )MPLICITLY POLITICAL CORRECTNESS ATTEMPTS TO SIMPLIFY THE AMBIGUITY OF DIFFERENCE BY CONTEXTUALIZING ALTERITY AS SIMPLY ACCIDENTAL AND THUS INCIDENTAL
-ICHELE 3ARACINO /N "EING (UMAN
9ET AMBIGUITY REGARDING DIFFERENCE IS DIFlCULT TO SUPPRESS !S TENSIONS BUILD WITHIN THE COMMUNITY AMBIGUITY REGARDING DIFFERENCE EMERGES OVER AND OVER AGAIN /NE WOULD THINK THAT A DIALOGUE WOULD EMERGE IN SUCH A HEATED MILIEU /N THE CONTRARY WITH THE CONSTANT THREAT OF APPEARING POLITICALLY INCORRECT CULTURALLY INSENSITIVE OR EVEN WORSE BIASED INDIVIDUALS REFUSE TO REmECT ON THE PHILOSOPHICAL AND ONTOLOGI CAL ASSUMPTIONS THAT GROUND DISCUSSIONS OF DIVERSITY !T THIS MOMENT IN HISTORY POLITICAL CORRECTNESS AS AN APPROACH TO THE QUESTION OF DIFFERENCE IS BANKRUPT 0OLITICAL CORRECTNESS EFFORTS IN THEIR SEMINAL STAGE HAD POTENTIAL TO BRING THE QUESTION OF DIFFER ENCE TO THE PUBLIC AT LEAST ON THE RHETORICAL LEVEL )T WAS NOT LONG HOWEVER BEFORE POLITICAL CORRECTNESS MOVEMENTS BECAME FADDISH AND NONSENSICAL 7HILE A POLITICALLY CORRECT APPROACH INTENDS TO ENGAGE DIFFERENCE IN A RESPECTFUL AND HOSPITABLE MANNER NON CONTROVERSIAL LANGUAGE AND INNUENDO OBSCURE THE ACTUAL DIFFERENCE THAT IS IN QUES TION )N OTHER WORDS IN ITS lXATION UPON EGALITARIANISM AND ITS FEAR OF CONFRONTATION POLITICALLY CORRECT CONVERSATION FAILS TO PROBLEMATIZE WHAT EXACTLY IS MEANT BY OR AT STAKE IN THE QUESTION OF DIFFERENCE )T WOULD BE WRONG TO DISMISS THE MERITS OF EQUALITY RIGHTS LANGUAGE AL TOGETHER !FTER ALL DEMOCRACY AND FREEDOM FOR ALL IS A POWERFUL GOAL 9ET TOO OFTEN THIS EGALITARIAN IDEAL IS CONmATED WITH THE ASSUMPTION THAT DIFFERENCE MUST BE CONCEPTUALIZED AND THEMATIZED INTO A SINGLE IDEAL OF WHAT IS NORMATIVE $IFFERENCE IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES IS NOT ESTEEMED BUT ERASED 4HE ERASURE OF DIFFERENCE IS ILLUSTRATED IN AN ANALYSIS OF FEMINIST EQUALITY RIGHTS MOVEMENTS !RGUMENTS THAT SUPPORT WOMENS RIGHTS RESULT IN THE AFlRMATION THAT WOMEN ARE JUST AS STRONG SMART AND POWERFUL AS MEN 7OMEN AND MEN ARE THE SAME 4HIS AFlRMATION HAS SUBSEQUENTLY REQUIRED THAT WOMEN ASSIMILATE INTO A MALE IDEAL BY ATTEMPTING TO SHED ANY SOCIAL MORES THAT ARE CONSIDERED FEMININE )N PRACTICE IT BECOMES OBVIOUS THAT NOT ALL WOMEN ARE ACCORDED EQUAL RIGHTS RATHER ONLY THOSE WOMEN WHO ATTEMPT TO MIMIC THE MASCU LINE IDEAL ACQUIRE RIGHTS AND SOCIAL POWER (ERE EQUALITY IS BASED ON UNIFORMITY SAMENESS AND TOTALITY )N REACTION TO THE HEGEMONY OF SAMENESS DIFFERENCE IS CONCEPTUALIZED IN TERMS OF STIGMA 4HE NO TION OF STIGMA LEADS US TO THE NEXT OBSTACLE IN OUR INEFFECTIVENESS IN
^4HE )SSUE OF !LTERITY
ENGAGING DIFFERENCE THE PROBLEMATIC CONlGURATION OF DIFFERENCE IN POPULAR CULTURE h%NDGAME v AN ANALYSIS OF THE 7ORLD #UP COMPETITION DEM ONSTRATES HOW THE CURRENT DISCUSSION OF DIFFERENCE IS UNDERMINED BY POPULAR CULTURE 4HE AUTHOR !DAM 'OPNIK SHOWS THAT THE RHETORIC OF OTHERNESS IS RESTRICTED NEITHER TO THE POLITICAL SPHERE NOR THE ACADEMIC ARENA BUT HAS COME TO IMBUE THE CULTURAL REALM )N RECOUNTING THE OPENING CEREMONIES OF THE INTERNATIONAL SOCCER GAMES 'OPNIK NARRATES A CONVERSATION AMONG MEMBERS OF THE &RENCH 0RESS WHO WERE COVERING THE FESTIVITIES 2EPORTING ON THE OPENING SPECTACLE THE MEMBERS OF THE PRESS BEGAN TO PLAY WITH THE LANGUAGE OF SELF AND /THER )N ORDER TO EMPHASIZE THE GLOBAL CHARACTER OF THE 7ORLD #UP FOUR GIANT SIZED MECHANICAL MEN EACH PHYSICALLY REPRESENTING A DIFFERENT ETHNICRACIAL HUMAN TYPE MARCHED TO THE CENTER OF 0ARIS !S THE MAMMOTH )NDIG ENOUS !FRICAN !SIAN AND %UROPEAN MEN PROCEEDED TO THE MIDDLE OF 0ARIS &RENCH COMMENTATORS FRIVOLOUSLY PONDERED h4HE GIANTS CON FRONT EACH OTHER BUT DO THEY SEE A STRANGER OR THEMSELVES v 'OPNIK )N THIS CONVERSATION ETHICAL DISCOURSE ABOUT DIVERSITY WAS SUBVERTED BY A CARNIVALESQUE CONTEXT !LTHOUGH 'OPNIKS INTENT WAS TO COMMENT ON THE SPIRIT OF THE EVENT AND NOT TO PROBLEMATIZE THE COMMENTATORS USE OF POSTMODERN JARGON HIS ESSAY INADVERTENTLY DEMONSTRATES HOW WE DE POLITICIZE THE RHETORIC OF DIVERSITY THROUGH POPULAR CULTURE 0UT ANOTHER WAY THE POPULAR USE OF THE VOCABULARY OF DIFFERENCE UNDERMINES CONCRETE EFFORTS TO ENGAGE DIVERSITY AND RECONSTRUCT COMMUNITY BASED ON OTHERNESS 3OME MAY WONDER IF DISCUSSIONS ABOUT OTHERNESS ARE SIGNS OF OUR PROGRESS OR REGRESS !S ,ONERGAN MAKES PLAIN INTELLIGENT AND RESPONSIBLE CONVERSATION ABOUT THE VALUE AND NEED OF THE /THER IS NECESSARY FOR A COMMUNITY TO PROGRESS 7HEN VALUES ARE IGNORED AND THE GOOD IS OBFUSCATED SOCIETY SPIRALS INTO REGRESS "Y LOCATING THE QUESTION OF OTHERNESS IN FRIVOLOUS TERMS OF MECHANICAL MEN AT A PAGEANT RATHER THAN IN THE HARSH LIGHT OF RACISM SEXISM OR CLASSISM SOCIETY COURTS REGRESS )N SUCH A SITUATION ALTERITY BECOMES A GAME FOR THE ALIENATED SUBJECT WHO IS DEVOID OF MORAL INTEGRITY AND WHO HAS NOTHING MORE THAN lLLER AND mUFF TO SAY "OTH ,ONERGAN AND ,EVINAS WOULD ARGUE THAT THERE IS PLENTY LEFT TO SAY IN REGARD TO DIFFERENCE 4HEY WOULD ASSERT THAT EVADING AND UNDERMINING ALTERITY IN COMMONSENSE OR COMEDIC
-ICHELE 3ARACINO /N "EING (UMAN
LANGUAGE IS INDICATIVE OF INAUTHENTIC IRRESPONSIBLE SUBJECTIVITYA PROBLEM THAT ONLY WILL BE RECTIlED WHEN DIVERSITY BECOMES A GENUINE PRIORITY FOR HUMANITY )N ADDITION TO THE WAY IN WHICH POPULAR CULTURE ABSORBS THE /THER INTO FRIVOLOUS LANGUAGE THERE IS ALSO THE WAY THAT CONSUMER CULTURE ERASES THE AMBIGUITY AND DEMAND OF DIFFERENCE THROUGH MEDIA )N AN EXAMINATION OF POPULAR ADVERTISING CULTURAL CRITIC BELL HOOKS COM MENTS ON THE WAY IN WHICH CAPITALIST SOCIETY ASSIMILATES OTHERNESS INTO POPULAR CULTURE 3HE PINPOINTS THE PROBLEM OF THE hCOMMODIlCATION OF DIFFERENCEv IN WHICH THE /THER IS ABSORBED INTO CULTURE BY RECONlGURING SUCH DIFFERENCE AS MARKETABLE AND THEREBY ERASING THE HISTORICAL AND MATERIAL SIGNIlCANCE OF ALTERITY HOOKS 7HEN THE MARKETER COMMODIlES CATEGORIES OF DIFFERENCE THE CONSUMER INSTEAD OF BEING REORIENTED OR CONVERTED BY THE DIFFERENCE AVOIDS THE AMBIGUITY OF THAT DIFFERENCE )N OTHER WORDS ADVERTISERS EXPLOIT DIFFERENCES ROOTED IN NA TIONALITY ETHNICITY GENDER AND CLASS IN ORDER TO SUPPRESS THE AMBIGUITY THAT SURFACES IN THE DIALOGUE ABOUT DIFFERENCE HOOKS EXPLAINS THAT THE hRACIALIZED SUBTEXTv IN ADVERTISEMENTS FOR SUCH COMPANIES AS * #REW AND 4WEEDS DISTORTS OTHERNESS IN TWO WAYS )T CREATES NOSTALGIA FOR A lCTIVE STRANGER AND IT DRAMATIZES DIFFERENCE SUCH AS WHITENESS AT THE EXPENSE OF FETISHIZING OTHER DIFFERENCE SUCH AS BLACKNESS )N BOTH STRATEGIES MARKETERS RELY ON STEREOTYPES ABOUT INDIVIDUALS AND GROUPS IN ORDER TO ENTICE THE READER INTO PURCHASING THE PRODUCT )N ORDER TO COMPREHEND HOOKSS IDEAS WE MIGHT IMAGINE A lCTIONAL INSTANCE IN WHICH THE MEDIA PLAYS WITH CONTROVERSIAL AND CONTESTED IMAGES TO SELL PRODUCTS "ELOW ) WILL NARRATE SUCH A HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIO ! COSMETICS COMPANY WANTS TO MARKET ITS NEW AND IMPROVED SUNTAN OIL 4HE ADVERTISEMENT AGENCY THAT PUBLICIZES THE PRODUCT DECIDES TO DEVELOP A CAMPAIGN BASED ON THE IDEA THAT USING THE COMPANYS SUNTAN OIL LEADS TO AN EXOTIC SAVAGE TAN ! MAINSTREAM !FRICAN !MERICAN WOMAN FROM .EBRASKA IS SELECTED TO MODEL THIS CAMPAIGN AND IS ADORNED AS AN %GYPTIAN 1UEEN !S THE READER GAZES AT SUCH AN IMAGE SHE IS LED TO CONFUSE THE MODELS RACE WITH A SPECIlC GEOGRAPHICAL REGION !FRICA AS WELL AS WITH A SENSE OF PRIMITIVISM 5PHOLDING THE RACIST IDEOLOGY THAT CONmATES THE NOTION OF BLACKNESS WITH THE THEMES OF THE TROPICAL EXOTIC AND THE PRIMITIVE THIS AD DIVERTS THE READERS ATTENTION FROM THE PARTICULARITY OF THE PERSON IN THE IMAGE IN ORDER TO CONJURE A
^4HE )SSUE OF !LTERITY
FANTASY OF OTHERNESS ! CRITICAL READING OF THIS REPRESENTATION WOULD REQUIRE US TO QUESTION THE RACIST IMPLICATIONS OF THE IMAGE PARTICULARLY THE WAY IN WHICH THE VISUAL TEXT ATTEMPTS TO AVOID THE HISTORICAL AND SOCIAL COMPLEXITY OF RACIAL DIFFERENCE #ULTURAL CRITICISM NEVERTHELESS IS NOT FOSTERED IN A CONSUMERIST SOCIETY !DS SUCH AS THIS ONE FEIGN THE CELEBRATION OF DIFFERENCE WHILE PARADOXICALLY ENCOURAGING THE READERS FEAR OF ALTERITY &OR ,ONERGAN AND ,EVINAS THE PRESENCE OF THE /THER SHOULD OBLIGATE THE READER TO REJECT HISHER FEAR OF DIFFERENCE /NLY IN WORKING THROUGH OUR CONmICTED FEELINGS CAN WE UNDERSTAND HOW CONCEPTUALIZATIONS AND THEMATIZATIONS OF DIFFERENCE THWART ETHICAL RELATIONS WITH OTHERS !NOTHER WAY IN WHICH ALTERITY IS SUBVERTED IN THE MEDIA IS IN THE EXPLOITATION OF BLACKNESS THROUGH THE HEGEMONY OF WHITENESS )MAGINE A COMMERCIAL THAT SHOWS DIVERSITY WITHIN THE COMMUNITY 4HIS ADVER TISEMENT ILLUSTRATES DIVERSITY BY PORTRAYING WHITE TEACHERS LECTURING TO BLACK STUDENTS OR WHITE STUDENTS FEEDING HOMELESS PEOPLE OF COLOR %VEN THOUGH THIS lCTIONAL TABLEAU IS INTENDED TO HIGHLIGHT THE MU TUALITY BETWEEN DIFFERENT INDIVIDUALS IT DRAWS THE READERS ATTENTION TO THE DOMINANCE AND FREEDOM OF THE WHITE PERSON OVER AND AGAINST THE SUBSERVIENCE AND BONDAGE OF THE BLACK PERSON 3UCH MARKETING CAMPAIGNS ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE ATTEMPTS TOWARD UNDERSTANDING THE COMPLEXITY OF HUMAN DIVERSITY /N THE CONTRARY THESE POPULAR IMAGES DEMONSTRATE BIAS AGAINST AND THEMATIZATION OF OTHERNESS IN ORDER TO STABILIZE THE WHITE PERSON AS THE NORMATIVE SUBJECT !DVERTISEMENTS LIKE THESE IGNORE THE AMBIGUITY OF DIFFERENCE RATHER THAN INVITE US TO PAUSE AND QUESTION OUR OWN PRESUPPOSITIONS AND INTENTIONS ! THIRD WAY IN WHICH INTELLIGENT DISCUSSION ABOUT DIFFERENCE IS THWARTED IS THROUGH THE ACTIVE OTHERIZING OF THOSE WHO ARE DEEMED DIFFERENT "Y THE TERM OTHERIZING ) REFER TO THE WAY IN WHICH DOMI NANT GROUPS SOMETIMES DISTANCE THEMSELVES FROM ANY COMMUNITY ANY INDIVIDUAL OR ANYTHING THAT THEY REGARD AS THREATENING TO THEIR OWN IDENTITY /THERIZING CAN ONLY BE SUCCESSFUL IF THE DOMINANT GROUP IS CONVINCED THAT IT IS WITHOUT ANY LACK OR IMPERFECTION /NLY THEN CAN THE DOMINANT GROUP PROJECT DIFFERENCE AND SUFFERING ONTO ANOTHER PEOPLE OR PLACE IN THE WORLD 0ROJECTION FOSTERS DISTANCE AND ANTAGONISM BETWEEN GROUPS WHICH USUALLY LEADS TO AN US VERSUS THEM ATTITUDE !S CONCRETE DIFFERENCE AND SUFFERING ARE IN EFFECT ERASED THROUGH THIS
-ICHELE 3ARACINO /N "EING (UMAN
DISTANCING THE DOMINANT GROUP IS RELEASED FROM ANY OBLIGATION TO THE OTHER GROUP /NE THINKER WHO PROBLEMATIZES THE CULTURAL RAMIlCATIONS OF OTHER IZING OR THE REFUSAL TO DEAL WITH DIFFERENCE IS %DWARD 7 3AID $URING THE S 3AID BECAME KNOWN FOR HIS RESEARCH INTO THE %UROPEAN INVENTION OF THE IDEA OF THE /RIENT )N /RIENTALISM 3AID MAPS THE WAY THAT THE 7EST THROUGH WAR POLITICS ACADEMICS AND POPULAR CULTURE HAS CONSTRUCTED AND FETISHIZED A lCTIONAL AND HEGEMONIC OTHERNESS 3AID EXPLAINS THAT THE NOTION OF THE @/RIENT IS A lCTIONAL PROJECTION OF THE INTELLECTUAL POWER OF THE 7EST 4HE OPPOSITE OF EV ERYTHING THAT THE 7EST WANTS TO BE IS PROJECTED ONTO A FARAWAY LOCALE OR A DISTANT TIME AND DEEMED THE /RIENT 3AID DElNES /RIENTALISM SIMILARLY TO THE WAY IN WHICH ,ONERGAN AND ,EVINAS CONSIDER THE PROBLEMATIC APPROACHES OF CONCEPTUALISM AND THEMATIZATION !S ,ONERGAN EXPLAINS THAT A CONCEPTUALIST POSTURE IMPUTES BARBARISM ONTO ANOTHER CULTURE MERELY BECAUSE IT IS DIFFERENT 3AID STATES THAT THE /RIENTALIST TYPES PEOPLE AS INFERIOR AND THEN FRAMES THEIR DEPRAV ITY IN TERMS OF THE /RIENTAL #ONSEQUENTLY THE h/RIENTAL IS IRRATIONAL DEPRAVED FALLEN CHILDLIKE @DIFFERENT THUS THE %UROPEAN IS RATIONAL VIRTUOUS MATURE NORMALv 3AID !S ,EVINAS OFFERS A CRITIQUE OF THE AGGRESSIVE ACT OF THEMATIZING STRANGERS WITH WINDOW DRESSING OR IN lCTIONAL CULTURAL ADORNMENT 3AID ASSERTS THAT THE /RIENTALIST CRE ATES THE lCTION OF INFERIORITY BY UPHOLDING A STEREOTYPE OF THE /THER RATHER THAN ALLOWING THE /THER TO PRESENT HISHER DISTINCTIVE SELF TO THE SUBJECT 3AID ARGUES )N A SENSE THE LIMITS OF /RIENTALISM ARE x THE LIMITATIONS THAT FOLLOW UPON DISREGARDING ESSENTIALIZING DENUDING THE HUMANITY OF ANOTHER CULTURE PEOPLE OR GEOGRAPHIC REGION "UT /RIENTALISM HAS TAKEN A STEP FURTHER THAN THAT IT VIEWS THE /RIENT AS SOMETHING WHOSE EXISTENCE IS NOT ONLY DISPLAYED BUT HAS REMAINED lXED IN TIME AND PLACE FOR THE 7EST
4HUS THE 7ESTERN AN OXYMORON /RIENTALIST lXES THE /THER WITH A STATIC AND CONSTRUCTED CONCEPT OF NEGATIVE DIFFERENCE WHICH OVERDE TERMINES A lCTIVE IDENTITY OF OTHERNESS
^4HE )SSUE OF !LTERITY
"Y LOCATING DIFFERENCE IN A DISTANT LOCATION AND THEN DEMONIZING IT THE SUBJECT IS FREED FROM ANY RELATIONSHIP WITH AND RESPONSIBILITY TOWARD OTHERS 3AID FURTHER ILLUSTRATES HOW AN /RIENTALIST ATTITUDE CAN hDAMNv WHOLE CIVILIZATIONS AND LEGITIMIZE THE INHUMAN TREATMENT OF SUCH PEOPLES EVEN FUEL GENOCIDE )F WE APPLY 3AIDS THEORY OF /RIENTALISM TO SUCH CATASTROPHIC EVENTS AS THE 7ESTS BRUTAL ENSLAVEMENT AND MURDER OF MILLIONS OF !FRICANS OR THE GENOCIDE OF *EWS IN %URO PEAN DEATH CAMPS WE CAN BEGIN TO GRASP HOW THE DICHOTOMIZATION OF OTHERNESS IN TERMS OF AN US AGAINST THEM CAMPAIGN CAN WHEN TAKEN TO ITS LOGICAL CONCLUSION ONLY END IN VIOLENCE AND DEATH 4HIS US AGAINST THEM ATTITUDE HAS SURFACED AGAIN TODAY IN THE CLASH OF THE %ASTERN AND 7ESTERN CULTURES IN h!MERICAS .EW 7ARv !SIDE FROM DEMONIZING OTHERS IN FARAWAY LOCALES THERE ARE MORE WAYS FOR THE 7EST TO OTHERIZE SPECIlC PEOPLES 3OME THEORISTS CLAIM THAT IN OUR CONSUMER DRIVEN FRAGMENTED WORLD MANY PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY COMFORTED BY THE IDEA THAT IN THE WORLD OF CHAOS THERE EXISTS A REALITY SOMEWHERE EVEN IF IT IS A REALITY OF PAIN AND SUFFERING &OR INSTANCE *EAN "AUDRILLARD MAKES EXACTLY THIS POINT (E CLAIMS THAT THE 7ESTS IDENTITY AND POWER ARE STABILIZED BY CONJURING SUFFERING IN A FOREIGN LAND ;7=E KNOW BETTER THAN THEY DO WHAT REALITY IS BECAUSE WE HAVE CHOSEN THEM TO EMBODY IT /R SIMPLY BECAUSE IT IS WHAT WEAND THE WHOLE OF THE 7ESTMOST LACK 7E HAVE TO GO AND RETRIEVE A REALITY FOR OURSELVES WHERE THE BLEEDING IS x WE GO TO CONVINCE THEM OF THE @REALITY OF THEIR SUFFERINGBY CULTURALIZING IT OF COURSE BY THEATRICALIZING IT SO THAT IT CAN SERVE AS A POINT OF REFERENCE IN THE THEATRE OF 7ESTERN VALUES
!CCORDING TO "AUDRILLARD SUFFERING ELSEWHERE SECURES THE FANTASY OF OUR WELL BEING AT HOME /NE EXAMPLE OF THE WAY 7ESTERNERS FETISHIZE SUFFERING IN ORDER TO AVOID RESPONSIBILITY TO THEIR OWN COMMUNITIES CAN BE FOUND IN 7ESTERN FEMINIST DISCOURSE "AUDRILLARDS CRITIQUE CALLS TO MIND THE LIBERAL FEMINIST INQUIRY INTO FEMALE CIRCUMCISION IN OTHER SOCIETIES "Y CALLING INTO QUESTION THE MEANING OF RITUALS IN OTHER CULTURES LIBERAL AND CULTURAL FEMINISTS OBSCURE THE REALITY OF OPPRESSION AND SUFFERING IN THEIR OWN .ORTH !MERICAN OR %UROPEAN
-ICHELE 3ARACINO /N "EING (UMAN
CONTEXT 4HESE INTERESTS ARE UNDOUBTEDLY IMPORTANT BUT POSE NO IM MEDIATE THREAT TO THE FEMINISTS IN QUESTION OR THEIR OWN POSITIONS )T IS TOO EASY TO GRAPPLE WITH ISSUES WHICH HAVE NO DIRECT CONNECTION TO US RATHER THAN TO DEAL WITH HOW WE MIGHT BE IMPLICATED IN THE COMPLEXITY OF THE ISSUE !NOTHER INSTANCE IN WHICH WE TEND TO DRAMATIZE SUFFERING ELSEWHERE IN ORDER TO AVOID SUFFERING AND DIFFERENCE IN OUR MIDST RELATES TO DEBATES SURROUNDING THE 3HOAH /FTEN WHEN PEOPLE DISCUSS THE MASS MURDERS CONDUCTED IN THE CONCENTRATION CAMPS THOSE EVENTS BECOME CONmATED WITH OTHER VIOLENT SITUATIONS )T SEEMS AS IF WE CANNOT HAVE A SUSTAINED ATTENTIVE INTELLIGENT REASONABLE AND RESPONSIBLE CONVERSATION ABOUT THE SUFFERING OF A PARTICULAR PEOPLE WITHOUT OBSCURING THAT PARTICULARITY WITH A LARGER MORE ABSTRACT THEME 4HIS ABSTRACTION IS CAUSED BY OUR REFUSAL TO LISTEN TO THE TESTIMONY OF THE /THER UNLESS IT RELATES TO US OR UNLESS WE SEE THE /THER IN OURSELVES 4HE EVENTS OF 3EPTEMBER TH IN MANY WAYS ALSO UNDERSCORE OUR MODERN TENDENCY TO CONmATE ANOTHERS SUFFERING WITH OUR OWN EXPERI ENCE $URING THE RESCUE AND RECOVERY OPERATIONS IN .EW 9ORK #ITY MANY !MERICANS STARTED TO IDENTIFY WITH THE VICTIMS OF TERRORISM .O LONGER WAS TERRORISM )SRAELS OR )RELANDS PROBLEM BUT !MERICAS PROB LEM )N ORDER TO DEAL WITH THE CONFUSING COMMENTARY SURROUNDING THE ATTACKS ON THE 5NITED 3TATES SOME !MERICANS NOT ONLY FELT CONNECTED TO THOSE WRONGED AND VIOLATED IN THE ATTACKS BUT ALSO OTHERIZED AND DEMONIZED THE ALLEGED PERPETRATORS AS EVIL ,ED BY 'EORGE 7 "USH !MERICAN CITIZENS RALLIED THAT THESE OTHERS THESE hEVIL DOERSv NEEDED TO BE ERADICATED ANDOR CONVINCED OF OUR WORLDVIEW 4HE 7EST LED BY !MERICA WOULD THEN ATTEMPT TO SHOW THE WORLD THE RIGHT WAY OF BEING HUMAN /THERS WOULD NEED TO BE CHANGED INTO OUR NOTION OF THE SAME AT ALL COSTS 4HIS IS ONLY ONE AVENUE BY WHICH PEOPLE IN THE 7EST HAVE ATTEMPTED TO CHANGE THE /THER INTO THEMSELVES 4HERE ARE MORE SUBTLE YET NO LESS PRECARIOUS WAYS OF OTHERIZING PEOPLE "AUDRILLARD ARGUES THAT THE 7EST THROUGH ITS PROJECT OF ASSIMILATING THE /THER INTO THE SAME THROUGH SURGERY CLONING AS WELL AS THROUGH ITS PREOCCUPATION WITH TWINS AND THE INCEST TABOO SIMULTANEOUSLY IGNORES THE PRESENCE OF AND MOURNS THE ABSENCE OF THE RADICALLY /THER "AUDRILLARD WRITES h;!=LL FORMS OF SEXIST RACIST ETHNIC OR CULTURAL DISCRIMINATION ARISE
^4HE )SSUE OF !LTERITY
OUT OF x A COLLECTIVE MOURNING A MOURNING FOR A DEAD OTHERNESSv $EAD OTHERNESS SIGNIlES EVERYTHING THAT IS THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT THE 7ESTERN PERSON THINKS SHE EMBODIESAN OTHERNESS THAT IS A CONSTRUCTION OF THE SUBJECT RATHER THAN CONNECTED TO ANY SENSE OF THE STRANGERS REALITY /THERNESS IS THAT WHICH IS DEVIANT FROM THE STABLE IDENTITY OF THE SUBJECT !CCORDING TO "AUDRILLARD BY OBJECTIFY ING OTHERNESS AND THEN CHANGING IT INTO THE SAME THE SUBJECT SECURES HISHER IDENTITY AS THE NORM OR IDEAL )N ORDER TO EXPLICATE THIS CRITIQUE OF THE 7ESTERN IDEAL OF OTHERNESS IN MORE DETAIL LET US TURN OUR ATTENTION AGAIN TO THE WORK OF )RIS -ARION 9OUNG 9OUNG EXPLAINS THE 7ESTERN IDEAL OF NORMATIVITY IN TERMS OF THE UNIVERSAL CITIZEN WHO IS TYPIlED BY THE WHITE BOURGEOIS RESPECTABLE MALE !CCORDINGLY SHE ASSERTS THAT hTHE @RESPECTABLE MAN WAS RATIO NAL RESTRAINED AND CHASTE x ;AND= SHOULD BE STRAIGHT DISPASSIONATE RULE BOUNDv !NY CHARACTERISTICS THAT DISRUPT THE PRISTINE IDENTITY OF THE UNIVERSAL MALE ARE IMPUTED ONTO OTHERS !S A RESULT 9OUNG CONTENDS h4HE BODILY SEXUAL UNCERTAIN DISORDERLY ASPECTS OF EXISTENCE IN THESE CULTURAL IMAGES WERE AND ARE IDENTIlED WITH WOMEN HOMOSEXUALS "LACKS )NDIANS *EWS AND /RIENTALSv 4HE 7ESTERN SUBJECTS SELF UNDERSTANDING HINGES ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE /THER IS THE EMBODIMENT OF ALL THAT IS DEVIANT 4HE DOMINANT SUBJECT WEIGHS OTHERS AGAINST THE MASK OF HISHER OWN NORMATIVITY 0SYCHOANALYST AND PSYCHIATRIST &RANTZ &ANON IS CRITICAL OF THE CONSTRUC TION OF A SPECIlC TYPE OF OTHERNESS RACIALIZED OTHERNESS IN COLONIALIST AND POST COLONIALIST CONTEXTS )N "LACK 3KIN 7HITE -ASKS HE GRAPPLES WITH THE WAYS IN WHICH BLACKS HAVE BEEN STIGMATIZED DUE TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF OTHERNESS AROUND SKIN COLOR AND BODILY APPEAR ANCE 7HEREAS OTHER MARGINALIZED GROUPS INCLUDING *EWS HAVE BEEN OSTRACIZED DUE TO THEIR ETHNICITY &ANON ARGUES THAT BLACKS ARE DIFFERENT IN THAT THEY ARE AUTOMATICALLY UNMASKED BY THEIR APPEARANCE 3PEAKING BOTH AUTOBIOGRAPHICALLY AND COLLECTIVELY &ANON EXPLAINS h) AM GIVEN NO CHANCE ) AM OVERDETERMINED FROM WITHOUT ) AM THE SLAVE NOT OF THE hIDEAv OF OTHERS HAVE OF ME BUT MY OWN APPEARANCEv (E DESCRIBES HOW EVEN AS HE HOPED TO HIDE FROM BEING SEEN AND TYPED BY OTHERS HE STILL WAS lXED BY THE WHITE COLONIALIST GAZE 4HIS VIOLENT AND OPPRESSIVE GAZE STRIPS HIM AND OTHER BLACKS OF HIS PARTICULARITY AND DRESSES HIM IN GROTESQUE STEREOTYPES
-ICHELE 3ARACINO /N "EING (UMAN
4HROUGH AN ANALYSIS OF HOW BLACKS ARE MASKED BY WHITE SUPREMACIST CULTURE &ANON DEMONSTRATES HOW THAT CULTURE FEARS AND HATES BLACK BODIES &ANONS WORK CLARIlES JUST HOW IMPORTANT BODIES ARE TO OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE HUMAN PERSON AS COMPLETE OR DAMAGED NECESSARY OR SUPERmUOUS AND NORMAL OR DEVIANT 4HE WAY IN WHICH WE INTERPRET APPEARANCE AS NORMATIVE DEVIANT OR SOMEWHERE IN BETWEEN INmUENCES THE LEVEL OF INTENSITY OF BODY MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL 4HE CONSTANT MONITORING OF THE BODIES OF OURSELVES AND OTHERS IS QUITE APPROPRIATELY NAMED BY 9OUNG AS hSCALINGv 4HE PROCESS OF SCALING REFERS TO THE WAY THAT THOSE WHO ARE DEEMED DEVIANT ARE FORCED BY SOCIETAL PRESSURE TO INTERNALIZE THE lCTION OF THEIR DEVIANCE AND OTH ERNESS AS WELL AS ENDURE IMPOSSIBLE AND TORTUROUS PRACTICES IN ORDER TO ESCAPE BEING TYPED AS THE UGLY /THER 3CALING TAKES PLACE IN MANY FORMS 0LASTIC SURGERY CONTROLS ETHNIC NOSES CHEMICAL STRAIGHTENERS MANAGE UNRULY HAIR EXCESSIVE DIET AND WEIGHT TRAINING SCULPT BODIES TO PERFECTION BLEACH CREAMS NEUTRALIZE DEVIANT SKIN COLOR AND HAIR DYES IMPEDE THE AGING PROCESS ) LIST THESE NOT IN THE ATTEMPT TO SCANDALIZE ANY ONE GROUP BUT TO EMPHASIZE THE CULTURAL PRESSURE TO CONFORM TO THIS ILLUSIVE EMBODIED NORM AND TO ESCAPE OTHERNESS 3CALING DOES NOT END WITH EITHER GROOMING OR BODY SCULPTING #LON ING IS AN EXTREME FORM OF SCALING THAT ATTEMPTS TO MAKE THE PERFECT INDIVIDUAL WITHOUT ANY VISUAL LACK IMPERFECTION OR DEFORMITY !S THESE SOCIAL PRACTICES THAT CONTROL MANAGE SCULPT NEUTRALIZE IMPEDE AND ERASE ANY OBSTACLE TO THE IDEAL HUMAN PERSON THEY STILL FAIL TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE CONCRETE MATERIAL AND SPIRITUAL NEEDS OF THE HUMAN PERSON .EITHER PLASTIC SURGERY NOR CLONING CAN ERASE DIFFERENCE BASED ON A REAL MATERIAL NEED OR ON SERIOUS SPIRITUAL CRISIS #ERTAINLY SCAL ING ONLY OBSCURES NEED BY MASKING IT IN THE DRESS OF SAMENESS 4HE IMPETUS BEHIND THE EXTREME ABUSES OF COSMETIC SURGERY DIET AND CLONING IS THE h)M OKAY YOURE OKAYv LOGIC WHICH ALLOWS THE SUBJECT TO DISTANCE HIMHERSELF FROM THE /THER IN QUESTION OR RATHER THE /THER WHO QUESTIONS HOOKS 3AID "AUDRILLARD 9OUNG AND &ANON HELP US TO UNDERSTAND THAT HUMAN BEINGS OFTEN INTERPRET THEIR IDENTITY AS STABLE AND SECURE AT THE COST OF FETISHIZING RACIAL AND ETHNIC DIFFERENCE )N THIS SECTION WE HAVE EXPLORED THREE WAYS IN WHICH 7ESTERN PEOPLE DEAL UNSUCCESSFULLY WITH DIFFERENCE BY UNINTENTIONALLY DIFFUSING IT INTO
^4HE )SSUE OF !LTERITY
EQUALITY RIGHTS LANGUAGE BY OBSCURING IT IN POPULAR COMMODITY CULTURE AND BY OTHERIZING IT THROUGH lCTION AND FANTASY )N EACH OF THESE WAYS THE SUBJECT DOMINATES AND ERASES THE /THER THROUGH RATIONALIZATION OR EVEN WORSE THROUGH VIOLENCE )N LIGHT OF OUR PRESENT INATTENTIVENESS TO THE REALITY BEYOND RATIONALIZED AND lCTIONAL OTHERNESS IT MAY PROVE HELPFUL TO RECALL THAT ,ONERGANS CRITIQUE OF CONCEPTUALISM PRESSES US TO TAKE SERIOUSLY THE EMBODIED CULTURES OF OTHER PEOPLE AND NOT TO DISMISS THEM AS BARBARIC OR PRIMITIVE &URTHERMORE BY RETURNING TO ,EVINASS NOTION OF FACING THE /THER WE CAN FURTHER COMPREHEND OUR INABILITY TO IGNORE THE PREDICAMENT OF THE /THER TO THEMATIZE OR TOTAL IZE IT 7E SHOULD DISCOVER IN BOTH ,ONERGANS AND ,EVINASS WORK THE NON NEGOTIABLE DEMAND FOR A CRITICAL ENGAGEMENT WITH DIFFERENCE
,ONERGAN ON "EING (UMAN IN THE -IDST OF THE /THER !S ALLUDED TO IN THE )NTRODUCTION UNLIKE ,EVINAS ,ONERGAN DOES NOT OFFER AN EXPLICIT THEORY OF THE /THER 7HAT ,ONERGAN DOES EXTEND TO THEOLOGIANS NONETHELESS IS A METHOD FOR AN ETHICS OF THINKING AND AN INVITATION FOR SELF APPROPRIATIONBOTH OF WHICH ENCOURAGE THE SUBJECT TO ENGAGE RESPONSIBLY OTHER PEOPLE AND CULTURES "ELOW WE WILL UNCOVER HOW ,ONERGANS RESPONSIBLE SUBJECT IS OPENED TO ALTERITY !CCORDING TO ,ONERGAN THE HUMAN BEING IS OPENED AND SHAPED BY A DIALECTICAL ENCOUNTER WITH THE /THER SPECIlCALLY THROUGH VARIOUS PATTERNS OF EXPERIENCE !S WE KNOW THE SUBJECTS EXPERIENCE IS COM PLICATED BY HISHER ATTITUDE TOWARD HISTORY AND CULTURE 3IGNIlCANTLY ,ONERGANS THEOLOGY ATTEMPTS TO UNDERSCORE THE NUANCE OF CULTURE ESPECIALLY IN HIS NOTION OF THE TRANSCULTURAL WHICH ANTICIPATES MANY OF OUR CONTEMPORARY CONCERNS ABOUT HISTORICAL CONTEXT DIFFERENCE AND CULTURAL DIVERSITY )N RESEARCHING ,ONERGANS ATTENTIVENESS TO CULTURE IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT ,ONERGANS ACCOUNT OF SUBJECTIVITY ESPECIALLY HIS EMPHASIS ON UNDERSTANDING AND CONVERSION RESONATES WITH THE POSTMODERN DESIRE FOR A DECONSTRUCTED SUBJECT SOMEONE OPEN AND ATTENTIVE TO OTHERNESS
-ICHELE 3ARACINO /N "EING (UMAN
&ROM THE START IT IS IMPORTANT TO REALIZE THAT ,ONERGANS UNDERSTANDING OF THE SUBJECTS RELATIONSHIP WITH THE /THER IS ROOTED IN THE DYNAMIC PROCESS OF INTERPERSONAL ENCOUNTER )N -ETHOD IN 4HEOLOGY ,ONERGAN DElNES ENCOUNTER AS DIALECTICAL IN WHICH THE SUBJECTS hMEETING PER SONS APPRECIATING THE VALUES THEY REPRESENT CRITICIZING THEIR DEFECTS AND ALLOWING ONES LIVING TO BE CHALLENGED AT ITS VERY ROOTS BY THEIR WORDS AND THEIR DEEDSv OPENS THE SUBJECT FOR OTHERS C 7E CAN LOCATE DIALECTICAL ENCOUNTER SIMILAR TO THIS IN OUR OWN LIVES -OST HAVE US HAVE HAD THE RICH EXPERIENCE OF MEETING SOMEONE NEW AND BEING CHALLENGED AND SHAKEN TO OUR CORE BY THE FEELINGS EVOKED IN US THROUGH THAT ENCOUNTER )N SUCH A SITUATION ,ONERGAN WOULD URGE US TO REmECT ON THOSE SPECIlC FEELINGS OF CHALLENGE AND CONmICT "Y STRUGGLING WITH THOSE FEELINGS EVOKED BY THE /THER WE CAN ACTUATE OUR POTENTIAL TO MOVE TO A HIGHER VIEWPOINT TO AUTHENTIC SUBJECTIVITY !CCORDING TO ,ONERGAN BEING ATTENTIVE TO OUR EXPERIENCE DURING THE DYNAMIC PROCESS OF ENCOUNTER OPENS US TO THE POSSIBILITY OF CONVER SION FOR 'OD AND OTHERS "EING ATTENTIVE TO EXPERIENCE IS A DIFlCULT TASK ESPECIALLY SINCE EXPERIENCE IN GENERAL IS AN ILLUSIVE PHENOMENON ,ONERGAN HELPS US GAIN INSIGHT INTO THE COMPLEXITY OF EXPERIENCE BY CATEGORIZING GENERAL EXPERIENCE INTO SPECIlC PATTERNS !S PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED THESE PATTERNS INCLUDE BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO THE BIOLOGICAL AESTHETIC INTELLECTUAL DRAMATIC SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL AND RELIGIOUS EXPRESSIONS OF EXPERIENCE 7HEN ENCOUNTERING ANOTHER IT IS PARTICULARLY THROUGH OUR DRAMATIC PATTERN OF EXPERIENCE THAT WE FEEL VARIOUS SENSATIONS SUCH AS LOVE FEAR JEALOUSY ANGER ANDOR ATTRACTION -ORE OFTEN THAN NOT WE DEAL WITH THESE FEELINGS IN INAPPROPRIATE WAYS &OR INSTANCE WHEN WE FEEL FEAR TOWARD SOMEONE WE OFTEN AVOID THAT PERSON INSTEAD OF ATTEMPTING TO REALIZE THE UNDERLYING REASON FOR OUR TREPIDATION ! BET TER APPROACH ACCORDING TO ,ONERGAN WOULD BE TO lGURE OUT WHETHER OR NOT THIS STRANGER ACTUALLY POSES ANY DANGER BY QUESTIONING IF THERE EXISTS ANOTHER PLAUSIBLE REASON FOR OUR FEAR SUCH AS BIAS )F BIAS IS THE REASON FOR OUR FEAR WE OUGHT TO ACKNOWLEDGE HOW THAT BIAS PREVENTS US FROM ENGAGING THE STRANGER IN LIFE AFlRMING WAYS /NLY WHEN WE ARE ATTENTIVE TO HOW WE ENGAGE OTHERS THROUGH THE DRAMATIC PATTERN OF EXPERIENCE CAN WE COME TO TERMS WITH SOME OF THE CHALLENGES AND CONmICTS THAT SURFACE DURING DIALECTICAL ENCOUNTER
^4HE )SSUE OF !LTERITY
4HE OUTCOME OF OUR DIALECTICAL ENCOUNTER WITH THE /THER IS A RESULT OF OUR ATTENTIVENESS OR INATTENTIVENESS TO OUR DRAMATIC PATTERN OF EXPERI ENCE 0UT ANOTHER WAY THE QUALITY OF OUR ENGAGEMENT WITH THE /THER HINGES NOT MERELY ON OUR EXPERIENCE OF THE /THER BUT MORE IMPOR TANTLY ON HOW WE PROCESS OUR EXPERIENCE OF THE /THER ,IKE SO MANY CONTEMPORARY AND POSTSTRUCTURAL THEORISTS ,ONERGAN ACKNOWLEDGES THE AMBIGUITY REGARDING THE PROCESS OF EXPERIENCING THE /THER %VEN SO HE WOULD INSIST THAT THROUGH QUESTIONING AND ANSWERING ONE COULD UNDERSTAND THEIR EXPERIENCE AT A HIGHER LEVEL OF CONSCIOUSNESS AND THEN ACT ON IT 4HE CONVERGENCE BETWEEN AFFECTIVITY SENSUAL EXPERIENCE COGNITION INTELLECTUAL QUESTIONING AND VOLITION DELIBERATE ACTION IS ONE OF THE HALLMARKS OF ,ONERGANS WORK (E SERIOUSLY CONSIDERS THE ROLE OF FEELINGS IN OUR BEING HUMAN IN RELATION TO OTHERS ,ONERGAN REFUSES TO CONCLUDE HIS ANALYSIS OF THE SUBJECTS EXPERIENCE OF THE /THER AT THE LEVEL OF DIALECTIC /N THE CONTRARY AS THE SUBJECT IS ENGAGED AND CHALLENGED BY THE /THER DURING ENCOUNTER SHE THE SUBJECT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO MOVE FROM DIALECTIC TO DIALOGUE 7HEREAS DIALECTICAL ENCOUNTER ENCOMPASSES THE PROCESS BY WHICH THE SUBJECT IS CHALLENGED BY ANOTHERS POSITION DIALOGUE IS AN EVENT IN WHICH THE SUBJECT AND /THER CAN MOVE FROM CONmICT TO FRIENDSHIP )N h.ATURAL 2IGHT AND (ISTORICAL -INDEDNESS v ,ONERGAN ELABORATES ON THIS SHIFT IN APPROACH hFROM A CONmICT OF STATEMENTS TO AN ENCOUNTER OF PER SONSv 7ITHOUT QUESTION THE CONmICT OF DIALECTIC CANNOT RESULT IN INTERPERSONAL ESTRANGEMENT OR VIOLENCE BECAUSE BEHIND EVERY STATEMENT AND PROPOSITION THERE IS A CONCRETE EMBODIED PERSON WHO HAS DIGNITY AND DEMANDS RESPECT $IALECTIC CREATES AN OPPORTUNITY TO MOVE TOWARD FRIENDSHIP AND LOVE )NTERESTINGLY CONmICT OPENS US TO THE /THER 7E MUST BEAR IN MIND THAT ,ONERGANS READING OF DIALECTIC UNLIKE ,EVINASS DOES NOT INVOLVE NEGATING ALTERITY !CCORDING TO ,ONERGAN A SUBJECT GRAPPLES HEAD ON WITH OTHERNESS DURING DIALECTIC 0UT ANOTHER WAY AS ,EVINAS READS DIALECTIC AS DESTROYING TRANSCENDENCE AND OTHER NESS ,ONERGAN COMPREHENDS DIALECTIC AS A TOOL THAT REVEALS OTHERNESS )NDEED OTHERNESS HAS THE POWER TO CALL THE SUBJECT INTO QUESTION !N ENCOUNTER WITH ALTERITY CAN CHALLENGE AND REPOSITION THE SUBJECT TO AN ALTERNATIVE POSTURE TO A HIGHER VIEWPOINT 4HE QUESTIONING AND ANSWERING INVOLVED IN THE ACTIVITY OF DIALECTIC SHOULD LEAD TO INTELLEC
-ICHELE 3ARACINO /N "EING (UMAN
TUAL MORAL AND RELIGIOUS CONVERSION FOR RIGHT RELATIONSHIP WITH OTHERS !GAIN IN h.ATURAL 2IGHT v ,ONERGAN EXPLAINS h&OR EVERY PERSON IS AN EMBODIMENT OF NATURAL RIGHT %VERY PERSON CAN REVEAL TO ANY OTHER HIS NATURAL PROPENSITY TO SEEK UNDERSTANDING TO JUDGE REASONABLY TO EVALUATE FAIRLY TO BE OPEN TO FRIENDSHIP 7HILE THE DIALECTIC OF HISTORY COLDLY RELATES OUR CONmICTS DIALOGUE ADDS THE PRINCIPLE THAT PROMPTS US TO CURE THEM THE NATURAL RIGHT THAT IS THE INMOST CORE OF OUR BE INGv 5P UNTIL THIS POINT WE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING THE COMPLEXITY OF PERSONAL EXPERIENCE WHEN ENCOUNTERING ANOTHER IN A DIALECTICAL AND HOPEFULLY DIALOGICAL MANNER 3TILL THE INTRICACY OF EXPERIENCE AND THE CHALLENGE OF BEING ATTENTIVE TO DIFFERENCE CANNOT REMAIN AT THE LEVEL OF THE INDIVIDUAL FOR PEOPLE BELONG TO SOCIAL STRUCTURES SUCH AS FAMILIES SCHOOLS BUSINESSES POLITICAL GROUPS AND THE MEDIA AND ARE INmUENCED BY DIVERSE PEOPLE INCLUDING PARENTS TEACHERS ENTREPRENEURS POLITICIANS AND JOURNALISTS (UMAN BEINGS ARE NOT ISOLATED BUT SOCIAL SUBJECTS WHO BELONG TO COMMUNITIES !CCORDING TO ,ONERGAN THE SOCIAL PATTERN OF EXPERIENCE TRACES THE HUMAN PERSONS CONCRETE RELATIONSHIPS AS SHE MOVES INTO THE LARGER COMMUNITY !S A MEMBER OF SOCIETY THE SOCIAL SUBJECT IS ENCOURAGED TO MAKE SERIOUS DECISIONS PARTICULARLY SHE IS CALLED TO PARTICIPATE IN POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS DEVELOP THE ECONOMIC WELL BEING OF THE COMMUNITY AND THINK ETHICALLY ABOUT THE EMPLOY MENT OF VARIOUS TECHNOLOGICAL DISCOVERIES 4HE WAY IN WHICH THE SOCIAL SUBJECT ENGAGES THESE THREE SPHERES OF SOCIETY POLITICS ECONOMICS AND TECHNOLOGY EFFECTS EITHER PROGRESS OR DECLINE .AVIGATING WITHIN SOCIETY EFFECTING EITHER PROGRESS OR DECLINE THE SOCIAL SUBJECT IS NOT ONLY FACED WITH ISSUES OF POLITICS ECONOMICS AND TECHNOLOGY BUT ALSO WITH THE QUESTION OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY ,ONERGAN EXPLAINS HOW HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL CONTEXT INmUENCES THE SUBJECTS RELATIONSHIP WITH OTHERS THROUGH HIS NOTION OF THE TRANSCULTURAL C 2ECALL THAT THE TERM TRANSCULTURAL REFERS TO HOW THE STRUCTURE OF HUMAN KNOWING IS PRESENT IN EVERY HUMAN BEING THROUGHOUT ALL PERIODS AND CULTURES "Y APPROPRIATING THIS STRUCTURE THROUGH THE COG NITIONAL PROCESS HUMANS NOT ONLY HAVE THE CAPABILITY BUT ALSO HAVE THE OBLIGATION TO BE ATTENTIVE AND OPEN TO THE INSIGHTS FEELINGS AND VALUES OF DIFFERENT PEOPLE 4HIS HUMAN POTENTIAL FOR UNDERSTANDING TRANSCENDS THE CLOSED DIALECTICAL AND DIALOGICAL ENCOUNTER BETWEEN
^4HE )SSUE OF !LTERITY
SUBJECT AND /THER PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED AND EMBRACES THE PLURALITY OF CULTURES THROUGHOUT THE WORLD "Y EMPHASIZING THE FACT THAT HUMAN BEINGS CAN UNDERSTAND OTHER CULTURES ,ONERGAN CALLS OUR ATTENTION NOT ONLY TO THE /THER IN OUR MIDST BUT ALSO TO THE COMPLEXITY OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY ON THE GLOBAL SCALE )T IS CLEAR FROM ,ONERGANS THOUGHT IN THE ESSAY h4IME AND -EANINGv THAT HE AVOIDS ANY ATTITUDE OF hPRO VINCIALISMv WHEN DEALING WITH DIFFERENCE ACROSS CULTURES A %VEN MORE IMPORTANT IS THE FACT THAT ,ONERGAN REBUKES THOSE PEOPLE AND CULTURES WHO READ THEMSELVES AS NORMATIVE WHILE THEY ASSUME THAT hTHE REST OF THE WORLD IS MADE UP OF STRANGERS AND THE STRANGERS ARE TOTALLY STRANGE TOTALLY ODD x @INSCRUTABLY /RIENTALv 3UCH ORIENTALISM FOREGROUNDS THE THOUGHT OF %DWARD 3AID 3TRENGTHENING ,ONERGANS ARGUMENT -ATTHEW ,AMB WORRIES THAT WHEN WE DEEM SOME HUMAN CULTURES SO IMPOSSIBLE TO UNDERSTAND WE END UP NEGLECTING IGNORING lCTIONALIZING OR hTREATING ;THESE= CULTURES AS IF THEY WERE SPECIMENS IN A MODERN ZOOv ,AMB /NE CONTEMPORARY INSTANCE OF SUCH CULTURAL NEGLECT CAN BE RELATED TO THE WAY IN WHICH !MERICANS AND MANY OTHER 7ESTERNERS ACT TOWARD THE )SLAMIC COMMUNITY 7E OFTEN TREAT -USLIMS AS LESS THAN HUMAN HARBOR BIAS AGAINST THEM OR EVEN WORSE FORGET THEIR EXISTENCE ALTOGETHER )N ORDER TO BE AUTHENTICALLY HUMAN NONETHELESS ,ONERGAN AND ,AMB WOULD URGE US TO ACTUATE OUR POTENTIAL TO UNDERSTAND THOSE WHO SEEM DIFFERENT THAN US BY ENGAGING THEM IN DIALECTIC AND DIALOGUE &OR ONLY WHEN WE ENACT THE TRANSCULTURAL AND RELATE TO THOSE DIFFERENT THAN US AS FULLY HUMAN DO WE BECOME AUTHENTIC SUBJECTS )T IS NOT TOO STRONG TO SUGGEST THAT THE TRANSCULTURAL POTENTIAL TO KNOW OTHER BEINGS AND CULTURES IS THAT WHICH MARKS US AS AUTHENTICALLY HUMAN 4HE TRANS CULTURAL IS THAT WHICH ENABLES US TO MOVE FROM A POSITION OF DIALECTI CAL CONmICT TO DIALOGICAL LOVE "UT WHEN WE IGNORE THE TRANSCULTURAL POTENTIAL AND REFUSE TO STRIVE TOWARD UNDERSTANDING THE END RESULT IS OUR ALIENATION FROM 'OD AND OTHERS !LIENATION REmECTS THE SUBJECTS INABILITY TO CONVERT FROM A POSITION OF BIAS TO A POSITION OF AUTHENTIC SUBJECTIVITY TO BEING FOR OTHERS !T THIS POINT IT MIGHT HELP TO REVIEW ,ONERGANS READING OF CONVER SION !CCORDING TO ,ONERGAN INTELLECTUAL CONVERSION CAN OCCUR WHEN WE REALIZE HOW OUR BIAS REGARDING A CERTAIN PERSON OR GROUP PROHIBITS US FROM UNDERSTANDING THEM &OR INSTANCE IN !MERICAN CULTURE WE
-ICHELE 3ARACINO /N "EING (UMAN
OFTEN MAKE ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT PEOPLE WITHOUT TAKING THE TIME TO UN DERSTAND WHO THEY REALLY ARE 4O RETURN TO THE PREVIOUS EXAMPLE MANY #HRISTIANS *EWS AND OTHERS IN !MERICA HAVE A NEGATIVE PERCEPTION OF -USLIMS MOST PROBABLY BECAUSE THEY HAVE A LIMITED UNDERSTANDING OF THE )SLAMIC TRADITION !NY INFORMATION THAT IS RELAYED BY THE MEDIA REGARDING -USLIMS USUALLY RELATES TO THEIR SUPPOSED CONNECTION TO TERRORIST ACTIVITY ANDOR THEIR SEEMINGLY HOSTILE TREATMENT OF WOMEN )NSTEAD OF FOCUSING ON THE NEGATIVE BIASED PORTRAYAL OF -USLIMS IT WOULD BE BENElCIAL IF PEOPLE WERE MORE ATTENTIVE TO THE )SLAMIC TRADI TION BY lNDING OUT BOTH THROUGH PERSONAL CONTACT AND RESEARCH THE ACTUAL BELIEFS AND PRACTICES OF -USLIM COMMUNITIES /NLY THEN WITH A MORE SOPHISTICATED INTELLECTUAL GRASP OF THE )SLAMIC WORLDVIEW WILL WE BE FREE TO RELATE TO -USLIMS IN MORE HUMANE WAYS ! CHANGE IN ONES UNDERSTANDING THEREFORE CAN LEAD TO A CHANGE IN ONES MORAL HORIZON TO MORAL CONVERSION -ORAL CONVERSION OCCURS WHEN A PERSONS SHIFT IN UNDERSTANDING LEADS HIMHER TO HAVE A SHIFT IN VALUE /NCE A PERSON REALIZES THAT ALL -USLIMS ARE NOT A THREAT THEN SHE CAN VALUE THEM AS COMPLETE PERSONS AND EVENTUALLY ACT IN FRIENDSHIP TOWARD THEM )N CONJUNCTION WITH INTELLECTUAL CHANGE MORAL CONVERSION FURTHER OPENS THE SUBJECT TO THE POSSIBILITY OF FALLING IN LOVE WITH 'OD AND OTHERS !RGUABLY BEING IN LOVE WITH 'OD IS THE HIGHEST FORM OF SELF APPROPRIATION FOR WHEN IN LOVE WITH 'OD THE SUBJECT IS DRAWN OUT OF A CLOSED WORLD AND REORIENTED TO A STANCE OF RIGHT RELATIONSHIP WITH OTHERS ,ONERGAN SCHOLAR &REDERICK ,AWRENCE EXPLAINS THAT hWITHIN ,ONERGANS FRAMEWORK THEN THE DECENTERING DETOTALIZING AND BE COMING HETEROGENEOUS OF THE SELF CAN BE REINTERPRETED AS THE BASIC AND RADICAL DISPLACEMENT OF THE SUBJECT THAT OCCURS MOST PARADIGMATICALLY IN RELIGIOUS CONVERSIONv )NASMUCH AS WE BECOME REPOSI TIONED FOR OTHERS THROUGH INTELLECTUAL AND MORAL CONVERSION IT COULD BE ARGUED THAT ONLY WHEN WE FALL IN LOVE WITH 'OD DO WE BECOME COMPLETE AUTHENTIC BEINGS FOR OTHERS /NE COULD MAKE A CASE THAT ,ONERGANS NORMATIVE SUBJECT IS OPEN TO DIVERSITY AND ORIENTED TOWARD 'OD AND OTHERS IN FACT IS ALREADY hDECONSTRUCTEDv ,AWRENCE )N EMPLOYING THE PHRASE ALREADY DECONSTRUCTED ,AWRENCE DOES NOT IMPLY THAT THE SUBJECT IS SELF SUFlCIENT OR PERFECT AS IS BUT RATHER THAT THE SUBJECT IS POSITIONED BY THE PRESENCE OF 'OD AND OTHERS 4HE IDEA OF BEING POSITIONED BY
^4HE )SSUE OF !LTERITY
ALTERITY IS MOST OBVIOUS IN CONTEMPORARY CONTINENTAL THEORY SUCH AS IN THE WORK OF $ERRIDA ,YOTARD AND MOST IMPORTANTLY ,EVINAS "Y TYPING ,ONERGANS ANTHROPOLOGICAL SUBJECT AS ALREADY DECONSTRUCTED ,AWRENCE COMPELS US TO FOCUS ON THE WAY IN WHICH ,ONERGAN UNDER STANDS BEING HUMAN AS BEING ACCOUNTABLE TO OTHERS ! POSTMODERN SUBJECT IN THE BEST SENSE OF THE WORD ,ONERGANS SUBJECT IS GRACED IN OPENNESS TO ALTERITY !ND AGAIN THIS OPENNESS IS MOST COMPLETE IN AFFECTIVE GIFTED ENCOUNTER %VEN AS ,AWRENCE ATTEMPTS TO DEMONSTRATE THAT ,ONERGANS WORK WIELDS A REVERENCE FOR OTHERNESS ,AWRENCE ARGUES THAT UNLIKE SOME POSTMODERN THEORIES ,ONERGANS COGNITIONAL THEORY DEMANDS THAT WE NOT ONLY DESCRIBE OTHERNESS BUT ALSO JUDGE AND DECIDE IN THE FACE OF ALTERITY )N THIS WAY ,ONERGANS COGNITIONAL THEORY REPUDIATES AN INSIDIOUS RELATIVISM THAT IS PRESENT IN SO MUCH OF CONTEMPORARY CON TINENTAL THOUGHT ,AWRENCE WRITES h;)=N THE POSTURE OF SENSITIVITY TO OTHERNESS AND DIFFERENCE THAT GOES TOGETHER WITH AGNOSTIC PLURALISM RADICAL PLURALISTS FAIL TO COME TO TERMS WITH THE WAY IN WHICH IT TAKES CORRECT JUDGMENTS ADEQUATELY IF NEVER EXHAUSTIVELY TO COME TO TERMS WITH THE OTHER AS OTHERv #ONTRARY TO THE THOUGHT OF THE RADICAL PLURALISTS AND RELATIVIST CONTEMPORARY THEORISTS ,AWRENCE SHOWS US THAT ALTERITY AND INTERSUBJECTIVITY ARE ONLY MAINTAINED WHEN THE SUBJECT ATTENDS TO THE SENSE DATA OF THE /THER GRAPPLES WITH THEIR OWN PRECONCEPTIONS OF THE /THER AND ACTS REASONABLY AND RESPONSIBLY TOWARD THE /THER .OTICE THAT THESE ACTIVITIES PERFORM THE OPERATIONS IN ,ONERGANS TRANSCULTURAL STRUCTURE OF BEING HUMAN )NVESTIGATING ,ONERGANS READING OF SUBJECTIVITY AND OTHERNESS WE DISCOVERED SEVERAL POINTS 7E LEARNED THAT EVEN THOUGH ,ONERGAN VALUES EXPERIENCE PER SE HE IS MORE CONCERNED WITH OUR BEING ATTENTIVE TO THAT WHICH COMPLICATES OUR EXPERIENCE SUCH AS BIAS /UR ATTENTIVENESS TO THE COMPLEXITY OF EXPERIENCE NEVERTHELESS IS ONLY THE INITIAL STEP IN THE RIGOROUS PROCESS OF UNDERSTANDING OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH OTHERS /PENNESS TO ALTERITY EXTENDS BEYOND THE SUBJECTS INDIVIDUAL WORLD TO HISHER SOCIAL PATTERN OF EXPERIENCE #HRONICLING THE SOCIAL DIMENSION OF BEING HUMAN REQUIRED US TO REmECT ON THE TRANSCULTURAL POTENTIAL IN ALL OF HUMANITY NOT ONLY TO KNOW SELF OR ANOTHER BUT ALSO TO ENGAGE AND UNDERSTAND OTHER CULTURES !S WE REmECTED ON ,AMBS EXPOSITION OF THE TRANSCULTURAL CONTEMPORARY QUESTIONS ABOUT DIVERSITY AND PLURAL
-ICHELE 3ARACINO /N "EING (UMAN
ISM SURFACED &INALLY ,AWRENCES ANALYSIS HELPED US TO UNDERSTAND THAT ,ONERGANS AUTHENTIC SUBJECT IS ALREADY DECONSTRUCTED ALREADY OPEN TO OTHERNESS "ELOW WE WILL REALIZE HOW ,EVINASS SUBJECT SIMILAR TO ,ONERGANS ANTHROPOLOGICAL SUBJECT DEFERS TO THE /THER )NDEED FOR ,EVINAS BEING HUMAN IS AN EFFECT OF THE /THER
2EVISITING ,EVINASS /THER !S HIS WRITINGS ABOUT ALTERITY ARE NUMEROUS BELOW ) DETAIL ONLY A FEW OF THE THREADS IN ,EVINASS THOUGHT ON OTHERNESS ) BEGIN BY TRACING HIS ROOTS IN BOTH 4ALMUDIC AND #ARTESIAN THOUGHT DEMONSTRATING HOW THE /THER IS NEITHER SOMEONE WHO CAN BE THEMATIZED NOR THE OBJECT OF POSITIVIST ONTOLOGY &OR ,EVINAS THE /THER IS PRECISELY THE UNTHEMATIZABLE THE NON CORRELATIVE AND THE UNUTTERABLE TRACE THAT CALLS THE SUBJECT INTO BEING THROUGH THE ETHICAL RELATION OF FACING 4HEN ) DELINEATE THE WAY IN WHICH THIS UNTHEMATIZABLE ALTERITY IS ILLUSTRATED THROUGH THE HEURISTIC OF HETEROSEXUAL LOVE 4HIS GENDERED AND SPOUSAL IMAGERY IS NOT MEANT TO REDUCE THE /THER TO A SPECIlC PERSONA BUT TO EMPHASIZE THE OPEN AND MYSTERIOUS QUALITIES OF THE /THER AS WELL AS THE OBLIGATORY STANCE OF THE SUBJECT IN THE FACE OF THE /THER &INALLY THE WAYS THAT ,EVINASS INTERPRETATION OF DIFFERENCE INmUENCES THE CONTEMPORARY CONVERSATION ABOUT GENDER ISSUES AND RACIAL DIVERSITY ARE DETAILED )T SHOULD BE CLEAR FROM THE PREVIOUS CHAPTER THAT ,EVINASS INTER PRETATION OF THE /THER IS ROOTED PRIMARILY IN 3CRIPTURE SPECIlCALLY IN THE PROPHETIC CALL OF 'OD THROUGHOUT HISTORY AS WELL AS IN HUMANITYS SOLEMN WITNESS TO THAT CALL "Y TREATING OTHERNESS IN TERMS OF A CALL ,EVINAS AVOIDS THEMATIZING 'OD IN ONTOLOGICAL TERMS !CCORDING TO ,EVINAS THE /THER IS NOT AN INCARNATION OF 'OD RATHER 'OD IS RE VEALED IN FACING 'OD IS PRESENT IN THE SUBJECTS ENGAGEMENT WITH THE /THER %VEN THOUGH HUMANITY CANNOT SAY ALL THAT IT WOULD LIKE ABOUT THE BEING OF 'OD HUMAN BEINGS CAN MEDIATE 'OD IN THEIR RELATIONS WITH OTHERS 4HEREFORE 'OD IS NOT THE /THER PAR EXCELLENCE RATHER 'OD EMERGES IN THE SUBJECTS DESIRE FOR THE /THER (UMANITYS GIVING TO OTHERS ATTESTS TO 'ODS PRESENCE WITNESSES TO THE /THER
^4HE )SSUE OF !LTERITY
)N ADDITION TO APPRECIATING THE RELIGIOUS IMPULSE OF ,EVINASS WORK CONTEXTUALIZING ,EVINAS WITHIN THE #ARTESIAN TRADITION ELUCIDATES HIS UNDERSTANDING OF THE /THER 2ECALL HOW ,EVINAS DRAWS ON $ESCARTESS METAPHYSICS IN ORDER TO ARGUE THAT THE )NlNITE IS PLACED WITHIN THE HU MAN PERSONlXING AND ORIENTING THE SUBJECT FOR THE /THER 4HROUGH ,EVINASS READING OF $ESCARTES ONE CAN GLEAN HOW THE )NlNITE /THER APPROACHES AND WITHDRAWS FROM THE WORLD OF THE SUBJECT BUT IS NEVER PURELY PRESENT NEVER SYNCHRONIC !LTERITY IS NOT ACCOUNTED FOR POSITIVELY AS AN OBJECT BUT ONLY ATTESTED TO IN THE SUBJECTS RESPONSE 3UBJECTIVITY EMERGES IN THE EVENT OF WITNESSING "EING HUMAN CONSEQUENTLY IS NOT ISOLATED FROM STABLE WITHOUT OR SYMMETRICAL TO THE /THER RATHER BEING HUMAN DEPENDS ON THE /THER !VOIDING ANY SORT OF (EIDEG GERIAN UTILITARIANISM OR ,ACANIAN LACK ,EVINASS SENSE OF THE /THER IS ONE IN WHICH THE /THER IS NOT AN OBJECT FOR THE SUBJECT TO USE 1UITE PROFOUNDLY THE /THER CAUSES THE SUBJECT TO BE HUMAN !SIDE FROM HIS CONFESSIONAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL REmECTIONS ,EVINASS RHETORICAL STYLE ALSO IS INDICATIVE OF HIS INTERPRETATION OF OTHERNESS ! VITAL DIMENSION OF ,EVINASS EXPLANATION OF ALTERITY THEN IS NOT ONLY WHAT HE STATES BUT ALSO HOW HE STATES IT 4HUS ONE WOULD BE REMISS TO IGNORE ,EVINASS EROTICALLY CHARGED DESCRIPTION OF OTHERNESS "Y WAY OF WHAT ) CALL A DISCOURSE OF DESIRE ,EVINAS FURTHER ILLUSTRATES THE COMPLICATED RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SUBJECT AND /THER 4HERE ARE TWO TRAJECTORIES OR LEVELS TO HIS DISCOURSE OF DESIRE /N ONE LEVEL OTHERNESS IS ANALOGIZED IN FEMININE IMAGERY AND ON ANOTHER LEVEL THE SUBJECTS ATTRACTION FOR THE /THER IS IMAGINED WITHIN A DRAMA OF HETEROSEXUAL LOVE 0RIMARILY ,EVINAS ILLUSTRATES ALTERITY BY EXPLOITING THE RHETORIC OF FEMININITY !CCORDING TO ,EVINAS h;4=HE /THER WHOSE PRESENCE IS DIS CREETLY AN ABSENCE WITH WHICH IS ACCOMPLISHED THE PRIMARY HOSPITABLE WELCOME WHICH DESCRIBES THE lELD OF INTIMACY IS THE 7OMANv (ERE ,EVINAS ATTEMPTS TO EMPHASIZE THE HOSPITABLE RECEPTIVE DIMENSION OF THE /THERAN /THER THAT CALLS AND WELCOMES THE SUBJECT INTO THE ETHICAL RELATION OF FACING )N ADDITION TO ACCENTING THE HOS PITABLE ASPECT OF ALTERITY ,EVINAS HIGHLIGHTS THE MYSTERIOUS QUALITY OF THE /THER BY EMPLOYING SUCH TERMS AS OVERmOWING AND VOLUPTUOSITY 6OLUPTUOSITY REFERS TO THE SUBJECTS ENJOYMENT OF AND DESIRE FOR THE HIDDENNESS OF THE /THER 4HIS VOLUPTUOSITY hTRANSlGURES THE SUBJECT HIMSELF WHO HENCEFORTH OWES HIS IDENTITY NOT TO HIS INITIATIVE OF
-ICHELE 3ARACINO /N "EING (UMAN
POWER BUT TO THE PASSIVITY OF THE LOVE RECEIVEDv 3IMILAR TO THAT OF THE -OSAIC TROPE OF FACING THE EROTIC TERM VOLUPTUOSITY MARKS THE ETHICAL RELATION BETWEEN SUBJECT AND /THER IN WHICH INTIMACY AND DISTANCE ARE MAINTAINED !S RECEPTIVE AND MYSTERIOUS THE /THER CALLS THE SUBJECT INTO RELATIONSHIP BUT REFUSES TO BE TOTALIZED THEMATIZED OR CONTROLLED 4HE /THER IS THE SITE OF OUR UNENDING OBLIGATION !S ONE WOULD EXPECT EXPLAINING ALTERITY THROUGH THE RHETORIC OF FEMININITY IS NOT WITHOUT PROBLEMS !S PREVIOUSLY STATED SOME FEMINIST SCHOLARS HAVE ACCUSED ,EVINAS OF AN UNDERLYING SEXISM BY ASSOCIATING OTHERNESS WITH THE FEMININE SENTIMENTS OF RECEPTIVITY AND MYSTERY ,UCE )RIGARAY FOR EXAMPLE WORRIES THAT ,EVINASS THOUGHT LEADS TO AN INSIDIOUS GENDER ESSENTIALISM IN WHICH WOMEN BECOME REDUCED TO THEIR BIOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL AFlNITIES FOR MOTHERING CAR ING DOMESTICITY AND HOSPITALITY ,IKE )RIGARAY WE WOULD BE WISE TO QUESTION ,EVINASS GENDERED DISCOURSE AND PONDER WHY IN THIS AGE OF POSTMODERNITY WHEN WE ARE COGNIZANT OF THE IMPLICATIONS OF SEXIST LANGUAGE DOES ,EVINAS USE THIS TIRED TROPE OF FEMININITY TO HIGHLIGHT THE INTRICACY OF ALTERITY )N RESPONSE TO FEMINIST CRITICISM ,EVINAS REFUTES THE ACCUSATION THAT HE IS SEXIST AS WELL AS REJECTS THE FACILE CONmATION OF THE FEMININE WITH OTHERNESS AND THE MASCULINE WITH SUBJECTIVITY 4HROUGH A CRITICAL READING OF ,EVINASS WORK ONE CAN VERIFY THAT HE DOES NOT UPHOLD AN ESSENTIALIST BIAS IN WHICH HE REGARDS ALL WOMEN AS PASSIVE AND ALL MEN AS ACTIVE ,EVINASS THEORY ASSUMES THAT BEING HUMAN INVOLVES NOT ONLY THE ACTIVE TRADITIONALLY MASCULINE DIMENSION OF RELATING TO OTHERS BUT ALSO ENCOMPASSES A PASSIVE TRADITIONALLY FEMININE DIMENSION OF BEING FOR OTHERS )N FACT WHEN FACING OTHERS WE ARE ENMESHED IN A DELICATE BALANCE OF LISTENING FEMININE AND RESPONDING MASCULINE "EING HUMAN FOR OTHERS DEMANDS BOTH OUR RECEPTIVE AND ACTIVE CAPABILITIES !S ,EVINAS UNDERSCORES IN h,OVE AND &ILIATION v IN BEING FOR THE /THER WE BECOME hCOGENDEREDv )N OTHER WORDS IN BECOMING HUMAN WE ARE BOTH IN NEED OF AND OPEN TO THE /THER )N ADDITION TO WRITING THE /THER IN FEMININE IMAGERY ,EVINAS ROMAN TICIZES THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SUBJECT AND /THER 4HIS IS THE SECOND LEVEL THROUGH WHICH HIS DISCOURSE OF DESIRE UNFOLDS 5NEQUIVOCALLY ,EVINAS DESCRIBES THE ETHICAL RELATION BETWEEN SUBJECT AND /THER IN
^4HE )SSUE OF !LTERITY
TERMS OF HETEROSEXUAL LOVE )N AN EFFORT TO PROVIDE AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE BIBLICAL NOTION OF FACING ,EVINAS IMAGINES THE INTIMATE AND DISTANT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SUBJECT AND /THER IN TERMS OF A ROMANCEA RELATIONSHIP SO POWERFUL THAT IT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO CREATE NEW LIFE (E SPEAKS ABOUT THE ETHICAL RELATION BETWEEN SUBJECT AND /THER AS FECUND IN THAT IT LEADS TO MORE RELATIONSHIPS IN THE SAME WAY THAT THE DESIRE BETWEEN TWO LOVERS RESULTS IN A CHILD 4HIS NOTION OF FECUNDITY WHICH EPITOMIZES THE POTENTIAL OF THE ETHICAL RELATION OF FACING HAS TWO IMPORTANT ASPECTS A MATERNAL DIMENSION AND A PATERNAL DIMEN SION -ATERNITY ACCENTUATES THE NEARNESS OF THE /THER WHILE PATERNITY EMPHASIZES THE DISTINCTIVENESS BETWEEN SUBJECT AND /THER ,ET ME EXPLAIN FURTHER ,EVINAS PRIVILEGES MATERNITY AS THE hULTIMATE SENSE OF THIS ;CLOSE NESS AND= VULNERABILITY v OF BEING FOR THE /THER ,EVINAS E "Y METAPHORICALLY MIMICKING THE SUBSTITUTION BETWEEN MOTHER AND CHILD THE HUMAN SUBJECT IS HOSTAGE TO AND POSTURED FOR THE /THER 4HE NOTION OF MATERNITY HOWEVER LIKE THE GENDERING OF THE /THER IS NOT WITHOUT PROBLEMS 7HILE NOT TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY MATERNITY DOES DENOTE A PARTICULAR ROLE MOTHERING 4HE METAPHOR OF MOTHER HOOD FOR INTERPRETING THE SUBJECT AS FOR THE /THER IS LIMITING PRIMARILY BECAUSE ONLY WOMEN CAN PHYSICALLY BEAR CHILDREN AND SECONDARILY BECAUSE WOMEN CAN BEAR CHILDREN ONLY DURING THEIR FERTILE YEARS 4HE lGURE OF MATERNITY EXCLUDES OTHER PEOPLE INCLUDING MEN CHILDREN AND THE ELDERLY FROM IMAGINING THEMSELVES AS OPEN RECEPTIVE AND RESPONSIBLE )T COMES AS NO SURPRISE THAT FEMINIST THINKER #ATHERINE #HALIER ARGUES THAT THE GENEROSITY OF BEING FOR THE /THER MUST TRANSCEND THE METAPHOR OF MATERNITY BECAUSE WHILE MATERNITY IS A SIGNIlCANT WAY IN WHICH WOMEN ARE OPEN TO OTHERNESS OPENNESS GOES BEYOND ONE ACT FUNCTION OR SET IDENTITY SUCH AS MOTHERHOOD 4HE METAPHOR OF MOTHERHOOD MOREOVER IS PROBLEMATIC BECAUSE IT IS ROOTED IN SPOUSAL IMAGERY WHICH IS INEXTRICABLY CONNECTED TO SEXIST ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT MARRIAGE AND SACRIlCE &OR SOME MATERNITY AS A METAPHOR FOR SUBJECTIVITY FOR THE /THER IS AT THE VERY LEAST MYOPIC AND THE VERY WORST OFFENSIVE
-ICHELE 3ARACINO /N "EING (UMAN
%SPECIALLY IN LIGHT OF THESE CLAIMS IT IS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THE OTHER ASPECT OF THE ETHICAL RELATION OF FACING PATERNITY 7HILE ,EVINAS UTILIZES THE TROPE OF MATERNITY TO HIGHLIGHT THE SUBJECTS NEARNESS TO THE /THER HE EMPLOYS THE NOTION OF PATERNITY TO EMPHASIZE THE INDE PENDENCE BETWEEN SUBJECT AND /THER 2ECALL FROM OUR DISCUSSION OF THE THEOPHANY THAT ,EVINAS IS CONCERNED WITH MAINTAINING A DISTANCE BETWEEN SUBJECT AND /THER IN ORDER TO RESPECT THE /THERS PARTICULARITY ,EVINASS PLAY WITH THE NOTION OF PATERNITY SECURES THE ETHICAL SPACE OF SEPARATION IN WHICH THE SUBJECTS INDEPENDENCE ACTUALLY OBLIGATES AND CONNECTS HIMHER TO THE /THER 3IGNIlCANTLY FROM BOTH ASPECTS OF THE ETHICAL RELATION OF FACING MATERNITY AND PATERNITY THE FRUIT OF THE ENCOUNTER BETWEEN SUBJECT AND /THER IS FECUNDITY 4HIS FECUNDITY MATERIALIZES NOT MERELY IN THE METAPHORICAL PRODUCTION OF A CHILD BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY IN THE CONCRETE PROLIFERATION OF ADDITIONAL RELATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITY 4HIS IS WHERE ,EVINASS USE OF THE DISCOURSE OF DESIRE IS MOST HELPFUL 4HE NOTION OF FECUNDITY CAPTURES THE EXCESSIVENESS OF OUR OBLIGATION TO THE /THER 4O BE SURE THE MULTIPLICITY OF RELATIONS THAT DEVELOPS THROUGH FECUNDITY DOES NOT DIMINISH THE SUBJECTS RESPONSIBILITY /N THE CON TRARY FECUNDITY MAGNIlES HISHER OBLIGATION !LPHONSO ,INGIS EXPLAINS h4O lND THAT THE ONE BEFORE WHOM AND FOR WHOM ) AM RESPONSIBLE IS RESPONSIBLE IN HIS TURN BEFORE AND FOR ANOTHER IS NOT TO lND HIS ORDER PUT ON ME RELATIVIZED OR CANCELED )T IS TO DISCOVER THE EXIGENCY FOR JUSTICE FOR AN ORDER AMONG RESPONSIBILITIESv ,EVINAS E XXXV #LEARLY THE LANGUAGE OF FECUNDITY POINTS TO THE COMPLEXITY OF INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSTO THE WAY IN WHICH HUMAN BONDS ARE NEVER SINGULAR BUT CONTINUALLY PRODUCE MORE CONNECTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES !BOVE WE HAVE UNCOVERED TWO AVENUES THAT GIVE US INSIGHT INTO ,EVINASS UNDERSTANDING OF ALTERITY HIS RECONSTRUCTION OF BOTH THE *UDAIC AND #ARTESIAN WORLDVIEWS AND HIS DISCOURSE OF DESIRE 4O A LARGE EXTENT ,EVINASS DISCOURSE OF DESIRE HAS IMPLICATIONS THAT TRANSCEND THE SCOPE OF HIS WORK TO THAT OF GENDER AND CRITICAL RACE THEORY "ELOW ) WILL INVESTIGATE SOME OF THESE IMPLICATIONS )T IS NOT UNUSUAL THAT WHEN SOME IMAGINE WHAT IT MEANS TO BE HUMAN IN THE POSTMODERN CONTEXT USING BODILY METAPHORS THEN OTHERS BECOME NERVOUS 4HE ONTOLOGICAL TYPING THAT RESULTS FROM TOO EASILY ADDRESSING SUBJECTIVITY AND DIFFER ENCE SHOULD BE OBVIOUS FROM THE PREVIOUS REmECTIONS ON "AUDRILLARD
^4HE )SSUE OF !LTERITY
3AID HOOKS AND &ANON 3TILL THERE IS AN EVEN MORE SLIPPERY FORM OF TYPING THAT RESULTS FROM THE CONmATION OF DESCRIPTION WITH ONTOLOGY 3PECIlCALLY SCHOLARS WORRY ABOUT THE TRAP OF ESSENTIALISM WHICH IS A REDUCTION OF ONES IDENTITY TO HISHER BIOLOGY )NTERESTINGLY ,UCE )RIGARAY HAS BEEN ACCUSED OF ESSENTIALISM ,IKE ,EVINAS )RIGARAY RELIES ON EFFUSIVE AND BAROQUE METAPHORS OF RELATIONSHIP AS WELL AS RICH CARNAL IMAGES OF WOMENS BODIES IN ORDER TO ILLUSTRATE THE PRESENCE OF WOMEN AS SUBJECTS 5LTIMATELY ONE MUST QUESTION WHETHER )RIGARAY LIKE ,EVINAS RUNS THE RISK OF DETERMINING WOMENS IDENTITY ON THE BASIS OF BIOLOGY 3UPERlCIALLY AT THE VERY LEAST ONE COULD READ BOTH ,EVINASS AND )RIGARAYS THEORIES AS ESSENTIALIST BECAUSE OF THE WAY THEY SEEM TO CONNECT BODILY FUNCTION WITH DESTINY AND ONTOLOGY .ONETHELESS ) HOPE TO SHOW THAT THEIR WORK PROPERLY SPEAKING IS MORE DECONSTRUC TIVE AND PERFORMATIVE THAN REDUCTIONIST -Y ARGUMENT ASSUMES THAT THE LANGUAGE USED TO DESCRIBE THE SUBJECT /THER AND THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TWO PARTIES DOES NOT LEAD TO THEMATIZATION OR ESSENTIALISM INSTEAD IT RE ENVISIONS THE PERSON OR RELATIONSHIP IN QUESTION )N OTHER WORDS AS ,EVINAS AND )RIGARAY SPEAK ABOUT SUBJECTIVITY AND WOMANHOOD THEY FURTHER DEVELOP THE MEAN INGS OF THOSE TERMS !CCORDING TO CULTURAL CRITIC *ANE 'ALLOP )RIGARAYS WORK REIMAGINES WHAT IT MEANS TO BE EMBODIED )RIGARAYS mESHY NARRATION OF FEMININITY REPRODUCES AND PRESENTS YET ANEW THE BODY SUBJECT OF THE WOMAN .OT SURPRISINGLY THEN WHEN )RIGARAY WAS ASKED WHETHER SHE WAS PART OF ANY WOMENS LIBERATION MOVEMENT SHE ANSWERED h) AM TRYING x TO GO BACK THROUGH THE MASCULINE IMAGERY TO INTERPRET THE WAY IT HAS REDUCED US ;WOMEN= TO SILENCE TO MUTENESS OR MIMICRY AND ) AM ATTEMPTING FROM THAT STARTING POINT AND THAT SAME TIME TO RE DISCOVER A POSSIBLE SPACE FOR THE POSSIBLE IMAGERYv )RIGARAYS AIM IS NOT TO REDUCE WOMEN TO ONE SPECIlC ROLE OR TYPE BUT TO OPEN WOMEN TO MORE POSSIBILITIES OF BEING HUMAN 3PEAKING ABOUT HUMAN BEINGS AS EMBODIED AND GENDERED DOES NOT LIMIT THE WAY WE THINK ABOUT WOMEN OR OTHERS UNLESS WE ALLOW ONE IMAGE TO TOTALIZE THE SUBJECT 4HIS REDUCTION OF THE SUBJECT CAN LEAD TO IDOLATRY AND THE CONFUSION OF ONTOLOGY WITH DESCRIPTION (OWEVER ,EVINASS AND )RIGARAYS INTENTIONS ARE NOT TO MAKE ANY REDUCTIONIST AS SERTIONS ABOUT BEING BUT TO ILLUSTRATE THE VARIOUS DIMENSIONS OF BEING AND WAYS OF PERFORMING SUBJECTIVITY 4HE WAY IN WHICH THEY BOTH PLAY
-ICHELE 3ARACINO /N "EING (UMAN
WITH EROTIC ICONOGRAPHY DOES NOT RESULT IN ESSENTIALISM BUT EXPRESSES THEIR RESPECT FOR THE COMPLEXITY OF BEING HUMAN &EMINIST THINKER !RLEEN $ALLERY HIGHLIGHTS A KEY POINT ABOUT )RIGARAYS WRITING REGARDING THE BODY THAT WE CAN EXTEND TO ,EVINASS WORK #ONCURRING WITH THE SUPPOSITION THAT )RIGARAYS WRITING IS PER FORMATIVE $ALLERY EXPLAINS HOW £CRITURE F£MININE RESISTS ESSENTIALISM 7E CAN DElNE £CRITURE F£MININE LITERALLY AS @FEMININE WRITING WRITING THAT ENCOURAGES WOMENS EXPERIENCE DESIRE AND BODIES TO COME INTO BEING /FTEN £CRITURE F£MININE IS PERFORMED BY THE LANGUAGE OF EXCESS SACRIlCE AND GIFT )MPORTANTLY FEMININE LANGUAGE IS NOT LIMITED TO FEMALE WRITERS BUT ENCOMPASSES ANY WRITING THAT FOCUSES ON THE EXCESS AND FECUNDITY THAT IS CHARACTERISTIC OF SUBJECTIVITY !RGUABLY ,EVINASS WORK IS EVIDENCE OF £CRITURE F£MININE )N FACT ANY THEORY THAT REJECTS THE BINARIES OF MALE VERSUS FEMALE AND SUBJECT VERSUS /THER AND ENGAGES AN ETHIC OF OPENNESS EXCESS GIFT AND SACRAMENTALITY CAN BE INTERPRETED AS £CRITURE F£MININE .OT EVERYONE IS COMFORTABLE WITH THE PERFORMATIVE £CRITURE F£MININE $ALLERY CLAIMS THAT THOSE WHO RESIST PERFORMATIVE WRITING AND CLAIM IT TO BE LITERALIST AND ESSENTIALIST ARE FEARFUL OF AND UNCOMFORTABLE WITH OTHERNESS 4O ACCUSE SOMEONE OF ESSENTIALISM SHOWS ANTIPATHY TOWARD DIFFERENCE 4HE PROBLEM WITH hTHE ANTIESSENTIALIST v ACCORD ING TO $ALLERY IS THAT SHE hFORGETS THAT THE BODY IS A SIGN A FUNCTION OF DISCOURSEv 3TATING THAT THE BODY IS A SIGN DOES NOT UNDERMINE THE REALITY OF IT )NSTEAD PROPOSING THAT THE BODY IS A SIGN UNDERSCORES THE FACT THAT HUMAN CORPOREALITY IS IMBUED WITH MEANING 7HEN WE OVERLOOK THE FACT THAT THE SUBJECTS BODY FUNCTIONS AS A SIGN WE RISK CONmATING THE BODY OR PARTICULAR BODY PART WITH ONE SPECIlC CULTURAL MEANING )T IS IMPERATIVE THEREFORE THAT WE DO NOT CONFUSE A PERSONS BEING THAT IS ONTOLOGY WITH CULTURAL MEANING 4HIS CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED BY INTERPRETING THE CONSTRUCTION OF MEANING RATHER THAN lXATING ON THE SIGN "Y BEING CRITICAL OF CULTURAL MEANING WE CAN BECOME MORE COMFORTABLE WITH OTHERNESS AND LESS FEARFUL ABOUT THE GENDERED IMAGERY USED IN PHILOSOPHICAL DISCOURSE 3TILL FOR REASONS PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED SOME MAY WANT TO IMAGINE OTHER METAPHORS
-ANY OF THE ANTIESSENTIALIST CLAIMS $ALLERY ARGUES COME FROM !MERICAN AND "RITISH FEMINISTS WHO ARE ENMESHED IN RIGHTS LANGUAGE AND EQUALITY FEMINISM
^4HE )SSUE OF !LTERITY
FOR UNDERSTANDING DIFFERENCE BEYOND THE LANGUAGE OF GENDER /NE SUCH METAPHOR IS SHOULDERING 3HOULDERING ALLOWS FOR THE SUBJECT TO SIGNIFY HIMHERSELF AS BOTH THE SAME AS AND DIFFERENT FROM OTHERS WITHOUT RELYING ON POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS GENDERED IMAGERY "EFORE CONSIDERING FURTHER IMPLICATIONS OF SHOULDERING IT IS CRUCIAL TO REALIZE THAT THE RISK OF ESSENTIALIZING DIFFERENCE ALSO SURFACES IN QUESTIONS ABOUT RACE 4HEOLOGIAN AND CULTURAL CRITIC 6ICTOR !NDERSON EXPLORES ISSUES THAT ARISE WHEN THEORISTS ESSENTIALIZE OR REIFY RACIAL CATEGORIES (E EXPLAINS HOW CULTURE HAS COMPARTMENTALIZED AND DISTILLED EXPERI ENCES OF SOME BLACK PERSONS UNDER THE STATIC CONCEPT OF BLACKNESS REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THESE EXPERIENCES ARE FACT OR lCTION !NDERSON DElNES THE CULTURAL REIlCATION OF BLACK EXPERIENCE AS ONTOLOGICAL BLACKNESS hA COVERING TERM THAT CONNOTES CATEGORICAL ESSENTIALIST AND REPRESENTATIONAL LANGUAGES DEPICTING BLACK LIFE AND EXPERIENCEv "Y WAY OF INSTITUTIONAL POWER THE IMAGES AND FEELINGS CONJURED BY THE MONOLITHIC CONCEPT OF BLACKNESS HAVE BEEN CREATED BY WHITES 4HIS PROCESS OF THE TOTALIZATION OF BLACK EXPERIENCE ECHOES THE WAY IN WHICH THE 7EST CONSTRUCTS @/RIENTALIST IMAGES OF THE %AST !NDERSON CHALLENGES THE /RIENTALIST ATTITUDE AND LAMENTS THAT THE CONSTRUC TION OF BLACKNESS IN RELATION TO A NORMATIVE WHITENESS hCONSTITUTES A FUNDAMENTAL NATURAL INEQUALITYv (E WONDERS IF HUMANITY CAN TRANSCEND THE STATIC CONCEPT OF BLACKNESS OR IF SUCH A CONCEPTUALIST READING WILL TYPE BLACKS PERMANENTLY 4HE REIlCATION OF RACIAL CATEGORIES PRESENTS THEOLOGIANS WITH A DILEMMA )F ONE REJECTS A CONNECTION BETWEEN CULTURAL IDENTITY AND EXPERIENCE BLACKNESS COULD BECOME RELEGATED TO A MYTH OR METAPHOR 9ET IF ONE FOCUSES TOO MUCH ON ETHNIC IDENTITY THE PARTICULAR PERSON BECOMES REDUCED TO HISHER RACE #OPELAND IN AN ESSAY ENTITLED h#OL LEGIALITY AS A -ORAL AND %THICAL 0RACTICE v GRAPPLES WITH THE PARADOX OF RACIAL FORMATION IN THE 5NITED 3TATES A !NALYZING A HYPOTHETICAL CASE SCENARIO INVOLVING AN !FRICAN !MERICAN FEMALE ACADEMIC #OPE LAND QUESTIONS WHETHER PEOPLE OF COLOR CAN TRANSCEND THE REDUCTIONIST CONCEPTIONS THAT SURROUND RACE !CCORDING TO #OPELANDS ANALYSIS THE BLACK ACADEMIC IS REDUCED TO A PLACEHOLDER FOR ANY AND ALL OF 7ESTERN PRECONCEIVED NOTIONS ABOUT BLACKNESS 3HE IS A PLACEHOLDER IN TWO WAYS /N THE ONE HAND THE BLACK SCHOLAR IS SEEN MERELY A SYMBOL OF HER RACE
-ICHELE 3ARACINO /N "EING (UMAN
AND hNEVER ;AS= A PARTICULAR PERSON v /N THE OTHER HAND THE SCHOLAR IS NOT ONLY LIMITED BY HER RACE BUT ALL OF HER RACE IS JUDGED BY HER ACTIONS &OR #OPELAND THE SCHOLAR IN QUESTION hBEARS THE BURDEN OF HER RACE AND THE RACE BEARS THE BURDEN OF HER PERFORMANCEv %VEN AS THE SCHOLAR IN 7ESTERN CIVILIZATION IS SUPPOSED TO BE THE ICON AND AUTHORITY lGURE ENTRUSTED WITH THE TASK OF RELAYING KNOWLEDGE OUR BIAS BLINDS US TO THE SCHOLARLY ROLE OF THIS PARTICULAR TEACHER !S THIS BLACK FEMALE SCHOLAR IS TO EDUCATE A CULTURE BIASED NOTIONS ABOUT HER RACE AND GENDER PREVENT HER FROM DOING SO 4HE mIP SIDE OF THIS DILEMMA INVOLVES ERASING RACIAL DIFFERENCE ALTO GETHER 3TUDYING &ANONS THEORY CULTURAL CRITIC $AVID 4HEO 'OLDBERG DISCUSSES HOW THE BLACK BODY IS CONSTRUCTED AS hRACIALLY MARKED v WHILE THE WHITE BODY POSES AS hRACIALLY INVISIBLEv 4HE BODIES OF WHITES PERFORM AS IF THEY ARE NAKED UNDRESSED PURE RACIALLY UNMARKED AND NORMATIVE WHILE BLACKS ARE MARKED COSTUMED AND DRESSED IN A HEGEMONIC STEREOTYPICAL COVERING )N THIS SCENARIO THE PERSON IS AT ONCE A SYMBOL AND ANONYMOUS !S WE HAVE LEARNED FROM #OPELAND INDIVIDUAL PERSONS OF COLOR SERVE AS SYMBOLS AND AT THE SAME TIME ACCORDING TO 'OLDBERG PERSONS OF COLOR AS INDIVIDUALS ARE RENDERED ANONYMOUS 7ITHOUT A DOUBT IT IS DANGEROUS TO CORRELATE EITHER EXPERIENCE OR BIOLOGICAL PHENOTYPE WITH ONTOLOGY 4O MEET THIS PROBLEM IN UNDERSTANDING ANTHROPOLOGY THEOLOGIANS NEED TO ENGAGE DIFFERENCE BEYOND THE SUPERlCIAL CONNOTATIONS ATTACHED TO GENDER OR RACE /NLY THEN CAN AUTHENTIC SUBJECTIVITY THAT IS BEING FOR THE /THER BECOME A REALITY !RGUABLY ,EVINASS THOUGHT IMPLIES A CRITIQUE OF ESSENTIALISM &OR ,EVINAS DIFFERENCE IS NOT A MONOLITHIC CATEGORY SUCH AS FEMALE BLACK OR POOR RATHER THE POSITION OF ALTERITY CONSTANTLY SHIFTS 4HIS MOVEMENT COMPLICATES THE DICHOTOMOUS WAYS IN WHICH THE 7EST OFTEN CONlGURES DIVERSITY PROPOSING THE IDEA THAT SOCIETY EMERGES IN THE SHIFTING POSITIONS OF SUBJECTIVITY AND OTHERNESS )N h4IME AND THE /THER v ,EVINAS COMMENTS ;)=N THE VERY HEART OF THE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE OTHER THAT CHARACTERIZES OUR SOCIAL LIFE ALTERITY APPEARS AS A NONRECIPROCAL RELATIONSHIP THAT IS AS CONTRASTING STRONGLY WITH CONTEMPORANEOUSNESS 4HE /THER AS /THER IS NOT ONLY AN ALTER EGO THE /THER IS WHAT ) MYSELF AM NOT 4HE /THER IS THIS NOT BECAUSE OF THE /THERS CHARACTER PHYSIOGNOMY
^4HE )SSUE OF !LTERITY
OR PSYCHOLOGY BUT BECAUSE OF THE /THERS VERY ALTERITY 4HE /THER IS FOR EXAMPLE THE WEAK THE POOR hTHE WIDOW AND THE ORPHAN v WHEREAS ) AM THE RICH OR THE POWERFUL
,EVINASS INTERPRETATION OF DIFFERENCE CAPTURES THE SUBJECTS CONTINGENCY AND DEPENDENCE ON THE /THER 0RECISELY BECAUSE THE POSITION OF THE /THER IS NEVER STABLE THE SUBJECTS OBLIGATION IS ALWAYS CHANGING %VEN THOUGH IT IS PREPOSTEROUS TO ACCUSE EVERY THEORIST OR ARGUMENT OF BEING ESSENTIALIST OUT OF FEAR OF OTHERNESS WE SHOULD REALIZE THAT ESSENTIALISM EITHER IN TERMS OF FECUNDITY GENDER OR BLACKNESS RACE IS PROBLEMATIC 3INCE THE POSITION OF THE /THER CONSTANTLY SHIFTS WE NEED TO DEVELOP A WAY OF SPEAKING ABOUT THE /THER THAT IS FAITH FUL TO AND ILLUSTRATES THE SUBJECTS RELATION TO THE /THER AS mUID AND CHANGING 4HE SUBJECT RELATES TO THE /THER BY HISHER BODY THROUGH A BODILY SIGN #RUCIAL TO UNDERSTANDING THE BODY AS SIGN IS REALIZING THAT INTERPRETATIONS OF THE BODY ARE NOT STATIC UNCHANGING AND ES SENTIAL RATHER BODY IMAGE AND SUBJECTIVITY ARE PERFORMED IN POSTURE ,INGIS EXPLAINS THIS CORPOREAL SIGNIlCATION h4HE BODY THAT MAKES SIGNS MAKES ITSELF A SIGNMAKES ITSELF A REFERENT FOR ITSELF AS WELL AS FOR OTHERSv B 4HE NOTION OF THE BODY PERFORMING AS A SIGN IS VALUABLE ESPECIALLY WHEN CONTEXTUALIZED WITHIN THE POSTURE OF SHOULDERING )N SHOULDERING THE BODY SUBJECT SIGNS FOR THE /THER )N SHOULDERING WE ANSWER THE /THERS CALL AND ARE SHIFTED FROM AN IM MANENTIST STANCE FOR SELF TO AN OPEN POSTURE FOR OTHERS )N CORPOREAL RELATIONSHIP WE ARE CALLED TO SHOULDER OTHERS )N THE SECTION ABOVE WE HAVE INVESTIGATED ,EVINASS THOUGHT ABOUT OTHERNESS !FTER REVIEWING THE WAY THAT HIS THEORY DEVELOPS OUT OF RELIGIOUS AND #ARTESIAN WORLDVIEWS WE DISCUSSED HOW HE CONTEXTUAL IZES ALTERITY WITHIN THE TROPE OF HETEROSEXUAL LOVE AND DESIRE 4HEN WE QUESTIONED WHETHER ,EVINASS THOUGHT ON ALTERITY AND EMBODIMENT LEADS TO A PROBLEMATIC ESSENTIALISM &OLLOWING A DISCUSSION OF DIF FERENCE IN RELATION TO GENDER AND RACE WE BEGAN TO UNDERSTAND HOW ,EVINASS THEORY IMPLICITLY REJECTS ESSENTIALIST ATTITUDES TOWARD OTHERS 4HE SUBJECTS RECEPTION OF THE /THER IS NOT DEPENDENT ON THE /THERS GENDER OR RACE RATHER IS LINKED TO THE /THERS NEEDS 4HE WAY IN WHICH ,EVINAS PLAYS WITH THE LANGUAGE OF OTHERNESS THAT IS THE MANNER IN WHICH HE SHIFTS FROM THE MALE TO FEMALE GENDER OVERDETERMINES THE FACT THAT ALL OF US AT ONE POINT OR ANOTHER ARE OTHERS )NTERESTINGLY THE
-ICHELE 3ARACINO /N "EING (UMAN
ONLY NORMATIVE DIMENSION OF THE /THER IS THE RESPONSIBILITY THAT SHE PLACES ON THE SUBJECTS SHOULDERS
#ONCLUSION )N THIS CHAPTER ) BEGAN A DISCUSSION OF DIFFERENCE IN ORDER TO DEMONSTRATE THAT SUBJECTIVITY IN THE CONTEMPORARY POSTMODERN GLOBAL MILIEU IS TIED TO ALTERITY !FTER REVIEWING THE DElNITION OF ALTERITY ) EMPHASIZED THREE WAYS IN WHICH HUMANITY IS CONFOUNDED BY OTHERNESS (UMANITY IS CONFUSED BY DIFFERENCE BECAUSE OF THE MISUSE OF LIBERAL RIGHTS LAN GUAGE THE COMMODIlCATION OF DIFFERENCE AND THE lCTIONALIZATION OF A NORMATIVE SUBJECT AND A DEVIANT /THER 4HE WAY IN WHICH ,ONERGANS ETHICS OF THINKING ENCOURAGES THE SUBJECT TO TAKE EXPERIENCE SERIOUSLY AND ENGAGE DIFFERENCE WAS THEN BROACHED TO COUNTER THESE CULTURAL PROBLEMS )MMEDIATELY FOLLOWING ) ASSESSED ,EVINASS TREATMENT OF OTHERNESS AND QUESTIONED THE IMPLICATIONS OF ESSENTIALISM FOR PRESENT DIALOGUE ABOUT GENDER AND RACE &ROM THIS STUDY WE CAN IDENTIFY THREE MAIN WAYS IN WHICH ,ONER GANS AND ,EVINASS THOUGHT ON ALTERITY INTERSECTS WITH CONTEMPORARY THEOLOGICAL ANTHROPOLOGY &IRST THE SUBJECTS ATTRACTION FOR THE /THER IS GROUNDED IN A LOVE AND DESIRE FOR THE /THER 3ECOND CONNECTED TO THE SUBJECTS ATTRACTION TO THE /THER ARE THE NOTIONS OF RELATIONSHIP AND INTERSUBJECTIVITY BOTH OF WHICH CAN BE DETECTED IN THESE TWO THINKERS SENTIMENTS ON DIFFERENCE 4HIRD THERE IS THE AMBIGUITY RISK AND CHALLENGE ASSOCIATED WITH THE SUBJECTS ENCOUNTER WITH OTHERNESS %VEN AS THE SUBJECT IS AFFECTIVELY CALLED TO A GRACED AND GIFTED POSTURE OF OPENNESS IN THE MIDST OF THE /THER THIS STANCE IS FRAUGHT WITH VULNERABILITY AND INITIAL IGNORANCE )T IS IMPORTANT TO KEEP IN MIND THAT NEITHER OF THESE THINKERS EXPLICITLY EQUATES 'OD WITH THE ABSOLUTE /THER NONETHELESS THEIR CONCERN FOR A GRACED AND ETHICAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SUBJECT AND /THER IMPLORES US TO THINK ABOUT THE COMPLEX MATRIX OF 'OD HUMANITY AND JUSTICE
^4HE )SSUE OF !LTERITY
&IGURING 3UBJECTIVITY IN 0OSTMODERN #ONTEXT 4HE 0ROTEAN 3UBJECT
5
P UNTIL THIS POINT ) HAVE BEEN COMPARING ,ONERGANS AND ,EVINASS THOUGHT ON SUBJECTIVITY AND OTHERNESS !FTER EX PLAINING HOW ALTERITY COMPLICATES #HRISTIAN NOTIONS OF HU MAN IDENTITY AND RESPONSIBILITY ) INTRODUCED SHOULDERING AS A WAY OF THINKING ABOUT BEING RESPONSIBLE FOR OTHERSAN IDEA THAT CAN BE FOUND IN BOTH ,ONERGANIAN AND ,EVINASIAN SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT )N THIS CHAPTER ) DELVE FURTHER INTO THE OVERLAPPING THEMES OF ,ONERGANS AND ,EVINASS THOUGHT AND DEVISE A TROPE FOR IMAGINING THE SUBJECTS RESPONSIBILITY FOR OTHERS !S WE HAVE LEARNED THE SUBJECTS OBLIGATORY POSTURE SPANS A SPECTRUM OF FEELINGS ENCOMPASSING DESIRE PLEASURE AND PAIN )NTERESTINGLY A TROPE THAT CAPTURES THE COMPLEXITY OF THESE FEELINGS IS PROTEANISM 0ROTEANISM IS DERIVED FROM 'REEK MYTHOLOGY AND HIGHLIGHTS THE CHANGEABLE AND POSITIONAL CHARACTER OF INTERSUBJECTIVITY )N 4HE /DYSSEY 0ROTEUS IS (OMERS WISE SEA GOD WHO CHANGES FORM IN ORDER TO ADAPT TO SITUATIONS 4HE COMPLICATED CHANGING AND CULTURALLY DIVERSE STATE OF OUR WORLD DEMANDS THAT HUMAN BEINGS BE SIMILARLY ADAPTABLE AND OPEN 0ROTEAN SUBJECTIVITY HAS THE POTENTIAL TO EMBRACE THE DEVELOPMENTAL AND RESILIENT CHARACTER OF BEING HUMAN IN THE POSTMODERN GLOBAL MILIEU &ROM THE ONSET SOME MAY OPPOSE MY PROPOSAL OF PROTEAN SUBJECTIVITY 4HEY MAY WONDER IF IT IS NECESSARY TO HAVE A lGURE OF PROTEANISM WHEN WE ALREADY HAVE THE NOTION OF OPENNESS AND THE POSTURE OF SHOULDER ING /THERS MAY INSIST THAT PROTEANISM CONNOTES A STATIC CONCEPT 3TILL OTHERS MAY ARGUE THAT PROTEAN SUBJECTIVITY IS TOO POSTMODERN THAT IS TOO NARRATIVE BASED TO FULLY ENGAGE A TELEOLOGICAL ANTHROPOLOGY )N RESPONSE TO THESE OBJECTIONS ) HOPE TO SHOW THAT PROTEANISM IS A MODEL OF SUBJECTIVITY THAT SERIOUSLY CONSIDERS AGENCY AND RESPONSIBILITY AND AT THE SAME TIME ACCOUNTS FOR THE mUID AND CHANGING DIMENSIONS OF
-ICHELE 3ARACINO /N "EING (UMAN
BEING HUMAN -OREOVER ) PLAN TO DEMONSTRATE HOW THE NARRATIVE mOW OF PROTEANISM CAN APPEAL TO A POSTMODERN SENSIBILITY WITHOUT LOSING HOPE FOR A SUPERNATURAL END )NDEED PROTEANISM CAN BE UNDERSTOOD IN ,ONERGANS WORDS AS A hDIRECTED DYNAMISMv 4HE MOST PRESSING REASON FOR CHOOSING PROTEANISM AS A TROPE HOW EVER IS TO AVOID A PROBLEMATIC CORRELATION BETWEEN AUTHENTICITY AND SUFFERING 4HIS CORRELATION SUGGESTS FALSELY THAT BEING AUTHENTICALLY HUMAN INVOLVES SOME SORT OF SUFFERING 3UCH LOGIC CAN BE FOUND IN ,EVINASS THOUGHT ON THE SUFFERING SERVANT E AS WELL AS IN ,ONERGANS NOTION OF BEING IN LOVE C ND ,EVINAS OFTEN CITES THEMES CONNECTED TO THE CALL OF )SA IAHTHE PROPHET WHO IMPLICITLY SPEAKS OF SUFFERING AS REDEMPTIVE AND RESOLVES TO SHOULDER THE BURDENS AND ILLS OF THE WORLD ,EVINASS REFERENCES TO )SAIAH HIGHLIGHT THE PASSIVITY OF THE SUBJECT THAT IS THE SUBJECTS OPENNESS TO THE /THER AT ALL COSTS EVEN DEATH 7ITH THE THREAT OF DANGER AND THE REALITY OF MORTALITY IN THE ETHICAL RELATIONSHIP OF FACING BETWEEN SUBJECT AND /THER IT IS NOT WRONG TO ARGUE THAT SUF FERING IS INEXTRICABLY CONNECTED TO ,EVINASS SAINTLY SUBJECTIVITY ,IKE ,EVINAS ,ONERGAN ALSO UPHOLDS A CONNECTION BETWEEN SUFFERING AND AUTHENTIC SUBJECTIVITY SPECIlCALLY AS HE EMPHASIZES THE REDEMPTIVE AND TELEOLOGICAL DIMENSIONS OF THE #ROSS AND THE POSSIBILITIES OF SELF SACRIlCIAL LOVE FOR OTHERS /VERALL BOTH THINKERS MAINTAIN THE UNEASY CORRELATION OF BEING HUMAN WITH SUFFERING 4HE THEME OF SUFFERING AS A SIGN OF AUTHENTIC SUBJECTIVITY IS NOT LIMITED TO THE *UDEO #HRISTIAN RELIGIOUS TRADITIONS -ANY MARGIN ALIZED GROUPS EITHER VOLUNTARILY OR INVOLUNTARILY SUBSCRIBE TO THE PROB LEMATIC CORRELATION BETWEEN AUTHENTIC SUBJECTIVITY AND SUFFERING &OR EXAMPLE IN THE 5NITED 3TATES THE lRST WOMENS SUFFRAGE MOVEMENTS VALORIZED A PASSIVE AND SELF SACRIlCING NOTION OF SUBJECTIVITY )N THOSE MOVEMENTS TRUE WOMEN WERE MORALLY OBLIGED TO ASSUME A SACRIlCIAL SAINTLY DISPOSITION 3TRIVING FOR AUTHENTICITY THROUGH SUFFERING HOW EVER IS NOT ALWAYS AS VOLUNTARY AS IN THE CASE OF WOMENS MOVEMENTS 4HROUGHOUT !MERICAN HISTORY VARIOUS CULTURAL AND RACIAL GROUPS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED AND FORCED TO SACRIlCE MORE THAN OTHERS DUE TO SYSTEMIC FACTORS !WARE TO THE INVOLUNTARY NATURE OF SACRIlCE IN SUCH SITUATIONS IT WOULD SEEM IRRESPONSIBLE TO ARGUE THAT THESE GROUPS WERE SOMEHOW
^&IGURING 3UBJECTIVITY IN 0OSTMODERN #ONTEXT 4HE 0ROTEAN 3UBJECT
MORE SACRAMENTAL OR THAT THEIR OPPRESSION WAS SOMEHOW CONNECTED TO 'OD AND AUTHENTICITY 7ITH THE NOTION OF THE PROTEAN SUBJECT ) lGURE NOT ONLY THE SACRIlCING SUBJECT BUT THE OPEN EVOLVING DEVELOPING RESPONSIBLE RECOVERING RECONCILING EMBRACING HOSPITABLE RESTLESS BELIEVING SACRAMENTAL SUBJECT OF POSTMODERNITY -INE IS NOT THE ONLY WORK IN WHICH A THEOLOGIAN HAS BEEN HESITANT TO DESIGNATE SUFFERING AS THE DElNING CHARACTERISTIC OF AUTHENTIC SUB JECTIVITY 7E CANNOT IGNORE THE GROUNDBREAKING WORK OF WOMANIST THEOLOGIAN $ELORES 7ILLIAMS )N 3ISTERS IN THE 7ILDERNESS 7IL LIAMS EXPLAINS THAT !FRICAN !MERICAN WOMEN SHOULD REFUSE TO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES WITH THE SUFFERING SERVANT ROLE OF #HRIST BECAUSE THAT PARTICULAR READING OVERDETERMINES AND REIlES THE HISTORICAL OPPRESSION OF BLACK WOMEN IN 7ESTERN CULTURE 3HE INSISTS THAT SUFFERING NEEDS TO BE SITUATED IN THE PRESENT CONTEXT OF POVERTY DOMESTIC VIOLENCE RACISM AND SEXISM (ER RESEARCH POINTS TO THE DANGER OF ROMANTICIZ ING HISTORICIZING AND GENERALIZING SUFFERING AT THE COST OF IGNORING REAL PROBLEMS IN SOCIETY (UMAN SUFFERING IS NOT A THING OF THE PAST SUFFERING PERMEATES THE PRESENT IN INDIVIDUAL LIVES AND COMMUNITIES %VEN AS SUFFERING IS A KEY DIMENSION OF A PERSONS EXPERIENCE STRUGGLING AGAINST THAT SUFFERING IS ALSO SIGNIlCANT "EYOND SUFFERING THEN BEING CONNECTED TO OTHERS AS THEY CELEBRATE LOVE AND STRUGGLE FOR HAPPINESS ARE ALSO IMPORTANT DIMENSIONS OF AUTHENTIC SUBJECTIVITY %RODING THE ABSURD CORRELATION BETWEEN SUFFERING AND SUBJECTIVITY MUST BE DONE WITH STEADFASTNESS AS MANY INCONSISTENCIES IN THE #HRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF ANTHROPOLOGY WILL BE REVEALED WHEN THE CORRELATION IS CHALLENGED &OR EXAMPLE THEOLOGIANS WOULD BE PUSHED INTO CONSIDERING WHETHER COMMUNITY COULD EMERGE AMID PLEASURE AND JOY RATHER THAN IN PAIN &URTHERMORE IN DEMYSTIFYING THE LINK BETWEEN SUFFERING AND BEING SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS WOULD HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE ISSUE OF WHY THE SAME GROUPS OF PEOPLE SEEM TO SACRIlCE MORE OFTEN THAN OTHERS )NTRINSICALLY PROTEANISM AS A WAY OF INTERPRETING ANTHROPOLOGY DOES NOT DENY THE IDEA THAT SUFFERING IS PART OF BEING HUMAN BUT DISPROVES THE NOTION THAT SUFFERING IS THE ONLY IMPORTANT DIMENSION OF BEING HU MAN 4RAUMA AND PAIN ARE REAL YET THEY DO NOT DElNE BEING HUMAN ALONE 0SYCHOLOGISTS KNOW THIS FOR RECOVERY IS THE POINT OF THERAPY #HRISTIANS KNOW THIS FOR FORGIVENESS IS THE POINT OF RECONCILIATION
-ICHELE 3ARACINO /N "EING (UMAN
#HANGE AND CONVERSION IN THE MIDST OF CONmICTIVE EMOTIONS IS ENDEMIC TO THE HUMAN CONDITION !S PROTEAN SUBJECTS WE ARE OPENED FOR OTHERS IN MANY WAYS 4HIS GIFTED OPENNESS FOR 'OD AND OTHERS INVOLVES NOT ONLY RISK FEAR VULNERABILITY AND PAIN BUT SECURITY LOVE CONlDENCE AND PLEASURE )N ORDER TO DEVELOP A DISCUSSION OF PROTEANISM SEVERAL IDEAS NEED TO BE FURTHER UNDERSTOOD AND INTEGRATED 4HE MEANING OF OPENNESS IN BOTH THE *EWISH AND #HRISTIAN TRADITIONS MUST BE EX PLORED MORE THOROUGHLY )NEXTRICABLY CONNECTED TO THE INVESTIGATION OF OPENNESS IS DIALOGUE ABOUT FREEDOM 4HE CONVERSATION CANNOT END THERE AS ISSUES OF OPENNESS AND FREEDOM NEED TO BE LINKED TO CURRENT CONlGURATIONS OF SOLIDARITY /NLY AFTER ATTENDING TO THESE ISSUES CAN PROTEAN SUBJECTIVITY lNALLY EMERGE AS AN INTEGRATIVE TERM THAT EXPLAINS THE SUBJECT AS OPEN FREE AND SOCIAL
/PENNESS AS 'IFT AS !NSWER TO 0OSTMODERN 1UESTIONS OF /THERNESS )N THE INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER OF THIS BOOK ) SUGGESTED THAT ATTENTIVENESS TO DIFFERENCE IS A KEY THEME IN POSTMODERN OR CONTEMPORARY CONTINENTAL THEORY -OREOVER THE CALL FOR OPENNESS TO DIFFERENCE CAN BE UNDER STOOD AS A REACTION AGAINST THE HEGEMONIC AND TOTALITARIAN REGIMES IN WORLD HISTORY 0OSTMODERN THINKERS SUCH AS ,YOTARD AND ,EVINAS HAVE PINPOINTED HOW TOTALIZING MASTER NARRATIVES HAVE LED TO VIOLENCE AND SUFFERING 3INCE THE IMPLICATIONS OF OPENNESS TRANSCEND THE REALM OF THEORY IN #HAPTER &OUR ) EXPLORED OPENNESS THROUGH A PRACTICAL SURVEY OF PROBLEMS IN CONTEMPORARY SOCIETY #ONCLUDING THAT OUR DISTORTED INTERPRETATION OF DIFFERENCE HAS LED TO ABUSES AGAINST STIGMATIZED PERSONS AND GROUPS ,ONERGANS AND ,EVINASS PERSPECTIVES ON DIFFERENCE WERE BROACHED IN ORDER TO SHOW THAT HUMANITYS ENGAGEMENT WITH ALTERITY NEED NOT LEAD TO NIHILISM OR VIOLENCE /N THE CONTRARY BEING ATTEN TIVE TO ALTERITY CAN FOSTER A LIFE OF LOVE ,ONERGAN AND RESPONSIBILITY ,EVINAS "ELOW ) WILL EXPAND THIS DISCUSSION OF OPENNESS IN ORDER TO CREATE A NEW MODEL OF BEING FOR OTHERS IN A PLURALIST COMMUNITY PROTEAN SUBJECTIVITY
^&IGURING 3UBJECTIVITY IN 0OSTMODERN #ONTEXT 4HE 0ROTEAN 3UBJECT
/PENNESS AS A THEME IS NOT NEW TO RELIGIOUS CONVERSATION )N *EW ISH RELIGIO CULTURAL LIFE OPENNESS IS RELATED TO THE ACT OF HOSPITALITY .UMEROUS CITATIONS IN 4ORAH CALL THE )SRAELITES TO OPEN THEIR HOMES AND HEARTS TO OTHERS 3OME BIBLICAL REFERENCES INCLUDE 'ENESIS IN WHICH !BRAHAM SHOWS HOSPITALITY TO THE MEN ANGELS WHO FORETELL OF 3ARAHS CONCEPTION %XODUS IN WHICH IT IS DECLARED h9OU KNOW THE HEART OF A STRANGER FOR YOU WERE ALL STRANGERS IN THE LAND OF %GYPTv $EUTERONOMY WHERE THE (EBREWS ARE TOLD TO hLOVE THE STRANGER THEREFORE FOR YOU WERE STRANGERS IN THE LAND OF %GYPTv AND ,EVITICUS WHERE *EWISH HISTORY IS INVOKED h7HEN A STRANGER SOJOURNS WITH YOU IN YOUR LAND YOU SHALL NOT DO HIM WRONG 4HE STRANGER WHO SOJOURNS WITH YOU SHALL BE AS THE NATIVE AMONG YOU AND YOU SHALL LOVE HIM AS YOURSELF FOR YOU WERE STRANGERS IN THE LAND OF %GYPT ) AM 9(7( YOUR 'ODv 4HESE SCRIPTURAL PASSAGES CALL )SRAEL TO EXTEND HOSPITALITY TO STRANGERS ALIENATED RESIDENTS OUTCASTS WOMEN CHILDREN THE SICK AND THE LAME 4HE LINK BETWEEN 'ODS CALL TO )SRAEL AND )SRAELS HISTORICAL PREDICAMENT OF EXILE IS NOT MERELY COINCIDENTAL 7HEN READING 4ORAH ONE CANNOT FAIL TO GRASP THE CONNECTION BETWEEN )SRAELS MEMORY OF HER OWN SUFFERING AND THE DESIRE TO THWART ANOTHERS SUFFERING 2ESPONSIBILITY FOR OTHERS EMERGES IN A POSTURE OF OPENNESS AND HOSPITALITY )N HIS WORK ON NATIONALISM AND XENOPHOBIA &RANK #RÓSEMANN REmECTS ON THE CORRELATION BETWEEN *EWISH IDENTITY AND AN OPENNESS TO DIFFERENCE (E ASKS h7HAT WOULD AN ETHIC LOOK LIKE WHICH DOES NOT EXPERIENCE FOREIGNERS AND WHAT IS FOREIGN AS A THREAT 7OULD IT LOOK LIKE A NATIONAL AND RELIGIOUS SELF UNDERSTANDING WHICH GAINS ITS OWN IDENTITY NOT IN CONTEMPT AND EXPULSION BUT CONVERSELY BY THE PROTEC TIONS OF OTHERS v )N POSING THESE QUESTIONS #RÓSEMANN POINTS TO THE 7ESTS SKEWED MANNER OF INTERPRETING PERSONAL IDENTITY AND SECURITY AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHERS 4HIS PERVERSE LOGIC IS ALL TOO FAMILIAR TO US 2ECALL THAT AN INTERPRETATION OF SELF WHICH IS EMBED DED IN AN ETHICS OF ANTAGONISM AND VIOLENCE IS CONSONANT WITH THE LOGIC OF ,ACAN AND (EIDEGGER &OR ,ACAN THE PRESENCE OF THE /THER IS NECESSARY TO STABILIZE ONES IDENTITY 3IMILARLY ACCORDING TO (EIDEGGER AUTHENTIC SELFHOOD IS CONTEXUALIZED OVER AND AGAINST THE UNIQUENESS OF OTHER BEINGS ,EVINASS WORK IMPLICITLY REJECTS BOTH THESE PERSPECTIVES #RÓSEMANN ECHOES ,EVINASS CONCERN FOR AN ALTERNATIVE WAY OF BEING
-ICHELE 3ARACINO /N "EING (UMAN
HUMAN WHEN HE TURNS TOWARD THE (EBREW 3CRIPTURES TO UNDERSTAND HOW TO LIVE IN COMMUNITY WITH OTHERS #RÓSEMANN UNDERSTANDS COVENANTAL lDELITY AND THE %XODUS EVENT AS TWO SIGNIlCANT MEMORIES THAT CAN HELP ALL PEOPLE REFRAME WHAT IT MEANS TO BE HUMAN IN RELATION TO OTHERS (ONORING COVENANT AND RELATIONSHIP IS A WAY OF LIFE THAT DEMANDS RESOLVE AND COMMITMENT BEYOND WHAT IS CONVENIENT #OVENANTAL RELATIONS CALL US TO GIVE MORE THAN SEEMS POSSIBLEA POSTURE THAT IS IMPORTANT TO AUTHENTIC SUBJEC TIVITY 4HE PEOPLE OF THE "OOK KNOW THE REALITY OF COVENANT AND THE ADVERSITY ASSOCIATED WITH ITS BREACH -ODERN DAY PEOPLE WOULD BE WISE TO THINK ABOUT THE COMPLEXITY OF BEING IN COVENANT OR RELATIONSHIP WITH OTHERS )N ADDITION TO THINKING ABOUT THE IMPLICATIONS OF COVENANT #RÓSEMANN AFlRMS THE %XODUS EVENT AS A DElNING MOMENT IN THE HISTORY OF ALL PEOPLE 0ROCLAIMING THAT THEIR ANCESTORS WERE STRANGERS THEMSELVES AT ONE TIME IN %GYPT 9(7( INVITES *EWS INTO A POSTURE OF BEING OPEN AND HOSPITABLE TO NEW STRANGERS #RÓSEMANN EXPLAINS h"ECAUSE )SRAEL HAS EXPERIENCED THIS EXODUS OR RATHER BECAUSE ;THEIR= IDENTITY AS THE PEOPLE OF THIS 'OD IS GROUNDED IN THIS EXODUS AND PER MANENTLY CONSISTS IN IT ;THEY= CAN ACT TOWARDS PEOPLE WHO ARE NOW IN A COMPARABLE SITUATION ONLY AS 'OD HAS ACTED TOWARDS ;THEM=v -ODERNS WOULD ALSO BENElT FROM REmECTING ON THE NOTIONS OF EXODUS AND EXILE AS THEY RELATE HOSPITABLY TO OTHERS (OSPITALITY THAT IS ROOTED IN SCRIPTURE IS NOT MERELY A mEETING ACT BUT A DISPOSITION OF HEART 4HE TERM @HEART HERE DOES NOT REFER MERELY TO THE EMOTIVE DIMENSION OF THE HUMAN BEING BUT POINTS TO BOTH MIND AND BODY )N HIS WORK ON ,ONERGAN -ILLER EXPLORES THE IDEA OF THE HEART IN TERMS OF THE HOLISTIC SELF 4HE HEART WHICH IS A SENSE OF SURRENDER ON THE AFFECTIVE VOLITIONAL AND COGNITIVE LEVELS OF BEING HUMAN ORIENTS US FOR OTHERS 4HIS ORIENTATION IF WE INTERPRET IT FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF ,EVINAS IS A TURNING OF THE PERSON INSIDE OUT FOR THE /THER "EING HOSPITABLE WE BECOME EXPOSED TO OR DEPOSED FOR OTHERS ON EACH LEVEL 4HIS EXPOSURE IS NOT ONLY A GENEROUS GIFTED ACT BUT ALSO A COMMEMORATION OF *EWISH SUFFERING AND DIASPORA "EING HOSPITABLE THE *EW BECOMES A BETTER *EW -ANY WOULD CLAIM THAT *EWISH HOSPITALITY IS A THING OF THE PAST A BIBLICAL THEME THAT HAS LOST ITS SPIRIT AND RIGOR AFTER THE 3HOAH 7ITH THE REALIZATION OF THE 3TATE OF )SRAEL IT COULD BE ARGUED THAT *EWISH RELIGIO CULTURAL LIFE HAS BECOME
^&IGURING 3UBJECTIVITY IN 0OSTMODERN #ONTEXT 4HE 0ROTEAN 3UBJECT
7ESTERN IN ITS ENCROACHMENT ON OTHERS BORDERS AND CLOSING ITSELF OFF TO THE REST OF THE WORLD 4HIS IS A SIGNIlCANT DEBATE )T UNDERSCORES THE PROBLEM OF UNDERSTANDING IDENTITY IN TERMS OF BORDERS AND SPACE RATHER THAN IN TERMS OF RESPONSIBILITY AND ACTION 7HILE MY WORK DOES NOT ATTEMPT TO UNCOVER THE COMPLEXITY OF GEOPOLITICS IT DOES ATTEMPT TO EXPRESS THAT BEING AN AUTHENTIC SUBJECT CAN ONLY EMERGE IN BEING FOR THE /THER (ONORING THE MEMORY OF COVENANT AND %XODUS MOVES HUMANITY TOWARD BEING FOR THE /THER 3TILL EVEN IN LIGHT OF THE LEGACY OF COVENANTAL RESPONSIBILITY AND BIBLICAL HOSPITALITY IT SEEMS AS IF MODERN 7ESTERN PEOPLE INCLUDING *EWS HAVE FORGOTTEN THE COMMAND FOR OPENNESS )N GENERAL WE HAVE FORGOTTEN OUR COMMON ANCESTRY OF BEING HUNGRY IN EXILE )N A SENSE WE SUFFER FROM A RELIGIOUS LOSS OF MEMORY ALL SUFFER FROM RELIGIOUS AMNESIA 7E HAVE BECOME A PEOPLE WHO HAVE FORGOTTEN OUR DESTINY AND CALL FOR OTHERS OUR OBLIGATION TOWARD 'OD )N THE )NTRODUCTION ) REFERRED TO THE SECULARISM OF !MERICA AND THE SUBSEQUENT INABILITY TO MOVE TOWARD GENUINE PROGRESS )N ORDER TO OVERCOME THIS PROBLEM WE NEED TO OVERCOME THIS RELIGIOUS AMNESIA BY RETURNING TO OUR COMMON ROOTS AND TO THE COVENANTAL CALL TO HOSPITALITY AND JUSTICE 3UCH RENEWAL OR RETURN IS AT THE HEART OF ,EVINASS PHILOSOPHICAL AND 4ALMUDIC WRITINGS 4HIS RENEWAL IS ENACTED IN A RETURN TO BEING RE SPONSIBLE FOR STRANGERS 2ETURN FOR THE /THER DOES NOT MEAN A COMPLETE BACKTRACKING THAT IGNORES THE HISTORY OF PAIN AND SUFFERING BROUGHT ON BY THIS RELIGIOUS AMNESIA /N THE CONTRARY A MOVEMENT TOWARD JUSTICE WOULD CARRY WITH IT ALL THE PAIN AND SUFFERING OF THE PAST IN AN EFFORT TO REMEMBER AND LAMENT ANY WRONG DOING )MPORTANTLY IN REMEMBERING WE HELP MOVE A DIVIDED HUMANITY TOWARD RECONCILIATION AND JUSTICE 2ECONCILIATION IS UNDOUBTEDLY IMPORTANT BUT THE RHETORIC SURROUNDING IT OFTEN OBSCURES THE ACT OF CONTRITIONAN ADMISSION OF SIN AND AN OPENNESS TO JUSTICE 2ECONCILIATION REQUIRES CONTRITION AND RESPONSIBLE ACTION WHICH ARE DIFlCULT AND RISK lLLED GESTURES 4HE PROCESS OF RECONCILIATION IS LIKE THE MOVEMENT OF THE OCEANS TIDE 7ITH EACH CHANGE OF THE TIDE THE OCEAN RETURNS TO THE SHORE CARRYING WITH IT THE SALT FROM INNUMERABLE TEARS AND THE WRECKAGE FROM ONE TOO MANY SHIPWRECKS 4HE OCEAN CANNOT EASILY DISMISS THE PAST BECAUSE THE PAST BECOMES PART OF THE OCEANS COMPOSITION 4HE EBB AND mOW OF THE OCEAN UNDERSCORES THE ARDUOUS TASK OF RELATING TO OTHERS IN AN
-ICHELE 3ARACINO /N "EING (UMAN
IMPERFECT UNJUST WORLD "EING IN RELATIONSHIP IS ALWAYS COMPLICATED FULL OF JOY PAIN TRIUMPH LOSS LOVE AND HATE %VEN AS 9(7( DELIV ERS HIS PEOPLE FROM THE CHAINS OF %GYPT THE HOPES AND DREAMS OF A CONFUSED AND BITTER 0HARAOH ARE DROWNED IN A RAGING SEA 4HE PATHOS OF THE %XODUS EVENT IS NOT ONLY IN DELIVERANCE BUT ALSO IN LOST DREAMS AND THE PRICE OF JUSTICE /PENNESS AS HOSPITALITY ACCORDING TO THE *EWISH WORLDVIEW ACKNOWLEDGES THE PRICE OF JUSTICE FOR HOSPITALITY IS FRAUGHT WITH RISK AND VULNERABILITY ! RENEWAL OF BIBLICAL HOSPITALITY WHICH IS AWARE OF THE COMPLEXITY OF THE PAST AND PRESENT IS WORTH THE RISK IN ORDER TO ANSWER POSTMODERNITYS CALL FOR OPENNESS )T IS IMPORTANT TO REALIZE THAT EVEN THOUGH ,EVINAS IS GROUNDED IN A *EWISH INTERPRETATION OF OPENNESS AS HOSPITALITY HE RESISTS ANY TOTAL IZING EXPLANATION OF IT 2ECALL HOW ,EVINAS REJECTS THE (EIDEGGERIAN SCHEMA OF OPENNESS IN TERMS OF A PANORAMIC GAZE AND REWRITES OPENNESS TO CONNOTE A TURNING OF ONESELF INSIDE OUT FOR THE /THER /PENNESS FOR ,EVINAS IS THE PASSIVITY OF THE SUBJECT THE VULNERABILITY THROUGH WHICH THE SUBJECT SUBSTITUTES HIMHERSELF FOR THE /THER 3UBSTITUTION OCCURS IN A NUMBER OF WAYS IN GIVING UP ONES TIME FOOD PLACE AND OF COURSE BODY FOR ANOTHER 4HEODORE $E "OER IN UNDERSTANDING ,EVINASS WORK CLAIMS THAT AT THE HEART OF ,EVINASIAN LOGIC IS A JUSTICE ORIENTED CHARITY (E WRITES h#HARITY WITHOUT SOCIAL JUSTICE IS EMPTY 4HE NINETEENTH CENTURY TAUGHT US THAT 0ERHAPS WE WILL LEARN THAT SOCIAL JUSTICE WITHOUT CHARITY IS BLINDv $E "OER REFERS TO THE FACT THAT ACTIONS FOR ANOTHER ARE SOMEWHAT MEANINGLESS IF THEY EMERGE IN A RELATIONSHIP DEVOID OF FEELING !FFECTION FOR ANOTHER SUSTAINS THE DIF lCULT INTERSUBJECTIVE RELATION IN WHICH THE HUNGRY PARTY IS FED AND THE NAKED ONE IS CLOTHED 3IGNIlCANTLY FOR ,EVINAS THE DESIRE FOR ANOTHER IS ALREADY PRESENT BEFORE COGNITION OR VOLITION 4HIS DESIRE OR AFFECTION FOR ANOTHER IS THE FOUNDATION OF ETHICS .OTICE HOW A ,EVINASIAN READ ING OF HOSPITALITY AND CHARITY POINTS TO SOMETHING MORE THAN A SIMPLE HANDOUT /PENNESS IN THE FORM OF HOSPITALITY AND CHARITABLE LOVE IS THAT WHICH OPENS THE SELF FOR OTHERS AT ALL COSTS IN ALL TIMES ,IKE *UDAISM #HRISTIANITY HAS A DEVELOPED NOTION OF OPENNESS 4HE KENOTIC SELF EMPTYING SPIRIT OF THE #HRIST EVENT IS A SITUATION OF RAW OPENNESS 4HE VULNERABILITY OF #HRIST BEING ON THE #ROSS FOR HUMAN ITY IS THE EXEMPLARY REVELATION OF THIS OPENNESS /PENNESS HOWEVER IS NOT LIMITED ONLY TO *ESUSS SUFFERING ON THE #ROSS (IS MINISTRY ALSO
^&IGURING 3UBJECTIVITY IN 0OSTMODERN #ONTEXT 4HE 0ROTEAN 3UBJECT
ILLUSTRATES HIS OPENNESS FOR OTHERS 4HE #HRISTIAN 3CRIPTURES WITNESS TO HOW *ESUS DOES NOT MERELY POINT TO THE /THER BUT COMPASSIONATELY IDENTIlES WITH THE /THER IN SOLIDARITY *ESUSS WAY HAS BEEN THE STANDARD FOR THE MIMESIS OF BELIEVERS TO LIVE IN #HRIST MEANS TO LIVE AS #HRIST WITH AN OPENNESS OF SPIRIT AND TO 3PIRIT #LAIMS ABOUT OPENNESS ARE MODELED UPON THE LIFE OF #HRIST AS PORTRAYED IN THE 'OSPELS -OST PEOPLE ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE @'OLDEN 2ULE h$O TO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM DO TO YOUv ,UKE -ATTHEW ,ESS FAMILIAR IS THE OPENNESS SHOWN TO THE RISEN #HRIST IN ,UKE 4HERE #HRIST IS ENCOUNTERED BY HIS DISCIPLES AS A STRANGER AND IS SHOWN HOSPITALITY EVEN BEFORE THEY RECOGNIZE HIM ,UKE /PENNESS ALSO IS ILLUSTRATED IN (EBREWS WHERE THERE IS A RECOLLECTION AND VALORIZATION OF THE HOSPITALITY SHOWN TO STRANGERS IN 'ENESIS 4HROUGH A CAREFUL READING OF #HRISTIAN 3CRIPTURE ONE CAN DETECT THAT OPENNESS IS CHARACTERIZED BY A COMPASSION FOR OTHERS AND SOLIDARITY WITH THE MARGINALIZED /PENNESS REFERS TO A CHARITABLE DISPOSITION 7ORKING WITHIN THE 2OMAN #ATHOLIC TRADITION ) EMPLOY THE NOTION OF CHARITY COUNTER TO ANY COMMONSENSE USAGE OF THE TERM #HARITY IN THE #ATHOLIC SENSE EMERGES OUT OF A SELF GIVING DESIRE EROS AND LOVE AGAPE THAT INVITES ONE TO GIVE MORE THAN ONE IS ABLE TO GIVE 3UCH LOVE TRANSCENDS LIBERALISM OR THE POLITICAL CORRECTNESS THAT WAS ALLUDED TO IN #HAPTER &OUR #HARITY IS NOT DEED ALONE BUT A LOVING OPEN AFFECTIVE DISPOSITION THAT BRINGS ABOUT JUSTICE )N #HRISTIANITY THE HISTORICAL ROOTS OF CHARITABLE LOVE CAN BE TRACED BACK TO THE 0AULINE EPISTLES THROUGH THE 'OSPELS AND IN #HRISTIAN PRACTICE )T IS LISTED AS THE GREATEST SPIRITUAL GIFT BY THE !POSTLE 0AUL IN ) #ORINTHIANS 'OSPEL REFERENCES TO A CHARITABLE DISPOSITION ARE NUMEROUS A FEW OF WHICH ) HAVE ALREADY LISTED )N ADDITION TO 3ACRED 3CRIPTURE CHARITY IS EXEMPLIlED IN SOCIAL PRACTICES 6ARIOUS RELIGIOUS ORDERS WERE FOUNDED AROUND THE IDEA OF CHARITY INCLUDING THE &RANCISCANS AND THE 3ISTERS OF -ERCY &ROM THESE DEVELOPMENTS CHARITY EVOLVED TO DESIGNATE THE BENEVOLENCE COMPASSION MAGNANIMITY AND OPENNESS WHICH IS CALLED FORTH BY OUR FALLING IN LOVE WITH 'OD 2ECALL THAT ,ONERGAN EXPLAINS OPENNESS IN TERMS OF FACT ACHIEVEMENT AND GIFT /PENNESS AS GIFT REFERS TO THE GRACED RELATIONSHIP WITH 'OD THAT INVITES TRANSCENDENCE !S THE SUBJECT FALLS IN LOVE WITH 'OD AND OTHERS SHE IS OPENED TO LOVE
-ICHELE 3ARACINO /N "EING (UMAN
ANOTHER TO THE POINT OF ACTION #HARITABLE LOVE IS THE MOTIVATION AND GROUND OF THE SUBJECTS OPENNESS OF OUR AFFECTIVE GIFTED ORIENTATION FOR THE /THER ,ONERGAN FURTHERS THIS NOTION OF A CHARITABLE OPENNESS IN HIS DISCUS SION OF THE $OCTRINE OF THE -YSTICAL "ODY OF #HRIST !CCORDING TO ,ONERGAN THIS DOCTRINE hREFERS TO A CONCRETE UNION OF THE DIVINE 0ERSONS WITH ONE ANOTHER AND WITH MAN AND AGAIN OF MENS UNION WITH ONE ANOTHER AND WITH THE DIVINE 0ERSONSv ,OVE POURS FORTH AMONG THESE RELATIONS )N DISCUSSING THIS DOCTRINE ,ONERGAN FOCUSES ON lVE LOVING CONNECTIONS INCLUDING THE %TERNAL &ATHERS LOVE FOR THE DIVINE 3ON LOVE OF 3ON AS 'OD THE %TERNAL &ATHERS LOVE FOR THE CORPOREAL 3ON LOVE OF 3ON AS HUMAN THE LOVE OF #HRIST FOR HUMANS SUCH AS HIMSELF THE %TERNAL &ATHERS LOVE FOR HUMANITY AND THE LOVE OF CHARITY FOR OTHERS WHICH IS INFUSED INTO OUR HEARTS 4HIS LAST RELA TION IS ESSENTIAL TO OUR DISCUSSION FOR CHARITABLE LOVE BINDS HUMANITY IN SOLIDARITY 4HE LOVE OF CHARITY IS A SUPERNATURAL GIFT IT IS THE GRACE THAT IS WRITTEN INTO OUR NATURE 4HIS GIFT OF GRACE OPENS OUR HEARTS FOR 'OD AND OTHERS ,ONERGAN ELOQUENTLY EXPLAINS THAT THROUGH THE -YSTICAL "ODY #HRIS TIANS CAN REALIZE THEIR CONNECTIONS WITH OTHERS AND ALSO LEARN SOMETHING ABOUT HUMAN DESTINY #ONSONANT WITH THE 2OMAN #ATHOLIC TRADITION SPECIlCALLY WITH THE THOUGHT OF 4HOMAS !QUINAS ,ONERGAN ASSERTS THAT 'OD IS THE END THAT IS THE ABSOLUTE lNALITY OF HUMAN EXISTENCE 'OD MOVES HUMANITY TOWARD THIS END THROUGH THE INCARNATION )N BECOMING HUMAN 'OD REORIENTS HUMAN BEING FOR ALTERITY FOR OTHERS 4HE INCARNATION OPENS US FOR OTHERS 7HATS MORE ,ONERGAN ASSERTS IN h&INALITY ,OVE AND -ARRIAGE v THAT OUR LOVE OF OTHERS hIS PROOF OF OUR LOVE OF 'ODv !S ,ONERGAN DEVELOPS THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE INCARNATION AND HUMAN BEING FOR OTHERS HE DESIGNATES THE SACRAMENTS OF BAPTISM AND CONFESSION AS TWO SPECIlC WAYS IN WHICH HUMANS ARE ORIENTED AND OPENED FOR OTHERS "APTISM INITIATES US INTO COMMUNITY AND CONFESSION REAFlRMS OUR RELATION TO 'OD AND OTHERS 4HESE SACRAMENTS POSTURE THE SUBJECT IN TWO DIRECTIONS TOWARD 'OD
&OR AN INTRICATE ANALYSIS OF THE SELF GIVING RELATIONS AMONG THE THREE DIVINE 0ERSONS SEE ,AMB AND ,AWRENCE ESP PP ,ONERGAN DISCUSSES THE GRACED RELATIONS AMONG THE THREE 0ERSONS OF THE 4RINITY IN h-ISSION AND THE 3PIRITv
^&IGURING 3UBJECTIVITY IN 0OSTMODERN #ONTEXT 4HE 0ROTEAN 3UBJECT
AND OTHERS ,ONERGAN WRITES h(ENCE THE GREAT COMMANDMENT IS TO LOVE 'OD WITH ALL ONES HEART AND ALL ONES SOUL WITH ALL ONES MIND AND ALL ONES STRENGTH !ND THE SECOND IS LIKE UNTO THE lRST TO LOVE ONES NEIGHBOR AS ONESELF TO LOVE ONE ANOTHER AS #HRIST HAS LOVED USv 2ECALL FROM THE SECOND CHAPTER THAT FOR ,ONERGAN LOVE IS NOT EXTERNAL TO AUTHENTIC KNOWING AND BEING BUT RATHER THE GROUND AND GOAL OF KNOWING AND ACTING OF NORMATIVE SUBJECTIVITY "EING IN LOVE WITH 'OD IS THE FULLEST MOMENT OF BEING IT IS THE END OF OUR BEING #LEARLY AS IN THE CASE OF ,EVINASIAN ETHICS CHARITABLE LOVE IS NOT BASED ON LAW BUT ON A SUPERNATURAL DESIRE TOWARD RELATIONSHIP WITH OTHERS )T IS THE CONSONANCE AMONG FEELING KNOWING AND ACTING FOR OTHERS THAT OPENS US TO 'ODS GIFT OF RELATIONSHIP )T IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT HUMANITYS RELATIONSHIP WITH 'OD IS ASYMMETRICAL IN THAT OUR CHARITABLE LOVE FOR OTHERS CAN NEVER COM PARE TO 'ODS GIVING TO HUMANITY 4HE MAGNANIMITY OF THE GIFT OF GRACE PROHIBITS OUR GIVING TO OTHERS FROM BEING EXCESSIVE 3IMILAR TO ,EVINASS ASSERTIONS ABOUT BEING TURNED INSIDE OUT FOR THE /THER IN HOSPITALITY ,ONERGANS TREATMENT OF CHARITABLE GRACE CONFERS THAT THE #HRISTIAN BELIEVER IS OPENED FOR OTHERS WITHOUT LIMITS BEYOND RETRI BUTION 4HE MAGNITUDE OF 'ODS GRACE ECHOES PREVIOUS REFERENCES TO THE NATURE OF GIFT AND EXCESS 2ECALL THAT $ERRIDA AND ,EVINAS UPHOLD A DElNITION OF GIFT THAT CONTESTS AN ECONOMY OF EQUALITY IN FAVOR OF A DElNITION OF GIFT IN TERMS OF EXCESS !CCORDINGLY GIFT REFERS TO THE INCOMPARABLE GIVING THAT OVERmOWS THE SUBJECTS INTENTIONS AND FREELY ANTICIPATES THE /THERS NEEDS ,EVINAS TELLS US THAT THE SUBJECT IS NOT OPEN FOR THE /THER AS A SPECTACLE TO BE SEEN OR APPLAUDED BUT IS OPEN IN COMPLETE ANONYMITY AND HUMILITY ,ONERGANS AUTHENTIC SUBJECT IS SIMILARLY POSTURED IN COMPLETE OPENNESS #HARITY IN THE -YSTICAL "ODY OF #HRIST IS IN LIKE FASHION WITHOUT LIMITS !S MENTIONED ABOVE FOR #HRISTIANS GIFT IS LOCATED PRIMARILY IN 'ODS FREE SACRIlCE IN #HRIST 4HE #HRIST EVENT WHICH INCLUDES *ESUS OF .AZARETHS MINISTRY DEATH AND RESURRECTION EPITOMIZES GIFT 4HE OVERmOWING AND MAGNANIMOUS CHARACTER OF #HRISTS SUBSTITUTION FOR HUMANITY CANNOT BE CORRELATED WITH ANY HUMAN RESPONSE TO AND REC OGNITION OF THAT GIFT %VEN AS HUMANITY CANNOT REPAY 'ODS GRACIOUS
-ICHELE 3ARACINO /N "EING (UMAN
OFFER IT CAN BEAR WITNESS TO SUCH GIVING THROUGH A SIMILAR OPENNESS HOSPITALITY AND CHARITY 4HE IMPORTANT WORD IN THIS LAST SENTENCE IS @SIMILAR /UR GIVING FOR OTHERS IS ONLY ANALOGOUS TO #HRISTS GIVING FOR HUMANITY 4HE MIMESIS OF #HRIST SEEMS TO BE AN IMPOSSIBILITY FOR #HRIST SHOULDERED HUMANITY IN HIS MINISTRY DEATH AND RESURRECTION 4HESE INlNITE GIFTS ARE BEYOND HUMAN AGENCY .ONETHELESS #HRISTIANS ARE CALLED TO LIVE IN THE RESURRECTION ARE CALLED TO SHOULDER OTHERS 3HOULDERING CAPTURES THE HUMILITY AND SACRIlCE THAT THE SUBJECT OFFERS FREELY IN HISHER OPENNESS 3HOULDERING DOES NOT WAIT FOR RECIPROCATION BECAUSE IN MOST CASES IT IS IMPOSSIBLE )N A FASCINATING WORK %XCLUSION AND %MBRACE ! 4HEOLOGICAL %XPLO RATION OF )DENTITY /THERNESS AND 2ECONCILIATION -IROSLAV 6OLF IMAGINES HUMAN OPENNESS TO DIFFERENCE IN TERMS OF AN EMBRACE !S BOTH METAPHOR AND METONYMY THE NOTION OF EMBRACE FRAMES HOW #HRISTIANS OUGHT TO UNDERSTAND OPENNESS TO AND RECONCILIATION WITH THE /THER IN THE CURRENT PLURALISTIC CONTEXT )T MIGHT BE HELPFUL TO COMPARE 6OLF S NOTION OF EMBRACE TO MY UNDERSTANDING OF SHOULDERING 6OLF S NOTION OF EMBRACE IS AN APPEALING POSTURE FOR SEVERAL REASONS &IRST THE POSTURE OF EMBRACE HIGHLIGHTS THE ASYMMETRICAL FEATURE OF RELATIONSHIPS IN WHICH ONE PERSON IS EMBRACED AND THE OTHER ACTIVELY EMBRACES 2ECALL THAT ,EVINAS IN HIS CRITIQUE OF "UBER HIGHLIGHTS HOW THE NOTION OF ASYMMETRY OVERDETERMINES THE PRIORITY OF THE /THER !SYMMETRY RESPECTS THE HEIGHT NEED AND DEMAND OF THE /THER !NOTHER WAY IN WHICH THE IDEA OF EMBRACE IS SIGNIlCANT IS IN THE WAY IT EMPHASIZES THE RISK AND WAITING NEEDED IN HEALING REDEMPTION AND RECONCILIATION 7HEN ONE EMBRACES SOMEONE THERE IS AMBIGUITY ABOUT HOW IT IS GOING TO BE RECEIVED /NE ENTERS INTO A POSITION OF RISK AND VULNERABILITY IN WHICH THE END RESULT IS UNKNOWN &OR THE PERSON WHO IS RECEIVING THE HUG THERE IS AN ELEMENT OF RISK EVEN OF OPENING ONESELF UP TO PAIN ! THIRD RESPECT IN WHICH THE ACT OF EMBRACE IS HELPFUL IN ADDRESSING NEW CONCERNS ABOUT OPENNESS IS RELATED TO THE WAY IN WHICH EMBRACE EMPHASIZES THE AMBIGUITY AND CORPOREALITY OF PERSONS ENGAGED IN ACTS OF OPENNESS 2EMEMBER OUR CONVERSATION ABOUT THE SIGNIlCANCE OF NEITHER ERASING NOR FETISHIZING THE BODY WHEN WE SPEAK ABOUT SUBJECTIVITY 6OLF S EXPLORATION OF EMBRACE CLEARLY ILLUSTRATES THE CORPOREAL CHARACTER OF INTERSUBJECTIVE
^&IGURING 3UBJECTIVITY IN 0OSTMODERN #ONTEXT 4HE 0ROTEAN 3UBJECT
RELATIONSHIPS WITHOUT ESSENTIALIZING ANY ONE PARTICULAR BODY TYPE OR CHARACTERISTIC %MBRACE WHILE PROVING TO BE AN ADEQUATE POSTURE FOR BEING OPEN TO OTHERNESS STILL FALLS SHORT ON SEVERAL POINTS /NE DISADVANTAGE TO THE NOTION OF EMBRACE IS THAT FOR THE EMBRACE TO BE CONSTITUTED IT NEEDS TO BE RECIPROCATED )N OTHER WORDS EVEN THOUGH IT IS ASYMMETRICAL IN THAT SOMEONE INITIATES THE GESTURE AND ONE RECEIVES THE GESTURE THERE IS AN EXPECTATION THAT THE EMBRACE IS RETURNED (OLDING ANOTHER PERSON IS NOT AN EMBRACE RATHER TWO PERSONS HOLDING EACH OTHER FORMS AN EMBRACE 3UCH A STANCE IS NOT A GIFTED POSTURE OF OPENNESS BUT ONE THAT DEMANDS RECOGNITION AND APPROVAL 2ECALL FROM OUR PREVIOUS DISCUSSION OF GIFT AND SATISFACTION THAT BOTH ,ONERGANS AUTHENTIC SUBJECTIVITY AND ,EVINASS BEING FOR THE /THER GOES AGAINST THE NOTION OF RECIPROCATION AND PAYBACK 7E DO NOT OPEN OURSELVES FOR OTHERS OUT OF OUR OWN PREROGATIVE AND IN EXPECTATION OF A PAYOFF )NSTEAD WE ARE OPENED FROM WITHIN FOR OTHERS INTO A POSTURE OF SURRENDER 4HE NOTION OF EMBRACE HIGHLIGHTS THE GENEROSITY AND SENSIBILITY ASSOCIATED WITH OPENNESS YET MISSES THE GIFTED AND IRRECONCILABLE MARK OF OPENNESS #ONTRARY TO THE NOTION OF EMBRACE WHEN WE SHOULDER WE ARE NOT WAITING FOR A RESPONSE 7E SHOULD ACT AND ENGAGE OTHERS WITHOUT AP PRECIATION OR POSSIBLY WITHOUT CONSENT 4HIS MIGHT SEEM PROBLEMATIC IN THAT ACTION WITHOUT CONSENT SEEMS AGGRESSIVE AND DOMINATING "UT MORE OFTEN THAN NOT IF WE REFUSE TO TAKE ACTION UNLESS THERE IS CONSENT THEN IT IS TOO LATE &OR INSTANCE IN THE CASE OF DOMESTIC ABUSE SITUA TIONS SHOULDERING THE /THER WOULD DEMAND THAT WE GET INVOLVED EVEN WHEN THE SITUATION IS AMBIGUOUS AND PRIVATE )N SUCH A SCENARIO THERE WOULD MOST PROBABLY BE NO MOMENT AT WHICH WE WOULD BE REASSURED BY THE /THERS GRATITUDE OR RECIPROCATION 7E WOULD BE COMPELLED TO RISK EVERYTHING AS GIFT FOR THE /THER 4HERE ARE VARIOUS lGURES IN MYTH AND CULTURE THAT RELATE TO THE NO TION OF SHOULDERING )N 'REEK MYTHOLOGY IT WAS THE 4ITAN !TLAS WHO BORE THE BURDEN OF SHOULDERING THE WORLDHIS PUNISHMENT FOR LOSING THE BATTLE TO THE 'ODS 3HOULDERING THE WORLD CONlNED HIS FREEDOM AND PROHIBITED HIM FROM AGAIN REBELLING AGAINST THE 'ODS &ROM THIS MYTH DEVELOPED AN UNDERSTANDING OF FREEDOM AS POWER OVER PEOPLE AND RESPONSIBILITY WAS INTERPRETED AS A BURDEN AND PUNISHMENT -ANY 7ESTERNERS ESPECIALLY !MERICANS HAVE A SIMILAR PERSPECTIVE !MERICAN
-ICHELE 3ARACINO /N "EING (UMAN
INDIVIDUALISM THRIVES ON PERSONAL RIGHTS BUT REFUSES TO REALIZE FULLY THE CONNECTION OF RIGHTS TO RESPONSIBILITIES .ONETHELESS WE LEARN FROM THE *UDEO #HRISTIAN WORLDVIEW THAT BEING OBLIGATED TO ANOTHER PERSON TO THE POINT OF SUBSTITUTION DOES NOT LIMIT FREEDOM BUT CRE ATES AUTHENTIC FREEDOM *UXTAPOSED WITH !TLAS WHO COMPLAINS ABOUT HAVING TO BEAR THE WORLD ON HIS SHOULDERS #HRIST FREELY SHOULDERS THE WORLD IN ONE MOMENT )N THE PREVIOUS CHAPTERS ) NOTED THAT #OPELAND A ,ONERGAN SCHOLAR CALLS #HRISTIANS TO SHOULDER ONE ANOTHER IN AN ACT OF SOLIDARITY AND REFERENCED THE WAY IN WHICH ,EVINAS SPEAKS ABOUT THE WEIGHT ON ONES SHOULDERS 4HIS WEIGHT OVERDETERMINES THE SUBJECTS INDEPENDENCE FROM AND SOLIDARITY WITH ANOTHER PERSON ,EVINAS ,EVINAS SEEMS TO ABANDON THIS EXPLANATION OF SUBJECTIVITY IN HIS LATER WORK .ONETHELESS ,EVINASIAN SCHOLARS SUCH AS ,INGIS CONTINUE TO DEVELOP ,EVINASS NOTION OF SUBJECTIVITY 4HEY IMPLY THAT THE SUBJECT IS OPEN AND VULNERABLE TO OTHERS IN TERMS OF A POSTURE OF SHOULDERING BEAR ING THE WEIGHT OF ANOTHER PERSONS BURDEN !S METAPHOR AND SYMBOL OF BEING OPENED FOR OTHERS SHOULDERING HIGHLIGHTS THE RELATIONAL AND EMBODIED CHARACTER OF BEING HUMAN AS ILLUSTRATED IN ,ONERGANS AND ,EVINASS WORK )N THE ABOVE SECTION *EWISH AND #HRISTIAN ROOTS OF OPENNESS WERE EXPLORED 4HE THEOLOGICAL AND THEORETICAL CONTRIBUTIONS OF ,ONERGAN AND ,EVINAS WERE CALLED UPON TO EXPRESS THE WAY IN WHICH OPENNESS MARKS THE GIFTED RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SUBJECT AND /THER .OTING THAT OPENNESS IS BEING EXPLORED IN CONTEMPORARY THEOLOGY ) FURTHER EXPLAINED THE ADVANTAGES OF lGURING OPENNESS IN TERMS OF SHOULDERING /BVIOUSLY THE NOTION OF BEING FOR OTHERS IN TERMS OF OPENNESS IS COMPLICATED BY INTERSUBJECTIVE RELATIONS WHICH WE WILL INVESTIGATE FOR THE REMAINDER OF THIS CHAPTER
^&IGURING 3UBJECTIVITY IN 0OSTMODERN #ONTEXT 4HE 0ROTEAN 3UBJECT
4HE #ONNECTION BETWEEN /PENNESS AND &REEDOM )MPLIED IN THE CONVERSATION ABOUT THE SUBJECTS OPENNESS TO OTHERNESS IS THE QUESTION OF FREEDOM 7HEN FACED WITH THE CALL TO OPEN ONESELF IN HOSPITALITY OR CHARITY THE SUBJECT MUST STRUGGLE WITH CHOICES WITH HISHER FREEDOM )N INTERSUBJECTIVE RELATIONS THERE SEEMS TO BE A TENSION BETWEEN ONES DESIRE TO BE FOR OTHERS AND ONES DESIRE TO BE FOR SELF )N THE 7ESTERN CONTEXT THIS TENSION REGARDING FREEDOM IS OFTEN FRAMED IN TERMS OF RIGHTS AND POWER &REEDOM HERE IS GEARED TOWARD SELF AND OFTEN IS OBTAINED AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHERS %XTREME INSTANCES OF SUCH FREEDOM CAN BE LOCATED IN THE VIOLENT CONQUERING OF OTHER CULTURES &URTHERMORE COMMONSENSE KNOWLEDGE ABOUT !MERICAN DEMOCRACY HAS PROBLEMATICALLY CONmATED FREEDOM WITH COMPETITION AND INDI VIDUALISM 2ELYING ON THE INSIGHTS OF BOTH ,ONERGAN AND ,EVINAS ) WILL DEPART FROM THESE SOMEWHAT SKEWED INTERPRETATIONS OF FREEDOM AND WILL TRANSITION FROM THINKING ABOUT FREEDOM AS A POSSESSION OF THE SUBJECT TO THINKING ABOUT IT AS A GIFT THAT ENACTS RIGHT RELATIONS &OR ,ONERGAN FREEDOM IS ENACTED IN DECISION IN PRAXIS +NOWING ACCOUNTS NOT ONLY FOR THE SUBJECTS EXPERIENCING UNDERSTANDING AND JUDGING BUT ALSO FOR HISHER DECIDING 4HE SUBJECTS FREE AND ACTIVE ENGAGEMENT OF THE WORLD OCCURS ON THE FOURTH LEVEL OF CONSCIOUSNESS RATIONAL SELF CONSCIOUSNESS DELIBERATION AND ACTION &REEDOM FROM EGOISM SURFACES IN THE HUMAN BEINGS ENGAGEMENT OF THE WORLD AS hCONTINGENCE THAT ARISES x IN THE ORDER OF THE SPIRIT OF INTELLIGENT GRASP RATIONAL REmECTION AND MORALLY GUIDED WILLv ,ONERGAN #LEARLY FOR ,ONERGAN FREEDOM MUST ALWAYS BE REALIZED IN RELATION TO SOMETHING LARGER THAN THE PERSON IN RESPONSE TO PROGRESS ORDER AND THE HUMAN GOOD &REEDOM IS UNDERSTOOD AS LIBERTY WHEN ITS LEADS TO PROGRESS AND ANYTHING LESS IS EVIDENCE OF BIAS THAT LEADS TO DECLINE ,ONERGAN FRAMES FREEDOM IN TERMS OF PROGRESS AND DEVELOPMENT IMPLICITLY POSING TELEOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS )N OTHER WORDS FREEDOM IS DIRECTED TOWARD AN END A lNALITY 4HIS lNALITY IS BOTH lNITE WHICH HE CALLS HORIZONTAL lNALITY AND INlNITE WHICH HE NAMES VERTICAL lNALITY )N AN ESSAY ENTITLED h-ISSION AND 3PIRIT v ,ONERGAN REFERS TO HORIZONTAL
-ICHELE 3ARACINO /N "EING (UMAN
lNALITY AS A CONCRETE END OR THAT WHICH MEETS ONES IMMEDIATE NEEDS 6ERTICAL lNALITY IS MORE COMPLEX )T REACHES TOWARD GOOD NESS AND ENACTS TRANSCENDENCE 6ERTICAL lNALITY IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO ,ONERGANS THOUGHT BECAUSE IT OPENS SUBJECTIVITY TO BEING FOR 'OD AND OTHERS 4HE SUPERNATURAL GRACE REACHED FOR IN VERTICAL lNALITY EQUIPS US WITH THE FREEDOM AND POWER TO STRUGGLE AGAINST DECLINE AND MOVE TOWARD PROGRESS (UMAN DESIRE FOR LOVE AND RELATIONSHIP IS THE GROUND FROM WHICH FREEDOM SPRINGS FORTH )N BEING IN LOVE WITH 'OD AND IN RIGHT RELATIONS WITH OTHERS HUMAN BEINGS ARE FREE TO MOVE FORWARD %VEN AS THIS FORWARD MOVEMENT IS IMAGINED IN TERMS OF GOALS AND ENDS IT SHOULD NOT BE UNDERSTOOD AS HEGEMONIC TOTALIZING OR SINGULAR /N THE CONTRARY ,ONERGAN EXPLAINS THE END AS MULTIVALENT AND COMPLEX )T IS NOT TOO STRONG TO SUGGEST THAT ,ONERGANS INTERPRETATION OF FREEDOM IS INEXTRICABLY LINKED TO HIS DISCUSSION OF THE OPENNESS OF THE SUBJECT !UTHENTIC OPEN SUBJECTIVITY EMERGES IN KNOWING ACTING AND LOVING FOR OTHERS &REEDOM IS NOT UNDERSTOOD IN INDIVIDUALISTIC TERMS BUT IN RELATION TO THE HUMAN GOOD (ENCE FREEDOM CANNOT BE ISOLATED FROM THE COMMUNITY BUT IS BORN IN COMMUNITY )N AN ALMOST MYSTICAL SENSE FREEDOM EMERGES IN THE MIDST OF ALTERITY "Y ENGAGING THOSE THAT ARE DIFFERENT FROM US WE BECOME FREE &ROM THESE IDEAS IT IS EVIDENT THAT ,ONERGAN IS COGNIZANT OF THE DANGER OF ABUSING ONES FREEDOM (E REALIZES THAT IF ONE ACTS FOR ONESELF ONLY ESPECIALLY IN THE FACE OF OTHERS THEN SUCH FREEDOM COULD DETERIORATE INTO EGOISM AND HUBRIS 4HE PERVERSION OF LIBERTY CAN BE CLASSIlED UNDER THE AUSPICES OF SOCIAL DECLINE AND ALIENATION FROM 'OD AND COMMUNITY ,IKE ,ONERGAN ,EVINAS PROBLEMATIZES THE ABUSES OF FREEDOM AND WORRIES THAT FREEDOM HAS BECOME DISCONNECTED FROM THE QUESTION OF JUSTICE )T IS NOT SURPRISING THEN THAT IN h4HE /LD AND THE .EWv ,EVINAS COMMENTS ON THE CORRUPTED CHARACTER OF FREEDOM IN MODERNITY ON THE hCRISIS OF HUMAN FREEDOM POWER AND KNOWLEDGE A REVERSAL OF TECHNOLOGICAL POWER INTO ENSLAVEMENTv 4HIS ENSLAVEMENT
4HE NOTION OF FREEDOM IS PREVALENT NOT ONLY IN ,ONERGANS THOUGHT BUT IN THE WORK OF HIS READERS AS WELL &OR AN ANALYSIS OF THE CONNECTIONS IN ,ONERGANS THOUGHT AMONG FREEDOM COMMUNITY AND JUSTICE SEE ,AMB &OR A GLIMPSE INTO ,ONERGANS CRITIQUE OF THE ABUSES OF POWER AND FREEDOM IN MODERNITY SEE 2 -ICHAEL #LARK
^&IGURING 3UBJECTIVITY IN 0OSTMODERN #ONTEXT 4HE 0ROTEAN 3UBJECT
IS WHAT ,ONERGAN REFERS TO IN HIS DISCUSSION OF BIASED DECISIONS LEADING TO REGRESS AND DECLINE 5NLIKE ,ONERGAN HOWEVER ,EVINAS DOES NOT READ THE NOTION OF FREEDOM IN TERMS OF DECISION !LTERNATIVELY ,EVINAS PRIVILEGES THE ETHICAL RELATION OF FACING FOR THE /THER AS A JUSTICE THAT IS ANTERIOR TO DECISIONAL FREEDOM %VEN AS ,EVINAS INTERPRETS THE FACE AS INEXTRICABLY CONNECTED TO FREE DOM AND RESPONSIBILITY HE REFUSES TO CORRELATE FREEDOM WITH DECISION "EFORE ANYONES PERSONAL FREEDOM IS THE FACE OF THE /THERTHE FACE WHICH DIRECTS ONES FREEDOM )N ATTEMPTING TO EMPHASIZE THE HOSTAGE SITUATION THAT ARISES IN THE FACE OF THE /THER ANDOR THE TRACE OF THE )NlNITE ,EVINAS ARGUES IN h4IME AND THE /THERv THAT hTHE SUBJECTS MASTERY OVER EXISTING THE EXISTENTS SOVEREIGNTY INVOLVES A DIALECTICAL REVERSALx4HIS IS ITS GREAT PARADOX A FREE BEING IS ALREADY NO LONGER FREE BECAUSE IT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ITSELF v ,IKE ,ONERGAN ,EVINAS REWRITES FREEDOM TO BE mOWING FROM ONES OBLIGATION FOR OTHERS )NDEED THE HUMAN PERSON BECOMES SUBJECT IN BEING FOR OTHERS 5NLIKE THE 'REEK VIEW OF FREEDOM AS BEING FOR ONESELF OR FOR THE POLIS FOR ,EVINAS FREEDOM IS BORN IN COMMUNITY 0ARADOXICALLY RESPONSIBILITY IS NOT A BURDEN TO BE REPUDIATED BUT THE VERY MARK OF ONES SEPARATION AND CONNECTION TO OTHERS &ROM THE ABOVE DISCUSSION OF FREEDOM THE SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE THOUGHT OF ,ONERGAN AND ,EVINAS SHOULD BE APPARENT 5NLIKE ,ONERGAN WHO HAS THE POSSIBILITY OF INTERPRETING FREEDOM IN TERMS OF GRACE ,EVINAS MAINTAINS THAT FREEDOM IS ALWAYS AFTER JUSTICE &OR ,ONERGAN THE BELIEVER IS INFUSED WITH GRACE SUPERNATURALLY AND THUS ORIENTED TO RIGHT RELATIONS WITH 'OD AND OTHERS 7HILE FOR ,EVINAS EVEN THOUGH THERE IS AN INFUSION OF THE )NlNITE INTO THE HUMAN PER SON THIS INFUSION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE NEARNESS OF #HRIST AND EVERYTHING TO DO WITH THE )NlNITY OF THE /THER *UST AS ,EVINAS HAS AN AMBIGUOUS RELATIONSHIP TO THE MERITS OF REASON HE IS HESITANT TO EMBRACE THE NOTION OF FREEDOM MOST PROBABLY BECAUSE OF HIS FRUSTRATION WITH POSITIVIST THEOLOGY ,EVINAS APPEARS TO BE BOUND TO A COMMONSENSE NOTION OF FREEDOM IN WHICH THE HUMAN BEING LIVES FOR SELF OR IN WHICH THE PERSON MASTERS AND COLONIZES OTHERS )T IS NOT TOO STRONG TO SUGGEST THAT FOR ,EVINAS MASTERY IS A PERVERSE FORM OF FREEDOMLIBERTY TAKEN TO AN EXTREME WHICH COSTS THE LIVES OF OTHERS
-ICHELE 3ARACINO /N "EING (UMAN
,EVINASS DISDAIN FOR THE MODERN CONmATION OF MASTERY WITH FREE DOM BECOMES MOST OBVIOUS IN HIS WRITINGS ON DEATH !S EXPLORED IN #HAPTER MORTALITY AND DEATH FOR ,EVINAS ARE INDICATIVE OF THE PLURALITY OF EXISTENCE RATHER THAN OF INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM /UR CON FRONTATION WITH DEATH ENDS OUR ATTEMPT AT MASTERY IN THAT IN DYING SOMETHING BEYOND OUR POWER AND CONTROL MASTERS US $EATH IS THE EVENT OF OTHERNESS THAT WE CANNOT MASTER !GAIN IN h4IME AND THE /THER v ,EVINAS EXPLAINS 4HE APPROACH OF DEATH INDICATES THAT WE ARE IN RELATION WITH SOME THING THAT IS ABSOLUTELY OTHER SOMETHING BEARING ALTERITY NOT AS A PROVISIONAL DETERMINATION WE CAN ASSIMILATE THROUGH ENJOYMENT BUT AS SOMETHING WHOSE VERY EXISTENCE IS MADE OF ALTERITY -Y SOLITUDE IS THUS NOT CONlRMED BY DEATH BUT BROKEN BY IT 2IGHT AWAY THIS MEANS THAT EXISTENCE IS PLURALIST (ERE THE PLURAL IS NOT A MULTIPLICITY OF EXISTENTS IT APPEARS IN EXISTING ITSELF
#LEARLY PLURALIST EXISTENCE WHICH ENCOMPASSES THE NEEDS OF OTHERS THWARTS ANY MOVE FOR AGGRESSIVE EGOIST FREEDOM .EGOTIATING BETWEEN PHILOSOPHICAL AND RELIGIOUS DISCOURSES ,EVINAS SPEAKS OF FREEDOM IN PARABOLIC TERMS h)N SUFFERING THE FREE BEING CEASES TO BE FREE BUT WHILE NON FREE IS YET FREEv 4HROUGH THIS CRYPTIC SENTENCE ,EVINAS ATTEMPTS TO SHOW THAT IF A PERSON BELIEVES THAT SHE IS FREE FOR SELF THEN SHE IS NOT FREE FOR OTHERS 7HEN THIS SO CALLED FREE SUBJECT IS ENCOUNTERED BY THE FACE HISHER FREEDOM IS DISRUPTED EVEN ERASED !LTERNATIVELY IF ONE ACKNOWLEDGES HISHER NON FREEDOM FROM THE BEGINNING REALIZES HISHER CONNECTEDNESS WITH OTHER PERSONS AND SUFFERS ON ANOTHERS BEHALF THEN SHE IS TRULY FREE *USTICE FOR OTHERS BRINGS ABOUT FREEDOM 3UFFERING IN THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE CONFUSED WITH A SACRIlCE IN TERMS OF EVEN EXCHANGE ,EVINAS REJECTS THIS NOTION OF SACRIlCE AS GUILT FOR THE /THER PRECISELY BECAUSE IT hPRESUPPOSES AN INITIAL FREEDOMv E &OR ,EVINAS WE DO NOT CASUALLY AND ARBITRARILY DECIDE TO BE RESPONSIBLE AND RESPONSIBIL ITY IS NOT BORN OF GUILT 2ESPONSIBILITY RATHER IS DEMANDED FROM US THROUGH THE COMMAND AND CARESS OF THE /THER 3IGNIlCANTLY CRITICS WOULD BE JUSTIlED IN ARGUING THAT IN HIS ATTEMPT TO CHALLENGE BOTH THE 7ESTERN ABUSE OF FREEDOM AND THE THEOLOGICAL
^&IGURING 3UBJECTIVITY IN 0OSTMODERN #ONTEXT 4HE 0ROTEAN 3UBJECT
ENTERPRISE ,EVINAS RELINQUISHES ANY VIABLE OPTIONS FOR SPEAKING ABOUT AUTHENTIC FREEDOM (IS AMBIGUOUS DISCUSSION OF FREEDOM LEADS TO AN EVEN MURKIER CONVERSATION ABOUT SOLIDARITY (ERE ,ONERGANS WORK ON SOLIDARITY AND THE HUMAN GOOD MAY PROVE TO BE A HELPFUL CORRECTIVE TO ,EVINASS WEAKNESSES &OR EVEN AS ,ONERGANS NOTION OF FREEDOM IS BASED IN DECISION IT IS THE ALREADY GRACED AFFECTIVE RELATION WITH THE /THER THAT GUIDES DECISION ,ONERGAN SEEMS TO ECHO ,EVINASS CON CERNS ABOUT JUSTICE WITHOUT ENTRUSTING THE IDEA OF FREEDOM TO THOSE WHO ABUSE IT
/PENNESS !N )NVITATION TO 3OLIDARITY )N THE PREVIOUS TWO SECTIONS ) EXPLORED THE QUESTIONS OF OPENNESS AND FREEDOM IN RELATION TO THE SUBJECT IN POSTMODERNITY "OTH DIMENSIONS OF BEING HUMAN ARE RELATED TO THE SUBJECTS CONNECTION TO THE TRANSCENDENT )N THIS SECTION ) CONTINUE TO INTERROGATE THE PLIGHT OF THE SUBJECT IN POSTMODERNITY BY MAPPING THE SUBJECTS MOVEMENT FROM SELF TO OTHERS IN TERMS OF SOLIDARITY "EFORE PROCEEDING TO ,ONERGANS AND ,EVINASS THOUGHTS ON SOLIDARITY IT MIGHT PROVE HELPFUL TO REVIEW CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH ON THE TOPIC !S ONE WOULD EXPECT CONTEMPORARY THEORISTS OF SOLIDARITY BOTH #ONTINENTAL AND !MERICAN ATTEMPT TO PUSH BEYOND IDENTITY POLITICS &EMINIST THEORIST *UDITH "UTLER EXPLAINS THE NEED FOR COALITION BEYOND IDENTITY POLITICS BEYOND A LOGIC OF SAMENESS )N 'ENDER 4ROUBLE "UTLER COMMENTS 4HE INSISTENCE IN ADVANCE ON COALITIONAL @UNITY AS A GOAL ASSUMES THAT SOLIDARITY WHATEVER ITS PRICE IS A PREREQUISITE FOR POLITICAL ACTION "UT WHAT SORT OF POLITICS DEMANDS THAT KIND OF ADVANCE PURCHASE ON UNITY 0ERHAPS A COALITION NEEDS TO ACKNOWLEDGE ITS CONTRADICTIONS AND TAKE ACTION WITH THOSE CONTRADICTIONS INTACT 0ERHAPS ALSO PART OF WHAT DIALOGIC UNDERSTANDING ENTAILS IS THE ACCEPTANCE OF DIVER GENCE BREAKAGE SPLINTER AND FRAGMENTATION AS A PART OF THE OFTEN TORTUOUS PROCESS OF DEMOCRATIZATION
&OLLOWING "UTLERS LEAD WE WOULD BE WISE TO IMAGINE COALITION BEYOND CONSTRUCTED IDENTITIES AND BEYOND PARTICULAR CHARACTERISTICS 4WO
-ICHELE 3ARACINO /N "EING (UMAN
SCHOLARS THAT ARE INTEGRAL TO THE DISCUSSION OF THE POLITICS OF SOLIDARITY BEYOND CONSTRUCTED IDENTITIES ARE *ODI $EAN AND )RIS -ARION 9OUNG )N 3OLIDARITY OF 3TRANGERS *ODI $EAN DISTINGUISHES AMONG THREE TYPES OF SOLIDARITY INCLUDING AFFECTIONAL CONVENTIONAL AND REmECTIVE SOLIDAR ITY 3HE EXPLAINS THAT IN AFFECTIVE ALLIANCES SOLIDARITY IS A RESULT OF FRIENDSHIP AND LOVE WHILE IN CONVENTIONAL COALITION SOLIDARITY IS ORGANIZED AROUND COMMON INTERESTS 5LTIMATELY $EAN PRIVILEGES THE NOTION OF REmECTIVE SOLIDARITY WHICH IS ROOTED IN DIALOGUE ARGUMENT AND DEBATEAN APPROACH LOOSELY WEDDED TO (ABERMASIAN DISCOURSE ETHICS 3UCH AN APPROACH SEEMS APPEALING PARTICULARLY IF DIFFERENCE ACTUALLY EMERGES IN THE DISSENT AND CONTESTATION OF THE DEBATE &OLLOW ING THE LEAD OF ,YNET 5TTAL $EAN ARGUES THAT SUCH A NOTION OF SOLIDARITY WILL BE MESSY YET ULTIMATELY FRUITFUL IN THAT AT SOME POINT NORMS AND AGREEMENT WILL SURFACE &ROM THESE THREE TYPES OF SOLIDARITY BOTH ,ONERGANS AND ,EVINASS WORK RESONATES MOST WITH THE IDEA OF AFFECTIVE SOLIDARITY WHICH IS BASED IN FEELINGS FOR OTHERS !NOTHER SIGNIlCANT THINKER WHO EXAMINES THE POLITICS OF SOLIDAR ITY IS )RIS -ARION 9OUNG %ARLIER ) NOTED HOW 9OUNG INTERROGATES THE UNDERLYING ASSUMPTIONS IN QUESTIONS ABOUT DIFFERENCE .OW ) FOCUS ON HER ANALYSIS OF DOMINATION IN WHICH SHE ACCOUNTS FOR GROUP COALI TION 4O BEGIN 9OUNG REINTERPRETS THE MEANING OF A SOCIAL GROUP AS hA COLLECTIVE OF PERSONS DIFFERENTIATED FROM AT LEAST ONE OTHER GROUP BY CULTURAL FORMS PRACTICES OR WAY OF LIFEv .OTICE THAT A SOCIAL GROUP IS NOT BASED ON BIOLOGY BUT ON CULTURE AND SOCIAL PRACTICES !S WE WILL SOON ASCERTAIN ,EVINAS LIKE 9OUNG DOES NOT DISTINGUISH BETWEEN GROUPS ON THE BASIS OF GENDER RACE CLASS ETC BUT BY WAY OF COMMUNAL PRACTICE &ROM 9OUNGS INVESTIGATION IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT BETWEEN AND WITHIN GROUPS POWER AND DOMINATION ARE CRUCIAL CATEGORIES IN CONlGURING JUSTICE )N SUMMARY $EANS AND 9OUNGS REmECTIONS ON GROUP SOLIDARITY BRING TO THE SURFACE MANY QUESTIONS ABOUT COMMUNITY FORMATION 7HAT IS THE BASIS OF GROUP COHESION )S COALITION BASED IN BIOLOGY CULTURE OR SOME OTHER ENTITY 7HAT IS THE CONNECTION BETWEEN INDIVIDUAL IDENTITY AND GROUP IDENTITY (OW DO GROUP DYNAMICS AFFECT JUSTICE 0ROBING THESE QUESTIONS RAISED BY $EAN AND 9OUNG IN LIGHT OF ,ONERGANS AND
^&IGURING 3UBJECTIVITY IN 0OSTMODERN #ONTEXT 4HE 0ROTEAN 3UBJECT
,EVINASS CONCERNS ABOUT SUBJECTIVITY WE WILL LEARN THAT ANY AUTHENTIC MOVEMENT TOWARD SOLIDARITY SHOULD REFUTE A COMMONSENSE ATTITUDE IN WHICH SOLIDARITY IS BUILT UPON BIOLOGICAL OR SOCIAL NORMS 4O BE SURE AUTHENTIC SOLIDARITY IS CONNECTED MORE TO FEELINGS THAN NORMS &URTHERMORE IT WILL BECOME APPARENT THAT INDIVIDUAL IDENTITY EMERGES FROM AND OFTEN STANDS AGAINST GROUP IDENTITY "Y EXPLORING ,ONERGANS AND ,EVINASS INTERPRETATION OF SOLIDARITY WE ALSO WILL LEARN THAT JUSTICE CANNOT BE ACHIEVED MERELY IN LINGUISTIC SKILL OR MORAL IDEALS BUT IN THE CONCRETE PARTICIPATION AND UNTIRING COMMITMENT OF EMBODIED PERSONS )NDEED $EAN VERY ASTUTELY MAKES THIS EXACT POINT SOLIDARITY NECESSITATES THE PARTICIPATION OF A PLURALITY OF EMBODIED PERSONS !S WE ATTEMPT TO LINK QUESTIONS OF SUBJECTIVITY OTHERNESS AND COMMUNITY IT IS NECESSARY TO IMAGINE CONCRETE BODIES THAT IS mESH AND BLOOD PEOPLE ACTING FOR OTHERS IN AFFECTION AND LOVE ,ONERGAN AND ,EVINAS CAN ASSIST US WITH THIS CHALLENGE )N )NSIGHT ,ONERGAN EXPLAINS A CULTURALLY DIVERSE AND PROGRESSIVE INTERSUBJECTIVE COMMUNITY IN TERMS OF A hCOSMOPOLISv 4HE COSMOPOLIS IS A LIFE WORLD THAT STRUGGLES AGAINST THE EVILS RESULTING FROM BIAS AND ENGAGES THE COMPLEXITY OF INTERSUBJECTIVITY !S INTRIGUING AND VALUABLE AS IT IS THE NOTION OF THE COSMOPOLIS LARGELY DROPPED OUT OF ,ONERGANS POST )NSIGHT WRITINGS -ORE PROMINENT IN HIS THOUGHT IS A NOTION OF SOLIDARITY WHICH HE BASES ON INTERPRETATIONS OF THE $OCTRINE OF THE -YSTICAL "ODY OF #HRIST -YSTICI #ORPORIS AND 0AULINE LITERATURE 2OMANS 3OLIDARITY ACCORDING TO THE EXEGESIS OF THESE TEXTS IS RELATED TO HOW HUMANS PARTICIPATE IN THE "ODY OF #HRIST AND HOW #HRIST LIVES IN THE LIFE OF HUMANITY $RAWING ON ) #ORINTHIANS ,ONERGAN EXPLAINS HOW HUMANS PARTICIPATE NOT ONLY IN THE STORY BUT ALSO IN THE MIND OF #HRIST "Y PARTAKING IN THE STORY AND MIND OF #HRIST HUMANITY IS CHALLENGED TO BEAR BOTH THE INDIVIDUAL AND COM MUNAL BURDENS OF RECONCILIATION AND REDEMPTION )MPLICIT IN HIS DISCUSSION OF HUMANITYS PARTICIPATION IN THE "ODY OF #HRIST IS THE EMPHASIS ON THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE SUBJECT AND OTHERS )N ORDER TO HIGHLIGHT THE PARADOXICAL PREDICAMENT OF BEING
4HE NOTION OF THE COSMOPOLIS IS FURTHER EXPLORED IN A RELATIVELY RECENT ESSAY BY -ARTIN * -ATUSTIK ENTITLED h$EMOCRATIC -ULTICULTURES AND #OSMOPOLIS "EYOND !PORIAS OF THE 0OLITICS OF )DENTITY AND $IFFERENCEv
-ICHELE 3ARACINO /N "EING (UMAN
HUMAN IN RELATION TO OTHERS ,ONERGAN WRITES h-AN IS NOT SIMPLY AN INDIVIDUAL x MAN IS NEVER MORE THAN A MEMBER OF A SPECIESv 4HIS MEANS THAT HUMAN BEINGS ARE NOT SO PARTICULAR THAT THEY CANNOT BE IN RELATIONSHIP OR SO SIMILAR THAT THEY CAN BE ALL INTERPRETED AS THE SAME 4HIS INSIGHT POSES DEEP RAMIlCATIONS FOR THE WAY IN WHICH WE RELATE TO OTHERS /N THE ONE HAND HUMAN BEINGS BELONG TO THE SAME SPECIES AND ARE CONNECTED !S A RESULT HUMANITY SHARES A COM MON STORY COLLECTIVELY BEARS SIN AND COLLECTIVELY SHARES RESPONSIBILITY FOR WORKING TOWARD THE HUMAN GOOD 2ELATED TO THIS COMMON STORY IS THE NOTION THAT PEOPLE ARE ANALOGICALLY CONSUBSTANTIAL WITH THE IM AGE OF 'OD /N THE OTHER HAND INDIVIDUALS ARE DISTINCTIVE WITHIN THE SAME SPECIES AND COMMON STORY ,ONERGANS ACCOUNT OF THE VARIOUS PATTERNS OF EXPERIENCE SPECIlCALLY THE DRAMATIC AND SOCIAL PATTERNS AND HIS EXPLORATION OF CONVERSION TOWARD AUTHENTIC SUBJECTIVITY AT TEST TO HIS CONCERN FOR THE PARTICULARITY OF INDIVIDUAL PERSONS %VEN THOUGH ,ONERGAN IS CAREFUL NOT TO PRIVILEGE ANY SORT OF INDIVIDUALISTIC ATTITUDE HE CLEARLY EXPLAINS HOW EACH PERSON AND GROUP IS DISTINCTIVE IN THEIR OWN PERSONALITY 7ITHIN THE COMMON STORY OF THE HUMAN RACE AND AS PERSONS STRUGGLE TO LIVE IN THE IMAGE OF 'OD A PLURALITY OF PERSONALITIES NARRATIVES AND TALENTS ARISE 7E CAN REFER TO THIS TEN SION BETWEEN PERSONALITY AND COMMON STORY AS THE hONE AND MANYv ,ONERGAN 2EALIZING THE RAMIlCATIONS OF THE hONE AND THE MANY v THE POSSIBILITY OF COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY BECOMES ALL THE MORE POIGNANT &URTHERMORE FOR ,ONERGAN IMPLIED IN THE QUESTION OF SOLIDARITY IS THE ISSUE OF A DIVINE END !S ,ONERGAN ASSERTS THAT HUMANS ARE TO LIVE IN THE IMAGE OF 'OD HE EMPHASIZES HUMANITYS DESTINY FOR SOLIDAR ITY $ISCUSSING HOW #HRIST RESTORES HUMANITY FROM THE SIN OF !DAM ,ONERGAN STATES h#HRIST SET UP A NEW MOTION TO HARMONISE RE ADJUST REINTEGRATE A HUMANITY THAT HAD REACHED THE PEAK OF DISINTEGRATION AND DEATH DESCRIBED IN THE lRST CHAPTER OF 2OMANSv "Y RECREATING HUMANITY #HRIST LIVES IN EACH PERSON CALLING EACH PERSON TOWARD 'OD AND OTHERS 0ROGRESS VIEWED FROM THIS END IS NOT BASED ON INDIVIDUALIST OR EGOIST DESIRES BUT ON A CALL TOWARD 'OD WHICH RESULTS IN CHARITY AND JUSTICE )N h"YWAY OF THE #ROSS v #LARK ELOQUENTLY DESCRIBES THE SCOPE OF PROGRESS
^&IGURING 3UBJECTIVITY IN 0OSTMODERN #ONTEXT 4HE 0ROTEAN 3UBJECT 0ROGRESS FOR ,ONERGAN IS NOT A FASCINATION WITH TECHNOLOGY AND INDUSTRY OR PROlT MAKING AS THE STANDARD BUT RATHER IT IS A FASCINA TION WITH THE POTENTIALITY OF THE HUMAN RACE FOR INTELLIGENTLY AND MORALLY OVERCOMING WITH 'ODS GRACE EVIL WITH GOOD OR TO BE INSTRU MENTS IN TRANSMITTING THE PRE MOTION OF SOCIAL JUSTICE IN SOLIDARITY WITH ALL PEOPLE ESPECIALLY THE POOR 4HE NEED FOR THE SUPERNATURAL IS THAT ONLY 'OD CAN TRANSFORM EVIL INTO GOOD 7E CANNOT DO IT ON OUR OWN REGARDLESS OF HOW INTELLIGENT AND MORAL WE HAPPEN TO BE %VIL REMAINS EVIL UNTIL 'ODS GRACE MOVES US TO PARTICIPATE IN TRANSFORMING IT
(ERE IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT THE SUPERNATURAL AND TRANSCENDENT MYSTERY IS NEEDED FOR US TO PARTICIPATE IN SOLIDARITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE "ODY OF #HRIST ! NEW GENERATION OF SCHOLARS HAVE PUSHED ,ONERGANS INSIGHTS RE GARDING THE QUESTION OF SOLIDARITY IN ORDER TO DEVELOP MORE MODERN AND EVEN POSTMODERN CATEGORIES FOR INTERPRETING WHAT IT MEANS TO BE HUMAN !NTICIPATING $EANS CONCERNS #OPELAND ARGUES THAT SOLIDARITY CANNOT BE MERELY CONVENTIONAL THAT IS AMONG PEOPLE WHO SHARE COMMON INTERESTS OR ARE PART OF A CERTAIN GROUP #OPELAND INSTEAD GROUNDS SOLIDARITY IN MEMORY AND CLAIMS THAT hSOLIDARITY BEGINS IN ANAMNESISTHE INTENTIONAL REMEMBERING OF THE DEAD EXPLOITED DE SPISED POOR PEOPLES OF COLORTHE VICTIMS OF HISTORYv 4HE NOTION OF MEMORY IS INTEGRAL TO A CONTEMPORARY CONVERSATION ABOUT SOLIDARITY FOR ANOTHER ,ONERGAN SCHOLAR #HARLES (EmING 3PECIlCALLY (EmING EXPLORES HOW THE PROCESS OF FORGIVENESS INVOLVES THE ACT OF REMEMBERING 2IGHT RELATIONSHIP AND SOLIDARITY IS RESTORED IN OUR RECOLLECTION OF OUR SIN (E WRITES h&ORGIVENESS IS NOT CANCELING THAT FEELING )T IS REVERSING THAT FEELING )T IS TURNING EVIL INTO GOOD CONSCIOUSLY IN CONSCIOUSNESS ON THE @FOURTH LEVELv 2ECALL THAT THE FOURTH LEVEL OF INTENTIONALITY REFERS TO THE SUBJECTS OBLIGA TION TO ACT RESPONSIBLY &ORGIVENESS THROUGH REMEMBERING MARKS THE BROKENNESS OF RELATIONSHIP AND THE SCAR OF EVIL AND AT THE SAME TIME POINTS TO THE POSSIBILITY OF JUSTICE &ORGIVENESS AS A PROCESS ACCORDING TO (EmING REBUILDS RELATIONS AND RECONSTRUCTS SOLIDARITY "OTH #OPELANDS AND (EmINGS COMMENTS RESPECTIVELY ON MEMORY AND FORGIVENESS PROVIDE US WITH A PROCESS THAT CAN MOVE THE SUBJECT
-ICHELE 3ARACINO /N "EING (UMAN
TOWARD SOLIDARITY -EMORY EVOKES OUR EMPATHY FOR OTHERS FEELINGS THAT LEAD TO RELATIONS OF PEACE AND JUSTICE ,IKEWISE FORGIVING AS AC TION LEADS TOWARD SOLIDARITY AND THE HUMAN GOOD (ERE FORGIVENESS IS DEMONSTRATED NOT ONLY IN TERMS OF FORGIVING OR BEING FORGIVEN BUT ALSO IN TERMS OF REMEMBERING THE EVIL AND BROKENNESS THAT CAUSED THE SIN IN THE lRST PLACE ! PROCESS OF FORGIVENESS THAT ENCOMPASSES REMEMBERING IS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO ENACT HEALING AND CHANGE !LTERNATIVELY WHEN WE FAIL TO FORGIVE AS PART OF OUR MOVEMENT TOWARD AUTHENTIC LIVING AND LOVING 'OD RESSENTIMENT DEVELOPS 2ESSENTIMENT IS DERIVED FROM THE PHILOSOPHY OF .IETZSCHE AND REFERS TO hA STATE OF REPRESSED ENVY AND DESIRE FOR REVENGE WHICH BECOMES GENERATIVE OF ITS OWN VALUESv -ORELLI B ! REMEDY FOR RESSENTIMENT CAN BE FOUND IN A LOVE FOR OTHERS A LOVE THAT TRANSCENDS SELF &ORGIVENESS IS AN ADMIRABLE GOAL OF THEOLOGY IN THE NEW MILLENNIUM TO REMEMBER THE EVILS OF THE PAST IN ORDER TO PROGRESS FORWARD IN THE FUTURE ,EVINAS ALSO EMPHASIZES THE NOTION OF MEMORY IN HIS UNDERSTANDING OF SOLIDARITY -EMORY FOR ,EVINAS EMERGES IN THE SUBJECTS PRIMORDIAL OBLIGATION FOR THE /THER 3IMILAR TO ,ONERGAN ,EVINAS REJECTS COM MONSENSE READINGS OF SOLIDARITY WHICH ARE AKIN TO CONVENTIONAL SOLI DARITY ,EVINASS NOTION OF HUMAN COMMUNITY IS OPPOSED TO A POPULAR INTERPRETATION OF SOLIDARITY IN WHICH PEOPLE h@JOSTLE ONE ANOTHER TO GET AROUND A COMMON TASKv )N OPPOSITION TO CONVENTIONAL SOLIDARITY ,EVINAS PROPOSES THE CATEGORY OF FRATERNITY TO ILLUSTRATE AFFEC TIVE SOLIDARITY &RATERNITY HAS TWO DIMENSIONS h&RATERNITY IS RADICALLY OPPOSED TO THE CONCEPTION OF A HUMANITY UNITED BY RESEMBLANCEx /N THE OTHER HAND IT INVOLVES THE COMMONNESS OF A FATHERv %VEN AS HUMAN PERSONS ARE SINGULAR THEY SHARE IN A COMMON HERITAGE 4HE URGENCY OF FRATERNITY OF THIS COMMON ANCESTRY EMERGES IN THE FECUNDITY OF FACING AN /THER WITH THE ENTRANCE OF THE THIRD PARTY 2E MEMBER THAT FECUNDITY FOR ,EVINAS BREEDS MORE RELATIONSHIPS MORE TIES &ECUNDITY THAT EMERGES IN FACING IS WHAT GROUNDS ,EVINASS DISCUSSION OF FRATERNITY FOR THE FACE hCOMMITSv ONE TO FRATERNITY &EELING FOR OTHERS IN FRATERNITY MOVES THE SUBJECT TO SAINTLY SUBJECTIVITY )N 4HE %THICS OF $ECONSTRUCTION #RITCHLEY FURTHER DISCUSSES ,EVINASS UNDERSTANDING OF FRATERNITY #RITCHLEY EXPLAINS THE hDOUBLEv NATURE OF FRATERNITY AS INDIVIDUAL AND COMMUNAL hEQUAL AND UNEQUAL
^&IGURING 3UBJECTIVITY IN 0OSTMODERN #ONTEXT 4HE 0ROTEAN 3UBJECT
SYMMETRICAL AND ASYMMETRICAL POLITICAL AND ETHICALWITH THE NAME MONOTHEISMv #OMMUNITY EMERGES IN THE TENSION BETWEEN THESE POLES BETWEEN PARTICULAR DIFFERENCE AND COMMON ANCESTRY 3IGNIl CANTLY ,EVINASS DISCUSSION OF FRATERNITY AS EMERGING BETWEEN SAMENESS AND OTHERNESS RESONATES WITH ,ONERGANS CLAIMS ABOUT THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE INDIVIDUAL AND COMMUNITYTHE ONE AND THE MANY 4O BE SURE HOWEVER ,EVINAS OR ,ONERGAN DOES NOT PROPOSE THAT THE EMERGENCE OF SOLIDARITY IS AS SIMPLE AS THE PHRASE hTHE ONE AND THE MANYv WOULD HAVE US BELIEVE &OR ,EVINAS SOLIDARITY DEMANDS A CERTAIN KIND OF FREEDOM SPECIlCALLY FREEDOM AS RESPONSIBILITY (ERE RESPON SIBILITY IS NOT SIMPLY LAW CENTERED OR CONTRACT BASED BUT NEED BASED 4HEREFORE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE /THER IS NOT POSSIBLE IN RIGHTS CENTERED INDIVIDUALISTIC SOLITUDE -OREOVER BLOOD TIES OR CONTRACTS ARE NOT THE ESSENCE OF SOLIDARITY 3OLIDARITY RATHER EMERGES IN THE SUBSTITUTION FOR THE /THER ON COMMAND ,EVINAS REFERS TO THE DETACHED DELIBERATION OF #AIN IN HIS EXPLANATION OF HOW RESPONSIBILITY AND SOLIDARITY SURPASS BIOLOGY )N h'OD AND 0HILOSOPHY v ,EVINAS WRITES 4HE SOBER #AIN LIKE COLDNESS CONSISTS IN REmECTING ON RESPONSI BILITY FROM THE STANDPOINT OF FREEDOM OR ACCORDING TO CONTRACT 9ET RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE /THER COMES FROM WHAT IS PRIOR TO MY FREEDOM )T DOES NOT COME FROM THE TIME MADE UP OF PRESENCES NOR FROM PRESENCES SUNKEN INTO THE PAST AND REPRESENTABLE THE TIME OF BEGINNINGS OR ASSUMPTIONS 2ESPONSIBILITY DOES NOT LET ME CONSTITUTE MYSELF INTO AN ) THINK AS SUBSTANTIAL AS A STONE OR LIKE A HEART OF STONE INTO AN IN AND FOR ONESELF )T GOES TO THE POINT OF SUBSTITUTION FOR THE OTHER UP TO THE CONDITIONOR THE NONCONDI TIONOF A HOSTAGE D
3OLIDARITY FOR ,EVINAS IS THE CONDITION FOR THE POSSIBILITY OF BEING FOR THE /THER )N OTHER WORDS COMMUNITY EXISTS BEYOND SUPERlCIAL BLOOD TIES BEYOND CONTRACT BEYOND LAWIN RELATIONSHIP !S THE SUBJECT IS CALLED INTO COMMUNITY FREEDOM IS FRAMED IN TERMS OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR MEMBERS OF THE FRATERNITY %VEN AS IT IS POSSIBLE TO EXTRAPOLATE AN ETHIC OF SOLIDARITY FROM ,EVINASS WORK IT IS NOT EASILY DONE ,EVINASS WRITINGS RESIST SUCH SYSTEMATIZING )F ONE WERE TO ATTEMPT TO UNDERSTAND FURTHER ,EVINASS THOUGHTS ON
-ICHELE 3ARACINO /N "EING (UMAN
SOLIDARITY BEYOND FRATERNITY ONE WOULD BE WISE TO START WITH AN ANALYSIS OF HIS COMMENTARY ON MYSTERY AND RELIGION )N h4RANSCENDENCE AND (EIGHT v ,EVINAS ADMITS TO THE MANY IMPLICATIONS OF A MOVEMENT FOR SOLIDARITY INCLUDING THE MYSTERIOUS DIMENSION OF COMMUNITY LIFE 4HE MYSTERIOUS ASPECT IS RELATED TO ,EVINASS UNDER STANDING OF BIBLICAL NARRATIVE THE NOTION OF CREATION AND RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE 4HROUGH AN INVESTIGATION OF THE MYSTERY OF CREATION WE CAN REALIZE ,EVINASS THOUGHTS ON THE SUBJECTS INDEPENDENCE FROM AND DEPENDENCE ON OTHERS 2ECALL FROM #HAPTER 4HREE THAT ,EVINAS IS CAREFUL TO ACCENTUATE BOTH THE SEPARATION OF THE SUBJECT FROM THE /THER AND THE PROXIMITY OF THE SUBJECT TO HISHER OBLIGATION FOR THE /THER 4HIS PARADOXICAL POSITION STEMS FROM ,EVINASS INTERPRETATION OF HUMANITY AS OTHER FROM THE CREATOR )N 4OTALITY AND )NlNITY HE DELINEATES HUMANITYS INDEPENDENCE IN TERMS OF BEING CREATED EX NIHILO "Y BEING CREATED FROM NOTHING HUMANITY IS RADICALLY OTHER AND IN DEPENDENT FROM 'OD 0ARADOXICALLY WITH THIS INDEPENDENCE COMES RESPONSIBILITY $E "OER EXPLAINS THAT IN THE EARLY WORK OF ,EVINAS WE lND THAT THE SUBJECT BECOMES INDEPENDENT SO SHE CAN SHOULDER THE WORLD 4HIS THINKING IS LATER FRAMED IN TERMS OF PASSIVITY IN LIGHT OF DISTANCEPROXIMITY 4HE PLAY BETWEEN A PERSONS INDEPEN DENCE AND HISHER RESPONSIBILITY IS THE CRUX OF A ,EVINASIAN READING OF SOLIDARITY !N ASYMMETRICAL HOSTAGE SITUATION IN WHICH THE SUBJECT IS SIMULTANEOUSLY INDEPENDENT FROM AND INDEBTED TO THE /THER IS THE FOUNDATION OF ,EVINASS THOUGHT ON SOLIDARITY )F WE RETURN TO 9OUNGS WORK WE LEARN HOW JUSTICE AND DIFFERENCE NEED NOT BE RECIPROCAL ,IKE 9OUNG ,EVINAS EMPHASIZES THE ASYMMETRICAL DYNAMIC AMONG PERSONS AND REJECTS THE IDEA THAT ETHICAL PERSONAL RELATIONS NEED TO BE EGALITARIAN *USTICE FOR ,EVINAS IS ABOUT BEING FOR THE /THER RATHER THAN BEING THE SAME OR EQUAL TO ANOTHER PERSON "Y REFERRING TO THE WORK OF 9OUNG THE ASSUMPTION OF ASYMMETRY CAN BE CLARIlED 9OUNG EXPLAINS THE DISJUNCTION BETWEEN DIFFERENCE AND JUSTICE IN TERMS OF THE PROBLEM WITH hIMPARTIALITYv AND ARGUES THAT THE LOGIC OF IMPARTIALITY IS AN IDEAL 3HE CLAIMS THAT EQUALITY POLITICS IS NOT NECESSARILY EVIDENCE OF JUSTICE 4HEREFORE
JUSTICE SHOULD BE UNDERSTOOD NOT IN TERMS OF DISTRIBUTION BUT BY A ^&IGURING 3UBJECTIVITY IN 0OSTMODERN #ONTEXT 4HE 0ROTEAN 3UBJECT CAREFUL ANALYSIS OF OPPRESSION AND DOMINATION ,EVINAS WOULD AGREE WITH 9OUNGS ANALYSIS OF JUSTICE AND ARGUE THAT MOVEMENT TOWARD SOLIDARITY CAN ONLY TAKE PLACE WITH THE ENTRANCE OF THE THIRD PARTY INCLUDING REASON OTHER PERSONS THE STATE AND 'OD )N THE SECTION ABOVE THE THEORIES OF ,ONERGAN AND ,EVINAS WERE EXPLORED TO HELP US TO RE ENVISION SOLIDARITY IN THE CURRENT MILIEU )MPLICIT IN THIS DISCUSSION IS THE BELIEF THAT THROUGH CREATION HUMAN BEINGS REGARDLESS OF THEIR BIOLOGY OR ANCESTRY ARE BORN IN SOLIDARITY AS INTERCONNECTED 4HIS BOND OF INTERSUBJECTIVITY IS BASED IN A FEELING FOR THE /THER A LONGING A DESIRE .ONETHELESS THE PRESENCE OF INJUSTICE SIN AND EVIL WORKS TO DESTROY THIS PRIMORDIAL SOLIDARITY %VEN AS ,ONERGAN AND ,EVINAS CONlGURE SOLIDARITY IN DIFFERENT DISCOURSES THE NORMATIVE PERFORMANCE OF THE SUBJECT IN COMMUNITY IS THE SAME PEOPLE ARE TO SURRENDER TO AND CELEBRATE WITH OTHERS IN AN EFFORT TO REBUILD THE BONDS OF SOLIDARITY !FFECTIVELY THE SUBJECT IS SHAPED MOLDED AND POSITIONED IN RELATIONSHIPS OF SOLIDARITY WITH OTHERS 4HE SHAPING MOLDING AND POSITIONING OR THE MALLEABILITY OF THE SUBJECT IS DISCUSSED IN THE NEXT SECTION IN TERMS OF PROTEANISM
! &IGURE OF /PEN %MBODIED 3UBJECTIVITY 4HE 0ROTEAN 3UBJECT -INDFUL OF ,ONERGANS AND ,EVINASS CONCERNS ABOUT OPENNESS FREEDOM AND SOLIDARITY ) NOW SKETCH A lGURE OF THE POSTMODERN SUBJECT IN TERMS OF PROTEANISM )N AN EFFORT TO AVOID THE PROBLEMATIC ATTITUDE OF !TLAS WHO ATTEMPTS TO SHIRK RESPONSIBILITY AS WELL AS THE ISSUES SURROUNDING THE SUFFERING SERVANT IN WHICH PAIN AND SUFFERING IS DEIlED ) HAVE ATTEMPTED TO FORMULATE A lGURE FOR THINKING ABOUT SUBJECTIVITY IN POSTMODERNITY THE PROTEAN SUBJECT 0OSTMODERNITYS ATTENTIVENESS TO DIFFERENCE SITUATEDNESS AND MASTER NARRATIVES CHALLENGES THEOLOGIANS TO RETHINK WHAT IT MEANS TO BE HUMAN IN THE PLURALIST CONTEXT ! PROTEAN MODEL FOR BEING HUMAN ENCOMPASSES THE INSIGHTS OF BOTH ,ONERGAN AND ,EVINAS AS WELL OTHER THINKERS WHO GRAPPLE WITH ISSUES OF POST MODERNITY )N ADDITION TO ,ONERGANS AND ,EVINASS
-ICHELE 3ARACINO /N "EING (UMAN
REFERENCES TO PROTEANISM THEREFORE ) FURTHER DEVELOP THE NOTION OF PROTEAN SUBJECTIVITY THROUGH AN INVESTIGATION OF ITS MYTHICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL ROOTS 4O REITERATE 0ROTEUS IS THE MYTHOLOGICAL SEA GOD WHO ADAPTS TO HIS UNSTABLE EXTERNAL SURROUNDINGS BY CHANGING HIS FORM (OMER INTRODUCES US TO 0ROTEUS IN 4HE /DYSSEY )N THAT FAMOUS EPIC 0ROTEUS AVOIDS /DYSSEUSS GRIP BY CHANGING FORM EVENTUALLY RETREATING INTO THE SEA BY BECOMING WATER !N EXEMPLAR OF MALLEABILITY 0ROTEUS MAY PROVE TO BE A lNE ANTHROPOLOGICAL MODEL IN THE POSTMODERN CONTEXT !S A lGURE OF ANTHROPOLOGY PROTEANISM BOTH CAPTURES THE RADICAL OPENNESS OF THE SUBJECT YET REMAINS VIGILANT TO THE IMPORTANT QUESTIONS OF HISTORY SUFFERING AND AGENCY )NTERESTINGLY THE TROPE OF PROTEANISM ACCOUNTS FOR BOTH THE POSTMODERN SITUATION OF DISCONNECTEDNESS AND THE HUMAN DESIRE FOR GOODNESS 7HILE THEOLOGY HAS BEEN VIRTUALLY SILENT IN PROMOTING 0ROTEUS AS A lGURE OF BEING HUMAN PSYCHOLOGY IS ENTERTAINING THE IDEA 4RACING THE LEGEND OF 0ROTEUS PSYCHOLOGIST 2OBERT * ,IFTON ILLUSTRATES HOW CONCRETE EMBODIED HUMAN BEINGS GO THROUGH A SERIES OF TRANSFOR MATIONS DURING THEIR LIVES 7ITH EACH INSTANCE OF JOY PAIN AND EVEN TRAUMATIC SUFFERING THE SUBJECT IS ALTERED )T IS AS IF THE WORLD PUSHES IN AND MOLDS THE SUBJECT THROUGHOUT THE DRAMATIC PATTERN OF HISHER LIFE 2EmECTING ON THE MALLEABILITY OF THE SUBJECT IN RELATION TO THE WORLD ,IFTON COINS THE NOTION OF THE PROTEAN SELF OR PROTEAN BEING %VEN AS ,IFTONS PROTEANISM IS ROOTED IN THE HUMAN ENDEAVOR FOR PROGRESS PART OF THE COMPLEXITY OF PROTEANISM LIES IN THE DANGER OF EVIL OR REGRESS ,IFTON EXPLAINS 4HE PROTEAN SELF EMERGES FROM CONFUSION FROM THE WIDESPREAD FEELING THAT WE ARE LOSING OUR PSYCHOLOGICAL MOORINGS 7E FEEL OUR SELVES BUFFETED ABOUT BY UNMANAGEABLE HISTORICAL FORCES AND SOCIAL UNCERTAINTIESx%NDURING MORAL CONVICTIONS CLEAR PRINCIPLES OF ACTION AND BEHAVIOR WE BELIEVE THESE MUST EXIST BUT WHERE x7E ARE BESET BY A CONTRADICTION SCHOOLED IN VIRTUES OF CONSTANCY AND STABILITYWHETHER AS INDIVIDUALS GROUPS OR NATIONSOUR WORLD AND OUR LIVES SEEM INCONSTANT AND UTTERLY UNPREDICTABLE 7E READILY COME TO VIEW OURSELVES AS UNSTEADY NEUROTIC OR WORSE
^&IGURING 3UBJECTIVITY IN 0OSTMODERN #ONTEXT 4HE 0ROTEAN 3UBJECT
)F AT lRST GLANCE ,IFTONS THOUGHT SEEMS PESSIMISTIC OR DEPRESSING THIS IS TRUE h%XPLORING THE DARK SIDE OF HUMAN BEHAVIOR#HINESE THOUGHT REFORM OR @BRAINWASHING THE 6IETNAM 7AR (IROSHIMA AND THE $ARKEST OF ALL .AZI DOCTORS v ,IFTONS WORK DRAWS ON EXTENSIVE ANALY SIS OF SUFFERING ,IFTON 3ADLY FRAGMENTATION AND SUFFERING NEED NOT BE LIMITED TO THOSE INSTANCES THAT ,IFTON LISTS !BUSE RAPE MURDER AND TORTURE PLAGUE MANY PEOPLE FROM ALL WALKS OF LIFE &OR SOME THE ATROCITIES SURROUNDING 3EPTEMBER TH HAVE BEEN SIMILARLY TRAUMATIC )N THE .ORTH !MERICAN LANDSCAPE THE EVILS OF RACISM AND CLASSISM CONTINUE TO HAVE RELATED DELETERIOUS EFFECTS )N LIGHT OF THESE TRAUMATIC EVENTS ,IFTON WONDERS HOW THE SUBJECT CAN GO FORWARD WITHOUT RESORTING TO MORE VIOLENCE AND PAIN $RAWING ON HIS lELD OF PSYCHOLOGY WHICH IS COMMITTED TO UNDERSTANDING HUMAN DEVELOPMENT AND CHANGE ,IFTON ARGUES THAT AN ALTERNATIVE TO RETALIATION THROUGH VIOLENCE AND ALIENATION IS PROTEAN RESILIENCE )N HIS DISCUSSION OF TRANSFORMATION AND RESILIENCE ,IFTON CLEARLY ARTICULATES THAT HUMAN BEINGS HAVE CONCRETE CHOICE AND FREEDOM IN MOVEMENTS OF RECOVERY AND RECONCILIATION &OR ,IFTON PROTEAN SUB JECTIVITY WIELDS AN INDISPUTABLE AGENCY !GENCY AND VALUE ARE NOTIONS OFTEN AVOIDED IN EXTREME POSTMODERN ACCOUNTS OF THE PERSON YET EVEN AS ,IFTON ARGUES FOR AN UNDERSTANDING OF PROTEANISM THAT SUPPORTS mUIDITY HE REJECTS ALIENATION OR NIHILISM !TTENTIVE BOTH TO THE WAY IN WHICH POSTMODERN CULTURE PULLS THE SUBJECT IN VARIOUS DIRECTIONS AND TO THE NEED FOR RESPONSIBLE ACTION IN THE FACE OF WHAT SEEMS LIKE CHAOS ,IFTON EXPLAINS ) MUST SEPARATE MYSELF HOWEVER FROM THESE OBSERVERS POSTMODERN OR OTHERWISE WHO EQUATE MULTIPLICITY AND mUIDITY WITH DISAPPEARANCE OF THE SELF WITH A COMPLETE ABSENCE OF COHERENCE AMONG ITS VARI OUS ELEMENTS ) WOULD CLAIM THE OPPOSITE PROTEANISM INVOLVES A QUEST FOR MEANING AND AUTHENTICITY A FORM SEEKING ASSERTION OF THE SELF
&OR ,IFTON THE SELF IS RESILIENT CHANGING ORGANIC AND DYNAMIC 0ARA DOXICALLY SINCE THE PERSON IS A CHANGING DYNAMIC SHE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR HISHER RESILIENCE THROUGH RE CREATION ,IFTON EXPLAINS h)F THE SELF
-ICHELE 3ARACINO /N "EING (UMAN
IS A SYMBOL OF ONES ORGANISM THE PROTEAN SELF PROCESS IS THE CON TINUOUS PSYCHIC RE CREATION OF THAT SYMBOLv %VEN AFTER TRAUMA THEREFORE ,IFTON AFlRMS THAT THE SELF REMAINS 4HIS SURVIVAL OF THE SELF IS A SIGNIlCANT POINT &OR IMPLIED IN ,IFTONS THOUGHT IS THE POSSIBILITY OF THE TRIUMPH OF THE HUMAN SPIRIT )N THE FACE OF VIOLENCE INJUSTICE AND EXPLOITATION THE SUBJECT REMAINS PRESENT 4HIS PRESENCE ATTESTS TO THE ALTERITY OF THE /THER THAT EVEN IN THE MIDST OF RACISM SEXISM AND ANTI 3EMITISM A CORE SELF STILL ENDURES )NTERESTINGLY ,IFTON EXPLAINS THIS CORE SURVIVING SELF IN ORGANIC AND DISCURSIVE TERMS 4HE SELF DEVELOPS AND CHANGES DRAMATICALLY IN A NARRATIVE 4HIS RESONATES WITH ,ONERGANS EXPLANATION OF THE DRAMATIC AND SOCIAL PATTERNS OF EXPERIENCE 2ECALL HOW THE DRAMATIC PATTERN OF EXPERIENCE CHRONICLES THE SUBJECTS LIFE EVENTS AND THE SOCIAL PATTERN ENTAILS THE SUBJECTS ENGAGEMENT WITH THE WORLD ,IFTONS NOTION OF THE PROTEAN SELF FOLLOWS A SIMILAR NARRATIVE STRUCTURE &OCUSING ON THE PERFORMATIVE DIMENSION OF SUBJECTIVITY ,IFTON WRITES 4HE SYMBOLIZING SELF CENTERS ON ITS OWN NARRATIVE ON A LIFE STORY THAT IS ITSELF CREATED AND CONSTANTLY RE CREATED 4O BE SURE THE SELF CAN FALL FROM NARRATIVE AND UNDERGO PERCEIVED BREAKS AND RADICAL DISCONTINUITIES IN LIFE STORY )T CAN ALSO DIVIDE ITSELF INTO MANY SUB NARRATIVES SUFlCIENTLY DEVELOPED TO FORM THEIR OWN SELF STRUCTURES OR SUBSELVES
)N TERMS OF PERFORMATIVITY ,IFTONS NOTION OF THE PROTEAN SELF CAN BE READ AGAIN TO EMPLOY THE RHETORIC OF -ERLEAU 0ONTY AS A CHANGING BODY SUBJECT AN AGING BODY SUBJECT AN AILING BODY SUBJECT A PEACEFUL BODY SUBJECT A DYING BODY SUBJECT A SACRAMENTAL BODY SUBJECT EACH OF WHOM HAVE MEMORIES NARRATIVES AND SUBPLOTS !S BODY SUBJECT THE PERSON ENGAGES HISHER AGENCY IN ORDER TO MAKE CHOICES THAT AFFECT HISHER PERFORMANCE OF AUTHENTIC SUBJECTIVITY 4HROUGH SUCH PERFORMATIVE SUBJECTIVITY THE HUMAN PERSON STRUGGLES IN THE SHADOW AND THE LIGHT OF THE IMAGE OF 'OD TO DEVELOP HISHERSELF TO RE CREATE AUTHENTICITY "Y BEING RESPONSIBLE ON THE INDIVIDUAL LEVEL AS WELL AS IN THE COMMUNAL SPHERE THE SUBJECT WRITES HISHERSELF AS AUTHENTIC 4HIS NOTION OF PERFORMING OR WRITING ONESELF AS SUBJECT WAS PREVI OUSLY MENTIONED IN #HAPTER &OUR 4HERE ) ARGUED THAT ,EVINASS AND )RIGARAYS WRITINGS ARE NOT ESSENTIALIST SINCE THEY WORK TO RE CREATE THE
^&IGURING 3UBJECTIVITY IN 0OSTMODERN #ONTEXT 4HE 0ROTEAN 3UBJECT
MEANING OF THE TERMS @BODY AND @WOMAN AS THEY WRITE ABOUT THEM 3IMILARLY ACCORDING TO ,IFTONS PROTEAN SELFHOOD THE SUBJECT RE CRE ATES HIMHERSELF AS SHE LIVES !S PERFORMATIVE ,IFTONS SUBJECT IS THE HOLISTIC FREE PERSON ABLE TO ACT RESPONSIBLY IN MIND AND BODY 4HE PROTEAN VIRTUE OF THIS SUBJECT IS OPEN CHANGING SHIFTING EVOLVING ORGANIC AND PERFORMATIVE 0ROTEAN SUBJECTIVITY INTEGRATES MANY OF THE INSIGHTS GLEANED FROM ,ONERGANS THEOLOGY AND ,EVINASS THEORY &IRST ,ONERGANS THOUGHT SHOWS THAT WE ARE ALWAYS CREATING OURSELVES 7ALTER #ONN EXPLAINS THE DEVELOPMENTAL OR PROTEAN CHARACTER OF ,ONERGANS SUBJECTIVITY IN TERMS OF MORAL CONVERSION -ORAL CONVERSION SHIFTS A PERSONS DECISION MAKING PROCESS FROM SATISFACTION TO VALUE IN ORDER TO HIGH LIGHT THE SELF DEVELOPING DIMENSION OF BEING HUMAN )N EVERY DECISION TOWARD AUTHENTIC LIVING THE SUBJECT IS CAPABLE OF hBETTER KNOWLEDGE AND FULLER RESPONSIBILITYv #ONN ,ONERGANS CONNECTION WITH ,IFTON DOES NOT END WITH MORAL CONVERSION 0ROTEANISM UNDERSCORES HOW WE RELATE TO PEOPLE ON THE BASIS OF FEELINGS IN TERMS OF AFFECTIVITY !S WE CAN INTERPRET FROM HIS WRITINGS ON GIFT AND LOVE ,ONERGAN IS QUITE INTERESTED IN THE FEELINGS THAT UNDERGIRD INTERSUBJECTIVITY EVEN IF HIS LANGUAGE FAILS TO MAKE THAT FACT PLAIN 3IMILAR TO THE WAY IN WHICH ,ONERGAN EXPLAINS EACH PERSON TO HAVE THE SAME POTENTIAL FOR KNOWING ACTING AND LOVING ,IFTON CLAIMS THAT EACH PERSON HAS THE POTENTIAL FOR RESILIENCE IN THE AREAS OF COGNITION WILL AND AFFECTION 0ROTEANISM CAPTURES THE CHANGE OF HEART WHICH ,ONERGAN ATTEMPTS TO EMPHASIZE IN HIS DISCUSSION OF CONVERSION AND TRANSCENDENCE ,ASTLY JUST AS ,ONERGAN EXPLAINS THAT EACH HUMAN BEING ALBEIT BOUND BY ONE HUMAN NATURE HAS A DISTINCTIVE PERSONAL NARRATIVE OR DRAMATIC PATTERN ,IFTON ASSERTS THAT EACH RESILIENT SELF IS EMBEDDED IN A CONTEXT AND HISTORY ,IFTON WRITES h7HAT WE CALL THE SELFONES INCLUSIVE SENSE OR SYMBOLIZATION OF ONES BEINGIS ENORMOUSLY SENSITIVE TO THE mOW OF HISTORYv ,IKE ,ONERGAN ,EVINAS IS ATTENTIVE TO THE PARTICULARITY OF HISTORY AND CONTEXT NEVERTHELESS ,EVINAS DEPARTS FROM AN EXPLICIT ACCOUNT OF THE DEVELOPMENTAL CHARACTER OF SUBJECTIVITY )NDEED ,EVINASS DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECTIVITY IS APOCALYPTIC AND PROPHETIC IN THAT BETWEEN EACH MO MENT THE SUBJECT IS DISPLACED FOR ANOTHER PERSON 4HUS THERE IS NO LINEAR NARRATIVE TO EXPLAIN THE SUBJECTS JOURNEY 4HIS DOES NOT MEAN
-ICHELE 3ARACINO /N "EING (UMAN
THAT ,EVINASS INTERPRETATION OF BEING HUMAN IGNORES HISTORY OR CONTEXT FOR THE SUBJECTS RELATIONS TO OTHERS IS ALWAYS SITUATIONAL .ONETHELESS HIS INTERPRETATION OF SUBJECTIVITY AS WAITING FOR ANOTHER COMPLICATES THE WAY IN WHICH WE MIGHT SPEAK OF A SUBJECTS DEVELOPMENTAL OR PROTEAN POTENTIAL 3IGNIlCANTLY ,EVINAS EVEN MAKES A KEY REFERENCE TO 0ROTEUS IN 4OTALITY AND )NlNITY (E REJECTS THE 0ROTEAN MODE OF BEING IN FAVOR OF AN UNDERSTANDING OF BEING THAT IS TIED TO OTHERS IN TERMS OF FECUNDITY )N ORDER TO GET A HANDLE ON ,EVINASS THOUGHTS HERE IT MAY PROVE HELPFUL TO TURN TO THE TEXT IN QUESTION )N THE SECTION IN WHICH HE ELABORATES ON FECUNDITY ,EVINAS WRITES 4HE DIVERSE FORMS 0ROTEUS ASSUMES DO NOT LIBERATE HIM FROM HIS IDENTITY )N FECUNDITY THE TEDIUM OF THIS REPETITION CEASESx &E CUNDITY CONTINUES HISTORY WITHOUT PRODUCING OLD AGE )NlNITE TIME DOES NOT BRING AN ETERNAL LIFE TO AN AGING SUBJECT IT IS BETTER ACROSS THE DISCONTINUITY OF GENERATIONS PUNCTUATED BY THE INEXHAUSTIBLE YOUTHS OF THE CHILD
4HIS SEEMINGLY COMPLICATED RHETORIC IS ACTUALLY QUITE STRAIGHT FORWARD ,EVINAS WANTS TO EXPLAIN THAT FECUNDITY IS NOT MERELY AN EXTENSION OF ONES LIFE BUT A BIRTH OF NEW AND DIVERSE PERSPECTIVES PERSONS AND RELATIONSHIPS 7HAT IS MORE HE DEMONSTRATES THAT WHAT IS SIGNIlCANT FOR HIS APOCALYPTIC AND PROPHETIC ESCHATOLOGY IS NOT THE CHANGE FROM ONE PARADIGM TO ANOTHER BUT THE EMERGENCE OF NEW AND OTHER NARRATIVES 7HAT WE LEARN FROM THIS PASSAGE IS THAT ,EVINAS IS MORE CONCERNED WITH CLARIFYING HIS INTERPRETATION OF RELATIONSHIP AND COMMUNITY IN HISTORY THAN WITH CONSTRUCTING AN ANTHROPOLOGICAL MODEL -Y INTERPRETATION OF PROTEANISM DIFFERS FROM ,EVINASS ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT 0ROTEUS FOR TWO REASONS &IRST MY DISCUSSION OF PROTEANISM IS SET DIRECTLY WITHIN A CONTEXT OF THEOLOGICAL ANTHROPOLOGY WHILE ,EVINASS REFERENCE TO 0ROTEUS CAN BE UNDERSTOOD IN RELATION TO HIS CRITIQUE OF A HEGEMONIC AND TOTALIZING READING OF HISTORY !LTHOUGH ,EVINASS WRITINGS SPECIlCALLY /THERWISE THAN "EING GIVE RISE TO IMPLICATIONS FOR ANY INTERPRETATION OF BEING HUMAN IN POSTMODERNITY OVERALL HIS LIFES WORK DOES NOT AIM AT CONSTRUCTING AN ANTHROPOLOGY 4HUS IN HIS REFERENCE TO THE INADEQUACIES OF A PROTEAN LOGIC ,EVINAS SOUNDS MORE LIKE HE IS GRAPPLING WITH HISTORY AND GRAND NARRATIVE THAN REALIZING THE RESPONSIBILITY OF BEING HUMAN (ERE ,YOTARDS INSIGHTS ABOUT THE
^&IGURING 3UBJECTIVITY IN 0OSTMODERN #ONTEXT 4HE 0ROTEAN 3UBJECT
CRUSHING WEIGHT OF GRAND NARRATIVE CAN HELP mESH OUT ,EVINASS PROBLEMS WITH A PROTEAN INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY /NE COULD COMPARE ,EVINASS CRITIQUE OF THE TRANSFORMATIVE AND TOTALIZING CHARACTER OF PROTEAN HIS TORY TO ,YOTARDS EXPLANATION OF THE LIBIDINAL BAND ,YOTARD A 3ECONDLY ) BELIEVE INTERPRETING MY DISCUSSION OF PROTEANISM WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF A CONSTRUCTIVE THEOLOGICAL ANTHROPOLOGY WOULD BE COM PATIBLE WITH ,EVINASS OVERALL CONCERNS FOR RESPONSIBILITY FOR OTHERS ) EMPLOY THE NOTION OF PROTEANISM NOT SO THAT THE SUBJECT CAN FREELY AND AGGRESSIVELY CONTROL HIMHERSELF TO AVOID RESPONSIBILITY BUT TO ACCENT THE CONSTRUCTED DEVELOPMENTAL AND SHIFTING POSITION OF THE SUBJECT 4HE SUBJECT IS PROTEAN THAT IS IS TRANSFORMED TO OPENNESS ONLY IN THE PRESENCE OF ALTERITY INCLUDING THE DIVINE /THER 4HIS INTERPRETATION OF PROTEANISM ACKNOWLEDGES ,EVINASS CRITIQUE OF A TOTALIZING HISTORY AND EXPOUNDS ON HIS CONCERN FOR A RESPONSIBLE SUBJECTIVITY !S SUCH PROTEANISM REJECTS THE (EIDEGGERIAN AND ,ACANIAN EMPHASIS ON SELF AT THE COST OF OTHERS ,IFTONS WORK IS APPEALING FOR MANY REASONS !LREADY WE HAVE GRASPED THAT HIS PSYCHOLOGICAL DISCUSSION OF PROTEANISM DEALS BOTH WITH QUESTIONS OF SUFFERING AND PLEASURE 2EMEMBER FROM OUR EXPLO RATION OF ,EVINASIAN ETHICS THAT THE CATEGORIES OF PLEASURE AND DESIRE ARE PRIVILEGED OVER SATISFACTION OR USE #ONSTRUCTIVE THEOLOGY IN THE NEW MILLENNIUM MUST EXPLORE THE IMPLICATIONS OF JOY AS WELL AS PAIN FOR THAT WHICH BRINGS US HAPPINESS IS BECOMINGLY INCREASINGLY DIF lCULT TO ASCERTAIN IN THE CONTEMPORARY WORLD -OREOVER THE WAY IN WHICH ,IFTON FRAMES PROTEANISM IN TERMS OF NARRATIVE APPEALS BOTH TO MODERN AND POSTMODERN SENSIBILITIES -ODERN PERSONS CAN UPHOLD THE EVOLUTIONARY IMPULSE AND DEVELOPMENTAL DIMENSION OF PROTEANISM WHILE POSTMODERNS CAN APPRECIATE THE NARRATIVE FORM AND PLURALIST POS SIBILITIES OF PROTEAN SUBJECTIVITY %VEN THOUGH ,IFTONS THEORY EMERGES WITHIN A PSYCHOLOGICAL PARADIGM IT DOES NOT NEED TO BE CUT OFF FROM QUESTIONS OF EXISTENTIAL MEANING AND RELIGION &OR 'OD INVITES THE PERSON INTO PROTEAN BEING THAT IS INTO BEING OPEN TO THE RISKS OF SELF /THER AND COMMUNITY
-ICHELE 3ARACINO /N "EING (UMAN
#ONCLUSION )N THIS CHAPTER ) EXAMINED THE MEANING OF OPENNESS FROM SEVERAL PERSPECTIVES 4HE *UDEO #HRISTIAN RENDITIONS OF OPENNESS IN TERMS OF HOSPITALITY AND CHARITY WERE EMPHASIZED AS WAYS OF REMEMBERING WHAT IT MEANS TO BE HUMAN IN COMMUNITY WITH OTHERS AND 'OD ,ONERGAN AND ,EVINAS WERE CALLED UPON TO mESH OUT MODERN AND POSTMODERN EXPRESSIONS OF OPENNESS FREEDOM AND SOLIDARITY 7E lND IN BOTH THINKERS WORK THE THEME OF SUFFERING ON BEHALF OF ANOTHER )N AND OF ITSELF BEING FOR OTHERS IS ADMIRABLE "UT THE WAY IN WHICH SUFFERING HAS BEEN CONlGURED BY AND FOR MARGINALIZED GROUPS IS REASON TO QUESTION THE IMPLICATIONS OF SUFFERING FOR A NOTION OF AUTHENTIC SUBJECTIVITY )N ORDER TO AVOID THE TRAPS OF A SUFFERING SERVANT IDEOLOGY ) INTRODUCED THE NOTION OF PROTEAN SUBJECTIVITY 0ROTEAN SUBJECTIVITY NOT ONLY TAKES INTO ACCOUNT THE SUFFERING ASPECT OF BEING HUMAN BUT ALSO INCLUDES THE REMEMBERING DEVELOPING CHANGING HEALING FORGIVING CELEBRATORY AND SACRAMENTAL DIMENSIONS OF BEING HUMAN 7HEREAS ,IFTON UNDER STANDS THE SELF AS PROTEAN AND MALLEABLE IN RELATION TO TRAUMA ) WANT TO EXTEND THAT MALLEABILITY TO OTHER DIMENSIONS OF HUMAN EXISTENCE AS WELL SUCH AS IN RELATION TO FRIENDSHIP LOVE AND JOY )NDEED THE lGURE OF THE PROTEAN SUBJECT HOLDS IN TENSION MANY OF THEMES AND ISSUES THAT HAVE EMERGED IN THIS DIALOGUE BETWEEN ,ONERGAN AND ,EVINAS &IRST AND FOREMOST PROTEANISM CAPTURES THE UNAVOIDABLE INTERSUBJECTIVE CONNECTION BETWEEN SUBJECT AND /THER 3ECOND THE lGURE OF PROTEANISM HIGHLIGHTS A NOTION OF OPENNESS WHICH CANNOT BE POSSESSED BY ANY ONE SUBJECT BUT RATHER IS EFFECTED BY THE ENCOUNTER WITH THE /THER 4HUS IMPLICIT IN THE CONVERSATION ON OPENNESS IS AN ATTENTION TO ITS mUIDITY AND DYNAMISM 4HE SUBJECTS RECEPTION OF THE /THER IN THIS mUID AND DYNAMIC PROCESS IS NOT STATIC OR MECHANICAL BUT CHANGING AND EMBODIED 4HIRD PROTEANISM CAPTURES THE BOUNDARIES BETWEEN SUBJECT AND /THER AS WELL AS THE INTENSE INTIMACY BETWEEN SUBJECT AND /THER 0UT ANOTHER WAY PROTEANISM UNDERSCORES THE RELATIONAL INTERSUBJECTIVE QUALITY OF BEING HUMAN THAT IS DISTINCTIVE TO ,ONERGANS AND ,EVINASS PROJECTS 3HOULDERING WAS PROPOSED AS A HEURISTIC FOR DEEPENING OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE SUBJECT FOR THE /THER BEYOND THE GENDERED LANGUAGE FOUND IN THE RHETORIC OF ,EVINAS AS WELL AS IN CERTAIN ECCLESIAL SITUATIONS 0ROTEANISM
^&IGURING 3UBJECTIVITY IN 0OSTMODERN #ONTEXT 4HE 0ROTEAN 3UBJECT
BUILDS ON THE NOTION OF SHOULDERING !S PROTEAN SUBJECTS WE EMERGE AS PERSONS ABLE TO SHOULDER ONE ANOTHER &OURTH PROTEANISM ACCOUNTS NOT ONLY FOR RESPONSIBILITY TO OTHERS BUT ALSO FOR MAINTENANCE OF OUR SELVES AN ACTIVITY THAT IS OFTEN OBSCURED BY ,EVINASS PREOCCUPATION WITH THE /THER -Y GOAL IN THE DISCUSSION OF PROTEANISM IS NOT TO LIMIT THE POSSIBILITIES OF BEING HUMAN BY CONSTRUCTING A CONCEPT OR IDEAL INSTEAD MY INTENTION IS TO HIGHLIGHT THE COMPLEXITY OF OPENNESS IN THE CONTEMPORARY CONTEXT /PENNESS NOT ONLY INVOLVES OBLIGATORY RELATION SHIPS FOR OTHERS BUT ALSO A REEXAMINATION OF SELF /PENNESS NECESSITATES A TRANSCENDENCE THAT IS SENSITIVE TO THE PRESENT NEEDS OF OTHERS AS WELL AS TO THE HISTORY AND EVENTS OF THE PAST 0ROTEAN SUBJECTIVITY WITH ITS EMPHASIS ON RESILIENCE ACCOUNTS FOR SUCH OPENNESS
#ONCLUSION
4
HROUGHOUT THIS STUDY ) HAVE INVESTIGATED THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SUBJECT AND /THER IN A POSTMODERN CONTEXT 7HEN ) SAY POSTMODERN CONTEXT ) REFER TO THE PLURALISTIC SOCIETY IN WHICH WE LIVE AN ENVIRONMENT THAT IS SHAPED BY BOTH SECULAR AND RELIGIOUS ATTITUDES ) HAVE ATTEMPTED TO SHOW THAT IN THIS GLOBAL DI VERSE MILIEU #HRISTIAN THEOLOGIANS NEED TO ENGAGE QUESTIONS OF HOW TO BE HUMAN IN THE MIDST OF CHANGE AND AMBIGUITY )N MY RESEARCH ) HAVE ILLUSTRATED HOW DIFFERENCE AND IDENTITY HAVE BEEN TERRIBLY MIS CONSTRUED PARTICULARLY BUT NOT EXCLUSIVELY BY THE 7EST IN ITS ADUM BRATION OF MODERNITY )N REACTION TO THIS CONFUSION OVER DIFFERENCE ) HAVE SHOWN THAT CONTEMPORARY CONTINENTAL THEORISTS INCLUDING %MMANUEL ,EVINAS HAVE FOCUSED THEIR ATTENTION ON THE COMPLEXITY OF ALTERITY &URTHERMORE IN MY ANALYSIS ) ASSUME THAT CONTEMPORARY THEOLOGIANS SHOULD FOLLOW AND EXPAND THIS THEORETICAL LEAD )MPOR TANTLY A THEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION OF ALTERITY IN A POSTMODERN MILIEU MUST AVOID NIHILISTIC CONCLUSIONS THE SEEDS OF WHICH ARE EMBEDDED IN CONTEMPORARY CONTINENTAL THOUGHT (ENCE ) MADE IT PLAIN THAT #HRISTIAN THEOLOGIANS NEED TO IMAGINE WAYS OF BEING HOSPITABLE TO DIFFERENCE WITHOUT LEAVING ALL HOPE OF JUSTICE BEHIND ) ARGUED THAT THE NOTION OF OPENNESS COULD FUNCTION AS A BRIDGE BETWEEN THEORETICAL AND THEOLOGICAL CONCERNS FOR DIFFERENCE AND JUSTICE /PENNESS IN THIS INVESTIGATION WAS CONlGURED IN A NUMBER OF WAYS %MPLOYING THE WORK OF ,ONERGAN ,EVINAS AND $ERRIDA OPENNESS WAS FRAMED IN TERMS OF GIFT 4HE OPEN DISPOSITION OF THE SUBJECT WAS NOTED AS GIFTED BECAUSE IT IS EXCESSIVE BEYOND RETRIBUTION /PENNESS WAS ALSO CONTEXUALIZED WITHIN *EWISH AND #HRISTIAN THOUGHT IN ORDER TO EMPHASIZE THE SUBJECTS RECEPTION OF THE /THER AS HOSPITABLE AND CHARITABLE 4HE OPEN AND RECEPTIVE POSTURE OF THE SUBJECT WAS THEN MADE CORPOREAL THROUGH THE NOTION OF SHOULDERING ) PROPOSED THE METAPHOR OF SHOULDERING TO CONVEY THE IMMEDIACY OF THE SUBJECTS COMMUNAL OBLIGATION FOR OTHERS WITHOUT RELYING ON INSIDIOUS GENDER
-ICHELE 3ARACINO /N "EING (UMAN
STEREOTYPES 3HOULDERING WAS SHOWN TO BE CONSISTENT WITH ,ONERGANIAN AND ,EVINASIAN TRAJECTORIES OF THOUGHT "ESIDES DESCRIBING THE SUBJECT AS OPEN TO OTHERS IN THE PRAXIS OF SHOULDERING ) ATTEMPTED TO lGURE AND NAME THIS OPEN RECEPTIVE SAINTLY SUBJECT WHO SHOULDERS OTHERS ) CONSIDERED THE IDEA THAT SHE IS SIMILAR TO THE SUFFERING SERVANT FOUND IN THE *UDEO #HRISTIAN TRADITION 9ET ) CONCLUDED THAT EVEN THOUGH THE PROCESS OF lGURING SUBJECTIVITY IN POSTMODERNITY MUST ENGAGE THE QUESTIONS OF SELF SURRENDER AND SACRIlCE ATTENDING TO ISSUES OF BEING HUMAN OUGHT TO ENCOMPASS OTHER DIMENSIONS OF HUMANITY AS WELL &OR INSTANCE NORMATIVE SUBJECTIVITY MUST CONSIDER THE RESILIENT CHARACTER OF SUBJECTIVITY IN ADDITION TO THE SUFFERING DIMENSION )N ORDER TO AVOID THE TRAP OF VALORIZING THE NOTION OF THE SUFFERING SERVANT ) ACCENTED THE TROPE OF PROTEAN SUBJECTIVITY TO HIGHLIGHT THE OPEN RESPONSIBLE CHANGING SOCIAL AND LOVING SUBJECT OF POSTMODERNITY )T IS PERHAPS SOMEWHAT IRONIC THAT ) CALLED UPON A SPECTER OF THE 'REEKS (OMERS 0ROTEUS TO EXPLAIN THE POSSIBILITIES OF OPENNESS IN THE *UDEO #HRISTIAN TRADITION )N MY ENDEAVOR TO EXPLAIN BEING HUMAN IN A POSTMODERN PLURALIST CONTEXT MANY QUESTIONS REMAIN UNANSWERED )N THIS lNAL CHAPTER ) IDENTIFY TWO AVENUES FOR FURTHER RESEARCH &IRST ) ENCOURAGE THEOLOGIANS TO INVESTIGATE MORE BOLDLY THE IMPACT OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF GENDER AND RACE ON THE #HRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF THE PERSON 3ECOND ) DEMONSTRATE THAT THE CONCENTRATED FOCUS ON EMBODIMENT AND AFFECTIVE INTENTION ALITY IN THIS BOOK CREATES NEW QUERIES FOR SACRAMENTAL THEOLOGY !FTER RAISING THESE NEW QUESTIONS FOR THEOLOGIANS ) CONCLUDE THIS CHAPTER BY DISCUSSING THE LIMITATIONS AND BENElTS OF PUTTING ,ONERGAN AND ,EVINAS INTO DIALOGUE WITH ONE ANOTHER
!VENUES FOR &URTHER 4HEOLOGICAL AND 0HILOSOPHICAL 2ESEARCH )N THIS BOOK ) HAVE BEEN DEDICATED TO DEALING WITH QUESTIONS OF DIF FERENCE AND CORPOREALITY 3TILL THESE TWO ISSUES OF OTHERNESS AND EM BODIMENT REQUIRE FURTHER SCRUTINY /NE AREA FOR FURTHER RESEARCH IS IN #HRISTIAN ANTHROPOLOGY AND IS LINKED TO THE QUESTION OF WHY GENDER
^#ONCLUSION
ESSENTIALISM IS DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF RACIAL ESSENTIALISM 4HE TENSION BETWEEN &RENCH FEMINISTS AND CRITICAL RACE THEORISTS SURFACED IN THE THIRD AND FOURTH CHAPTERS YET WAS NEVER FULLY INTERROGATED "ELOW ) WILL OUTLINE A POSSIBLE RESEARCH PROJECT FOR THE QUESTION OF THE RELA TIONSHIP BETWEEN GENDER AND RACE THEORY IN CONSTRUCTIVE THEOLOGY ! SECOND AREA FOR CONTINUED INVESTIGATION IS IN THE lELD OF SACRAMENTAL THEOLOGY 4HE NOTION OF THE SACRAMENTAL SUBJECT WAS ALLUDED TO IN #HAPTER 4HREE ON ,EVINASS SAINTLY SUBJECT AS FOR THE /THER AND IN #HAPTER &IVE ON THE POSSIBILITIES OF THE PROTEAN SUBJECT 4HE PLIGHT OF THE SACRAMENTAL SUBJECT IS MORE THOROUGHLY ANALYZED IN THE SECOND PART OF THIS SECTION
'ENDER AND 2ACE 4HEORY IN #HRISTIAN !NTHROPOLOGY !LTHOUGH MANY FEMINIST THINKERS AND CRITICAL RACE THEORISTS HAVE IDENTIlED THE COMPLEXITY OF READING THE BODY IN THEOLOGY THERE IS LITTLE SCHOLARSHIP COMPARING AND EVALUATING THEIR DIFFERENT THEORETICAL APPROACHES IN EXPLAINING THE NOTION OF EMBODIMENT )N RESEARCHING AND WRITING THIS BOOK IT HAS BECOME APPARENT THAT SOME OF THE ISSUES WHICH FEMINISTS EMPHASIZE SUCH AS THE QUESTION OF ESSENTIALISM ARE NOT EASILY ADDRESSED FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF CRITICAL RACE THEORY )N FUTURE WORK IT WOULD BE ENLIGHTENING TO TRACE THE SIMILARITIES AND DIF FERENCES OF UNDERSTANDING THE BODY FROM THE DISTINCTIVE PERSPECTIVES OF FEMINIST AND RACE THEORY 3UCH A STUDY COULD BRIDGE CONCERNS ABOUT GENDERED AND RACIALIZED BODIES THROUGH A DISCUSSION OF THE INCARNA TION 3PECIlCALLY BY FOCUSING ON THE #HRIST EVENT'OD BECOMING mESH IN ALL HUMAN PARTICULARITYA DISCUSSION ABOUT DIFFERENCE AND SUBJECTIVITY MIGHT BE FURTHERED 4HROUGH AN INTERROGATION OF THE ROLE OF IDENTITY POLITICS IN THE INCARNATION QUESTIONS RELATING TO THE SOCIAL LOCATION OF *ESUS OF .AZARETH MIGHT BE EXPLORED 4WO ISSUES WOULD BE PARAMOUNT HERE THE QUESTION OF THE EFlCACY OF A MALE SAVIOR FOR WOMEN AS WELL AS THE IMPLICATIONS OF *ESUSS CLASS ETHNICITY AND CUL TURE FOR CONSTRUCTIVE THEOLOGY 5LTIMATELY IT WOULD BE INTERESTING TO EXAMINE HOW THE INCARNATION EITHER SACRALIZES OR NEUTRALIZES PARTICULAR HUMAN CHARACTERISTICS AND ACCIDENTS
-ICHELE 3ARACINO /N "EING (UMAN
! PLAN FOR SUCH A PROJECT MIGHT FOLLOW THIS FOUR FOLD STRUCTURE ) WOULD BEGIN WITH AN OVERVIEW OF HOW #HRISTIANS CURRENTLY DISCUSS THE BODY IN CONTEMPORARY THEOLOGICAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL DISCOURSE 3UCH A DISCUSSION WOULD DRAW ON THE INSIGHTS OF PHENOMENOLOGISTS SOCIAL SCIENTISTS AND THEOLOGIANS 4HEN A REVIEW OF THE FEMINIST CONTRIBUTION TO THE CONVERSATION ON EMBODIMENT WOULD BE HELPFUL (ERE THE WORK THAT EMERGES IN &RENCH FEMINISM WOULD BE SIGNIlCANT TO THE DISCUSSION AND SUCH THOUGHT COULD RANGE FROM DE "EAUVOIR TO )RIGARAY .EXT AN ANALYSIS OF SOME OF THE DEBATES IN CRITICAL RACE THEORYS ATTENTION TO THE BODY WOULD BE INDISPENSABLE &EMINIST AND CRITICAL RACE THEORIES WOULD NEED TO BE COMPARED %VEN THOUGH THERE HAS BEEN MUCH CRITI CAL THINKING SINCE THE WORK OF &RANTZ &ANON HIS ANALYSIS STILL SEEMS TO EPITOMIZE THE VIOLENT EFFECTS OF RACISM AGAINST BLACKS 4HIS IS NOT SAY THAT OTHER VOICES ARE NOT WELCOME FOR THE THOUGHT OF HOOKS AND #OPELAND CONTINUE TO UNCOVER THE PROBLEMS CREATED BY WHITE SU PREMACIST CULTURE &INALLY ONE COULD LOCATE AND EXPLAIN THE EVENT OF INCARNATION AS A MODEL FOR READING THE BODY AS PERFORMATIVE )N THIS REGARD TRADITIONAL INTERPRETATIONS OF THE WORD BECOMING mESH AS IN THE WORK OF 3T 4HOMAS AS WELL AS THE NEWLY EMERGING THEOLOGIES OF THE CROSS FROM .ORTH !MERICA AND THE TWO THIRDS WORLD WOULD PROVE CHALLENGING 4HROUGH THIS INVESTIGATION INTO HOW HUMAN EMBODIED PERSONS ARE SANCTIlED IN THE INCARNATION CRITICISM OF THE EVILS OF RACISM AND SEXISM COULD BE FURTHERED )N THE POSTMODERN CONTEXT AS WE HAVE LEARNED FROM ,ONERGAN AND ,EVINAS THE /THER CANNOT BE AVOIDED )T IS THE /THER THAT SUMMONS THE SUBJECT TO BE FOR THE /THER 2EADING THE INCARNATION IN TERMS OF RADICAL OTHERNESS COULD HIGHLIGHT THE GIFT OF BEING HUMAN IN RELATION TO ALTERITY
.EW 1UESTIONS FOR 3ACRAMENTAL 4HEOLOGY 4HE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE INCARNATION OF #HRIST AND THE CORPOREALITY OF HUMAN BEINGS LEADS US TO THE SECOND AREA OF POSSIBLE RESEARCH THE lELD OF SACRAMENTAL THEOLOGY )N MY RESEARCH ) HAVE ATTEMPTED TO DEMONSTRATE HOW AN INTRICATE ANALYSIS OF CORPOREALITY IS SIGNIlCANT FOR POSTMODERN #HRISTIAN ANTHROPOLOGY !LTHOUGH ) DO NOT WISH TO
^#ONCLUSION
BE REDUNDANT ONE CONCLUSION IS WORTH REITERATING 3UBJECTIVITY ONLY ARISES IN INTERSUBJECTIVE RELATIONS IN THE FACE OF AN EMBODIED /THER 4HIS /THER PRESSES IN ON THE SUBJECT AND DEMANDS THAT SHE ANSWER THE /THERS NEED 4HIS ETHICAL RELATION IS NOT FOUNDED IN THE SUBJECTS INTELLECT OR WILL ALONE BUT IN THE AFFECTIVE DESIRE OF THE SUBJECT FOR THE /THER 3UBJECTIVITY IS A PASSIONATE RELATIONSHIP AND THE DRAMATIC AND SOCIAL PATTERNS OF LIFE CHRONICLE THE EMOTIVE OPERA AMONG THE PLURALITY OF HUMAN BEINGS 'OD ENTERS INTO THIS OPERA AS A TRACE AS AN INlNITE DESIRE AS A THIRD PARTY (ENCE BEING HUMAN WHILE ALWAYS CONTEXTUAL CHANGING AND COMPLICATED IS EVEN MORE THAN THAT IT IS SACRAMENTALLY CHARGED ,ONERGAN AND ,EVINAS BRING TO LIGHT THIS SACRAMENTAL CHARGE 4HEOLOGIAN 3TEPHEN (APPEL COMMENTS ON ,ONERGANS CONTRIBUTION TO SACRAMENTAL THEOLOGY )N AN ESSAY ENTITLED h4HE 3ACRAMENTS 3YMBOLS 4HAT 2EDIRECT /UR ,IVES v (APPEL ADDRESSES THE AFFECTIVE DIMENSION OF ,ONERGANS METAPHYSICS 4HERE HE SPECIlCALLY REFERS TO THE MYSTERY OF SYMBOLIC MEANING AND THE SELF SACRIlCIAL ETHIC IN ,ONERGANS THOUGHT 3ELF SACRIlCE AND SELF SURRENDER WHICH OCCUR WHEN ONE FALLS IN LOVE WITH 'OD HAVE IMPORTANT RAMIlCATIONS FOR TWO SACRAMENTS MARRIAGE AND PENANCE 4O SOME THESE RAMIlCATIONS SEEM CLEAR )N A COMMITTED RELATIONSHIP SUCH AS MARRIAGE 'ODS PRESENCE mOURISHES IN THE COUPLES OPENNESS TO LOVE AND FECUNDITY !ND IN THE ACT OF CONTRITION IN PENANCE 'ODS PRESENCE LOOMS IN THE FORGIVE NESS AND RENEWAL OF THE SELF )N BOTH RITUALS MEMBERS OF THE "ODY OF #HRIST SURRENDER THEMSELVES TO 'OD AND OTHERS 3UFFERING ON BEHALF OF ANOTHER WOULD SEEM APPROPRIATE HERE )N A BROAD BRUSH ONE COULD ATTEMPT TO EXTEND (APPELS INSIGHT ARGUING THAT SELF SACRIlCE IS PART OF BEING A GIFTED OPEN AUTHENTIC SACRAMENTAL SUBJECT FOR ,ONERGAN .EVERTHELESS IN LIGHT OF OUR PREVIOUS COMMENTS ON THE SOCIETAL EXPECTATION THAT CERTAIN GROUPS ARE TO SUFFER MORE THAN OTHERS AN UNDERSTANDING OF SACRAMENTALITY IN TERMS OF SELF AFmICTION OUGHT TO BE CONTESTED (ENCE IF ONE WERE TO APPLY ,ONERGANS WORK ON SELF SACRIlCE TO THE QUESTION OF POSTMODERN SACRAMENTAL THEOLOGY OTHER ISSUES WOULD NEED TO BE ADDRESSED 4HESE PROBLEMS ENCOMPASS THE FOLLOWING QUERIES HOW THE NOTION OF SELF SACRIlCE FOR OTHERS IN MARRIAGE OR IN RECONCILIATION IS EMBEDDED IN GENDER ASSUMPTIONS HOW WHITE SUPREMACIST LOGIC AND 7ESTERN IMPERIALISM FRAME ANY DISCUSSION
-ICHELE 3ARACINO /N "EING (UMAN
OF THE LEGITIMACY OF SUFFERING OF A MINORITY FOR THE BENElT OF A MAJORITY AND HOW THE REALITY OF #HRISTS SUFFERING AT THE HANDS OF THE 2OMAN STATE OUGHT TO RESHAPE THE WAY #HRISTIANS CONTEXTUALIZE SELF SACRIlCE 4HESE QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN BUILDING THROUGHOUT MY EXAMINATION OF THE ETHICAL RELATION BETWEEN SUBJECT AND /THER AND AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE POLITICS OF A SACRAMENTAL SUBJECT WOULD BE THE NEXT LOGICAL STEP IN PENETRATING THE HEART OF THESE MATTERS ,IKE ,ONERGAN ,EVINAS PROVIDES US WITH RESOURCES FOR DISCUSSING THE SUBJECT AS SACRAMENTAL )N LIGHT OF ,EVINASS *EWISH BACKGROUND SOME MIGHT WONDER ABOUT MY CLAIM THAT ,EVINASS THOUGHT CAN BE VALUABLE TO A #HRISTIAN INTERPRETATION OF SACRAMENTALITY )S IT DANGEROUS TO EM PLOY A POST 3HOAH WRITER FOR #HRISTIAN PURSUITS #ERTAINLY NOT IF ONE APPROPRIATES ,EVINASS WORK IN AN INTELLIGENT HONEST AND RESPECTFUL POSTURE &URTHERMORE ,EVINASS ATTENTION TO THE PHENOMENOLOGY OF THE BODY IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY FOR ANY CONVERSATION ABOUT THE SACRAMENTALITY OF THE PERSON 4O BE SURE IMPLICIT IN MY DISCUSSION OF THE CORPOREALITY OF THE HUMAN SUBJECT IS THE ASSUMPTION THAT FOR #HRISTIANS THE MEANING OF THE BODY IS OVERDETERMINED 7E ARE OVER WHELMED WITH BODIES AND BODY LANGUAGE 4HERE IS THE HUMAN BODY OF THE BELIEVER THE ECCLESIAL BODY THE INCARNATE BODY OF #HRIST AND THE -YSTICAL "ODY OF #HRIST "UT EVEN AS #HRISTIANS ARE OVERWHELMED BY REFERENCES TO THE BODY THERE SEEMS TO BE NO ADEQUATE UNDERSTANDING OF THE ROLE OF THE HUMAN BODY IN THEOLOGY "ODY IS EVERYWHERE AND NOWHERE !LTHOUGH ) ATTEMPTED TO SHOW THE CONTRIBUTION OF ,ONERGAN TO THE QUESTION OF CORPOREALITY IT HAS BECOME CLEAR THAT PHILOSOPHERS ESPECIALLY PHENOMENOLOGISTS ARE MORE SKILLFUL AT ATTENDING TO THE ROLE FUNCTION AND PLIGHT OF THE HUMAN BODY THAN THEOLOGIANS !S A RESULT THEOLOGIANS WOULD BE WISE TO REVISIT SOME OF THE INSIGHTS OF PHENOMENOLOGY TO CONSTRUCT AN ANTHROPOLOGY THAT TAKES SERIOUSLY THE OPEN AND AFFECTIVE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SUBJECT AND /THER "Y NOW IT SHOULD BE OBVIOUS THAT ,EVINAS IS A RICH RESOURCE FOR UNDERSTANDING THE RELATION BETWEEN BODY AND SACRAMENTALITY IN A POSTMODERN CONTEXT 7RITING OUT OF A CULTURAL MILIEU THAT REMEMBERS THE HORRORS OF !USCHWITZ ,EVINAS IMAGINES AN ETHICS THAT EMPHASIZES THE PLIGHT OF THE EMBODIED SUBJECT AND /THER 4HE WAY THAT ,EVINAS DEALS WITH SUCH NOTIONS OF INCARNATION SACRIlCE AND GENDER CAN HELP THEOLOGIANS DEVELOP MORE LIFE AFlRMING WAYS OF DISCUSSING THE SACRA
^#ONCLUSION
MENTALITY OF THE #HRISTIAN SUBJECT )T IS SIGNIlCANT TO NOTE HOWEVER THAT AT NO POINT DOES ,EVINAS REFER TO THE SUBJECT AS @SACRAMENTAL IN THE #HRISTIAN SENSE OF THE WORD !ND EVEN THOUGH HIS DISCUSSION OF THE SINGULAR HUMAN EMBODIED PERSON AS THE SITE OF SUFFERING MORTALITY AND SACRIlCE MIGHT BE APPLICABLE TO QUESTIONS ABOUT SACRAMENTALITY IT IS IMPERATIVE TO REALIZE THAT ,EVINAS DOES NOT INTEND TO DEVELOP A #HRISTIAN NOTION OF SACRAMENTALITY )N ALL LIKELIHOOD HIS INTEREST IN THE SACREDNESS OF BEING HUMAN IS EMBEDDED IN HIS AFlLIATION WITH THE 4ALMUDIC TRADITION AS WELL AS WITH HIS CRITIQUE OF THE ONTO THEOLOGY OF 7ESTERN PHILOSOPHY .ONETHELESS READING ,EVINASS UNDERSTANDING OF INCARNATION PASSIVITY AND SUBSTITUTION AS A #HRISTIAN THEOLOGIAN THE IMPLICATIONS OF HIS WORK FOR SACRAMENTAL THEOLOGY ARE STRIKING &OR THOSE WHO ARE STILL UNCOMFORTABLE WITH RELATING ,EVINASS WORK TO #HRISTIAN THEOLOGY IN THIS WAY ONE KEY WAY TO CONNECT ,EVINASS WORK WITH THE NOTION OF THE SACRAMENTAL IS TO RETURN TO HIS READING OF #ARTESIAN METAPHYSICS ,EVINAS DRAWS ON $ESCARTESS NOTION OF THE )NlNITE IN THE SUBJECT THEREBY ALLUDING TO THE SUBJECT AS THE SITE OF SACRAMENT $ESCARTES CLAIMS THAT IT IS THE PRESENCE OF THE )NlNITE IN HUMANITY THAT MAKES IT POSSIBLE FOR THE HUMAN BEING TO BE IN RELATION SHIP WITH THE )NlNITE )NDEED ALTERITY EXISTS IN THE MIDST OF OUR BEING HUMAN IN OUR OWN HUMAN BEING 4HE FEELING FOR THE /THER OR WHAT ) HAVE BEEN ALLUDING TO AS AFFECTIVE INTENTIONALITY IS THE BASIS FOR ALL LIVING !LTERITY WITHIN US CALLS US OUT OF OURSELVES FOR OTHERS &EELING FOR AND WITH OTHERS MOVES US TO KNOW AND ACT IN RELATION TO OTHERS &OR ,EVINAS AND AS ) WILL CONTINUE TO ARGUE FOR ,ONERGAN ALTERITY WITHIN US CALLS US FOR THE /THER IN OUR MIDST !S ) PERSEVERE IN CONTEXTUALIZING ,ONERGANS AND ,EVINASS WORK WITHIN LARGER TRADITIONS IT SHOULD BE KNOWN THAT READING THE SUBJECT AS A SITE OF SACRAMENT IS NOT A NEW PROJECT &RENCH THEOLOGIAN ,OUIS -ARIE #HAUVET ASSERTS THAT THE BODY OF THE #HRISTIAN BELIEVER IS IN STRUMENTAL TO HISHER RECEPTION OF GRACE (E WRITES h4HE LITURGY IS NOT A MATTER OF @IDEAS BUT OF @BODIES OR BETTER @OF CORPOREALITYv VIII "Y REFERRING TO THE BODY AS BOTH A SIGNIlER AND THE SIGNIlED #HAUVET SHOWS THAT CORPOREALITY CAN BE INTERPRETED AS SACRAMENTAL 3TILL CONSTRUCTIVE THEOLOGY NEEDS TO GO BEYOND THE GROUNDBREAKING WORK OF #HAUVET AND INTERPRET THE SUBJECT AS SACRAMENTAL WITHIN THE GLOBAL CONTEXT 4HIS MEANS THAT WHAT BODY SYMBOLIZES NEEDS TO BE
-ICHELE 3ARACINO /N "EING (UMAN
COMPLICATED 4OUGH QUESTIONS SUCH AS THESE NEED TO BE ADDRESSED !RE ALL BODIES SACRAMENTAL OR ONLY THOSE WHICH ARE DEEMED NORMATIVE 7HAT ROLE DOES HISTORY PLAY IN RECOGNIZING SOME BODIES AS SACRAMENTAL WHILE INTERPRETING OTHERS AS DElCIENT (OW DOES POWER INmUENCE THE WAY WE DESIGNATE SOME BODIES AS SACRAMENTAL AND OTHERS AS PROFANE 4HESE QUESTIONS SEEM TO mOW LOGICALLY FROM THE INTERROGATION OF EM BODIED DIFFERENCE IN #HAPTER &OUR 4HE NEXT STEP WOULD BE TO RETHINK WHAT IT MEANS FOR ALL HUMAN BEINGS TO BE UNDERSTOOD AS AUTHENTIC IN MIND AND BODY 4HE TASK OF DEVELOPING A THEOLOGICAL ANTHROPOLOGY THAT EFFECTIVELY MEDIATES SACRAMENTALITY WITH POSTMODERN INTERPRETATIONS OF THE BODY SUBJECT UNDOUBTEDLY WOULD BE RIGOROUS 3CHOLARS NEED TO READ BEYOND THEIR lELDS !LTHOUGH THE NOTION OF THE BODY SUBJECT AS THE SITE OF SACRAMENT IS NOT A NEW IDEA THE QUESTIONS RAISED BY CONTEMPORARY CONTINENTAL FEMINIST AND CRITICAL RACE THEORISTS COMPLICATE ANY AT TEMPT TO SPEAK ABOUT THE HUMAN SUBJECT AS THE SITE OF 'ODS PRESENCE &OR INSTANCE 2OMAN #ATHOLIC THEOLOGIAN 3USAN 2OSS QUESTIONS THE #HURCHS PRESUPPOSITIONS ABOUT BODY AND GENDER IN UNDERSTANDING SACRAMENTALITY 3HE WONDERS HOW hA TRADITION WHICH VENER ATES MATERIALv IS hHOSTILEv TO BODIES WOMENS BODIES IN PARTICULAR 7HATS MORE SHE ASKS WHY WOMENS BODIES ARE NOT UNDERSTOOD TO BE JUST AS REVELATORY AS MENS BODIES )N THE CURRENT MILIEU THEOLOGIANS INTERESTED IN QUESTIONS OF THE SACRAMENTAL ARE OBLIGATED TO DEAL WITH QUESTIONS AND INSIGHTS COMING FROM FEMINIST STUDIES CRITICAL RACE THEORY AND CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY )F ONE WERE TO EMBARK ON A STUDY OF SACRAMENTALITY IN POSTMODERN CONTEXT BOTH ,ONERGAN AND ,EVINAS WOULD PROVE TO BE VALUABLE VOICES IN SUCH A PROJECT ,ONERGANS WORK ON THE EMBODIED SUBJECT AND PATTERNS OF EXPERIENCE COMPLICATES ANY FACILE INTERPRETATION OF BEING HUMAN &URTHERMORE HIS CLEAR ANALYSIS OF THE HUMAN GOOD WHICH ENGAGES THE ISSUES OF BIAS AND CONVERSION AS WELL AS PROGRESS AND DE CLINE UNDERSCORES THE WAY IN WHICH #HRISTIANS IMAGINE THE INDIVIDUAL PERSON OR COMMUNAL CHURCH AS SINFUL OR SACRAMENTAL ,EVINASS NOTIONS OF CORPOREALITY AND SUBSTITUTION ALSO WOULD AUGMENT SUCH A STUDY -OREOVER IF ONE WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THE REIlCATION OF SUFFERING THEN THE CONVERSATION ABOUT THE SELF AS A SITE OF SACRAMENT WOULD NEED TO GO BEYOND THE THOUGHT OF BOTH ,ONERGAN AND ,EVINAS 4O EMBARK
^#ONCLUSION
ON SUCH A PROJECT AGAIN THEOLOGIANS WOULD BE WISE TO CALL UPON THE WORK OF &RENCH FEMINISTS CRITICAL RACE THEORISTS AND THINKERS OF THE TWO THIRDS WORLD )N THE ABOVE SECTION ) SKETCHED AREAS OF RESEARCH THAT WERE TOUCHED UPON IN THIS BOOK AND THAT NEED TO BE FURTHER EXPLORED A CONVER SATION BETWEEN FEMINISTS AND CRITICAL RACE THEORISTS AND STUDIES IN SACRAMENTAL THEOLOGY 4HESE TWO AREAS WHILE SEEMINGLY DISPARATE ARE RADICALLY RELATED "OTH DEAL WITH UNDERSTANDING THE SOCIAL DIMENSION OF HUMANITY "OTH EXAMINE THE POLITICS OF DIFFERENCE "OTH ARE CON CERNED WITH THE mOURISHING OF HUMAN BEINGS FOR 'OD AND FOR OTHERS "OTH ARE INTEGRAL TO UNDERSTANDING WHAT IT MEANS TO BE HUMAN IN THE POSTMODERN CONTEXT
%VALUATION OF THE $IALOGUE BETWEEN ,ONERGAN AND ,EVINAS ) BEGAN THIS RESEARCH WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT ,ONERGAN AND ,EVINAS WOULD BE UNLIKELY YET EVOCATIVE INTERLOCUTORS 2EADING ,ONERGAN AND ,EVINAS THROUGH A SUPERlCIAL AND COMMONSENSE LENS ONE COULD CERTAINLY CLAIM THAT THEY HAVE LITTLE IN COMMON #ASUAL CONVERSA TION IN THE ACADEMY IS GROUNDED IN THE ASSUMPTION THAT ,ONERGAN IS THOROUGHLY MODERN AND ,EVINAS IS DElNITIVELY POSTMODERN .ONETHE LESS FROM THIS CRITICAL ENGAGEMENT WITH THESE TWO THINKERS IT SHOULD BE APPARENT THAT ,ONERGAN AND ,EVINAS ARE INDEED GRAPPLING WITH SIMILAR PROBLEMS OF MODERNITY "OTH ,ONERGAN AND ,EVINAS lND A CONCEPTUALIST OR THEMATIZING ATTITUDE PROBLEMATIC BOTH REJECT A NAÆVE INTERPRETATION OF FREEDOM BOTH UPHOLD SOME VARIATION OF THE NOTION OF INTERSUBJECTIVITY AND BOTH REWORK THE GESTURES OF OPENNESS OUT OF THEIR RESPECTIVE RELIGIOUS TRADITIONS !ND SO AFTER HAVING BEEN IMMERSED IN THEIR THOUGHT CONSUMED BY THEIR CONCERNS AND ENTRENCHED IN THEIR DISPARATE RHETORICAL STYLES ) AM APT TO SAY THAT THEY COULD HAVE BEEN DIALOGUE PARTNERS 4HEY COULD HAVE LEARNED A GREAT DEAL FROM EACH OTHER AND THEIR PROJECTS COULD HAVE BEEN ENHANCED BY SUCH A CONVERSATION )N THIS lNAL SECTION ) EXPLORE THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF THIS DIALOGUE ) PINPOINT WHERE THE lCTIVE DIALOGUE BREAKS DOWN AND NOTE THE LIMITS OF EMPLOYING CONTEMPORARY CONTINENTAL PHILOSOPHY
-ICHELE 3ARACINO /N "EING (UMAN
IN CONSTRUCTIVE THEOLOGICAL ANTHROPOLOGY )N THE SECOND PART OF THIS SECTION ) DELINEATE THE ADVANTAGES OF PUTTING ,ONERGAN AND ,EVINAS INTO DIALOGUE WITH ONE ANOTHER )T SHOULD BECOME CLEAR THAT THEIR DIF FERENCES WHILE IMPORTANT ARE NOT DIVISIVE ENOUGH TO DESIGNATE THE WORLDVIEWS OF ,ONERGAN AND ,EVINAS AS INCOMMENSURABLE 4O BEGIN WITH THE PROBLEMS IN THIS HYPOTHETICAL DIALOGUE WE COULD ARGUE THAT THIS CONVERSATION BETWEEN ,ONERGAN AND ,EVINAS IS PATENTLY ARTIlCIAL SINCE BOTH INTERLOCUTORS ARE DECEASED )F THEY WERE STILL LIVING THE CHANCE THAT THEY WOULD HAVE CONVERSED SEEMS SLIM 4HEY LIVED AND LEARNED IN DIFFERENT WORLDS "ERNARD ,ONERGAN WAS A 2OMAN #ATHOLIC A PRIEST A *ESUIT A THEOLOGIAN %VEN THOUGH HE HAD A lRM GRASP OF EXISTENTIAL AND CONTINENTAL PHILOSOPHY HE THOUGHT AND WROTE WITHIN A #ATHOLIC MILIEU (E STRUGGLED TO BRING #ATHOLIC THEOLOGY UP TO THE LEVEL OF THE TIMES BY ATTENDING TO KNOWING OBJECTIVITY AND REALITY HISTORY CULTURE AND SOCIETY %VEN IF HIS COGNITIONAL THEORY LEADS TO A CRITICALLY DERIVED METAPHYSICS ,ONERGAN WAS NOT INTERESTED IN DIS MISSING ONTOLOGY ALTOGETHER %MMANUEL ,EVINAS ON THE OTHER HAND LIVED AND BREATHED IN ANOTHER WORLD (E WAS A *EW A PRISONER OF WAR A PHILOSOPHER A 4ALMUDIC THINKER 7E ARE WELL AWARE THAT ,EVINAS WAS FRUSTRATED WITH PHILOSOPHYS PRIVILEGING OF SUCH TERMS AS OBJECTIVITY BEING AND REALITY 4HUS HIS CONCERN WAS NOT TO RAISE PHILOSOPHY TO THE CURRENT TIMES BUT TO DEAL WITH PHILOSOPHYS INVOLVEMENT IN THE VIOLENCE AND SUFFERING ENACTED AGAINST THE MARGINALIZED IN HISTORY ,EVINAS HAD NO INTEREST IN REVIVING THE TERMS OF MODERNITY BECAUSE MODERNITY FOR ,EVINAS WAS IS AN INSTANCE OF VIOLENCE AND TOTALIZATION ! SECOND WAY IN WHICH A CONVERSATION BETWEEN ,ONERGAN AND ,EVINAS BREAKS DOWN IS RELATED TO THE TOPIC OF SUFFERING ,ONERGANS INTERPRETATION OF SUFFERING IS #HRISTOCENTRIC &ROM HIS POSITIVE IE NON METHODOLOGICAL NON COGNITIONAL THEOLOGICAL WRITINGS WE CAN GATHER THAT HIS POINT OF REFERENCE FOR PAIN AND PLEASURE IS THE #HRIST EVENT 4HE TRANSCENDENT AND TRANSFORMATIVE GRACE OF #HRIST IS HIS PRIORITY AND FOCAL POINT FOR THINKING AND BEING IN THE WORLD )N OTHER WORDS ,ONERGANS #HRISTOLOGY EVEN IF ONLY SKETCHED HERE SHAPES HIS ANTHROPOLOGY AND ETHICS ,EVINASS INTERPRETATION OF SUFFERING DIFFERS FROM THAT OF ,ONERGANS ON TWO LEVELS &IRST ,EVINAS IS HEAVILY INmUENCED
^#ONCLUSION
BY DECONSTRUCTIONIST AND POSTSTRUCTURALIST THOUGHT #ONSEQUENTLY ,EVINASS RENDERING OF SUFFERING IS SHAPED BY QUESTIONS OF OPENNESS TO DIFFERENCE RATHER THAN ANY DISPOSITION TOWARD GRACE OR DIVINE INSTINCT 3ECOND ,EVINAS DIFFERS FROM ,ONERGAN IN HIS PARTICULAR REFERENCE FOR SUFFERING THE 3HOAH !LTHOUGH ONE CANNOT EASILY ARGUE THAT ,EVINAS IS A REPRESENTATIVE *EWISH THINKER HIS CORPOREAL CONNECTION TO THE VIOLENCE OF THE 3HOAH MARKS HIS THOUGHT AS DElNITIVELY POST 3HOAH WRITING )T IS CLEAR FROM HIS WRITINGS THAT ,EVINAS INTERPRETS SUFFERING AS CONCRETE TANGIBLE EMBODIED CORPOREAL RATHER THAN LINKED TO THE TRANSCENDENT IN ANY FASHION ,EVINASS VISCERAL CONNECTION TO THE 3HOAH WHICH ENCOMPASSES HIS BIRTH AS A *EW LABORING IN CAMPS AND SURVIVING THE UNFORGETTABLE FRAMES HIS THINKING AS DEDICATED TO A SPECIlC TYPE OF SUF FERING HUMAN SUFFERING 5NDOUBTEDLY ,ONERGANS CRITICAL METAPHYSICS IS CONNECTED TO QUESTIONS OF SUFFERING NONETHELESS HIS REFERENCE POINT IS SHAPED BY THE MINISTRY DEATH AND RESURRECTION OF ONE PARTICULAR *EW RATHER THAN THE DEATH OF SIX MILLION ANONYMOUS *EWS )N SUM ,ONERGAN AND ,EVINAS APPEAR TO INTERPRET SUFFERING THROUGH DIFFERENT LENSES &OR ,ONERGAN SUFFERING IS #HRISTOCENTRIC CONSEQUENTLY ALL HUMAN SUFFERING COULD BE READ ALBEIT TANGENTIALLY IN TERMS OF THE #ROSS &ROM THIS PERSPECTIVE EVEN WITH BLOOD ON HUMAN HANDS SUF FERING IS PARADOXICALLY CONNECTED TO THE TRANSCENDENT !LTERNATIVELY WHEN READING ,EVINASS WORK ONE ENCOUNTERS A DISTINCT TWIST ON THE PARADOXICAL SITUATION OF SUFFERING !CCORDING TO ,EVINAS ALL SUFFER ING IS HUMAN DRIVEN NONETHELESS 'OD EMERGES WHEN ONE SUFFERS BY SUBSTITUTION FOR OTHERS 4HUS ,EVINASS READING OF SUFFERING UNLIKE THAT OF ,ONERGANS HAS A HUMAN CENTERED ORIENTATION ,IKE ,ONERGAN THOUGH SUFFERING THAT IS BORN IN A ,EVINASIAN RESPONSIBILITY FOR OTHERS POSSESSES A DIVINE SACRAMENTAL CHARACTER -UCH OF THE WAY ,EVINAS LINKS SUFFERING TO THE DIVINE RESULTS FROM HIS CONSISTENT REFERENCING OF THE SUFFERING SERVANT MOTIF IN )SAIAH !S ) ALREADY MENTIONED IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT THE DISTINCT WORLDVIEWS OF ,ONERGAN AND ,EVINAS ARE NEVER CONFUSED 4HE ALTERITY BETWEEN THEIR INDIVIDUAL HISTORIES AND PERSONALITIES MUST BE RESPECTED 3TILL MUCH CAN BE GAINED FROM PUTTING THEM INTO DIALOGUE &ROM THE PERSPECTIVE
$AVID &ORD STATES THAT ,EVINAS IS hTOO CONTROVERSIALv TO BE LABELED AS A QUINTESSENTIAL *EWISH THINKER
-ICHELE 3ARACINO /N "EING (UMAN
OF #ATHOLIC THEOLOGY AN ENCOUNTER WITH ,EVINASS CONTEMPORARY CON TINENTAL THOUGHT IS ADVANTAGEOUS IN A NUMBER OF WAYS !LTERNATIVELY ,EVINASS ARGUMENT COULD BE STRENGTHENED BY THE FORESIGHT OF A BROAD THINKER SUCH AS ,ONERGAN "ELOW ) OUTLINE WHAT CONTEMPORARY THEO LOGIANS COULD GAIN BY APPROPRIATING ,EVINASS THOUGHT WAYS IN WHICH ,ONERGANIAN THOUGHT COULD CONTRIBUTE TO ,EVINASIAN SCHOLARSHIP AND AREAS IN WHICH #HRISTIAN THEOLOGY IN GENERAL COULD BE STRENGTHENED BY THE DIALOGUE BETWEEN ,ONERGAN AND ,EVINAS &IRST THIS 4ALMUDIC THINKERS INTRICATE ANALYSIS OF SOCIAL RELATIONS HELPS BRING TO LIGHT THE EPHEMERAL AND POSITIONAL CHARACTER OF OTH ERNESS &OR INSTANCE THE WAY IN WHICH ,EVINAS EXPLAINS ALTERITY NOT MERELY IN TERMS OF GENDER OR RACE OR CLASS BUT IN TERMS OF DESIRE COULD FACILITATE A MORE NUANCED NOTION OF SOLIDARITY %VEN AS ,ONER GAN IS ATTENTIVE TO OTHERNESS ,EVINASS COMPLEX NOTION OF THE ETHICAL CHARACTER OF BEING THAT IS THE ALWAYS ALREADY OBLIGATORY STANCE FOR THE /THER CAN RElNE #HRISTIAN NOTIONS OF SOLIDARITY 3OLIDARITY IS THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT THAT WE ARE ALREADY CONNECTED AND RESPONSIBLE FOR OTHERS "Y INTEGRATING ,EVINASS THOUGHT INTO #HRISTIAN THEOLOGY ONE COULD ARGUE MORE STRONGLY THAT BEING HUMAN IS ABOUT BEING FOR OTHERS lRST "EING HUMAN EMERGES IN AFFECTIVE RELATIONSHIPS 7HATS MORE ,EVINASS INTERPRETATION OF RESPONSIBILITY GIFT AND FRATERNITY IS GROUNDED IN A RICH RELIGIO CULTURAL TRADITION AS WELL AS IN A HISTORY OF SUFFERING #HRISTIANS WOULD BE WISE TO ATTEND TO THEIR ENGAGEMENT OF THIS TRADITION AND HISTORY GOOD BAD OR OTHERWISE 7HILE THERE IS AN OVERWHELMING AMOUNT OF SCHOLARLY REmECTION ON IMPLICIT #HRISTIAN INVOLVEMENT IN THE 3HOAH MORE WORK NEEDS TO BE DONE ON THE DOCTRINAL LEVEL OF RECONlGURING JUSTICE AND COLLECTIVE RE SPONSIBILITY /FlCIAL #HURCH STATEMENTS INCLUDING #ATHOLICS 2EMEMBER THE (OLOCAUST ARE A BEGINNING BUT RECONCILIATORY EFFORTS NEED TO CONTINUE ) AM VERY lRM ON THIS POINT EVEN MORE SO AFTER READING *AMES #ARROLLS COMPREHENSIVE HISTORY #ONSTANTINES 3WORD 4HERE #ARROLL IDENTIlES SO MANY OF THE THEOLOGICAL AND SECULAR ISSUES SURROUNDING THE #HURCHS RELATIONSHIP TO *UDAISM AND THE 3HOAH #ATHOLICS WOULD DO WELL TO FOLLOW #ARROLLS LEAD IN THINKING THROUGH THE POLITICS OF MEMORY
^#ONCLUSION
4HIRD ,EVINASS CRITICISM OF (EIDEGGERS POLITICAL AFlLIATION OUGHT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY BY #ATHOLIC THEOLOGIANS )T IS QUESTIONABLE THAT SO MUCH #ATHOLIC INK IS SPILLED ON (EIDEGGERS PHILOSOPHY WITH LITTLE OR NO ATTENTION TO HIS QUESTIONABLE BACKGROUND ,IKE ,EVINAS ) REALIZE THE MAGNITUDE OF (EIDEGGERS PHILOSOPHICAL PROJECT AND THE DANGER OF HIS POLITICS !T THE SAME TIME ) AGREE WITH ,ONERGAN THAT PEOPLE ARE THEIR FOUNDATIONS NOT MERELY IN THEIR WORDS BUT ALSO IN THEIR DEEDS 4HEOLOGIANS NEED TO BE THOUGHTFUL ABOUT THE USE OF (EIDEGGERS PHILOSOPHY FOR CONSTRUCTIVE THEOLOGY IN THE NEW MILLENNIUM .OT EVERYTHING MOVING FORWARD IS PROGRESS ACCORDING TO ,ONERGAN )T IS IMPORTANT TO WONDER WHETHER OUR FASCINATION WITH (EIDEGGER MIGHT BE INDICATIVE OF A LACK OF CRITICAL REmECTION ON OUR DECLINE 4HE INSIGHTS OF ,EVINAS CAN STRENGTHEN #HRISTIAN DISCOURSE IN EVEN MORE WAYS 4HE WAY IN WHICH ,EVINAS LINKS THE EMBODIED SUBJECT TO THE SITE OF JUSTICE IS AN APPEALING WAY TO ADDRESS THE LEGACY OF AN INSIDIOUS MINDBODY DUALISM IN THEOLOGY -OREOVER THE MANNER BY WHICH HE PLAYS WITH CORPOREALITY IN HIS DISCUSSION OF BEING HUMAN ENLIVENS THEOLOGIANS TO BETTER DElNE THEIR INTERPRETATIONS OF THE RELATION BETWEEN BIOLOGICAL ACCIDENT SUCH AS SEX AND PIGMENT AND SPIRITUAL DESTINY &IFTH ,EVINASS CONlDENCE IN THE DEMAND OF THE /THER TO BRING ABOUT THE BEST IN THE SUBJECT IS THE MOST THAT POSTMODERN THEORY HAS TO OFFER THE THEOLOGICAL ENTERPRISE ,EVINAS NEVER DOUBTS THE INTEGRITY PARTICULARITY ABILITY AND GIFT OF THE /THER 3UCH A POSITIVE ATTITUDE TOWARD DIVERSE PERSONS AND CULTURES MIGHT FACILITATE MORE LIFE AFlRMING MISSIONARY STRATEGIES IN WHICH PEOPLE ARE NOT COLONIZED AND TOTALIZED INTO THE FAITH BUT WELCOMED AND INVITED ,ASTLY THEOLOGIANS PARTICULARLY ,ONERGAN SCHOLARS COULD BENElT FROM ,EVINASS WRITING STYLE ,EVINASS VIGILANCE TO THE CALL OF THE /THER IS PRESENT NOT ONLY IN HIS THEORY BUT ALSO IN HIS WRITING TECHNIQUE (IS LANGUAGE HAS BEEN DESCRIBED AS hEVOKINGvA TERM THAT CAPTURES ,EVINASS BEAUTIFUL BLENDING OF BIBLICAL NARRATIVE PHILOSOPHICAL QUES TION ROMANCE LANGUAGE AND PERSONAL JOURNEY $E "OER (IS EVOCATIVE STYLE OF DISCOURSE INVITES THE READER INTO A DISPOSITION OF BEING FOR THE /THER !S ,EVINASS READER ANXIOUSLY AWAITS HIS NEXT LINGUISTIC TURN SHE LEARNS WHAT IT MEANS TO WAIT FOR THE COMMAND OF
-ICHELE 3ARACINO /N "EING (UMAN
THE /THER )NDEED ,EVINASS THEORY IS PERFORMATIVE IN THE BEST NON FADDISH SENSE OF THE WORD ) CANNOT MAKE THIS POINT TOO EMPHATICALLY 3CHOLARS APPROPRIATING ,ONERGANS THOUGHT COULD LEARN FROM ,EVINASS PERFORMATIVE EVOCATIVE STYLE !RGUABLY ,ONERGANS COGNITIONAL THEORY WOULD HAVE BEEN RECEIVED MORE READILY IF HE HAD CHANGED HIS RHETORICAL STYLE !T THIS POINT IT IS UP TO THE NEXT GENERATION OF SCHOLARS TO INTERPRET ,ONERGANS WRITINGS MORE PERFORMATIVELY &OR THE CONTENT AND AIM OF ,ONERGANS WORK IS CLEARLY VALUABLE BEING HUMAN IS INEXTRICABLY CONNECTED TO THE POTENTIAL TO KNOW ACT AND LOVE FOR OTHERS 3TILL THIS CONCISE AXIOM IS BURDENED AND EVEN WORSE OBSCURED BY THE STATIC DISCOURSE THROUGH WHICH IT IS COMMUNICATED 4O OUR CURRENT POSTMODERN SENSIBILITY ,ONERGANS THEORETICAL APPROACH IS OFF PUTTING EVEN ALIENATING /BVIOUSLY THE DISCOURSE THROUGH WHICH A MESSAGE IS COMMUNICATED IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT )F THE RHETORIC THAT RELAYS THE MESSAGE IS ALIENATING THEN THE MESSAGE COULD BE MISUNDERSTOOD OR LOST ALTOGETHER 2EALIZING HOW IMPORTANT THE PROCESS OF UNDERSTANDING IS TO ,ONERGANS INTERPRETATION OF AUTHENTIC SUBJECTIVITY ) lRMLY BELIEVE THAT THE SENSUAL AND AFFECTIVE LANGUAGE IN ,EVINASS THEORY COULD HELP TO ARTICULATE NOT ONLY THE HEAD BUT ALSO THE HEART OF ,ONERGANS ANTHROPOLOGICAL SUBJECT )N A SENSE THE GOAL OF ANY SCHOLARS WORK SHOULD BE PERFORMATIVE IN THAT WHAT THEY SAY MATCHES HOW THAY SAY IT /N THE OTHER HAND IT IS NOT AS IF ,ONERGAN WOULD HAVE NOTHING TO SAY TO ,EVINASS STRAND OF CONTEMPORARY CONTINENTAL THOUGHT )NDEED IF ,EVINAS HAD ENCOUNTERED ,ONERGANS PERSON ,EVINAS WOULD HAVE BEEN CHALLENGED &IRST AND FOREMOST ,ONERGAN COULD HAVE ASKED ,EVINAS A PAINFUL YET NECESSARY QUESTION WHY ARE YOU SO ILLUSIVE ON THE QUESTIONS OF REASON AND BEING 4HIS IS A STRANGE PROBLEM TO POSE TO ,EVINAS BE CAUSE HIS ENTIRE PROJECT IS GROUNDED IN DEBUNKING THE TOTALIZING GAZE OF ONTOLOGY .ONETHELESS ) THINK THEOLOGIANS BEFORE THEY BLINDLY EMBRACE ,EVINASS THOUGHT NEED TO THINK ABOUT HIS REJECTION OF BEING )N OTHER WORDS AFTER READING ,ONERGAN ONE WONDERS WHETHER ,EVINASS EMOTIVE REACTION AGAINST THE PRIMACY OF BEING ACTUALLY NEEDED TO BE
3OME ,ONERGAN SCHOLARS HAVE EVEN COMMENTED ON THEIR INITIAL RELUCTANCE TO CON TINUE READING ,ONERGAN BECAUSE OF THE SOMEWHAT AMBIGUOUS OFF PUTTING STYLE OF WRITING 3EE #LARKS ARTICLE h"YWAY OF THE #ROSS v AS WELL AS -ILLERS ESSAY h!LL ,OVE IS 3ELF 3URRENDER v FOR MORE ON THIS PROBLEM
^#ONCLUSION
SO DRAMATIC )NDEED IN ,EVINASS WRITING OF THE ETHICAL STRUCTURE OF FOR THE /THER IS NOT BEING FOR THE /THER IMPLIED )N ADDITION TO RETHINKING HIS DISCUSSION OF ONTOLOGY ,EVINASS WORK COULD BE BETTER UTILIZED IF HE HAD EXPLAINED MORE CLEARLY THE CONNECTION BETWEEN NON BEING OR BEYOND BEING AND HUMAN AGENCY ,EVINAS DOES ATTEMPT THIS WITH HIS WORK ON THE THIRD PARTY BUT MORE NEEDS TO BE DONE /NE WONDERS HOW ,EVINAS ACCOUNTS FOR THE SUBJECTS ENACTMENT OF JUSTICE THE USE OF REASON AND THE HUMAN MOTIVE FOR GOODNESS (ERE A LARGER FRAMEWORK OR CONTEXT FOR UNDERSTANDING ,EVINASS OVERALL GOALS WOULD PROVE HELPFUL -ORE STRONGLY PUT ) THINK THAT ,EVINASS ETHICS WOULD BE IMPROVED BY ,ONERGANS METHOD -ICHAEL 0URCELL MAKES A SIMILAR CLAIM ABOUT THE NEED IN ,EVINASS THOUGHT FOR A METHOD (OW EVER 0URCELL EMPLOYS THE WORK OF 2AHNER TO EXTEND ,EVINASS CLAIMS ) THINK A MORE lTTING MATCH FOR THIS TASK IS ,ONERGAN WITH HIS RElNED STRATEGY FOR MOVING TOWARD AUTHENTIC PROGRESS AND REALIZING THE HUMAN GOOD ,ONERGAN DOES NOT CONFUSE METHOD WITH ABSTRACT IDEAS AND RULES BUT DISCERNS METHOD IN OUR OWN OPERATIONS 4HIS QUESTION LEADS US TO THE lNAL WAY IN WHICH ,ONERGANS PROJECT CAN INmUENCE FUTURE THOUGHT ON ,EVINAS 7HEREAS ,EVINASS WORK OPENS #HRISTIAN THEOLOGY TO MANY IMPORTANT QUESTIONS HE NEVER RE ALLY ANSWERS ANY OF THEM (E NEITHER HAS A WELL DElNED METHOD NOR A STRUCTURED ANTHROPOLOGY ,EVINAS DESCRIBES THE LIMITS AND ISSUES SURROUNDING ANTHROPOLOGY YET NEVER CONSTRUCTIVELY ENVISIONS ONE )N THIS RESPECT ,ONERGANS ANTHROPOLOGY OF THE AUTHENTIC SUBJECT PROVIDES ,EVINAS WITH THE STRUCTURE HE NEEDS TO MOVE FORWARD IN HIS EFFORTS AT JUSTICE AND SOLIDARITY 4O BE SURE ,EVINASS WRITINGS ARE EVOCATIVE BUT ,ONERGANS THOUGHTS ARE CONSTRUCTIVE )N ORDER TO DEVELOP #HRISTIAN COMMUNITY BOTH QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS DECONSTRUCTION AND CONSTRUC TION ARE NECESSARY ,EVINASS WEAKNESSES IN TERMS OF HIS AMBIGUOUS NOTIONS OF FREEDOM AGENCY AND JUSTICE AND HIS LACK OF METHOD ARE INDICATIVE OF HIS DESCRIPTIVE RATHER THAN EXPLANATORY ANTHROPOLOGY )N OTHER WORDS WHERE ,EVINAS DESCRIBES THE PROBLEMS IN 7ESTERN PHILO SOPHICAL ANTHROPOLOGY IN RELATION TO BOTH THE BIBLICAL MILIEU AND HIS OWN EXPERIENCE ,ONERGAN ATTEMPTS TO EXPLAIN WHAT IT MEANS TO BE HUMAN IN RELATION TO OTHER HUMANS "EING HUMAN MEANS DEVELOPING AND ENGAGING THE POTENTIAL TO EXPERIENCE UNDERSTAND JUDGE ACT AND
-ICHELE 3ARACINO ,ONERGAN AND ,EVINAS
LOVE IN THE FACE OF OTHERS "OTH BEING VIGILANT TO AND ACTIVELY ACCOUNT ABLE FOR THE /THER IS SIGNIlCANT FOR HUMANITY TO mOURISH 7RAPPING UP ANY RESEARCH PROJECT IS DIFlCULT ESPECIALLY ON TWO THINK ERS AS PROLIlC AS ,ONERGAN AND ,EVINAS .EW QUESTIONS AND INSIGHTS CONTINUE TO EMERGE 3TILL SOME FACTORS CAN BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDER ATION WHEN CONSCTUCTING THEOLOGY IN THIS NEW MILLENNIUM &IRST AND FOREMOST OTHERNESS IN OUR DIVERSE GLOBAL CONTEXT IS A REALITY 'IVEN THE DESTRUCTIVE WAYS OF DEALING WITH OTHERNESS IN THE PAST THEOLOGIANS NEED TO REFRAME THE NOTION OF DIFFERENCE POSITIVELY IN ORDER TO AVOID THE SAME MISTAKES ,ONERGAN AND ,EVINAS CAN HELP WITH THE PROJECT OF REFRAMING OTHERNESS QUITE IRONICALLY BY USING TRADITIONAL RELIGIOUS AND PHILOSOPHICAL TERMS -OREOVER OTHERNESS IS RELATED TO QUESTIONS OF BODY GENDER AND RACE 7HILE THESE TOPICS WERE NOT FULLY EXPLORED HERE WE CANNOT IGNORE THE EXPERIENTIAL AFFECTIVE AND INCARNATE CHAR ACTER OF BEING IN RELATION TO OTHERS ,EVINASS USE OF GENDERED SENSUAL LANGUAGE OVERDETERMINES THE CONCRETE EMBODIED CHARACTER OF BEING HUMAN WHILE ,ONERGANS DISCUSSION OF THE PATTERNS OF EXPERIENCE EMPHASIZES THE CORPOREAL NATURE OF BEING HUMAN 4HEOLOGY IN THE ST CENTURY WOULD BE WISE THEN TO ADDRESS #HRISTIAN ANTHROPOLOGY BY WAY OF FEELINGS SENSUALITY AND ALTERITY 0HENOMENOLOGY FEMINIST THEORY AND CRITICAL RACE THEORY CAN ASSIST IN THIS PURSUIT )N ADDITION THE DISCUSSION OF BEING NEEDS TO BE FURTHER EXPLORED EVEN IF CRITICALLY 3TILL ONTOLOGICAL DEBATE MIGHT BE BETTER RECEIVED IN AESTHETIC RHETORIC RATHER THAN IN SCHOLASTIC LANGUAGE FOR PERFORMATIVE LANGUAGE IS NOT FADDISH BUT SUITS THE SENSIBILITY OF OUR TIMES 4HIS SHIFT IN LANGUAGE SHOULD NOT IGNORE THE CONSISTENT NEED FOR THEOLOGICAL METHOD AND MORAL JUDGMENT AND DECISION 4OO OFTEN CONTEMPORARY CONTINENTAL THOUGHT SEEMS TO AVOID THE PROBLEM OF RELATIVISM &INALLY IN ORDER FOR #HRISTIAN THEOLOGY IN THE NEW MILLENNIUM TO ENGAGE THE CONCERNS OF PEOPLE FROM CULTURALLY DIVERSE BACKGROUNDS INTER RELIGIOUS AND INTERDISCIPLINARY PROJECTS SUCH AS THIS ONE NEED TO BE PURSUED &OR AS STATED FROM THE BEGINNING NO SINGLE DISCOURSE CAN CAPTURE THE CHAL LENGES AND TRIUMPHS OF BEING HUMAN TODAY
"IBLIOGRAPHY
"IBLIOGRAPHY 4EXTS BY %MMANUEL ,EVINAS ,EVINAS %MMANUEL 4OTALITY AND )NlNITY !N %SSAY ON %XTERIORITY 4RANSLATED BY !LPHONSO ,INGIS 0ITTSBURGH $UQUESNE 5NIVERSITY 0RESS ?????? (UMANISME DE LAUTRE HOMME &ATA -ORGANA ?????? 4HE 4HEORY OF )NTUITION IN (USSERLS 0HENOMENOLOGY 4RANSLATED BY !NDR£ /RIANNE %VANSTON ), .ORTHWESTERN 5NIVERSITY 0RESS ?????? %XISTENCE AND %XISTENTS 4RANSLATED BY !LPHONSO ,INGIS 4HE .ETHER LANDS -ARTINUS .IJHOFF ?????? %THICS AND )NlNITY #ONVERSATIONS WITH 0HILIPPE .EMO 4RANSLATED BY 2ICHARD #OHEN 0ITTSBURGH $UQUESNE 5NIVERSITY 0RESS ?????? h4HE 4RACE OF THE /THERv )N $ECONSTRUCTION IN #ONTEXT ,ITERATURE AND 0HILOSOPHY EDITED BY -ARK # 4AYLOR #HICAGO 5NIVERSITY OF #HICAGO 0RESS ?????? 4IME AND THE /THER ;AND ADDITIONAL ESSAYS= 4RANSLATED AND INTRODUCTION BY 2ICHARD ! #OHEN 0ITTSBURGH $UQUESNE 5NIVERSITY 0RESS ?????? 4HE ,EVINAS 2EADER %DITED BY 3EÕN (AND #AMBRIDGE -! "ASIL "LACKWELL ?????? $IFlCULT &REEDOM %SSAYS ON *UDAISM 4RANSLATED BY 3EÕN (AND ,ONDON 4HE !THLONE 0RESS ?????? /UTSIDE THE 3UBJECT 4RANSLATED BY -ICHAEL " 3MITH ,ONDON !THLONE ?????? "ASIC 0HILOSOPHICAL 7RITINGS %DITED BY !DRIAAN 4 0EPERZAK 3IMON #RITCHLEY AND 2OBERT "ERNASCONI )NDIANAPOLIS )NDIANA 5NIVERSITY 0RESS ?????? A #OLLECTED 0HILOSOPHICAL 0APERS 4RANSLATED BY !LPHONSO ,INGIS 0ITTS BURGH 0! $UQUESNE 5NIVERSITY 0RESS ?????? B $ISCOVERING %XISTENCE WITH (USSERL 4RANSLATED BY 2ICHARD ! #OHEN AND -ICHAEL " 3MITH %VANSTON )LLINOIS .ORTHWESTERN 5NIVERSITY 0RESS ?????? C %NTRE .OUS /N 4HINKING OF THE /THER 4RANSLATED BY "ARBARA (ARSHAV AND -ICHAEL " 3MITH .EW 9ORK #OLUMBIA 5NIVERSITY 0RESS ?????? D /F 'OD 7HO #OMES TO -IND 4RANSLATED BY "ETTINA "ERGO 3TANFORD #! 3TANFORD 5NIVERSITY 0RESS ?????? E /THERWISE 4HAN "EING OR "EYOND %SSENCE 4RANSLATED AND INTRODUCTION BY !LPHONSO ,INGIS 0ITTSBURGH $UQUESNE 5NIVERSITY 0RESS ?????? !LTERITY AND 4RANSCENDENCE 4RANSLATED BY -ICHAEL " 3MITH .EW 9ORK #OLUMBIA 5NIVERSITY 0RESS
-ICHELE 3ARACINO ,ONERGAN AND ,EVINAS
4EXTS BY "ERNARD ,ONERGAN ,ONERGAN "ERNARD *& !N %SSAY IN &UNDAMENTAL 3OCIOLOGY 4ORONTO ,ONERGAN 2ESEARCH )NSTITUTE UNPUBLISHED MANUSCRIPT ?????? ,ECTURE .OTES ON %XISTENTIALISM "OSTON 4HOMAS -ORE )NSTITUTE ?????? h4HE -YSTICAL "ODY OF #HRISTv ! $OMESTIC %XHORTATION AT 2EGIS #OLLEGE 4ORONTO .OVEMBER -IMEOGRAPHED EDITION 4ORONTO 2EGIS #OL LEGE ?????? 4HE 3UBJECT -ILWAUKEE 7) 5NIVERSITY 0RESS ?????? A $OCTRINAL 0LURALISM -ILWAUKEE 7) -ARQUETTE 5NIVERSITY 0RESS ?????? B 'RACE AND &REEDOM /PERATIVE 'RACE IN THE 4HOUGHT OF 3T 4HOMAS !QUINAS %DITED BY * 0ATOUT "URNS 3* )NTRODUCTION BY &REDERICK #ROWE .EW 9ORK (ERDER AND (ERDER ?????? C -ETHOD IN 4HEOLOGY 4ORONTO 5NIVERSITY OF 4ORONTO 0RESS ?????? 0HILOSOPHY OF 'OD AND 4HEOLOGY 4HE 2ELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE 0HILOSOPHY OF 'OD AND THE &UNCTIONAL 3PECIALTY 3YSTEMATICS ,ONDON $ARTON ?????? ! 4HIRD #OLLECTION 0APERS BY "ERNARD * & ,ONERGAN 3* %DITED BY &REDERICK % #ROWE -AHWAH .* 0AULIST 0RESS ?????? #OLLECTED 7ORKS OF "ERNARD ,ONERGAN %DITED BY &REDERICK % #ROWE AND 2OBERT $ORAN 6OL #OLLECTION 4ORONTO 5NIVERSITY OF 4ORONTO 0RESS ?????? #OLLECTED 7ORKS OF "ERNARD ,ONERGAN %DITED BY %LIZABETH ! -ORELLI AND -ARK $ -ORELLI 6OL 5NDERSTANDING AND "EING 4HE (ALIFAX ,ECTURES ON ).3)'(4 4ORONTO 5NIVERSITY OF 4ORONTO 0RESS ?????? h0!.4ß. !.!+%0(!,!)ß3)3 4HE 2ESTORATION OF !LL 4HINGS v PREFACE BY &REDERICK % #ROWE AND 2OBERT - $ORAN -ETHOD *OURNAL OF ,ONERGAN 3TUDIES NO ?????? #OLLECTED 7ORKS OF "ERNARD ,ONERGAN %DITED BY &REDERICK % #ROWE AND 2OBERT $ORAN 6OL 4OPICS IN %DUCATION 4ORONTO 5NIVERSITY OF 4ORONTO 0RESS ??????? A #OLLECTED 7ORKS OF "ERNARD ,ONERGAN %DITED BY 2OBERT # #ROKEN &REDERICK % #ROWE AND 2OBERT $ORAN 6OL 0HILOSOPHICAL AND 4HEOLOGICAL 0APERS 4ORONTO 5NIVERSITY OF 4ORONTO 0RESS ?????? B ! 3ECOND #OLLECTION 0APERS BY "ERNARD * & ,ONERGAN 3* %DITED BY 7ILLIAM & * 2YAN 3* AND "ERNARD * 4YRRELL 3* 4ORONTO 5NIVERSITY OF 4ORONTO 0RESS ?????? #OLLECTED 7ORKS OF "ERNARD ,ONERGAN %DITED BY &REDERICK % #ROWE AND 2OBERT $ORAN 6OL )NSIGHT ! 3TUDY OF (UMAN 5NDERSTANDING 4ORONTO 5NIVERSITY OF 4ORONTO 0RESS ?????? ND 4HE )NCARNATE 7ORD 3UPPLEMENT "OSTON 4HE ,ONERGAN #ENTER TYPESCRIPT
"IBLIOGRAPHY
3ECONDARY 4EXTS !BRAMS -( ! 'LOSSARY OF ,ITERARY 4ERMS 3IXTH EDITION &ORT 7ORTH 48 (ARCOURT "RACE #OLLEGE 0UBLISHERS !DAMS (AZARD ED #RITICAL 4HEORY SINCE 0LATO 2EVISED EDITION /RLANDO &, (ARCOURT "RACE *OVANOVICH )NC !NDERSON 6ICTOR "EYOND /NTOLOGICAL "LACKNESS !N %SSAY ON !FRICAN !MERICAN 2ELIGIOUS AND #ULTURAL #RITICISM .EW 9ORK #ONTINUUM !NDERSON 7ALTER 4RUETT 4HE &UTURE OF THE 3ELF %XPLORING THE 0OST )DENTITY 3OCIETY .EW 9ORK 4ARCHER0UTNAM !RISTOTLE 4HE "ASIC 7ORKS OF !RISTOTLE %DITED AND INTRODUCTION BY 2ICHARD -C+EON .EW 9ORK 2ANDOM (OUSE )NC "ARRAL -ARY 2OSE 4HE "ODY IN )NTERPERSONAL 2ELATIONS -ERLEAU 0ONTY ,ANHAM -$ 5NIVERSITY 0RESS OF !MERICA "AUDRILLARD *EAN 4HE 0ERFECT #RIME 4RANSLATED BY #HRIS 4URNER .EW 9ORK 6ERSO "EAUVOIR 3IMONE DE 4HE 3ECOND 3EX %DITED AND TRANSLATED BY (- 0ARSHLEY .EW 9ORK !LFRED +NOPF "EAVERS !NTHONY & ,EVINAS "EYOND THE (ORIZONS OF #ARTESIANISM !N )NQUIRY INTO THE -ETAPHYSICS OF -ORALS .EW 9ORK 0 ,ANG "ERGER *OHN 7AYS OF 3EEING ,ONDON ""# AND 0ENGUIN "OOKS "ERNASCONI 2OBERT AND $AVID 7OOD EDS 4HE 0ROVOCATION OF ,EVINAS 2ETHINK ING THE /THER .EW 9ORK 2OUTLEDGE "ORDO 3USAN 4HE &LIGHT TO /BJECTIVITY %SSAYS ON #ARTESIANISM AND #ULTURE !LBANY .9 35.9 0RESS ?????? 5NBEARABLE 7EIGHT &EMINISM 7ESTERN #ULTURE AND THE "ODY "ERKE LEY 5NIVERSITY OF #ALIFORNIA 0RESS "RAMAN "RIAN * h-UTILATING $ESIRE ,ONERGAN AND .USSBAUM ! $IALECTIC %NCOUNTERv -ETHOD *OURNAL OF ,ONERGAN 3TUDIES NO "ROWN *AMES 3UBJECT AND /BJECT IN -ODERN 4HEOLOGY ,ONDON 3#- 0RESS ,TD "UBER -ARTIN 4HE 7RITINGS OF -ARTIN "UBER %DITED AND INTRODUCTION BY 7ILL (ERBERG .EW 9ORK -ERIDIAN "OOKS "URGGRAEVE 2OGER %MMANUEL ,EVINAS 4HE %THICAL "ASIS FOR A (UMAN 3OCIETY ,EU VEN #ENTER &OR -ETAPHYSICS AND 0HILOSOPHY OF 'OD )NSTITUTE OF 0HILOSOPHY "UTLER *UDITH 'ENDER 4ROUBLE &EMINISM AND THE 3UBVERSION OF )DENTITY .EW 9ORK 2OUTLEDGE "YRNE 0ATRICK h4HE &ABRIC OF ,ONERGANS 4HOUGHTv )N ,ONERGAN 7ORKSHOP VOL EDITED BY &REDERICK ,AWRENCE "OSTON "OSTON #OLLEGE #ADY ,INELL %LIZABETH h)DENTITY &EMINIST 4HEORY AND 4HEOLOGYv )N (ORIZONS IN &EMINIST 4HEOLOGY )DENTITY 4RADITION AND .ORMS EDITED BY 2EBECCA 3 #HOPP AND 3HEILA 'REEVE $AVANEY -INNEAPOLIS -. &ORTRESS 0RESS #AHILL ,ISA 3OWLE 3EX 'ENDER AND #HRISTIAN %THICS #AMBRIDGE #AMBRIDGE 5NIVERSITY 0RESS #ARROLL *AMES #ONSTANTINES 3WORD 4HE #HURCH AND THE *EWS .EW 9ORK (OUGHTON -IFmIN #OMPANY
-ICHELE 3ARACINO ,ONERGAN AND ,EVINAS
#ATHOLICS 2EMEMBER THE (OLOCAUST 3ECRETARIAT FOR %CUMENICAL AND )NTERRELIGIOUS !FFAIRS .ATIONAL #ONFERENCE OF #ATHOLIC "ISHOPS 7ASHINGTON $# 5NITED 3TATES #ATHOLIC #ONFERENCE #ENKNER 7ILLIAM ED 4HE -ULTICULTURAL #HURCH 4HE .EW ,ANDSCAPE IN 53 4HEOLOGIES -AHWAH .* 0AULIST 0RESS #HALIER #ATHERINE &IGURES DU &EMININ ,ECTURE D%MMANUEL ,EVINAS 0ARIS ,A .UIT 3URVEILLEE ?????? h%THICS AND THE &EMININEv )N 2E 2EADING ,EVINAS EDITED BY 2OBERT "ERNASCONI AND 3IMON #RITCHLEY "LOOMINGTON )NDIANA 5NIVERSITY 0RESS #HANDLER *AMES !RNOLD ) $AVIDSON AND (ARRY (AROOTUNIAN EDS 1UESTIONS OF %VIDENCE 0ROOF 0RACTICE AND 0ERSUASION !CROSS THE $ISCIPLINES #HICAGO 5NIVERSITY OF #HICAGO 0RESS #HANTER 4INA h2EADING (EGEL AS A -EDIATING -ASTERv )N ,EVINAS AND ,ACAN 4HE -ISSED %NCOUNTER EDITED BY 3ARAH (ARASYM !LBANY .9 35.9 0RESS #HAUVET ,OUIS -ARIE h%DITORIAL ,ITURGY AND THE "ODYv )N #ONCILIUM ,IT URGY AND THE "ODY VOL EDITED BY ,OUIS -ARIE #HAUVET AND &RAN½OIS +ABASELE ,UMBALA -ARYKNOLL .EW 9ORK /RBIS "OOKS #LARK 2 -ICHAEL h"YWAY OF THE #ROSS 4HE %ARLY ,ONERGAN AND 0OLITICAL /RDERv )N ,ONERGAN 7ORKSHOP VOL EDITED BY &REDERICK ,AWRENCE "OSTON "OSTON #OLLEGE #OHEN !RTHUR ! ! 4REMENDUM ! 4HEOLOGICAL )NTERPRETATION OF THE (OLOCAUST &OREWORD BY $AVID 4RACY .EW 9ORK #ROSSROAD #ONN 7ALTER h4HE $ESIRE FOR !UTHENTICITY #ONSCIENCE AND -ORAL #ON VERSIONv )N 4HE $ESIRES OF THE (UMAN (EART EDITED BY 6ERNON 'REGSON -AHWAH .* 0AULIST 0RESS #OPELAND - 3HAWN h! 'ENETIC 3TUDY OF THE )DEA OF THE (UMAN 'OOD IN THE 4HOUGHT OF "ERNARD ,ONERGANv 0H$ DISS "OSTON #OLLEGE ?????? -EMORY %MANCIPATION AND (OPE 0OLITICAL 4HEOLOGY IN THE @,AND OF THE &REE 4HE 3ANTA #LARA ,ECTURES VOL NO ?????? h4HE .EW !NTHROPOLOGICAL 3UBJECT AT THE (EART OF THE -YSTICAL "ODY OF #HRISTv )N 0ROCEEDINGS OF THE &IFTY 4HIRD !NNUAL #ONVENTION #ATHOLIC 4HEOLOGICAL 3OCIETY OF !MERICA ?????? A h#OLLEGIALITY AS A -ORAL AND %THICAL 0RACTICEv )N 0RACTICE 7HAT 9OU 0REACH 6IRTUES %THICS AND 0OWER IN THE ,IVES OF 0ASTORAL -INISTERS AND 4HEIR #ONGREGATIONS EDITED BY *AMES & +EENAN 3* AND *OSEPH +OTVA *R &RANKLIN 7) 3HEED 7ARD ?????? B h0OLITICAL #ORRECTNESS AND THE ,IFE OF THE -INDv 0ERSPECTIVES 4HE *OURNAL OF THE !SSOCIATION FOR 'ENERAL AND ,IBERAL 3TUDIES NO #RITCHLEY 3IMON 4HE %THICS OF $ECONSTRUCTION $ERRIDA AND ,EVINAS /XFORD "LACKWELL 0UBLISHERS #RITCHLEY 3IMON AND 0ETER $EWS EDS $ECONSTRUCTIVE 3UBJECTIVITIES !LBANY .9 35.9 0RESS #ROWE &REDERICK % 3* ,ONERGAN #OLLEGEVILLE -. ,ITURGICAL 0RESS #RYSDALE #YNTHIA 37 ED ,ONERGAN AND &EMINISM 4ORONTO 5NIVERSITY OF 4ORONTO 0RESS #RÓSEMANN &RANK h@9OU +NOW THE (EART OF A 3TRANGER %XODUS ! 2ECOLLECTION OF 4ORAH IN THE &ACE OF .EW .ATIONALISM AND 8ENOPHOBIAv )N
"IBLIOGRAPHY
#ONCILIUM -IGRANTS AND 2EFUGEES VOL EDITED BY ,ISA 3OWLE #AHILL AND $IETMAR -IETH ,ONDON 3#- 0RESS $ALLERY !RLEEN h4HE 0OLITICS OF 7RITING THE "ODY CRITURE &£MININEv )N 4HEORIZING &EMINISM 0ARALLEL 4RENDS IN THE (UMANITIES AND 3OCIAL 3CIENCES EDITED BY !NNE # (ERMANN AND !BIGAIL * 3TEWART 3AN &RANCISCO 7ESTVIEW 0RESS )NC $EAN *ODI 3OLIDARITY OF 3TRANGERS &EMINISM AFTER )DENTITY 0OLITICS "ERKELEY 5NIVERSITY OF #ALIFORNIA 0RESS $E "OER 4HEODORE 4HE 2ATIONALITY OF 4RANSCENDENCE 3TUDIES IN THE 0HILOSOPHY OF %MMANUEL ,EVINAS !MSTERDAM 'IEBEN $ERRIDA *ACQUES 7RITING AND $IFFERENCE 4RANSLATED AND INTRODUCTION BY !LAN "ASS #HICAGO 5NIVERSITY OF #HICAGO 0RESS ?????? 'IVEN 4IME ) #OUNTERFEIT -ONEY 4RANSLATED BY 0EGGY +AMUF #HI CAGO 5NIVERSITY OF #HICAGO 0RESS ?????? 3PECTERS OF -ARX 4HE 3TATE OF THE $EBT 4HE 7ORK OF -OURNING AND 4HE .EW )NTERNATIONAL 4RANSLATED BY 0EGGY +AMUF )NTRODUCTION BY "ERND -AGNUS AND 3TEPHEN #ULLENBERG .EW 9ORK 2OUTLEDGE ?????? $ECONSTRUCTION IN A .UTSHELL ! #ONVERSATION WITH *ACQUES $ERRIDA %DITED WITH COMMENTARY BY *OHN $ #APUTO .EW 9ORK &ORDHAM 5NIVERSITY 0RESS $EWS 0ETER ,OGICS OF $ISINTEGRATION 0OST 3TRUCTURALIST 4HOUGHT AND THE #LAIMS OF #RITICAL 4HEORY .EW 9ORK 6ERSO $ORAN 2OBERT - 3* 3UBJECT AND 0SYCHE 3ECOND EDITION -ILWAUKEE -AR QUETTE 5NIVERSITY 0RESS %NCYCLOPEDIA OF 0SYCHOLOGY 6OL 3ECOND EDITION .EW 9ORK *OHN 7ILEY 3ONS &ANON &RANTZ "LACK 3KIN 7HITE -ASKS 4RANSLATED BY #HARLES ,AM -ARKMANN .EW 9ORK 'ROVE 0RESS )NC &LANAGAN *OSEPH 3* h7HERE THE ,ATE ,ONERGAN -EETS THE %ARLY (EIDEGGERv )N ,ONERGAN 7ORKSHOP VOL EDITED BY &REDERICK ,AWRENCE "OSTON "OSTON #OLLEGE ?????? 1UEST FOR 3ELF +NOWLEDGE !N %SSAY IN ,ONERGANS 0HILOSOPHY 4ORONTO 5NIVERSITY OF 4ORONTO 0RESS &ODOR *ERRY ! 4HE -ODULARITY OF -IND !N %SSAY ON &ACULTY 0SYCHOLOGY #AM BRIDGE -! -)4 0RESS &ORD $AVID % 3ELF AND 3ALVATION "EING 4RANSFORMED #AMBRIDGE #AMBRIDGE 5NIVERSITY 0RESS &OSTER (AL ED 6ISION AND 6ISUALITY 3EATTLE "AY 0RESS &ULKERSON -ARY -C#LINTOCK #HANGING THE 3UBJECT 7OMENS $ISCOURSES AND &EMINIST 4HEOLOGY -INNEAPOLIS &ORTRESS 0RESS &URMAN &RIDA +ERNER &ACING THE -IRROR /LDER 7OMEN AND "EAUTY 3HOP #ULTURE .EW 9ORK 2OUTLEDGE 'ALLOP *ANE 4HINKING 4HROUGH THE "ODY .EW 9ORK #OLUMBIA 5NIVERSITY 0RESS 'OLDBERG $AVID 4HEO 2ACIAL 3UBJECTS 7RITING ON 2ACE IN !MERICA .EW 9ORK 2OUTLEDGE 'OPNIK !DAM h%NDGAMEv 4HE .EW 9ORKER *ULY 'ORDON ,EWIS 2 ED %XISTENCE IN "LACK !N !NTHOLOGY OF "LACK %XISTENTIAL 0HILOSOPHY .EW 9ORK 2OUTLEDGE
-ICHELE 3ARACINO ,ONERGAN AND ,EVINAS
(APPEL 3TEPHEN h4HE 3ACRAMENTS 3YMBOLS 4HAT 2EDIRECT /UR ,IVESv )N 4HE $ESIRES OF THE (UMAN (EART !N )NTRODUCTION TO THE 4HEOLOGY OF "ERNARD ,ONERGAN EDITED BY 6ERNON 'REGSON -AHWAH .* 0AULIST 0RESS (ARASYM 3ARAH ED ,EVINAS AND ,ACAN 4HE -ISSED %NCOUNTER !LBANY .9 35.9 0RESS (ART +EVIN 4HE 4RESPASS OF THE 3IGN $ECONSTRUCTION 4HEOLOGY AND 0HILOSOPHY #AMBRIDGE #AMBRIDGE 5NIVERSITY 0RESS (EmING #HARLES # *R h! 0ERHAPS 0ERMANENTLY 6ALID !CHIEVEMENT ,ONERGAN ON #HRISTS 3ATISFACTIONv -ETHOD *OURNAL OF ,ONERGAN 3TUDIES NO ?????? h'RACE 2EDEMPTION ,ONERGAN )N 4HAT /RDER v )N ,ONERGAN 7ORK SHOP VOL EDITED BY &REDERICK ,AWRENCE "OSTON "OSTON #OLLEGE (EIDEGGER -ARTIN "EING IN 4IME 4RANSLATED BY *OHN -ACQUARRIE AND %DWARD 2OBINSON .EW 9ORK (ARPER 2OW 0UBLISHERS (OMER 4HE /DYSSEY 4RANSLATED BY 2OBERT &AGLES )NTRODUCTION AND NOTES BY "ERNARD +NOX .EW 9ORK 6IKING 0RESS HOOKS BELL "LACK ,OOKS 2ACE AND 2EPRESENTATION "OSTON -! 3OUTH %ND 0RESS (OOVER ! * &RIEDRICH .IETZSCHE (IS ,IFE AND 4HOUGHT 7ESTPORT #4 0RAE GER (ORKHEIMER -AX AND 4HEODOR 7 !DORNO $IALECTIC OF %NLIGHTENMENT 4RANS LATED BY *OHN #UMMING .EW 9ORK #ONTINUUM (USSERL %DMUND 4HE 0HENOMENOLOGY OF )NTERNAL 4IME #ONSCIOUSNESS %DITED BY -ARTIN (EIDEGGER 4RANSLATED BY *AMES 3 #HURCHILL )NTRODUCTION BY #ALVIN / 3CHRAG "LOOMINGTON )NDIANA 5NIVERSITY 0RESS ?????? 4HE #RISIS OF %UROPEAN 3CIENCES AND 4RANSCENDENTAL 0HENOMENOLOGY !N )NTRODUCTION TO 0HENOMENOLOGICAL 0HILOSOPHY 4RANSLATED AND INTRODUCTION BY $AVID #ARR %VANSTON ), .ORTHWESTERN 5NIVERSITY 0RESS (UTCHEON ,INDA 4HE 0OETICS OF 0OSTMODERNISM (ISTORY 4HEORY &ICTION ,ON DON 2OUTLEDGE ?????? 4HE 0OLITICS OF 0OSTMODERNISM ,ONDON 2OUTLEDGE )RIGARAY ,UCE 4HE 3EX 7HICH )S .OT /NE 4RANSLATED BY #ATHERINE 0ORTER WITH #AROLYN "URKE )THACA #ORNELL 5NIVERSITY 0RESS ?????? h4HE &ECUNDITY OF THE #ARESSv )N &ACE TO &ACE WITH ,EVINAS EDITED BY 2ICHARD #OHEN !LBANY 35.9 0RESS ?????? !N %THICS OF 3EXUAL $IFFERENCE 4RANSLATED BY #AROLYN "URKE AND 'IL LIAN # 'ILL )THACA #ORNELL 5NIVERSITY 0RESS ?????? 3PECULUM OF THE /THER 7OMAN 4RANSLATED BY 'ILLIAN # 'ILL )THACA #ORNELL 5NIVERSITY 0RESS 4HE *EWISH %NCYCLOPEDIA 6OL .EW 9ORK +4!6 0UBLISHING (OUSE )NC +ANARIS *IM h%NGAGED !GENCY AND THE .OTION OF THE 3UBJECTv -ETHOD *OURNAL OF ,ONERGAN 3TUDIES NO ?????? h#ALCULATING 3UBJECTS ,ONERGAN $ERRIDA AND &OUCAULTv -ETHOD *OURNAL OF ,ONERGAN 3TUDIES NO +ANT )MMANUEL #RITIQUE OF 0URE 2EASON 4RANSLATED AND EDITED BY 0AUL 'UYER AND !LLEN 7 7OOD #AMBRIDGE #AMBRIDGE 5NIVERSITY 0RESS +EARNEY 2ICHARD ED 4WENTIETH #ENTURY #ONTINENTAL 0HILOSOPHY ,ONDON 2OUTLEDGE
"IBLIOGRAPHY
+EENAN 4HOMAS h$ECONSTRUCTION AND *USTICEv )N #RITICAL %NCOUNTERS 2EFERENCE AND 2ESPONSIBILITY IN $ECONSTRUCTIVE 7RITING EDITED BY #ATHY #ARUTH AND $EBORAH %SCH .EW "RUNSWICK .* 2UTGERS 5NIVERSITY 0RESS +IM #7 -AGGIE 3USAN - 3T6ILLE AND 3USAN - 3IMONAITIS EDS 4RANS lGURATIONS 4HEOLOGY AND THE &RENCH &EMINISTS -INNEAPOLIS &ORTRESS 0RESS ,ACAN *ACQUES CRITS ! 3ELECTION 4RANSLATED BY !LAN 3HERIDAN .EW 9ORK 77 .ORTON #O ,A &LEUR 7ILLIAM 2 h"ODYv )N #RITICAL 4ERMS FOR 2ELIGIOUS 3TUDIES EDITED BY -ARK # 4AYLOR #HICAGO 5NIVERSITY OF #HICAGO 0RESS ,AKELAND 0AUL 0OSTMODERNITY #HRISTIAN )DENTITY IN A &RAGMENTED !GE -IN NEAPOLIS -. &ORTRESS 0RESS ,AMB -ATTHEW , 3OLIDARITY WITH 6ICTIMS 4OWARD A 4HEOLOGY OF 3OCIAL 4RANS FORMATION .EW 9ORK #ROSSROAD ?????? h4HE 3OCIAL AND 0OLITICAL $IMENSIONS OF ,ONERGANS 4HEOLOGYv )N 4HE $ESIRES OF THE (UMAN (EART !N )NTRODUCTION TO THE 4HEOLOGY OF "ERNARD ,ONERGAN EDITED BY 6ERNON 'REGSON -AHWAH .* 0AULIST 0RESS ?????? h4HE .OTION OF THE 4RANSCULTURAL IN "ERNARD ,ONERGANS 4HEOLOGYv -ETHOD *OURNAL OF ,ONERGAN 3TUDIES NO ?????? h!N !NALOGY FOR THE $IVINE 3ELF 'IFTv )N ,ONERGAN 7ORKSHOP VOL EDITED BY &REDERICK ,AWRENCE "OSTON "OSTON #OLLEGE ,ANG "EREL (EIDEGGERS 3ILENCE )THACA #ORNELL 5NIVERSITY 0RESS ,ANGER -ONIKA - -ERLEAU 0ONTYS 0HENOMENOLOGY OF 0ERCEPTION ! 'UIDE AND #OMMENTARY 4ALLAHASSEE &, 4HE &LORIDA 3TATE 5NIVERSITY 0RESS ,AWRENCE &REDERICK ED #OMMUNICATING A $ANGEROUS -EMORY 3OUNDINGS IN 0OLITICAL 4HEOLOGY "OSTON "OSTON #OLLEGE ?????? h4HE &RAGILITY OF #ONSCIOUSNESS ,ONERGAN AND THE 0OSTMODERN #ONCERN FOR THE /THERv 4HEOLOGICAL 3TUDIES ?????? h,ONERGANS &OUNDATIONS FOR #ONSTITUTIVE #OMMUNICATIONv )N ,ONER GAN 7ORKSHOP VOL EDITED BY &REDERICK ,AWRENCE "OSTON "OSTON #OLLEGE ?????? h4HE 3UBJECT AS /THER ,ONERGAN AND 0OSTMODERN #ONCERNSv )N 0ROCEEDINGS OF THE &IFTY 4HIRD !NNUAL #ONVENTION #ATHOLIC 4HEOLOGICAL 3OCIETY OF !MERICA ?????? ND h4HEOLOGY AND THE 0ROBLEMATIC OF %XPERIENCEv 4YPESCRIPT ,EVIN $AVID -ICHAEL ED -ODERNITY AND THE (EGEMONY OF 6ISION "ERKELEY #! 5NIVERSITY OF #ALIFORNIA 0RESS ,IFTON 2OBERT * 4HE 0ROTEAN 3ELF (UMAN 2ESILIENCE IN AN !GE OF &RAGMENTATION .EW 9ORK "ASIC "OOKS ,INGIS !LPHONSO $EATHBOUND 3UBJECTIVITY )NDIANAPOLIS )NDIANA 5NIVERSITY 0RESS ?????? A 4HE #OMMUNITY OF 4HOSE 7HO (AVE .OTHING IN #OMMON "LOOM INGTON )NDIANA 5NIVERSITY 0RESS ?????? B &OREIGN "ODIES .EW 9ORK 2OUTLEDGE ?????? 3ENSATION )NTELLIGIBILITY IN 3ENSIBILITY !TLANTIC (IGHLANDS .* (U MANITIES 0RESS ,OWE $ONALD - 4HE "ODY IN ,ATE #APITALIST 53! $URHAM .# $UKE 5NIVERSITY 0RESS ,YOTARD *EAN &RAN½OIS $ISCOURS &IGURE 0ARIS +LINCKSIECK
-ICHELE 3ARACINO ,ONERGAN AND ,EVINAS
?????? *UST 'AMING 7ITH *EAN ,OUP 4HEBAUD 4RANSLATED BY 7LAD 'ODZICH -INNEAPOLIS 5NIVERSITY OF -INNESOTA 0RESS ?????? 4HE $IFFEREND 0HRASES IN $ISPUTE 4RANSLATED BY 'EORGES 6AN $EN !BBEELE -INNEAPOLIS 5NIVERSITY OF -INNESOTA 0RESS ?????? (EIDEGGER AND THE hJEWSv 4RANSLATED BY !NDREAS -ICHEL AND -ARK 3 2OBERTS &OREWORD BY $AVID #ARROLL -INNEAPOLIS 5NIVERSITY OF -INNESOTA 0RESS ?????? 4HE )NHUMAN 2EmECTIONS ON 4IME 4RANSLATED BY 'EOFFREY "ENNINGTON AND 2ACHEL "OWLBY 3TANFORD #! 3TANFORD 5NIVERSITY 0RESS ?????? A ,IBIDINAL %CONOMY 4RANSLATED BY )AIN (AMILTON 'RANT ,ONDON !THLONE ?????? B 4HE 0OSTMODERN #ONDITION ! 2EPORT ON +NOWLEDGE 4RANSLATED BY 'EOFF "ENNINGTON AND "RIAN -ASSUMI &OREWORD BY &REDRIC *AMESON -INNEAPOLIS 5NIVERSITY OF -INNESOTA 0RESS -ARION *EAN ,UC 'OD 7ITHOUT "EING 4RANSLATED BY 4HOMAS ! #ARLSON &OREWORD BY $AVID 4RACY #HICAGO 5NIVERSITY OF #HICAGO 0RESS ?????? 2EDUCTION AND 'IVENNESS )NVESTIGATIONS OF (USSERL (EIDEGGER AND 0HENOMENOLOGY 4RANSLATED BY 4HOMAS ! #ARLSON %VANSTON ), .ORTHWESTERN 5NIVERSITY 0RESS -ATUSTIK -ARTIN * h$EMOCRATIC -ULTICULTURES AND #OSMOPOLIS "EYOND THE !PORIAS OF THE 0OLITICS OF )DENTITY AND $IFFERENCEv -ETHOD *OURNAL OF ,ONERGAN 3TUDIES NO -ELLOR 0HILIP ! AND #HRIS 3HILLING 2EFORMING THE "ODY 2ELIGION #OMMUNITY AND -ODERNITY ,ONDON 3AGE -ERLEAU 0ONTY -AURICE 0HENOMENOLOGY OF 0ERCEPTION 4RANSLATED BY #OLIN 3MITH ,ONDON 2OUTLEDGE -ILLER *EROME h!LL ,OVE )S 3ELF 3URRENDERv -ETHOD *OURNAL OF ,ONERGAN 3TUD IES NO -OHR 'EORG h&REEDOM AND THE 3ELF &ROM )NTROSPECTION TO )NTERSUBJECTIVITYv )N 4HE -ODERN 3UBJECT #ONCEPTIONS OF 3ELF IN #LASSICAL 'ERMAN 0HILOSOPHY EDITED BY +ARL !MERIKS AND $IETER 3TURMA !LBANY .9 35.9 0RESS -ORELLI -ARK $ A h,ONERGAN AND %XISTENTIALISMv -ETHOD *OURNAL OF ,ONERGAN 3TUDIES NO ?????? B h2ESSENTIMENT AND 2ESEMPTIONv )N ,ONERGAN 7ORKSHOP VOL EDITED BY &REDERICK ,AWRENCE "OSTON "OSTON #OLLEGE -UCK /TTO 3* 4HE 4RANSCENDENTAL -ETHOD 4RANSLATED BY 7ILLIAM $ 3E IDENSTICKER .EW 9ORK (ERDER AND (ERDER -ULLIN !MY h3ELVES $IVERSE AND $IVIDED #AN &EMINISTS (AVE $IVERSITY WITHOUT -ULTIPLICITY v (YPATIA ! *OURNAL OF &EMINIST 0HILOSOPHY -YSTICI #ORPORIS %NCYCLICAL ,ETTER OF 0OPE 0IUS 8)) ON 4HE -YSTICAL "ODY OF #HRIST 7ASHINGTON $# .ATIONAL #ATHOLIC 7ELFARE #ONFERENCE .AICKAMPARAMBIL 4HOMAS 4HROUGH 3ELF $ISCOVERY TO 3ELF 4RANSCENDENCE ! 3TUDY OF #OGNITIONAL 3ELF !PPROPRIATION IN " ,ONERGAN 2OMA 0ONTIlCIA 5NIVERSITA 'REGORIANA .ANCY *EAN ,UC 4HE 'RAVITY OF 4HOUGHT 4RANSLATED BY &RAN½OIS 2AFFOUL AND 'REGORY 2ECCO !TLANTIC (IGHLANDS .* (UMANITIES 0RESS .IETZSCHE &RIEDRICH 4HE 7ILL TO 0OWER 4RANSLATED BY 7ALTER +AUFMANN AND 2* (OLLINGDALE %DITED BY 7ALTER +AUFMANN .EW 9ORK 6INTAGE "OOKS
"IBLIOGRAPHY
?????? 4HE 'ENEOLOGY OF -ORALS 4RANSLATED BY 7ALTER +AUFMANN AND 2* (OLLINGDALE .EW 9ORK 2ANDOM (OUSE ?????? 4HE 0ORTABLE .IETZSCHE 4RANSLATED AND EDITED BY 7ALTER +AUFMANN .EW 9ORK 0ENGUIN "OOKS .IKKEL $AVID ( h$ISCERNING THE 3PIRITS OF -ODERNITY AND 0OSTMODERNITYv *OURNAL OF 2ELIGIOUS 3TUDIES /.EILL /NORA &ACES OF (UNGER !N %SSAY ON 0OVERTY *USTICE AND $EVELOPMENT ,ONDON !LLEN 5NWIN 0UBLISHERS ?????? #ONSTRUCTIONS OF 2EASON %XPLORATIONS OF +ANTS 0RACTICAL 0HILOSOPHY #AMBRIDGE #AMBRIDGE 5NIVERSITY 0RESS ?????? 4OWARDS *USTICE AND 6IRTUE ! #ONSTRUCTIVE !CCOUNT OF 0RACTICAL 2EASON ING #AMBRIDGE #AMBRIDGE 5NIVERSITY 0RESS 0ALMER 0ARKER * 4HE #OMPANY OF 3TRANGERS #HRISTIANS AND THE 2ENEWAL OF !MERICAS 0UBLIC ,IFE &OREWORD BY -ARTIN % -ARTY .EW 9ORK #ROSSROAD 0URCELL -ICHAEL -YSTERY AND -ETHOD 4HE /THER IN 2AHNER AND ,EVINAS -IL WAUKEE 7) -ARQUETTE 5NIVERSITY 0RESS 2ICOEUR 0AUL /NESELF AS !NOTHER 4RANSLATED BY +ATHLEEN "LAMEY #HICAGO 5NIVERSITY OF #HICAGO 0RESS 2ING .ANCY # $OCTRINE WITHIN THE $IALECTIC OF 3UBJECTIVITY AND /BJECTIVITY ! #RITICAL 3TUDY OF THE 0OSITIONS OF 0AUL 4ILLICH AND "ERNARD ,ONERGAN 3AN &RANCISCO -ELLEN 2ESEARCH 5NIVERSITY 0RESS 2OBBINS *ILL !LTERED 2EADING ,EVINAS AND ,ITERATURE #HICAGO 5NIVERSITY OF #HICAGO 0RESS 2OSS 3USAN ! %XTRAVAGANT !FFECTIONS ! &EMINIST 3ACRAMENTAL 4HEOLOGY .EW 9ORK #ONTINUUM 2YAN &RANCIS 4HE "ODY AS 3YMBOL -ERLEAU 0ONTY AND )NCARNATIONAL 4HEOLOGY 7ASHINGTON #ORPUS "OOKS 3AFRANKSI 2ÓDIGER -ARTIN (EIDEGGER "ETWEEN 'OOD AND %VIL 4RANSLATED BY %WALD /SERS #AMBRIDGE -! (ARVARD 5NIVERSITY 0RESS 3AID %DWARD /RIENTALISM .EW 9ORK 0ANTHEON "OOKS 3ALA 'IOVANNI " ,ONERGAN AND +ANT &IVE %SSAYS ON (UMAN +NOWLEDGE 4RANSLATED BY *OSEPH 3POERL %DITED BY 2OBERT - $ORAN 4ORONTO 5NIVERSITY OF 4ORONTO 0RESS 3ARTRE *EAN 0AUL 4HE 4RANSCENDENCE OF THE %GO 4RANSLATED BY & 7ILLIAMS AND 2 +IRKPATRICK .EW 9ORK .OONDAY 0RESS 3MITH 3TEVEN ' 4HE !RGUMENT TO THE /THER 2EASON AND "EYOND 2EASON IN THE 4HOUGHT OF +ARL "ARTH AND %MMANUEL ,EVINAS #HICO #! 3CHOLARS 0RESS 3OLOMON 2OBERT # #ONTINENTAL 0HILOSOPHY 3INCE 4HE 2ISE AND &ALL OF THE 3ELF /XFORD /XFORD 5NIVERSITY 0RESS 3QUIRES *UDITH ED 0RINCIPLED 0OSITIONS 0OSTMODERNISM AND THE 2EDISCOVERY OF 6ALUE ,ONDON ,AWRENCE 7ISHART 3TRAUSS ,EO h4HE "EGINNING OF THE "IBLE AND )TS 'REEK #OUNTERPARTSv )N *ERUSALEM AND !THENS 3OME 0RELIMINARY 2EmECTIONS 4HE #ITY #OLLEGE 0APERS NO .EW 9ORK 4HE #ITY #OLLEGE 4ALLON !NDREW (EAD AND (EART !FFECTION #OGNITION 6OLITION AS 4RIUNE #ON SCIOUSNESS .EW 9ORK &ORDHAM 5NIVERSITY 0RESS 4AYLOR #HARLES h+ANTS 4HEORY OF &REEDOMv )N 0HILOSOPHY AND THE (UMAN 3CIENCES #AMBRIDGE #AMBRIDGE 5NIVERSITY 0RESS
-ICHELE 3ARACINO ,ONERGAN AND ,EVINAS
?????? 3OURCES OF THE 3ELF 4HE -AKING OF -ODERN )DENTITY #AMBRIDGE (ARVARD 5NIVERSITY 0RESS 4EKIPPE 4ERRY * 7HAT IS ,ONERGAN UP TO IN ).3)'(4 ! 0RIMER #OLLEGEVILLE -. 4HE ,ITURGICAL 0RESS 4HIEL *OHN % .ONFOUNDATIONALISM -INNEAPOLIS &ORTRESS 0RESS 4RACY $AVID 4HE !CHIEVEMENT OF "ERNARD ,ONERGAN .EW 9ORK (ERDER AND (ERDER 4URNER "RYAN 3 2EGULATING "ODIES %SSAYS IN -EDICAL 3OCIOLOGY ,ONDON 2OUTLEDGE 4WEYMAN 3TANLEY ED -EDITATIONS ON &IRST 0HILOSOPHY )NTRODUCTION BY 3TANLEY 4WEYMAN ,ONDON 2OUTLEDGE 4YRRELL "ERNARD "ERNARD ,ONERGANS 0HILOSOPHY OF 'OD &OREWORD BY "ERNARD ,ONERGAN .OTRE $AME ). 5NIVERSITY OF .OTRE $AME 0RESS 5TTAL ,YNET h.ODS 4HAT 3ILENCEv )N -AKING &ACE -AKING 3OUL (ACIENDO #ARAS EDITED BY 'LORIA !NZALD¢A 3AN &RANCISCO !UNT ,UTE "OOKS 6EITCH *OHN TRANS 4HE 2ATIONALISTS 'ARDEN #ITY .9 $OLPHIN "OOKS 6ELKLEY 2ICHARD , &REEDOM AND THE %ND OF 2EASON /N THE -ORAL &OUNDATION OF +ANTS #RITICAL 0HILOSOPHY #HICAGO 5NIVERSITY OF #HICAGO 0RESS 6OLF -IROSLAV %XCLUSION AND %MBRACE ! 4HEOLOGICAL %XPLORATION OF )DENTITY /THERNESS AND 2ECONCILIATION .ASHVILLE !BINGDON 0RESS 7ARD 'RAHAM "ARTH $ERRIDA AND THE ,ANGUAGE OF 4HEOLOGY .EW 9ORK #AMBRIDGE 5NIVERSITY 0RESS 7ILLIAMS $ELORES 3 3ISTERS IN THE 7ILDERNESS 4HE #HALLENGE OF 7OMANIST 'OD 4ALK -ARYKNOLL .9 /RBIS "OOKS 7ILLIAMS +ATHLEEN -ARGARET 23- h,ONERGAN AND THE 4RANSFORMING )M MANENCE OF THE 4RANSCENDENT 4OWARDS A 4HEOLOGY OF 'RACE AS THE $YNAMIC 3TATE OF "EING IN ,OVE 7ITH 'ODv $ 4HEOL DISS -ELBOURNE #OLLEGE OF $IVINITY 9OUNG )RIS -ARION *USTICE AND THE 0OLITICS OF $IFFERENCE 0RINCETON .* 0RINC ETON 5NIVERSITY 0RESS
)NDEX
)NDEX !BRAHAM AFFECTION AGAPE ALIENATION ALTERITY !NDERSON 6ICTOR ANTHROPOLOGY !QUINAS 4HOMAS !RENDT (ANNAH !RISTOTLE ASYMMETRY !TLAS !USCHWITZ AUTHENTICITY "AUDRILLARD *EAN "EAUVOIR 3IMONE DE BEING
BIAS BLACKNESS BLACKS BODY "ODY OF #HRIST BODY SUBJECT "ORDO 3USAN "UBER -ARTIN CARESS #ARROLL *AMES #ATHOLIC #ATHOLICISM #HALIER #ATHERINE CHARITY #HAUVET ,OUIS -ARIE CHOSENNESS #HRIST #HRISTIAN #HRISTIANITY #HRISTOLOGY
-ICHELE 3ARACINO ,ONERGAN AND ,EVINAS
CHURCH CLASS CLASSICIST COGITO COGNITION COGNITIONAL PROCESS COGNITIONAL THEORY CONCEPTUALISM CONSCIOUSNESS CONSCIOUSNESS DIFFERENTIATED CONTINENTAL THEORY CONVERSION CONVERSION INTELLECTUAL CONVERSION MORAL CONVERSION RELIGIOUS #OPELAND - 3HAWN #ORINTHIANS CORPOREALITY COSMOPOLIS COVENANT CREATION #RITCHLEY 3IMON CRITICAL RACE THEORY #RÓSEMANN &RANK CULTURE $ALLERY !RLEEN $ASEIN
$EAN *ODI DECLINE DECONSTRUCTION $ERRIDA *ACQUES $ESCARTES 2EN£ DESIRE $EUTERONOMY DIACHRONY DIALECTIC DIALOGUE DISCOURSE DISTANCE DUALISM £CRITURE F£MININE EGO EGOISM EMBRACE ENCOUNTER %NLIGHTENMENT EQUALITY EROS ESSENTIALISM ETHICAL RELATION
)NDEX
ETHICS GIFT 'OD EXILE EXISTENTIALISM EXISTENTIALIST %XODUS EXPOSURE FACE THE GRACE GUILT FACING (EBREWS (EmING #HARLES (EGEL 'EORG 7ILHELM &RIEDRICH FACULTY PSYCHOLOGY (EIDEGGER -ARTIN &ANON &RANTZ FECUNDITY HEIGHT (OLOCAUST FEELINGS (OMER HOOKS BELL HOSPITALITY FEMINISM HOSTAGE FEMINIST THEORIST FEMINIST THEORY HUMAN GOOD lNALITY lNALITY HORIZONTAL lNALITY VERTICAL (USSERL %DMUND FORGIVENESS FRATERNITY FREEDOM IDEALISM IMMANENTISM INCARNATION &REUD 3IGMUND INDIVIDUALISM GENDER )NlNITE )NlNITY 'ENESIS INTENTIONALITY
-ICHELE 3ARACINO ,ONERGAN AND ,EVINAS
INTENTIONALITY ANALYSIS INTENTIONALITY AFFECTIVE INTERIORITY INTERSUBJECTIVITY INTIMACY )RIGARAY ,UCE )SAAC )SAIAH )SRAEL
,AWRENCE &REDERICK ,EVITICUS LIBERAL ,IFTON 2OBERT * ,INGIS !LPHONSO LOVE ,UKE ,YOTARD *EAN &RAN½OIS
*ESUS *UDAISM JUSTICE -ARION *EAN ,UC MASK MATERIALITY MATERNITY +ANT )MMANUEL -ATTHEW MEMORY KNOWING -ERLEAU 0ONTY -AURICE KNOWLEDGE MESSIANIC METAPHYSICS MIND ,ACAN *ACQUES MODERNITY LACK -OSAIC ,AKELAND 0AUL ,AMB -ATTHEW -OSES LANGUAGE NAKED NAKEDNESS
)NDEX
.IETZSCHE &RIEDRICH POLITICAL CORRECTNESS POSITIVISM POSTMODERN THEORY NUDITY POSTMODERNISM OBJECTIVITY POSTMODERNITY POSTURE OCULARCENTRISM /DYSSEUS /DYSSEY 4HE ONTOLOGY ONTO THEOLOGY OPENNESS PROGRESS PROTEAN SUBJECT 0ROTEUS ORIENTALISM PROXIMITY OTHERIZING OTHERNESS PSYCHOANALYSIS PSYCHOLOGY 0URCELL -ICHAEL PASSIVITY PATERNITY PATTERNS OF EXPERIENCE PATTERN OF EXPERIENCE BIOLOGICAL PATTERN OF EXPERIENCE DRAMATIC PATTERN OF EXPERIENCE SOCIAL 0AUL 3AINT PHENOMENOLOGY PICTURE THINKING 0LATO PLURALISM PLURALIST
RACE RACISM REASON REGRESS RELATIVISM RELATIVIST RELIGION RESPONSIBILITY
-ICHELE 3ARACINO ,ONERGAN AND ,EVINAS
RESPONSIBILITY COLLECTIVE RESSENTIMENT REVELATION RIGHTS 2OMANS 2OSS 3USAN ! SACRAMENT SACRAMENTALITY SACRIlCE 3AFRANSKI 2ÓDIGER 3AID %DWARD 3AID THE SAINT SAINTLINESS SAMENESS 3AYING THE SCALING SECULARISM SELF SELF APPROPRIATION SENSIBILITY SEPARATION SEX SEXISM 3HOAH SHOULDER SHOULDERING SOLIDARITY
SPEECH STIGMA SUBJECT SUBJECT ALIENATED SUBJECT AUTHENTIC SUBJECT IMMANENTIST SUBJECT TRUNCATED SUBSTITUTION SUFFERING SUFFERING SERVANT SYNCHRONY 4ALLON !NDREW 4AYLOR #HARLES TELEOLOGY TELOS TEMPORAL THEMATIZATION THEOLOGY THIRD PARTY TIME
)NDEX TRANSCENDENCE TRANSCENDENT TRANSCULTURAL âBERMENSCH 6OLF -IROSLAV VOLUPTUOSITY WHITENESS WHITES 7ILLIAMS $ELORES WONDER
REVELATION
